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.
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).
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.
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.
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.)
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!
Yesterday I was shocked when Greg Johnson, the admin of Counter-Currents, banned a commenter for daring to propose a final solution to the JP. We can just imagine an Israeli nationalist these days banning from his online forum another Jew who proposed a final solution to the Palestinian problem!
Johnson’s behaviour represents a perfect paradigm to illustrate the central tenet of The West’s Darkest Hour: Christian ethics are killing us (and have been killing us since Constantine—see some of the books in the featured post). It is not the Jews who force Johnson to think that way: it is the tail end of the Christian education he received that has him trapped in the ethics of positively valuing all human life. I could now use the neo-Christian term I have used in those books. But for new visitors to this site, I think it is better to start using Gaedhal’s term which means the same: hyper-Christian atheist. The most conspicuous feature of neo-Christianity—that is hyper-Christian atheism—is anthropocentrism (see Savitri Devi’s book in the featured post). In his email statement today, Gaedhal told us:
The anthropocentrism of mainstream leftist politics proves to me that mainstream leftist politics is simply a godless version of Hyperchristianity. This is why I say that myself and my compatriots on the radical right should be making political hay with this. The overpopulation of the planet—especially in places like Sub-Saharan Africa—is a menace to this planet’s environment.
In a serious state, nincompoops with non-solutions like Mary Lou McDonald would not be the leader of the biggest political party in Ireland. This is another criticism I have of democracy: become too intelligent and too refined, and the mob won’t vote for you. As we see with Trump, democracy becomes idiocracy. In a serious country, the government would not be doing what is popular, would not be doing what the unthinking mob wants, would not be doing what will get them elected, but, instead what needs to be done.
What needs to be done to solve the Irish Housing crisis is simply to pursue global depopulation—especially in the third world—and to nationalise all empty properties. I am not anthropocentric. I say that Irish wild animals do have a right to their habitat, and that this right is superior to anthropoids needing even more housing. In my view, the rights of Irish wildlife to their habitat beats the supposed rights of foreigners and migrants to housing.
In his comment today in this forum, Gaedhal added:
As Alex Linder points out: evolution proceeds through genocide. The earth is overpopulated. The earth needs to be depopulated. The earth eventually, if left to itself, will depopulate itself of billions of anthropoid vermin… Humanity is a virus with shoes. The only question is who is going to be depopulated? I want the white race to survive the depopulations of the next couple of centuries and hopefully possess the entire planet. As I wrote in that anthology on exterminationism [does he refer to this one?—Ed.]: only a global exterminationist white Imperium counts as victory. I envisage a Globalist White Empire comprising petty vassal national states. Global problems require global solutions. In a technological age, practically all problems are global in scope. Anything short of a Global Exterminationist White Imperium is ultimate failure.
Global problems require global solutions? This reminds me of another of my grandmother’s sayings: ‘Para grandes males grandes remedios’ (For great evils great remedies!). And really: in a world with billions of what I call Neanderthals, and Gaedhal calls anthropoid vermin it should be obvious for every transvalued Aryan how to act.
Yesterday I quoted the first comment from an article in the atheistic but axiologically hyper-Christian racialist webzine Counter-Currents. Now I would like to quote a sentence from the first comment of a post today on the racialist webzine Occidental Dissent:
Our interests are served by preserving our own territory so that animals like this [Palestinians] aren’t able to murder us [Whites]. These brown people will not reciprocate our support or commiseration. They only care about themselves. Why is it so difficult for Western dissidents to understand that this is NATURAL and we should be doing the same [what Netanyahu does]? Is this more of this pervasive Christian guilt?
If one takes note of the response of the Christian admin of that webzine, ‘Israel has long wielded total control over our government’, one sees the lack of insight of the American racial right. Compare Wallace’s words, which represent what most white nationalists believe by using the acronym ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government), with what an American closer to our POV said: ‘There is not such a thing as Jewish domination, there is only white submissiveness’.
The amount of comments I get here, compared to what both the hyper-Christian atheist webzine Counter-Currents and the Christian Occidental Dissent get, is minuscule. Significantly, the post where I put the above quote in big letters received no comments except my own.
Let there be no doubt: racialists who have transvalued their values to the extent of embracing pro-Aryan exterminationism can be counted on the fingers of one hand! Nonetheless, I will still keep blogging as I believe that The West’s Darkest Hour is the only authentically post-Christian site among the racialist forums. I don’t mind not having so many commenters: just one who can receive the mantle after Time is done with my body will be enough…
…for the record, what Gaedhal calls ‘Atheistic Hyperchristianity’ is what we have been calling ‘Neo-Christianity’ on this site.
Michael Jones and Tom Holland
Almost at the beginning of this interview, Tom Holland said: ‘Christianity has so kind of saturated the meaning of words in English that it was incredibly difficult to use them’ in his books, ‘and get back to a pre-Christian world’. So saturated that ‘even being opposed to Christianity has Christian roots’! We can see this among those racialists who are ostensibly secular but who ultimately subscribe to Christian morality. Holland even claims: ‘Atheism… is very very Christian in its impulse.’
This is why I hate atheists.
Then up to minute 22, Holland says that the notion that anything secular has existed in the West is a delusion: that the secular and the religious have always been two sides of the same coin. Westerners have been unable to see this because they don’t realise that, axiologically, secular values are essentially religious values. (Holland mentions Richard Dawkins, whom he accuses of unconsciously moving within a matrix of Protestant values.)
After 37 minutes, Holland talks about how difficult it was for Anglo-American Christians to tolerate racialised slavery in their colonies. For, according to Christian teaching, all human beings are equal. First, the Quakers began to hammer away at this issue, then Evangelical Episcopalians followed until abolitionism emerged.
‘Slavery is a monstrous sin,’ says Holland rephrasing the Christians of another age. But this is where you see that even contemporary white nationalism is, still, a Judaic creature. I have already mentioned, and it is worth mentioning again, that in a discussion between two of them it seemed very obvious to the ‘secular’ racialist that the Christian racialist’s question was beyond the pale: ‘What’s wrong with slavery?’ referring to Old Dixie.
The sad truth is that the anti-Semites on the WN forums are still servants of the Jews. They obey Judeo-Christian-inspired precepts which, from their origins, were always aimed at demoralising the pagan Roman and convincing him that he had better worship the god of the Jews. From this angle, The West’s Darkest Hour is the only authentically Jew-wise site in existence today. Even the critics of Christianity on the racial right are not authentically Jew-wise because they fail to recognise that any Aryan who subscribes to Christian morality is even worse than a subversive Jew, for the internal traitor is worse than the external enemy.
After 42 minutes, the interviewer asks Holland a central question: What would the world be like if Rome had not succumbed to Christianity? After an historical prologue, by the 47th minute Holland answered: ‘Why do black lives matter? Because historically in the United States, black people were enslaved… Or why there are trans rights roiling countries of Christian heritage in a way that they’re not roiling in countries with other [emphasis in Holland’s voice] heritage?’ Given that values have been inverted throughout the West because of Christianity, Holland adds that it is their victimhood what ‘gives them credit; being a victim becomes a source of privilege.’
Then Holland talks about his forthcoming book on his trilogy on Rome, but he is completely unaware of the work of scholars that we have summarised here challenging the historicity of Jesus. This is a terrible gap in Holland’s intellectual baggage and reminds me that white nationalists also ignore this issue. Immediately afterwards during the interview with Michael Jones, Holland makes the same mistake in discussing the origins of Islam.
The other issue that Holland doesn’t seem to address in the interview or his book Dominion is that the sexual mores and customs of Sparta, Republican Rome and ancient Germans were different from those of Imperial Rome. Holland seems to judge the entire pre-Christian world by the standards of pagan degeneracy, not when they were healthy.
But after 1:08 Holland confesses something vital that makes him our ideological enemy. While it is clear that we can use Dominion to show that liberalism is a direct child of Christianity and that atheists are de facto neo-Christians, we repudiate what he says: ‘I would say I am much more of a Christian than a theist… uhm, I’ve come to recognise that I am pretty much completely Christian in my values and my assumptions. The problem I have is believing that there is a God, ha!’
Holland even confesses that he only feels God—I would say the god of the Jews—during Passover and Christmas, but that the rest of the year he remains sceptical. But even on those remaining 363 days that is the same problem of white nationalists who presume to be secular: the scale of values of these so-called anti-Semites comes directly from a religion of Semitic origin.
For new visitors, my Dominion excerpts can be found here. Just compare Holland’s position in the above interview with my position at the end of that link. We are antipodes!
Like Andrew Anglin I am glad that Paris and other French cities are going up in flames. As Nietzsche and I said in the last two pages of Neo-Christianity, not only the Vatican (the symbol of Christianity) but the Arc de Triomphe, as a symbol of Neo-Christianity, must be razed to the ground. But unlike Anglin, I look not at the present but at the causes that led the French and other whites to believe such idiocies as that humans of all races, Orcs included, can be French citizens.
In the last few days I have been linking to videos by normies that shed light on the POV of this site. But only a couple of hours ago I discovered a Christian, Stephen Meyer, who concedes that we have ‘a secularised hyper form of Christianity that we call wokeness that is eating our culture from inside out…’
Stephen Meyer, Douglas Murray, Tom Holland and Peter Robinson.
But that wasn’t the highlight of that roundtable. Most important was what Murray said next. Responding to Holland he said that—I rephrase—it is a miracle that Christian morality is, at this historical moment, hanging in the air without the support of traditional Christian dogma, like the cartoons I used to watch as a child, where a character would cut the branch of a tree he was sitting on with a saw and not fall down until he realised that the branch and he were no longer supported by anything!
This miracle of being in the air for a couple of seconds without falling (although in historical times it’s not seconds but decades) gives me hope, not the hope of Murray but the hope of seeing the blonde beast redivivus once he falls.