web analytics
Categories
American Revolutionary War Liberalism

Might is right, 19

by Ragnar Redbeard

The Declaration of Independence commences by proclaiming an unctuous falsehood, a black, degrading self-evident lie—a lie which no one could possibly believe but a born fool. With insolent effrontery it brazenly proclaims as ‘a self evident truth’ that ‘all men are created equal’ and that they are ‘endowed,’ by their ‘Creator’ with certain ‘inalienable’ rights—rights which it thereupon proceeds to define in canting phraseology, imbecile and florid as it is false.

Indeed the mock-heroic preamble of this rhetorical pronunciamento is but a cunningly constructed piece of blague deliberately intended to deceive and betray. It consists of a patchwork of plagiarized catchwords, annexed wholesale from the ravings of seventeenth-century Levellers, crazed puritanic Mattoids and eighteenth-century cretinous French Jacobins—all mixed up and jumbled together with a long rigmarole of semi-meaningless pretty phrases, culled mostly from an old time melodrama.

The Declaration of Independence has less real meaning for present conditions than a bottled-up Indian war-whoop of the same period would have, if uncorked now. It is a back-number, musty, high smelling, and worm-eaten: only fit for the walls of a museum or the brain-cells of a daft philosopher.

Its ethical and most of its political conclusions are shams, deceptions, and cold-blooded dishonesties—incandescent Lies—glorified, belauded, printed in letters of gold, but nevertheless—Lies.

Indeed it has always been considered a piece of amusing mockery by those who really understood the secret intent for which it was originally constructed: viz:—as a lasso for the bellowing Herds, that, about one hundred years ago were beginning to run wild, and escape from their herdsmen, and herdsmen’s stock-whip, in this (then) boundless New World.

To all contemporary demagogues, the high-sounding phraseology of the ‘Declaration’ is as honey from paradise. Everywhere its seductive abstractions are the Avatars of anarchism, communism, republicanism, and scores of other zymotic convulsionisms. Why then should sane men continue giving lip-service to this subtle deception? Why should they, by their silence, acquiesce in the malefic efforts of organic weaklings, a mythical airy being who roams about Eternity manufacturing things out of no-things—a fable (instigated by prattlers of a false philosophy) to enforce by electioneering mass-pressure an impossible and hideous Equality Ideal?

Every national appeal is now made, not to the noblest and the best, but to the riff-raff—the slave-hordes—who possess less intelligence than night-owls. All that is brave, honourable, heroic, is ignored tacitly, for fear of offending the deified Herd—‘the Majority’. ‘Equality of conditions’ is its debasing shibboleth and verily he who has temerity enough to spit upon Equality is liable to be horned to death.

The ‘Voice of the People’ can only be compared to the fearsome shrieks of agony that may now and then be heard, issuing forth from the barred windows of a roadside madhouse. ‘The voice of God!’ Alas! Alas!

There are two methods whereby masterful ambitious men may hold any population in a state of ordered subjectivity. The first and by far the most honourable method is through an irresistible and highly-trained standing army, ready to deploy anywhere; with mechanical precision at a telegraphic nod in order to lay down the Law at the cannon’s mouth and sweep away all dangerous opposition.

The second and cheaper method is, first of all to inoculate those intended to be exploited with some poisonous political soporific, superstition [emphasis by Ed.], or theoria; something that operating insidiously, hypodermically, may render them laborious, meek, and tractable.

The latter plan has ever proved itself most effective because Aryan populations that would fight to the last gasp against undisguised military despotism, may be induced to passively submit to any indignity or extortion, if their brains are first carefully soaked in some abstract lie.

At the period of the war of Independence, North America was far too wide, far too sparsely settled, and far too poor in concentrated wealth to be effectively ruled and plundered upon the standing army principle: either by King George or the successful Junta of power-wielding revolutionists.

Hamilton, Hancock, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Henry, and all the vested material interests that stood a solid phalanx behind those voluble patriots cast about for some safer method of ruling the minds of the uninformed but extremely valorous yeomanry, backwoodsmen and mountaineers.

After mature consideration they determined to lull and lure the armed peasantry back again into a condition of blissful somnolence, by instilling into their newly aroused minds, false but seductive political Idealisms, as subtle supplements to the fallacious, and equally delusive, (but pre-existent) religionisms and moralisms. This cunning plot worked like a charm, for Equity of Rights seemed to puritanic minds the logical outcome of that other hoary old lie—‘Equality before God’. [emphasis by Ed.]

Thereupon the sword of power, that conquered on the battlefield, was carefully hidden away out of sight and ‘constitutionalism’ invoked to aid in the re-harnessing of the conquerors of Cornwallis, by their new masters. The old systems of jurisprudence and government (founded on naked force) were cleverly retained even amplified and at the same time the white skinned populations were cunningly proclaimed ‘free and equal.’ Never having enjoyed genuine personal freedom (except on the Indian border) being for the most part descendants of hunted-out European starvelings and fanatics, (defeated battlers) they now stupidly thought that they had won freedom at last by the patent device of selecting a complete outfit of new tax-gatherers every fourth year.

When we look back upon the childlike faith in constitutionalism, displayed by our revolutionary Fathers together with their infantile republican specifics for the redemption of mankind, we cannot help smiling. At every general election, since 1776, Americans have voted solidly for increasing the despotic authority of their elective rulers and task-masters. Personal liberty is very nearly unknown (except in the newspaper) and any citizen who dares to think in direct opposition to the dogma of the Majority does so at the risk of his life, if he thinks too loudly.

Despotism, if it is to be overthrown, must be fought with its own weapons, and the vilest of Despotisms are ever founded upon Majority Votes.

Many years after the ‘Declaration’ was issued, our written Constitution was constructed with much voluble sophistry and mimic strife. That document, considered as a whole, is the most cunningly worded and at the same time most terrible instrument of Government and Mastership that any Anglo-Teutonic tribe has ever yoked itself up under. Pretending to ‘grant’ liberty and self-government, it practically annihilates both. Under the show of ‘guaranteeing’ personal independence and civil rights, it has organized an elective tyranny; wherein the mob-monarch possesses more arbitrary authority than any dynastic despot since the days of Darius or Balschazzar.

Under the hypnotic spell of a ‘free and equal’ dream, Americans have been hustled into a convict-prison of laboriousness to piratical masters a thousand times more terrible and more unyielding than any history can describe.

Even should America’s servile multitudes appeal to the arbitrement of physical force, they cannot possibly win. Possessing neither the strength, courage, brains, arms, money, nor leaders: they must be blown into eternal fragments by their master’s highly trained artillerists, and scientific destroyers.

The citadel of Power is now consolidated and prepared with the most improved armaments to repel any assault, no matter how well sustained. The nation is intersected in all directions, with iron highroads and splendid waterways, whereon armies and navies may be moved from city to city, with facility and dread effect. The War of Secession (or rather the war for the annihilation of self-government) demonstrated conclusively that a centralized authority, resting on herd-votes of the vulgar and fanatic is (in practice) military absolutism. There is no other Power in the land that can effectively hold it in check. The Czar of Russia possesses less actual authority than our Federal Government. With a standing army in the hollow of its hand, it can do exactly as it pleases, i.e. if it can collect enough revenue to purchase ‘statesmen’ and pay the salaries of its praetorian cohorts.

Most Americans are only now beginning to perceive these things, but they were foreseen, (and also foretold in part) by clear-sighted individuals before the Constitution itself was formally Enthroned.

What is viler than a government of slaves and usurious Jews? What is grander than a government of the Noblest and the Best—who have proved their fitness on the plains of death?

Cromwell and his Ironsides—Cæsar and his Legions shall be born again; and the thunderous tread of Sulla’s fierce destroyers shall roll and rumble amid the fire and glare and smoke of crumbling constitutionalisms: ‘as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be’—warfare without end.

Yawping politicians may harangue base city mobs of hirelings and Christlings with ‘Alas, poor Yorick!’ rhapsody, as if struggle and strife were the evil of all evils. Figures of speech, however, cannot breathe the breath of life into feline philosophies that never have had the slightest foundation in Fact. The survival of the Fittest—the Toughest is the logic of events and of all time. They who declare otherwise are blind. The chief point is this: that Fitness must honestly demonstrate itself not by ignoble theft and theory but by open conflict as per Darwin’s law of battle.

Categories
Quotable quotes

Poison

“Even these white nationalists have Semitic poison in their brains…” —Thomas

Categories
Literature Racial right Them and Us (book)

Messala’s advice

These days I’ve been reading a printed copy of Them and Us, which I used last year in its Kindle version for my excerpts from that book.

A common mistake among young Aryans who rebel against the System, even while admiring National Socialism, is wanting to imitate the men’s sports of the Third Reich.

I’ve often mentioned this moment of the 1959 film when Messala tells Sextus how to confront a Jewish idea that is infecting the Romans: with another idea!

The mistake of these young men lies in not knowing the saying, “For a stick to tighten, it must be made of the same wedge.”

We cannot move beyond the collective Jewish unconscious that has seized the Aryan soul with rough sports for Aryan men. We need to follow Messala’s advice. And to do so, it is necessary to become a philosopher, not in the way philosophy is understood in academia today, but in its ancient sense which implies questioning dogma.

There are several books that revolutionised my view of the world today. In my work on parental abuse of children, I have mentioned Alice Miller, whom I discovered almost a quarter of a century ago.

The next bibliographical milestone was two books by William Pierce: one fiction and one non-fiction, which I have mentioned countless times on this site. Pierce wasn’t a National Socialist, and I had to supplement his work with the memoirs written by Savitri Devi. Both authors address exterminationism.

After I had uploaded many hundreds of posts to The West’s Darkest Hour, I discovered Richard Carrier’s work on the highly dubious existence of the historical Jesus, which profoundly impacted my thinking because, since my early teens, I had been internally struggling with the Catholicism instilled in me by my father.

Last year, just when I thought my worldview was complete, I discovered Danny Vendramini’s book: a study of real prehistory which complements what Pierce wrote in his story of the white race.

We will never defeat the Jewish ideology that has seized our souls without these superb readings. It doesn’t matter that Miller, Carrier, and Vendramini are antagonistic to National Socialism. What matters is that it is perfectly possible to use their findings to further the National Socialist cause, as I have demonstrated on this site.

To young lads who believe that by practising rough sports in semi-secret societies—a healthy Männerbund—they will challenge the System, I suggest they follow Messala’s advice.

Become philosophers! Physical fitness is not enough.

Categories
Richard Carrier Richard Weikart

A Rebuttal to

Carrier’s “Christianity in Hitler’s
Ideology: The Definitive Study”

by Völkisch Spirit ᚾ

For those of you who may already be aware, on January 29th of this year Richard Carrier published an article on his blog entitled “Christianity in Hitler’s Ideology: The Definitive Study” that elucidates primarily on three books that deal with the question of Christianity in National Socialism. Carrier takes the position that it is ‘counterfactual’ to declare that National Socialism was an atheistic movement, and that in fact, National Socialism was “stalwartly and predominantly Christian” as he puts it.

For a quick contextual preface, it is important to note that Carrier has predicated his argument on rejecting the notion that Adolf Hitler and National Socialism were products of atheism. While some Christians may take that position in order to pin the alleged atrocities of the Third Reich squarely on atheism (thus prompting Carrier’s rebuttal), both sides are heavily challenged by the evidence. National Socialism effectively rejected both atheism and Christianity in place of a folk-based nature religion steeped in mystical conceptions of blood and soil, race, and ancestral heritage.

In this article we will be examining, deconstructing and refuting the various claims from Richard Carrier to further substantiate the historical fact that National Socialism was fundamentally anti-Christian from its inception, and that the Gottgläubig (God-belief) concept within National Socialism was not only non-denominational, but inherently antithetical to any notions of the God of Abraham.

Let us begin…

______ 卐 ______

Read it all here.

Categories
Currency crash

Bitcoin

“A cautionary tale. BTC is not money, nor credit. It is a bubble, a vol-au-vent, a tulip bubble without physical bulbs. Sadly, lots of innocent people have been sucked in”.

Alasdair Macleod

Categories
Miscegenation Nick Fuentes

Webbon’s

interview – 6

By discussing “cultural Christianity” almost from the beginning of the interview, Nick Fuentes and Joel Webbon seem to be getting closer to what we’ve been saying: that there is such a thing as secular Christianity (liberalism, or what we call “neochristianity”).

By minute 38, they both agree that to live in the new Christian Republic they envision in the US, you have to be a Christian. They ignore the fact that this very thing was already implemented in Constantinople, the so-called Second Rome. In a few centuries that town ended up as a melting pot of all the Mediterranean races! (Needless to say, for us in the new republic to be formed the requirement is that the citizen be of pure Aryan descent.)

Shortly after, Webbon says that Christianity is not a religion exclusive to white people, but for all people. That this pair’s thinking is medieval is evident when, after minute 52, they begin to discuss theologically who goes to hell.

Categories
Correspondence Miscegenation

Dear César,

I wanted to run something by you. Please tell me if you think I’m not thinking straight on this.

I was mulling over that article Grug shared a bit more.

Is it obtuse of me to say, in all honesty, that I don’t actually give that much of a shit about the Epstein issue, long term? Obviously I’m always glad when traitor politicians and wealthy influencers of an anti-white nature get dragged down a peg or two in public, and otherwise inconvenienced, but as for what they were doing, as I wrote to a gen-z leftist friend I had tonight to double check his own opinion on the matter also:

I make a firm distinction between him hosting what I have referred to in my journals as ‘trendy nymphet glamour parties for the super wealthy and corrupt’ and, say, the total non-white sexual torture-network degradation and abuse of the likes of Rotherham, Rochdale, and on and on from that. I see these Nationalists don’t seem able to make that distinction… I see a real gap between that horrible stuff and teenagers getting together with a man (or fellow teenager) for the purposes of new Aryan children, or indeed in this case, a pampered 17-year-old in the lap of luxury prostituting herself gracefully for more freebies and prestige and for the sake of horny middle-age billionaires.

I find myself wishing Kulak had not used Epstein for his title example (in relation to Jesus), and him and his rich pals throughout, many of whom appear to be white, and had instead referred to these brutal Pakistani rapists and individual Somali sexual muggers of Aryan women and young women. Surely the key issue across the Christian Problem front (and especially with the ‘token Christian’ Nationalists and Christian Nationalists we have discussed recently on WDH) —and this true as well historically across the fall of the West—is that of miscegenation, and of their being a firm set of racial enemies whom we are obliged to dispose of.

For the sake of lambasting but one powerful and connected (and dead!) Jew operative, who has performed the action the red-handed whites allowed him to do by their carelessness, Kulak (and the entire right wing internationally!) has obliterated a sensible analysis of this matter at the scale that is required. I would have said the reality of the long-term destruction of these British girls by painful forced miscegenation in conditions of squalor—which leaves them traumatised and wrecked for their own futures, and future partnerships with fellow Aryan men—was a matter of such horror, and such importance, that it frustrated me that—for all his stern anti-Christian sentiment—he had made an error of false equivalence.

I’m sorry, I’ve been very tired for nights now, so my syntax and grammar are very sloppy. I hope my perspective makes sense to you enough to understand my thinking, for your evaluation of it.

Best regards,

Ben

Categories
Kevin MacDonald Videos

Kevin & Joel

Yesterday we saw Joel Webbon interview Jared Taylor. Now we’ll see that he interviewed Kevin MacDonald too.

In MacDonald’s panoramic account of the history of Jews in the West, the professor emeritus omits a crucial fact: the Judeo-Christians who wanted only the god of the Jews to be worshipped in the Mediterranean were involved in the fall of the Roman Empire.

Then MacDonald says that Christianity began as a very anti-Jewish ideology (for example, that the Jews killed Christ). This omits the level of subtlety with which Jews make their psyops: by the time of Emperor Theodosius, all worship of Aryan Gods was prohibited, and the empire imposed Christianity while tolerating Judaism (proof of this is that no temple to Jupiter, Zeus, Apollo, or Athena survived after Theodosius’s edicts: only churches and synagogues).

In other words, for white nationalists it’s easy to cherry-pick facts like the verse in the gospel that the Jews killed Christ, but the situation needs to be viewed in perspective. And from a historical meta-perspective spanning centuries, it’s clear that only two religions were de facto permitted after the first Christian emperors: Xtianity and Judaism.

Later, Webbon asks an interesting question: what is it about white people that makes them so gullible, so susceptible to believing the psyops of Jewry?

Neither of them blamed the Christian ethics that took hold of the Aryan collective unconscious. MacDonald argued that white people are individualistic, but I get the impression that, like Jared Taylor, MacDonald also lacks a clear vision of what the European zeitgeist was like before Constantine.

Webbon agrees with the professor and talks about how Scandinavians, who are now the most individualistic, founded Minnesota (the recent protests against ICE were mentioned). But as always, they’re telling the story from the perspective of Christendom (the Visigoths came from Scandinavia and saw themselves as a group before Catholicism conquered ancient Hispania).

Then MacDonald talks about the migrant gangs that are causing havoc in Sweden, and argues that the Swedes can’t do anything about it because they don’t dare to acknowledge the problem.

Neither of them is thinking clearly. Do they honestly believe that the Vikings wouldn’t have acted decisively against sandnigger migrants who raped their young? (The racial right’s blindness to the inversion of values caused by Christianity seems to be universal.)

Then MacDonald says something I agree with: “We lost control of our culture,” and whoever loses that battle, he added, loses “the evolutionary race.” He said this in the context of the media and academia, controlled by the Jews. But when he specifically spoke about who created the moral values of modern white men, he didn’t dare say it was the rabbis who wrote the New Testament. In other words, MacDonald can’t have it both ways: his theory has a solid scientific basis, but Christianity has exerted more influence on us than media and academia together given its existence over two thousand years.

MacDonald speaks of “moral communities” as a characteristic of white psychology, and mentions the American Puritans who were abolitionists and how, once the value of slavery being unjust was established, anyone who believed in its validity could get into serious trouble (alluding to the Civil War). But even here we see that there used to be Christians who didn’t share antiracist morality (just as Russians and other Eastern Europeans don’t share Wokism). To understand the dark hour, it is necessary to recognize that a faction of Christianity imposed itself on the entire West after World War II, and that this wouldn’t have happened with, say, what the Nazis called “positive Christianity.”

It’s now too late for Webbon’s dream of establishing a kind of “positive Christianity lite” in the US for the reason I mentioned yesterday. To expel over one hundred million non-whites and crucify the traitorous whites who brought them here, we need anti-Christian governments (only pagan Nazis would do things like what we read in The Turner Diaries).

I’d like to end this post with a reflection on what MacDonald said about Tucker Carlson, whom we all appreciate for bringing the JQ to public attention, at least when criticizing the Israeli government and its American lackeys. MacDonald is right about this, but he also points out that Tucker is allergic to Aryan identity.

What the professor omitted in his interview with Webbon is that Tucker has said many times that he is not a white identitarian because of the Christian religion he professes.

Categories
Lightning and the Sun (book)

The Lightning

and the Sun, 14

Quote from Chapter XIV “The World Against its Saviour”, pages 271 & 275:

“Ribbentrop, bring me the English alliance!”[1] Sincerer words than these — the last Adolf Hitler addressed to the man whom he was sending to London, as Germany’s ambassador, in 1936, to sound once more all the possibilities that could lead to an understanding with England — were never uttered in the history of diplomatic relations.

Adolf Hitler had indeed been striving for “an understanding with England” nay, an “English alliance,” from the beginning of his public life. Already as early as 1924 he had, in his immortal book, Mein Kampf, clearly laid down the main lines of this new policy (“new,” at least after the first World War.) […]

Adolf Hitler repeatedly proclaimed his determination to respect the integrity of the British Empire. He repeatedly declared that the German National Socialist State was to look upon every manner of pre-1914 colonial policy, and every form of aggressive commercial competition with England as a thing of the past. And he fully meant what he said. He meant it because he saw, no doubt, in that “alliance with England” which he so eagerly urged J. von Ribbentrop to “bring him back,” a guarantee of peaceful development for Germany and of further unhindered evolution and expansion for National Socialism — Germany’s highest interest, immediately and in the long run. He meant it also because the friendly collaboration of the two leading nations of Nordic blood appeared to him, from a more-than-political standpoint, as the unmistakable dictate of sanity; as the course in harmony with the meaning of life (which should also be the meaning of “politics,” if the latter are to cease being mere business intrigues) and the policy which was, therefore, immediately and in the long run, in the interest of superior mankind in the biological sense of the word, and consequently, “in the interest of the Universe,” again to quote the old hallowed words of the Bhagavad-Gita. He held out his hand to England both as a wise, far-sighted statesman and as a “Man against Time.”

But England’s leading men — and number of men in high office in Germany — were not only short-sighted politicians but active agents of the everlasting Dark Forces.

__________

[1] Joachim von Ribbentrop, Zwischen London und Moskau (Leoni am Stranberger See: Druffel-Varlag, 1954), page 93.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

The Lightning & the Sun by Savitri Devi (Counter-Currents Publishing, 2014, unabridged edition) can be ordered here.

Categories
Jared Taylor Racial right

Jared v Joel

I don’t see Christianity as a big problem because our racially-conscious ancestors… had no illusion about race at all. They care very much about the salvation of the souls of their slaves… building Sunday schools for black people. —Joel Webbon

Since Jared Taylor is the son of pious Christians who tried to evangelize the Japanese, and Joel Webbon is a Christian Nationalist, after the twelfth minute of the interview (linked below) neither believes in the malice of politicians in recent decades for bringing millions of non-whites to the West. I, on the other hand, not only blame the politicians but also this pair for following the commandment to love your neighbour (for example: these politicians) instead of openly hating those who have brought the orcs to Nordid lands.

A couple of minutes later, Webbon asks Taylor why only whites are susceptible to bringing coloured people to their lands. What an incredible lack of insight: it’s your proclaimed Calvinist faith that originated the problem (I recently recommended Tom Holland’s Dominion and I recommend it again). It’s curious that Webbon uses the term “suicidal toxic empathy” without realizing that it comes directly from the gospel.

Taylor responds that a hundred years ago Americans weren’t ethno-suicidal. He thus ignores the fact that the cancer of Judeo-Christian values only metastasized after 1945. In his country, the process had already begun with Washington’s 18th-century presumption of not being anti-Semitic, and even more so with the Quaker ideology of the 19th century, which infected the American collective unconscious to such a degree that it led to the deaths of countless Southerners in a civil war in which the villains of our story triumphed.

In Taylor’s response, it’s also noticeable that—like everyone on the American racial right—he doesn’t talk about Latin America, even though they began their ethno-suicidal process on the Iberian Peninsula with Moors and converted Jews. And let’s not even mention how those peninsular Spaniards procreated with Indigenous women on the American continent (the case of the Portuguese was even worse: with Negroes in Lisbon itself). By focusing on the US, their view of the West is myopic.

Then Taylor begins to talk about democracy, the rights of the weak, respect for women, and freedom of speech as qualities exclusive to white people: another example of myopia. Once again, this pair is telling history from the perspective of Christendom, ignoring the Greco-Roman, Viking or Indo-European worlds. Taylor cites Angela Merkel’s decision to allow millions of Syrians into Europe as an example. I don’t want to repeat what Holland said on the subject and how he located the aetiology of Angela’s deed in Christianity (see pages 154-156 on Angela in Holland’s text in our abridged version of his book, Neo-Christianity, linked in our featured article).

Then Taylor mentions those who blame Christianity and intermarriage, adding: “All of this perversion of Christianity” referring to Woke culture. Note that although it is true that it is a perversion of traditional Christianity, it doesn’t answer the argument of Nietzsche, Holland and others: that Christianity gave birth to liberalism (which we call neochristianity).

Webbon replies that he’s pleased with what Taylor said because, as a Baptist Christian, he doesn’t believe we should blame his religion. He repeats the typical clichés of white nationalists: that if Christianity were guilty, how would we explain the Crusades? (Tip: the Crusades weren’t undertaken out of racial passion: a pope called the First Crusade to defend the interests of the Church.) Shortly after, he adds that Christians centuries ago recognized that peoples were different, but omits that the Church—unlike the Visigoths before their conversion—permitted mixed marriages. Even El Cid didn’t revert to the healthy racism of a millennium earlier, during the time of the Visigoths in Hispania: at one point in his life, El Cid even worked for a powerful Moor.

Then Webbon and Taylor discuss Hitler and the Holocaust in a way that could be called “fair enough.” But they should read Holland, who argues that the new axiology that demonizes Hitler is neochristian, albeit atheist (for those who are too lazy to read his book, there are a huge number of people interviewing Holland on YouTube).

After elaborating on the above, Webbon argues that Christianity would solve the guilt problem afflicting white men today. He doesn’t seem to realize that this guilt was precisely induced by Christian values, and this is especially evident in the post-WWII consensus. As our friend Joseph Walsh said, that consensus represented the ultimate triumph of gospel values, so much so that atheists especially embraced them with fierce fanaticism.

Then Taylor returns to the anti-Christian position that blames the religion of our forefathers and says that as the West becomes less Christian, it becomes more ethno-suicidal. This ignores two things: (1) before Constantine, ethno-suicide was accidental, for example, miscegenation in the late and decadent Roman Empire, not an explicitly anti-white ideology and (2) the same old story: he is ignorant of books like Dominion, which demonstrate how traditional Christianity metamorphosed into atheistic neochristianity.

Then Webbon says that in his American utopia, the government and voters could only be Christian. So, would people like William Pierce and Revilo Oliver be second-class citizens?

Elaborating on what Webbon calls Christian Nationalism, he says that whites are incapable of understanding themselves as a collective. He ignores (1) that in pre-Christian times, the pure Nordics who conquered India, Sparta, the early Romans and the Visigoths considered themselves a group, and that (2) it was precisely the threat of eternal damnation for those who didn’t worship the god of the Jews that fell upon the Aryan collective unconscious like an atomic bomb: it atomized it, turning whites into “individuals,” “souls” whose priority was to save themselves from the torments of hell.

The only good thing about Webbon’s American utopia is that he wants a return to traditional patriarchy. At a crucial moment, Taylor asks him if, in his ideal America, a morally upright black Christian could vote, but not a non-Christian white. Webbon replies that, indeed, only that black could vote.

Webbon then presents Taylor with a thought experiment: if one of them were king, how would the culture be better? But he cheats: because the thought experiment begins without specifying how one hundred million non-whites would be “deported” from the US to the point that only 20% of the population would remain non-white. Since the experiment begins this way, the dishonesty lies in Webbon’s avoidance of scenarios like The Turner Diaries, where an anti-Christian morality is needed to carry out such a massive deportation (or extermination, in the case of the novel).

This would be my response to the “If I Ran the Zoo” scenario. I would threaten that remaining 20% to leave within four months, or else every non-white man, woman and child seen on the street would be shot on the spot.

Simple.

However, Webbon understands better why feminism is so toxic than most of the racialists I’ve seen online (and Taylor more or less agrees with him on this). But shortly after, Webbon says it would be atrocious not to properly feed a quadriplegic child. My response: a society of exterminating soldiers would resemble that of the Spartans.

A few minutes later, Taylor again commits a fallacy that I had already detected before. He said that he focuses on race, and that’s why he doesn’t want to have other battlefronts like feminism, the JQ, or Christianity. The fallacy lies in the fact that all these issues are interconnected with preserving the race. Let’s remember the slogan “transvaluation of all values.” It’s impossible to focus exclusively on race without taking away the power of non-reproduction from women today. Without transvaluing that value to the patriarchy of the past, spoiled gals would continue to drive the Aryan race to extinction since they don’t want to have many children. The same could be said of Christianity, the idealization of homosexuality, the anti-Nordicism in vogue on the American racial right and so on. Only the dissident who realizes that all these are facets of the same geometric figure is ideologically cleansed of ethno-suicide.

In other words, Taylor claims he doesn’t want to antagonize so many whites because what we need most is to work together. But he doesn’t realize that even the racial right is ethno-suicidal, as I have shown on this site. More than once I have used the metaphor that the post-WWII zeitgeist is similar to a train with Jews and ultra-liberal whites in the two main driver’s seats, accelerating the train toward the precipice. American conservatives are like a secondary co-pilot who applies the brakes here and there, slowing the train down, but not stopping it. White nationalists have gotten off the train, but faithful to Christian morality, they continue along the same route, albeit on foot, toward the precipice. They will take longer than those on the train, but the neochristian mandate that everyone obeys is to head for the precipice (to understand my metaphor I would suggest reading my anthology, Daybreak).

Taylor assumes that his ideology is not headed for disaster. But it’s clearly headed there, since he has never repudiated the Christian ethics of his parents. Then he says he is against those racists who say that if someone is Christian, he “cannot run for office.” Once again: Taylor ignores the fact that a Christian would never dare to expel the Jews from their country, or even scare them into leaving by opening Auschwitz II. (Furthermore, to achieve this, Taylor would not only have to repudiate Christian morality, but also the ideology of the Founding Fathers he so admires.) With presidents who submit to Christian morality, the Jewish problem will never be solved. In fact, we could see Webbon as a traditional Christian and Taylor as what we call a neochristian.

Webbon then discusses the New Testament, and it’s clear his Protestantism is essentially fundamentalist: he takes all the great miracles as historical, such as the resurrection, Jesus’ ascension into the clouds, and the Great Commission (those who still believe all of that should read NT scholar Richard C. Miller).

Shortly after, Webbon says something that perfectly illustrates my point: that Christians who sympathize with racialism are headed for disaster. He says that in the society he envisions, there would be no laws against a Negro marrying a white woman!

Near the end of the interview, Webbon mentioned that an early Protestant theologian held Constantine in such high esteem that he invoked the biblical commandment to honour one’s parents and ancestors (that is, even the first Christian emperor). Compare this to what Karlheinz Deschner says about Constantine in the book we’ve summarized.

A few minutes later Taylor said he, too, would oppose banning interracial marriage!

Do you finally understand why the Führer’s way is the only way? And why, in practical terms, fundamentalist Christianity and secular neochristianity are two sides of the same coin?

I didn’t watch the rest of the program because Taylor very politely left shortly after saying that, and Webbon began discussing his interview with two professed Christians.