‘Such an action [the American civil war] bears all the hallmarks of, and was, a case of mass insanity brought on by Christianity, with its lunatic idea that the white man and the negro are somehow “brothers” in a fictional family. Whether they know it or not—and most of them do not—today’s whites are suffering endlessly for the religious delusions of their forebears.’
The documents my mother left in her study have been a veritable cornucopia of information for understanding not only her but the family. For example, among them I found a list of sayings that my maternal grandmother, my dear Yoya, used to say. I quote one of them: “Ves la tempestad y no te hincas” (‘You see the storm and you don’t kneel’).
It reminds me that, on both sides of the Atlantic, members of the racial right can see the storm currently ravaging the West. But they never kneel before their true Gods, the Aryan Gods, in repentance and asking mercy and forgiveness. On the contrary: they continue to fellate the god of the Jews, or rather, the Jews who wrote the New Testament insofar they obey its precepts for gentile consumption.
What prevents these so-called defenders of their race from thinking like the lad Magnus?
As I bathed in the morning, Keith Woods’ recent article in The Unz Review on Elon Musk’s reaction to ADL subversion got me thinking (Twitter, now dubbed ‘X’ by Musk, suffers from the ADL-orchestrated advertising takedown).
Nowhere on the racial right have I come across an explanation of why American society obeys the Jewish subversion group ADL. While there are countless articles on the internet exposing the ADL’s subversion of the First Amendment, there is, to my knowledge, no explanation of why American civil society and the American state blindly obey them.
That is typical of the racial right: they are anti-Semitic but not exactly Jew-wise, insofar as that would imply a clear, transparent, distinct and Apollonian explanation of why everyone seems to be obeying the whims of the biblically chosen people.
I’ve already written about Keith Woods on this site, whom I branded as an imbecilic Irish with no conscience whatsoever about the CQ, and I don’t want to link to that brief post I wrote about him years ago. I don’t want to do so because his blindness, presumably based on his Catholicism, is the same blindness that afflicts all other conservatives.
My question should be addressed until grasping the incredible phenomenon of the elites—including the companies that fund Twitter / X—obeying the demands of ‘Nosferatu.’ (Hunter Wallace has called Nosferatu the ADL director, whose face is so repulsive that unlike Wallace and The Unz Review, I dare not even post a picture of him.)
I believe that the blindness of the entire racial right in addressing something so obvious—why the American elites obey Nosferatu—is because they are unable to see themselves in the mirror. It was the historical reality that the US was founded by self-conscious Aryans who had to imagine they were Israelites to build a city upon a hill that is behind all this insane deference to the will of a powerful advocate of Israel.
Even the most famous American neo-Nazi suffered from this blindness. If one pays attention to the quote from George Lincoln Rockwell in the previous post, bearing in mind my footnote on page 90 of Savitri’s memoirs, it will become clear that Rockwell was trying to make a good impression on the Christians who funded his organisation.
But you cannot save the Aryan race and at the same time obey the commands of the god of the Jews to the Gentiles (actually, the commands of the rabbis who wrote the New Testament for Gentile consumption). Think, for example, of the countless times that, when he was on Fox News, Tucker Carlson talked about the equality of men, and that skin colour was absolutely irrelevant. Carlson even invoked the idea of ‘God’—that is: the god of the Jews—in his proclamations, and did so several times in his Fox career while talking about racial equality.
What I’m getting at is that all this discussion about Musk and the ADL misses the elephant in the room: Why do American elites obey Nosferatu? Or put in my language, if the anti-Christian Vikings had conquered the entire American continent—not the idiotic Spanish and Portuguese; not the idiotic English and French—, would they now be obeying Nosferatu?
Magnus: ‘I think our Faith should prevail. No doubt at all. Our Gods will ultimately triumph over the Christian god [contempt in Magnus’s voice] who is a usurper, who has no meaning; is not real. One day not so far away the name Jesus Christ will be utterly forgotten’ (emphasis in Magnus’ voice).
What if the Gods of the Anglo-Germans on the American continent were, every one of them, Aryans like those of the Greco-Roman Mount Olympus or the Germanic Valhalla? What if Vikings like Magnus, not the Judeo-Christian Charlemagne, had been victorious in the medieval wars in which Christianity was forcibly imposed?
So fundamental is what I am saying that what emerges is not only the great limitations of Rockwell—but of Hitler himself!
The subject is deep and complex and would involve reading what I say about Charlemagne in our translation of Deschner’s book. Fortunately, my post ‘Old Town’, which I uploaded the week before my mother’s passing, sums up what I mean.
Address given at the 2016
JdF 127 Hitler Festival
in Detroit, Michigan
by NEW ORDER Chief of Staff
Martin Kerr
In the Table Talk, Adolf Hitler accepts as a matter of course that the figure commonly known as Jesus Christ was an actual historical person. He describes him as the leader of a popular revolt against the Jews of his time. Savitiri Devi, one of the best known and most eloquent of Hitler’s post-war disciples, felt otherwise. In her essay, Saul of Tarsus, she writes that based on her own extensive research, she believed that Jesus (whose name would have been Yeshua bin-Yusef al-Nazarini or something similar in his native Semitic tongue of Aramaic) was merely a fictional character from Christian mythology; that is, he was not an historical person.
It matters little to us today whether or not Yeshua was real, or whether he was as imaginary as Bilbo Baggins and Huckleberry Finn. But, of course, it does matter to the Christians, who have built up an elaborate if perverse theology based on his putative teachings. In fact, so important has he been to the Christian world that all historical dates are routinely calculated from the year that he was supposed to have been born. That practice started around the year 525 by a Christian monk named Dionysis Exiguus. Years after his birth were counted forwards and those before his birth were counted backwards. Traditionally, these designations have been known as AD for Anno Domini (or “Year of our Lord”) and BC or “Before Christ.” For reasons of Political Correctness, these old terms have now been replaced by CE (for “Common Era”) and BCE (“Before Common Era”).
But regardless of what initials are used, the basic method of calculating and enumerating the years of the calendar has remained unchanged, because Jesus—real or not—is held to be someone who “broke history in half.” In the Christian conception of things, there is an absolute rift between what came before him and what came after. In the conventional wisdom, Jesus changed everything.
______ 卐 ______
In the 1880s, a towering intellectual figure arose in Germany to challenge the accepted dispensation: the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. In his autobiography, Ecce Homo, Nietzsche suggested that it was he, Nietzsche, who was the one who would break history in half. Through a process which he called the “transvaluation of all values,” Nietzsche sought not just to supersede Christianity, but to reverse it. Thereby he would lay the foundations for a new European super-civilization. I imagine that in Nietzsche’s scheme of things, future historians would date all history from his, Nietzsche’s coming, and not from the advent of the one whom our Norse ancestors called the “Pale Christ.”
Nietzsche, we note, was completely ignored during his lifetime, except for some cursory interest that he aroused in philosophical circles, which had a negative, dismissive view of his work. That he grandiosely described himself as the man who would break history in half is widely viewed either as sarcasm on Nietzsche’s part, or else as a psychological defensive mechanism to protect his ego from the rejection he suffered from his colleagues.
Perhaps there is a modicum of truth to both of these explanations, but I feel at the heart of things, Nietzsche was being fiercely serious. He recognized the full import and significance of his teachings, even if his contemporaries did not. Today, we National Socialists recognize him as one of the earliest “fragments of the future,” someone who was not the “last of yesterday,” but rather was one of the “first of tomorrow.”
______ 卐 ______
As it turned out, neither the Christian savior nor Nietzsche was the one who broke history in half. The theology espoused by Jesus was merely a reshuffling of the older Semitic worldview, a prime feature of which was the belief that there is a dichotomy between spirit and matter. Spirit is pure and good, it tells us, while the flesh is impure and corrupt. Nietzsche, for all his genius, was unable to articulate a realistic, systematic alternative to the Christian worldview.
No, it remained to Adolf Hitler to be the man to shatter the dispensation that had held Aryan man in thrall for 2,000 years or more.
I do not know when the realization first entered the Führer’s mind that there is no division between soul and matter, but rather that our flesh is infused with and animated by our spirit, while spirit is given form by our bodies. It must have been at a very young age. Probably, it did not dawn on him all at once, but instead only emerged gradually as he matured intellectually. In any event, by the time that he sat down to write Mein Kampf, his basic worldview was already well-formed and complete.
Adolf Hitler believed that the universe was governed by natural laws, and that for man to be happy and successful, he must first acknowledge that these laws exist; secondly, he must discover what they are; and thirdly, he must live in accordance with them.
This is another way of saying that the universe runs according to the principles of Causality—that is, of cause-and-effect relationships—and that it does not operate on the basis of supernatural forces, or on the mental constructions and wishful thinking of intellectuals and ideologues, or on the religious fantasies of theologians.
But at the same time, he knew that the human soul or spirit was a reality. His consistent use of religious language and imagery, plus specific comments recorded in Table Talk, reveal the Führer to be a deeply religious man, even if his spiritual outlook was diametrically opposed to that of Christianity.
Rather than believing that Man is born as a sinful being who can only be rescued from eternal hellfire and damnation by accepting the good lord Jesus as his personal savior, Adolf Hitler believed that Man was born into a state of grace with the Natural Order. In the Hitlerian worldview, we are all holy beings at birth. It is through being raised with false beliefs, and thrown into a society out of synch with the Natural Order, that we lose our state of natural grace and holiness.
Matt Koehl once discussed the Christian conception of original sin with me, contrasting it to the Hitlerian outlook. “If you look at a newborn baby in its cradle, what do you see?” he asked. “The Christians see an evil being born in sin, and doomed to Hell and torment without the intervention of their savior. But as a National Socialist, I see an innocent and holy being, born into a state of harmony and grace with the Natural world.”
This is the Führer’s great gift to Aryan man—and, indeed, to the whole world: he has restored us to a state of grace with the Natural Order. Hitler made us holy again, and only the Gods have the power to sanctify.
______ 卐 ______
As Aryans, we may be endlessly, sincerely, and profoundly thankful on a personal level for such insights. But unlike the Christians, as National Socialists, we are committed not just to our own personal salvation, but to the salvation and resurrection of our Race.
How do we incorporate our fundamentally religious perception of National Socialism into the practical work of building Adolf Hitler’s earthly movement? We struggle with these issues today—but we are not the first to have raised such questions.
Our great forbearer, George Lincoln Rockwell, wrestled with this question as well. During the final year of his life he prepared to transform his tiny, noisy band of political dissidents into a mighty mass movement. In a passage from his book, White Power, he gives us his thoughts on the future religious or spiritual orientation of the movement:
National Socialism, as a PHILOSOPHY, embodies the eternal urge found in all living things—indeed in all creation—toward a higher level of existence—toward perfection—toward God.
This “aristocratic” idea of National Socialism—the idea of a constant striving in all Nature toward a higher and higher, more and more complex, and more and more perfect existence—is the metaphysical, supernatural aspect of our ideal.
In other words, concepts of social justice and natural order are the organs and nerves of National Socialism, but its PERSONALITY, its “religious” aspect—the thing that lifts it above any strictly political philosophy—is its worshipful attitude toward Nature and a religious love of the Great gifs of an Unknown Creator.
Christianity, for instance, is a far higher thing than its rituals, the words of its prayers, or any of its creeds. It is a SPIRITUAL STRIVING toward the believer’s ideals of spiritual perfection.
National Socialism is the same sort of striving toward even higher and higher levels here on this earth, while Christianity is striving toward a future and later life not of this earth.
For the ordinary “soldier” in our “army”, building and fighting for Natural Order—National Socialism—it is sufficient that they respect and obey the laws and doctrines established by the lofty ideals of our philosophy with merely an instinctive love of those ideals, perhaps not with the complete understanding of the highest forms of our philosophy.But just as the greatest Christian leaders have been those not preoccupied with details and rules but rather those who were “God intoxicated” with the highest ideals of the religion, the leaders among our National Socialist elite must share this fundamentally religious approach. For them the true meaning of our racial doctrine must be part of their idealistic “striving toward God.” [1]
Through total identification of ourselves with our great race, we partake of its past and future glories. When we contribute in any way, especially by self-sacrifice, toward helping our race along the path toward higher existence, we reach toward God—the Creator of the Master Race.
In short, while the mechanics and rules of National Socialism, as codified and set forth here, are sufficient for most of us, for the few idealists ready and willing to sacrifice their very lives in the cause of their people, National Socialism must be a very real religious ideal—a striving toward God.
We should all keep Commander Rockwell’s words in mind as we go forth into the world in the coming Jahre des Führers 127. We should endeavor to bring every single racially conscious White person into our Movement. But at the same time, we must maintain the ideological purity of our Cause by seeing to it that only those with a clear understanding of the spiritual, religious character of our worldview become Movement officers. And this is especially true with members of the senior leadership corps.
In this way, we will guarantee that we, too, are “breaking history in half,” in keeping with the Führer’s mission.
HEIL HITLER!
_____________
[1] From White Power, chapter XV, pp. 455-457.
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.
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!
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’.
