The previous entry, “4 Words Explained!,” is fundamental. Together with the rephrased quotes from Francis Parker Yockey that appear in a post linked to the featured article, it reflects what it means to “transvalue all values.” These words are a Nietzschean formula that indicates the only path to saving the Aryan from the extinction it suffers throughout the West.
It is very illuminating to compare our POV with that of the granddaddy of the American racial right. In his recent article, Jared Taylor has realised that his nation’s project has failed. In fact, his article is titled “The American Experiment Has Failed (Adapted from remarks given at the American Renaissance conference, Nov. 15, 2025).” Taylor simply describes the bare facts of why the US has failed. But he ignores the aetiology of white decline:
I cannot foresee the political will to persuade or force 100 million citizens to bugger off. It wouldn’t be practical and in some cases I would argue it wouldn’t be moral. American Indians: where are they supposed to go? And we brought blacks here against their will.
This is Christian ethics. A Christian, Nick Fuentes, was once asked what book he would recommend. Since Nick isn’t a scholar he didn’t know what to say. I would say that the most important books to have come from the pen of an American are The Turner Diaries (fiction) and Who We Are (nonfiction): both by William Pierce. Let’s read another passage from Taylor, taken from his most recent lecture at AmRen:
I envy the simple choice our ancestors had: Kill the enemy or die trying. If the choice were that simple, every man in this room would do his duty, cheerfully.
Why is it that the racial right, unlike our ancestors—and unlike the Russians who are killing lots of Ukrainians right now!—no longer wants to kill the enemy?
Taylor’s article, originally published in AmRen, has been reposted on The Unz Review. As of this writing, I don’t see a single comment in the discussion threads of either forum reminding visitors of Pierce’s great novel, which in my opinion is the only way for white Americans to reclaim their territory: by exterminating all non-whites who refused to leave.
The problem with Taylor’s piece is that it describes the problem but doesn’t offer a deep analysis of why Aryans in general, and white Americans in particular, lost their Lebenskraft. Revilo Oliver said that if a race loses its thirst for life, that thirst can never be recovered; and all indications are that since 1945, whites have lost it around the world. I don’t know if I should be as pessimistic as Oliver because, unlike him, I believe that the energy devolution that will occur this century, and at the beginning of the next, will open one last window of opportunity for Aryans to redeem themselves from their ethnosuicidal sins.
Last month I was posting videos about how children’s stories had a completely different origin from the later fairy tales, and I gave the example of Snow White and Hansel and Gretel (in the original stories they were infanticidal mothers, not stepmothers: an important topic of my writings on child abuse at home). Now I’d like to talk about Jack and the Beanstalk.
The key symbol is the harp or the story to lull the white man to sleep (the rulers have offered their subjects a false story or worldview). But let’s take it one step at a time.
If my predictions are correct, Mother Nature (stealing the harp) will help the Jack of this century to seize the riches of the entire Jewish oligarchy and traitorous whites. In a video titled The Crash Course, originally published in October 2008, Chris Martenson, based on neo-Malthusian concepts, tries to explain energy devolution. A couple of years ago, Martenson developed these concepts into a book that can be purchased on Amazon.
The basic reason why the Aryan has lost his Lebenskraft (life force) is due to the incredible comfort of living, since the 1950s, in an environment of false abundance (peak oil), coupled with the Christian ethics that even atheists suffer from, and the current story or anti-Nazi “harp” to lull the white man to sleep.
Very well. Since oil will become increasingly scarce, if what the neo-Malthusians say is true, that means billions of humans will die unnatural deaths. At any event, all of them were born because of capitalist greed and the Christian ethics whose ideal is to help every coloured child. Nature will punish this white man’s sin of pride by exterminating the vast majority of humans, whom we here call “Neanderthals.”
Something of this kind happened in the Middle Ages. The Black Death of the 14th century was a devastating bubonic plague pandemic that swept through Eurasia and North Africa, reaching its peak between 1347 and 1353. It is estimated to have caused the death of between 80 and 200 million people, wiping out between 30 and 60 per cent of the European population.
This new plague, now in the form of an energy devolution, will be our great window of opportunity. Well, I won’t be around when billions die, but adding something of my own making to the video’s metaphor, there’s a difference between the harp and playing it.
The harp—billions dead in a century that will dwarf the Black Death of the 14th century—requires a musician. And that musician is the Aryan of the future, an SS Nazi redivivus. Playing the harp means repudiating Christian ethics, which is nothing more than stupidly following the commandments that some 1st-century Jews wrote for Gentile consumption, the so-called New Testament.
So if Nature itself will provide us with the harp that will kill billions, we also have to do our part and learn how to play it: kill the remaining non-whites (see, for example, what happened to all the Chinese by the end of The Turner’s Diaries).
This is something that Jared Taylor and his readers will never dare to say: we must sacrifice the religion of our parents, which is nothing more than a Jewish psyop so that the Aryan will immolate himself.
Editor’s Note: A visitor of this site sent me this some time ago:
______ 卐 ______
This book is available on Amazon.
Germany and the United Kingdom are the two European countries where animal protection has undoubtedly had an earlier development. In the German case, though, the animal protection and nature conservation provisions, at the centre of the first legislative measures taken by the Nazi regime, were characterised by a non-negligible degree of detail and systematization. Indeed, the animal protection and nature conservation agenda was first developed in 1933, with Adolf Hitler’s ascension to power and the institution of the Reich’s Association for Animal Protection (Reichstierschutzbund). Undeniably, the resulting laws covered aspects that were only touched upon much later by similar EU legislation, such as welfare measures during transport or at the time of slaughter. This shows the validity and scientific character with which the Nazi animal legislation was planned.
Whilst Nazi symbology disappeared, dragged along by the damnatio memoriae of a regime that imposed a heavy burden on Germany’s international reputation, the animal protection legislation, although repealed like the rest of the laws enacted during the Nazi period, have proven as a foundation for the current animal protection laws of Austria and Germany. This constitutes a good proof that said laws were a faithful reflection of a mentality deeply rooted in the Germanic spirit.
______ 卐 ______
After the seizure of power by the National Socialists, new hopes aroused and German conservationists lobbied for new pieces of legislation to protect the Heimat (homeland), its animals, and its nature.
Indeed, in the first two years of the National Socialist regime, from 1933 to 1935, the government enacted a wide series of specific animal and nature protection laws. Extensive new legislation came into force in the fields of animal welfare, hunting and environmental law, while forest law has never been completed. These could be built on the existing legal bases at the level of state laws and local decrees, as well as on the draft laws of the Weimar Republic.
The first legislative steps of the Reich’s government aimed to finally settle the debate on animal protection with a comprehensive legal text. It is impressive, in terms of speed and promptness, that the Nazis were able to emanate three pieces of legislation regarding animal welfare and protection, namely the Law on the Slaughter of Animals (RGB1139/1933), the Amendment to the Criminal Provisions (RGB1 156/1933) introducing the provision on animal abuse, and the Reich’s Law on Animal Protection (RGBII 132/1933). Within less than a year, from April to November 1933, the Reich’s Cabinet ended the long lasting issue and promoted the new legislation with extensive propaganda measures.
Then in 1934, and again 1935, the legislator’s focus shifted from farm animals and pets to wildlife, as the main concern started to be the extinction in Germany of animals such as bears, wolves, bison and wild horses. In fact, unlike governments overseas and in other European countries, in 1934 Germany became the first nation in modern times to place the wolf under protection.
The objective was to create conservation and breeding programmes and pass new and more uniform laws on nature and species conservation, as well as hunting. This objective was met on July 3, 1934 and on June 26, 1935 when the Reich’s Law on Hunting (RGBI I 73/1934) and the Reich’s Law on Nature Conservation (RGB1 I 68/1935) came respectively into force.
German Romanticism
Of utmost importance for the construction of the German national identity were certain notions and theories regarding man’s connections to nature and animal life that were expressed by the German romantic poetry, music and social thought. Being at the height of Romanticism, the German Volk was longing for the absolute, ready to subordinate the welfare of the single individual in the battle for life.
Collective identification was conveyed throughout the cult of genius, the veneration of nature, nostalgia for the remote past, the exaltation of passion, the suspicion of science, and salvation through art. [emphasis by Ed.] These ideas shaped Nazi thinking. All late Romantics—from Charles Darwin, or better Ernst Haeckel in Germany, to Richard Wagner—had venerated nature as an inexorable power that produced storms and earthquakes that annihilated entire species and peoples; industrialisation reached that point where human beings began to claim such power for themselves. Rather than a social movement, nature conservation was to be considered a sentiment.
According to the German biologist and environmentalist Walther Schoenichen, member of the NSDAP since 1932 and Head of the Reich’s Office for Nature Conservation until 1938, “The idea of conservation is essentially an outgrowth of Romanticism.”
In this context, the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche was influential. His works had been adapted and selectively used by Nazism, especially his rejection of intellectual culture and the embrace of the animal instinct in humans. In particular, great importance on the animal origin and character of man, was placed on Nietzsche’s conception of the “blond beast” or Raubtier, namely of man as a predator. By celebrating the beast in man in a mythical way, as a type of “secret idol” with qualities like vitality, unscrupulousness, blind will, and obedience, the new Germans were to be part animal, rejecting a certain side of their humanity. The compassion normally reserved to humans was to be redirected toward animals[Wow! This sentence sums up my ethics in a nutshell! —Ed.], and the cold aggressiveness of animal instinct became the model rigorous German. This was, in fact, part of the intent of the animal protection laws.
Another important argument was the one regarding the moral status of animals—a preoccupation that influenced Nazi thinking, calling for a remedy to early wrongs towards animals and calling for the protection of nature as a moral imperative. To this extent, the critique of Ernst Haeckel —German biologist, zoologist, philosopher of the late 19th and early 20th century, and highly influential populariser of Social Darwinism (he wrote at a time when the application of Darwinism to psychological and social phenomena was still in its infancy)— “religion is emblematic to understanding the Nazi transposition of this idea.” Haeckel attacked primarily Christianity for putting man above animals and nature, and for isolating man from nature and generating disrespect towards animals. He believed that man and animals had the same natural and moral status and that much of human morality stemmed from animals. Furthermore, he maintained that humans had much to learn from animals, like using the laws of nature to reform human society, the function of which—like animal societies—was to survive and biological fitness was essential to both. Not surprisingly, he supported “racial hygiene” through euthanasia.
Clearly, Hitler and other exponents of National Socialism endorsed and adapted this, as well as other main theories of the so-called Social Darwinism. Heredity, struggle, and natural selection were fundamental to their conception of both the natural and the social realms. It was the task of Nazism to create a community in harmony with the eternal laws of nature. As Goebbels commented in his diaries:
Man should not feel so superior to animals. He has no reason to. Man believes that he alone has intelligence, a soul, and the power of speech. Has not the animal these things? Just because we, with our dull senses, cannot recognise them, it does not prove that they are not there.
A third significant Romantic concept, particularly expressed by philosophers such as Richard Wagner, promoted synthesis over analysis, unity and wholeness over disintegration and atomism, and Volk legend over scientific truth[compare Wagner’s approach with American “race realism” —Ed.]. According to this view, an organic unity should not be mentally analysed and physically dissected. Therefore, mechanistic science was perceived as destructive for dissolving the whole into fragments, thereby losing the invisible force that makes the whole more than just the sum of its parts.
By defining it as the “curse of vivisection”, Wagner urged the closing down of laboratories and the removal of scientists and as both evil and Jewish, and associated it to the capitalists torturing the proletariat.
Nazis assumed a critical attitude towards science and opposed to this particular approach to it, which was attributed to the Jews, because it represented the separation of man from his connections with nature and ultimately from his own spirit. As Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax state, Nazis wanted a science that was influenced more by Goethe than by Newton. A science closer to poetry and art:
As Man stands to Nature, so stands Art to Man. When Nature had developed in itself those attributes, which included the conditions for the existence of Man, then Man spontaneously evolved. In like manner, as soon as human life had engendered from itself the conditions for the manifestment of Art-work, this too stepped self-begotten into life.
Rejection of anthropocentrism
The Nazi traditions of nature preservation and their romantic longings can be recollected into one essential aspect, which explicitly characterised their strict provisions on animal protection, i.e. the rejection of the anthropocentric view[this is very important to grasp our religion of the four words! —Ed.]. Animals were not to be protected for the sake of human interests but for their own sake. However Nazi ideologues apparently replaced the anthropocentric conception with a hierarchical one, which not only met the Nazi requirements of organizational efficiency but was also a way of fitting into the cosmic order, a way of being part of a whole.
According to the Austrian biologist Ludwig von Bertalaffny’s philosophy of biology, organisms were, by definition, organised things. As the founder of the General Systems Theory (GST) and member of the NSDAP since 1938, Bertalaffny related his views to the totalitarian ideology of Nazism and to the Führerprinzip in particular.
More concretely, his theory developed a new scientific doctrine of “wholeness”, replacing the philosophical Theory of Categories. He considered it indisputable that sociological phenomena, thus the human society, should be ordered in a hierarchical manner, like nature. He also praised the law enacted by Hermann Göring, which placed all decisions regarding the administration of nature under total centralised control.
______ 卐 ______
It is not a coincidence that in a famous caricature, Göring is portrayed as the liberator and leader of all lab animals that give him the Nazi salute in sign of gratitude. On this matter, he is remembered for another extreme political statement:
I […] will commit to concentration camps those who still think they can continue to treat animals as inanimate property […]. The fairy tales and sagas of the Nordic people, especially the German people, show the spirit of close contact, which all Aryan people possess, with the animals. It is the more incomprehensible, therefore, that justice, up to now, did not agree with the spirit of the people on this point as it did on many others. Under the influence of foreign [i.e., Jewish] conceptions of justice and a strange comprehension of law, through the unhappy fact that the exercise of justice was in the hands of people alien to the nation […] the animal was considered a dead thing under the law […]. This does not correspond to the German spirit and most decidedly does not conform to the ideas of National Socialism.
Editor's interpolated note: The hatred I feel when I hear a Judeo-Christian say that God (the nonexistent god of the Jews) put animals in the world for our benefit, makes me write my "four words".
Hitler once declared:
I have always known to be of the opinion that there is nothing better than being a lawyer for those who cannot defend themselves. In the Third Reich there must be no more animal cruelty.
______ 卐 ______
Their vision of the future included a world where animals would not be unnecessarily harmed. Hunting became a symbol of the past civilization, meat eating became a symbol of decayed peoples, and vegetarianism became a symbol of the new, pure civilization that was to be Germany’s future. We also know from direct testimonies, that Nazi leaders took pride in presenting themselves as friends of the animals; as Heinrich Himmler—the Reich’s Head of the SS (“Reichsführer-SS”)—stated, Germans were:
[…] the only nation of the world with a decent attitude towards animals.
Also Hermann Göring was of the same opinion, when he stated that:
The German people have always shown their great love of animals and the question of animal protection was always near their hearts. For thousands of years the German people have always looked upon their household and farmyard animals as their companions, in the case of horses as their fighting companions… To the German, animals are not merely creatures in the organic sense, but creatures who lead their own lives and who are endowed with perceptive facilities, who feel pain and experience joy and prove to be faithful and attached.
Indeed, the Holocaust itself may have depended on this unique cultural conception of what it meant to be human in relation to animals as a metaphor of what it meant to be Aryan in relation to other races. From this newly acquired perspective, one can conclude that what is considered to be as cruel and inhumane behaviour toward human beings by today’s standards, was seen by the Nazis as acceptable behaviour toward “subhumans”. What may be regarded as paradoxically humane behaviour toward animals, in light of the human tragedy, was seen in Nazi Germany as quite consistent given the belief of a common stem of certain higher humans and animals and their special bond with nature. Therefore, racial and eugenic laws on one side and the animal protection and nature conservation normative complex on the other, did indeed have a common denominator, which is mostly visible when studying the emanated laws in the context they were created in.
It is evident that the Nazi German identity relied on the blurring of boundaries between humans and animals, as well as constructing a unique phylogenetic hierarchy that altered conventional human-animal distinctions and imperatives. This blurring was visible, for example, in the abolishing of moral distinctions between animals and people, leading to the result that animals could be considered “higher” than some people. This was also apparent in the highly-debated concern for animals held by many prominent Nazi Germans.
On the one hand, animals were considered virtuous, innocent, and embodied ideal qualities absent in most humans, to the extent that to hunt or eat animals was defiling, a sign of decay and perversion. People, on the other hand, were seen with hatred, dread, and disappointment. In fact, to kill certain people was part of the quest for purity. Additionally, this blurring was evident in the Nazi alliance with animals, both portrayed as victims of their Jewish oppressors, i.e. the vivisectionists and slaughterers.
Finally, this blurring was visible in the animalization of German Nazis, in how they represented themselves as well as other humans. To cope with what they considered as the threat of genetic pollution of their pure, holistic, natural Volk, Germans were encouraged to fight with the same hard-headed determination as any other species in nature.
In this video uploaded today, Megyn Kelly appears accompanied by Tucker Carlson at a public event to talk about his decision to interview Nick Fuentes.
Tucker proves the whole point of this blogsite, The West’s Darkest Hour! He used the term “Christian ethics” to explain why he isn’t an anti-Semite; said that a Jew, Paul the Apostle is “my personal hero” and regarding neochristianity he added: “That’s where the idea of human rights comes from”!
He also explains that when such Xtian ethics are removed from the Aryan collective unconscious, exterminationism arises (which he calls “genocide”).
Several WN pundits are feeling very envious that Nick Fuentes is the voice that has caused a crisis in the Republican party, to the point that a schism is beginning to appear among conservatives: Israel first or the US?
When I started posting a series about Game of Thrones years ago, everyone ignored me on this site. What I was trying to figure out was the reason for the show’s popularity. In my opinion, it was because, despite the Jewish directors, there were many shots that artistically showcased not only Aryan beauty, but also the beauty of an idealized medieval Aryan world based on fantasy novels: just what the white race needs but with NS directors.
Now we have the same phenomenon among very young people who follow Fuentes. This year, by the way, a European (not Benjamin) visited me and told me that the fate of the Aryan race rests on the shoulders of the Zoomers, and that we must appeal to them.
I think it’s true.
This site has been highly critical of the American racial right precisely because they don’t speak with the brutal frankness that Nick does. Alex Linder spoke like that, but it’s obvious that his exterminationism made him—as it makes me—a premature birth of a future that hasn’t yet materialized.
In contrast, Fuentes’s voice appeals to the current overtone window of white American Zoomers. That’s magnificent, and it’s something white nationalists have been unable to do because they’ve stagnated in mere essay writing without the power of oratory.
I recently reminded my visitors that Linder compared the “lite” racialists to middle-class little bourgeois eating crustless sandwiches, but yesterday I remembered that Linder added that they did so with their pinky fingers raised while holding their sandwiches at their meetings. That’s the diametrical opposite of what Nick does!
The Jews are panicking because if this kid’s voice becomes mainstream, it’s game over for them, and not just for their little wars for a Greater Israel in the Middle East. That’s why a couple of days ago Ben Shapiro did something unprecedented: a special program against Fuentes in which he didn’t even allow the commercials from his previous podcasts (see also Nick’s own hilarious response).
It’s true that Fuentes has gone so far as to say he wants to establish a Christian theocracy in the US where anti-Christians (like me, for example) wouldn’t be allowed to live. But that doesn’t matter to me. What matters is that the collective unconscious of white Americans, at least that of Nick’s countless followers, is moving in our direction for the first time since the fateful year of 1945!
It’s the same thing I detected with the Game of Thrones phenomenon, the most popular TV series. Since intuitive psychology is my forte, I see the first signs (with Nick, not with Game of Thrones) that the white collective unconscious might awaken after its long, long slumber.
So I’ll support Fuentes if he runs for president.
In the unlikely event that he does win (if there were attacks against Trump, we can already imagine what would happen), I’d probably start criticizing him once he’s inaugurated because, given his Christian ethics, he might not fulfil his campaign promises: crushing the left, something that can only be done by staging a coup—becoming a dictator—in order to open two or three Dachau-style concentration camps in the US: my dream come true (as I said recently, that’s why I visited Dachau outside Munich this very year: a solo pilgrimage!).
But for now, I support Nick Fuentes. I don’t care that he’s a Christian. Crossing the psychological Rubicon can only be done step by step, sometimes even baby steps. This is how the Aryan collective unconscious operates, seeking to rid itself of the Jewish collective unconscious that currently imprisons it.
And if we’re talking about racialism and being aware of the JQ, and that only the power of oratory can galvanize the masses, Nick could become what Hegel wrote about Napoleon even though, as a patriotic German, he disliked Napo: “I see the spirit of the world seated upon a horse.”
Editor’s Note: According to Tom Holland, Christian ethics surround us, even atheists, like water surrounds fish. Although Wikipedia is dominated by our ideological enemies, their article on Dominion is informative, so I’ve reproduced it in abbreviated form below.
Although, unlike us, secular humanist Tom Holland subscribes to Christian ethics, and is therefore also an ideological enemy, anyone who understands the thesis of his book will understand the POV of The West’s Darkest Hour.
The racial right pundits I criticised yesterday are like fish in the axiological ocean that Christianity bequeathed us. They haven’t been able to venture onto dry land but, like the normies, have always been surrounded by the sea. After 1945, among the very notable racists in the US, only William Pierce dared, like the first fish to use its humble fins to venture onto the beach, to take his first steps out of the ocean. The rest remain wrapped in that matrix that prevents them from seeing the water from the dry land.
______ 卐 ______
Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind (published as Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World in the United States) is a 2019 non-fiction history book by British historian Tom Holland.
The book is a broad history of the influence of Christianity on the world, focusing on its impact on morality—from its beginnings to the modern day. According to the author, the book “isn’t a history of Christianity” but “a history of what’s been revolutionary and transformative about Christianity: about how Christianity has transformed not just the West, but the entire world.”
Holland contends that Western morality, values and social norms ultimately are products of Christianity, stating “in a West that is often doubtful of religion’s claims, so many of its instincts remain—for good and ill—thoroughly Christian”. Holland further argues that concepts now usually considered non-religious or universal, such as secularism, liberalism, socialism and Marxism, revolution, feminism, and even homosexuality, “are deeply rooted in a Christian seedbed”, and that the influence of Christianity on Western civilization has been so complete “that it has come to be hidden from view”.
It was released to generally positive reviews, although some historians and philosophers objected to some of Holland’s conclusions.
Background
Tom Holland has previously written several historical studies on Rome, Greece, Persia and Islam, including Rubicon, Persian Fire, and In the Shadow of the Sword. According to Holland, over the course of writing about the “apex predators” of the ancient world, particularly the Romans, “I came to feel they were increasingly alien, increasingly frightening to me”. “The values of Leonidas, whose people had practised a peculiarly murderous form of eugenics and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night [emphasis by Ed.], were nothing that I recognised as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls, and enslaved a million more.” This led him to investigate the process of change leading to today, concluding “in almost every way, what makes us distinctive today reflects the influence over two thousand years of the Christian story”.
Overview
In Holland’s view, pre-Christian societies and deities, such as in the Greco-Roman world, tended to focus on and glorify strength, might and power; this was inverted with the spread of Christianity, which proclaimed the primacy of the weak and suffering. Humanism, instead of springing from ancient Greek philosophy or Enlightenment thinking, “derives ultimately from claims made in the Bible: that humans are made in God’s image; that his Son died equally for everyone; that there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.” The concept of human rights and equality, as well as solidarity with the weak against the strong, Holland argues, ultimately derive from the theology built on the teachings of Jesus and Paul the Apostle.
The success of what he calls the “Christian revolution” in changing our sensibilities, Holland argues, is evident in how complete its central claims now are taken for granted by “believers, atheists and those who never paused so much as to think about religion” [this includes white nationalists—Ed.]. Holland also argues that many of those who most clearly recognized the “radical” implications of Christianity, and its departure from earlier morality, were those fundamentally opposed to it—including Friedrich Nietzsche and the Nazi Party.
Reception
Terry Eagleton, writing for The Guardian, described the book as “an absorbing survey of Christianity’s subversive origins and enduring influence” and an “illuminating study”, concluding “Holland is surely right to argue that when we condemn the moral obscenities committed in the name of Christ, it is hard to do so without implicitly invoking his own teaching.” Philosopher John Gray, writing for the New Statesman, called Dominion “a masterpiece of scholarship and storytelling”. Gray wrote that “Dominion surpasses Holland’s earlier books in its sweeping ambition and gripping presentation… Holland comes into his own when he shows how Christianity created the values of the modern Western world… What makes the book riveting… is the devastating demolition job it does on the sacred history of secular humanism”.
Other reviews were more mixed. A review in The Economist described Holland as a “superb writer”, though also writing that “his theory has flaws”, and that “correlation is not causation”. Samuel Moyn, writing for the Financial Times, similarly stated that “Holland shines in his panoramic survey of how disruptive Christianity was for the ethical and political assumptions that preceded it”, while criticizing how “the illustration of the conquest of the west by Christianity risks becoming so total that it explains everything and nothing.” The scholars James Orr G.R. Evans and Samuel Moyn all regarded the book’s earlier sections on Ancient history as stronger than its later sections on more modern history. Evans writes that “The third section on “Modernitas” is perhaps the least successful, because of the degree of compression which it attempts”.
Peter Thonemann, writing for the Wall Street Journal, called Dominion “an immensely powerful and thought-provoking book”, stating “it is hard to think of another that so effectively and readably summarizes the major strands of Christian ethical and political thought across two millennia”. At the same time, he criticized its argument as selective, writing “Mr. Holland postulates a golden thread of Nice Christianity… this argument—that everything Nice in our contemporary world derives from Christian values, and everything Nasty in the actual history of Christendom was just a regrettable diversion from the true Christian path—seems to me to run dangerously close to apologetic”. The Los Angeles Review of Books stated that “Dominion’s most important contribution is in emphasizing how terms we take for granted, even concepts seemingly as fundamental as ‘religion’ and ‘secular,’ come ‘freighted with the legacy of Christendom'”, stating that his argument about the Christian origin of “human rights, socialism, revolution, feminism, science, and even the division between religion and the secular” is carried out in a “mostly convincing way”. Mendo Castro Henriques praised certain aspects of the book, but noted that the book omitted certain key figures such as Ignatius of Loyola, Thomas More and Erasmus and failed to pay attention to the profound importance of art and music throughout Christian history.
Many reviewers noted the distinctive approach used by Holland, centred on the lives and personalities of figures in history, as opposed to an in-depth history of ideas or theological analysis. Moyn described how “Holland brings the past to life through his characters, which are always vividly drawn”. Eagleton wrote how “Holland has all the talents of an accomplished novelist… Rather than unpack complex theological debates, the book gives us a series of vivid portraits of some key figures in Christian history”. Daniel Strand similarly wrote that “As opposed to intellectual history, which too often floats above historical events, Holland focuses on historical actors and their motivations”. Mendo Castro Henriques wrote, “Dominion is not a history of ideas, but of the body and soul of humanity.”
It was also favorably reviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald, The Critic, the New Yorker, and Kirkus Reviews who called it “an insightful argument that Christian ethics [emphasis by Ed.], even when ignored, are the norm worldwide.” In a mixed review, Gerard DeGroot, writing for The Sunday Times, wrote that he “[had] to commend the originality of this book” but disagreed with its thesis, writing “the values described as Christian seem more like simple human nature… The idea that charity and tolerance are evidence of Christian influence seems too ethnocentric”.
Philosopher A. C. Grayling has rejected Holland’s interpretation of Christianity’s influence on modern morality, meeting Tom Holland for a debate on the subject.
Influence
Despite being intended as a work of history and not apologetics, the book has since publication been cited as both an influential contribution to recent debates on “cultural Christianity”, and, for some, as a path to conversion in its own right. As such, this has in certain Christian milieus been described as the “Tom Holland train” to the Christian faith.
It was featured in The Atlantic as one of “Five Books That Changed Readers’ Minds”, where it was listed by Derek Thompson. American right-wing activist Charlie Kirk stated that reading Dominion helped convince him that the “canon of Western values” were rooted in Christianity.
As returning visitors know, our seminal essay, published since The West’s Darkest Hour was hosted by Blogger, is “The Red Giant” which collects comments from a blogger who used to comment under the pen name Conservative Swede (Eric).
In 2009, before discovering white nationalism, I used to argue with Eric on Gates of Vienna: a pro-Western, anti-jihadist forum. One of the things Eric said stuck with me. This “Nietzschean of the North”, as Larry Auster who also used to comment on Gates of Vienna called him, said that he would transvalue some of the values of the 21st-century West to the values of the 1950s; others, to the 19th century; but still others ought to be transvalued to the times of ancient Rome.
As we can see even now, sixteen years after my interactions with Eric, the American racial right only wants to transvalue the decadent values of our century back to the 1950s: these racialists are de facto conservatives. Eric realised that some other values should be reversed to before the 50s. For example, the interaction between men and women was infinitely healthier in the world of Jane Austen, before the first wave of feminism took hold of the Aryan collective unconscious. However, as Eric believed that the primary cause of white decline was Christian axiology (after all, over time that axiology would give rise to feminism), other values would have to be reversed to pre-Christian times, Nietzsche’s ideal.
All of this seemed very logical to me when I discussed it with Eric in July and August 2009. Now that I have discovered a great book about our prehistoric past, I would add something to it.
Since reading Danny Vendramini’s Them and Uschanged my worldview, as to re-evaluating some things back to the 1950s, others back to Austen’s time, and others back to the values of the Greco-Roman world, I would now add a final touch. In our interaction with the Other, it is not enough to behave like tough citizens of the Roman Empire. Let us remember that they committed the sin against the holy spirit of life: mixing their blood with mudbloods. We must re-evaluate much further back in time: to the values of prehistory, when our Cro-Magnon ancestors exterminated the ape-like Neanderthals.
This transvaluation of all values perfectly portrays the subtitle of this site: “National Socialism after 1945”, and contrasts dramatically with those who remain stuck on Mein Kampf as if it were similar to the Christian Bible. In reality, NS is a living philosophy that, over the years, has developed and rediscovered itself.
Eric would disagree with me that some aspects of our notion of good and evil need to be re-evaluated back to prehistoric times. Despite the nickname Auster gave him, “Nietzschean of the North”, he still subscribed somehow to Christian ethics, which forbids us from fantasising about genocide, let alone exterminationism, as if it were something good and noble.
Our Cro-Magnon ancestors would not agree with the Swede. Nor with Auster. Nor with white nationalists. Either our ancestors exterminated the evolved apes, or the genetic foundations for the Nordic race to flourish wouldn’t have been laid.
My good friend Alex [Linder], who has since gone to be with the ground, said that we should attack and mock—with our words—conservatives, because we are in direct competition with them, and not with Liberals, and Communists.
There are a lot of voices out there, like this nutcase, who wish to drag us back to a previous stage of the Christian Revolution. Fascism is different to Naziism. Fascism is a Christian phenomenon, whereas Nazism is esoterically antichristian. I was reading Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin, and it is clear from this dialogue that Hitler was antichristian, although he pretended otherwise. In Bolshevismus by Dietrick Eckhart, Hitler calls Christianity “the first communist cell”.
This form of Fascism—specifically, Christian authoritarianism as practiced by Salazar, Franco, Mussolini, and Dollfuss—is inherently Christian. Communism and Liberalism, so far from being anti-christian is simply what happens when Christianity, naturally, atheises. The Christian god, let us remember, does not exist, and so Christianity, if left to itself, will eventually atheize. Thus Revilo P. Oliver spoke of “The Marxian Reformation”.
Liberalism was dreamt up by the Christian theologian, John Locke.
Spinoza, who dreamt up the “dialectical” metaphysic of Communism was good friends with Quakers, who themselves were a more extreme sect of Communist Anabaptists like John Bunyan and Thomas Muentzer.
Thus, what our wingnut, Alex Hexagon, describes as political systems of decay: Communism, Liberalism and Christian Authoritarianism, are merely evolved states of Christianity.
Hexagon equates Liberalism with The Cult of Ugliness. Christianity was the original cult of ugliness. They whitewashed the frescoes, threw sculptures into the see, defaced sculptures with crosses, destroyed beautiful architecture such as the Serapeum. Christians did in the first centuries of the Common Era exactly what “Liberals” do today: and a hatred of good architecture is shared between yesterday’s Christians and today’s liberals.
Isaiah assures us that the central character in the Christian mythos, Jesus Christ, has no beauty in him. Early Christianity was a literal cult of ugliness.
The answer to a revolution is not to overthrow it with an earlier stage of that revolution, but to overthrow the revolution, completely, ad radicem, at root.
Christianity, as Revilo P. Oliver points out, was a mob revolution against Aristocratic Epicureanism. If you want to overthrow the revolution, then return to Epicureanism, i.e. the observance of causal reality. In Epicureanism, there most certainly is a difference between Jew and Gentile, between male and female. In Aristocratic Epicureanism, the first are always first and the last are always last. In Aristocratic Epicureanism, the Xenos is not someone to be welcomed, but an enemy invader to be countered. Aristocratic Epicureanism is basically an opposite ethic to that of the sermon on the mount. If you want Europe to return to its former greatness, then re-embrace what Revilo P. Oliver calls the true white western philosophy: Aristocratic Epicureanism.
There are plenty of hucksters out there selling Christianity as a cure-all for all that ails us, whereas, in my estimation, it is the thing that slowly poisoned us to begin with. A philosophy totally at odds with reality: the last shall be first, will eventually doom our civilization.
Starting with the Reformation, Europeans began to take the ethic of the New Testament seriously. Illiterate peasants, prior to the Reformation, probably had no idea what the Sermon on the Mount even was, and, therefore, opperated according to the previous pagan-ethic. The Roman Catholic Church, certainly, did not want to follow the suicidal ethic of the New Testament. However, as Nietzsche points out: when Luther “restored the gospel”, the poisonous suicidal ethic of the New Testament was let loose upon Europe unto its own destruction. The Roman Catholic Church would itself embrace this suicidal ethic at Vatican 2.
If there is one phrase that captures my spirit, which is practically identical to Kalki’s spirit if we draw inspiration from the most revealing passages of Savitri Devi, it is to exterminate the obsolete versions of Homo sapiens.
Only those whom these Neanderthals have martyred in a truly bestial manner, and who have managed to survive—like Benjamin and me (for Ben’s autobiography see here; mine, here)—have reached level 10 on Mauricio’s scale. Those who have not been martyred by the System and survived won’t understand our passion for exterminating the primitive version of humans which for decades I have called, in my soliloquies, “Neanderthals”.
But oh surprise! That expression of mine from so long ago may have an equivalent in the Aryan collective unconscious. According to Jung, even very ancient events could be unconsciously contained within our psyches, and Danny Vendramini’s book, Them and Us: How Neanderthal predation created modern humans serves me wonderfully to explain myself.
Darwinian scholar Danny Vendramini.
It doesn’t matter if only thirty per cent of what Vendramini says has a genuine scientific basis and the rest is mere conjecture. The fact is that since the Jew Franz Boas, anthropology has become an anti-white ideology; and every time I watch videos on YouTube about prehistory I get extremely upset because this ideology permeates our view of our distant past to such an extent that not only does it portray the first Homo sapiens as Negroes, but these YouTubers have dared to depict cities of historical blondes, such as Sparta, with figures of mulattos among Caucasians and a few blondies: as if historical Greece were ethnically a replica of a modern-day American metropolis! (see, e.g., the first comment in the comments section).
In the prologue to his book, Vendramini tells us:
When I applied Teem theory to what had transformed humans from stone-age African hominids into fully modern humans, why we look and act the way we do, and even why we’re obsessed with sex and violence and good and evil, it proposed a single simple explanation that was both extraordinary and unexpected.
The result is a unified theory of human origins called Neanderthal Predation theory (or NP theory) which is based on a fundamental reassessment of Neanderthal behavioural ecology. Exciting new evidence reveals Neanderthals weren’t docile omnivores, but savage, cannibalistic carnivores—top flight predators who hunted, killed and cannibalised our archaic ancestors in the Middle East for 50,000 years. What’s more, Neanderthals were also sexual predators, who raided human camps to rape, and abduct young females, leaving a trail of half-cast ‘inbreds’.
This multi-faceted predation eventually drove our ancestors to the brink of extinction. Genetic evidence reveals that at one stage our entire ancestral population was reduced to as few as 50 people.
The only humans to survive the predation were those born with mutations for ‘survivalist adaptations’—modern human traits like language capacity, Machiavellian intelligence, coalition building, creativity, risk-taking and aggression. These traits effectively transformed them from a prey species to a virulent new hunter species—Homo sapiens.
Armed with these new attributes, the first modern humans systematically exterminated their former predators, firstly in the Middle East and then in a blitzkrieg invasion of Europe. They then spread out to colonise the world. Guided by an innate sense of them and us, hyper-aggressive men killed anyone who looked or behaved even remotely like a Neanderthal, including hybrids and other humans [emphasis added]. It was this lethal process of artificial selection that gradually unified human physiology and behaviour.
It’s a fairly radical theory, but its strength lies in its predictions and ability to explain aspects of human evolution, physiology and behaviour that have frustrated philosophers, biologists and anthropologists for centuries.
The book has been written for a general readership which has an interest in how we got here. I’ve included ‘boxes’ to explain peripheral subjects and there’s a glossary of ancillary terms at the end. But to help academics evaluate the theory, I’ve also included my references—all 800 of them.
Because the evolutionary events I am investigating happened so long ago, some aspects of the scenario I propose are speculative. For instance, I speculate on the psychological impact that Neanderthal predation had on our ancestors, how the menfolk felt seeing their women abducted and raped. I do this because the psychology of ancestral humans had a direct bearing on our evolution and needs to be considered as part of a holistic theory.
For some scholars, though, the use of speculation and the imagination are anathema—but historically there has always been a legitimate place for the imagination in science. A scientific model can be subjected to rational debate and analysis only once it exists in a tangible form. The day before Einstein conceived his theory of relativity, there was nothing to think about. It existed in a netherworld beyond deductive reasoning, and required an act of imagination to bring it into existence.
Einstein is famously quoted as saying, “Imagination is more important than knowledge” and he explains, “For while knowledge defines all we currently know and understand, imagination points to all we might yet discover and create.”
For radical, big-idea science, imagination isn’t just ancillary to the scientific process, it is an indispensable ingredient.
With human evolution, it could be argued that the reluctance of academics to imagine alternative evolutionary scenarios, or to encourage lateral thinking beyond the narrow pathways of orthodoxy, has hampered progress in this field.
While imagination played a role in the formulation of the NP theory, the resulting evolutionary scenario has, of course, been subjective to an exhaustive six-year process of scientific scrutiny and verification which involved sifting through 3000 scientific papers and other pieces of evidence. Ultimately, the theory’s credibility rests on the rigour of this process.
But let’s not fool ourselves. Although, unlike academics who study prehistory Vendramini uses his vivid imagination, this writer is a normie as revealed in the following passage of the first chapter:
Until we understand the evolutionary imperatives that subliminally drive universal human behaviours, xenophobia, superstition, sexism, war, racism [my emphasis], homicide, ecological vandalism, genocide and the nuclear arms race will continue to hold sway over humanity.
This reminds me of what I have said about Tom Holland’s Dominion: we can perfectly appropriate Holland’s conclusions, but at the same time revalue his Christian-sympathetic values.
Only an academy of the future, in an Aryan state whose academic fields are linked to archaeology, palaeontology and prehistorical geology, will evaluate the Neanderthal Predation theory and clarify the matter. But by then, the extermination of the Neanderthals—and here, unlike prehistory, I am using my historical metaphor (cf. Mauricio’s scale)—will already be underway, if not already complete.
What is valid about Vendramini and others’ NP theory is that prehistoric Orcs were exterminated by us in the real world, and that this process could potentially be repeated with those I call Neanderthals—although that would imply a complete reversal of Christian values to the values of our distant ancestors: the prehistoric exterminators.
____________
N.B. You can read the first 35 pages of Vendramini’s book here.
Update of August 24: Finally, he replied—in the comments section of this site, here.
At the time of posting this entry, the heated discussion thread on the Holocaust on Counter-Currentsalready has 267 comments. I tried to post six comments, only half of which were approved. Regarding what I said a couple of days ago—:
I tried to leave a comment on Counter-Currents linking to this article, but it seems—not sure yet; still waiting for Greg Johnson to reply to my email—that Greg sent it straight to the spam filter.
—Johnson has neither approved my comment nor responded to my last four emails. While Johnson approved three of my comments, the other three disappeared because now even the message “your comment is being moderated” no longer appears.
I am surprised that Johnson is capable of banning someone like me from his webzine because I was always respectful in all of his discussions threads, even when I used to comment on Counter-Currents under the pen name of “Chechar” or in the three “vaporised” comments of the ongoing discussion. Furthermore, like Johnson I am also a critic of revisionists because I am an “Holocaust affirmer”.
But here’s the thing: unlike the revisionists, I do not condemn exterminationism. So Johnson can ban me while allowing rude comments against him in that same discussion thread—as long as they come from Holocaust deniers who subscribe to Christian ethics, where the life of every Negro, Gook or Jew is invaluable.
My very recent banning on Counter-Currents is symptomatic of the fact that, even when speaking in a very cordial tone on their forums, it is impossible to argue with those who haven’t re-evaluated their values. They simply shun me. They’ve been using the “death by silence” tactic on me for years. So The West’s Darkest Hour will continue to be practically a ghost town…
Revisionist Scott Smith recently wrote the following in the vigorous discussion about the Holocaust now taking place on Counter-Currents:
I conceded a long time ago that [Raul] Hilberg’s 5.1 Jewish million mortality figure could be true.
Wow! I think it’s very healthy that the issue is being aired on Counter-Currents. I very rarely comment on that webzine, but this time I did so given the importance of breaking the taboo that exists in certain quarters of the racial right, and the only way to achieve consensus is to start talking to each other.
In my opinion, even if the official figure of six million Jews killed in the Holocaust is true (which I highly doubt), that shouldn’t weaken our faith. As a Swede commented quite a few years ago on the previous incarnation of this site:
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.
This passage was included on page 83 of my anthology On Exterminationism. I believe that the commenters on Counter-Currents, whether Holocaust deniers or Holocaust affirmers, have not reached the level of the Swede because of their Christian programming.
