web analytics
Genuine spirituality James Mason Racial right

A new story


On putting the chariot before the horse

There is something important I would like to add to my Thursday post, in which I used a 1993 interview between Tom Metzger and James Mason to say something about Richard Spencer.

On this site I have been very critical of James Mason and his epigones for admiring Charles Manson: the mastermind behind the stabbing to death of the beautiful English rose Sharon Tate (and other Hollywood showbiz personalities).

In Siege Mason compiles his articles from the journal he wrote in the early 1980s. In vain, when I was reading Siege, did I find the reasons why Mason admired Manson, insofar as the latter’s intentions in devising his crimes weren’t racial. But now that I re-watched his interview with Metzger I detected something I had missed the first time I saw it. But before this revelation about the mind of James Mason I would like to digress a little.

Unlike Metzger’s audio-visual interviews, the podcasts of Greg Johnson, one of the leading promoters of American white nationalism, are audio-only. Metzger, let alone Mason, not properly ‘white nationalists’, were infinitely closer in character to the Germans of the Third Reich than Johnson and Spencer. But in one of his podcasts Johnson said something that piqued my interest. He mentioned the decades immediately before the internet as the darkest era, in that the Establishment had virtually absolute control over the narrative. This is very true: and the new generations have no idea how impossible it was for us to find even dissident authors, to the extent that in the past we could never rebel. (Since I grew up in the 1960s and 70s I couldn’t rebel intellectually because of this absolute control of information, as I recount in the third volume of my autobiography.)

Now let’s get back to Mason’s infatuation with Manson. What I detected in the interview with Metzger, which I had missed the first time I saw it, was that the desperation of national socialists like Mason in the face of the System’s absolute control of the media meant that he began to fix his attention on the news of those who broke the law with crimes to shock public morals. It was, it seemed, the only escape valve from an Establishment that was entirely successful in suppressing dissenting opinion.

This revelation came to me in understanding Mason when Metzger asked him why he admired Charles Manson. From Mason’s response, Metzger commented that, given the impasse on all sides due to the absolute grip of the System, the whole thing had to be blown up. (Recall that Charles Manson is not the only criminal to whom James Mason devotes articles in Siege: he also discusses other criminals who, at the time, shocked public morals even though, like Manson, weren’t acting out of racial ideals either.)

That doesn’t mean that, having understood the point James Mason wanted to get across, I now approve of the behaviour of Charles Manson and company. But it does mean that what I didn’t understand years ago when I read Siege directly, I understand now having watched the splendid interview with Metzger again. As I said, for new generations it is almost impossible to imagine the prolonged despair, a suffocation of ideas I dare say, that it meant for noble-minded boomers that there was no relevant information anywhere!

But back to James Mason. While I don’t join his enthusiasm for criminals who acted without racial ideology, what about those who break the law with racial ideology: say, someone like Breivik or Tarrant? In the 2020 discussion thread on the Metzger/Mason interview, one of the commenters chided me because I said that any revolutionary action is premature:

You sound like an old and grumbling geezer.

It’s futile and unfair to accuse the youth of ardour and impatience and narrow tunnel vision. Many of them are sincerely actuated by a heroic impulse to over with this shameful state of things, this disgraceful status quo. Their hearts volcanically explodes with lava of despair and hatred for the world of their worthless parents and cowardly ancestors. Yes, the lives of foolhardy men usually end not well. And tragic triumph is a fate of exceptional ones.

But the young soul has no time to wait, be it in love or war. So, be lenient towards suicidal behaviour of the youth and do not impute to passionate youngsters the carelessness concerning those fucking Austrian economists! All this cultural and historic noise–million words in billion posts–is not a groundwork or an earnest or a linchpin or a promise of coming transvaluation of values.

They dread reaching your age, Caesar, and face their death, especially after a very long life, and realize that all their efforts failed to produce results, moreover the situation has got worse. They know some examples of lustrous persons, whose deeds were vain in spite of their “strategic thinking”. By the way, traitors often justify their betrayal with strategical manoeuvring for the sake of a lofty goal in long-term planning.

The destiny occurs HERE AND NOW, and if this “here and now” is stolen, I will not judge the glowing souls with the destructive power of dynamite inside their cores.

I confess that, now that I re-read my comment years later, I see that I responded to this commenter in a very, very poor way! I would like to reply to him now, even though so much time has passed.

It is not for the youth to make the most important decisions of a state. In a healthy world for the Aryans, as was Sparta, and Republican Rome, it was up to very mature adults. Recall that, for Plato, the philosopher-king had to be a man in his sixties.

To be impetuous, fiery, determined or bold against the System is precisely what President Joe Biden wants to tighten the screws even further (remember his inaugural speech in which he declared war on us). We shouldn’t indulge him because his administration is doing everything it can to commit suicide. The situation in 2023 has changed a lot from the days when, in 2020, the commenter mocked what I said about Austrian economists. Now, after Biden’s blunder with the confiscation of Russian funds abroad due to Putin’s military action in Ukraine, several nations have realised that their funds aren’t safe in dollars and many, even in the MSM, are already openly talking about the last days of the dollar. In other words, my restraint not to rush into revolutionary actions as impetuous youths love, but to wait for the System to collapse on its own, is being vindicated by recent historical events.

But there are even more profound reasons why I think James Mason’s ideology—something like having the System in siege with a multiplication of actions à la Charles Manson—is flawed. And here we come back to what Spencer said in his recent interview: that we need a new story or, as I would say using Jungian language, a story that manages to activate the collective Self that will produce, in the white man, the new galvanising myth. Ironically, in this respect James Mason did hit the nail on the head: ‘Someone did say that prior to 1945 we were a party, since 1945 we have been a religion.’

Indeed. The Jews have their religion, their story: what Christians call the Old Testament: ‘Ethnocentrism for me’ as Kevin MacDonald reads it in the first book of his trilogy on Jewry. That’s why they always win. It doesn’t matter that their story, what we read in the OT, is literary fiction. It is a myth they believe in and that’s why they will continue to win.

Conversely, whites didn’t write their story, the New Testament. The Jews wrote it for them: ‘Universalism for thee.’ And liberalism, which has mutated into Wokism, the secular neo-Christianity of our day, is an epiphenomenon of that NT story.

The moral is simple: it’s whites themselves who must rewrite their own history. They mustn’t allow another race to write it for them. If one reads the first anthology published by us, The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, one will discover seminal texts by William Pierce, and Eduardo Velasco in his now-defunct webzine Evropa Soberana, which depict this story written by whites for whites.

And now I can answer properly to the commenter who criticised me. ‘All this cultural and historic noise–million words in billion posts–is not a groundwork or an earnest or a linchpin or a promise of coming transvaluation of values’ he said.

Actually, it is. Any revolutionary action that is not backed by a new story, a new way of understanding the Self, is doomed to failure. James Mason’s own life demonstrates this. After the Metzger interview, Mason went astray with so-called Christian Identity. A dozen years after the interview Metzger himself commented, on 17 May 2005: ‘Unfortunately he turned away from his best thoughts back toward some Christian thing. I don’t know where he is now, but I promote and sell his great book.’

The eclipse of James Mason is symptomatic not only of would-be revolutionaries, but of non-revolutionaries who subscribe to white nationalism. They lack a story to serve as cement and a platform for further action. The fact that very few have read the history of the white race from Pierce’s pen, and that even that book isn’t published (even privately) so that you can read it comfortably in your living room, speaks for itself.

This is the response of a sixty-four-year-old man to the young commenter:

You are putting the chariot before the horse. First goes the horse—the new story that will galvanise the white man’s collective unconscious—and then goes the chariot (the holy racial wars). Reversing the sequence yields results such as what happened to James Mason and his unfortunate epigones, inasmuch as Mason was completely ignorant of the real history of Christianity (which we are telling on this site thanks to the work of Karlheinz Deschner).

The central mission of The West’s Darkest Hour is that, when the System panics and cancels the internet, there remain on my visitors’ hard drives the PDF books from my humble Daybreak Press, which provide the new story the white man must tell himself.

Anyone who hasn’t read The Fair Race should read it now. The rest follows from it.

Racial right Videos

Metzger & Mason

vs. Spencer

I had promised myself I would never see anything of Richard Spencer again after he sided with NATO when it started the war in Ukraine. But today I decided to watch a long interview with the new Richard Spencer after his apparent ideological transformation.

In the interview you can guess the causes of his apparent transformation, although you have to listen between the lines: he simply realised that he has to speak from more liberal platforms to be heard (otherwise he will be cancelled).

Spencer says things that resonate with The West’s Darkest Hour. For example, he says that the figure of Jesus on the cross carries a potent message to the West’s collective unconscious, which cannot be contrasted more with the figure of Apollo: a healthy archetype for the Aryan psyche. On this we seem to be in complete agreement, with the difference that the anti-Christianity of this site is far more vehement than Spencer’s anti-Christianity. (This is elemental: Christianity destroyed my life, not Spencer’s, as any reader who dares to read my tortuous autobiography will know.)

Something else Spencer says we have said in entries so important that two of them can be accessed at the top of this page, in red letters. For example, what Spencer calls ‘the empty doughnut’: a negative way for today’s West to define itself as anti-Hitlerian par excellence. That is just what the author of ‘Foundation myth’ says in other words. And what Spencer calls narrative, story or platonic lie that should replace the old story (Christianity’s god is dead) is exactly what I wrote in ‘The iron throne’.

So ideologically Spencer and I are not that far apart. In fact, I would love to put together a show similar to the one above in which I could talk not only to Spencer but to the most well-known people on the American racial right. I would have to do it with a simultaneous translator because I refuse to talk about deep issues in English. On very deep issues, I need my mother tongue.

The funny thing is that except for what Spencer said about Biden near the beginning of the interview, we don’t disagree on basic principles. It’s just the order of magnitude of my fanaticism on which we differ. In short, Spencer says he’s very radical but only the exterminationist is really radical—say, the William Pierce who wrote The Turner Diaries or the Pierce who, in Who We Are, posited how whites should have acted to circumvent today’s sorry state of affairs.

Update of June 2

At any event, I fell infinitely more at home with Tom Metzger and James Mason in this old interview.

‘If you want to use the System to change the System’ (Metzger) ‘you are fooling yourself’ (Mason): something that the apparently transformed Spencer won’t understand.

Shortly afterwards in the interview Mason singles out the US government as the enemy. Compare this with Spencer’s words that Biden is the best president in recent years! And by the end Mason quotes Solzhenytsin: ‘Don’t be part of the lie’ as the number one commandment. This is a commandment that the so-called new Spencer can’t keep.

Racial right William Pierce

Pierce on Christianity

Editor’s note: Ten years ago, I quoted a few paragraphs from William Pierce’s article ‘Christianity’. Today I reread it in its entirety in a National Alliance article. Although I am more radical than Pierce when it comes to the religion of our parents, I reproduce it below because it stands in stark contrast to the secular sympathisers of Christianity on today’s racialist forums.

Pierce wrote:

THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE IS not a religious organization, in the ordinary sense of the term. It does, however, have to concern itself with religious matters, because religions influence the behavior of people, society, and governments. The doctrines of various religious groups—Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, et al.—deal with temporal as well as spiritual matters and therefore often conflict with National Alliance doctrine.

Christian doctrines are of much greater concern to the National Alliance than the doctrines of other large religious groups, because Christianity is the most influential religion in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the White world. Most members of the National Alliance come from families which are, or a generation ago were, at least nominally Christian, and very few come from families which practice, or practiced, Islam, Buddhism, or other religions. Furthermore, the history of our race for the last thousand years has been inextricably bound up with Christianity. The National Alliance really cannot avoid taking positions regarding Christian beliefs and practices, despite the complications this causes in our work.

The immediate and inevitable fact which forces us to come to grips with Christianity is that the mainstream Christian churches are all, without exception, preaching a doctrine of White racial extinction. They preach racial egalitarianism and racial mixing. They preach non-resistance to the takeover of our society by non-Whites. It was the Christian churches, more than any other institution, which paralyzed the will of White South Africans to survive. It is the Christian establishment in the United States which is preeminent in sapping the will of White Americans to resist being submerged in the non-White tide sweeping across the land. Most Christian authorities collaborate openly with the Jews, despite the contempt and abuse they receive in return, and the rest at least follow Jewish policies on the all-important matter of race. The occasional anomaly—a Catholic bishop in Poland speaking out angrily against Jewish arrogance, a few Protestant groups in the United States expressing sympathy for oppressed Palestinians—does not invalidate the rule.

We are obliged, therefore, to oppose the Christian churches and to speak out against their doctrines. But we do not, as some groups have done, accuse the Christian leaders of being false Christians. We do not say, “We are the real Christians, because we stand for the values which the mainstream churches stood for a century ago, before they were subverted.” We do not reach for our Bibles and point to verses which seem to be in accord with the policies of the National Alliance and contrary to the present policies of the Christian churches. A diligent Bible scholar can find in the Judeo-Christian scriptures support for—or ammunition against—virtually any policy whatsoever.

Beyond the immediate conflict between us and the Christian churches on racial matters, there is a long-standing and quite fundamental ideological problem with Christianity. It is not an Aryan religion; like Judaism and Islam it is Semitic in origin, and all its centuries of partial adaptation to Aryan ways have not changed its basic flavor. It was carried by a Jew, Saul of Tarsus (later known as Paul), from the Levant to the Greco-Roman world. Its doctrines that the meek shall inherit the earth and that the last shall be first found fertile soil among the populous slave class in Rome. Centuries later, as Rome was succumbing to an internal rot in which Christianity played no small part, legions of Roman conscripts imposed the imported religion on the Celtic and Germanic tribes to the north.

Eventually Christianity became a unifying factor for Europe, and in the name of Jesus Europeans resisted the onslaught of Islamic Moors and Turks and expelled the “Christ-killing” Jews from one country after another. But the religion retained its alien mind-set, no matter how much some aspects of it were Europeanized. Its otherworldliness is fundamentally out of tune with the Aryan quest for knowledge and for progress; its universalism conflicts directly with Aryan striving for beauty and strength; its delineation of the roles of man and god offend the Aryan sense of honor and self-sufficiency.

Finally Christianity, like the other Semitic religions, is irredeemably primitive. Its deity is thoroughly anthropomorphic, and its “miracles”—raising the dead, walking on water, curing the lame and the blind with a word and a touch—are the crassest superstition.

We may have fond memories of the time before the Second World War when pretty, little girls in white dresses attended all-White Sunday schools, and Christianity seemed a bulwark of family values and a foe to degeneracy and indiscipline. We may cherish the tales of medieval valor, when Christian knights fought for god and king—if we can overlook the Christian church’s bloodthirsty intolerance, which stifled science and philosophy for centuries and sent tens of thousands of Europeans to the stake for heresy or witchcraft.

We may even find Christian ethics congenial, if we follow the standard Christian practice of interpreting many of its precepts—such as the one about turning the other cheek—in such a way that they do not interfere with our task. But we should remember that nothing essential in Christian ethics is specifically Christian. Any successful society must have rules of social conduct. Lying and stealing were shunned in every Aryan society long before Christianity appeared. Our pagan ancestors did not need Christian missionaries to tell them how to behave or to explain honor and decency to them—quite to the contrary!

Historians may argue the pros and cons of Christianity’s role in our race’s past: whether or not the unity it provided during a period of European consolidation outweighed the loss of good genes it caused in the Crusades and the bloody religious wars of the Middle Ages (and through the Church’s policy of priestly celibacy); whether the splendid Gothic cathedrals which rose in Europe during four centuries and the magnificent religious music of the 18th century were essentially Christian or essentially Aryan in inspiration; whether Christianity’s stand against the evils of self-indulgence—against gluttony and drunkenness and greed—was worth its shackling of the human mind in superstition or not. One thing already is clear, however: Christianity is not a religion that we can wish on future generations of our race.

We need ethics; we need values and standards; we need a world view. And if one wants to call all of these things together a religion, then we need a religion. One might choose instead, however, to call them a philosophy of life. Whatever we call it, it must come from our own race soul: it must be an expression of the innate Aryan nature. And it must be conducive to our mission of racial progress. Christianity, as the word is commonly understood, meets neither of these criteria.

The fact is that, completely aside from the racial question, no person who wholeheartedly believes Christian doctrine can share our values and goals, because Christian doctrine holds that this world is of little importance, being only a proving ground for the spiritual world which one enters after death. Christian doctrine also holds that the condition of this world is not man’s responsibility, because an omnipotent and omniscient deity alone has that responsibility.

Although some Christians do believe Christian doctrine wholeheartedly, however, most do not. Most instinctively feel what we explicitly believe, even if they have repressed those feelings in an effort to be “good” Christians. Because of this many nominal Christians, even those affiliated with mainstream churches, can, under the right circumstances, be persuaded to work for the interests of their race. Other nominal Christians—especially those who stand apart from any of the mainstream churches—have interpreted Christian doctrine in such an idiosyncratic way that the contradictions between their beliefs and ours have been minimized.

For these reasons we want to avoid conflict with Christians to the extent that we can. We don’t want to give unnecessary offense, even when we speak out against the doctrines of their churches. We don’t want to ridicule their beliefs, which in some cases are sincerely held. Some of these people later will reject Christianity’s racial doctrines. Some will reject Christianity altogether. We want to help them in their quest for truth when we can, and we want to keep the door open to them.

Members who want to study the subject of Christianity and its relationship to our task in depth should read Which Way Western Man?, by our late member William Simpson. The book’s initial chapters describe the spiritual odyssey of a man of exceptional spiritual sensitivity, who was far more intensely a Christian than nearly any Christian living today and who eventually understood the racially destructive nature of Christianity and rejected it.

______ 卐 ______

[Kevin Alfred Strom comments:] One of the most important statements William Pierce made on the subject was 1982’s “On Christianity,” published in the National Alliance BULLETIN and now available on nationalvanguard.org, in which he says

______ 卐 ______

No honest, conscientious Alliance member can maintain his membership in the Alliance and also in an organization which is fundamentally opposed to the goals and principles of the Alliance. [A] former member who belongs to the Moral Majority acted correctly in resigning from the Alliance, and the same applies to others: Any Alliance member who is also a member of a church or other Christian organization which supports racial mixing or Zionism should decide now where he stands, and he should then resign either from his church or from the Alliance.

In fact, the great majority of Alliance members who originally had some Christian church affiliation have already made their decisions and left the churches….

If, despite everything above, there are Alliance members or prospective Alliance members who still consider themselves Christians, then it must be in the sense that they value the specifically White elements of Christianity which have been added since its origins—the great art, the great music, and the great architecture produced by White men during the centuries in which the Christian churches ruled Europe—and that they also share the White spiritual feelings which have been eloquently expressed by many men and women who were Christians and who applied the adjective “Christian” to feelings which, in fact, came from deep within the White race-soul and existed long before the advent of the Christian church. Such Christians we can call our comrades and be proud to have in our ranks.

Racial right

On Neo-normies

‘A WN platform which is anti-Christian is dead before it begins.’ —A Counter-Currents commenter.

I already had half a year of not stopping by Counter-Currents. Now that I visited one of its discussion threads, it confirms my hypothesis that The West’s Darkest Hour (WDH) receives very few visits and comments, compared to the other racialist forums, because almost all of them are either Christians or sympathetic to Christianity whereas I believe that Christian ethics is the main cause of our misfortune.

A few years ago, at least some very young visitors of WDH trolled those sites sympathetic to Christianity but now no one, that I know of, links us to them. It seems to me that these people—Christians and secular sympathisers—completely ignore our arguments, recently expounded in our commentary to Dominion.

I would think that Europeans, far removed from the religion of our parents, would be more interested in WDH than Americans, but they aren’t. Not many of them are fans of this site.

At any event, I will continue doing my job even though the flow of traffic is carried away by those guys that I call ‘semi-normies.’

8:13 a.m. update:

Before falling asleep I had titled the post ‘On semi-normies’ but I woke up thinking it was better titled ‘On Neo-normies’ because, as time goes by, the racial right seems to me more and more normie compared to our POV. Anyway, not long ago Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent defined himself as a ‘neo-normie’: a perfect expression!

Racial right Robert Morgan / Jack Frost

Two comments

Recently, two comments caught my attention: one by the anti-Christian Robert Morgan and the other by the Christian Andrew Anglin. Let’s start with what the anti-Christian said:

MacDonald quotes Carlson: “Our current orthodoxies won’t last. … This moment is too inherently ridiculous to continue, and so it won’t.”

Baseless optimism. A remark like this could have been made at any point since negroes were granted citizenship and the vote back in 1870.

The “current orthodoxy” is racial and sexual egalitarianism, too deeply rooted in America’s worldview to be easily abandoned. Too much blood and treasure has been squandered trying to make this madness into a reality to permit a reversal. It’s obvious the people would quite literally rather die than admit their mistake. Every time the premise of equality has been challenged, they have proved their commitment to it by doubling down instead of retreating.

Only a collapse and utter ruin can redeem the situation. The state must be burned down to the ground, its functionaries eliminated along with the vast majority of the populace. Only then—perhaps—will something worthwhile arise from the ashes. [source: here]

Now let’s read what Andrew Anglin wrote in the concluding paragraphs of a long article that Ron Unz re-published. I must confess I find it highly embarrassing to quote, on this site, what Anglin says:

On my own journey to the truth, I’ve realized that the ultimate truth is that Jesus Christ died that we may live, and that the only peace we are going to have in this world is following His commandments that He will send the Holy Spirit to comfort us.


If you haven’t made it to that point yet, if you still have doubt in your heart as to the truth of Christianity, this is my advice to you: seek truth everywhere, always. All kinds of truth about everything.

What about the true history of Christianity, or the fact that there is no source outside the Gospels that attests to the existence of Jesus?

Don’t ever lie to yourself, don’t believe things that are comfortable to you. Always go for the truth. If you do that, you will come to Jesus. Nothing else can happen. There is no final truth beyond the infinite love that God has for mankind…

The god of the Jews loves us so much that he wants to torture us for eternity in hell.

Read the Bible too, and compare and contrast with the truth you’ve found. Read the book of John, as it is the most important.

This reminds me that John’s gospel was Luther’s favourite.

As I said recently, if you don’t believe in God, becoming a fentanyl addict on the streets of California is a perfectly valid life choice. The fact that most people don’t do that proves that we all know, somewhere inside of us, that God is real.

Either you believe in the god of the Jews or you become a junkie, says the most popular anti-Semite on racialist forums.

The purpose of our lives is to struggle, to strive, to seek joy, and love—all in the name of coming closer to Jesus Christ that when we die, we will live forever… And please, my brothers, always remember: no matter how bad things get, Jesus is there for you. [Source: here]

The ‘Jesus’ name derives from ‘Yehoshua’, i.e., Joshua, who functioned as Moses’ assistant in the books of Exodus and Numbers, and later succeeded Moses as leader of the Israelite tribes. Given everything we’ve been quoting from Dominion, let there be no doubt: The American racial right is part of the problem, not the solution.

Mauricio (commenter) Racial right


‘Men like us need to devise our own mental tricks to not go nuts like Nietzsche. We carry the Sacred Fire, and we must be very careful who we show it to. In dissident circles this is called “hiding your power level”.’


Dominion (book) Racial right

Dominion, 11


How the Woke monster originated

The following passages are taken from the section ‘Laying Down the Law’ of chapter ‘Revolution, 1076 Cambrai’ of Dominion:

[Pope] Urban’s speech had reverberated to miraculous effect. A great host of warriors drawn from across the Latin West had taken a familiar road. As pilgrims had been doing since the time of the millennium, they had journeyed across Hungary to Constantinople; and then from Constantinople to the Holy Land. Every attempt by the Saracens to halt them had been defeated. Finally, in the summer of 1099, the great army of warrior pilgrims had arrived before Jerusalem. On 15 July, they stormed its walls. The city was theirs. Then, once the slaughter was done, and they had dried their dripping swords, they headed for the tomb of Christ. There, in joy and disbelief, they offered up praises to God. Jerusalem—after centuries of Saracen rule—was Christian once again.

So extraordinary was the feat as to be barely believable—and the news redounded gloriously to the credit of the papacy. Urban himself died a fortnight after the city’s capture, too soon for news of the great victory that he had inspired to reach him; but the programme of reform to which he had devoted his life was much burnished by the winning of the Holy City. Emperors since the time of Charlemagne had fought wars of conquest beneath the banner of Christ; but none had ever sent an entire army on pilgrimage. Warriors present at the capture of Jerusalem reported having seen ‘a beautiful person sitting atop a white horse’—and there were some prepared to wonder if it might not have been Christ himself. Whatever the truth of the mysterious horseman’s identity, one thing was clear: the Holy City had been won, not in the name of any king or emperor, but in that of a much more universal cause.

But what name to give this cause? Back in the Latin West, the word starting to be used was one that, until the capture of Jerusalem, had barely been heard. The warrior pilgrims, so it came to be said, had fought under the banner of Christianitas: Christendom. Such a categorisation—divorced as it was from the dynasties of earthly kings and the holdings of feudal lords—was one well suited to the ambitions of the papacy. Who better to stand at the head of Christendom than the heir of Saint Peter? Less than a century after Henry III had deposed three popes in a single year, the Roman Church had carved out a role of leadership for itself so powerful that Henry’s grandson, the son of Henry IV, was brought in 1122 to sue for peace. In that year, in Worms, where his father had once commanded Gregory VII to abdicate, Henry V agreed to a momentous concordat. By its terms, the fifty-year-old quarrel over the investiture of imperial bishops was finally brought to an end. Although ostensibly a compromise, time would demonstrate that victory was decisively the papacy’s. Decisive too was the increasing acceptance of another key demand of the reformers: that the clergy distinguish themselves from the great mass of the Christian people— the laicus, or ‘laity’—by embracing celibacy. By 1148, when yet another papal decree banning priests from having wives or concubines was promulgated, the response of many was to roll their eyes. ‘Futile and ludicrous—for who does not know already that it is unlawful?’

Increasingly, then, the separation of church from state was an upheaval manifest across the whole of Christendom. Wherever a priest was called upon to minister to the laity, even in the humblest, the most isolated village, there the impact of reformatio could be felt. The establishment of the Roman Church as something more than merely a first among equals, as ‘the general forum of all clergy and all churches’, gave clerics across the Latin West a common identity that they had not previously possessed. In the various kingdoms, fiefdoms and cities that constituted the great patchwork of Christendom, something unprecedented had come into being: an entire class that owed its loyalty, not to local lords, but to a hierarchy that exulted in being ‘universal, and spread throughout the world’.

Emperors and kings, although they might try to take a stand against it, would repeatedly find themselves left bruised by the attempt. Not since the age of Constantine and his heirs had any one man exercised an authority over so wide a sweep of Europe as did the bishop of the ancient capital of the world. His open claim was to the ‘rights of heavenly and earthly empire’; his legates travelled to barbarous lands and expected to be heard; his court, in an echo of the building where the Roman Senate had once met, was known as the ‘Curia’. Yet the pope was no Caesar. His assertion of supremacy was not founded on force of arms, nor the rank of his ministers on their lineage or their wealth. The Church that had emerged from the Gregorian reformatio was instead an institution of a kind never before witnessed: one that had not merely come to think of itself as sovereign, but had willed itself into becoming so. ‘The Pope,’ Gregory VII had affirmed, ‘may be judged by no one.’ All Christian people, even kings, even emperors, were subject to his rulings. The Curia provided Christendom with its final court of appeal. A supreme paradox: that the Church, by rending itself free of the secular, had itself become a state. [pages 233-235]

Once the papal state was formed, Tom Holland mentions the formation of the first university and, very relevant to our research, the formation of so-called canon law. He then writes:

[St] Paul’s authority on this score was definitive. ‘The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”’ Here, for Gratian, was the foundation-stone of justice. So important to him was the command that he opened the Decretum by citing it. Echoing the Stoics much as Paul had done, he opted to define it as natural law—and the key to fashioning a properly Christian legal system. All souls were equal in the eyes of God [bold by Ed.]. Only if it were founded on this assumption could justice truly be done. Anything obstructing it had to go. ‘Enactments, whether ecclesiastical or secular, if they are proved to be contrary to natural law, must be totally excluded.’

Much flowed from this formulation that earlier ages would have struggled to comprehend. Age-old presumptions were being decisively overturned: that custom was the ultimate authority; that the great were owed a different justice from the humble; that inequality was something natural, to be taken for granted. Clerks trained in Bologna were agents of revolution as well as of order. Legally constituted, university-trained, they constituted a new breed of professional. Gratian, by providing them with both a criterion and a sanction for weeding out objectionable customs, had transfigured the very understanding of law. No longer did it exist to uphold the differences in status that Roman jurists and Frankish kings alike had always taken for granted. [Remember: for the Merovingian and Frankish kings it was not the same to kill a blond-haired, blue-eyed man as it was to kill a Mediterranean mudblood—Ed.] Instead, its purpose was to provide equal justice to every individual, regardless of rank, or wealth, or lineage—for every individual was equally a child of God…

Image of pages from the Decretum of Burchard of Worms, an 11th-century book of canon law.

How, for instance, were the Christian people to square the rampant inequality between rich and poor with the insistence of numerous Church Fathers that ‘the use of all things should be common to all’? The problem was one that, for decades, demanded the attention of the most distinguished scholars in Bologna. By 1200, half a century after the completion of the Decretum, a solution had finally been arrived at—and it was one fertile with implications for the future. A starving pauper who stole from a rich man did so, according to a growing number of legal scholars, iure naturali—‘in accordance with natural law’. As such, they argued, he could not be reckoned guilty of a crime. Instead, he was merely taking what was properly owed him. It was the wealthy miser, not the starving thief, who was the object of divine disapproval. Any bishop confronted by such a case, so canon lawyers concluded, had a duty to ensure that the wealthy pay their due of alms. Charity, no longer voluntary, was being rendered a legal obligation.

That the rich had a duty to give to the poor was, of course, a principle as old as Christianity itself. What no one had thought to argue before, though, was a matching principle: that the poor had an entitlement to the necessities of life. It was—in a formulation increasingly deployed by canon lawyers—a human ‘right’.

Law, in the Latin West, had become an essential tool of its ongoing revolution. [pages 238-239]

Countless times I have said that white nationalists, who are generally sympathetic to Christianity even though they are not all Christians, are ignorant of the history of the West in general and of the Church in particular. It is amusing to see them anathematise the current pope, as if his liberalism were a phenomenon of our century. They constantly complain in their forums: ‘Alas, the Jews have subverted Christianity!’ In fact the first, baby steps to equalise men by law, based on St Paul the Jew, had already been taken a millennium earlier.

Racial right Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Bad habit

Because I have a bad habit of wanting to argue with people on the American racial right, things like this happen to me.

I have to discipline myself. At this point, it is naive to believe that any of them, let’s say those who believe that Jewry is the primary cause of our misfortunes, are going to answer my favourite argument: the catastrophe of miscegenation in Latin America when the Inquisition had the Jews well under control. I must resign myself to accepting that the only discussion of these topics will be possible in the discussion threads of The West’s Darkest Hour. The rest of the racialists don’t want to play what I call ‘the real chess’, the battle of ideas, with me.

So I will focus on correcting the translation of Savitri Devi’s book which I want to publish, at least, as a PDF so that it will appear third in the featured post.

Although we’ve published the full translation of it in 103 posts under the title ‘Reflections of an Aryan woman’, some problems have arisen. For example, I suspect that Greg Johnson’s The Savitri Devi Archive has used Google translator to translate chapters 1, 10 and 11 of Souvenirs et réflexions d’une aryenne (which I originally copied from there and pasted here). That means the arduous task of cross-checking that computer translation with another translator (even though I studied French for three years, that is not remotely sufficient for a text as complex as Savitri’s).

So instead of continuing to criticise the racial right for not being Nazi like us (see also what Hunter Wallace wrote today), I will concentrate my efforts on a revision of those chapters in Johnson’s archive, to make our product more readable than the defective Google translation he apparently used.

If I don’t upload more entries soon, it is because I am very busy proofreading Savitri’s book, whose preface to the forthcoming edition I wrote yesterday. So I will try to overcome my bad habit: inviting to play chess someone who simply doesn’t want to play…

Adolf Hitler Autobiography Christendom Evil National Socialism Racial right United States

Editor’s preface

(pages 9-10 of the forthcoming Savitri’s book)

When Savitri Devi wrote the foreword that follows, I was seventeen and at the nadir of my life: mental hells into which my very Catholic father and his damned society had put me, as I confess in Letter to mom Medusa (see the book list on page 3). Curiously, a couple of years before that family tragedy I went to ask, in a bookshop, if they had any pro-Nazi books. An employee of the Librería de Cristal in the Cine Manacar in Mexico City, a fair-haired white man, hesitated a few seconds and informed me: ‘No’. True, that bookstore had the old Spanish translation of Mein Kampf, but what I was looking for was more recent literature.

If the worst country in all of Western history had never existed, the United States, Hitler might have won the war and, as I recount in The Grail, the last book in my autobiographical trilogy, the teenager I was would have been spared from the psychosis that two years after my visit to the bookstore would be brewing in my parents’ minds.

The book I was looking for at the age of fifteen was precisely this one that the reader now holds in his hands. I do not presume that this French-English translation is perfect. Far from it! But it seems to me that, of all the books by Savitri Devi (1905-1982), this is the one that best introduces us to the thought of this impressive woman.

If the American racial right is at a dead end, it is precisely because Americans have not had the nobility to see that only by making National Socialism their new religion can they save their race. Furthermore, unlike Hitler’s anti-Christian pantheism (cf. Richard Weikart’s Hitler’s Religion), the great failure of the pundits of the American racial right consists in not repudiating the Semitic religion of our abusive fathers. And abusive by necessity must be all those who traumatise their children with the idea of eternal torture, as I was traumatised as a teenager.

Although the hellish nature of Christianity reveals the twisted psychology of the Semitic mind, the typical anti-Semite ignores that the Jews created the New Testament for gentile consumption (cf. David Skrbina’s The Jesus Hoax). Anyone who invents a superheated torture chamber and then threatens billions of gentiles with it has a sick soul. Right after white traitor Constantine handed over the Roman Empire to his Semitic bishops (cf. Karlheinz Deschner’s Christianity’s Criminal History, also listed on page 3), the doctrine of hell became the greatest weapon of psychological terror used by Jews against whites. Ben Klassen was right on this point! And this is the kind of anti-Christian worldview I badly needed as a teenager to save me from the doctrines my father had put in my little head. Even now, so long after I abandoned Christianity, I am haunted by the idea of eternal damnation. As Gaedhal, a commenter on my website, The West’s Darkest Hour, told us by email:

If you fear a Jewish Hell, then you are controlled by Jews. I speak by experience. I know, rationally, that Hell doesn’t exist… However, more than thirty years of Catholicism means that I still believe in Hell emotionally. I still believe in Hell in my bones’ marrow. And this residual belief in Hell still has negative effects upon my psychology and behaviour. I probably have religious trauma syndrome…

Alas, the American racial right has been, since its origins, extremely addicted to Judeo-Christianity. I would even claim that white nationalism is an ideology that, at its core, functions as a gatekeeper preventing the transvaluation of our darkest values to Greco-Roman values: that is, the luminous values of Antiquity before the Semitic infection. Thus, white nationalists are actively preventing the Aryan man from freeing himself from the yoke that the Jews have created. How could we shake such a yoke from our necks?

Only Hitler saves. Savitri Devi, Hitler’s Priestess, saw this with extraordinary clarity! And the white man who does not want to recognise this is doomed to extinction.

César Tort
8 December 2022

Conservatism Feminism Jewish question (JQ) Metaphysics of race / sex Racial right

On silly Ann Coulter

A couple of days ago, on The Occidental Observer, Ann Coulter was annoyed by these words of Nick Fuentes: ‘Hitler is great, women should be forced to marry young and have children.’ Doesn’t Ann realise that in Jane Austen’s very decent world, women were forced to marry because they couldn’t inherit property? Doesn’t she realise that, by virtue of those values, the British Empire became so powerful?

Ann Coulter is certainly not a racist. She’s an asshole like the rest of the Republicans that ignore what Ludwig Klages said in Cosmogonic Reflections #25 about mankind and race: ‘We must draw a sharp distinction between the man who sees the world as divided between the “human” and the “non-human,” and the man who is most profoundly struck by the obvious racial groupings of mankind (Nietzsche’s “masters”). The bridge that connects us to the Cosmos does not originate in “man,” but in race.’

That is what I call genuine spirituality (in contrast to the ‘spirituality’ that the Jewish authors of the New Testament have drummed into our heads). In the second chapter of Savitri Devi’s book, which will be available as a PDF the next month, we read some prescient passages on how it is that the Christians of the 1930s had an intuitive knowledge that made them see that National Socialism was nothing less than the paradigm that replaces the old paradigm: the Jewish god by an Aryan God. Thanks to the Nick Fuentes / Ye scandal, nowadays we see some of that debate even in discussion threads among Christians, such as this Occidental Dissent thread, where a certain Dicarlo said:

I don’t agree with you, Brad [i.e., Hunter Wallace, who mocks Ye et al]. We’re losing because the jews have unlimited money, and control every platform where Whites need to get out the truth. They have shut down our ability to get out the truth. You might as well advise, never say “jew”. :rolleyes:
There’s nothing cartoonish about Adolph Hitler or the Third Reich. Their mortal enemy is the exact same enemy Whites face today, the jews. Of course there is a problem that most Whites have been lied to so much and drummed down to a point where the truth means nothing to them. We can only soldier on. George Lincoln Rockwell was right!
It doesn’t matter what you tell the normies—those who don’t want to think or know, the jews and their completely controlled media sources are going to lie, cover up, distort, over and over about any topic Whites bring up. Your criticism of praising Adolph Hitler, or the WW2 topic, is just a result of repetitive jew demonization of it [emphasis added]. There is no proper approach to wake up the White normies. All one can do is keep telling the truth about what the jews are doing and have been doing since Rome.

Since Rome… I wonder if Dicarlo has been reading this site, e.g. our excerpts from David Skrbina’s book?