Categories
Categories
Might is right, 3
How is it that ‘men of light and leading’ hardly ever call in question the manufactured ‘moral codes,’ under which our once vigorous Northern race is slowly and surely eating out its heart in peaceful inaction and laborious dry-rot?
Standard ‘moral principles’ are arbitrarily assumed by their orthodox apologist to be a fixed and unalterable quantity, and that to doubt the divine-rightness of these ‘principles’ is treason and sacrilege. When the greatest thinkers of a race are incapable, or afraid to perform their manifest and logical function, it is scarcely to be wondered that average citizens are also somewhat unwilling to ‘risk life, fortune and sacred honour’ for the overthrow of popularized ‘right and wrong’ concepts, that they know from bitter personal experience, are unworkable falsities.
Note of the Editor: Of this collage of Western thinkers, only Machiavelli, Darwin, Nietzsche (and perhaps Jung) could be useful for the sacred words. Whoever put together this collage was unaware that there is a brutal discontinuity between the Greek philosophers and the theologians beginning with St. Augustine. Cf. Karlheinz Deschner’s
Christianity’s Criminal History, here and here.
Although the average man feels in his heart that nearly all political and religious conventionalisms are dynamic deceits, yet how cautiously he avoids any open display of antagonism thereto? He has not the courage of his opinions. He is afraid to say openly what he thinks secretly. In other words he is living in a state of subjectiveness; of vassalage. He allows his brain to be dominated and held in bondage by the brain of another. From his infancy he has been deliberately subjected to a continuous external pressure, especially designed to coerce his understanding into strict accord with pre-arranged views of moral, political or religious ‘duty.’ He has not been permitted one moment of real mental liberty. He imbibed fraudulent conventionalisms with his mother’s milk. He listens to the most hideous lies being glorified in his presence as sublime truths.
He hears falsehoods sung in swelling chorus. He hears them sounded on bugles of silver and brass. He hears them intoned by congregations of the faithful amid peals of sacred music, and the solemn roll of chanted prayer. Thus his mind is sterilized by authority before it has had a chance to mature. Thus youth is mentally castrated, that its natural vitality may be afterwards used up in the yoke of custom—which is the yoke of slavery. In the nursery, at school, and at college, plastic brain-pulp is deliberately forced into the pre-arranged mould. Everything that a corrupt civilisation can do, is done to compress the growing intellect into unnatural channels. Thus the great mass of men who inhabit the world of today have no initiative, no originality or independence of thought, but are mere subjective individualities, who have never had the slightest voice in fashioning the ideals that they formally revere.
Although the average man has taken no part in manufacturing moral codes and statute laws, yet how he obeys them with dog-like submissiveness? He is trained to obedience, like oxen are broken to the yoke of their masters. He is a born thrall habituated from childhood to be governed by others.
Chinese civilization deliberately distorts its children’s feet, by swathing them in bandages of silk and hoop-iron. Christian civilization crushes and cramps the minds of its youth by means of false philosophies, artificial moral codes and ironclad political creeds. Deleterious sub-theories of good and evil are systematically injected into our natural literatures, and gradually (without serious obstruction) they crystallize themselves into cast-iron formulas, infallible constitutions, will-o-the-wisp evangels, and other deadly epidemics.
Modern ‘leaders of thought’ are almost wholly wanting in originality and courage. Their wisdom is foolishness, their remedies poison. They idiotically claim that they guide the destinies of nations, whereas, in reality, they are but the flotsam and scum-froth that glides smoothly down the dark stream of decadence.
Thus all the people of the earth are helpless, Seeing those that lead are blind.
Mankind is aweary, aweary of its sham prophets, its demagogues and its statesmen. It crieth out for kings and heroes. It demands a nobility—a nobility that cannot be hired with money, like slaves or beasts of burden. The world awaits the coming of mighty men of valour, great destroyers; destroyers of all that is vile, angels of death. We are sick unto nausea of the ‘good Lord Jesus,’ terror-stricken under the executive of priest, mob and proconsul. We are tired to death of ‘Equality.’ Gods are at a discount, devils are in demand. He who would rule the coming age must be hard, cruel, and deliberately intrepid, for softness assails not successfully the idols of the multitude. Those idols must be smashed into fragments, burnt into ashes, and that cannot be done by the gospel of love.
The living forces of evil are to be found in the living ideals of today. The Commandments and laws and moral codes that we are called upon to reverence and obey are themselves the insidious enginery of decadence. It is moral principles that manufacture beggars. It is golden rules that glorify meekness. It is statute laws that make spaniels of men.
A man may keep every one of the Ten Commandments and yet remain a fool all the days of his life. He may obey every written law of the land, and yet be a caitiff and a slave. He may ‘love Jesus,’ delight in the golden rule and yet continue to the hour of his death, a failure and dependent. Truly the way to hell is by fulfilling the commandments of God. If the all-conquering race to which we belong, is not to irretrievably dwindle into multitudinous nothingness (like the inferior herds it has outdistanced or enslaved), then it is essential that the Semitic spider webs (so astutely woven for ages into the brains of our chiefs) be remorselessly torn out by the very roots, even though the tearing out process be both painful and bloody.
If we would retain and defend our inherited manhood, we must not permit ourselves to be forever rocked to repose, with the sweet lullabies of eastern idealisms. Too long we have been hypnotized by the occult charm of Hebrew Utopianism. If we continue to obey the insidious spell that has been laid upon us, we will wake up some dread morning with the gates of hell—of hell upon earth yawning wide open, to close again upon us forever…
In actual operation Nature is cruel and merciless to men, as to all other beings. Let a tribe of human animals live a rational life, Nature will smile upon them and their posterity; but let them attempt to organize an unnatural mode of existence an equality elysium, and they will be punished even to the point of extermination.
Categories
Heydrich, 4
Seeing the discussion on the round table as far as implementing the final solution is concerned, at one point Heydrich mentions that the United States had entered the war. This reminds me of a famous passage in Pat Buchanan’s book, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (I bought it fourteen years ago), where Buchanan asserted that the destruction of Jewry in WW2 didn’t cause the war but was the consequence of the war (page 311).
Indeed: had it not been for the Anglo-Americans, the Jews would have been deported either to Madagascar or Palestine, without extermination programmes. In other words, without Churchill and Roosevelt, there would have been no holocaust.
On the other hand, one of the things I like about the film is that almost everyone at the round table doesn’t give a damn about genocide. This contrasts sharply with the American neo-Nazis, who have been preaching for many decades that the Nazis weren’t evil; that is, that they were incapable of planned genocide. As I said to Jamie in the morning, with these pseudo-men we will get nowhere. We need real men, like the SS officers who sat at this table, to solve the problems.
Of course: the Christian ethics that has conquered even the soul of the Western atheist doesn’t allow such planning. But by following those standards of morality one allows the people in power to exterminate the Aryans, which is what is happening. It is impossible not to be an exterminationist. Nowadays the zeitgeist is to exterminate the Aryan. At the SS officers’ table, the zeitgeist was to exterminate the enemy of the Aryan. It is not possible to coexist peacefully with Jews or say blacks because there will be cultural subversion or gradual extermination of the Aryan through interbreeding with the coloureds (as happened in Brazil).
In my previous post on this series, I said that from that day on I would’t drop names of those who belong to the racial right because sometimes I will need their favours.
Very well: without mentioning names, recently a highly respected dean of race realism mentioned in his video that the founding fathers of his country had stipulated that those who emigrated to America had to be ‘whites of good character’. But the dean ignores that, while that is true, the forces of Yankee Puritanism were to trump that between-the-lines pronouncement of the founders. There is no comparison between those lines with the Third Reich, where racism was as explicit as the old Indo-Aryan codes that created the caste society. But the Third Reich was infinitely better than Manu’s Law because of its exterminationism (the Indo-Aryans became mixed over the centuries precisely because they failed to exterminate the Indians). As far as I know, the only notable American who has dared to speak in such practical exterminationist terms, as the SS of the round table, was William Pierce in Who We Are.
One more thing. In the 25th minute of the film, an officer mentions the problem of mixed marriages. If you check the red letters in the long article ‘American racial history timeline’, you will see that long before the Jews had any influence in that country, there had already been several states in the US that repudiated anti-miscegenation laws! That would never, ever have happened in a triumphant Third Reich, for the simple fact that, unlike that between-the-lines pronouncement of the US founding fathers, it was an Aryan Reich designed specifically for what we now call the 14 words, not tainted by Christian bullshit (Protestantism) or neochristian bullshit (the ideals of the 1770s and 1780s that led to the founding of the American republic and the French Revolution).
Categories
Jewess president
Mural depicting Claudia Sheinbaum as a Jedi in a Star Wars scene.
In the comments section of the previous post, Dale Jansen asks me:
Could you blog on your new Jewess President of Mexico. How did that happen? I would have thought that Mexicans were more naturally racist than that. Aren’t brown Mexicans more anti-Semitic than Whites? Also, we’re getting reports of upwards of around 40 political assassinations throughout Mexico. Could you describe that phenomenon. Is that purely the result of Amerindian violence and drug cartels?
It’s one thing for me to live in Mexico, it’s another to be interested in its politics or society. It may surprise you that I try not to find out what is going on in this country.
This is because, since the mestizaje was consumed, the bulk of Spanish speakers, the very few Criollos included, have been addicted to the blue pill. It is easier for neighbours north of the Rio Grande to take the red one for the simple fact that many haven’t mixed their blood. Here’s how someone who took the red pill sees things:
The Amerindians that ruled Mesoamerica from 2500 b.c.e. to 1521 c.e. were a culture of serial killers (cf. my book Day of Wrath). When the Spanish arrived in the 16th century, the first thing they did was to interbreed with these serial killers! (albeit males marrying Indian women, not white women marrying Indian males). After importing black Africans for the hardest tasks, tri-racial miscegenation was consummated during the Spanish viceroyalty.
The Mexican War of Independence, fought by Criollos, mestizos, Indians and mulattos (1810-1821), was a war against the peninsular whites. And the Mexican Revolution a hundred years later reduced racial taboos and encouraged the rise of non-Criollos.
Mexicans today have internalised the current western narrative (feminism, LGBT, idealisation of pre-Columbian Mexico, etc.) with such violence that, in all Mexican media, there is not even a ‘purple pill’ to half-awaken them.
I have written extensively on the Mexican racial question in the third autobiographical book of my trilogy. If you don’t know Spanish and want to find out my views on the subject, you can do so using Google Translate and read what I have written on my site La hora más oscura para la raza blanca. There you will see that the situation in Latin America is beyond repair because of what I said above: they are addicted to the blue pill.
To make matters worse, the highly mesticized Mexicans you mention have a lower IQ than the pure Criollo, and even the latter sleeps peacefully in the ethno-suicidal matrix that controls him. If the Criollo sleeps, you can imagine the depth of sleep in the common mestizo, not to mention the Indians with very little white blood. Indeed: the murders we are increasingly suffering in the country are a product of the birth rate of the latter compared to the ever-dwindling Criollos. Jared Taylor has published statistics on how low IQ influences the crime rate in the US, and this applies equally to Latin America.
The subcontinent is a basket case, and not worth spending my time deciphering except what I have written in my third book and La hora más oscura para la raza blanca.
As far as the new president is concerned, last year I posted a brief note about the Jewish community in Mexico City. Since I have lived here for decades, I have been several times to the zone where most Jews live, Polanco, which looks like a first-world area compared to others in the great Mexican metropolis. But there is no anti-Semitism in Mexico for the same reason that there is no anti-Semitism in the US, even though there are many more JQ-conscious people in the US than south of the Rio Grande.
My suggestion to the pure Criollo, or the American who hasn’t yet polluted his blood, is to forget about these forsaken lands of the hands of the Gods and focus on trying to understand the reason for the Aryan decline. To this end, my next project will be to put together a new anthology to complement my old anthology of blog posts, Daybreak.
Categories
Heydrich, 3
In the film, the meeting that starts at this moment makes me think…
Had it not been for the Anglo-Americans, these are the kind of meetings that would exist today in the centre of a Europe completely conquered by the Third Reich instead of the meetings where the Russians now have the power over the destiny of Europe.
If the white race is to survive, sooner or later the English and Americans will have to make a truly astronomical humility cure—i.e, swallow their pride—and do a centuries-long penance for the blunder their ancestors committed in the 20th century (and 21st century by continuing to defame Hitler).
Incidentally, as far as my Tuesday post about the impostor is concerned, I learned a lesson.
I shouldn’t drop names when criticising the racial right because, sometimes, I will need their favours. For example, the moderator of Counter-Currents did me the courtesy of clarifying, in the comments thread, that the impostor who in various racialist forums has been trolling me for six years was a troll and not the real César Tort. Like it or not, from now on I won’t drop names because I have had the experience that some moderators of other racialist forums have been so susceptible to my criticisms that they continued to let the comments of that impostor pass, under my name, even after I repeatedly informed them by email that the impostor wasn’t me.
So from now on my criticisms of the racial right will omit the names of the specific persons, so as not to unnecessarily hurt their susceptibilities.
In any case, the regular visitor to this site is well aware that my ideological difference with them lies precisely in the fact that they don’t think like Heydrich and his SS gang, as we see at the round table in the film. The racial right still lives under the sky of Christian morality, and we want to practice genocides like Genghis Khan for the simple fact that we must comply with the four words (‘eliminate all unnecessary suffering’). And if humans are the devils of the animals on earth, to save them we must dispatch them. Always keep in mind that the first measures taken by the Nazis when they came to power were precisely to prohibit vivisection and many other unnecessary sufferings of our cousins!
Those who do not feel such compassion for animals will never understand National Socialism, and I would suggest that they stop visiting racialist forums and read instead Savitri Devi’s Impeachment of Man, which touches on the issue of unnecessary cruelty to animals.
In the next post of this series, I will see if it is worth quoting some specific words of these SS officers at the round table…
This old man, Gilbert Doctorow, is the voice that seems to me the most reasonable voice on what can really happen if the crazy western leaders continue their campaign to provoke the bear (Napolitano begins by asking him about what Putin recently said in the interview in St. Petersburg).
There will be no nuclear apocalypse. But Kiev and Poland’s military airport will be incinerated under tactical mushrooms (the US will not be able to intervene by launching a nuke on the Russian territory because that would be suicidal).
This is the best-case scenario and would mark the beginning of the end of the American interregnum in Europe, which dates back to 1945.
Categories
Impersonator
The man who pretends to be César Tort
This post has been updated on June 5th.
In 2022 Kevin MacDonald published a review I wrote about a book by a Mexican Jew. In the comments section of that article, I wrote:
I would like to take this opportunity to let TOO visitors know that for some time now a troll has been impersonating me on the racial right forums. Generally, when I comment on a forum I do so with my initials, ‘C.T.’ (I make the exception here because I have signed the above article with my full name). To avoid confusion I have decided to only comment on my website and occasionally on The Unz Review, always with my initials ‘C.T.’ So I ask TOO visitors that if, with the exception of this thread, you see a comment on a racialist forum with my full name, consider that comment suspicious as it may have been posted by the troll who impersonates me.
This year I said when talking about another webzine, Occidental Dissent, that this racialist forum (OD, not TOO) kept posting comments from the troll-stalker who has been saying silly things, for years, using my full name.
I assumed that the racialists on other forums had gotten the memo, but no! I just noticed that there is a thread where the troll-stalker posted, on Counter-Currents, several comments under my full name and the commenters on that thread replied to him thinking it was me!
I know I’m not going to get this troll-stalker, Dr Morales, off my back because this Brazilian doesn’t like what I’ve been saying about miscegenation in Latin America. But I would like to say that, if you see a ‘Cesar Tort’ posting on any racialist forum, it’s not me.
Fortunately, Greg Johnson approved a comment by me, the real César Tort, in the thread where I am mentioned several times. But some sections of the thread are somewhat surreal, in that commenters were interacting with this impersonator believing it was me.
The photo that Dr Morales used as his avatar in his trollish comments.
I call Morales a stalker because he has followed me around this site for years and has tried to post trolling comments under countless sockpuppets.
His obsession with me is almost absolute. The visitor can click on the ‘Trolls’ category at the top of this post to see the tip of the iceberg of what Morales has done over the years. One of my posts under that category was titled ‘Troll army’, before I realised that the entire ‘army’ (of sockpuppets) was a single person: a Brazilian who abhors what I’ve been saying about mestizaje committed south of the Rio Grande.
The IP below Morales’ e-mail is from Brazil (that email is legitimate by the way, as Morales sent me a couple of insulting messages via that email).
Categories
Hamlet revisited
Before I continue commenting on the film where Reinhard Heydrich, the ‘iron-hearted man’, is our hero, I would like to clarify what I recently said about Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Yesterday in the comments section, I said:
I put a painting of Goethe because I mentioned him in my previous post about Heydrich. But the abject slavery of the greatest writers to Christianity is more evident in Dante, for obvious reasons; and Cervantes, who considered his masterpiece not Don Quixote but Los trabajos de Persiles y Sigismunda, where Nordic princes travel around various places in the world to end up arriving in Rome, the seat of the Vatican, and get married.
I started the discussion about Goethe because he is mentioned in the film to the detriment of the SS. But if Nietzsche had respect for him, it is precisely because Goethe represents what I called ‘Bridges’ in January, in the context of Wagner’s musical dramas taking us away from Johann Sebastian Bach’s resounding Christianity. In other words, despite the mixture of his pagan The Ring of the Nibelung with the Christian Parsifal, Wagner takes a few steps towards our side of the psychological Rubicon, even if neither Goethe nor Wagner crossed it (indeed, even Nietzsche himself didn’t fully cross it, having failed to read Gobineau).
So I can be charitable with Goethe as long as we place him as a man of his time. He indeed took a few baby steps on the Rubicon although he had a long way to reach the other shore. From this angle, I have nothing against him or Wagner, and those who want to delve deeper into the subject could reread my article ‘Bridges’.
Goethe is considered the greatest figure of German letters, but what motivated me to write this entry is that, if I mentioned the most famous writer in the Spanish language, Cervantes, and the most influential in Italian Christendom, Dante, what could I say about the greatest figure of English letters, Shakespeare?
Just as on Saturday I mentioned Faust as Goethe’s most popular drama, Hamlet is Shakespeare’s most popular play, so I must say a few words about the latter.
In Crusade against the Cross I said that my purpose was to detect and expose the vestiges of Christianity that still inhabited figures considered stellar in the Western tradition, and I pointed out that there were even those residues in the metaphysics that Nietzsche himself had wanted to elaborate. If Nietzsche had followed the command of the Delphic oracle he would have understood these residues and, perhaps, wouldn’t have become psychotic by the end of his life.
Though fictional, Hamlet is a character who, asking himself a thousand questions as he wanders the vast halls of the Danish castle, he also struggles with mental illness. In my article ‘Hamlet’ last year, I implied that the Greek tragedians knew the human soul better than the great writers of Christendom for the simple reason that the latter have lived under the sky of the fourth commandment, honour our parents, and that this prevented them from seeing that some parents drive their children mad. This is so true that I commented in that article that even Voltaire hadn’t broken with that Christian commandment (it was not until the 20th and 21st centuries that a Swiss writer, Alice Miller, repudiated such a toxic commandment).
But in this entry I didn’t want to talk about the trauma model of mental disorders. I want to put Shakespeare on par with Goethe in the sense that their most famous works, Faust and Hamlet, contain strong Christian residues.
Like Goethe, Shakespeare needs to be contextualised.
What could a continental freethinker do in the mid-16th century during the wars between Catholics and Protestants? Become a recluse. A sceptic of Christianity, Montaigne, did exactly that: something that evokes that many contemporary racialists are now recluses because of social ostracism if they dare to come down from their towers. Montaigne impresses me because he was the true representative of the intellectual side of the Renaissance, in sharp contrast to Erasmus who still lived in the thickest medieval darkness (cf. what I wrote about Erasmus in Daybreak).
England was then freer than Montaigne’s France, and that is the background to understanding William Shakespeare. We know that Shakespeare read Florio’s translations of Montaigne and that he was very impressed by him. Kenneth Clark said that Shakespeare was the first great poet of Christendom without religious beliefs.
(Left, Hamlet by William Morris Hunt, a 19th century painter.) However, like Goethe with his Faust, this is not entirely accurate. Shakespeare’s Hamlet has to be placed within the matrix of Elizabethan England: a time when Christian doctrine was still taken very seriously, both in its Anglican and Papist versions. Hamlet suffered a schizogenic struggle. He struggled internally with the command of his father’s ghost, from purgatory, to avenge him; but Hamlet couldn’t condemn himself, should he commit the mortal sin of murdering his uncle if he was, after all, innocent: a dilemma with which he struggles internally throughout the play.
So despite being influenced by the free-thinking ideas of his time, like Goethe Shakespeare was playing with Christian post-mortem doctrine. Nonetheless, from the viewpoint of my autobiographical trilogy, which tries to fulfil Delphi’s mandate, Hamlet certainly represents a breakthrough in insight: it is the first foray into what we may call the true self (as opposed to the false self: the internal struggles we read in Augustine’s Confessions).
What gives Hamlet such evocative power is that the tragedy doesn’t take place on stage but within Hamlet’s soul. The whole play is a soliloquy, and since I have finished my trilogy these days with a postscript to my own tragedy with my father, I would like to quote a few words from Hamlet’s second scene:
Would I had met my dearest foe in heaven
Or ever I had seen that day, Horatio!
My father!—methinks I see my father.
A couple of minutes of the 1948 film interpretation from this point onwards portrays Hamlet’s inward-spiralling soliloquies very well. Incidentally, I saw that film with my father in 1975: time when he had already mistreated me.
Categories
Might is right, 2
I stand forth to challenge the wisdom of the world; to interrogate the ‘laws’ of man and of ‘God.’ I request reasons for your Golden Rule and ask the why and wherefore of your Ten Commands. Before none of your printed idols do I bend in acquiescence and he who saith ‘thou shalt’ to me is my mortal foe.
I demand proof over all things, and accept (with reservations) even that which is true. I dip my forefinger in the watery blood of your impotent mad-redeemer (your Divine Democrat—your Hebrew Madman) and write over his thorn-torn brow, ‘The true prince of Evil—the king of the Slaves!’
No hoary falsehood shall be a truth to me—no cult or dogma shall encramp my pen. I break away from all conventions. Alone, untrammeled. I raise up in stern invasion the standard of Strong.
I gaze into the glassy eye of your fearsome Jehovah, and pluck him by the beard—I uplift a broad-axe and split open his worm-eaten skull. I blast out the ghastly contents of philosophic whited sepulchres and laugh with sardonic wrath. Then reaching up the festering and varnished facades of your haughtiest moral dogmas, I write thereon in letters of blazing scorn: —‘Lo and behold, all this is fraud!’
I deny all things! I question all things! And yet! And yet!—Gather around me O! ye death-defiant, and the earth itself shall be thine, to have and to hold.
What is your ‘civilisation and progress’ if its only outcome is hysteria and downgoing? What is ‘government and law’ if their ripened harvests are men without sap? What are ‘religions and literatures’ if their grandest productions are hordes of faithful slaves? What is ‘evolution and culture’ if their noxious blossoms are sterilized women? What is ‘education and enlightenment’ if their dead-sea-fruit is a caitiff race, with rottenness in its bones?
Categories
Heydrich, 2
At this point, Rudolf Lange, an SS officer of the rank of Major (SS Sturmbannführer), complained to Heydrich that uniformed Germans treated them like scum ‘just because our work disturbs their peace of mind. They… gripe about our “barbarity” and “sadism”. They say that it is unworthy of the Germany of Kant and Goethe, that my men lust after executions!’
Heydrich simply replied to let them speak: that these uniformed non-SS guys belonged to the old German regime and weren’t accustomed to the new paradigm of morality. Although his response to Rudolf Lange was practical, as one would expect from SS bureaucrats, I would like to respond in greater depth that the SS ‘was unworthy of the Germany of Kant and Goethe’.
As we saw on page 30 of Crusade against the Cross, in a posthumous fragment from 1873 Nietzsche wrote: ‘The cultiphilistine ignores what culture-unity of style is. He agrees that there are classics (Schiller, Goethe, Lessing) and forgets that they wanted a culture, but that they are not a foundation on which to rest’.
As they say in America, bingo!
But what is a foundation on which to rest?
If there is one thing I like about Hans F. K. Günther’s 1927 The Racial Elements of European History, it is that Günther consistently credits Joseph Arthur, Count de Gobineau, as the pioneer of racial studies. I dare to say that true wisdom didn’t begin with the Greco-Roman philosophers, much less with the theologians and what I call secular neotheologians. True wisdom began with the Count of Gobineau.
Just as we were taught in school to despise the ‘pre-Socratics’ and to regard Plato and Aristotle as the cornerstone of Western wisdom, we must now begin to see the cornerstone from a very different angle: Gobineau’s Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines.
We have already said on this site that Kant was the neotheologian par excellence; of whom Nietzsche said in a passage quoted in Crusade against the Cross: ‘That the Germans have been able to stand their philosophers at all, especially that most deformed concept-cripple of all time, the great Kant, provides not a bad notion of German grace’.
As for Goethe, educated like Kant and Nietzsche in Lutheranism, he is said to have been a pantheist. But Faust, Goethe’s most famous work and regarded as one of the great pieces of world literature, is neotheological in the sense that the drama plays with the idea of selling one’s soul to the devil. Like Kant and Nietzsche himself, Goethe never fully emancipated himself from the Christian legacy.
So fuck Kant and Goethe! The wisdom of the West begins with Gobineau (1816-1882) and would culminate in the movement that Hitler created, whose SS men finally transvalued the values that, for purposes of social control, had been inverted since the House of Constantine came to power.
It is a pity that the vast majority of racialists of our century haven’t yet realised what Heydrich, a true priest of sacred words, realised.