As an holocaust affirmer, I agree with Greg Johnson in his article yesterday about the so-called Holocaust. But I am referring only to historical facts, not to a putative ethical assessment. For example, in the comment thread holocaust denier Scott said that zero Jews had been gassed: something that contradicts what, over time, revisionist Mark Weber acknowledged about Treblinka.
As far as an ethical assessment is concerned, my position is peculiar.
I would disagree with Hitler if the German chancellor’s mindset is accurately portrayed in Johnson’s article, in that I don’t believe that Jews alone caused the fatidic WW2. Now I blame the Anglo-Saxons more, especially the US, after having assimilated not only Brendan Simms’ biography of Hitler (quotes from its first chapters here), but also John Mearsheimer’s realism.
On the other hand, for reasons of transvaluation of values I like Mauricio’s words, “We need more Holocaust Affirmers”: something that is still not noticeable in healthy quantities in discussion threads on racialist forums such as Counter-Currents, or even on the ghost town that my website has become—precisely because I have shifted paradigms! (JQ => CQ).
Physical distortion and mental malformation are the direct result of two thousand years of bad-breeding: that is to say, of mongrelism, of democracy, of equality… Christian-ism, originating in the despairful and fallacious philosophy of a crucified wanderer (suffering from acute morbus sacer) is now developed into an organised and world-wide conspiracy of clericals, politicals and decadents directed en masse, with Jesuitic cunning against all the primitive and heroic virtues.
Our clean-skinned ‘heathenish’ ancestors with all their vital forces unimpaired, were really the nobler type of animal. We on the other hand, with our corrupt, irresolute, civilised hearts, our trembling nerves, our fragile anaemic constitutions, are actually the lower, the viler type—notwithstanding the baseless optimism that courtly rhymers drivel into their ‘Heirs of all the ages’, etc.
No people can long retain hardihood and independence, whose minds become submissive to a false ideal.
Blessed are the strong for they shall possess the earth—Cursed are the weak for they shall inherit the yoke. Blessed are the powerful for they shall be reverenced among men—Cursed are the feeble for they shall be blotted out.
Blessed are the bold for they shall be masters of the world—Cursed are the humble for they shall be trodden under hoofs. Blessed are the victorious for victory is the basis of right—Cursed are the vanquished for they shall be vassals forever.
Blessed are the battle-blooded, Beauty shall smile upon them—Cursed are the poor-in-spirit, they shall be spat upon. Blessed are the audacious for they have imbibed true wisdom—Cursed are the obedient for they shall breed creeplings.
Blessed are the iron-handed, the unfit shall flee before them—Cursed are the haters of battle, subjugation is their portion. Blessed are the death-defiant, their days shall be long in the land—Cursed are the feeble-brained, for they shall perish amidst plenty.
Blessed are the destroyers of false-hope, they are true Messiahs—Cursed are the God-adorers, they shall be as shorn sheep. Blessed are the valiant for they shall obtain great treasure—Cursed are the believers in good and evil for they are frightened by shadows…
Blessed is the man who hath powerful enemies, they shall make him a hero—Cursed is he who ‘doeth good’ unto others, he shall be despised.
Blessed is the man whose foot is swift to serve a friend, he is a friend indeed—Cursed are the organisers of charities, they are propagators of plagues. Blessed are the wise and brave for in the struggle they shall win—Cursed are the unfit for they shall be righteously exterminated [emphasis by Ed.].
Blessed are the sires of noble maidens, they are the salt of the earth—Cursed are the mothers of strumous tenderlings for they shall be shamed. Blessed are the mighty-minded for they shall ride the whirl-winds—Cursed are they who teach lies for truth, and truth for lies, for they are abomination.
Blessed are the unmerciful, their posterity shall own the world—Cursed are the pitiful for they shall receive no pity. Blessed are the destroyers of idols, for tyrants shall fear them—Cursed are the famous wiselings, their seed shall perish off the earth. Thrice cursed are the vile for they shall serve and suffer.
Contrast this with an orthodox Sermonette—one that is repeated every seventh day, in thousands of sacred sanctuaries by consecrated black-robed clericals, who have been specially trained from boyhood to weepfully, unctuously rehearse the same with upturned eyes and skilful snuffle or in classic diction, sounding, sonorous, nay! Sublime—as suits the occasion.
I exaggerated last Saturday when I said that David Irving’s True Himmler was only about Heinrich’s childhood and adolescence. I have read on and it has a few sentences worth quoting. If the senior figures of the Third Reich were heroes or saints for the ‘dissident’ right it would still be possible to save the Aryan from inexorable extinction. But they are not: many of them still have legendary Jews as their heroes!
Yesterday, for example, I was shocked to find that both Alexander Mercouris, who vlogs in his English channel (here), and three well-known Spanish ‘dissidents’ in the YouTube subculture (here), talked about Good Friday as if my very Christian father were still alive and educating the teenager I was half a century ago!
Just as white nationalists in general ignore Carrier’s critique of the NT regarding Romulus—a critique that could very well be used to validate Kevin MacDonald’s approach to subversive Jewry—, the so-called dissidents haven’t emerged from the bubble they introjected from their ancestors.
So back to Himmler, for although Heini received a strict Catholic upbringing as a child, as an adult he was able to transvalue his values. I think that on this point Maurice is right in saying that we need more Holocaust affirmers in the movement: something that couldn’t contrast more with the heavy chains with which Christian ethics, in both its traditional and neochristian versions, undermines the Aryan collective unconscious.
On page 72 of True Himmler Irving informs us that Heini disliked beer (I dislike it too). Two pages later we read: ‘Easter will be very nice and cheerful’, Heini wrote to his mother. In another letter, dated May 1921, Heini wrote to his mother that he had visited Salzburg by bicycle, where he went to church. At the age of twenty-one Himmler still felt at home with his pious parents and among the Catholic architecture of St Michael’s, the largest Renaissance church in the Alps. He particularly loved the royal Hofkirche for its ornaments and Old Testament frescoes: the church of All Saints where his cousin sometimes celebrated mass. Heini was such a good boy that he went to the eight o’clock mass one Sunday morning and wrote to his mother about his experiences in that church.
On page 90 we learn that Heini’s first contact with incipient National Socialism wasn’t with Hitler, but with the homosexual Ernst Röhm, who invited him to join the movement. However, Heini was always repulsed by such behaviour and didn’t join the movement—yet.
Adolf Hitler was older than Himmler, and at that time he was already saying things like: ‘We need a dictator who is a genius if we are to arise again’. I wonder how many white nationalists know that democracy is shit and that only a tough dictator could save them? Speaking in Salzburg, Hitler was already demanding the extirpation of the ‘Jewish bacillus’ from Austria and Germany (pages 93-94). ‘For us, this is not a problem to which you can turn a blind eye, one to be solved by minor concessions… Don’t be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus’. And on the same page of Irving’s book we can read:
‘We must be fired with a remorseless determination to grasp this evil at its roots and exterminate it, root and branch’. A few weeks later he repeated, ‘We cannot skirt around the Jewish Question. It has got to be solved’.
In 1923 hyperinflation hit Germany and only the Jews got richer having bought houses, land and works of art: which motivated the people to listen to radical voices, like Uncle Adolf’s. We can imagine why I believe that now the American dollar is the one that has to hyperinflate!
Just as many on the racial right deny the Holocaust, others deny that Hitler and Himmler wanted to conquer the lands of the half-gooks for the Aryans. On page 119 Irving again quotes Hitler:
Germany’s future lay in the east. ‘The destruction of the Russian empire and the distribution of its land and property, which will be settled by Germans…’
And on page 122 he does it again:
‘A solution of the Jewish Question is bound to come. If it can be resolved with common sense [the Madagascar Plan], so much the better’. If not, he predicted, there were two or more possibilities — ‘either the Armenian, Levantine, way or bloody confrontation’. In 1915 the Turks had brutally expelled the Armenians…
A few words later Irving ends the ninth chapter of True Himmler.
My arrival in a raggedy town whose name I don’t even want to mention has made me question many things, and has affected the routine of entries I had on this site: not just Deschner’s books.
I have never before, for example, had the experience of not feeling the slightest physical attraction to a single woman I see on the streets—not one! This is due to the ethnic component of the people who live here: something that didn’t happen to me in the country’s capital where one or the other, although rare, was attractive. It is obvious that it was a gigantic mistake to come to this town and that I will return to my hometown as soon as the one-year contract I signed with the house’s owner is over (besides, moving my furniture is far more expensive than I imagined!).
If all goes well with my plans, I will see two of the commenters on this site this year. The three of us are depressed by the lack of joint action: it is impossible to keep our spirits up without seeing our comrades daily. Today, for example, I was watching scenes from the latest film version of The Wannsee Conference, and we could already imagine how impossible it would be to have a single minute of depression with such historic action! But before the dollar collapses my purchasing power to move freely is nil. Only an exponentially hyper-inflated dollar would lift me out of poverty. Thanks, Trump, for pricking the credit bubble! May your house of cards come crashing down quickly…!
I said in my previous post that I have suspended Deschner’s book series. As far as David Irving’s book on Himmler is concerned, I don’t know if I will resume the selected quotes. I suspect that Irving suffered a stroke because, since his family notified his fans of his collapse by email early last year, David hasn’t communicated again on his website (others are running his site).
True Himmler (excerpts here) is a book for the fan of the Reichsführer who wants to know about his childhood and adolescent life. But this first volume doesn’t mention what we all wanted to know: the role Himmler played in the so-called holocaust, written by a pen sympathetic to the German regime, Irving’s. Conveniently, David fell ill before he finished his second volume on Himmler, so we only have Irving’s DVD on the Reichsführer in which he does touch, briefly, on the subject of the so-called holocaust.
So if I want to dig deeper, I have no choice but to consult normie treatises, even Jewish ones like Raul Hilberg’s seminal treatise, which I have been reading in a Spanish hardback translation.
In my library I have other books that Jews and Gentiles have written about the holocaust, such as those by Laurence Rees, Ron Rosenbaum and even Daniel Goldhagen. Although I have read them, they are all propaganda of the purest Manichaeism incapable of mentioning a syllable about the Hellstorm Holocaust that the Allies perpetrated on the German people, women and children included. But as far as I have read, Hilberg’s treatise has impressed me: unlike the others he makes no value judgements; he just uses tons of references and bibliographical notes, over 1455 pages, to support the facts he discusses. His treatise seems to be purely descriptive.
One of the reasons I bought this expensive book is because I am interested in the mentality of the exterminationist (it’s like mine…). This is true even though Hilberg knew nothing of the Jewish problem; for example, what Eduardo Velasco recounts in his essay on Judea and Rome, especially the suspicion that many Christians were subversive Semites who hated the Greco-Roman civilisation.
Real history is much more complex, nuanced and disturbing than the Manichean views we see both in normie authors such as the aforementioned Hitler haters, and in some racialist quarters where all the research in books such as Hilberg’s is simply dismissed as one hundred per cent mythical.
A more mature way to approach treatises like Hilberg’s is to see it from the perspective of one who has transvalued his values, like those who sat around the table at the Wannsee Conference. With this attitude you only inquire into the veracity of the bare facts, and if genocides of men, women and children occurred, you accept the historical facts without condemning Hitler’s willing executioners.
That has been the traditional attitude of contemporary Muslims in dealing with Islam’s incredibly bloody conquest of India, and also the attitude of present-day Mongols who continue to honour the memory of Genghis Khan (it is also the attitude of Jews regarding the genocide of the Palestinians). If we recall what I said in my essay on Augustine and tutti quanti about the ‘ogre of the superego’ that the Aryan of the Christian Era suffers, we will see that in the collective unconscious it would have to be balanced with its counterpart, the Id, if whites are to be saved from self-destruction.
I read the Confessions almost a quarter of a century ago during a two-week voyage on a cargo ship bound for Europe. It was a time when I wanted to find an Englishwoman to marry. It is worth noting what I wrote then in the Atlantic Ocean:
2 October 1991
I’ve been dreading staying goof off: finishing the two books I have halfway through the trip.
I need to reconcile myself with Augustine and New Spain (Paz’s book). That would be, indirectly, a reconciliation with dad, since he is both.
BOOK VII: He begins to read the epistles of St Paul
Augustine begins this chapter by saying that he no longer conceived of the deity in the form of a human body, and then goes on to say something which again shows that all this talk of his later conversion is false, since he was already, in his youthful way, a good Christian:
My heart adhered firmly to the faith in your Christ… My soul was not willing to abandon it; rather every day it was more and more steeped in it.
And four pages ahead:
My faith believed also in Christ, our Son and Lord… These beliefs were already intact and firmly rooted in my soul.
It is not surprising that at this point Augustine’s extreme theological rationalisations had already begun. First he dispatches the problem of evil, and then he reconciles the irreconcilable: the Torah with Paul.
It was with great eagerness that I picked up the venerable Scriptures inspired by your Spirit, particularly those of your apostle Paul.
As I said in the first entry, Augustine was a man of his time. He followed, to its ultimate consequences, the misguided steps of the Caucasoid Christians of his time: something that speaks volumes about imperial Rome in the 4th century.
The next chapter is the most famous of his Confessions. The whole book shows how dead the Aryan soul was then, as it is dead now. If it hadn’t been dead it would have prevented the Judeo-Christian flourishing. Already in this chapter Augustine uses so many metaphors taken from the Bible that a reader unfamiliar with it would find himself without understanding much.
To understand the next chapter we have to imagine Augustine in a terrible struggle with himself à la Gollum in The Lord of the Rings: a titanic struggle in which the maternal introjects won out (remember Nietzsche’s aphorism: ‘Christianity gave Eros poison to drink. He didn’t die but degenerated into a vice’).
BOOK VIII: ‘Conversion’ in the garden of his house
I will now tell how you freed me from the bonds of my carnal desires.
Augustine recounts how an African named Ponticianus saw Paul’s epistles on Augustine’s desk and began to speak about Antony, the Egyptian monk. Remember the passage in Deschner’s book about this monk:
Athanasius did not just adorn his Vita Antonii (St Anthony or Antony was a monk who played an important role in the conversion of Augustine; was the archetype of the lives of Greek and Latin saints, and for centuries inspired the monastic life of the East and the West) with increasingly crazy miracles, but he also falsified documents in the worst of styles.
When Ponticianus left, Augustine rationalised this visit of the African as follows: ‘You brought me once more face to face with myself, forcing me to look myself in the eye so that I might see my iniquity and abhor it’. He was already thirty-two years old and, comparing his erotic conduct with that of the Egyptian monk, he confessed:
In my inner house a great strife was being waged… I turned to Alypius saying loudly: ‘We, on the other hand, wallow in flesh and blood’.
He, stunned, stared at me in silence…
The house where we were staying had a small garden. So I withdrew to the garden and Alypius followed in my footsteps.
Augustine realised that ‘there are, therefore, two wills in us’. In psychoanalytic language, we could say that it was a struggle between the super-ego instilled by his mother (Thou shalt not fornicate, etc.) and his natural call to Eros, which in the pagan world wasn’t that sinful. ‘As I was deliberating whether to consecrate myself to the service of the Lord…’ That is, feeling the call to follow in the footsteps of a monk would mean no marriage, a life condemned to celibacy.
And from this moment it would no longer be licit for me to do this or that? What was it, my God, that I was suggesting with those words ‘this and that’? What sordid things! What indecencies!
But Augustine doesn’t get graphic. He fails to confess what exactly it was. Let us remember that he had already said: ‘To love and be loved was the sweetest thing for me, especially if I got to enjoy the beloved´s body…’ Gollum continues:
Do you intend to live without these things?… ‘Shut your ears to the filthy whisperings of your members, and you will be mortified. They speak to you of delights, but not according to the law of the Lord your God’.
This struggle within my heart was nothing other than the struggle of myself against myself. Alypius was still beside me, silently awaiting the outcome of this new agitation in me.
I got up and he stood stunned in the place where we were sitting. I threw myself, as best I could, under a fig tree and gave free rein to the tears, which flowed like two rivers from my eyes, an acceptable sacrifice to you, Lord.
The Conversion of St Augustine by Fra Angelico.
I hurriedly retraced my steps to the place where Alypius was sitting, for I had left the book of the Epistles of St Paul when I got up from there. I picked it up, opened it, and silently read the first passage that fell before my eyes. It said: No gluttony and drunkenness; no lust and wantonness; no rivalry and envy. Rather put on the Lord Jesus Christ and do not concern yourself with the flesh to gratify its lusts.
I didn’t want to read any more, nor was it necessary. In an instant—no sooner had I finished reading the sentence—all the darkness of my doubts vanished, as if a light of assurance had taken possession of my heart.
Then we went to see my mother.
We told her everything, with great joy on her part. And as we told her the story of what had happened, she, jubilant and leaping for joy, blessed and glorified you… For she saw that you had granted her much more than she used to ask of you with her tearful and pitiful moans. In such a way you converted me to you that I no longer desired a wife nor harboured any hope in this world. I was firm in that rule of faith which many years before you had shown her that I would embrace. It was thus that you turned her weeping into joy [Ps 30:11], far more fulfilled than she had wished. A sweeter and more chaste joy than she had expected to find in the grandchildren born of my flesh.
In Augustine’s mind, the inversion of Greco-Roman values was now complete.
In the presentation of the book that I hold in my hand in my new room (on the wall we see some of Parrish’s paintings), María Teresa Franco, director of INBAL, informs us that since the times when it was an Aztec enclave ‘where the shoemakers, barnyard animal sellers, vegetable, plant and flower traders who came from Xochimilco prevailed’, the current Tepito neighbourhood in Mexico City is emblematic of the country. See some of the photographs that make up the book in this video.
Of course, the neochristian woman who wrote the prologue to the book praises what I consider nefarious. It was precisely the sight of such places in the heart of the capital that motivated me, since I was a child, to develop an exterminationist ideology.
Significantly, St Francis of Assisi is the patron saint of the Tepito neighbourhood: a saint whom, as an adolescent, I wanted to imitate (remember that I was raised in a fierce Catholicism). Who would have thought that, due to the abuse at home, I would transvalue my values from St Francis to Himmler…!
Not all the zones of the Mexican capital look like Tepito, which has such a bad reputation that people of my social class rarely dare to enter there. But I think it is impossible for an American racialist, whether Christian, or neochristian in the secular sense of accepting the Christian ethics of loving every wingless biped regardless of its appearance, to understand my exterminationism because he has not suffered such people over the decades. Asking Americans who advocate racism lite to revalue their values, to the point of loving Himmler and repudiating so-called Christian saints, is asking too much of them.
But the most paradoxical of all is that, as I said in my previous post, it is preferable to live in Mexico, or another third-world country, than in ethno-traitor Europe where the thoughtpolice literally breaks down doors, at night, to jail you if you say anything unkind about migrants. Those who know Spanish can watch, for example, this recent YouTube interview where Spain’s thoughtpolice dragged a blogger, who used to speak in a much softer tone than the hate-filled tone in which I speak, out of his home using SWAT forces.
Christian values reign in the West and are implemented with the ferocity of a religious fanatic like the High Sparrow, and his Faith Militant, in Game of Thrones.
Leo Tolstoy, undoubtedly the ablest modern expounder of primitive Christliness, in a much-translated volume entitled Work While Ye Have Light writes: ‘Our Faith tells us that bliss is to be found, not in resistance, but in submission; not in riches, but in giving everything away; we have not quite succeeded in casting off every habit of violence and property.’
To the most inept understanding, could any proposition be placed in a clearer light? Is it not as simple as ‘rolling off a log,’ that the individual attempting to become a true and honest Christian must become like unto a tame sheep?
What a sublime Ideal! How heroic! The bliss of a sheep! How superlatively delightful! How divinely glorious! And a Jew as the Good Shepherd, who leadeth his lambs ‘to green pastures, and quiet resting places, the pleasant waters by.’ For two thousand years, or so, His fleecy flocks have been fattening themselves up with commendable diligence—for the shearing-shed and the butchers-block.
Let any nation throw away all ‘habits of violence,’ and before long it must cease to exist as a nation. It will be laid under tribute—it will become a province, a satrapy. It will be taxed and looted in a thousand different ways. Let any man abandon all property, also all overt resistance to aggression and behold, the first sun will scarcely have sunk in the west before he is a bondservant, a tributary, a beggar, or—a corpse.
Property is necessary to the complete and free development of personality, and therefore human animals should somehow obtain a full and fair proportion thereof at any cost—or perish in the attempt; for he who cannot possess himself of property is much better buried out of sight. Our cities are honeycombed with treasure caverns, heaped up with gold, title deeds, silver, and instruments of credit: our valleys and our mountains are bubbling with wealth untold; and yet, poor miserable ‘servants of Christ’ pass idly by. Men, they call themselves! I call them—castrates.
If Tolstoy’s obsequious principles are derived from the Sermon on the Mount, then who can deny but that the Sermon on the Mount is a sermon unto decay and slavery? If they are derived from the Golden Rule and if the Golden Rule is the word of God, then can it be doubted that the word of God is the word of Fraud. There is far too much of this ghastly ‘goodness’ in the nation, far and away too much. It is time men who can think began to emancipate themselves, and consider the fact that: Morals, laws and decalogues were made by liars, thieves and rogues.
Liberty is honestly definable, as a state of complete bodily and mental self-mastership (which included the possession of property; also defensive weapons) and thorough-going Independence from all official coercion or restraint. Liberty in the conventional sense is a miserable Lie.
To be independent is synonymous with proprietorship. To be property-less, and unarmed, is the condition of actual dependence and servitude. Unarmed citizens are always enslaved citizens, always. Liberty without Property is a myth, a nursery tale, believable only by babbling babies and ‘fools in the forest’—fools in the city also. ‘Liberty regulated by Law’ is, in practice, tyranny of the darkest and foulest description; because so impersonal. There are numerous worthy, reasonable, and practical methods whereby individual tyrants may be removed; but a tyranny ‘regulated by Law’ is only removable by one method—the sword in the hands of men who are not afraid to use it, or to have it used against them: that is to say—the Sword in the hands of the Strongest.
During the whole course of human history, there is not upon record, one authentic instance wherein a subjugated people has ever regained property-holding Liberty, without first butchering its tyrants (or its tyrants’ armed slaves in battle) thereafter confiscating to its use, the lands and realized property that previously had been in the possession of its defeated foes and masters.
This statement is made with cool deliberation and aforethought. Let it be disproved by any one creditable example to the contrary, and the Author is prepared to forfeit 50,000 ounces of pure gold and enough ‘dimes and dollars’ to erect in Chicago, a bronze statue of ‘Our Blest Redeemer’ (crown of thorns and all) 100 cubits higher than the Masonic Temple. This offer is strictly bonafide and shall remain open till 1906, so that philosophers, editors, statesmen, divines (and other accomplished liars) may have enough time to blind themselves, wading through National Archives, and the putrid rubbish heaps that men call Public Libraries.
I still can’t find a place to move, so I don’t have time to resume my full-time activities for the sacred words. But today, at the bank, and already at home watching a video on how the old left thought (‘How the Left Destroyed Itself’ with Yanis Varoufakis), my mind doesn’t stop its train of thought.
Recall once again the faces of white Mexicans in my recent post ‘Blue pill’. In one of Mexico City’s best-known malls, where I was today because the banks are open there on Saturdays, I saw a huge billboard in the car park showing a Caucasian male with a black couple. I had seen such billboards in London but apparently, they are now catching on in the third world. The West suffers from an endless hatred: an exterminationist hatred of the white race even in countries where, like Mexico, there are very few true whites.
I didn’t take a picture of the huge billboard I saw in the mall with my mobile phone (although as a priest of the holy words I don’t use a mobile phone in a city without friends, for banking matters I have to carry it). But I think we Westerners have seen such billboards in various countries.
On the other hand I must confess that, although I don’t have time to read at the moment, I find fascinating what I have barely read of the 1455-page Spanish translation, which I recently acquired, of the classic book The Destruction of the European Jews. In digital form, I own the revisionist counterpart: the Holocaust Handbooks series (pic of one of them on the left). It would take a lifetime—many years that I no longer have on my horizon—to assess both sides. Hopefully, future priests will follow my method: listen to both the prosecutor and the lawyer before rendering an educated opinion.
In any case, as we can see from my featured post ‘The Wall’, the priest is not affected by the official story as he is a man who has already transvalued his values. As a Swede said on page 83 of my anthology 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.
Who within the American racial right, which largely subscribes to Christian ethics, thinks like this neo-Nietzschean Hyperborean?
The ancients believed in the unity of the world, in the dialectical intimacy of man with nature. Their natural philosophy was dominated by the ideas of becoming and alternation. The Greeks equated ethics with aesthetics, the kalôn with the agathôn, the good with beauty, and Renan rightly wrote: ‘A system in which the Venus de Milo is only an idol is a false system, or at least a partial one, because beauty is worth almost as much as goodness and truth. With such ideas, a decline in art is inevitable.’ (Les apótres, p. 372). The ‘new man’ of Christianity professed a very different vision of things. He carried within himself a conflict, not the everyday one that forms the fabric of life, but an eschatological, absolute conflict: the divorce from the world.
Early Christianity extends the messianic idea present in Judaism in an exacerbated form, due to a millennial expectation. In the words attributed to Jesus we find literal quotations from the visions of the Book of Enoch. For the first Christians, the world, a mere stage, a vale of tears, a place of unbearable difficulties and tensions, needed compensation, a radiant vision that would justify (morally speaking) the impotence of here below. That is why the earth appears as the field on which the forces of Evil and Good, the prince of this world and the heavenly Father, those possessed by the devil and the sons of God, confront each other: ‘And this is the victory that has overcome the world: our faith’ (I John V, 4). The idea that the world belongs to Evil, later characteristic of certain Gnostics (the Manicheans), appears frequently in the first writings of Christianity. Jesus himself affirmed: ‘I do not pray for the world…, as I am not of the world’ (John XVII, 9-14). St. John insists: ‘Do not love the world, nor the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world.’ (I John II, 15-16.) ‘Do not be surprised if the world hates you.’ (Ibid. III,13). ‘We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.’ (Ibid. V, 19.) Later, the Rule of St. Benedict will state as a precept that monks must ‘make themselves strangers to the things of the world’ (A saeculi actius se facere alienum). In the Imitation of Christ we read: ‘The truly wise man is he who, in order to gain Christ, considers all the things of the earth as rubbish and dung.’ (I, 3, 5).
In the midst of the great artistic and literary renaissance of the first two centuries, Christians, as outsiders who pleased to be so, remained indifferent or, more often, hostile. Biblical aesthetics rejected the representation of forms, the harmony of lines and volumes; consequently, they had only a disdainful look on the statues that adorned squares and monuments. For the rest, everything was an object of hatred. The colonnades of temples and covered walks, the gardens with their fountains and domestic altars where a sacred flame flickered, the rich mansions, the uniforms of the legions, the villas, the ships, the roads, the works, the conquests, the ideas: everywhere the Christian saw the mark of the Beast. The Fathers of the Church condemned not only luxury, but also any profane work of art, colourful clothing, musical instruments, white bread, foreign wines, feather pillows (had not Jacob rested his head on a stone?) and even the custom of cutting one’s beard, in which Tertullian sees ‘a lie against one´s own face’ and an impious attempt to improve the work of the Creator.
The rejection of the world became even more radical among the early Christians because they were convinced that the Parousia (the return of Jesus Christ at the end of time) was going to take place immediately. It was Jesus himself who had promised it to them: ‘Assuredly, I say to you, some who are standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.’ (Matthew XVI, 28). ‘Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened.’ (Matthew XXIV, 34). In view of this, they repeated the good news more and more. But the end of all things is at hand (I Peter IV, 7). ‘It is the last time’ (I John II, 18). Paul returns again and again to this idea. To the Hebrews: ‘Therefore cast not away your confidence, which has great reward… For yet a little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not delay’ (Hebrews X, 35-37). ‘Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together… but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching’ (Ibid., X, 25). To the Thessalonians: ‘Stand firm, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.’ To the Corinthians: ‘Brothers, the time is short; therefore let those who have wives be as though they had none…’ (I Cor. VII, 29). To the Philippians: ‘The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything…’ (Phil. IV, 5 and 6).
In his dialogue with Trypho, Justin affirms that Christians will soon be gathered in Jerusalem, and that it will be for a thousand years (LXXX – LXXXII). In the second century, the Phrygian Montanus declares that he foresees the imminence of the end of the world. In Pontus, Christian peasants abandon their fields to await the day of judgment. Tertullian prays pro mora fines, ‘that the end may be delayed.’ But time passed and nothing happened. Generations disappeared, one after another, without having seen the glorious advent; and faced with the continual delay of its eschatological hopes, the Church, giving proof of prudence, ended by resigning itself to placing the Parousia in an undetermined ‘beyond.’ Today only Jehovah’s Witnesses repeat on a fixed date: ‘Next year in the Jerusalem of heaven.’
A passage in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, ‘On Old and New Tablets’, inspires me for this post. But before I continue with the routine of this site (perhaps my next post will be one more passage from Irving’s book on Himmler), I would like to clarify something about today’s previous post.
The pair of four words, Gens alba conservanda est (White people must be preserved) and ¡Eliminad todo sufrimiento innecesario! (Let us eliminate all unnecessary suffering!), define the two commandments, or new conception of right and wrong, in our new Tablets of the Law.
The second commandment is given because of the colossal hells that some abusive humans inflict on their children, or the defenceless animals at their mercy.
That doesn’t mean that only those who already have these two commandments as their religion can be my comrades. Although Hitler was surprised when Himmler confessed to him that he still practised hunting with other Nazis, Uncle Adolf couldn’t have formed a political movement if he repudiated them. But it is obvious that a priest of the holy words has already taken his vows to fulfil both commandments (vows that non-priests aren’t yet capable of fulfilling because they lack the compassion we have developed).
Another thing I would like to say today is something else about my eternal quarrel with the American racial right. Yesterday I saw a video by Jared Taylor about the recent attacks in Germany perpetrated by a sandnigger. Taylor mocks the fact that the Eurocrats have been ‘speechless’ and ‘stunned’ after the massacre of civilian Germans. However, as a good Christian or secular neochristian (Taylor has never confessed whether he still believes in the religion of his parents) he fails to realise that these Eurocrats have taken Christian morality to its ultimate consequences (forgive your enemies, never allow yourself to hate them, turn the other cheek if they attack you, etc.).
While I watched the entire Taylor video, I didn’t read the recent Counter-Currents article on the massacre. I merely read the first two comments in that thread, where the first thing a couple of commenters did was say ‘Merry Christmas’.
Apparently, neither the commenters nor the author of that article are aware that it was precisely that Christianity that they still celebrate at Christmas that caused not only the massacre, but the previous massacres perpetrated by the jihadis that Taylor mentions in his video, and the massacres that other sandniggers will perpetrate in the future! Just as George Washington and the other Founding Cucks enabled Jewish infection in their brand new country, so the religion that conquered the Aryan soul has imposed on whites Semitic commandments diametrically opposed to the two commandments of our Tablets of the Law.
No, there was no point in reading either C-C’s article or the rest of the comments. The only thing to reiterate is that those on the racial right are neo-normies, not 21st-century National Socialists who have woken up to the real world.
