The following is a draft of my opening article for the forthcoming 2017 revised edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour.
White nationalism, more recently known as the Alt-Right, is an American Pan-European internet movement which advocates for people of white heritage coming together in a united political bloc to lobby for their interests. Most white nationalists, usually sons of Christian parents, believe that Jewish subversion (see the three articles about the Jewish question in Part I) is the main cause of white decline.
Axiology is the philosophical study of value, or meta-ethics: the axis around which our moral compass spins around. In my writings I refer to the study of value in the West; more specifically, the universalist Christian ethics that fecundated the egalitarian ideas of the Enlightenment; the ideals of the Founding Fathers of the United States, and the French Revolution. By studying Christianity and secular liberalism from the axiological viewpoint we arrive to a different conclusion from the one reached by white nationalists: Christianity and liberalism are the primary infection; Jewish subversion, a secondary infection.
A single example will illustrate our point. When the great European civilizations were at their apex the epithet “racist” did not exist. Under a negative light, the Church used it first in the nineteenth century. On 10 August 1872 the Synod of the Orthodox Church issued an official condemnation of ecclesiastical racism, that they called ethno-phyletism:
We renounce, censure and condemn racism [emphasis added], that is racial discrimination, ethnic feuds, hatreds and dissensions within the Church of Christ, as contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the holy canons of our blessed fathers which “support the holy Church and the entire Christian world, embellish it and lead it to divine godliness.”
In other words, the Church should not be confused with the destiny of a single nation or a single race. That is heresy. Thus, in condemning “phyletism” or “racism” the Synod in Constantinople introduced a Newspeak term for their congregation.
From Newspeak to Nietzsche
The critique of language is the most radical of all critiques. If we don’t uproot from our vocabulary the Newspeak of the anti-Western societies we won’t even be able to start discussing the issues. More specifically, as long as “racism” is seen as the ultimate evil we have two choices: repudiate the label or transvalue universalist Christian values back to ethno-Aryan principles (see the texts by Manu Rodríguez that I translated to English in Part IV).
White nationalists chose the former approach. They rarely use the term racist while describing themselves. The purpose of this book is to show why the latter approach is more radical.
The roots of anti-white Newspeak started with Constantine and his Imperial Church. The fourth century of the Common Era, during the reign of Theodosius, witnessed the consolidation of power of the bishops in the Roman Empire after the premature death of Julian the Apostate (see Emperor Julian’s own words in Part IV). Those unconverted to the new religion, that in the times of Julian enjoyed special protection, became second-class citizens. A new word was coined, pagan to label the adept of the millenarian Greco-Roman culture. Once created the Newspeak those stigmatized as pagans—and especially the Christian heretics—were persecuted more zealously than the Roman persecutions of Christians in times of emperors Decius and Diocletian. Only by such means the new theocracy succeeded in eradicating the original culture. Moreover, as some critics of psychiatry have noted, Theodosius was the first one in history to weaponize the word madness to label those who did not embrace the new religion.
The Roman Empire collapsed after the institutionalization of the Imperial Church (see Karlheinz Deschner’s introduction to his 10-volume work, also in Part IV). As we will see, Hitler, noted that Christianity was the Judeo-Bolshevism of the Ancient World.
Above I referred to the fact that when the European civilizations were on their prime the label racist did not exist. According to George Orwell the objective of Newspeak is social control. Orwell’s focus was a hard totalitarian dystopia. Presently, a pejorative use of the word racism is used in the soft totalitarian societies of the West.
Since the common use is derogative many white nationalists erroneously attribute the term racism to the Jew Leon Trotsky. Hadding Scott, a contemporary advocate of National Socialism, unearthed some documents demonstrating that the word was used before Trotsky. I would add that the documents that Scott has called our attention to are later documents, no less than a quarter of a century, of the above-quoted 1872 anathema. But Scott’s findings are worth mentioning. In Charles Malato’s Philosophie de l’Anarchie (1897) we find both raciste (French for “racist thought”) and racisme. In English, the first use of the word racism was by Richard Pratt, “a Baptist religious zealot,” in 1902, five years after Malato’s use of raciste and racisme in French. Scott also found raciste and individualité raciste (“racist individuality”) in the a 1906 volume of La Terro d’oc: revisto felibrenco e federalisto, a periodical championing the cultural and ethnic identity of people.
According to Immanuel Geiss, the term gained more popularity in Germany in the 1920s during the polemics against National Socialism. The next decade the term racism reappeared in an American anti-fascist pamphlet, and the meme spread out like wildfire. But remember that this virus for the white mind started within the Orthodox Church.
Regarding the Roman Catholic Church, the term catholic, with lowercase c derives via Latin catholicus from the Greek adjective katholikos, “universal.” A Vatican pronouncement, specifically Pope Pius XI’s statement on 29 July 1938, became memorable: “One forgets today that the human race is a single, large and catholic race.” More recently secular liberalism has coined a plethora of terms that we may consider re-elaboration of such catholic Newspeak: words like anti-Semitism in the nineteenth century and sexism, xenophobia, homophobia and Islamophobia in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The underlying meta-ethical axis of these “phobias” is a secular offshoot of the Church tenet that Christendom must not be confused with the destiny of a race.
The American Jared Taylor is one of the original voices of race realism or the Alt-Right movement. In the November 2016 National Policy Institute conference in Washington, Taylor said that the word racism cannot be sanitized; that its use means that folks like the speakers of that conference are morally defectives. Similarly, according to Metapedia, an online encyclopedia:
Racism is a term usually only used by critics. Official definitions of racism often state that the term should only be applied on the belief that some races are superior and on negative actions due to this. In practice it is often applied as a form of ad hominem on anyone believing in the existence of races or even on persons advocating restricting immigration, persons criticizing another culture or multiculturalism, persons supporting their own country/ethnicity, etc.
I fully agree. Nevertheless, potentially—and this is how we differ from white nationalism—racism could be a term used not only by our enemies but by us. Had values not been inverted by Christianity and its secular offshoot, liberalism, racist attitudes would be considered healthy. This is what Friedrich Nietzsche wrote in 1888 in Twilight of the Idols:
Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against “race”: the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love.
Taylor, whose texts appear a few pages ahead, is right only if we see ourselves gyrating around the current set of values. Why can’t we move away from that axis and consider ourselves the precursors of a post-Christian era? Why not educate our children to see “racism” as a great virtue, not a despicable vice?
Although most of the authors I’ll be citing in Part I are not racialist Nietzscheans, this cry from the last words of Nietzsche’s The Antichrist resumes our worldview in a nutshell:
Umwertung aller Werte!
 Papathomas, Grigorios (1995). Course of Canon Law (Appendix VI) canonical glossary. Paris.