web analytics
Categories
Kevin MacDonald Nick Fuentes

KMac on Nick

Unlike the envious racialists I have been mentioning these days, Kevin MacDonald has written an objective article about Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with Nick Fuentes.

Categories
Heinrich Himmler Quotable quotes

Himmler quote

“I know there are some people in Germany who become sick when they see these black uniforms. We understand the reason for this, and do not expect we shall be loved by all that number of people; those who come to fear us in any way or at any time must have a bad conscience towards the Führer and the nation. For these persons, we have established an organisation called the Security Service.”

Categories
Nick Fuentes Psychohistory Psychology

Jews in panic

Several WN pundits are feeling very envious that Nick Fuentes is the voice that has caused a crisis in the Republican party, to the point that a schism is beginning to appear among conservatives: Israel first or the US?

When I started posting a series about Game of Thrones years ago, everyone ignored me on this site. What I was trying to figure out was the reason for the show’s popularity. In my opinion, it was because, despite the Jewish directors, there were many shots that artistically showcased not only Aryan beauty, but also the beauty of an idealized medieval Aryan world based on fantasy novels: just what the white race needs but with NS directors.

Now we have the same phenomenon among very young people who follow Fuentes. This year, by the way, a European (not Benjamin) visited me and told me that the fate of the Aryan race rests on the shoulders of the Zoomers, and that we must appeal to them.

I think it’s true.

This site has been highly critical of the American racial right precisely because they don’t speak with the brutal frankness that Nick does. Alex Linder spoke like that, but it’s obvious that his exterminationism made him—as it makes me—a premature birth of a future that hasn’t yet materialized.

In contrast, Fuentes’s voice appeals to the current overtone window of white American Zoomers. That’s magnificent, and it’s something white nationalists have been unable to do because they’ve stagnated in mere essay writing without the power of oratory.

I recently reminded my visitors that Linder compared the “lite” racialists to middle-class little bourgeois eating crustless sandwiches, but yesterday I remembered that Linder added that they did so with their pinky fingers raised while holding their sandwiches at their meetings. That’s the diametrical opposite of what Nick does!

The Jews are panicking because if this kid’s voice becomes mainstream, it’s game over for them, and not just for their little wars for a Greater Israel in the Middle East. That’s why a couple of days ago Ben Shapiro did something unprecedented: a special program against Fuentes in which he didn’t even allow the commercials from his previous podcasts (see also Nick’s own hilarious response).

It’s true that Fuentes has gone so far as to say he wants to establish a Christian theocracy in the US where anti-Christians (like me, for example) wouldn’t be allowed to live. But that doesn’t matter to me. What matters is that the collective unconscious of white Americans, at least that of Nick’s countless followers, is moving in our direction for the first time since the fateful year of 1945!

It’s the same thing I detected with the Game of Thrones phenomenon, the most popular TV series. Since intuitive psychology is my forte, I see the first signs (with Nick, not with Game of Thrones) that the white collective unconscious might awaken after its long, long slumber.

So I’ll support Fuentes if he runs for president.

In the unlikely event that he does win (if there were attacks against Trump, we can already imagine what would happen), I’d probably start criticizing him once he’s inaugurated because, given his Christian ethics, he might not fulfil his campaign promises: crushing the left, something that can only be done by staging a coup—becoming a dictator—in order to open two or three Dachau-style concentration camps in the US: my dream come true (as I said recently, that’s why I visited Dachau outside Munich this very year: a solo pilgrimage!).

But for now, I support Nick Fuentes. I don’t care that he’s a Christian. Crossing the psychological Rubicon can only be done step by step, sometimes even baby steps. This is how the Aryan collective unconscious operates, seeking to rid itself of the Jewish collective unconscious that currently imprisons it.

And if we’re talking about racialism and being aware of the JQ, and that only the power of oratory can galvanize the masses, Nick could become what Hegel wrote about Napoleon even though, as a patriotic German, he disliked Napo: “I see the spirit of the world seated upon a horse.”

Categories
Correspondence Real men Women

Hello, Mr. Tort!

It seems that not even Hitler had the full picture of the world and of how rotten the English were which might have cost him the war. Céline perhaps had the better understanding of how far gone the other Aryans were, he even blamed the Germans for their relaxed behaviour in Paris, instead of fomenting a revolution they were indulging themselves in bars. What should we make of Hitler failing to blame Christianity in his Testament?

I have seen The Village, it is quite curious that an Indian made films with mostly a white cast for a long time. Should we put the Aryan woman on such a pedestal? Didn’t David Lane regret later the second variation on the 14 words? Shouldn’t we simply want to survive because that’s what life is? Struggle? Will? Power? I am an incel myself, but I cannot care that much to put a woman on a pedestal. And women today are as traitorous as men if we care to give them agency, which I don’t think we should but still. Sure, some are beautiful, but what if they were uglier?

Our race is our race, and our race shall outlive the other races, especially the Nordic, or exclusively so—I am a Nordicist myself. Fuentes will never be a radical, that’s why he can be in the open, unlike us. His purpose will be to make other whites self-castrate. The truth is out there, we can look around us and look at History and we will get to Adolf Hitler! No man more noble, he who doesn’t get to Hitler alone will never get to him! Germany had a gold population back then, National Socialism being born in the trenches of the First World War.

Meanwhile, the Amerikwans went to war for a government that allowed niggers to roam in millions their territory, absolutely insane people for which no politics can be possible, every Amerikwan should scream daily in forgiveness to the murder of Germania and of our continent which is the only real treasure of this failed human species!

Heil Hitler. May the convergence of catastrophes save us from extinction, whites on their own are too far gone to wake up!

Forgotten Soldier

Categories
Axiology Nick Fuentes Racial right Real men

On Nick Fuentes

Something that strikes me about mornings is that it’s the time when inspiration strikes. For example, I went to bed and woke up planning to spend the morning reviewing the chapter against Sigmund Freud in my Hojas Susurrantes, which I’m translating into English. But inspiration struck while I was getting ready, so I decided to write this post instead.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
I’d like to clarify what I have said in my two previous posts, about the movie The Village and Nick Fuentes (here and here). The crucial phrase doesn’t appear in the articles, not even in the question I posed in the last one (“Does such 21st century American film exist…?”), but rather in the comments section and even in parentheses: “Who needs Jews when we have white nationalists?”

I will explain it in this entry.

I’ve been reading the recent articles about Fuentes published on Counter-Currents. I think we’re all missing the main point.

Fuentes is like the kid who says the emperor has no clothes. At 27, he doesn’t have my maturity, or the erudition of the authors of C-C. Compared to me or my mentors William Pierce and Savitri Devi, Fuentes seems like a child. But it’s important to remember that it’s precisely that naive cry to a cowardly public—that the emperor has no clothes—that’s the first step in making them see the obvious.

In racialist forums I’m ignored for taking the message of white nationalism to its logical conclusion: violent revolution à la Third Reich. And I’m not just referring to the question I asked yesterday, which was left hanging (although I admit that only a film expert could answer it). I’m referring to the fact that regarding those crucial words conflating my last posts (“Who needs Jews when we have white nationalists?”) I haven’t received any response on X either, where I tweeted them a day ago. Of my 259 followers on X, nobody has said a word yet. As I was told in an email yesterday, they leave me talking to myself “because increasingly—silently, clandestinely—their egos are bruised by the scolding truth brings, and they are otherwise in distaste, having disagreed silently in the background but without the balls to add more.”

But let’s return to Fuentes, who, unlike my followers in X and here, is always willing to discuss important issues with great frankness. He’s like the kid in the story because he speaks the truth—as far as he understands it—about the ethnocidal levels of migration and feminist ethnosuicide: the cancer in the Aryan collective unconscious of our times (cf. what I said yesterday about The Village).

In fact, young Fuentes is far more mature than the veterans Jared Taylor and those of VDARE, insofar as he has already awakened to the JQ (see this clip). On the other hand, by obeying the Christian mandate to love all human beings (remember that from our POV most are exterminable Neanderthals), Fuentes falls into a great contradiction (see, for example, this other clip).

At the end of Tucker’s interview, he asked Fuentes if he would run for president in the future, and Fuentes said perhaps. Tucker asked him what he would do in power, and Fuentes replied that, since the Left wants to crush us (remember that if Harris had won, the First Amendment would have been at her mercy), the Right should crush the Left as a prophylactic measure.

Fuentes is right. Trump promised a Wall in his first term, and there’s nothing of the sort. In his second term he has promised to destroy Antifa, and the same thing happened: there aren’t thousands upon thousands imprisoned like Nayib Bukele is doing in El Salvador, or much better: what Hitler asked Himmler to do in Dachau, a place I love with all my heart and which I visited this very year!

César Tort, the Editor of The West’s Darkest Hour in Dachau Camp, Germany (see my report on that trip here).

Fuentes’s humanitarian sentiments in the second clip are that American whites must resign themselves to the fact that 100 million non-whites will be residing in the US, even though the Enemy imported them without any plebiscite. This represents a major contradiction with what he told Tucker, the same contradiction as Trump’s unfulfilled promises. Tellingly, both Tucker and Fuentes concede in that interview that it is precisely Christian scruples that compel them not to solve the problem (as Himmler was solving it before the deluded Anglo-Americans intervened).

This said, the adolescent way in which Fuentes speaks, shattering post-WWII taboos, is the right one. He speaks out in a crude manner, like an innocent child with no self-consciousness surrounded by adults under the delusion that the emperor has clothes. It doesn’t matter that compared to us, the 21st-century National Socialists, Fuentes seems like a kid. He uses the exact tone that the Aryan collective unconscious needs to awaken!

Let’s compare Fuentes’s most controversial statements in the clips the Left has been circulating with the boring C-C articles or those published by Jared Taylor and VDARE. Alex Linder compared them to those gatherings of posh people who eat crustless sandwiches and speak in politely low voices. With those bourgeois types we’re not going to get anywhere! We need classy thugs. We need an archipelago of Dachau camps throughout the West! Linder spoke with the right tone—the way potential revolutionaries speak.

Since Linder is no longer with us, I think that for the American collective unconscious, a voice like Fuentes’s is the first baby step across the psychological Rubicon in our direction.

Categories
Aryan beauty Film Marriage

A question…

I recently mentioned the film The Village, and yesterday I watched the most exquisite scenes.

What impressed me most were the shots of the lead actress, and how she acted, perfectly imitating 19th-century mannerisms: how American women used to behave. I kept telling myself, awestruck, that this woman was absolutely beautiful, and I imagined what it would be like to marry such a creature and constantly gaze upon her! The story is simply a fairy tale, but what’s worthwhile is that only white people appear in the film, and the director’s artistic virtuosity is evident in quite a few shots.

In the end, I was surprised that the director—an Indian man!—was also the producer and writer of that 2004 film. It’s true that one of my two favourite films for the sacred words, P&P (2005) and S&S (1995), both based on Jane Austen novels, was also filmed in this century. But both were filmed in England. As for LOTR, it was filmed in New Zealand.

Aside from The Village, written, produced, and directed by an Indian man, is there an American film from this century that stars a young woman whose mannerisms overwhelmingly inspire a man to marry someone like her, but filmed by a white man? It’s not about beautiful women appearing on the big screen. It’s about any movie inspiring a white man to marry someone like that heavenly creature.

Does such 21st century American film exist…?

Categories
Nick Fuentes Racial right

Fuentes

Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson.

Listen to another Nick Fuentes interview just for 50 seconds starting from this moment.

It is clear that, due to Christian universalism, which drives Nick to love all humans including Neanderthals (compare it to our exterminationism), Fuentes will never be the American Führer who saves whites from extinction. He, with his million followers, is a man of his time (the Christian Era). I, with Ben, am a man against our time (the Hitlerian Era).

Categories
Correspondence

Hi César,

Sorry to bother you. I just thought I’d write again. Being a ‘lazy day’ for me, I’ve spent a lot of it (bar my reading hours, generally in the bath) online, just scanning back and forth between my inbox, your site, and benighted forays across to YouTube and Telegram, desperately trying to see if anyone else is ‘out there’, so to speak, and worth paying attention to. As usual, the latter two came up empty. I don’t know a single decent UK-centric Nationalist or NS Telegram channel, and YouTube delayed me with a few minutes of current affairs courtesy of the channel of Connor Tomlinson (a ‘revolutionary’ Catholic zoomer with a certain weary intelligence, but a lot of normie hang-ups and a conservative mindset).

I wish someone else would comment on your site too. It’s been too many days now, and it’s a complete pain. I like chatting with you on there, but, as always, it’s back to the wondering why no one else has a mind/ideals/a spine. I think they’re a disgrace, after a while, a very big let down, considering what I had thought​ the radical end of the dissident spectrum could provide. I check periodically every day, just refreshing multiple times in between reading your profound new content, and it’s tiresome, like waiting for paint to dry, or a pot to boil. I like having multiple people to play off, and engage with—even if on the whole they do simply resent me and want to prove me wrong or put me down, or simply express more cold shoulder indifference, perhaps in the hope I myself will give up and go away.

I’m hoping René is still reading Consumption, and gets back to me when he’s read it. I could do with some honest feedback from a novel/additional mind. It’s just that no one really keeps in touch with me (bar you). I emailed an online acquaintance with some vegan stuff yesterday, filling him in on some old WDH discussions, and included a copy of your new Dominion refresher article to boot, but he’s ignored me. Do you still get a lot of correspondence daily from regular long term commenters and such? If so, do they have interesting things to say? I was wondering if the new Romanian you had highlighted to me had got back to you now also.

I think I’ll continue to scan your site periodically for the rest of the evening until bed, and keep my inbox tab open also in the hope the other guy eventually responds. I expect it will be a long wait, and perhaps not a worthwhile one, but I’m too tired now to embark on any more evening book reads. There’s so little to do in this tiny house in the winter bar general tidy-ups, mindless minutiae, endless daily diary & publishing edits, and scanning your site, the only real site online I pay any attention to.

To repeat, yeah, it’s disheartening that they’ve all dispersed… really disappointing. This is by far too regular an occurrence. I know I often speak of whites as a collective disappointing me, usually thinking of all the massed demographic compartments of various breeds of normies, and leftists, and Christians, and bourgeoisie. It annoys me that I have to widen the net on that, up to and including real (whatever that means) radicals. It doesn’t bode well for the future. If they can’t even abstractly talk about it, just vaguely, or philosophically… how on earth would they ever​, when pressed, carry it out? I know we say the circumstances would leave them no option but to. It’s just a shame that no one has that whim voluntarily in them as of the present. Two or three people, maybe. And a huge heap of confident showboaters, tailored very much to their own time and needs primarily. I always hope I’m wrong.

Sorry to be a broken record on this.

Best regards,

Ben

Categories
Exterminationism

Response

Regarding the psychiatrists crucified as punishment for torturing children, I’d like to add something.

My essay “The Appian Way” appears on pages 167-171 of the PDF Neo-Christianity: A paradigm shift for racialists through a presentation of Tom Holland’s Dominion. It concludes with these words:

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

If I were to publish it as a printed book, I would use the final scene of Stanley Kubrick’s Spartacus as its cover: the Appian Way, a Roman road used as a military supply route for the conquest of southern Italy and to improve communications. As Tom Holland says, crucifying the rebels in this way was a billboard to let people know what happens to those who raise their hand against the empire.

Following what I said in my previous post about The Turner Diaries and what Uncle Adolf allowed H & H to perpetrate—a relative power in contrast to the absolute power over earthlings of Hugo Drake in his exterminationist ship—, obviously in a realist revolution we would never have the powers of someone like the fictional Drake. Therefore, we have no choice but scare the degenerate whites like in Pierce’s Day of the Rope.

That, I insist, doesn’t mean we’re unnecessarily cruel. I would crucify the child psychiatrists, yes: but not for unnecessary cruelty. I would do it because only with tremendous power, like that of the “bad guy” in the 007 movie, would it be possible to exterminate in the cleanest way possible, practically without the Neanderthals suffering.

All this stuff about the Appian Way or the Day of the Rope is nothing more than lack of absolute technological power. Lacking it, we revolutionaries have to scare the shit out of the degenerate whites (and non-whites, obviously). Only fear, the age of terror that always follows a bloody Revolution, does the psyop to dominate the rabble. Remember Voltaire’s letter to the Marquis de Condorcet: “Il y a une autre canaille à laquelle on sacrifie tout, et cette canaille est le peuple.”

All this is very sad, because I don’t want those I wish to exterminate to suffer unnecessarily. But white people today are like spoiled children, and the difference between fiction, like that James Bond movie with Roger Moore, and the sordid real world is precisely that, lacking power, we have to put on a little show to, as I tell myself in my silent soliloquies, asustar a los venaditos (scare the little deer); that is, the naive/spoiled humans.

In short, give the canaille a good spanking!

Categories
Axiology Tom Holland

Dominion

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

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

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

 

______ 卐 ______

 

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

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

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

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

Background

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

 
Overview

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

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

Reception

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

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

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

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

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

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

Influence

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

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