I recently mentioned the film The Village, and yesterday I watched the most exquisite scenes.
What impressed me most were the shots of the lead actress, and how she acted, perfectly imitating 19th-century mannerisms: how American women used to behave. I kept telling myself, awestruck, that this woman was absolutely beautiful, and I imagined what it would be like to marry such a creature and constantly gaze upon her! The story is simply a fairy tale, but what’s worthwhile is that only white people appear in the film, and the director’s artistic virtuosity is evident in quite a few shots.
In the end, I was surprised that the director—an Indian man!—was also the producer and writer of that 2004 film. It’s true that one of my two favourite films for the sacred words, P&P (2005) and S&S (1995), both based on Jane Austen novels, was also filmed in this century. But both were filmed in England. As for LOTR, it was filmed in New Zealand.
Aside from The Village, written, produced, and directed by an Indian man, is there an American film from this century that stars a young woman whose mannerisms overwhelmingly inspire a man to marry someone like her, but filmed by a white man? It’s not about beautiful women appearing on the big screen. It’s about any movie inspiring a white man to marry someone like that heavenly creature.
Yesterday and the day before yesterday, I was watching a few clips on YouTube of Ridley Scott’s final cuts of Blade Runner. I saw the original one on the big screen in 1982 at the old Cine Tlalpan (there are almost no white people in Tlalpan, but I distinctly remember that the day I watched the film, a young, blond woman had gone to that theatre alone).
I was never a fan of that film.
Recently, in the comments section, I said that Sense & Sensibility (1995) and Pride & Prejudice (2005) should be the favourite films of us priests of the sacred words, because that’s the world we should be fighting for: the world that enthrones Aryan heterosexuality in the sense of culminating the plots of those films with marriages that would breed white kids: a patriarchal world in the sense that the power to reproduce rests with men. (In the crazy feminist world we live in, that power rests with women, which is why Aryans are becoming extinct around the globe.)
Those films based on Jane Austen’s novels, written before the psychosis of feminism began, could very well have been filmed in a world where Hitler had won the war.
The abysmal difference between us priests and the American racial right is that the latter, as I said a couple of days ago, are incapable of fully crossing the psychological Rubicon. In fact, many of them love films that repel the priest, as can be seen in the comment threads on Counter-Currents when they comment on movie articles by Trevor Lynch.
Blade Runner should repel National Socialists because, like thousands of films, it is the antithesis of Austen’s worlds. All of contemporary Hollywood, Netflix, and even so-called European art cinema reflect the dystopia of Kali Yuga in its purest form. And don’t tell me that filming dystopias is good for preventing them since Ridley Scott, in one of the Alien prequels, featured a pure Nordid woman fornicating with a Negro, in addition to the sacrilege of using the soundtrack of the aforementioned P&P version for grotesque sex scenes in his recent film about Napoleon.
The vast majority of Hollywood film producers should be executed on the Day of the Rope: passages from Pierce’s novel that I recently quoted on this site. In fact, I’d like to execute even those who like these films, but as Pierce’s character said in the novel, we couldn’t do it because we’d run out of Aryan males! (males who have to impregnate nymphs as cute as Rachael in the film, pictured above). That’s the priest’s dilemma: he wants to exterminate them all, but at the same time he needs their DNA for a renewed, Austen-like world.
Having said all that, I confess there’s a line I love from Blade Runner. The actor played by Harrison Ford invites Rachael to a bar and she, a very refined nymph, tells him “It’s not my kind of place.”
I’d say that about all theatres where movies are shown.
Since then he has been issuing idiotic proclamations about “restoring the Constitution,” stamping out “communism and pornography,” and holding new elections to “re-establish the republican form of government intended by the Founding Fathers,” whatever that means.
And he has denounced our radical measures in the south as “communism.” He is appalled that we didn’t hold some sort of public referendum before expelling the non-Whites and that we didn’t give individual trials to the Jews and race-criminals we dealt with summarily.
Doesn’t the old fool understand that the American people voted themselves into the mess they’re in now? Doesn’t he understand that the Jews have taken over the country fair and square, according to the Constitution? Doesn’t he understand that the common people have already had their fling at self-government, and they blew it?
Where does he think new elections can possibly lead now, with this generation of TV-conditioned voters, except right back into the same Jewish pigsty? And how does he think we could have solved our problems down here, except by the radical measures we used?
Doesn’t Harding understand that the chaos in his area will continue to grow worse until he identifies the categories of people responsible for that chaos and deals with them categorically—that it is physically impossible, considering the relative numbers involved, for him to deal with the Jews, the Blacks, the Chicanos, and the other troublesome elements on an individual basis?
Apparently not, because the idiot is still making appeals to “responsible” Black leaders and to “patriotic” Jews to help him restore order. Harding, like conservatives in general, can’t bring himself to do what must be done, because it would mean punishing the “innocent” along with the “guilty,” the “good” Negroes and the “loyal” Jews along with the rest—as if those terms had any meaning in the present context. And so, afraid of treating individuals “unjustly,” he is floundering around helplessly while everything goes to hell and the civilians in his area die like flies from starvation. Generals should be made of sterner stuff. […]
We are laying the foundations here for the new social order which will serve our race for the next thousand years.
And to be able to live and work in a sane, healthy, White man’s world—that is something which is beyond valuation for me. These last few weeks have been wondertul. It is terribly depressing to think of leaving this White oasis and plunging once again into that cesspool of mongrels and Blacks and Jews and sick, twisted White liberals out there. [pages 173-175]
______ 卐 ______
Then, after they learned to fear us, they were all too eager to please us. But they weren’t really interested in the rights and wrongs of the struggle; they couldn’t be bothered with soul-searching and long-range considerations. Their attitude was: “Just tell us what we’re supposed to believe, and we’ll believe it.” They just wanted to be safe and comfortable again as soon as possible. And they weren’t being cynical; they weren’t jaded sophisticates, but ordinary people.
The fact is that the ordinary people are not really much less culpable than the not-so-ordinary people, than the pillars of the System. Take the political police, as an example. Most of them— the White ones—are not especially evil men. They serve evil masters, but they rationalize what they do; they justify it to themselves, some in patriotic terms (“protecting our free and democratic way of life”) and some in religious or ideological terms (“upholding Christian ideals of equality and justice”). One can call them hypocrites—one can point out that they deliberately avoid thinking about anything which might call into question the validity of the shallow catch-phrases with which they justify themselves—but is not everyone who has tolerated the System also a hypocrite, whether he actively supported it or not? Is not everyone who mindlessly parrots the same catch-phrases, refusing to examine their implications and contradictions, whether he uses them as justifications for his deeds or not, also to be blamed?
I cannot think of any segment of White society, from the Maryland rednecks and their families whose radioactive bodies we bulldozed into a huge pit a few days ago to the university professors we strung up in Los Angeles last July, which can truly claim that it did not deserve what happened to it. […]
No, talk of “innocents” has no meaning. We must look at our situation collectively, in a race-wide sense. We must understand that our race is like a cancer patient undergoing drastic surgery in order to save his life. There is no sense in asking whether the tissue being cut out now is “innocent” or not. That is no more reasonable than trying to distinguish the “good” Jews from the bad ones—or, as some of our thicker-skulled “good ol’ boys” still insist on trying, separating the “good niggers” from the rest of their race.
The fact is that we are all responsible, as individuals, for the morals and the behavior of our race as a whole. There is no evading that responsibility, in the long run, any more for the members of our own race than for those of other races, and each of us individually must be prepared to be called to account for that responsibility at any time. In these days many are being called. [pages 196-198]
Unless whites wake up, due to mass immigration throughout the West, Caucasian Americans and Europeans will become a minority in their own countries, facing subsequent extinction.
The notion that every people needs their own land is absolutely essential. The white race must acquire a Homeland of its own, some place on earth where white children can be born and raised in physical and spiritual safety, and where the numbers of European-descended peoples may be restored and the threat of racial extinction overcome.
“The worst form of inequality
is to try to make unequal things equal.”
—Aristotle
“Equality is a slogan based on envy.”
—Alexis de Tocqueville
First article.— Western civilisation is under the grip of an anti-white ideology that has been imposed in every white country after the Second World War.
Second article.—The fair race is being exterminated by genocidal levels of immigration: a wholesale European, North American and Australian population replacement for non-whites.
Third article.—Ergo, the twenty-first century will be the darkest hour for the fair race.
Fourth article.—Whites either gain a sense of themselves or they are going extinct.
Fifth article.—Only an ethnostate will save them from extinction.
Sixth article.—If the ethnostate is formed, a constitution may start with the words: We hold these truths to be self-evident: Men are created unequal. All men are unequal—nowhere in the natural world, and Man is part of Nature, is anything equal. Equality does not exist in Nature; only in the abstract world of mathematics and in the minds of delusional humans.
Seventh article.—The rest follows from this…
Daybreak is a painting that Maxfield Parrish made a hundred years ago. He referred to it as his “great painting” and has been regarded by some as the most popular art print of the 20th century. It reflects the numinous spirit of this site: May the beauty of the White Aryan Woman not disappear from the Earth!
As I have said many times, when it comes to Americans, I feel much more comfortable with the racists of the 20th century (Rockwell, Oliver, Pierce) than with the racialists of the 21st century, whom I call neonormies. In the last century, American racists didn’t yet make ubiquitous use of the internet because it only began to be used by the end of the century, and even before the internet they were men of honour. With the miracle of the internet, one might expect racism to improve in the present century. But it is much worse, as I have been saying recently in my comments on quotes from online articles I read sixteen years ago, when I discovered white nationalism.
How is that possible?
In these times, and thanks to the internet, the most relevant piece of information for transvaluing values is that the Allies committed a Holocaust against Germans even after 1945: the greatest secret in recent history because the victors write history—and lie by omission by not talking about it. That’s why in my featured article the first thing I recommend is Goodrich’s Hellstorm.
The greatest pathology of white nationalism in our century is that this true Holocaust of defenceless Germans is not constantly mentioned. We can expect normies like Judge Napolitano and Col. Douglas Macgregor to be able to concede that if Hitler had won the war, the Allies would have been put in the dock for war crimes at Nuremberg (as they said today). But they cite the American bombing of Japan as an example of an holocaust, not Germany!
They are normies but what about racialists? Since Counter-Currents published a review of Goodrich’s book in 2010, there is no excuse for white nationalists, as after that year the subject is no longer mentioned in their forums. That is a sin, a voluntary surrender to evil (the anti-Christian that I am sometimes likes to use Christian vocabulary!). It is neither more nor less than the greatest of sins, pride in the form of patriotardism as Canadian Sebastian Ronin pointed out years ago when talking about them.
Few racialists comment constantly here because the Holocaust perpetrated by Americans of the best Europeans that the West has ever produced is hard to swallow. Better to repress it all! In other words, they induce a neurosis, or rather a psychosis, similar to the liberal folie en masse of the normies throughout the entire West.
All this has to do with honour, as I say in “All is about valour and honesty” (pages 46-51 of Daybreak). Honour is a word that today seems like a swear word because there are no longer any honourable Aryan men, only lobotomized eunuchs with zero Lebenskraft. In Kali Yuga, as the Indo-Aryans would call it, this word, honour, is no longer heard because all white people have degenerated. Otherwise, thousands of websites would mention the Hellstorm Holocaust, where the victims were not Jews, but Germans.
Le Serment des Horaces depicts the honour of the hard Roman ethos.
The 21st century will be a century of iron and storms. It will not resemble those harmonious futures predicted up to the 1970s. It will not be the global village prophesied by Marshall McLuhan in 1966, or Bill Gates’ planetary network, or Francis Fukuyama’s end of history: a liberal global civilisation directed by a universal state.
The third age of European civilisation commences, in a tragic acceleration of the historical process, with the Treaty of Versailles and the end of the civil war of 1914-18: the catastrophic 20th century. Four generations were enough to undo the labour of more than forty.
Europe fell victim to its own tragic prometheanism, its own opening to the world and universalism, oblivious of all ethnic solidarity. The fourth age of European civilisation begins today. It will be the age of rebirth or perdition. The 21st century will be for this civilisation, the fateful century, the century of Life or Death.
Let us cultivate the pessimistic optimism of Nietzsche. “There is no more order to conserve; it is necessary to create a new one.” Will the beginning of the 21st century be difficult? Are all the indicators in the red? So much the better. They predicted the end of history after the collapse of the USSR? We wish to speed its return: thunderous, bellicose, and archaic. Islam resumes its wars of conquest. China and India wish to become superpowers. And so forth.
The 21st century will be placed under the double sign of Mars, the God of war, and of Hephaestus, the God who forges swords, the master of technology and the chthonic fires. This century will be that of the metamorphic rebirth of Europe, like the phoenix, or of its disappearance as a historical civilisation and its transformation into a cosmopolitan and sterile Luna Park.
The beginning of the 21st century will be the despairing midnight of the world of which Hölderlin spoke. But it is always darkest before the dawn. Let us prepare our children for war. Let us educate our youth, be it only a minority, as a new aristocracy [emphasis added by Ed!]. Today we need more than morality. We need hypermorality, the Nietzschean ethics of difficult times.
When one defends one’s people, i.e., one’s own children, one defends the essential. Then one follows the rule of Agamemnon and Leonidas but also of Charles Martel: what prevails is the law of the sword, whose bronze or steel reflects the glare of the sun.
Editor’s note: The following words from Nietzsche’s Zarathustra epitomise what I meant the day before yesterday when I mentioned that Hitler believed that overmanhood could only arise on Earth, and that his love for painting was much deeper than the average racialist can imagine (e.g., ancient painters like Claude Lorrain or modern ones like Parrish motivated me to take my vows in the priesthood of the sacred words).
______ 卐 ______
Behold, I teach you the overman!
The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth!
I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth and do not believe those who speak to you of extraterrestrial hopes! They are mixers of poisons whether they know it or not.
They are despisers of life, dying off and self-poisoned, of whom the earth is weary: so let them fade away!
Once the sacrilege against God was the greatest sacrilege, but God died, and then all these desecrators died. Now to desecrate the earth is the most terrible thing, and to esteem the bowels of the unfathomable higher than the meaning of the earth!
Once the soul gazed contemptuously at the body, and then such contempt was the highest thing: it wanted the body gaunt, ghastly, starved. Thus it intended to escape the body and the earth.
Oh this soul was gaunt, ghastly and starved, and cruelty was the lust of this soul!
But you, too, my brothers, tell me: what does your body proclaim about your soul? Is your soul not poverty and filth and a pitiful contentment?
Truly, mankind is a polluted stream. One has to be a sea to take in a polluted stream without becoming unclean.
Behold, I teach you the overman: he is this sea, in him your great contempt can go under.
Drying the books that got wet gave me the opportunity to reread some pages of those I had read long ago. In the series “Sixteen Years Later” I talked about the texts in a binder I read when, starting in August 2009, I discovered a healthy white nationalism that hadn’t yet suffered the regression of today. Now I would like to discuss one of the books I read before my racial awakening.
As an anecdote, the books that were most damaged were the science-fiction paperbacks I bought in the 1980s and 90s. Since the task of drying them is enormous, and it is difficult for me because the sun rarely shines during this rainy season, and above all, I must prevent the proliferation of mould on the pages that had become soaked, I decided to tear out the wet pages that didn’t have my footnotes. It is not difficult to acquire other copies of the books I have mutilated. What is irreplaceable are my footnotes. So, in my paperback copy of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation, which I read in 1994, I tore out almost all the pages to save myself the painful task of drying them.
Ever since I read it, Asimov’s science fiction has bothered me greatly. In another of my Asimov books, a non-fiction one, this Jew confesses that he loved living in New York. The room where this monk of letters wrote didn’t even have a window!
The difference between Aryans and Jews is that Aryans, being much more physically beautiful (see what I said about Éowyn in my post yesterday), have a religious calling to beauty that Jews lack (unless they have mixed genetically with Aryans, like Felix Mendelssohn). If we compare Asimov’s most renowned science-fiction work, Foundation, with Arthur Clarke’s The Songs of Distant Earth, the latter’s futurism even reminded me of Parrish’s paintings. The Jew lacks that call to beauty, at least to the religious level that I feel (cf. David Lane’s 14 words referring to the Aryan woman).
What bothered me about the first book in the Foundation series I read is that Asimov simply transfers his beloved New York to the capital of the empire, Trantor, with 40 billion humans: the centre of all intrigue and symbol of imperial corruption. Every day, fleets of tens of thousands of ships brought the produce of twenty agricultural worlds to the tables of Trantor. It’s a shame that Aryans like George Lucas have imitated Trantor with the city of Coruscant. Like Trantor, Coruscant is a kind of super-developed New York that encompasses the entire planet (in Lucas’ universe, Coruscant is also the seat of government). All of this is degeneration, obviously, and you have to read about what Thalassa was like in The Songs of Distant Earth to understand it.
In Foundation 25 million planets were inhabited in the Galaxy but the people that the novelist imagined were, from my POV, as Neanderthaloid as humans today. We can already imagine the sidereal level of unnecessary suffering that would exist in such a galactic nightmare!
But Asimov doesn’t see any of this. The city he imagines, covering the entire planet, lives under metal. People no longer saw the sky or the heavens. Not even the inhabitants knew what season it was outside the metal skin of the world—except for the emperor’s palace, nestled in natural land, full of green trees and adorned with flowers: a small island in an ocean of steel.
I have said it before, and it is worth repeating: the stars are not for man. Hitler himself believed that overmanhood could only arise on Earth. Even some YouTubers who speculate on cosmology are beginning to realise this; for example, what this guy says at the end of his video (yesterday I listened to that video in full, although without seeing the offensive images).
Even that vlogger fails because he succumbs to the YouTubers’ trend of saturating his videos with images of extra-terrestrial and space recreations and the like. Being faithful to Earth means attachment to earthly beings and landscapes; for example, the canvases of Romantic painters (Hitler tried, unsuccessfully, to be one of them). And knowing oneself. Only then can one know the universe and the Gods.
A scene like the one I embedded yesterday about Edoras tells me more than any of the hundreds of books Asimov wrote.
When I was still living in Spain, I posted… my first comment on a racialist forum! (TOQ Online). Although that thread of comments no longer exists online, I can read the exact date on the printout in my binder.
On 24 August 2009, at 2:43 pm to be precise, in the comments section on the article “The Sword”, I wrote:
[Michael] O’Meara is basically right. Myth is certainly what moves the soul. That’s why, inspired by Nordic culture, J.R.R. Tolkien strove to create a myth to the point of inventing euphonically aesthetic languages. Women like Éowyn, the blond we all saw in the film The Two Towers, with Edoras the capital of Rohan in the background, is the crown of evolution.
To think that the very crown of evolution is now in danger of extinction because of self-hate among whites is too intolerable a thought to contemplate. A few months ago a former US president celebrated that whites will be a minority in his nation. I was extremely dismayed when learning what he said! I can only thank the authors of this website, which I have discovered just today. As soon as I can get a teleprompter, I will try to get my strong message through YouTube. Keep up the good work. With compliments, Chechar.
“Chechar” was my pen name when I started out on racialist forums. Once I had settled in Mexico, I read another article from my TOQ Online printout. Now that I can reread it, thanks to the fact that, although it got soaked during the flood, I dried it out, I see things I didn’t see in 2009 because I was just a newbie on racial issues. For example, one of those articles mentioned that Uncle Tom’s Cabin had been the best-selling book of the 19th century.
Let us recall Tom Holland’s Dominion, where he shows us how 19th-century Quakers created the ideology of abolitionism inspired by the message of the New Testament. Given that the female author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin wasn’t a Jew but a fanatical Quaker, whose message was validated by the American zeitgeist of the time, this fact refutes dozens of commenters on The Unz Review who try to explain the Civil War by economic causes instead of, as Goethe wrote, seeing what is right in front of their eyes. This wilful blindness on the part of all these commenters is due to their desire to get their parents’ religion off the hook about the negrolatry that has wreaked havoc on their nation.
Now I would like to say a word about the last text in my collection, “The TOQ Secession Essay Contest Winner: ‘Toward the White Republic’ by Michael O’Meara”, in my opinion, the finest writer TOQ Online and Counter-Currents had before the monocausalists who still comment there drove him away (the full essay can be read here). O’Meara wrote:
Inspired by the birthright handed down by the blood and sacrifice of ancestors, their project, relatedly, is not about restoring the Third Reich or the Confederacy, as leftists imagine, but about creating a future white homeland in which their kind will be able “to pursue their destiny without interference from other races.”
I now see that this segregationist desire is expressed too broadly. A more concrete form would be what O’Meara would also say about Harold Covington’s novels. But Covington’s project, as I have said elsewhere, was quixotic because the government would never allow racists to declare independence in some American states. Furthermore, mere secession leaves weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the anti-white government. What we need is to take power (cf. the biographies of our enemies: Constantine and Lenin). Instead of Covington’s fiction I suppose O’Meara didn’t accept William Pierce’s exterminationist fiction because he still had Christian scruples, albeit in a secularised form. O’Meara continues:
But even if feasible, what self-respecting white man would want to take back the United States, this monstrous, bureaucratic Leviathan whose Jewish, race-mixing, homophile, feminist, fraudulent, anti-Christian, and degenerate practices stand as an affront to everything his ancestors stood for?
The hard truth is that it’s gotten to the point where the US can no longer be defended as “my mother, drunk or sober,” only repulsed as an alien body-snatcher. To this end, secessionists emulate the proud Danes, who said after the loss of Schleswig-Holstein in 1865: “What has been lost externally will be gained internally.”
But more than refusing to abide the state responsible for their dispossession, secessionists see this “abomination of desolation” as their principal enemy. Only by freeing themselves from it and acquiring their own land under their own sovereignty do they see a future for their kind.
There are two ways of looking at the abomination of desolation that the US has become: the traditional one we see in racialist forums; and ours, where the “anti-Christianity” O’Meara talks about is actually atheistic hyper-Christianity (once again, read Dominion). From our point of view, as I mentioned recently, the good-natured Charlie Kirk and his murderous madman are opposing factions of Christians, like the wars between Catholics and Protestants of yesteryear. That is exactly what Holland says.
In the article that Greg Johnson gave first prize to, the following sentence caught my attention: “Most whites, de-Aryanised as they are, allowed a Negro to become president”. And here is a paragraph in which O’Meara sees beyond the JQ:
As a conservative, he couldn’t see that white secession (unlike the secession of the Confederacy) is a revolutionary project premised on a rejection not just of the illegal alienations of the federal government, but of the entire social, economic, and moral order sustaining its ethnocidal rule.
Precisely what Adolf Hitler tried in Germany! In 2009, when I read the article in the binder, I wrote there that I found the ending of O’Meara’s article beautiful, and I even mentioned my beloved Parrish (well, a Parrishesque video can be seen in the clip embedded above). These are the final paragraphs:
Those who know Hibernian—or any other European—nationalist history also know the immeasurable power of the nation, especially the nation rising to nationhood. This is the spirit we secessionists hope to stir in white Americans.
The situation today may, therefore, be totally grim, but politically there is no more feasible or marketable strategy to awaken our people, especially as they become aware of their approaching minority status and all it implies.
Imagine, then, for a moment, a white homeland in North America, free of the Jew-ridden US government, with its colored multitudes and parasitic institutions: In my mind, this one image says everything, explains everything, promises everything.
The powerful imagery of an autonomous white nation possesses, as well, the mythic potential that the General Strike has in the thought of Georges Sorel. All great movements, Sorel saw, are driven not by rational arguments or party programs, but by their myths (which “are not descriptions of things, but expressions of a determination to act”).
For it is myth—and the memories and hopes animating it—that shape a nation, that turn a “motley horde” into a people with a shared sense of purpose and identity, that mobilize them against the state of things, and prepare them for self-sacrifice and self-rule.
A Sovereign Independent State, as the Irish called it in 1916—the White Republic, as I call it—is a possible secessionist myth to symbolize the determination of white men to assert themselves as a free people somewhere in an all-white America.
TOQ Online, August 1, 2009
In the now-deleted TOQ Online comments thread (in the C-C repost we see a different thread, with other commenters), Andrew Hamilton quoted something that I find true: “Revolution is a state of mind”: something I don’t see in today’s racial right.
Reconstructed Temple of the Nymphs at Vindolanda. Just south of Hadrian’s Wall.
Editor’s Note: Below is an excerpt from The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. Even in a world as extremely anti-Aryan as the present one, attempting this sort of thing probably wouldn’t land us in jail, even in Europe. But what wealthy sponsor could finance such a project with a temple like the one seen above?
______ 卐 ______
But we do not need a new religion, only to be aware of our pre-Christian cultures. We must recover such cultures to educate our children according to the varied heritage that these cultures represent. I think of the Edda, of the Mabinogion; of Homer and Virgil—not to mention our tragedians, our poets, our philosophers… We must extract that immensely rich heritage and moral maxims.
We also need temples, enclosures for re-connection as I call them. An ever-living fire in these areas will suffice. We need places where we can gather and remember our stories: the readings of texts, commentaries, discussion panels and more. Something collective and social—religious and cultural centers where our people may have psychological or spiritual support, or get truthful information about our ancestors, or the incidents of our history.
We need dividing the year with special celebrations related to happy or tragic milestones of our past: the Christianization and the Islamization of our peoples, for example; with our own calendars of saints’ days (our heroes and those most representative). We need to retrieve the Greek, Roman, Celt, German and other first names… That is, to do what we could not do: having our own history because our history was usurped by the Christian clergy.
