The Western psyche has been neutralised after hundreds of years of universalist indoctrination by the Christian churches (“we’re all one in Christ”)… The core belief of colour blind Christianity is to bring salvation to all tribes. Nation is irrelevant, salvation in Jesus is everything. Marxism preaches the same messianic nation-wrecking ideology.
Last year a friend recommended me the great work of William Gayley Simpson, Which Way Western Man? that can be read online. Simpson lived 99 years and wrote that huge work, of 775 pages, throughout most of his life.
I have read some chapters of Which Way Western Man? and was impressed that, before the internet age, Simpson managed to move from an altruistic Christianity to a stance in which he defended Hitler. I will not read the whole book. It is a mixture of disparate writings. One of the earliest dates from 1930, the chapter dedicated to Jesus; another, his already racist view on life, of 1977.
Simpson could have become a B-type bicausalist, blaming Christianity even more than Jewry, since after his Franciscan stage he became a fanatical reader of Nietzsche. For example, on page 18 of Which Way he says about his Franciscan venture: “It was full of Christian pity. It is no less than a crime against life when the superior is sacrificed to the inferior… the kind of thing the great scholar and musical authority Schweitzer did for years in the jungles of Africa”.
This seems to vindicate what I have said about Albert Schweitzer. In another confession, hundreds of pages later (on page 499), we see how Simpson’s Christianity was involved in what Nietzsche calls the inversion of values:
In fairness to myself and to my reader, I must remind him that I approached this question, forty years ago, very definitely from the equalitarian side. In my student days, and for the nine years of my Franciscan venture that followed, with a belief in “universal love” and an outlook on life very like that of St. Francis of Assisi, I quite ignored race, and discounted it. Wherever I went, in our South as in our North, in the Orient as in my own country and among my own kind, I met men as I found them, and valued them for the worth that I sensed in them as individuals, without regard to their race, their nation, their family, class, or any other feature having to do with their origin or their associations. Provided that there was health of body and mind on both sides, I even openly declared my readiness to sanction racial intermarriage.
But it was my Christian tradition and my ignorance that spoke thus.
Let’s jump other hundreds of pages forward. On page 708 Which Way contains a passage summarizing the English Revolution in a couple of paragraphs:
In the reign of Charles I, King of England from 1625 until he was beheaded in 1649, the Jews had already been outlawed from English shores for about 350 years. Driven out of Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492, many of them swarmed into Holland, where they soon made Amsterdam the financial capital of the world. Meanwhile England, without any Jews, had prospered mightily, had come to be known as “Merrie England,” had produced Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Age, and had destroyed the Spanish Armada; and by the time of Charles the First was showing signs of that expanding vitality that was to make her the greatest empire-builder in all history. This caused the Dutch Jews to lust for readmission to English soil, inasmuch as no animal makes so desirable a host for parasites as one that is healthy and growing. Cromwell came into a collision with the king that developed into a civil war.
He required money and all things needful for his army. The Jews agreed to be the suppliers on condition that, should he come out on top, he would have the ban against them lifted. In a few years the king’s head rolled, and Jews, mostly from Holland, swarmed in. Within two generations, they became the dominant financial power in the land and, as we have already seen, the Bank “of England” was set up, which, with its acknowledged privilege of enjoying “the interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing,” became the model for all the central banking systems with which the Western world was gradually saddled.
On pages 755-6 Simpson responds to a liberal in such way that he should be cited today:
The very men of whom you have been at such pains to make mock, even in our universities —Gobineau, Chamberlain, Spengler, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, H.F.K. Guenther—yes, and Adolf Hitler and Lincoln Rockwell, too— we will gather up from the scrap heap where you have thrown them and done your best to bury them, and we will wash them clean that they may be seen in a true light for what they were, and will set them up before us as our exemplars, our teachers, our heroes and our inspirers.
Although Simpson never surpassed his bicausalism type-A, it is worth reading, in 762, how he portrays the Jew:
But in any case, so long as we retain control over our own society, we must establish it as our undeviating and relentless aim to make and to keep our people homogeneous. The Jews, of course, to their last gasp, will resort to their utmost cunning and marshall all their strength to bring any such effort to naught. For they know full well, as already observed more than once, that it has been only by maintaining an attitude of abhorrence toward all mixing with aliens that they have survived the centuries and have come to be the power in the world that they are today. And they are no less aware that the only means by which they can keep a creature of our size in leading strings to them is to get us to swallow the poison that they themselves keep so far away from, until we become a race of enfeebled, fawning, mixed-breed curs.
In that same page Simpson even vindicates nordicism: a taboo subject for the white nationalists of today:
Also, with homogeneity as our goal, we must sternly shut our doors against all immigrants who are not White. Indeed, in my own judgment, we should be wise to reject even those White people who do not stem from the countries of northwestern Europe.
It is a disgrace that books like this one, published in 1978, have not been reedited, translated and found in the bookstores of the West.
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.
Christians will always put Christ above their Race-Soul. Or as Alex Linder put it: “Christian or white man. You can’t be both.”
There’s already a post in the main site under the title “The Aryan problem” but in addition to a snapshot that I’ll try to take to the whole discussion thread on The Occidental Observer, I’d like to post here my replies to those nationalists who still believe in our parents’ religion, even if there’s a lot of my copying and pasting from other authors:
In Homo Americanus Tom Sunic wrote:
Jews in America did not drop from the moon. Jewish social prominence, both in Europe and America, has been the direct result of the white Gentile’s acceptance of Jewish apostles—an event which was brought to its perfection in America by early Puritan Pilgrim Founding Fathers. Be it in Europe or in the USA, Christian religious denominations are differentiated versions of Jewish monotheism. Therefore, the whole history of philo-Semitism, or anti-Semitism in America and in Europe, verges on serious social neurosis.
@ Ezra Pound’s Ghost,
These folks [anti-Christian nationalists] never have any explanation for why racial nationalism flourished for 1,500 years in Europe under the “semitic slave religion” and also repelled/expelled the Muslims many times. Without “the Faith”, Europe would have been Islamicized several times over before the Reformation.
Too bad that after a while the comments threads get nuked in this site because Jack Frost already replied a year ago:
[The above quote] doesn’t deal with the argument which compares Christianity to a cancer. Cancer, too, doesn’t necessarily kill immediately. You can have cancer for years until it suddenly metastasizes and kills you. You can have it and be apparently strong and have many accomplishments; but nevertheless, you have it, and it will eventually kill you. So this argument in favor of Christianity doesn’t actually come to grips with the charge against it. It’s not a strong argument at all.
Frost’s complete reply can still be seen: here.
Regarding your mention of Islam, I would add that the catastrophe in education of whites that meant the destruction of so-called pagan libraries (e.g., St Gregory is credited with having destroyed many volumes of classical literature, even whole libraries, lest they seduced men’s minds away from the study of holy writ) was a factor facilitating the Islamic takeover of what used to be territories under Roman control.
Whites were unprepared to crush Islam in the 7th-8th centuries precisely because with the destruction of the Greco-Roman culture, including its libraries, they had practiced on themselves an intellectual lobotomy thanks to Constantine, Constantius, Theodosius, etc. If Frost used a metaphor it’s because in a comment you cannot introduce the ideas of a whole book. I mentioned Sunic’s Homo Americanus in this thread. That is the non-metaphorical source. Together with Revilo Oliver’s texts it explains why modern liberalism is the offshoot of Christian axiology (the “cancer” that is killing the West).
“The most tremendous destruction, barely imaginable, was caused in the field of education”, as can be read in my blog when the Imperial Church triumphed over the old culture. You can ignore what tradition says about Gregory I, the Great. But what about the flourishing book trade of antiquity? It disappeared. Even St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church’s official philosopher, writes that “the desire for knowledge is a sin when it does not serve the knowledge of God.”
In universities, history, as a science, was completely unknown. The experimentation and inductive research was condemned; experimental sciences were drowned by the Bible and dogma; scientists thrown into the dungeons, or sent to the stake. In 1163, Pope Alexander III forbade all clerics studying physics. In 1380 a decision of the French parliament forbade the study of chemistry, referring to a decree of Pope John XXII.
And while in the Arab world (obedient to Muhammad’s slogan: “The ink of scholars is more sacred than the blood of martyrs”) the sciences flourished, especially medicine, in the Catholic world the bases of scientific knowledge remained unchanged for more than a millennium, well into the sixteenth century.
The sick were supposed to seek comfort in prayer instead of medical attention. The Church forbade the dissection of corpses, and sometimes even rejected the use of natural medicines for considering it unlawful intervention with the divine. In the Middle Ages not even the abbeys had doctors, not even the largest. In 1564 the Inquisition condemned to exile (de facto death) the physician Andreas Vesalius, the founder of modern anatomy, for opening a corpse and for saying that man is not short of a rib that was created for Eve.
Consistent with the guidance of teaching, we find another institution, ecclesiastical censure, very often (at least since the time of St. Paul in Ephesus) dedicated to the burning of the books of pagans, and the destruction (or prohibition) of rival Christian literature, from the books of the Arians and Nestorians.
This is only a tiny segment of the overall history of the disaster for education in Christendom.
By the time it fell in the 15th century, Constantinople had already suffered a great deal of mongrelization—a mongrelization that undoubtedly contributed to its decline and eventual fall. The real point is that since the beginning Constantinople was founded upon the Imperial Church’s universalism.
Just compare the Byzantine empire with the original Romans. They did not descend from the original inhabitants of the Italian soil, but of the Italici (italios or italiotas) and probably also of Illyrian groups, namely, Indo-European invaders who entered Italy from the North, what is now southern Germany. These early invaders—from whom the Latins descended (considered the most influential and who eventually gave their language to the Empire), the Sabines (considered by Plutarch “a colony of the Lacedaemonians,” i.e., Spartans), the Umbrians, Samnites and all patrician clans that founded Rome and the Republic—were indeed mostly Nordic, and also formed the basis of the political and military elite of the Empire.
In a nutshell, the melting pot of the late Roman Empire together with Christian universalism were the ultimate culprits regarding the 15th century defeat of the so-called “Second Rome” by Islam. If real whites governed Byzantium with the heritage of the pagan Greco-Roman world, the Muslim spectacular conquests would probably not have happened.
You said nothing about the mongrelization that took place in Constantinople because of the Imperial Church’s universalism, and by the way I know of a better metaphor than Frost’s “cancer” regarding our parents’ religion.
Christians have a sort of HIV/AIDS which makes them vulnerable to Semitic depredations: a virus for the mind that the Muslims don’t suffer.
“Mental AIDS” is the collapse of a people’s immune system in the face of their enemies. Practically all whites throughout the West suffer from mental AIDS insofar as they are not defending their sacred lands and Aryan women against an invasion of millions of non-whites.
Quite a few white nationalists get mad when hearing the expression “pathological altruism”. Most speak, instead, of “homicide”: the Jews being the primary infection that infected the white soul. But what if they are a secondary infection? After all, the white people contracted Christianity (HIV) in the 4th century, which after a long incubation period eventually developed into liberalism (AIDS) during the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Liberalism, or Neochristianity as I like to call it, weakened the West’s immune system. After Napoleon, secular Neochristians opened the door to the subversive tribe throughout continental Europe—Jews—: a “mental AIDS”-related opportunistic infection, such as pneumonia is an infection of the somatic equivalent of AIDS.
If Christianity and its secular offshoots are massively involved in the West’s darkest hour, and I cannot conceive a biggest blunder than emancipating the Jew, why not start diagnosing the situation as “assisted suicide,” with the Jew only being too happy to comply with the deranged Neochristian’s will to bring about his own death?
The French revolutionaries were pseudo-pagans. Julian was a true pagan and you’re right that he favored Jews over Christians. But Julian also addressed the Christians thus: “Why were you so ungrateful to our gods as to desert them for the Jews?” He understood that Christianity was even more dangerous than the subversive tribe in the 4th century.
And the French revolutionaries were indeed neo-Christians.
Will Durant wrote that the introduction of the Stoic philosophy into Athens by the Phoenician merchant Zeno (about 310 b. c.) was but one of a multitude of Oriental infiltrations. Both Stoicism and Epicureanism—the apathetic acceptance of defeat, and the effort to forget defeat in the arms of pleasure—were theories as to how one might yet be happy though subjugated or enslaved. This was certainly not the zeitgeist of the ancient Hellas or Republican Rome.
Beside Stoicism and Epicureanism Christianity was another Oriental infiltration into the Aryan soul. This is a June 2015 Frost question to this very site (another nuked thread!) that no TOO Christian has ever responded: “What is the evidence that, even in pre-Christian times, Europeans were prone to moral panics and excessive guilt and/or altruism? I’ve never seen any and find it hard to believe there is any.”
@ Pierre de Craon:
Whatever you might think about Frost, who’s not commenting here anymore, his question merits response.
You honestly believe Nero was a Jew? He began the First Jewish–Roman War.
In his huge bestseller The Story of Philosophy Durant does paint those schools of thought as antithetical to the Greco-Roman spirit at its peak. If the zeitgeist changed (and this is not Durant) it was precisely due to the loss of racial purity I spoke about in this thread using the example of another region: Constantinople. Miscegenation also happened in Europe and shifted the zeitgeist from the Aryan to the Oriental, yes even in Athens when mestization started, but not in Sparta as they remained pure until the catastrophic Peloponnesian War.
Regarding Frost’s question,
— “What is the evidence that, even in pre-Christian times, Europeans were prone to moral panics and excessive guilt and/or altruism? I’ve never seen any and find it hard to believe there is any.”
— “Well, would you count Buddhism as an Aryan religion?”
Thanks. That’s the first honest reply to our question!
You are right. In fact, the existence of Buddhism should scare the WNsts who cannot think of anything but Judeo-Christianity as the sole cause of white decline. There are other factors of white pathology of course. But unlike what many nationalists believe, Christianity is one of them.
In another of my comments in this thread I linked to Revilo Oliver’s texts. This is taken from that link:
Late in the sixth century B.C. a young Aryan prince named Siddhartha, doubtless influenced by the Lokayata prevalent in intellectual circles, evolved an atheistic pessimism that differed from a strict materialism only in the assumption that an individual’s will-to-live (as distinct from his mind and personality) could survive his death. This palingenesis of the will (which must be sharply distinguished from the reincarnation of a soul) strikingly resembled the basis of the modern philosophy of Schopenhauer, and Siddhartha, yielding to our racial instinct to deduce and formulate universal laws, presented it as true for all men. His doctrine therefore appealed to sentimental Aryans who were concerned for “all mankind” and had an itch to “do good” for the lower races by pretending that those races were their equals.
They accordingly preached the philosophy of Siddhartha and gradually transformed that bleak pessimism into a religion complete with gods, saviors, and innumerable angels and demons, and they called Siddhartha “the Enlightener of Mankind” (Buddha). As an odd mixture of philosophy and religion, Buddhism became the Established Religion of India, consummated the mongrelization of the Aryans and their submergence in the prolific native races, and then, its work of subversion accomplished, it disappeared from India and survived only as a grossly superstitious religion in Tibet, China, Japan, and adjacent Mongolian territories, and, with many doctrinal differences, in Ceylon and Southeast Asia, where it appears to have become as decadent as Christianity among us.
So the causes of white decline are multiple. IMO individualism, universalism, weak ethnocentrism (“hardwired” characteristics in the White psyche since prehistoric times) + egalitarianism, liberalism, capitalism (cultural “software” after the Revolution which ironically strengthened Christian axiology) + the Jewish influence since the 20th century = a truly lethal brew for the White peoples.
From this standpoint the JP is a catalyst, not the active ingredient of the brew. I call the active substance “the Aryan problem”.
A corollary to “On exoteric white nationalism”
Some racialist Americans at Dixie are trying to distance themselves from the term “white nationalism.” However, Southerners are still stuck in the worldview of white nationalists, as shown in “An overly traveled road to extinction” by Hajo Liaucius: an essay that merited inclusion in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. (Those who don’t want to read Liaucius’ long essay, an original for my blog, may take a look at least to a section within that essay, which I renamed, “Was the Second Klan cuckservative?”) To Liaucius’ critique I would add that Southerners also suffer the mental disease of the West in general: Christian axiology. A couple of examples from one of the most popular Southern nationalists sites will explain our irreconcilable worldviews.
• Jack Ryan: “CINO [Catholic in Name Only] Pope Licking Black Muslim Migrant Boots!” – Occidental Dissent, March 25, 2016
Reality check: Pope Francis is not a “Catholic in Name Only” leader of the Church. Quite the contrary. Ryan fails to see that what this Pope usually does simply follows undiluted gospel message, as shown in my 2014 Christmas post. (See also one of my recent comments at the main site about who used the term “racist” in a negative light for the first time: the Christians!)
• Hunter Wallace: “The Alt-Right and Abortion” – Occidental Dissent, April 8, 2016
In the comments section of this article the exchange about abortion between the author and Greg Johnson shows how stuck Southern racialists are in ethnosuicidal morality. Just compare them with the eugenics program among the Spartans in an essay, originally written in Spanish, which also merited inclusion in The Fair Race. Compare them also with the Nazis, who certainly were not “pro-choice” but not “pro-life” either. They didn’t allow abortion for healthy Aryan German women, but demanded abortion upon women deemed un-Aryan (i.e. Jews, Gypsies, etc.) and German women with hereditary diseases.
Incidentally, Wallace didn’t even allow my own comment to pass. About the German philosopher who wanted to revaluate occidental values back to pre-Christian, Spartan-like morality, Wallace wrote: “BTW, Nietszche [sic] died childless from syphillis [sic] in an insane asylum, so he is hardly any guide to the family.” This is the typical ad hominem fallacy of course. Below, my comment that got censored in that thread:
He actually died at his sister’s house, and the biographers that I’ve read on Nietzsche, Curt Paul Janz and Werner Ross, considering the documents of the time don’t give any credit to the rumor of syphilis. As to Nietzsche’s views on the family see: here. The causes of Nietzsche’s solitude and incapability to form a family are explained in a lyrical essay: here.
Only if these racist Americans become deeply familiar with the history of Europe they’ll grow up. But that certainly won’t happen in this generation.
The following is a comment that the moderator of
The Occidental Observer did not let pass tonight:
Thanks for mentioning The Daily Stormer. Today’s article on The Daily Stormer implicitly takes issue with Dr. MacDonald’s thesis about pathological altruism. Anglin wrote:
The Alt-Right, on the other hand, is driven by well-defined principles, even though we presently do not have a leader. There are different strands of the Alt-Right, of course, but we all agree on a few core concepts:
• White countries will be for White people
• Traditional gender roles will be restored
• The Jews are the prime force behind the collapse of Western civilization.
I agree with the first two concepts. But Anglin does not seem to have taken seriously what, for heavy-weight intellectuals like Tom Sunic, are factors even larger than the Jewish problem: economics over race policies and Christian axiology (see also William Pierce’s only non-fiction book, Who We Are). Then Anglin apparently refers to The Occidental Observer:
Replacing the Jewish Problem with a White Problem
Presently, it looks as though a big part of the strategy to direct us away from the Jews will be the promotion of the concept of “pathological altruism,” a theory which asserts that we Whites simply cannot help destroying ourselves in an attempt to help non-White people.
There is some basic truth within the concept, as we are an extremely empathetic race. But the agenda I see coming is to remove the Jewish question from the equation and replace it with pathological altruism. This ultimately amounts to victim-blaming.
If Anglin has MacDonald in mind he’s speaking nonsense, as the main focus of the professor is still the Jewish problem.
The concept of pathological altruism is interesting on an intellectual and academic level, but that is the extent of it. It is not useful in attempting to address the real plague of our society, which is the Jews. Beware of anyone trying to use this theory to shift the blame from the Jews onto Whites.
Wrong. It’s us who empowered them after the Napoleonic wars. Liberalism, i.e., white suicide, must be studied in addition to the Jewish problem.
Also beware of anyone trying to inject any other type of new concept into the narrative. We have a very stable narrative, and we need to simply stick with it and build on it. We need to stay focused on the Jewish problem, on building a movement based on an awareness of the Jewish issue.
Anglin’s POV is right as a pragmatic tactic for an exoteric site such as The Daily Stormer. The Nazis did about the same, especially Goebbels: sell the Jewish problem to the Aryan masses! But more esoteric NS leaders, such as Hitler and Himmler, in their inner circles also talked about what we might call the Christian problem, often as if it was a more elemental problem than the Jewish problem (see, e.g., here and here).
For propaganda purposes for American Christians The Daily Stormer is ok. But for more subtle tools of cracking the annoying cipher of white decline, the scholar ought to do a careful reading of Sunic’s and Revilo Oliver’s texts and those of this very webzine, including MacDonald’s concept of “pathological altruism”.
Recently Greg Johnson interviewed Vox Day (real name: Theodore Beale) about Beale’s most recent book, Cuckservative, coauthored with J.R. Eagle.
Beale is a Christian and, commenting about the high priests of the mainstream churches, said: “They are not Christian” and added “True Christianity, the Christianity that exploded in the lands that became Christendom, is on your side” (emphasis in Beale’s voice).
By the end of the interview Beale said that he wishes the best luck to the Nigerians in Africa. In spite of the fact that he was speaking of mass, non-white deportation from the West he wants it to be carried away bloodlessly, according to elemental “human decency” and Johnson agreed. Beale also said that he wants “none of the old Nazi rhetoric about fleas” referring to the human parasites that invaded Germany (Jews). He and Johnson want deportation according to a Christian sense of decency: “They are all human; they are all worth of human respect.” Both interviewer and interviewee expressed their concerns to avoid a “horrific Third World War” and that “We can avoid this.”
Johnson and the writer who goes under the penname of Vox Day thus ignore the laws of history. As the pendulum of western axiology has swung to the extreme yin, presently is coming back with extremely Yang vengeance. Compare their pious BS with The Turner Diaries climax or with what I said in the introduction of my most recent book about the need to exterminate the human Neanderthals (English translation of the first draft pages: here). Pay special attention to what I say about exterminable 3rd worlders in order to terminate animal torture (something that can also be said about other “humans,” including quite a few whites).
Beale and Johnson, of course, are a Christian and a neo-Christian respectively—archetypical feminized Western males. I have explained “neochristianity” in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour and have exposed Johnson’s neochristianity many times in the main site. Here I must take issue with Beale’s statement that “true Christianity, the Christianity that exploded in the lands that became Christendom, is on your side,” referring to white nationalists.
Like every Christian racialist, Beale is altogether ignorant about the history of our parents’ religion. Many times I have said that Christianity made its historical debut by committing “the sin against the holy ghost,” mestization. Universalism was in the DNA of its very foundational city, Constantinople; and since the days of Constantine mainstream Christianity has never been on the side of the Aryan race qua Aryan race. The Old Church started with universalism (“Catholicism” comes from Greek katholikismos, “universal doctrine”) and universalism itself, amalgamated with out-group altruism, is killing the latter-day Aryans in what remains of Christendom.
Over the forums the Christians have replied that miscegenation started in pagan Roman. Very true: but they fail to acknowledge that our parents’ religion made things much worse not only in Constantinople but in Rome itself. As a TOO commenter once said: “Until Whites get rid of universal morality they will be forever lost.”
Johnson and Beale fancy themselves as a race-wise breed morally superior to those Germans when my parents were children. The truth is that American White Nationalism represents a giant step backwards from German National Socialism. If Fox News hosts are the cuckservatives of the white nationalists, “New Right” racialists like Johnson and Beale are the cuckservatives of the national socialists. Let us repeat what we have said before:
Hearken White men!: The Aryan Race needs a religion of hate, not a religion of love!
Himmler himself advised us to get rid of universalist morality and considered the Churches “the enemies of the National Socialist worldview” because of “their doctrine of the equality of humanity” (see Der Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler’s worldview in a single article here).