Now that I have been tidying up the study left by my late mother, I have found a wealth of documents of great interest to the autobiographer. She used to collect postcards and photographs of the countries she had visited and had some splendid postcards of Florentine art, including the famous sculpture sculpted by Michelangelo (which I also saw in Florence, though when I was travelling alone). You can’t contrast that Aryan art more with the degenerate Christian art that we also see in the photographs that my mother collected in other of her travels, in Spanish-speaking countries. For example, compare the grotesquely dressed ‘virgins’ with the nudist statuary of the Greco-Roman world!
There are things I have already said but they are so important that I never tire of repeating them. In his famous Civilisation series of 1969, Lord Clark put the image of the Greek Apollo and then contrasted it with an African mask and another image from an early medieval Irish religious book, and said that the most conspicuous thing was that, in the latter, the classical glory of the human figure disappeared. What we are left with, I would add, is an irrelevant little man full of self-destructive guilt because white people abandoned their beautiful Aryan Gods to worship a god that hated them: the god of the Jews.
I was about to throw away the photographs of this entry—degenerate art—when it occurred to me that I’d better upload them to a new blog post, and explain why I wanted to throw them away.
Since Julian the Apostate in the 4th century c.e., among European rulers only Adolf Hitler tried to transvalue Judeo-Christian values to our true values, already intuited by Renaissance artists. It is known that the Hitler of his famous speeches couldn’t speak so openly about these issues, but with his close friends he opened his heart. What I would give to listen to his after-dinner talks!
At least in this recording we can hear Uncle Adolf when he spoke in his normal voice instead of the pompous videotaped declamations that made him famous, when he couldn’t criticise Judeo-Christianity as fiercely as he did in private.
Noting that the longest article in the PDF American Racialism we recently published is by Martin Kerr, yesterday I discovered some words by Kerr about Harold Covington, published in the comments section of The Occidental Observer, which are worth quoting:
It is disturbing to see that an attempt is being made to rehabilitate the deservedly poor reputation of Harold Covington. I had hoped that after his long-awaited death in 2018, the memory of him would quickly and mercifully fade away. Sadly, I can see that my hopes were in vain.
No one did more to harm the cause of pro-White advocacy than Covington. From the mid-1970s until his death, he did everything he could to weaken, harm and destroy that cause. Earlier on in his benighted career he devised a two-part modus operandi.
He attacked whatever pro-White leader who was receiving the most public recognition at any given time. He only attacked those who were trying to do something. Those who limited themselves to writing books or articles he left alone. But those who were in the public arena, actively trying to build a pro-White movement, he attacked relentlessly and ferociously. Among those he sought to undermine and destroy were Dr. William Pierce, David Duke, Matt Koehl, Ben Klassen, Kevin Alfred Strom, Dr. Edward Fields, Will Williams and—towards the end of his life—Richard Spencer. I am sure that there are others whom I have forgotten about.
The rustic Covington wanted to become the alpha male of the tribe, but instead of earning that position the hard way he resorted to very dirty tactics, inconceivable in a true Aryan.
Covington was a pathological liar, as anyone who knew him personally can attest. He would lie simply for the sake of lying, even when there was no advantage to it. But in his efforts to sabotage White leaders and their organizations, there is no falsehood or calumny, no matter how despicable or outlandish, from which he would shrink. Typically, he would accuse White leaders of murder, homosexuality, alcoholism, race-mixing, theft, corruption, collaboration with the FBI and/or ADL and Jewish or other non-Aryan ancestry. He never provided an iota or proof for any of his accusations: how could he, since they were completely imaginary in the first place? Instead, he would issue new and similar attacks against anyone who sought to challenge his lies.
I am ashamed to say that when I read Covington’s tetralogy and got excited about this revolutionary scenario, I was unaware of the novelist’s terrible flaws. But from that discussion thread I would like to respond to what Edmund Connelly said:
C.T., thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful reply. I would, however, like to take exception to this claim: “[I]n the West there are more traitorous whites than subversive Jews.”
Numerically, you may well be right, but the equation ends up wrong because you cannot equate one White with one Jew. All the evidence shows that a tiny number of Jews can sway whole gentile societies, so you have to weigh specifically what each subversion Jew (redundant, I know) accomplishes. How many goys would it take, say, to equal one Sigmund Freud? Or a Norman Lear? Jewish gurus wreck havoc among gentile nations in untold millions of lives. That’s what makes them so destructive. While there are far too many White useful idiots, it is, I would maintain, their manipulation by Jews that starts the train wreck in motion.
In 2021 I had already responded to what Connelly said in his article, but now I would like to respond to what he said directly to me, quoted above. First of all, it should be noted that, as a good white nationalist, Connelly lives under the assumption that the Jews are the primary cause of our misfortunes. I believe it is us.
Connelly’s argument would make sense if the Jews were capable of subverting the Islamic world—even though in Israel they are surrounded by them—which they obviously can’t. Nor are they capable of subverting India or China. They weren’t even capable of subverting Whites before the advent of Judeo-Christianity. We can imagine what would have happened if a Jew wanted to subvert Sparta, Republican Rome before the Punic Wars or the Viking peoples! They only managed to get their Trojan horse in when Constantine handed over the Empire to his bishops, many of Semitic origin. All this I have said many times before, but it bears repeating because here lies the huge difference between the POV of this site and the Judeo-reductionism of white nationalism.
Connelly assigns, in the quote above, superhuman powers to the Jews, but what happens to the Aryan could be analogised to a physical accident.
Let’s imagine we fall off a motorbike and terribly scrape our arm. Without proper care, the arm becomes infected with microbes. Judeo-reductionism would be analogous to saying that microbes are the primary aetiology of our infection. I say that the primary aetiology is the accident. Without the accident and poor care of the arm, there would have been no opportunistic infection. The microbes are secondary or even irrelevant.
Likewise, without the treachery of Constantine and other Aryan emperors who followed him (see Deschner’s first volume on the history of Christianity in the featured post), Jewish ideology wouldn’t have infected the West for 1,700 years. The West would be as immune to subversive Jewish ideas as China, India or the Islamic world. But the worst thing is that through Christianity and ‘neo-Christianity’ (see again the featured post), each generation of whites recreates the biker crash, so to speak. They aren’t allowing the body to heal!
Worse still is that white nationalists themselves are party to this ill-treatment of the infected body as they are incapable of repudiating Judeo-Christian morality. This too, I have spoken at length on this site and it isn’t worth repeating except to invite new visitors to read the books and/or PDFs in the featured post.
See the video uploaded today interviewing Richard C. Miller here.
Mimesis criticism is a method of interpreting texts in relation to their literary or cultural models. Mimesis, or imitation (imitatio), was a widely used rhetorical tool in antiquity. Mimesis criticism looks to identify intertextual relationships between two texts that go beyond simple echoes, allusions, citations or redactions. The effects of imitation are usually manifested in the later text by means of distinct characterisation, motifs, and/or plot structure.
As a critical method, mimesis criticism has been pioneered by Dennis MacDonald, especially in relation to the New Testament and other early Christian narratives imitating the ‘canonical’ works of Classical Greek literature.
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!
Christian apologetics is a dishonest game of ignorance, according to New Testament scholar Dr. Richard Miller (five-minute YouTube clip here). They start with their conclusions and then they do the ‘research’.
Imperial silver denarius of Charlemagne
inspired by Roman models. This representation
is the closest thing to a contemporary
portrait of the Imperator.
I have decided to discontinue the translations of Deschner’s monumental work that I started doing for this site in August 2013, ten years ago.
The reason is simple, as I explain in the forthcoming preface to the second abridged book, people know about the Christian crimes of the second millennium but hardly anyone knows about the crimes of the first millennium:
Editor’s foreword
The two-book abridgement of the contents of the first volumes of Karlheinz Deschner’s Criminal History of Christianity, originally published in German, is intended for white nationalists. Both nationalists and historically literate people are unaware that Christianity was not imposed on the white man by preaching but by imperial violence. I chose the images for the covers of these two books, Constantine and Charlemagne because they seem to me to represent not only how a cult of Semitic origin was imposed on the whites of the Mediterranean by order of the Roman Empire, but a few centuries later on the Northmen through genocidal wars.
The historical material collected by Deschner is very different from the psycho-historical material collected by Tom Holland in his 2019 book Dominion (page 3 of this book which the reader holds in his hands mentions an abridged version of Dominion available on my website The West’s Darkest Hour). Holland discusses the traces that Christian morality, from its origins, caused the rampant egalitarianism that burns the West today. On the other hand, Deschner collects the cases of Christian crimes hardly known to Christians and non-Christians alike, as it is the winners who write history; and since Constantine the imperial church was particularly successful in destroying the books of its critics (in the case of the Saxons annihilated by Charlemagne, they did not possess a culture as advanced as that of the Greco-Romans).
We have all heard of the crimes of the Catholic Church in the second millennium of Christianity: the Inquisition for dissenting men and the burning at the stake of innocent women labelled witches. But the crimes of the first Christian millennium are virtually unknown: a blind spot that this two-volume translation of a fraction of Deschner’s work aims to cure. As I have stated on my website, to save the white man from the coming extinction it is necessary to become aware of both sides of the coin: the crimes of first-millennium Christianity (Deschner) and how Christian morality permeates today’s secular world (Holland).
Last month I finished abridging Tom Holland’s book to popularise it through PDF abridgement. Now it is the turn of Karlheinz Deschner’s book.
César Tort
July 2023
If there is little point in continuing to translate other Deschner books on, say, the Inquisition in the second millennium of Christianity (as it is well-known history), the discontinuation of these translations with Charlemagne’s immediate successors seems pertinent to me.
The entries published in this site from the 1st instalment of the Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums series to instalment 100 constitute the first book, Christianity’s Criminal History Vol. I, which can be read through the featured post. In the following days, I will review the syntax of Christianity’s Criminal History Vol. II (entries 101-183), which will have the cover of Charlemagne. Therefore, I will upload a few posts here while I am busy with the next PDF which will also be available for free to the visitors of this site.
We would appreciate your support in this venture, especially monthly donations, even if it is a modest amount so that we can continue in this endeavour. Thank you.
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.
‘What is happening now is a civil war within Christianity: a civil war between factions’ (traditional Christians and atheist hyperchristians) Holland says after minute 10. ‘The Woke movement is a Pelagian movement’ he added almost four minutes after in contrast to Augustine’s theology.
For a casual viewer, it would seem that the conversation between these three pundits was a conversation between people who share the views of this site, The West’s Darkest Hour, were it not for the fact that after the 15th minute the non-white Konstantin said that they were all happy living in the liberal world of modern times.
Never mind the POV of these three. As I said in the recent PDF, I’m appropriating Holland’s insights for what I call the sacred words (I’ve done something similar before with Lloyd deMause’s psychohistorical legacy, as my Day of Wrath readers know).
The only annoying thing in the interview is the commercial, but after the 42nd minute Holland says something I suspected: that the (psychopathological) condition Britain finds itself in today is due to its old Puritan roots. That is to say, in this age its atheist offspring have become, axiologically, hyperchristians: which also explains what’s happening in the US. And almost at minute 46 Holland explains why Anglo-American culture is virtually the opposite of what I might call our culture: abducting the Sabine women to found a new Republican Rome (values have been reversed by a misguided Christian sense of compassion).
‘We’ve forgotten,’ says Holland, ‘the theological underpinnings’ of why we do what we do today. Before the 49th minute Holland joked with a question answering another question from Konstantin: What would happen if Westerners realised that the great awokening they are suffering has Christian roots? He answered: ‘What’s so wrong about the Nazis?’ And already after the 51st minute Holland added that today’s anti-Nazism is still Christian considering the amplifying progressive spiral. Nonetheless, at minute 57 Holland reveals his colours: despite his tremendous insight into what is happening he likes to see Confederate statues removed from parks.
Now that I have been tidying up the study left by my late mother, I have found a wealth of documents of great interest to the autobiographer. She used to collect postcards and photographs of the countries she had visited and had some splendid postcards of Florentine art, including the famous sculpture sculpted by Michelangelo (which I also saw in Florence, though when I was travelling alone). You can’t contrast that Aryan art more with the degenerate Christian art that we also see in the photographs that my mother collected in other of her travels, in Spanish-speaking countries. For example, compare the grotesquely dressed ‘virgins’ with the nudist statuary of the Greco-Roman world! 
