web analytics
Intelligence quotient (IQ) Racial studies


My last book, Crusade against the Cross, contains a passage in which I refer to Hollywood contributing to the prolefeed with films that end with the drama being resolved (unlike in real life, where much ends in tragedy, as the Greek tragedians Nietzsche spoke of saw). An example of this American mentality that there are no tragedies, only dramas, can be seen in a YouTube interview of anti-racist Lex Fridman with scientist Richard Haier about The Bell Curve, ‘the most controversial book ever published in science’.

Within a minute from this moment, the interviewer gives away that he has malware installed in his mind: ‘It’s just, it is difficult in a way that… we are limited by our own biology. It’s difficult, and it is, ahem, at least from the American perspective you like to believe that everything is possible in this world’.

Because Fridman is accustomed to the American ideology that the individual of any race or gender who sets out to succeed can make it in the US—the malware precisely!—, he is pained, almost panicked one might say, that there are genetic differences in intelligence. Such science, I would add, would strike a hard blow to the accepted wisdom of the human mind. This is because the psychological mythology of the US is based on Calvinist ethics that the ‘human soul’ is ‘free’ to choose.

‘Common grace’ is a theological concept in Protestant Christianity that refers to the grace of ‘God’ (the mythical god of the Judeo-Christians) that is supposedly common to all humanity, and is limited only by unnecessary cultural factors. It is ‘common’ because its benefits are experienced by or intended for the entire human race, without distinction between one person and another; and it is ‘grace’ because, according to this Reformed thinking of 19th and 20th century Calvinists, it is unmerited and sovereignly bestowed by their god.

Fridman’s interview evokes once again what in my most recent book I called ‘neotheology’: his rationalisations and fears about IQ studies are expressed at a purely secular level. Those fears remind me of an older interview, between David Rubin and Stefan Molyneux, in which the latter was hurt by the IQ difference between the races (though at least Molyneux accepts the data).

What neither Molyneux nor Fridman ask is why, once we move out of countries that emerged from Christianity in general and Protestantism in particular, people no longer suffer from this ‘ogre of the superego’ as far as racial studies are concerned. In Crusade against the Cross I also mentioned that I exchanged emails with Robert Sheaffer last year, a Nietzsche scholar, but I omitted that he told me that race and IQ studies are the most controversial and radioactive subjects in science.

This is true if one only looks at one’s cultural navel. Go to countries that never were, or continue to be, Christian, and neochristianity disappears completely. The Chinese, for example, not only expel Muslims and discriminate against blacks, but they can study eugenics freely in their universities without any guilt whatsoever.

Whites were like the Chinese, and even more racist. I first read The Antichrist forty-eight years ago, and I remember then coming across the passage in which Nietzsche speaks of Manu’s laws in the Indo-Aryan religion (which resemble the Nuremberg laws): a time when no white man was tearing his hair out over this racism simply because the Aryan collective unconscious hadn’t yet been infected with this ogre of the superego.

Der Antichrist (book) Friedrich Nietzsche Richard Wagner

Year 100 P.C.

I read ‘Nietzsche’s Der Antichrist: Looking Back From the Year 100’ in late 1993, in a hard copy issued in the winter of 1988/1989: one of the back copies of Free Inquiry that arrived in the mail when I discovered that organisation of freethinkers.

I met the author, Robert Sheaffer, at the 1994 CSICOP conference. If memory serves, he wore sandals, was dressed casually and had a beard. Last year I exchanged some correspondence with him.

Sheaffer is anything but a Hitlerite. However, the article that I abridge below is perfect for understanding a central part of esoteric Hitlerism. I mean that Uncle Adolf’s anti-Christianity, which wasn’t revealed to the masses of Germans (hence the epithet ‘esoteric’), already had antecedents in Germany.

Sheaffer’s complete article can be read here. Red emphasis is mine:


______ 卐 ______


Secular humanists have not infrequently criticized the beliefs and practices of the Christian religion, and its harmful effects on civilization and culture. Unfortunately, their voice is seldom heard. The proponents of the Christian world-view vastly outnumber secularists both in number and in activity. While humanists wonder what they they can do to more effectively convey their criticisms of religion, most of them have never read, and indeed have barely even heard of, a book written exactly a century ago containing the most devastating and complete philosophical attack on Christian psychology, Christian beliefs and Christian values ever written: Nietzsche’s Der Antichrist.

1888 was the final productive year of the life of Friedrich Nietzsche, but it was a year of incredible activity. He wrote five books during a six-month period in the latter part of that year. After that, he wrote nothing. Nietzsche’s works of 1888 have not received enough attention, especially given the inclination of many to concentrate primarily on the flamboyant and somewhat confusing Also Spracht Zarathustra, a book of intricate allegories and parables which requires that one already understand the principal elements of Nietzschean thought in order to decipher its hidden relationships and meanings. Zarathustra will be clearer if it is read at the end of a course of study of Nietzsche, not at the beginning.

The first book of 1888 was The Case of Wagner, in which Nietzsche set forth his aesthetic and philosophical objections to the music and the writings of his former close friend Richard Wagner… Next came The Twilight of the Idols (in German, Die Gotzen-dammerung, an obvious parody of Wagner’s Die Gotterdammerung, “The Twilight of the Gods”), in which he criticizes romanticism, Schopenhauer’s pessimism, German culture, Socrates’ acceptance of death as a “healing” of the disease of life, Christianity, and a good many other things. Then, in September of 1888, Nietzsche wrote Der Antichrist.

Unlike Zarathustra, there can be no mistaking the language or the intention of Der Antichrist, a work of exceedingly clear prose and seldom-equalled polemics. Even today, the depth of Nietzsche’s contempt for everything Christianity represents will surprise and shock many people, and not only devout Christians. Unlike other critics of religion, Nietzsche’s attack extends beyond religious theology to Christian-derived concepts that have spread out far beyond their ecclesiastical origins, to the very core of the value-system of Western, Christianized society.

Der Antichrist begins with a warning that “This book belongs to the very few,” perhaps to no one yet living. Nietzsche hints that only those who have already mastered the obscure symbolism of his Zarathustra could appreciate this work. Warnings aside, he begins by sketching the idea of declining vs. ascending life and culture. An animal, a species, or an individual is “depraved” or “decadent” when it loses its instincts for that which sustains its life, and “prefers what is harmful to it.” Life itself presupposes an instinct for growth, for sustinence, for “the will to power”, the striving for some degree of control and mastery of one’s surroundings. Christianity sets itself up in opposition to those instincts, and hence Christianity is an expression of decadence, a negation of the will to life [Antichrist, section 6].

“Pity”, says Nietzsche, is “practical nihilism”, the contagion of suffering. By elevating pity to a value—indeed, the highest value—its depressive effects thwart those instincts which preserve life, establishing the deformed or the sick as the standard of value. [A 7] To Nietzsche, the rejection of pity did not proscribe generosity, magnanimity, or benevolence—indeed, the latter are mandated for “higher” types—; what is rejected is to allow the ill-constituted to define what is good. Nietzsche was not hostile to the sick—Zarathustra bids the sick to “become convalescents”, and expresses sympathetic understanding of their unhappy frame of mind [Z I 3]—but what he opposed was the use of the existence of sickness and other afflications to thereby claim “life is refuted” [Z I 9].

No doubt Nietzsche’s attack on “pity” was triggered in part by his revulsion against Wagner’s blatantly irrational opera Parsifal, in which the formerly irreligious Wagner returned once again to pious Christian themes. In Parsifal, a series of calamities occur because a once-holy knight succumbs to “sins of the flesh,” and it is prophesied that the situation cannot be remedied by any act of self-directed effort, but only by one “through pity made wise, a pure fool.” Nietzsche’s contempt for the limp Christianity in Parsifal and for “the pure fool” knew no bounds. The already-strained bond between the two men, who were once extremely close, was irreparably broken.

Nietzsche explains that the pessimistic philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer is, like Chrisitanity, decadent. Schopenhauer taught that since it is impossible to satisfy the desires of the will, one must ceaselessly renounce striving for what one wants, and become resigned to unhappiness. In the late 19th century Schopenhauer’s doctrines were extremely popular, especially among the Wagnerians. Wagner’s monumental Tristan and Isolde is an expression of Schopenhauerian nihilism, as the lovers sing of the impossibility of earthly happiness, and of their expected mystical union in the realm of “night” after their death. The opera closes with Isolde’s famous liebestod, or “love-death”, as she sings of a vision of her dead lover gloriously and mystically transfigured in the nether-regions, then dies to join him. Schopenhauer was hostile to life, says Nietzsche, “therefore pity became for him a virtue.” [A 7]

Nietzsche charges that Christianity denigrates the world around us as mere “appearance”, a position grounded in the philosophy of Plato and Kant, and hence invents a “completely fabricated” world of pure spirit. However, “pure spirit is pure lie,” and hence the theologian requires one to see the world falsely in order to remain a member in good standing in the religion. The Christian outlook was, he says, immensely bolstered against the attacks of the Enlightenment by Immanuel Kant, whose philosophy renders reality unknowable. (For Kant a virtue is something harmful to one’s life, a view Nietzsche could never accept. If you want to do something, Kant would say your action cannot possibly be virtuous; any action which contains an element of self-interest is by definition not virtuous.) Nietzsche summarizes, “anti-nature as instinct, German decadence as philosophy—that is Kant.” [A 8-11]

Nietzsche praises the skeptic (or “free spirit”) who rejects the priestly inversion of “true” and “untrue”. He says we skeptics no longer think of human life as having its origins in “spirit” or in “divinity”, but recognize the human race as a natural part of the animal kingdom… [A 12-14].

Returning to the theme of Christian doctrine as misrepresentation, Nietzsche charges that “in Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.” The religion deals with imaginary causes (such as God, soul, spirit) and imaginary effects (sin, grace, etc.), and the relationships between imaginary beings (God, souls, angels, etc.). It also has its own imaginary natural science (wholly anthropormorphic and non-naturalistic), an imaginary human psychology (based on repentance, temptation, etc.), as well as an imaginary teleology (apocalypse, the kingdom of God, etc.). Nietzsche concludes that this “entire fictional world has its roots in the hatred of the natural” world, a hatred which reveals its origin. For “who alone has reason to lie himself out of actuality? He who suffers from it” [A 15]. Here is the proof which convinced Nietzsche that Christianity is not only decadent in its origins, but rotten to its very core: no one reasonably satisfied with his own mind and abilities would wish to see the real world replaced with a lie.

Comparing religions, Nietzsche came to the conclusion that in a healthy society, its gods represent the highest ideals, aspirations, and sense of competence of that people. For example, Zeus and Apollo were obviously powerful ideals for Greek society, an image of the mightiest mortals projected into the heavens. Such gods are fully human, and display human strengths and weaknesses alike. The Christian God, however, shows none of the normal human attributes and appetites. It is unthinkable for this God to desire sex, food, or even openly display revengefulness (as did the Greek gods). Such a God is clearly emaciated, sick, castrated, a reflection of the people who invented him. If a god symbolizes a people’s perceived sense of impotence, he will degenerate into being merely “good” (an idealized image of the kind master, as desired by all slaves), void of all genuinely human attributes. The Christian God represents the “divinity of decadence,” the reduction of the divine into a God who is the contradiction of life. Those impotent people who created such a God in their own image do not wish to call themselves “the weak,” so they call themselves “the good.” [A 16-19].

Nietzsche next compares Christianity to Buddhism. Both, he says, are religions of decadence, but Buddhism is a hundred times wiser and more realistic. Buddha does not demand prayer or aesceticism, demanding instead ideas which produce repose or cheerfulness. Buddhism, he says, is most at home in the higher and learned classes, while Christianity represents the revengeful instincts of the subjugated and the oppressed. Buddhism promotes hygiene, while Christianity repudiates hygiene as sensuality. Buddhism is a religion for mature, older cultures, for persons grown kindly and gentle—Europe is not nearly ripe for Buddhism. Christianity, however, tamed uncivilized barbarians, needing to subjugate wild “beasts of prey,” who cannot control their own “will to power.” The way it did so was to make them sick, making them thereby too weak to follow their destructive instincts. Thus Buddhism is a religion suited to the decadence and fatigue of an ancient civilization, while Christianity was useful in taming barbarians, where no civilization had existed at all. [A 20-22].

Nietzsche next emphasises Christianity’s origin in Judaism, and its continuity with Jewish theology. He was fond of pointing out the essential Jewishness of Christianity as a foil to the anti-Semites he so despised, effectively taunting them, “you who hate the Jews so, why did you adopt their religion?”. It was the Jews, he asserts, who first falsified the inner and outer world with a metaphysically complete anti-world, one in which natural causality plays no role. (One might of course object that such a concept considerably predates Old Testament times.) The Jews did this, however, not out of hatred or decadence, but for a good reason: to survive. The Jews’ will for survival is, he asserts, the most powerful “vital energy” in history, and Nietzsche admired those who struggle mightily to survive and prevail. As captives and slaves of more powerful civilizations—the Babylonians and the Egyptians—the Jews shrewdly allied themselves with every “decadence” movement, with everything that weakens a society, not because they were decadent themselves, but in order to weaken their oppressors. Thus, Nietzsche views the Jews as shrewdly inculcating guilt, resentment, and other values hostile to life among their oppressors as a form of ideological germ warfare, taking care not to become fully infected themselves. This technique was ultimately successful in defeating stronger parties—Babylonians, Egyptians, and Romans—by in essence making them “sick,” and hence less powerful. (The Romans, of course, succumbed to the Christian form of Judaism, in this view.) This parallels St. Augustine’s comment, quoting Seneca, that the Jews “have imposed their customs on their conquerors.” [A 23-26; De Civitate Dei VI 11]

“On a soil falsified in this way, where all nature, all natural value, all reality had the profoundest instincts of the ruling class against it, there arose Christianity, a form of mortal hostility to reality as yet unsurpassed.” The revolt led by Jesus was not primarily religious, says Nietzsche, but was instead a secular revolt against the power of the Jewish religious authorities. The very dregs of Jewish society rose up in “revolt against ‘the good and the just’, against ‘the saints of Israel’.” This was the political crime of Jesus, a crime of which he was surely guilty, and for which he was crucified. Nietzsche examines the psychology of Jesus, as is best possible from the Biblical accounts, and detects a profound sense of withdrawl: resist not evil, the kingdom of God is within you, etc. He sees parallels in the psychology of Christ not with some hero, but with Dostoyevsky’s The Idiot. (Dostoyevsky is not mentioned here by name, but we know from other sources that this is the “idiot” Nietzsche had in mind.)

Nietzsche deduces that the earliest Christians sought to retreat into a state of extreme withdrawl from “the world”, undisturbed by reality of any kind. They rejected all strong feelings, favorable or otherwise. Their fear of pain, even in infinitely small amounts, “cannot end otherwise than in a religion of love.” Thus Nietzsche sees early Christianity as promoting an extremely dysfunctional state resembling autism, a defense mechanism for those who cannot deal with reality. Noting Christianity’s claims to deny the world, and its stand in opposition to every active virtue, Nietzsche asks how can any person of dignity and accomplishment not feel ashamed to be called a Christian? [A 27-30; 38]…

By placing the center of life outside of life, in “the beyond”, Nietzsche says we deprive life of any focus or center whatsoever. The invention of the immortal soul automatically levels all rank in society: “‘immortality’ conceded to every Peter and Paul has so far been greatest, the most malignant attempt to assassinate noble humanity”. Thus “little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes,” thereby obiliterating all distinctions grounded in merit, knowledge or accomplishment. Christianity owes its success to this flattering of the vanity of “all the failures, all the rebellious-minded, all the less favored, the whole scum and refuse of humanity who were thus won over to it.” For Christianity is “a revolt of everything that crawls upon the ground directed against that which is elevated: the gospel of the ‘lowly’ makes low.” Here we clearly see Nietzsche’s repudiation of Christianity’s attitudes as well as its theology: as he pointedly noted in Ecce Homo, “no one hitherto has felt Christian morality beneath him”. All others saw it as an unattainable ideal. [A 43; EH 4 (“Why I Am a Fatality”) 8] Pre-Christian thinkers did not, of course, see poverty as suggestive of virtue, but rather of its absence. One point Nietzsche was unable to either forgive or forget was that the enemies of the early Christians were “the intelligent ones”, persons far more civilized, erudite, and accomplished than themselves, people who Nietzsche felt more fit to rule than the Christians.

Nietzsche sees the Gospels as proof that corruption of Christ’s ideals had already occurred in those early Christian communities. They say “Judge Not!”, then send to Hell anyone who stands in their way. Arrogance poses as modesty. He explains how the Gospel typifies the morality of ressentiment ( a French term Nietzsche used in his German texts), a spirit of vindictiveness and covert revengefulness common among those who are seething with a sense of their own impotence, and hence must hide their desire for vengeance. “Paul was the greatest of all apostles of revenge,” writes Nietzsche [A 44-45]…

At this point, Nietzsche advises the reader to “put on gloves” when reading the New Testament, because one is in proximity to “so much uncleanliness.” It is impossible, he says, to read the New Testament without feeling a partiality for everything it attacks. The Scribes and the Pharisees must have had considerable merit, to have been attacked by the rabble in such a manner. Everything the first Christians hate has value, for theirs is the unthinking hatred of the rabble for everyone who is not a wretched failure like themselves. Nietzsche sees Christianity’s origins in what Marxists would call “class warfare,” and sides with those possessing learning and self-discipline against those having neither. [A 46].

He next turns to a point essential for the understanding of Nietzschean thought: the inevitability of a “warfare” between Christianity and science. Because Christianity is a religion which has no contact with reality at any point, it “must naturally be a mortal enemy of ‘the wisdom of the world,’ that is to say, of science.” Here “science” is not to be understood as merely the physical sciences, but as any rigorous and disciplined field of human knowledge, all of which are potentially threats to Christian dogma. Hence Christianity must calumniate the “disciplining of the intellect” and intellectual freedom, bringing all organized secular knowledge into disrepute; for “Paul understood the need for the lie, for faith.” Nietzsche refers to the Genesis fable of Eve’s temptation, asking whether its significance has really been understood: “God’s mortal terror of science”? The priest perceives only one great danger: the human intellect unfettered. Continuing the metaphor of science as eating from the tree of knowledge:

Science makes godlike—it is all over with priests and gods when man becomes scientific. Moral: science is the forbidden as such—it alone is forbidden. Science is the first sin, the original sin. This alone is morality “Thou shalt not know”—the rest follows.

The priest invents and encourages every kind of suffering and distress so that man may not have the opportunity to become scientific, which requires a considerable degree of free time, health, and an outlook of confident positivism. Thus, the religious authorities work hard to make and keep people feeling sinful, unworthy, and unhappy. [A 47-49]

In previous works, Nietzsche had emphasised the necessity of struggling hard to uncover truth, of preferring an unpleasant truth to an agreeable delusion. [The Gay Science 344; Beyond Good and Evil 39] Consequently, he sees another reason for being suspicious of Christianity in its notion that “faith makes blessed,” that is, creates a state of pleasure in harmony with God. He re-iterates that whether or not a doctrine is comforting tells us nothing about its truth. Nor does the willingness of martyrs to suffer and die for a belief constitute any proof of veracity, suggesting that a visit to a madhouse will suffice to demonstrate the fallaciousness of such arguments. Martyrdoms have, in fact, been a great misfortune throughout history because “they have seduced” us into questionable doctrines. “Blood is the worst witness of truth”. [A 50-51, 53]

Christianity, says Nietzsche, needs sickness as much as Hellenism needed health. (To understand this point, compare a Greek statue of a tall, handsome, naked God with a Christian religious image of an unhygenic, slovenly figure suffering greatly.) One does not “convert” to Christianity, but rather one must be made “sick enough” for it. The Christian movement was, from its beginning, “a collective movement of outcast and refuse elements of every kind,” seeking to come to power through it. “In hoc signo decadence conquered.” Christianity also stands in opposition to intellectual, as well as physical, health. To doubt becomes sin. Nietzsche defines faith as “not wanting to know what is true,” a description which strikes me as stunning, and quite exact. [A 51-52]…

Nietzsche now turns to consider why the lie is told. Once again, Christian teachings are compared to those of another religion, that of Manu, “an incomparably spiritual and superior work.” Unlike the Bible, the Law-Book of Manu is a means for the “noble orders” to keep the mob under control. Here, human love, sensuality, and procreation are treated not with revulsion, but with reverence and respect. After a people acquires a certain experience and success in life, its most “enlightened,” most “reflective and far-sighted class” sets down a law summarizing its formula for success in life, which is represented as a revelation from a deity, for it to be accepted unquestioningly. Such a set of rules is a formula for obtaining “happiness, beauty, benevolence on earth.” This aristocratic group considers “the hard task a privilege… life becomes harder and harder as it approaches the heights—the coldness increases, the responsibility increases.” All ugly manners and pessimism are below such leaders: “indignation is the privilege of the Chandala” (Indian untouchable). What is bad? “Everything that proceeds from weakness, from revengefulness.” [A 57]

Thus Nietzsche holds that the purpose for the lie of “faith” makes a great difference in the effect it will have on society. Do the priests lie in order to preserve (as in the book of Manu, and presumably Greek myth), or to destroy (as in Christianity)? Thus Christians and socialist Anarchists are identical in their instincts: both seek solely to destroy. The Roman civilization was a magnificent edifice for the prosperity and advancement of life, “the most magnificent form of organization under difficult circumstances which has yet been achieved”, which Christianity sought to destroy because life prospered within it. These “holy anarchists” made it a religious duty to “destroy the world”, which actually meant, “destroy the Roman Empire”. They weakened the Empire so much that even “Teutons and other louts” could conquer it. Christianity was the “vampire” of the Roman Empire. These “stealthy vermin,” shrouded in night and fog, crept up and “sucked out” from everyone “the seriousness for true things and any instinct for reality.” Christianity moved truth into “the beyond”, and “with the beyond one kills life.”

Before charging Nietzsche with possibly irresponsible invective, compare the above with Gibbon’s summary of the role of Christianity in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of a military spirit were buried in the cloister: a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers’ pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity.

On the positive side, Gibbon notes that even though Christianity clearly hastened the demise of Rome, it “mollified the ferocious temper of the conquerors”. This would seem to parallel Nietzsche’s view that Christianity seeks to control the uncivilized not by teaching them the self-discipline needed to control their own impulses, but by making them too “sick” to do a great deal of harm. [A 58; Gibbon, Chapter 38 ]

“The whole labor of the Ancient World in vain!”: thus does Nietzsche overstate the magnitude of the calamity. (Our civilization’s heritage from classical antiquity is obviously far from nothing!). Nonetheless, no one who prefers civilization to barbarism can be indifferent to the point here raised. Nietzsche emphasises that the foundations for a scholarly culture, for science, medicine, philosophy, and art, had all been magnificently laid in antiquity, only to be destroyed by the advent of Christianity. Today, he says, we have certainly made great progress, but each of us still retains bad Christian habits and instincts which we must work hard to overcome. Two thousand years ago, we had acquired that clear eye for reality, patience, attention to detail, seriousness in even small matters—and it was not obtained by “drill” or from habit, but flowed naturally from a civilized instinct. All this was lost! And it was not lost to some natural disaster or destroyed by “Teutons and other buffalos” (Nietzsche’s contempt for German nationalism and militarism knew no bounds!) but it was “ruined by cunning, stealthy, invisible, anemic vampires. Not vanquished-merely drained. Hidden vengefulness, petty envy become master.” Everything that was miserable and filled with bad feelings about itself came to the top at once. [A 59]…

The meaning and significance of the Renaissance is considered in this next-to-last section of Der Antichrist. “The Germans have cheated Europe out of the last great cultural harvest which Europe could still have brought home—that of the Renaissance.” Nietzsche views the Renaissance as “the revaluation of Christian values,” that is, the repudiation of life-denying Christian values and their replacement with secular values which emphasise art, culture, learning, and so on. With the Renaissance in Italy, Christianity was being repudiated at its very seat. “Christianity no longer sat on the Papal throne! Life sat there instead!”

Nietzsche envisions the immortal roar of laughter that would have risen up from the gods on Mount Olympus had Cesare Borgia actually succeeded in his ruthless quest to become Pope. (The notorious murderer and poisoner Borgia, the son of Pope Alexander VI, spread his power ruthlessly across Italy. Father and son appointed or poisoned Cardinals as needed to position the son for election as the next Pope. However, the plan went awry when they accidentally tasted some wine that had been “prepared” to rid themselves of a wealthy cardinal! The father died, and the son became gravely ill, and was hence in no position to coerce the selection of his father’s successor.)

Nietzsche laments that this great world-historical event—life returning to Western culture—was ultimately undone by the work of “a German monk,” Martin Luther, who harbored the vengeful instincts of “a failed priest.” Through Luther’s Reformation, and Catholicism’s answer to it, the Counter-Reformation, Christianity was restored. [A 60] One might be tempted to dismiss Nietzsche’s dramatic interpretation of the Renaissance, except that his view meshes with that of Jacob Burckhardt, the single most influential historian of Renaissance civilization who ever lived. Burckhardt’s monumental work, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (1860), has influenced the study of that period as much as Gibbon’s Decline and Fall did that of ancient Rome. Neitzsche and Burckhardt were colleagues at the University of Basle, and friends as well. In the first section of his Civilization, Burchkardt writes that the greatest danger ever faced by the Papacy was its secularization during the Renaissance.

The danger that came from within, from the Popes themselves and their nipoti (relativies, “nepotism”), was set aside for centuries by the German Reformation… The moral salvation of the papacy was due to its mortal enemies… Without the Reformation—if indeed it is possible to think it away—the whole ecclesiastical state would have passed into secular hands long ago.

Pope Julius II, powerfully anti-Borgia, was “the savior of the Papacy,” who put an end to the practice of the buying and selling of Church positions. However, the Counter-Reformation “annihlated the higher spiritual life of the people,” according to Burckhardt. Nietzsche would have said this was because they had become Christian once again.

The final section of Der Antichrist contains “the most terrible charge” against the Christian Church that “any prosecutor has ever uttered… I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct for revenge for which no expedient is sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, petty—I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind.” Nietzsche suggests that instead of calculating time from the “unlucky day” on which this “fatality” arose, time should be measured instead from its last day: “from today.” [A 62].

Needless to say, Nietzsche’s Der Antichrist did not prove to be the dagger in the heart of Christianity he hoped it would. After finishing this work (which was not actually published until 1895), Nietzsche wrote Ecce Homo, a philosophical autobiography, in which we first see signs of the self-aggrandizing delusions which were to characterize his incipient mental collapse. The final major work of 1888 was Nietzsche Contra Wagner, containing more polemics against the “decadence” and anti-Semetism of Wagner’s followers, much of which was taken from his earlier published works. Nietzsche’s philosophical writings end there, in the closing weeks of 1888. No doubt the breakdown which followed was hastened by the frantic pace of work during that period. Living in Turin, Italy, alone as was his habit, he continued to send letters to his family and friends.

Early in January, 1889, Nietzsche collapsed on the street in Turin. Some local people helped him back to his room, and he was soon alone again. On January 6 he sent letters to Burckhardt and to Franz Overbeck, another friend and colleague at the University of Basle, displaying obvious signs of insanity. Burckhardt, quite concerned, consulted Overbeck, who was soon on a train headed for Turin to assist his friend. Overbeck brought Nietzsche back to his mother in Germany. He was placed in an institution for a few months, and was then released to the care of his family, where he lived another eleven years as an invalid. Nietzsche actually died twice: his mind died in 1889, while his body lived on helplessly until 1900…

If Nietzsche’s polemically effective suggestion had been adopted—to begin counting time from the start of Christianity’s presumed demise, the writing of Der Antichrist—then I would now be writing these words in the year 100 P.C., the hundredth year of the post-Christian era. It would obviously be premature to expect such a calendar to gain widespread acceptance today! Yet the failure of Nietzsche’s impossibly high expectations should not cause us to overlook the significance of this monumental work, with its searing insights into the psychology of Christian belief. All those who wish not to renounce life but to affirm it, all who seek to proclaim a triumphant “yes” to human prosperity, knowledge, and happiness, will find in Der Antichrist invaluable insights on how those goals can be achieved—and on what stands on the way of them.


There are two excellent English translations of Der Antichrist readily available, one by R. J. Hollingdale (Penguin Classics, 1968), the other by Walter Kaufmann (in Kaufmann’s The Portable Nietzsche, Penguin Books, 1978).

Ethnic cleansing Tom Holland

Brutal inertia

What I said to Jamie on Tuesday has got me thinking a bit.

At the end of Who We Are, William Pierce said that history has tremendous inertia: a phrase that made a big impression on the way I see the world. It is a phrase that should resonate with those who want to save the white race from extinction because it has great explanatory power for what is happening.

The present subtitle of this site says that the enemy to be identified is Christianity. But I actually mean the morality bequeathed to us by Christianity, which has reached truly psychotic levels of metastasis in the secular—and supposedly anti-Christian!—West with the Woke fad.

Ever since various Roman emperors introduced ‘spiritual terror’ into the Aryan psyche (Hitler’s phrase in one of his after-dinner talks during WW2), through parental introjects whites have been transmitting this malware to their progeny. This happened until, in the last century, Uncle Adolf tried to transvalue values. That’s why euthanising millions of retards, deporting the subversive tribe out of Germany, or even genocide of non-Aryans began to take place, in the first half of the 1940s, in Poland and the Soviet Union.

The inertia is apparent when we see that on this side of the Atlantic Pierce suggested the same thing but only at the novel level, in The Turner Diaries (published as a serial from 1975 to 1978). Dates are important here. In Who We Are (published as a serial from 1978 to 1982), which is non-fiction, we do see isolated phrases about the need for expulsion and extermination, but not as frankly and directly as the SS Master Plan East.

In the early 1940s, there was already, at least in Europe’s most powerful country, an effective transvaluation of all Christian values. After the catastrophic defeat and the triumph of the forces of Evil, a mind as extraordinarily lucid as Pierce’s had to speak in novel form, or say things between the lines if he spoke in a non-fiction format. But then historical inertia pulled the Aryan’s collective unconscious, once again, back into Christian morality! Today’s nationalists ‘know’ that genocide is iniquitous, especially if practised for racial or eugenic reasons. This is evident even in the mainstream forums of contemporary white nationalism, where it would be inconceivable to promote exterminationism even between the lines as Pierce did, let alone the overt exterminationism of the Nazis’ Master Plan East.

The historical backlash has been such that, in reaction to the Third Reich, the entire West has been regressing to a kind of 13th and 14th-century neo-Franciscanism (see my discussion of St Francis on pages 132-137 of Daybreak). In my previous posts, I talked about the relevance of studying cases of mental disorders of a specific subject, and in the comments section I linked videos of psychologists talking about how certain types of disturbed subjects suffer a regression in which they sometimes look like toddlers. We can already imagine the same phenomenon but on the scale of an entire civilisation (Western civilisation). And I don’t say at the level of an entire race because Latin Americans, who aren’t white, are also suffering from Wokism. This radically secularised phase of Christian values only affects nations that wholeheartedly embraced Catholicism and Protestantism.

I see no open rebellion against this inertia anywhere, whose pendulum has now reached its psychotic phase. I see no transvaluation even in the forums of the racial right. On the contrary: unlike the hardcore Nazis and Pierce, there is a clear attempt to distance oneself from any idea of eliminating the enemy by ethnic cleansing. The inexorable force in this era is the backlash due to the values bequeathed by the New Testament, as Tom Holland has seen in Dominion and his lectures and interviews. (Holland himself is infected with these inverted values, but his axiological analysis of the West is spot on.)

3-eyed crow

The Wall

‘Why were you so ungrateful to our Gods as to desert them for the Jews?’ —Roman Emperor Julian, addressing the Christians

‘The past is never dead. It’s not even past’. —William Faulkner

‘Like a lethal bacillus, Christianity is locked in a two-thousand-years-long death struggle with the white race, and only one or the other can emerge victorious. The infection must be shaken off, or the race is doomed’. —Robert Morgan

In George Martin’s fantasy novels, the Wall is an immense wall of ice stretching from east to west in the north of Westeros, separating the Seven Kingdoms from the wilds beyond.
It is considered one of the nine wonders created by man, but my appropriation of some characters from the A Song of Ice and Fire universe would upset the anti-Nazi George Martin. In my appropriation, the Wall symbolises the white man’s mental block due to Christian morality: fertile breeding ground for the ubiquitous propaganda against the Third Reich.

First migration

We could start our journey of deprogramming such morality in the direction of the Wall by reading carefully Thomas Goodrich’s Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947.

I discovered Goodrich’s book thanks to an American white nationalist webzine. Yes, thanks to those nationalist sites, I approached the Wall in 2010 and began to devise ways to cross it. Psychologically, it is very difficult to approach the Wall, even if you stay in the comfort zone, the south side, the fertile ground. Due to Christian morality, the white man is so deranged that he considers it disloyal to worry about a real holocaust that, at the hands of the Allies, the Germans of the last century suffered, including women and children, the subject of Hellstorm: the greatest secret in modern history.

A book review of Tom’s book can be read here. This review is the starting point of our journey; without taking this first step it will be impossible for the normie adventurer to reach our destination.

How many have approached the Wall, even if they remain on the south side, educated in white nationalist forums such as American Renaissance, The Occidental Observer and Counter-Currents? Quite a few, it seems, according to their comments section and other less serious nationalist sites.

Second migration

It is one thing to believe in the sacred words of David Lane, and another to cross the immense Ice Wall. This can be done via a tunnel under it, while white nationalists have decided to stay in the comfort zone. By contrast, the National Socialists of the last century dared to cross the Wall to populate the northern side.

Although Adolf Hitler was their guiding star, most of his book for the masses of Protestant and Catholic Germans, Mein Kampf, is dull and Hitler wasn’t entirely outspoken there insofar as it is not an anti-Christian manifesto. The second migration, going under the tunnel, requires the reading of a more frank, readable and rather more anti-Christian text: Hitler’s Table Talk (our translation of the introduction to the German edition can be read here).

For the English speaker, I would also suggest the book of Hitler’s priestess Savitri Devi, who, after the catastrophe of 1945, came to grasp the spirit of Hitlerism perfectly. See our abridged Memoirs and Reflections of an Aryan Woman, linked in the list below the swastikas of this article (the full text in French can be read here; the complete translation into Spanish, here).

Taking all this into consideration, who, in the year that has just ended, crossed the tunnel? That is, who, among the white nationalists, has been disappointed by this stagnation south of the Wall and converted, like Savitri, to Hitler’s religion? Since it is forbidden in totalitarian Europe to speak out in favour of National Socialism, it is impossible to calculate the figure in the Old World. And as far as the country of the First Amendment is concerned, I am afraid to say that the neo-Nazis got stuck in the tunnel.

Who, among them, crossed it in the sense of transvaluing Christian values to pre-Christian values (cf. The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour also linked below)? More specifically, who maintains that the extermination of races that stand in the way of an Aryan Reich is a moral enterprise given the new scale of values? What they do is the opposite: many of these Christians and neo-Christian secular humanists have become holocaust deniers when what we need are holocaust affirmers who follow in the footsteps of Mark Weber, the head of the Institute for Historical Review, even if Weber isn’t exactly a priest of the holy words or an exterminationist like us.[1]

He who has transvalued his values endorses the Generalplan Ost or General Plan East: a secret Nazi plan of ethnic cleansing, the aim of which was to deport more than thirty million Untermenschen from the western parts of the Soviet Union to Siberia. The plan, prepared during the years 1939-1940, was part of Hitler’s dream of expanding the German Lebensraum[2] to create, with the help of Himmler and his very loyal SS, a beautiful Eastern and Western Europe populated by Nordics: a utopia such as I have, since December 1978, dreamed with Parrish’s paintings!

So, I repeat: Who has recently crossed the tunnel, who has turned to Hitler’s faith without atavisms of Christian morality? I guess they could be counted on the fingers of one hand, and perhaps some of them have even commented on this site.

Third migration

It is one thing to cross the Wall—an axiological metamorphosis in which the Christian compass of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is replaced by Himmler-like Hitlerism—and another to meet the three-eyed raven.

Even on the other side of the wall, Hitlerism’s top ideologues were still talking about ‘God’, or that the historical Jesus might have had Aryan blood. Hitler himself believed the story that Mary could have been impregnated by a Roman soldier with Gallic blood. Never mind that Hitler wasn’t a Christian but a pantheist (see the PDF listed below, our excerpts from Hitler’s Religion), or that this semi-Aryan Jesus was, in his imagination, a mere mortal. The very fact that, in speaking of deity, he and other top National Socialists continued to use the singular ‘God’ implied, for the German mass imagery—and this is why I dislike Mein Kampf—a monotheistic entity, a late tail of Judeo-Christianity.

When speaking about the deity, an entirely transvalued overman already uses the word ‘Gods’, in the plural, like those of the Delphic Oracle, and even ‘god’ with a lowercase when alluding to the despicable god of the Hebrews. Similarly, to believe that a semi-Aryan Jesus confronted the Temple Jews is itself a residue of kike programming in the collective unconscious because it suggests that this historical Jesus might have been benign to our cause. The reality is that it was the Jews themselves who wrote the so-called New Testament and invented that literary character (see Neo-Christianity, also linked below: one of our most important excerpted books for understanding the West’s darkest hour).

In Martin’s novel, after crossing the Wall Bran Stark and his guardians find guides who lead them to the cave of the three-eyed raven (actually a human telepath), who offers to train Bran in retrocognition and out-of-body experiences: the last ‘greenseer’ who can, paranormally, see the past as it happened. Anyone who has seen the past by studying Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt knows that Jesus was a character of pure literary fiction, probably from the pen of rabbis (watch a conference by Carrier here).

What is infinitely worse, in our collective unconscious (I was raised Catholic) the Jesus archetype has inverted Indo-European values to the values of the subversive Jews who wrote the gospel! See the long essay by a Spaniard on Rome and Judea in The Fair Race (sample page: here) and pay special attention to the quotations from Nietzsche.

Had Hitler won the war, his spiritual descendants wouldn’t have stayed so close to the Wall, though already firmly settled on the northern side. One among them would have followed the long and arduous path that Bran travelled inland to the lands of the Hyperboreans until he reached the mysterious cave of the raven. That, and that alone, would have represented the final initiation of the adventurer who migrated from the warm lands south of Westeros. He had come to the Wall to—unlike the stagnant Southerners—cross it to seek and find the last of the greenseers and be initiated into the ancient religion that existed before the arrival of those who destroyed the sacred trees.

How many National Socialists have been initiated in the raven’s cave to the extent that they have retrocognitively ‘scanned’ not only the career of Judea’s governor Pontius Pilate (with the crow’s third eye it was possible to see that even a human, all too human Jesus was missing from the historical record), but also what the Judeo-Christians did throughout the Roman Empire: destroy the classical world (see Deschner’s books, also linked below)? How many have become ultimate apostates from Christianity, cutting off the tail end of the last atavisms of semi-apostasy (e.g., Alfred Rosenberg’s views of an Aryan Jesus)? How many have knelt before their true Gods, begging for forgiveness for having committed the mortal sin of worshipping the god of their enemies for two thousand years? How many are legitimate heirs, like Savitri, of the religion bequeathed to us by the avatar of Vishnu?

None that I know of, if we take into account Martin Kerr’s definition of National Socialism: a way of life devoted body and soul to the fulfilment of the sacred words!


______ 卐 卐 卐 ______


Below are the PDF books of our Daybreak Press in the order in which they were published. When more funds come in, or more sponsors want to support this site, they will be available in print again:

Day of Wrath (May 20, 2014 / Revised July 2020)

The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (May 2014 / Revised July 2023)

Christianity’s Criminal History Vol I (2018 / Revised 2022)

Daybreak (September 2020 / Revised November 2022)

On Exterminationism (December 2020 / Revised March 2023)

On Beth’s Cute Tits (June 2021 / Revised August 2022)

Neo-Christianity (June 2023)

Christianity’s Criminal History Vol II (10 July 2023)

Memoirs and Reflections of an Aryan Woman (11 July 2023)

American Racialism (24 July 2023)

Excerpts from Hitler’s Religion by Richard Weikart (August 2023)

Crusade against the Cross: The tragic life of Nietzsche (May 2024).


On the author of this website (Metapedia article here)

How was it that from the age of seventeen, in 1976, I embarked on such an anti-Christian journey and now what I most long for is my day of wrath? The autobiographical Letter to mom Medusa (Revised English translation: August 2022) is the only one of our books that isn’t available in PDF, but a hard copy still can be obtained here. My other autobiographical books are also available in print, although they haven’t yet been translated into English: a task that I will continue this year.


[1] The historian Mark Weber, the director of the Institute for Historical Review, now accepts that homicidal gassings happened in some death camps and is basically on the same line as historian David Irving. I eagerly await the second volume of Irving’s biography of Himmler (meanwhile watch his DVD). See also Weber’s interview with a denier, Jim Rizoli. After minute 52 Weber speaks of the gassings; after 1:08 he says that between 2 and 4 million Jews died, although not necessarily murdered by the Germans but died in the ghettos from diseases, unhealthy conditions, etc.

[2] Lebensraum is a German concept of expansionism and Völkisch nationalism, whose philosophy and policies were common to German politics from the 1890s to the 1940s (see On Exterminationism, linked above, pages 117-129).


Who’s neo-Christian?

He is the unwary pseudo-apostate, deist or even atheist, who hasn’t realised that by rejecting the ‘all are equal in the eyes of God’ of his Christian parents, and transmuting that doctrine to ‘all are equal before the law’, he is axiologically still a Christian.—C.T.

Film William Shakespeare


Of my list of fifty, this was the first film that, as I recount in my autobiography, really made an impression on me when I saw it on television in 1975, with my dad by my side. Precisely in trying to understand how a defect or fault in my father’s character corrupted the whole family dynamics, years later I would ponder much in the words that, in Laurence Olivier’s voice, we listen at the beginning of Hamlet (1948 film):

So oft it chances in particular men
That for some vicious mole of nature in them,
By the o’ergrowth of some complexion,
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason,
Or by some habit grown too much; that these men–
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
Their virtues else — be they as pure as grace,
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault.

As a teenager watching it at home, I was most impressed by Hamlet’s inward-spiralling soliloquies in one of the early scenes, when he is left alone in the hall and the court guests leave. If instead of the forty-year-old actor Olivier, the director had cast a teenage actor of my age—as he appears in Shakespeare’s tragedy!—I would have connected much more with the character. But even so, his soliloquies near the beginning of the film made a big impression on me because that is what I used to do as a teenager, and precisely because of a family tragedy that no one but me seemed to have any introspection about.

However, it is impossible to critique the film without critiquing not only Shakespeare, but the Christian era of which both Shakespeare and I are a part.

As Alice Miller observed in one of her books, the Judeo-Christian commandment to honour the parent has been fatal to the mental health of Christians (and I would add, of atheistic neo-Christians alike). Although Christians destroyed the vast majority of the classical world’s plays, tragedies and comedies, in the little that remains it can be seen that in both Iphigenia and Electra it’s clear that there is maddening mistreatment of their children by their parents. But not in Hamlet where an uncle is the bad guy. Nevertheless, for the Elizabethan period Hamlet was a breakthrough in the right direction, although millennia earlier the Greeks had already reached the marrow of the human soul. In sum, for the time Hamlet definitely represented a leap forward to a more self-conscious self.

Another thing that, now grown up, struck me when I rewatched the film was the character of Ophelia when Hamlet wants to grab her: the personification of the eternal feminine that I’ve been talking about on this site, which also appears in Shakespeare when we listen: ‘In her excellent white bosom, these…’ Hamlet’s scenes with Ophelia in the castle should be paradigmatic of how women will be in the future ethnostate, and are worth seeing. But back to what I said above.

Whites won’t mature as long as they are trapped by Judeo-Christian commandments. Even in areas as distinct from racial preservation as mental disorders (in Shakespearean tragedy we read that the teenage Hamlet was said to be deranged), we can never understand each other unless we transvalue our values to the values of the times of the Greek tragedies. Back then, before the commandment to honour our parents, it was easy to see that Clytemnestra’s mistreatment had affected the mental health of her daughter Electra; or that Iphigenia’s sacrifice by Agamemnon had affected Clytemnestra terribly, and so on. Even the tough Spartans wept at these open-air tragedies when they visited Athens because they reflected what was happening in the real world.

So much do Christian ethics permeate the secular world that even in his Dictionnaire philosophique Voltaire says that ‘It is natural for children to honour their parents’, and the so-called mental health professionals of our times feel the same way. In our century, the Judeo-Christian injunction to honour the parent, now secularised, moves writers to shift the villain of the story, for example from father to uncle as in Harry Potter (and Hamlet!) and only through such a shift is audio-visual drama permitted.

To transvalue all values is to recognise that the tragedies of the classical world were more profound and direct than the indirect tragedies of our Christian era. And even though Shakespeare, like Montaigne, set religion aside in their writings, they still moved on the axiological scale of our age, where the mandate to honour the parent is so profound that there is a whole fraudulent profession, psychiatry, which tries to keep the parental figure out in the cases of traumatised children and adolescents at home (cf. my books in Spanish).

Catholic Church Deranged altruism

Catechetical lunacy

by Gaedhal

According to Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), paragraph 1935:

The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: ‘Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.’

The above statement is as woke and as DIE [Diversity Equity and Inclusion] as one can get. Absent the talk concerning a mythical Jewish god, the above statement could easily be stated by Joe Biden, Alexandria Occasio Cortez, Michelle Obama or Kamala Harris.

The above statement does not merely seek to ‘eradicate’ inequalities in opportunity, but also inequalities in outcome. If we all had identical ‘social conditions’ then that is ‘equity’. If we all had identical ‘social conditions’ then that is ‘equality of outcome’.

In my view, depopulation and eugenics are a path, eventually, to all humans having prosperous and peaceful social conditions.

It is Christian axiology that renders so much of Western Society so crime-ridden and so needlessly miserable. Christianity is a sect of ‘the least of these’, and so it is anti-eugenic i.e. dysgenic in its foundations. As Saul puts it: Christianity is a sect of the foolish—i.e. those of low IQ—and not of the wise. Christianity is a sect of ‘the off-scourings of this earth’. As the parable says: the rich, and the well-educated did not want to attend Jesus’ wedding feast, so he brought in all the tramps and misfits from ‘the highways and byways’ instead. In its foundation, Christianity is a sect for the mob; for the rout; and not for the aristocrat, the gentleman, the man who is refined in his bearing. As Richard Carrier puts it: Saul does not want you to read Euclid’s Elements lest you deconvert from Saul’s utterly foolish cult.

An absolute equality in social conditions? That is madness. That is Bolshevism. And the funny thing is that the above statement, which anticipates the DIE of modern times, was written in 1992 by the ‘conservatives’ Ratzinger—later Benedict XVI—Schönborn and Saint John Paul II. One of the reasons why I converted to traditionalist Catholicism is because I quickly found out that there was really no such thing as conservative post-conciliar Catholicism. They were all sell-outs and lunatics.

In my view, belief in human ontological equality is a superstition inherited from Christianity. If the Christian god does not exist, then there is no god up there magically making us all equal.

The virus with shoes that is destroying the planet, and swiftly rendering it uninhabitable is of ‘infinite value’ according to the Catechism. And it is not just humanity in sum that has infinite value, but each individual also! You can’t get depopulation done with beliefs like that! In my view, Christian axiology—which carries over into many forms of atheism—is the number one existential threat that humanity faces. Humanity is a petard that can hoist itself through overpopulation, the carbonisation of our atmospheres and our seas, and other threats. If Humanity is a pest, then viewing each specimen of such a pest as ‘infinitely valuable’—as the Catholic Church does—is a harmful delusion.


‘Residual Christianity’

That Western atheists remain, at heart, Christians is evident from the realisation that Christianity is not only the dogmas of the Nicene Creed (Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, Factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium, etc.), which atheists reject. Christianity is also the scale of values that took over the soul of the Aryan.

From this angle, Western atheists are even more Christian than theistic Christians, in that they have hypertrophied, and increasingly so in a downward spiral, the egalitarian, universalistic and individualistic morality of traditional Christianity to such levels that it is exterminating their race. A traditional Christian, like Matt Walsh, can see some of this psychosis (for example how gender ideology is destroying Western children). Atheists can’t even see it any more, insofar as they have taken dogmatic egalitarianism to levels that would have been considered insane even in the darkest moments of the Middle Ages.

Hitlerite Savitri Devi located the root of Christian and neo-Christian madness (i.e. atheistic hyper-Christianity) in the idea of man as bequeathed to us by the Bible. Other critics of the Bible who are not Hitlerists, such as our friend Gaedhal, have come to identical conclusions. In his statement today, Gaedhal said:

Thanks to technology, the earth, as regards humanity at least, is a single sympatria as regards human evolution. ‘Sympatric evolution’ is the antonym of ‘allopatric evolution’, allopatriae or distinct and separate human habitats no longer exist thanks to modern transportation. This is why I am a white globalist.

If humanity were any other animal, then blacks and whites would be considered different species. They might share a common genus or family. However, there is such a difference between the two—their skin: their largest organ are opposite colours!—that they would be classified as different species. Very few people believe both in evolution and in its implications and corollaries. Humanity, which is simply a genus of mammals, is special-pleaded. Again, I blame residual Christianity for this.

The reason why humanity is special-pleaded for is because there is a residual belief that the Jewish tribal god, Yahweh, specially created humanity, and breathed into us Cartesian-dualist ‘reasonable/rational souls’, and of course all of these Cartesian-dualist souls are equal. Soul equality is the basis for liberal secular equality.

The term, allopatric, is worth bearing in mind. Allos means ‘other’ in Greek; patria means ‘fatherland’ in Latin, and ‘-icus’ means ‘of’, ‘concerning’, ‘denoting’ in Latin. Thus, evolutio allopatrica, in Latin, is ‘allopatric evolution’. Etymologically, genetic changes ‘roll out’ through mutations and natural selection in two different habitats. Whites and Blacks have evolved allopatrically for hundreds of thousands of years.

What technology has done—and I agree with you [Dr Robert Morgan] on this—is that it has turned, for the human species at least, the entire planet into a single evolutionary habitat or patria. How anybody makes any sense of scientific terminology without knowing Greek and Latin is beyond me!

Whites have evolved in the European patria, or habitat, during this time, and blacks have developed in the sub-Saharan African habitat. In any other species that had two populations that evolved allopatrically for hundreds of thousands of years, then we would expect to see a considerable genetic divergence between these two populations. As Jerry Coyne points out: Whites hybridised with Homo Neanderthalis, whereas blacks did not.

So not only have whites evolved allopatrically, they have also hybridised! However, the one thing that we must not do is speculate on racial differences that may have evolved as a result of hundreds of thousands of years of allopatric evolution and hybridisation.

That is heresy!

As I said before: Woke scientists must possess a residual belief in Cartesian-dualist souls that were specially created equal. Woke scientists must have a residual belief that there is some god up there, on his celestial perch, magically making us all equal.

Sam Harris, I think, has come under fire for not recusing himself of the heresy of evolved racial differences with sufficient vigour. I follow the Woke Atheist site, Only Sky, which is great for its critiques of Christianity. They had an article, recently, about ‘The New Atheists and White Supremacy’. Charles Murray, in Wokism, is so heretical that he is excommunicatus vitandus, i.e. he is both ‘excommunicated and must be avoided’, just as Alfred Loisy was by the Catholic Church. Only Sky were criticising Richard Dawkins for not disassociating himself from Murray.

Woke atheists are not only egalitarian: they are fanatically egalitarian to the point of sabotaging Murray’s scientific lectures on IQ. Gaedhal is right that we must learn Greek and Latin, the languages of European high culture before the Judeo-Christian invasion. But even in plain language without Latin, it is possible to understand the above quote with these plain words of Jack Frost in a thread on The Occidental Observer eight years ago now:

Christians believe that the soul is eternal and always exists, either in heaven or in hell. Now, the soul is raceless and according to them the only important thing about a man; the body is dross, merely a shell. Why should someone who believes he is raceless and never going to die, and who is focused intently on things not of this world, but an anticipated next, worry himself about trivial matters such as the survival of Western civilization or this or that biological race? Clearly, to do so would be a heresy.

But even in plain English, the The Occidental Observer racialists didn’t listen to Frost because they were determined to combine the uncombinable: the religion of our parents with racial preservation.

The image at the top of this entry, by the way, illustrates St Augustine’s mental warfare and eventual conversion, which I used in my September 2015 post quoting Frost’s words. It is time for a tremendous internal struggle like the one that that Punic theologian suffered but, now, to reverse his theology and remain as we were before the Semitic infection that took over the empire.

Racial right

Pride punished

In her book Jung and Tarot: An Archetypal Journey, Sallie Nichols comments on The Devil card that it will take some time before the two slaves of this card, a white man and a white woman, take responsibility for the acts they commit (I would have added, as a paradigm, the sin of antiracism). A real cataclysm, like that of the Tower of Destruction, must occur before a ray of light allows them to see their long tails, thus interrupting their complacency.

What Nichols says is also perfect for understanding the racial right, complacent in their worldview that their project of nationhood, which includes Christianity and capitalism, is perfectly compatible with Aryan preservation. When it comes to their slogans like ‘Faith, Folk and Family,’ I must say that the Judeo-Christian faith really goes against the grain of the Aryan folk.

As the Canadian Sebastian Ronin saw last decade, we need a real lightning strike—say, an apocalyptic energy devolution thanks to the peak oil crisis—that includes the starvation, war and pestilence of billions of exterminable wingless bipeds, before these haughty ones see their tails.

It also reminds me of Dr. Robert Morgan’s vain efforts in The Unz Review discussion threads to debunk the racial right’s self-serving tale that the American Civil War had nothing to do with black emancipation. (Unlike Morgan, many white nationalists believe this in order to avoid putting the puritanical morality that caused that anti-white war in the dock—see pages 93-121 of Neo-Christianity.)

Exterminationism Racial right

Troll ’em all!

I’m not finished with Counter-Currents because I find that webzine a real tidbit to show the principle of this site: that the value scale of white nationalists, who mistakenly perceive themselves as Jew-wise, isn’t wise at all in that it drags the tail of morality bequeathed to us by Judeo-Christianity.

Earlier I had quoted some more or less critical comments in the Counter-Currents comments section on Greg Johnson’s article ‘Palestinians & Jews, again’ where Johnson simply replied with flat statements; that is, he took Judeo-Christian morality so much for granted that he didn’t even bother to try to rebut his critics with arguments. Well, recently another C-C commenter posted a comment that demonstrates just what we have been saying, and in no uncertain terms:

Ahh, but isn’t this [Johnson’s stance—Ed.] merely a “Paretian” old Christian residue? I agree with your ethical position, but that is because a) I was raised Christian, and b) would someday like to become Christian again, provided I can resolve to my satisfaction the various philosophy-of-religion problems that originally led me away from the faith. In the meantime, I mostly hue to the old moral codes, first, because I’m psychologically and culturally oriented towards them, and second, because, in Pascalian fashion, I believe such a course would be pleasing to (and perhaps even required by) God, should He in fact exist.

As always, the fear of eternal damnation, with which our idiotic parents raised us (that’s why my autobiographical books are so important!), haunts the psyche of the Aryan to keep the commandments that the god of the Jews dictated for us Gentiles.

But if one does not believe in God, what is the meaningful ground of ethics? Eat or be eaten is the primordial law of life. Among animals, there is no ethics—and even that behavior which merely mimics human-understood ethics is limited to genetically similar creatures. Social animals, like chimps and humans, are tribal in nature. Such tribal structures mightily contribute to their members’ reproductive fitness. What imaginative philosophers might characterize as “ethical” behavior within such tribes are instinctively cooperative actions which strengthen the tribe as a whole, or else sanctions against ‘antisocial’ actions which weaken the tribe. Within a naturalistic metaphysics, from whence would be derived inter-tribal ethics?

And once again, Johnson responds with a flat, non-argumentative statement; though he now concedes that that is a discussion for another time:

No, I don’t think the only foundation of ethics is religion. Nor do I think Social Darwinism is a valid moral code. I think it is just post hoc rationalization for criminality. But that’s a conversation for another place.

Criminality? The only foundation of Western ‘ethics’ is the Judeo-Christian religion! The key is that, before Christianity, exterminationist genocide wasn’t considered criminal by the Aryans. That was malware that Constantine and his bishop minions (many of Semitic origin) began to implant in the Aryan psyche long ago. See the very important Neo-Christianity PDF of our featured post. Those new visitors who haven’t read it should read it now.

It seems to me intellectual quackery not to know that the morality with which we Westerners were all educated ultimately comes from a so-called new testament for Gentile consumption written by Jews. For now, I would just like to quote from page 83 of another of our PDFs, On Exterminationism:

What is certain is that the Holocaust would not have produced any debilitating psychological effect on non-Christian whites. (By Christianity I mean ‘Christian morality.’ Most atheists in the West are still Christian, even if they don’t believe in God or Jesus.) Being emotionally affected by the Holocaust presupposes that you think: (1) Victims and losers have intrinsically more moral value than conquerors and winners, (2) Killing is the most horrendous thing a human can do, (3) Killing children and women is even more horrendous and (4) Every human life has the same value.

None of these statements ring true to a man who has rejected Christian morality. Even if the Holocaust happened, I would not pity the victims or sympathise with them. If you told the Vikings that they needed to accept Jews on their lands or give them gold coins because six million of them were exterminated in an obscure war, they would have laughed at you!

What can the priest of holy words do in the face of so much Christian and neo-Christian swarming American white nationalism? Rather than despair, simply Troll Em All with Nietzsche’s maxim: Umwertuung aller Werte!