William Pierce and Cosmotheism

During the early 1970s, the late white activist Dr. William Pierce formulated a religious orientation he called Cosmotheism to provide the spiritual basis for the direction he was taking in his racial work.  Pierce had serious reservations about Christianity’s appropriateness for white people and wanted to offer an alternative to it.  The following material is drawn from my book on Pierce, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds.

 *   *   *

“As I see it,” Pierce told me, “Christianity has a number of elements that are harmful to our people.   One of them is its egalitarianism.  You know: ‘the meek shall inherit the earth,’ ‘the last shall be first, and the first shall be last.’  It’s the whole Sermon-on-the-Mount idea of putting people down and pulling down those on the top of the heap regardless of how they got there.  It is a fundamental part of Christian doctrine, and I think it is detrimental to an ordered society.  When you look at Christianity you have to get beyond the requirements and rituals—you shall be baptized, you shall observe the marriage sacrament, and so forth—and see underlying things, like the egalitarian, Bolshevik message in this religion, which is really dangerous and has helped move us to this destructive democratic age.

“There is the universalistic message in Christianity, that we are all alike, that fundamentally there is no difference among people, that the only thing that counts is whether you are in or out of Jesus’ flock.  The ‘we are all one in Christ Jesus’ idea—man and woman, white and black, Greek and Jew.  We are all equal in the eyes of the Lord.  The truth of the matter is that we aren’t all one, and we are different from one another, and some individuals and cultures are better than others.  Anything that obscures that reality and its implications holds things back.

Dr. William Pierce

“Another idea inherent in Christianity is that what we do here on earth doesn’t really matter.  This life is just a testing ground; the real action will go on someplace else, after our death.  There is the notion that we don’t have to really stay on the case because God has everything under control.  He is watching us all the time and looking out for us, and He can push this button or that one and make anything happen He wants.  We aren’t in control, and in any case, we don’t need to be because it’s not really our responsibility, it’s God’s.  To me, that comes down to an abdication of responsibility.

“There is all the superstition and craziness in Christianity. When they had their chance, Christians burned free thinkers, stifled intellectual development for centuries, and led people off to those suicidal Crusades.  I see Christianity as more than a basically harmless aberration; it’s a really dangerous one.  At the same time I say that, I acknowledge that most Christians are reasonable and decent people.  It’s just that they haven’t thought things all the way through.  They aren’t the problem—it’s the doctrine.

“The European spirit is much more expressed in the pagan tradition of northern Europe.  There was more of the idea that man is responsible for the world around him. He is responsible for his own actions.  He’s answerable to nobody but himself and his kinsmen.  To live up to the European concept of honor and responsibility is to me far more in accord with our nature than trying to follow Christianity.  I realize it is a complex subject because for a thousand years Christianity has been modified by European feeling, tradition, and religious ideas.  That is how Christianity succeeded in gaining such a grip on Europe, by adapting itself to the conditions there.”

I have some familiarity with the northern European pagan religions before the Christian influx, including Odinism.   Odin is the father deity of Norse mythology.  He rules over a pantheon of gods and goddesses, including Thor, the god of thunder.  He is depicted as a fearless fighter who carries a spear and inspires fearless human warriors called berserkers.  Along with being a fierce warrior, Odin is also the wisest god, having given an eye to drink from the spring of wisdom.  I commented to Pierce that I could understand how the Odinist image of a big, burly, bearded Viking-type wielding a spear or a battle-ax would have appeal to some people.

“Well, I can understand how the idea of a Viking with his battle-ax charging into a monastery and splitting some monk’s skull and grabbing a silver crucifix off the altar and melting it down to make bracelets would be appealing.  But really, that is a very one-sided picture.  Raiding was one activity of the Vikings among many, and of course the Vikings were only one part of European culture and civilization.  Although I will say I can relate to that Viking image much more than the idea of the crucifix, which seems so alien as a symbol of a religion.  A man nailed to a cross, crucified.   That just seems weird to me.  It is hard for me to have a good feeling about that.  It doesn’t seem European to me.  It would take somebody with a really alien mindset to choose something like that as a symbol for a religion.  It is an execution scene.  It’s like if I were to start a new religion and chose as a symbol a man hanging from a gallows, or in an iron cage with crows pecking at his skeleton.

World Tree

“One of the principal symbols of pagan religion is the tree of life, it’s called The World Tree, which represents their cosmology.  To me, The World Tree is a much more fitting symbol for a religion for our people.”

The World Tree is a symbol for the continual creation of new life on earth amid the forces and creatures that tear at its roots—roots that remain, through it all, ever green. The World Tree also represents nature as the source of nourishment and healing to mankind.   In The World Tree symbol there is the focus on this earthly world and man’s embeddedness in nature and dependence on it.  And there is the theme of renewal and growth amid struggle and adversity.  

“There are a lot of people,” Pierce offered, “who say, ‘Where would we be without Christianity.  We’d be raping and killing each other.’  Well, we are raping and killing each other as it is.   The fact of the matter is that before the dominance of Christianity, Europeans kept that sort of thing pretty much under control through the ways communities were set up.  They had rules that made sense in terms of their survival and way of life, and the rules were enforced, and more or less people respected the rules.  There doesn’t have to be some kind of supernatural sanction to keep people in line.

“One of the things I quote often comes from northern European non-Christian writings and it goes something like this: ‘Cattle die and kinsman die, and so too must one die oneself.  But there is one thing I know that never dies, and that is the fame of a dead man’s deeds.’ [It is from the Hávamál, a group of disconnected, fragmentary poems composed by unknown Norse poets between 800 and 1100 A.D.]  Fame here doesn’t mean fame in the way we think of it today—notoriety, having people know who you are, being a celebrity.  In this case, fame means your reputation, the impression you make on the world and your fellow men while you are alive.  If you live in a way that warrants it, your people will remember you for generations as a person who did great things or was exceptionally wise or just or courageous, whatever it was.  That is the only immortality that is real, and that is a kind of immortality that can matter to people and really affect how they live.  You don’t need the promise of a life-after-death kind of immortality to get people to be good people.”

Pierce needed a name for the spiritual orientation—or religion, or life philosophy, whatever best to call it—he had put together, and he came up with Cosmotheism.   He can’t remember where he got the term.  I did some investigating and found that the English Romantic poet, critic, and philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge used it in the early nineteenth century.   In Coleridge’s writings, in one instance he referred to an identification of God with the universe and in another to the worship of the world as God.   The writer D.H. Lawrence was quoted as saying, “We and the cosmos are one.  The cosmos is a vast living body of which we are all parts.  The sun is a great heart whose tremors run through our smallest veins. The moon is a great gleaming nerve center from which we quiver forever.  All this is literally true, as men knew in the great past, and as they will know again.”  It could be that reading Coleridge or Lawrence was Pierce’s inspiration.   But it was a long time ago, and he doesn’t remember.

I asked Pierce to help me understand Cosmotheism.  He rose from his desk and went to a file drawer and pulled out some pamphlets, sorted through them a bit, and then handed three of them to me.  “You can look these over.  I wrote them on Cosmotheism back in the late 1970s.”

I read through the three pamphlets and listened to a tape of a talk Pierce gave back in 1976 at one of the Sunday evening meetings he conducted called “Cosmotheism: Wave of the Future.”  I concluded that what Pierce calls Cosmotheism is a version of the religious orientation called pantheism.  I won’t go into the particulars of Cosmotheism in this context, which would get us into considerations of George Bernard Shaw’s play Man and Superman, Plato’s Republic, and the ideas of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, and take us far afield.  Basically, it comes down to aligning with, and serving, a “life force” that propels the upward development of the white race.   It’s enough here to place Cosmotheism in its pantheistic context.

Pantheism as a religious perspective and tradition differs from three others more familiar to us: theism (Judaism and Christianity are examples), atheism, and humanism.  Even though pantheism doesn’t have a strong foothold in Western society, it is far from a rare phenomenon in the world: Taoism, forms of Buddhism, Confucianism, the religions of American Indian tribes, and the pagan religions of northern Europe all embody a pantheistic outlook.  Many Greek philosophers reflect a pantheistic outlook, including Plato and Aristotle and the Stoics, as did philosophers such as Spinoza, Fichte, and Hegel.  Prominent literary figures whose work reveals a pantheistic perspective include William Wordsworth, Ralph Waldo Emerson, D.H. Lawrence, Robinson Jeffers, and Gary Snyder.

What is this perspective on the world?  The words used to express the pantheistic orientation vary greatly, but what they all share is a picture of how everything fits together.  Pantheists get beyond the particulars, this discrete entity and that one, to a perception of an all-encompassing and unified order to things.  Pantheism is the view that everything that exists—nature, animals, human beings, everything—forms an integrated whole.  To the pantheist, everything is interrelated.  Human life is not independent and self-contained but rather an integral part of the world.

This stress on wholeness should not be taken to mean that pantheists contend that “all is one,” that there aren’t separate entities in the world, that the perception of distinctions is an illusion.  Rather, pantheists—or most of them, anyway—say that the various elements that comprise the world are not merely distinct, and that most fundamentally, most importantly, they are not distinct.  When pantheists look at the world, they see connectedness, they see unity.

What makes pantheism a religion and not simply a philosophy is that this unity that pantheists see is divine—it is sacred.  To pantheists, the world isn’t simply a set of interrelated concrete phenomena.  There is more—call it God—and this “something more” infuses, permeates, the world.  It is part of everything, and everything is part of It.  It divinizes the world and makes it holy.  When pantheists look at the world, they see God.

Pantheism can be better understood if it is contrasted with theism—again, Christianity and Judaism fall in this category.  The theistic tradition is characterized by the belief in a personal god—that is to say, a god with the characteristics of a human being.  This theistic god has a personality and bearing—like that of a commanding father perhaps.  This is a god who can hear and see and pass moral judgment and make decisions and take purposeful action.  He is focal: all power and holiness flow from him.  He was so powerful that he had the power to create the universe, a universe which he now in a parent-like or monarch-like way oversees.  He is separate, distinct from nature and mankind.  He is not of this world.  He is apart, above, transcendent, looking down on us all.

The appropriate relationship to the theistic god is deferential and devotional.  He is prayed to.  He is an object of worship—the sole object of worship.  The worshipper does not identify himself with God or seek to merge with God or become God; that would be blasphemous.  Rather, the fundamental objective of religious practice in the theistic tradition is to establish a proper relationship with God.  Cultivating this proper relationship gives the worshipper direction in living in accordance with God’s will and in escaping God’s displeasure or wrath.  The worshipper gains strength and guidance from God—perhaps with the assistance of a messiah—in the lifelong task of achieving salvation, peace, and happiness, and perhaps ecstatic joy, in this life, and bliss and serenity in the next life.

In theistic traditions, there is the belief in personal immortality.  The faithful will survive death in some form.  Death is regrettable to be sure, but that regret is softened by the conviction that the next world will be a better place than this one is.  In fact, in theistic traditions existence on earth is in large measure perceived as a time of preparation for the afterlife.

Like theists, pantheists believe in God; pantheism is not a disguised form of atheism or a substitution of naturalism for religious faith.  Where the difference lies is that pantheists do not perceive of God as a person or anything like a person. The pantheistic God doesn’t have a personality.  It doesn’t have a mind.  It doesn’t perceive as does a human being.  It doesn’t formulate intentions and carry out actions in response to circumstances in the manner of a person.  Pantheistic religions tend not to play up the creator-of-the-universe conception of God as do theistic religions.  There is more of a tendency in pantheism to attend to God and world—however they/it came to be—simply as realities to be encountered and taken into account at this time and in this life.

Pantheism denies the beyondness, the otherness, of God.  God isn’t up there, over there, someplace else, transcendent.  God is here, a part of all this, immanent.  God penetrates everything in the universe.   God is in nature.   God is in human beings.  God and man and nature are not distinct—or at least not totally distinct, or only distinct.  What makes things a bit complicated is that while pantheism emphasizes God’s immanence, there is also a tendency within this tradition to view the being of God as if it were not completely exhausted by the universe.  That is to say, God has a transcendent dimension as well as an immanent one.  Some have used the term panentheism (note the “en” in the middle) to distinguish the strand of pantheism that stresses both the immanent and transcendent quality of God.  So we need to be careful not to set up rigid dichotomies.  Still, however, the most useful distinction to keep in mind for our purposes is the basic one between a transcendent God (theism) and an immanent God (pantheism).

If God exists but isn’t a person, then what is It?  (To have used He at the end of this last sentence would have personalized God and been at variance with pantheistic thinking.)  One finds a variety of words used to describe God within pantheism.  God is described variously as The Force, The Divine Spark, The Principle of the World, The Plan for the Universe, The Spirit of the World, The Soul of the World, and The Divine Unity.  These aren’t the clearest of terms, but then again cloudiness of meaning is not unheard of in matters of religion, and they do communicate a basic sense of how pantheism conceives of God.

What is the proper relationship of human beings to the pantheistic god?  Since God is not a person or separate from everything, it isn’t a personal relationship in the way two people would relate to one another.  There isn’t a deferential posture toward this god.  Rather than a worshipful response to the presence of God as one finds in theism, in pantheism there is respect, awe, wonderment.  And rather than devotional practice, in pantheistic religions there is an emphasis on the search for knowledge of The Unity and the development of personal resources of a certain kind: namely, the understanding and wisdom and personal strength that will contribute to one’s living a life in accordance with The Unity or, another way to say it, that will allow one to integrate with the cosmos.  Thus, meditative and contemplative activities are more consistent with pantheism than prayer.  Really, any activity, intellectual or non-intellectual, that brings people into closer contact with things as they actually are and to a better understanding of how it all goes together and where they fit in the larger scheme of things, including a walk in the woods, is an appropriate religious practice within the pantheistic tradition.

Within pantheism, there is more of a focus on integrating into this world than winning forgiveness of sin or a place in the next world.  In contrast to theism, this integration may include merging with God, coming to a realization of one’s identity with, or sameness with, God.  The result may be happiness and joy, but more likely it will be more along the lines of a thoroughgoing peace of mind or sense of being truly home.

Most pantheists deny the possibility that they will survive death in some conscious form, so they aren’t seeking personal immortality through their religion.  They tend to believe that whatever happens must happen in this lifetime and with no help from God or a messiah.  For them, death is regrettable because it deprives us of experience and the possibility of doing further good on this earth.

It needs to be underscored that most pantheists are not monists.  They aren’t saying All is One.  They aren’t contending that there is only one Being and that all reality is either identical with it or modes of it.  They are pluralists.  They believe that there are many kinds of things.  They don’t regard the existence of real, finite entities as inimical to unity.   As pluralists, pantheists don’t see just one human nature but various human natures.  Pierce carried this idea over to race.  Where some would see one human race, he sees a number of human races.

In line with this pluralist mentality, pantheists don’t believe there is just one way to live in accordance with The Unity.  They don’t insist on one lifestyle or set of activities for everyone.  They believe that personal wellbeing and the welfare of the whole will best be attained by people living within the parameters dictated by their own essential natures.  The idea is to do what is natural to you given the reality of the whole of which you are a part.

Along this same line, pantheists don’t hold up any human attribute as being on a higher plane than the others.  A good mind, for example, can be positive and it can be negative depending on the use to which it is put.  In fact, one picks up a coolness toward intellectual prowess in pantheism; or anyway, that it is not essential to a good life, and may actually interfere with it.

Pantheists are critical of humanism.  They reject its secularized, human-centered worldview.  In their eyes, humanism sets man up as the sole concern, as being all-important.  Pantheists contend that humanists have substituted worship of man for the worship of God.  This contradicts the pantheistic view of man as a part of nature, and that the meaning and purpose of life cannot, should not, be made with reference to human beings alone.

Pantheists usually believe in free will.  Most often, they aren’t determinists.  They don’t believe man’s actions and fate are determined by either God’s will or earthly circumstances.  They believe in the power of choice and moral responsibility.  They derive their concept of morality from the nature of the Divine Unity, not from the nature of a personalized God and His word.  A person’s conduct cannot be assessed apart from his overall context, pantheists believe.   Pantheists judge the goodness of an individual act, and a total life, with reference to the individual’s relationship to the Unity.   Pantheists believe living in harmony with the Unity to be morally good, and living in discordance with it to be morally bad.

While pantheists believe in free will, they disagree with the existentialist posture that would have man alone determine the meaning of his life.  They hold that there are dictates inherent in man’s being and in his context that impose restraints and obligations on him and thus limit the scope of his freedom to simply choose his own path in life.  Man is what he is and is a part of everything, and these realities to a great extent direct how one should live.  Man should not, say the pantheists, be viewed merely as an end in himself.

Pantheists are critical of a reliance on science as the source of answers to the questions of existence.  Contend the pantheists, there is more to the world than can be accounted for by the natural sciences and their ways of knowing, their epistemologies.  Pantheists don’t claim to know all there is to know about the Divine Unity.  They still have questions about creation, immortality, and the meaning and purpose of life, but they don’t believe that science has the answers to them either.

Pantheists tend to love nature and seek to establish a relationship to things natural.  They tend to believe that if one doesn’t connect with nature, one is less likely to come to the pantheistic worldview.  If one never hikes in the wilderness or gazes at the sunset or sails on the water, if one never gets out of his own little human orbit, he is less likely to see the pantheistic truths.

Pantheists live more in an ethical than mystical relation to nature.  They perceive that living in proper relation to nature presupposes its preservation and protection.  They tend to be environmentalists.  They tend to be of a mind that technology despoils the environment and separates people from It.  They tend to see urban life as averse to both personal well-being and the well-being of the Unity.  At the same time, however, they tend to think of pantheism as an approach to life that can be lived out in any locale, including urban settings.

Pantheists regard organized churches and religious leaders with suspicion.  They doubt that the life that pantheism seeks to attain can be facilitated by hierarchically organized, clergy-centered, empire-building religions.

Pierce had a doctorate in physics and had been a tenured university professor in that field.  Modern science, he noted, has moved us from a static to a dynamic view of the universe, and pantheism aligns with that paradigm more than churches’ conception of the world as a finished creation.  Since Darwin, Pierce points out, the world has come to be viewed as undergoing a continuous and not-yet-finished change or evolution. Cosmotheism is more in line with this perspective, he asserted, than theistic religions such as Christianity.

151 replies
  1. Hadding Scott
    Hadding Scott says:

    I just know of Dr. Pierce’s beliefs from listening to him talk. In one of his speeches he refers to “the Creator’s purpose.” This purpose, as I recall, is increasing consciousness through man, and especially the White race. Evolution is thus not random but teleological. So, Dr. Pierce’s God is not lacking intention.

    Perhaps this purposefulness is a carryover from Dr. Pierce’s youth when he was a Presbyterian. It’s a funny thing how many prominent White advocates are or were Presbyterians.

    • Hadding Scott
      Hadding Scott says:

      I am a little surprised that Dr. Pierce gave Griffin his Cosmotheist pamphlets from the 70s without any caveat. I seem to recall, the last time that I worked there in 2003, Fred Streed told me that Dr. Pierce considered the formulations in them somewhat naive. That’s probably why they were not offered in the National Vanguard Books catalog.

      Dr. Pierce never renounced Cosmotheism but when I knew him, in the 90s, he didn’t talk about it much.

      I remember in 1994 he did a broadcast in which he used the expression, “your immortal soul.” I said something to him about the peculiarity of the expression and how it was likely to be misinterpreted. I knew that whatever he meant by that was probably not what Christians would assume. He said that there wasn’t time in the broadcast to explain everything.

      Some of the subordinate concepts in Cosmotheism, like being “parts of the whole,” and how the whole rather than the individual is what really matters, can be found in National-Socialist literature. It seems to me however that what the National-Socialists meant by that, and what Dr. Pierce meant, were not exactly the same. For the National-Socialists the whole was their nation, or their gene-pool, but for Dr. Pierce the whole was the universe and the Creator. This kind of attempt to justify ourselves in universal and absolute terms seems to me very American, and reflects the lack of real national community in the United States. It’s an attempt to fill that void.

      Another thing that has struck me recently is the resonance between Dr. Pierce as he talked in the 1970s and the Italian Fascists. I never heard him talk about Mussolini or the Italian Fascists but I think it’s unlikely that he never read Mussolini’s The Doctrine of Fascism or Palmieri’s The Philosophy of Fascism, or some similar materials, and you find in there themes similar to what Dr. Pierce espoused in the 70s, about the need for organized and providential application of reason, and upward striving, and actualization of the spirit, and also frank talk about inequality within the nation (which makes it surprising that the Italians never implemented eugenic sterilization). You also see quotes from Nietzsche in Italian Fascist literature, which are much harder to find in National-Socialist literature. The Fascists were neohegelians, so you do also have there the idea of the nation-state as an expression of God’s will.

      • Hadding Scott
        Hadding Scott says:

        A lot of people on here are disputing Dr. Pierce’s assessment of the ethical gist of Christianity. It is difficult to argue about this because people have tended to make the real-world impact of Christianity into whatever they wanted it to be.
        It is arguable that the adoption of Christianity had no impact on morals.

        Quite apart from considerations of the impact of Christianity on behavior, I think that Dr. Pierce, who at one time had been an ardent Christian, wanted a religion that he could believe. As a scientist, he could not continue believing in a religion like Christianity that was full of miracles.

        In particular, when you know something about the effect of heredity on character, it is difficult to accept Christianity’s idea of a soul that is independent of the body. Either the soul is an effect of the body, or as in the Hindu interpretation, the soul is reincarnated in a body that matches its character. Either way, the inequality and dissimilarity of souls has to be admitted. It is hard to see how anyone can recognize hereditary psychology while retaining Christianity’s ideas about the soul — except, of course, by being a hypocrite.

    • James
      James says:

      He was smart enough to realize the childish game of trying to save Christianity it just buys time. It is purely nonsensical. Some people try to pretend that Judaism is a warped version of Christiaity but Pierce was smart enough to realize that Christianity is the warped version and made up egalitarian nonsense. He also realized that all racism by whites who were Christian was not in full accordance with new testament but made use of old testament racism and darwinian conquest. There is no logical way a person truly follow the religion and be white nationalist or black nationalist etc unless you make stuff up like those black suoremacists who pretend they are the real Jews and that Jesus was really and black and really loved them over other people.

      Europe would be better to find a new God conception or find its old religions that existed prior to Christiaity. And no islam cannot be a substitute for reasons i explained earlier and because at the end of the day it places Arabs as higher.

    • cm miller
      cm miller says:

      Well observed, Hadding, that today Presbyterians, in the old country called Church of Scotland, are responsible for a lot of agitation and aggravation to the New World Order and not less in the founding of the US to the Old World Order. The old lady, who took off her shoe and threw it at the pulpit in Scotland furiously rejecting the attempt to install bishops in the church, is typical of the embrace of Presbytery, decisions made in church wide meetings, and representative forms of government. The common denominator in the colonials of various denominations at the time of the War of Independence was the belief in the precepts of John Calvin the Reformer. Like Calvin who left France for Switzerland ahead of the mobile Guillotine, we fled to a new land because of the persecution of the Roman Catholics and Anglicans. Following Calvin’s advice to “do all things as unto the Lord”, we worked with passion and excellence which gave rise to the term the Protestant Work Ethic, which was adopted by others who followed. In common with the Swiss Reformer Zwingli, who died defending Zurich, Calvin was a republican. Calvin believed in educating everyone, not just the clergy, and Thomas Jefferson even proposed that his schools be brought to the US. I am now an old lady and I have a good supply of shoes.

      I am sad that Dr. Pierce was not taught well within his church, most of us were not, but perhaps he was not one of the elect anyway. Man creates God…what could go wrong?

      “When we come to study the influence of Calvinism as a political force in the history of the United States we come to one of the brightest pages of all Calvinistic history. Calvinism came to America in the Mayflower, and Bancroft, the greatest of American historians, pronounces the Pilgrim Fathers ‘Calvinists in their faith according to the straightest system.’1 John Endicott, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony; John Winthrop, the second governor of that Colony; Thomas Hooker, the founder of Connecticut; John Davenport, the founder of the New Haven Colony; and Roger Williams, the founder of the Rhode Island Colony, were all Calvinists. William Penn was a disciple of the Huguenots. It is estimated that of the 3,000,000 Americans at the time of the American Revolution, 900,000 were of Scotch or Scotch-Irish origin, 600,000 were Puritan English, and 400,000 were German or Dutch Reformed. In addition to this the Episcopalians had a Calvinistic confession in their Thirty-nine Articles; and many French Huguenots also had come to this western world. Thus we see that about two-thirds of the colonial population had been trained in the school of Calvin. Never in the world’s history had a nation been founded by such people as these. Furthermore these people came to America not primarily for commercial gain or advantage, but because of deep religious convictions. It seems that the religious persecutions in various European countries had been providentially used to select out the most progressive and enlightened people for the colonization of America. At any rate it is quite generally admitted that the English, Scotch, Germans, and Dutch have been the most masterful people of Europe. Let it be especially remembered that the Puritans, who formed the great bulk of the settlers in New England, brought with them a Calvinistic Protestantism, that they were truly devoted to the doctrines of the great Reformers, that they had an aversion for formalism and oppression whether in the Church or in the State, and that in New England Calvinism remained the ruling theology throughout the entire Colonial period.” read more….



    • Freindo
      Freindo says:

      I’m so glad to have met him… I’ll never forget that day I called him and he invited me to visit.

      All because of those round orange stickers.

    • Seraphim
      Seraphim says:

      Did William L. Pierce refer to other ‘Creator’ than the one of the Declaration of Independence?
      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
      It is a strange coincidence that among the Founding Fathers who endorsed the Constitution (and the principles set in the Declaration of Independence) was a William L. Pierce (also from Georgia).
      How did he position himself in respect to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution of USA? Did he consider that the USA have been built of faulty principles (supposedly Christian ones, among these equality of all men) and should be changed?

  2. Ger Tzedek
    Ger Tzedek says:

    I came to hate George Bernard Shaw, and now forgot why. I think he was in the same league with Kalergi.

    I think that we need a new religion that mixes worship of ancestors with worship of generations yet unborn. It need not be a religion with a deity or whatever, can very well be a proto-religion. Death is regrettable but that regret is soothed by the thought of generations to come. This future outcome of future generations is something that you can influence big time, for example by marrying people not far from you, and by making a lot of babies. Need not be a religion with God. A philosophy is just as good, if it sticks. Has better chance to stick than a new religion. The best thing for a religion/philosophy to stick is for it to be advantageous to its followers. A philosophy that emphasizes their own kin, making as many babies as possible, hard work for yourself and your kin is a philosophy that propagates fast. I kind of like Mormons.

    Original Christians were every bit as vicious as Muslims. Jews when they get a chance have shown to be worse than Muslims. I think Christianity moderated at the hands of White man. We would have been much better without it. Now they call for a European version of Islam. You can go with that, but it won’t change much. The desert will never run short of bloodthirsty backward proposals, be they new religions or new interpretations of Islam. Once we become Muslims, they will massacre us because we haven’t got Islam right. We shouldn’t concede them anything, and better move away from Christianity without much fanfare.

    Even if Jews exterminate one billion Whites, they will call it tikkun olam. They think the world would be better. This is among other things, a very childish view over the world. Whatever.

    The Muslim violence at “worship God!” actually means “worship me!” This becomes clear with the long list of requirements to properly worship God. All of them are actually to the image of the preacher. Not really stupid of them.

    • Ger Tzedek
      Ger Tzedek says:

      “Posterity” is written in our constitution. We must press on that. The constitution constitutes a fundamental element of proto-religion. Just remind them who wrote that constitution. It is inadequate for another genetic pool like Liberia. If we want to uphold that constitution, we must uphold our gene pool, and take all the necessary measures to make that happen.

    • Theodora
      Theodora says:

      @Ger Tzedek:

      You said ‘Original Christians were every bit as vicious as Muslims…’

      This is not true. The original Christians were a peaceful community that attracted followers by living the life Christ taught them.

      In ‘Dissipation of Darkness: History of the Origin of Masonry’ by Jonas Lawrence you can read in Chapter XXIV the following:

      ‘They worked by means of a factor unknown to us. We see them acting with affection, with sacrifice, self-denial and humility, whose origins were unknown to us. We could not discover this apparent force. They must be supported by a mysterious, magic force.

      The ‘they’ of course are the followers of Christ and the ‘mysterious, magic force’ is for sure their believe in Christ. The ‘we’ are the early masons, the haters of Christ whom they called ‘the impostor’.

      The mistake many Americans make is to identify protestantism and the OT with Christianity: it is NOT! Protestantism knows some 30.000 denominations! Which one is the real stuff? Tastes more like talmudism with all the hairsplitting rabbis, meanwhile Christianity is crystal clear in what is good and what is wrong.

      • Curmudgeon
        Curmudgeon says:

        I will not speak for others, but only for the interpretation of Lutheran catechism taught to me more than 50 years ago.
        The Old Testament was present in the Bible to show us what the old covenant was for the Jews, and their failure to live up to their end of the bargain. They had their chance an blew it. The New Testament is the new covenant for those of the faith, and those of the faith (Christianity) were the chosen people. It did not mean that all of the Old Testament was to be disregarded, as there were parts, such as the Ten Commandments, that were applicable.
        Some, such as Mormons and Jehovah’s witnesses, were not Christians. Others, such as Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, were indeed Christians, as we all believed in the same message of Christianity, just not on the implementation.
        On another note, which is the real stuff is not limited to Protestants. The fact that there are Coptics, Maronites, and other sects which predate Roman Catholicism but are not Protestant, and the fact that the SSPX is popular among many RCs also begs the question: which is the real stuff?
        The answer, in my view, goes back to whether the core beliefs, which are common to all, are followed.

      • Weaver
        Weaver says:


        it depends somewhat on how far back you go. I’ve read old Roman accounts of Christians destroying pagan temples. And I’ve heard they wanted to destroy certain pagan books which have survived, like Metamorphoses. I don’t really have citations, but this sort of thing would be documented.

        Regarding Masons and paganism in general: If more of our pagan past survived, we’d probably have avoided the horrors of today’s neo-paganism. Evola once wrote the following, which I believe to be true:

        “Once we are clear about this, we come today to a paradoxical realization: that this imaginary paganism that never existed, but was invented by Christian apologists, is now serving as the starting-point for certain so-called pagan circles, and is thus threatening for the first time in history to become a reality — no more and no less than that.”

        TS Eliot also wrote how it’s difficult to understand another religion, and I expect this is also true.

  3. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    What about community? What would a community of Pantheists look like? What would they do? When and where would they gather? It seems one of the primary functions of Christianity and other religions is to bring people together in one space at regular intervals, fostering a sense of community, tribe, and family. That seems difficult to achieve with Pantheism.

  4. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    The Bible warns of judaism while the post St.James version of the Bible and modern Holocaustianity professes the jew to be sacred and the “top of the heap”. That Jesus was jewish (of a religion that denounces him and a member of “A religion” and not the basis of or for it). Holocaustianity, the replacement for Christianity teaches all jews are deitys are just as good as Christ or God in a pinch. “Honor thy Banker, Money Changer and Usurer because they will grant you Talmudvision and Shiny Beeping Gadgets (as long as you pay the taxes on those things they allow you to “borrow” from them during your lifespan).” Holocaustianity like it’s predecessor original sin places extreme guilt on the White Christian that they are responsible for all evil including anything that has happened prior to their birth. It absolves the church of those wrong doings because well the church is infallible. Fr. McKenzie or Rev. M L King only committed perversions because they were sacrificing themselves for the good of the flock. Holocaustianity has declared that any criticism of jews is sick and needs punishment as jews are close to God and are gods and therefore not subject to the same rules as non-jews.

  5. m
    m says:

    Whatever one thinks of Christianity, one cannot deny that it is, for the most part, Judaically modernized, either accidentally or intentionally. Both mainstream Catholic and Protestant sects show this tendency, in the main. Whether it can “recover” itself, or whether it even wants to, is a big question. It is my impression that the Christian hierarchies don’t care about anything other than expansion, and are even willing to accept oddball sects such as Mormonism into the “Christian” fold.

    Can a “new” religion arise. I guess. But we must keep in mind that religiosity has at least two aspects: outward exoteric forms; and inward teachings. The former is conditioned, relative to the existing social order–adapted to the needs of everyday life, and the storehouse of an often changing, contingent morality. The latter are usually transmitted orally, and never change in principle.

    The inward can never become popular, because it takes too much work and self-discipline. We see this demonstrated in words attributed to Christ–certain phrases which are very exclusionary (he never wrote anything down, so historically it is all questionable as to origin). However that is, one may contrast Christ’s initial group of followers with the expansion of the nascent Church.

    What we find is a change in doctrine that in many ways contradict the very words attributed to Christ, not to mention his early followers. Words that are now sufficiently deprecated as to become meaningless. It has reached the absurd point that when a traditional Catholic like E. Michael Jones quotes directly from the New Testament, he is viewed as a crank, an anti-Semite, and a “hater” by mainstream Christians.

    Finally, when looking at the genetic (using the word in its non-biological sense) component of incipient Western religiosity, one cannot (and one must not) avoid early Vedic works attributed to the proto-Indo Europeans, and subsequently taken up by indigenous peoples during southern migrations from their original Northern homeland. Much of this thought survives relatively unadulterated, as long as one moves past its popular forms. Rene Guenon’s discussion of Vedanta, and Julius Evola’s writings on early Buddhist doctrines likely have a place in this regard.

    • anarchyst
      anarchyst says:

      Tying Judaism to Christianity was a clever trick used by the jews to “cement” their claim to the “land of Israel” and of the covenant, to which I reply, “God is not a real estate agent”.
      Jews rejected the covenant when they murdered Jesus Christ. Their covenant with God was then “null and void”.
      It is the flawed Schofield translation of the Bible that elevated jews to the status of Christianity’s “elder brothers”, which was then reinforced by the Catholic (flawed) “Vatican II Ecumenical Council” in the 1960s.
      I cringe when I hear well-meaning people talk about out judeo-Christian heritage.
      Nothing could be further from the truth.
      The only common thread between Christianity and judaism is the Ten Commandments–nothing more.
      The god of judaism is a vengeful god, totally unlike the merciful and welcoming God of Christianity.
      Christianity welcomes ALL, regardless of nationality or social status–not true of judaism.
      Judaism is an insular belief system that shuns outsiders, prohibits proselytization, and promotes a form of supremacy, relegating all gentiles (non-jews) to the status of livestock–subhumans with souls, only to be used for the advancement and benefit of jews.
      Jews DID murder Jesus Christ. Sad to say, even the present-day (post-Vatican II ecumenical council) Catholic church has bought into absolving the jews for Jesus Christ’s murder. As always is the case, the jews got others, the Romans to do their dirty work for them–the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. How can Christians have the same values as the Jews; the very people who denounced and betrayed the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, and call for his execution (by others, of course, that is the Jewish way). It makes absolutely no sense at all. Jews have no respect, unlike Muslims for Jesus Christ or Mary, his mother, who are both honored as Prophets in Islam, but instead, Jews spit on hearing their names and do the same while passing a Christian of any kind or a Christian Church in Israel. They have no respect for Christians or any other religion.
      It is time the Jewish lobbies and the American Government leaders as well as the evangelical Christian leaders who mislead the poor American young into joining the military and believing that they are doing something for God and Christianity by fighting Israel’s wars were named, shamed and arrested and tried for treason.

  6. John
    John says:

    1) There is no group that the Jews hate more than Christians.

    2) Christianity vehemently condemns all other religions including Islam with verses like Galatians 1:8-9:

    8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

    3) Jesus Himself didn’t consider all people equal as we can see from Matthew 18:17 where he said:

    17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

    4) Daniel 2:43 in the Old Testament makes it plain that the different races and ethnicities cannot live cohesively together:

    Daniel 2:43 Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)

    43 Because thou hast seen iron mixed with miry clay, they are mixing themselves with the seed of men: and they are not adhering one with another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

    Also in Daniel 2, the bible describes some peoples as being strong like iron and others a as being weak and brittle.

  7. John Tillmann
    John Tillmann says:

    Greetings from Canada. Excellent article. Dr. William Pierce was a great man and great White European patriot. He was taken from us far too soon, and we need more brave and intelligent like him now, for the current raging culture war against our people.

  8. Robert Browning
    Robert Browning says:

    Why was Christ killed? The Jews then as now had and still have certain expectations of their messiah. The Jews expected their messiah to enslave their enemies, enslave the non-Jews. Christ preached forgiveness and peace making of ones enemies, so the Jews killed him. Christ was killed by the Jews because he refused the Jew demands for enslaving human kind for the benefit of the Jews and for no other reason. Christ died so every last non-Jew on earth would be free.

  9. m
    m says:

    I’d like to offer one other comment: Pierce’s view (if I read it correctly) that Aristotle, Taoism, and Buddhism are “pantheistic” cannot be accepted. At least if we understand pantheism as arguing that the universe represents the “body” of God.

    Aristotle’s view of God turned on the logic of the “unmoved mover” and is encapsulated in his “four causes.” There is nothing pantheistic about it. [Compare Book 12 Metaphysics,/i>]. This was taken up by the Church, argued in the doctrine of Divine Simplicity by Aquinas.

    Taoism posits universal laws (Yin Yang dualism, the Bagua, etc) which are derived essentially from “nothing.” There is a separation between the Way (if one can even consider that “God”) and all that follows. In fact, the material world is four times removed from anything that could even be called “God” in the usual sense [compare Tao Te Qing Ch 42 Text A, Henricks translation of the early Ma-wang-tui texts.]

    Buddhism can be rightly viewed as a negation of the notion of “God’ itself, in addition to all material form reflected via thought. [Compare the whole of the Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita.]

    The problem (or at least one problem with pantheism taken in its usual sense) is the problem of “occasionalism,” something Pierce certainly would have wanted to avoid. For whatever other merits Dr. Pierce had, a metaphysician and theologian were not two of them.

    • m
      m says:

      I’d like to offer one other comment: Pierce’s view (if I read it correctly) that Aristotle, Taoism, and Buddhism are “pantheistic” cannot be accepted. At least if we understand pantheism as arguing that the universe represents the “body” of God.

      Aristotle’s view of God turned on the logic of the “unmoved mover” and is encapsulated in his “four causes.” There is nothing pantheistic about it. [Compare Book 12 Metaphysics,]. This was taken up by the Church, argued in the doctrine of Divine Simplicity by Aquinas.

      Taoism posits universal laws (Yin Yang dualism, the Bagua, etc) which are derived essentially from “nothing.” There is a separation between the Way (if one can even consider that “God”) and all that follows. In fact, the material world is four times removed from anything that could even be called “God” in the usual sense [compare Tao Te Qing Ch 42 Text A, Henricks translation of the early Ma-wang-tui texts.]

      Buddhism can be rightly viewed as a negation of the notion of “God’ itself, in addition to all material form reflected via thought. [Compare the whole of the Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita.]

      The problem (or at least one problem with pantheism taken in its usual sense) is the problem of “occasionalism,” something Pierce certainly would have wanted to avoid. For whatever other merits Dr. Pierce had, a metaphysician and theologian were not two of them.

  10. Alan Donelson
    Alan Donelson says:

    Thank you for the informative introduction to the thoughts of William Pierce. I first encountered his name in another essay I read recently, accompanied by a negative sentence or two about “white supremacy”. I much appreciate your contribution.

    Raised “Roman Catholic”, soured on “churchianity” by the age of 18, unsatisfied by “new age” enterprises (e.g., est and “Werner Erhard”, modern-day gnosticism), repelled by several of the many orthodoxies, after 70 years on this planet, I have to conclude that pantheism comes closest to the amalgam of experience I call “personal philosophy”.

  11. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    My judgment of Pierce and his Cosmotheism is as follows :

    1) Pierce was a very intelligent man who could understand complex phenomena (also in their historical developments) and explain them in clear terms to a broad public. In short, he was an excellent communicator.

    2) Pierce’s judgment about Jews and their mentality and behavior was 100% correct.

    3) Pierce’s judgment about other things was 95% correct.

    4) Pierce understood that a major source of Jewish subversive power is their control of the news and entertainment media and he decided to do something about it by creating his own media (a far more mature approach than for example creating a militia).

    4) Unfortunately Pierce engaged in violent fantasies, not only in his two novels The Turner Diaries and Hunter, but also in his regular American Dissident Voices. I have listened to all his ADV and value most of their contents, but there is hardly any one of them in which he doesn’t fantasize about persons or groups “who should be hanged”. Such fantasies do not help our cause.

    5) The leadership of the National Alliance has now found its worthy successor in Kevin Alfred Strom, who is as gifted as Pierce and does not engage in violent fantasies.

    6) As for Pierce’s Cosmotheism, if it is meant as a “religion” it falls short of the minimum requirement of a real religion which is the presence of the belief in the transcendent. There is in Cosmotheism no belief in the human soul that survives death, no belief in spiritual beings or spiritual worlds, only belief in the material evolution of a material universe, which in its totality is considered to be “God” (or “the Creator”, a wholly inadequate term for a pantheistic thought system). Such a thought system, with its stress on racial evolution as a major part of the evolution of the universe, may inspire to race conscious action, but at the end of the day will prove not to be satisfactory. Perhaps we can forgive Pierce who was a physicist that he could not create a more inspiring religion. He was more of the type of a scientist rather than of a prophet.

    7) In the mean time, we should not wait for the arrival of the “perfect religion” to inspire us to action. The problem – racial survival – is clear enough to force us to act.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      “Day of the Rope” is so hyperbolic in the current (“It’s OK to be white”) year that it’s deservedly a meme.

      That said, I’ve listened to all of Dr. Pierce’s podcasts and enjoyed them.

    • Jack Halliday
      Jack Halliday says:

      Why do you think there are White British young men joining ISIS. It is not because they are crazy. In fact, they are just as sane as you and I. What these White boys are doing is in fact, perfectly logical for their situation, though it is destructive in the long run. Wanting to commit violence against our race’s enemies is a healthy reaction.

      A commenter by the name of Joseph Walsh on the West’s Darkest Hour says that unless White males kill their enemies (in the literal sense) and have children with White women, then we will go extinct – Fight and Fuck.

      Men join ISIS to dominate (White males are the best at this, especially in pre Christian times – Indo-Europeans), and women join ISIS to be dominated.

      I’m sorry, but WLP’s “violent fantasies” are what we need to bring into action, not blowing in the wind and waiting for some candidate to come along who is explicitly pro-White while Blacks and Semites fuck us into extinction.

      The Zion poison seeks to kill off our race, and Pierce just wanted to return the favour. What is immoral or counterproductive about this? What would be counterproductive about forcing our way into power a la Turner Diaries? Democracy doesn’t work anymore, and it is certainly not in our favour. What is so hard to understand about this?

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        “I’m sorry, but WLP’s “violent fantasies” are what we need to bring into action, not blowing in the wind and waiting for some candidate to come along who is explicitly pro-White while Blacks and Semites fuck us into extinction.”

        What do you mean?! You and Cesar at “The West’s Darkest Hour” are waiting for the dollar to crash “before anything can be done” — and even after that it will take awhile for the economy to get bad enough for the “Whites to get mad enough to rise up” against their oppressors, etc, etc.
        What you really mean, then, is that you are never going to do anything. It’s just about running a blog and talking big, talking tough. And blaming women for your powerlessness.

        • César Tort
          César Tort says:

          We cannot become ‘black hats’ right now because the conditions for revolution are absent: whites are still in ‘happy mode’. My educated guess is that, as conditions deteriorate, they will change to ‘angry mode’ and when the music stops, to combat mode.

          So we can only be ‘white hats’ for the moment: what Jack and I do in the above-cited blog.

          • Barkingmad
            Barkingmad says:

            Would be nice. However, I wonder if we’ll be in fighting mode as whites or just as hungry desperate people who, yes, still identify with other hungry desperate folks regardless of race. The usual helpless ones (including white feminists) will glom onto the can-do white man, who’ll be glad for a friendly face or two. “See, we really are all one race in our desperation!”

            Hope I’m wrong, though.

        • Hadding Scott
          Hadding Scott says:

          Dr. Pierce wrote “violent fantasies” as a gimmick to get gun-loving White men to read something about the racial situation and the direction that their society was taking. The dystopian details in The Turner Diaries are extrapolated from trends observable in the 1970s, which Dr. Pierce noted in his tabloids. The novel is a vehicle for information and not, as Morris Dees always claimed, a “blueprint.”

          Dr. Pierce’s approach was fundamentally educational.

          • Jack Halliday
            Jack Halliday says:

            The work of Harold Covington writes books as extremely watered down versions of TTD and Hunter. The NVA never have to kill anyone “innocent”, nor do they feel the necessity in nuking half the world in order to consolidate an Aryan world. It is easier to accept that Pierce’s work was just a fictional medium rather than except that what his work contains is closer to reality. TTD is only disturbing or counterproductive to those who are still stuck in Xtian ethics. Pierce is for genuine post-Xtians.

        • Jack Halliday
          Jack Halliday says:

          One half of the White men on Earth have become feminised. The other half have become brutalised – essentially, White Niggers and savages. I think pro-White advocates should research Lloyd Demause’s work on Psychoclasses. It is clear that the Whites of today are of a lower psychoclass probably even than the Arabs who are raping poor girls in Europe, and in Rotherham. At least these non-Whites do not give their baby sons oestrogen pills. In the words of Cesar Tort, they are the worst generation of Whites ever since prehistory.

          As for history, even the biggest pro-White advocates do not know their history. For one, they have not read “Hellstorm” by Tom Goodrich (I include myself in this category). They have not even read Arthur Kemp’s “March of the Titans”, probably because of both its anti-Christian stance, and its Nordicist stance. The same can be said for WLP’s “Who We Are”, another Nordicist piece, and Pierce’s only non-fiction book. White advocates appear to be completely afraid of their own history.

    • Armor
      Armor says:

      there is hardly any one of them in which he doesn’t fantasize about persons or groups “who should be hanged”.

      Some people should really be hanged, and it is useful to say so. Pierce also talked a lot about hitting people with a two-by-four, which I think is funny. But he also said this:

      “Ten years ago I used to think that the way to straighten out the thinking of Republican lemmings was to hit them up alongside the head with a piece of two-by-four or with a sturdy, oak table leg. Then as I learned more about lemmings I realized that wasn’t really necessary. (…) what is far more effective is simply to change their authority figures.”

      • Jack Halliday
        Jack Halliday says:

        That hits the nail on the head. You cannot “red pill the normies” as Enoch wants people to do. The White lemming masses would give their mothers to see anyone vaguely pro-White literally curb-stomped and raped by black men in a jail cell for the rest of their lives. They are born and bred to sleepwalk through life. There is no way to educate them. They exist to serve whatever authority figure is on the stadium at the moment. If it is a good one, the masses reflect this. If it is bad, then… we get what we have now.

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          Well, TRS’ very rapidly increasing listener base, and the interest the MSM have in demonizing both Enoch and his project, say that’s wrong.

  12. John
    John says:

    This is an article well worth reading.

    “The Scofield Bible—The Book That Made Zionists of America’s Evangelical Christians”


    Israel Shamir in his book “Masters of Discourse” also discusses the Scofield bible.

    Early Christians were aware of the problematic qualities of the Old Testament, but they had no tools to undo the Soferim-Pharisees’ editing and restore the Palestinian text. The Pharisees (for it was the Pharisitic teaching that won the day among Jews) took over the Palestinian heritage as surely as King Macbeth took over Scotland. (The Jewish editing of the Bible has not stopped to this very day: CE Carlson1 and Steven Sizer2 noted that the Scofield Reference Bible, published by Oxford University Press, calls for the adoration of Israel in a more explicit way with each new edition being published: “With limitless advertising and promotion, it became the best-selling ‘bible’ in America and has remained so for 90 years. Scofield chose not to change the text of the King James Edition. Instead, he added hundreds of easy-to-read footnotes at the bottom of about half of the pages, and his notes weave parts of the Old and New Testaments together as though they were written at the same time by the same people.” The first edition was arranged and financed by ‘Samuel Untermeyer, a New York lawyer whose firm still exists today and one of the wealthiest and most powerful Zionists in America.’ This Zionist edition of the Bible is a source of the strange phenomenon of Christian Zionism.)

  13. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    Accept your mortal descent from the immortal Goð.

    Transcendence is relative to the state of being. As mortals, that which transcends death is, to us, transcendent.

    Dysgenic cultures rob life of transcendent meaning. That’s why, every chance I get, I try to pound into the thick skulls of “white identitarians”, that they have cut out this nonsense of leaving “eugenics” to an afterthought, and accept that “culture”, properly defined, is artificial selection and that no animal aspiring to the high estate of morality can achieve it without staring with a definition of what is “fair”. By “fair” I mean that if you “lose” under your definition of “fair”, your loss is a transcendent gain. Once you have confronted that profound responsibility as a moral animal, you have found true religion and therefore a bulwark against the insinuations of foreign religions.

    In this context, note well a recent conversation between Mike Enoch and a self-described “neocon Jew” in which the Jew managed to get Enoch to, in effect, accept Jewish culture. The Jew managed this precisely because Enoch, along with all other highly public personalities in white nationalism, have failed in their responsibility to accept that culture is, in the final analysis, artificial selection and that there can be no definition of “white culture” without first considering the evolutionary direction it entails.

    While it may be that “The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds” transcends death, who better exemplifies such “fame” than Jesus? Moreover, the quasi-patheistic quote from Jesus is, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”

    I’m not a JudeoChristian apologist, nor even a Christian Identity apologist. I’m pointing out a similar trick used to rob us of transcendent meaning that worked all too well:

    Establishing, as “fair” in its impact on culture, a body of “holy scripture” complex enough that the only thing one may claim about the resulting culture is that it selects for bullshit artists. Certainly, to the bullshit artist, such a culture has transcendent meaning.

    I could go into a critique of “pantheism” posited here, but such pedantry elides the hard problem:

    What exactly are you proposing in the way of culture?

    You cannot get away from some kind of ecclesiastical law — however much it may appear to entail some kind of “proposition nation”. The desire to escape from this responsibility is understandable since it becomes the object of “critique” as in “the culture of”. However, one must understand that, despite Saul Alinsky’s rule that the radical must always have an answer when asked, in response to a critique, what they would do, those bred by such a culture fear one thing above all else:

    Separation from their host culture into a culture in which they must walk their talk and live with the consequences.

    This is why the meta-ecclesiastical law of Fair Church℠ focuses on territorial allocation by replacing inclusion, prisons and remediation with exclusion, borders and prevention. Those fearing such a federated Church may be presumed “part of something larger than themselves” in the sense of having abrogated their individual integrity for an inhuman blob which has the moral status of any force of nature.

    • LineInTheSand
      LineInTheSand says:

      James, can you explain what you mean by: By “fair” I mean that if you “lose” under your definition of “fair”, your loss is a transcendent gain.

      • James Bowery
        James Bowery says:

        Consider the attitude of the “woke white” toward “eugenics”: He will imagine a white ethnostate. Its “eugenics program” will favor some bloodlines and disfavor others. What if his bloodline is disfavored?

        In the final analysis _every_ culture favors some bloodlines and disfavors others. Any lesser meaning of “culture”, not only denies its deep organic history going back to agriculture and cultivation, it denies the essence of the human capacity for morality and transcendence.

  14. JRM
    JRM says:

    Excellent article. I will suggest, however, that the following statement requires, at minimum, a clarifying footnote on exceptions:

    “The appropriate relationship to the theistic god is deferential and devotional. He is prayed to. He is an object of worship—the sole object of worship. The worshipper does not identify himself with god or seek to merge with god or become god; that would be blasphemous.”

    Actually there is a mystical element in the Catholic histories that was just this, a merging with God. These mystical episodes have been written about in such books as “The Varieties of Mystical Experience” by William James.

    It’s fair to say that the Church maintained a tense relationship with its mystics, and the cleavage between Church orthodoxy and individual Christian mystics would be a good place to examine the divergence of Deism and Pantheism.

    • T. J.
      T. J. says:

      “The Varieties of Mystical Experience” is authored by David Nikkel.

      The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature is by William James.

      The Nikkel book is about James and Tillich [rather than reality].

      The absolute garbage that people think about! Have any of these folks ever rebuilt a small block Chevy engine?

      The psychology of religion is similar to schizophrenia- strange ideas abound. . .

      • JRM
        JRM says:

        Yes, you are correct about the book title! I read the James work many years ago, and was relying on memory without double-checking the book title. The James book does deal with the mystical experience in depth, if I recall correctly. I have not read the Nikkel book.

  15. James
    James says:

    He is 100% right. Christianity is a nonseniscal marxist religion that is entirely the opposite of judaism or Islam. Islam and judaism are both tribal religions. Islam and Judaism are both very race conscious religions and Islam views blacks as subhuman and black not exist in Islamic heaven look it up there are also no black women in there heaven. Quaran and hadiths are filled with this stuff. Judaiam ia similar no dark black races in there future world but it different in that Islam promotes other races to become Muslims to conquer world Judaism does not. Islam has no issues with rave mixing of non blacks and doeant mind them but Judaism does. Nietzche was right Christianity is a slaves religion that worships subhumanity of man and hates success it is anttiehtical to eugenics were as Islam and especially Judaism promote strength. The biggest difference though between judaism and Islam is judaism actually is more scientific progressive and darwinist realist where as Islam also adopts the view that Gods will and has opposition to many way eugenic qualities. However Islam still has its racial realism.

    And before anyone talks about racially aware European men who were Christian keep in mind they all were in contradiction with true Christianity. You cannot be a real Christian and be ‘racist’ if you are then you are in denial and worshippig a foreign imported religion to Europe. But at the same time black racist subsaharan africans and latinos do this all the time with there warped versions of Christianity. Never forget that The New Testament is very contradicting and even then in the end ots end game promotes a univerisalist egalitarian liberal view of cultural marxism but with the added on version of hell for all non believers including your european ancestors who embraced a Master morality stance. Europeans have no need for Christianity and should not worship a conception of God that was created by Middle eastern liberals who created a religion that is the opposite of what Judaism is. To be honest Muslims are closer to Jews than Christians are. Anyhow people need to wake up and stop defending the idea of Christianity saving white europe it wont and anyone who tries to warp it to is just picking and choosing.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      Christianity is not the problem. It is the judaic subversion of Christianity that is the problem. Christ is not at fault nor his teachings. The fault lies in the manner in which Christianity is being passed down to the masses by so called Catholic and Protestant ministries who are married to the Jew and NOT to the Christ.

      • James
        James says:

        Face reality. If the abrahamic God is real then it is the Jewish God and jews got it right. It is way more likely that they the creators of the first abrahamic religion are correct then the following two. Especially christianity since it is contradicting and is unlike islam or judaism it is its own weird warped version of so called morality.

        Europeans need to free themselves from christianity if they want to survive spiritually and racially. Sure it worked for a while race aware white men bending the new testament to fit there views but at the end od the day they often relied on using OT to there liking

        You cannot be a Christian and racially aware and in favor of non egalitarian stuff. I should know i have no bias and am not a christian and like many men before me can see objectively that christianty is always a flawed religion. For every person who pretends Jesus is some anti Jew is just not reading and seeing the facts. Blaming Jews for everything and for so called subverting a fake religion is just not helpful. Again as someone who studied the Bible for years i know dang well that it is filled with a lot of egalitarian stuff and pro Israel and Jews converting etc. It is a religion of contradictions and slave morality and again all the race aware christian men of the past made use of the Old testament to justify parts of there racism and other things. Such as an eye for an eye and killing criminal scum and forbiding gay marriage etc and other degenerate things.

        Europeans dont need Christianity or Islam in order to have a strong and healthy society. They dont need a foreign imported religion of madness and meekness and they do not need to ptetend that somehow jesus was a white man in the same isiocy way that blacks in subsaharan africa assert that Jesus was black and favors them over ‘white devils’.

        Be free from the imported dogma go to your roots.

        • James
          James says:

          The flaw of Martin Luther is that he still clung to a fantasy religion and he failed to realize that there is more evidence that they did not (jews) did not make stuff up in there talmud but that really that book is just the logical words and oral law as laid out in the old testament and tanakah. It is much more likely that Christianity was founded by egalitarian crazies and spread as a means to control people because it is a religion of just blind faith and being saved it is not a religion of action like islam or judaism which require committment and acts for them. My point is that every hater of judaism and islam but defender of Christianity is in fact just confused. With that said the Catholic church and its power and often racism over centuries is made logical by there illogic use of old testament law whenever they felt it needed. Today the Church just feels the need to useit less or not at all and insead focuses purely on parts of the NT that dont say the old laws od the OT hold (keep in mind that many parts of NT are contradicting and say the Old laws hold and then other parts say they dont).

          And to those who say Protestants are right abd catholics are not real Christian’s. Well consider that Catholics were first and the Lebanese maronite church and ayriac christianity was very catholic and is in nature. Soooo which is more likely that the first major christian denominations are false or the successors hundreds of years later? This isnt even mentioning that much of catholicism is considered idoltary by muslims and jews for good reason (because of violations from OT law) which catholics explain by saying Jesus says they dont need to do anything anymore other than accept him.

          Eastern orthodox christianity is most racial’ aware today and that is because of its split and focus on regions and not having a centralised papacy. Still though any ‘racist’ in the eastern church will have to either make stuff up or use the OT to justify say killing scumbags, deporting people or not importing and allowing mixing with dark races. I am sorry to be the bearer of truth but nothing in NT ideology proclaims race separation or racially conscious moves where as in islam they at least have that and as does jews obviouly. And again the race conscious behavior of latin america and subaaharan africa is entirely justified because of them just makig stuff up and bending the religion they ad races dont have the egalitarian nature genetically or altrusim many whites have which thereby prevents them from ever acting suicidal even if they are technically following a religion which tells them to not be racially aware and be egalitarian.

        • Sam J.
          Sam J. says:

          “…Face reality. If the abrahamic God is real then it is the Jewish God and jews got it right…”

          I don’t think this is true. The Cathers believed that the old testament was the ravings of a demon that the Jews followed. Of course the Pope had them all killed down to the last Man Women, Man and child.

          The Cathers also believed in reincarnation which would account for what is said to be their good behavior. They also believed you should fight evil, they lost that battle but it doesn’t change that they at least fought.

          I also wouldn’t believe everything you read about them pn the net. Since I started talking about them sites have popped up that I believe are made to mislead people about what they believed.

          • James
            James says:

            Everything i said is from over a decade of religious study and decades of beig racially aware. I have read new testament 2x and studied many versiojs and Christian history. I have also read old testament and studied good amount of judaism and how they derived there oral law and tanakh and talmud and i have read much of Muhammad Hadiths and the Koran.

        • Seraphim
          Seraphim says:

          Europeans got already rid of Christianity and developed the ‘healthiest and strong society’ of the LGBTQIA with the Anglo-Saxons leading the way.

  16. Ger Tzedek
    Ger Tzedek says:


    There is one thing that impresses me. In 1990, soon after collapse of communism, White countries shut their doors closed immediately for us Eastern Europeans. Now they extend red carpet to anyone non-White. Reeks of genocide. Even today, Ukrainians, Russians, Albanians are rejected, Africans are welcome with red carpet. They get more money per month than a German policeman. They commit all kinds of crimes, mass rapes in the main square, killings, and always get away with it. A Swedish dentist reported that absolute majority of these “children” are past 30. They fired him for breach of confidentiality. The killer of a Lithuanian boy in Sweden walked scot-free because he was underage. He killed why? He was harassing a Swedish girl, the Lithuanian boy defended her, the thug invader was offended and killed. The whole state is in the side of the thug.

      • Lyle Bright
        Lyle Bright says:

        I do not profess to have a total answer, and I do not profess to be able to completely or accurately describe causation, but I think it is inaccurate to say that our Jewish opponent is ‘responsible for these policies’, but rather that the Jew can be seen as taking advantage of weakness, or even attempting to weaken, as part of his general project. That is, a certain modus operandi that describes Jews in their Diaspora.

        But the weakness of Europe? The coming undone of the strong European identity? Even its own civil wars and the terrible destruction that resulted? No, we have to see our own responsibility here just as we notice those that succeed in taking advantage of it.

        The attitude I recommend gives a great deal more agency to ourselves especially as we face a monumental and historical project of reclamation of power, reclamation of identity, accomplishment and value.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          How right you are, Lyle Bright. Bravo. Why is it so difficult to get a correct answer out of the usual commenters here? What is difficult about figuring this out?

          They are our countries. Or we used to think they were.

        • Ger Tzedek
          Ger Tzedek says:

          Marx badmouthed everybody, not one Jew. Marx “invented” class warfare to deflect from the more natural tribal warfare. His tribe was in no position to win a tribal warfare, but was in a position to lead class warfare. Freud, Einstein, Frankfurt school, Jacques Derrida, Frank Boaz, on and on and on.

          • Weaver
            Weaver says:

            Marx didn’t truly invent class warfare. We can find that in Aristotle, etc.

            Marx is given such a high position only because no one reads the Greeks and Romans. Marx is trash.

            What you say about Marx serving Jewish interests does have merit, but such might have been an unintentional (or subconscious) result of Marx’s writings.

            As TS Eliot noted: Secular Jews are a threat to the West, because they share neither our religious heritage nor our ethnic identity. So, it’s that resulting impiety by secular Jews that makes them so dangerous, though I doubt many Jews were ever so impious as is a cosmotheist. Cosmotheism is pretty much the pinnacle, the essence, of impiety.

          • Michael Adkins
            Michael Adkins says:

            Ger Tzedek,

            Marx writing that race was the real issue came later.

            “All past history was concerned with the struggle of races and classes. Race struggle is primary; class struggle is secondary.”

            From “Rome and Jerusalem” by Moses Hess

            Cologne, Germany May 1862

  17. Tom
    Tom says:

    Any egalitarianism inherent in Christianity (in the past) had to do strictly with the formal side of man, not his discrete individuality. In the latter context, Christianity never preached about any inherent equality lying therein – especially since the business of the religion was in saving souls. Like many on the Left, Pierce was confusing the inherent natural equality implicit in the form of man with the inherent natural inequality implicit in his accidental attributes.

    • Karl Nemmersdorf
      Karl Nemmersdorf says:

      Very well put. Pope Pius X stated:

      “Human society as God established it, is composed of unequal elements . . . to make them all equal is impossible, and would be the destruction of society itself . . . Consequently it is conformable to the order established by God, that in human society there should be princes and subjects, masters and [workmen], rich and poor, learned and ignorant, nobles and plebeians . . .”

  18. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    Pierce’s criticisms of Christianity seem jejune. “The meek shall inherit the earth” implies that they don’t, and won’t, own it in this life; it’s a consolatory message, an admonition against arrogance.

    Also apparently overlooked is the profound biological effect wrought on Western man by the Church’s proscription of consanguineous marriage. A universalistic creed with an outbred population. To recreate the clans of yore would require many, many generations of inbreeding, not just a change in belief systems.


  19. George F. Held
    George F. Held says:

    White Nationalism should be a political and social movement, not a religious one. Let Whites adapt their religion to the movement. They can do it in the same way that they have adapted their religion to the findings of modern science. Why set up unnecessary barriers to their joining our movement?

  20. Rick
    Rick says:

    I read a lot of WLP when I was ignorant about Jews. However, I feel creating a new belief was a wacko idea.

    One’s race and tribe should be his or her religion. Germans got it with the Völkisch spirit. Till recently German citizenship rules were very strict – limited to blood Germans. Interestingly the Walhalla (Valhalla) Memorial in Bavaria was once a list of real great Germans (plus Bohemians, Austrians, Swiss, Alsatians and Dutch even early English kings like Alfred the Great as well as the Venerable Bede) till Einstein was added in 1990 for obvious reasons.


    Germans, especially in the East, are still racially aware unlike WASPS and related peoples who have been massively brainwashed by Jewmedia and Judeo-Christian theology.

    • Florian
      Florian says:

      A good observation. Having lived in some English-speaking countries I can confirm this is true.

      Capitalism or the Anglo-Saxon and Dutch spirit (love of money) is another problem that the enemy has exploited. It has also been a problem in northwestern Germany but less in the East that was communist in the past even the south where people are more conservative and traditional.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        Wherever there is love of money, there is tolerance of Jews and openness to Jews because of their ‘usefulness.’ Love of one’s race, one’s nation, one’s heritage is a more noble course to take. This love would include the practice of eugenics, a sensible and wise course for everyone. Down with the deformed and defective! That most recent school shooter, Nikolas Cruz, whose parents abandoned him at birth, is an example of why we should practice eugenics.

  21. Michael Adkins
    Michael Adkins says:

    Please consider Alain de Benoist:

    “Christianity obviously forms part of European history, but Europe was not born with it. When Christianity appeared, Europe already had five or six millennia of culture and civilization behind it. To speak about the “Christian roots” of Europe amounts to denying that the Latin, Greek, Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic cultures of Antiquity ever existed, which is obviously indefensible.”

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      “…When Christianity appeared, Europe already had five or six millennia of culture and civilization behind it…”

      Five or six millennia is too much. The oldest civilization of Europe was the Minoan civilization of Crete, which flourished from ca. 2600 to ca. 1100 BC. Later on the Romans spread classical culture throughout their empire. The European peoples north of the Roman Empire, the Celts, the Germans, the Slavs and the Balts were all barbarians at that time. Civilization came to them only in the form of Christianity. Some regions of Europe such as the Baltics were converted only 800 years ago. The Celts and Germans knew human sacrifices. So the peoples of southern Europe had a civilization of their own before they converted to Christianity, the peoples of northern Europe had not.

      • Barkingmad
        Barkingmad says:

        Why would it matter who came early (or late) to civilization. I suspect that we are all headed back to a barbarian state – at least those of us who survive the great tribulation.

        I had a teacher born in a Slavic country, a deepee, who loved to tell us how the English were “running around in rotting animal skins” while his people had a “great civilization”. LOL. People are always tripping over themselves trying to find ways to feel superior to others.

      • Curmudgeon
        Curmudgeon says:

        The Romans called everyone barbarians. Skara Brae, Stonehenge, Woodhenge, and dozens of other relics were constructed before Rome existed. The Romans believed in conquest, not just of people, but of nature. The “barbarians” more than the Greeks, believed in being living with nature.
        Why have stone buildings when forests with large trees are all around you, readily accessible, easier to use for building, and infinitely warmer in a cold climate?

          • Barkingmad
            Barkingmad says:

            However, if a population has had civilization in its genes for millenia, then they will retain their knowledge of civilized behavior even when things collapse and there is no infrastructure to practice standard-issue civilization behavior in. In plain English, we do not lose what we are if it is embedded deep enough.

          • Curmudgeon
            Curmudgeon says:

            Unfortunately, the Romans annihilated a whole lot of cultures, including the Etruscans. The Belgae must have had some well defined culture, because the Romans prized them as weapon and armour makers. Celtic burial chambers in Germany have produced chariots with seamless steel rims, that were much superior to later Roman chariots in all aspects, as well as jewelry as fine as any produced in Rome.
            Stone buildings are only one facet of a culture, not the defining one. Was the decadence shown at the end of the western Roman
            Empire really their culture, or a perversion of a greater one?
            Was Frank Lloyd Wright a barbarian because of his belief in using local building materials and his belief that buildings should be in the landscape, not on it?

          • Franklin Ryckaert
            Franklin Ryckaert says:

            A people cannot have “civilization in its genes”, because acquired traits are not inherited. Civilization is transmitted by education, not by genes.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            There’s a lot to this remark of yours. I’m reminded of Boswell telling Johnson that Tahitians didn’t need bread because they had the breadfruit tree. Johnson’s reply, that the advantages of the civilized life are seldom apparent to the uncivilized, may lack something in syllogistic force, but few of those who sneer at civilization are prepared to give up their croissants, let alone their cell phones or high-speed Internet connections, as an earnest of their disdain.

          • Barkingmad
            Barkingmad says:

            A people cannot have “civilization in its genes”, because acquired traits are not inherited. Civilization is transmitted by education, not by genes.

            White and some other races are civilized (in ways good and bad according to one’s own set of morals) because they had the biological base to develop civilization. It is not either/or (education VS genes). You can’t unscramble this one.

      • Jack Halliday
        Jack Halliday says:

        By putting emphasis on pre-Christian human sacrifices, you are taking blame away from the brutalisation of the first Christians, and puppets like Emperor Constantine and Charlemagne.


        The above link is an extensive historical piece of work, first talking about the wars between the Jews and Rome (like in Life of Brian), and the later on goes into the history of Christianity up until the end of the classical world.


        This also shows the crimes of Christianity. There is no need to make a false equivalence between pre-Christian European sacrifice and the crimes of Christianity.

  22. Lyle Bright
    Lyle Bright says:

    Christopher Dawson wrote in ‘Understanding Europe’ in the chapter ‘How to understand our past’:

    “The study and understanding of this cultural traditon [Western Christendom] ought to be given the same place in modern education as the study of the Graeco-Roman tradition received in the classical humanist education of the past. For the culture of Christendom is not only of vital importance to us genetically as the source of our own culture; it also has a greater intrinsic value than even the classical culture possessed. At first sight this may be questioned by the humanist, but I think that reflection will show that it is true even from the humanist point of view, for humanism itself as we know it is not the humanism of the Greeks and Romans, but a humanism which has been transmuted , if not created, by the Christian culture of the West. It is not merely that Erasmus and Vives and Grotius deserve our attention just as much as Quintilian and Cicero. It is that behind these men there is a living tradition, reaching back through Petrarch and John of Salsbury to Alcuin and Bede and Boethius, and it was this that built the spiritual bridge across the ages by which classical culture passed into the life of Western man.”

    The more that I look into it, the less inclined I am, in any sense, by any measure, to dismiss our own European Christian traditions. It is a misperception of their sense and meaning that they have led to a lack of will to defend Europe or a universalism that opens the door to all and anyone. In fact this perverse universalism has come about as the culture itself has come unmoored from its own spiritual traditions! This causation has to be deeply considered. Europe has become weak and ‘lost its nerve’ as its faith in itself and the vitality of its traditions were destroyed. It must reclaim them, and it must turn back into itself in order to find the strength to recreate itself. The alternative is death.

    I like Pierce in certain senses, I admire his activism, but I also see it is necessarily reactionary. I can admire even his desire to put forward a new religious mode specifically for Whites. But I also think that we must see things in larger terms. We have to reclaim our own traditions and, in this sense, build fences around them. ‘This is mine, this is me’ and for the rest ‘That is yours and that is you’. This is true even in the spiritual traditions of Christianity that have been introduced in Latin America and in Africa.

    But European culture, European spiritual practices, European hierarchy and all the traditions of our life and thought: these are ours.

    If we are to take *our task* seriously as White activismst we have to see that it is a vast undertaking. It has to do with a complete revitalization of Occidental categories but this must take place first within our self and then in ‘our people’ generally. It cannot be partially done, it cannot be done through whimsy, nor bitterness, nor even solely through a motive of self-defense: it has to be fundamentally undertaken in the entire life of the individual.

    Our Traditions, those of Christian humanism, cannot be excluded like it or not! They are part of a 1500 year tradition. They are part of ‘the European soul’. If one has some issue with Christianity, or the fact that it encompasses Judean forms, one need only see how this was transformed by the Greco-Christians and one need place emphasis there.

    Within Christianity (Christendom in the broad sense) the pagan gods actually have life. Really, this is true. The strict Christian or Catholic may not be able to understand this yet it is true. All things are contained within ‘our traditions’.

    • inspector general
      inspector general says:

      Thanks for this. One must only think of the work of such Christian apologists as CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien to realize you are correct.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      “If one has some issue with Christianity, or the fact that it encompasses Judean forms, one need only see how this was transformed by the Greco-Christians and one need place emphasis there.”

      We need to unlink from the Judeo forms, and even words. We cannot allow it to be contained within ‘our traditions.’ How do you suggest we do that?

      • Franklin Ryckaert
        Franklin Ryckaert says:

        The answer to that question was already found in the 2nd century :


        Unfortunately it was rejected and Christianity retained its bond with the Old Testament. Protestantism made that bond even stronger.

        The best attitude toward Christianity for a white nationalist is to consider oneself as a “cultural Christian”, i.e. to appreciate the historical role of Christianity in shaping our culture, but rejecting that form of Christian morality that considers allowing mass non-white immigration and miscegenation as moral imperatives. That I think is the attitude of Richard Spencer and combines the best of two worlds.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          Marcionism is not the answer. The Gospel stories are DUMB and intelligent people of the modern age cannot warm up to them. Paul was still a Jew. To be a “cultural Christian” is no different from being a “civic nationalist,” and that is the best I can do when it comes to Christianity.

          Richard Spencer is a far cry from what we should be following, and if he is your idea of that, then we know you’re not the one to listen to either. He very often inexplicably brings up the Poles, defending them and upholding their self-beliefs, just like you do. Spencer is a Slavophile. And everyone should remember that not all Eastern Europeans are Slavs.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            I believe in reincarnation. I will be back, and so will you. In that way, we do reap what we sow. It’s a very responsible arrangement. We may even return again and again in Families (large ones) – it is not haphazard jumping around all over the planet with unknown “strangers,” and people who are far below or above us in intellectual ability.

          • Trenchant
            Trenchant says:

            Sure. But aside from Eleanor Roosevelt, who seems to have returned in numbers, reincarnation is no less faith-dependent than Christianity. Even “reap and sow” could be dismissed as mere rationalization of a group evolutionary strategy. Groups that formulate ethical codes that successfully moderate man’s naturally selfish and base instincts enjoy greater cooperation, division of labor, hence wealth and power.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Reincarnation is not faith-dependent. It has nothing to do with faith. There is actually much evidence of it, while there is no evidence of the Christian or biblical Heaven. I also think our natural selfishness is a good trait, and good for all — from there we can understand that cooperating with others also has its benefits. Nothing should be done against our will.

          • Trenchant
            Trenchant says:

            Physical evidence of reincarnation? Surely not. How could you even begin to prove such an assertion? Even identical twins have different personalities, characters, identities.

            Selfishness is natural to any sentient creature, whose primary focus must be to survive. Religion moderates that innate instinct and is clearly beneficial to the group, as no human group lacks one.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Trenchant – you are putting words in my mouth. I didn’t use the word ‘physical’ nor the word ‘proof’. And what do identical twins have to do with it? Identical twins are one incarnation that has divided into two entities, probably for that one lifetime only. They do not have DIFFERENT personalities, characters, or looks. I have identical twin nephews – they are like two peas in a pod. Only very slight personal disagreements now and then — probably just for the novelty of it! Are you just making things up to keep from losing the argument?

            I’m not real clear what your religious views are. I get you mixed up with Arch Stanton. But you sound like you’re saying ethics needs a religious base. Is that right? Selfishness is not just for survival; there is a lot more to it. As I said, cooperating with others has a selfish component too.

          • Trenchant
            Trenchant says:

            Well, you’ve said there is “much evidence” of reincarnation but not elaborated on what this evidence might actually consist of.

          • Trenchant
            Trenchant says:

            I mean, if someone claimed “much evidence” of the Holocaust, I would want to hear about that corroborating information in detail, too. Doubting Thomas, if you will.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            You could look this up on the Internet and find a lot, but for me the number one attraction is that it’s the only “after-death explanation” that makes sense. The Christian Heaven makes no sense – it offers no idea of what you’re going to be doing since there is nothing to strive for, only perfect joy, eternally. Sounds so boring. If it’s so wonderful, people should be wishing to die right away, but they’re not. We have to admit, it’s idiotic. And if this is the best our great God can do, guess he’s not so great.

            Some of the evidence: #1, Near-death experiences that are attested to by doctors and other medical personnel, during which the entity is pronounced dead, but is told that they must return and they ‘miraculously’ do so. So that is evidence of the ability to leave the body and return to it again. Why then not return to a brand new body?

            #2, Hypnosis or self-directed trance where certain questions are asked and answers are received. So-called past lives come through in many instances. Similarly, among those sensitives who “channel” (especially strong during the 80’s, but it has always gone on), they almost all speak of reincarnation as a matter of fact. Edgar Cayce, who was a highly credible “trance-talker” who correctly diagnosed the physical ailments of hundreds of people and was a believing Christian in his ordinary life, also gave “Life Readings” in which he spontaneously began to tell people about their past lives and how they were connected to this life.

            #3, There is also the fact that in Nature we see a law of return in the cycle of life. Trees, plants appear to die but they return to life after the winter’s rest. There should be nothing surprising that humans do the same. Earth is our home.

            And here is a case where Cooperation is also Selfishness: If we parent others of our Family who want to incarnate, then these members of our Family will also parent us when we are wanting to return. To be a parent is a great act of love.

          • Trenchant
            Trenchant says:

            Interesting personal accounts, but stories don’t count as “evidence”. Nor is reanimation anything mystical. Brain death often occurs after a variable lag following organ failure. When actual brain death occurs, ie. EEG flat-lining, there’s no coming back.

            Rationalizing a phenomenon beyond human comprehension is the essence of all faiths.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Okay, you have chickened out or been totally wrong 3 or 4 times already, and it was you who engaged me. I didn’t tell any “stories.” Returning to the body after clinical death is only one small part of what I gave as evidence. You are unable or unwilling to offer any support at all for what you say … well, of course, you don’t really say anything, do you?

            You reveal that you clearly don’t get it when you say: “Nor is reanimation anything mystical.” I have not intended anything “mystical” from the beginning. The belief in reincarnation is not mystical, it is natural and what happens with everyone. And it’s not a secret! as I intimated. It is certainly not “beyond human comprehension”, except maybe yours.

          • Trenchant
            Trenchant says:

            Much like “Prove the Holocaust didn’t happen!”, I’m not obliged to demonstrate evidence for something which I have consistently stated there is none.

            And “returning to the body after clinical death” doesn’t even make sense. There is no clinical death in cases of reanimation. There is temporary non-cerebral organ failure, typically the heart stopping for number of minutes. Cerebral electrical activity (life) continues uninterrupted until the collapsed organ is revived. That’s why people do CPR!

            Stories, hearsay, folklore, accounts, whatever term you want, are not “evidence”. Nothing materially demonstrable or verifiable.

            Sure, the belief, per se, in reincarnation is not mystical. Like any (dumb) religious dogma, it serves to comfort the human spirit in an otherwise incomprehensible universe.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            The “Holocaust” has no connection and can’t be compared to reincarnation. Even as a ‘belief.’ You use it only as a way to evade the issue which began from you as “In one hundred years’ time, all commenters here will be dead. What’s dumber than that?” in reply to my saying the Gospel stories were DUMB. So what is not dumb to you? You don’t have the courage to say.

            I do have the courage to say that what Edgar Cayce told those many hundreds of individuals to do to make themselves better, health-wise and otherwise, worked. And many were “proven” cases, if you will. It doesn’t come under the heading of stories, hearsay, folklore or accounts. And that is just one man. I use a practically cost-free self-treatment recommended by him that works amazingly well. No dermatologist will ever volunteer the information.

            So you just remain in your self-imposed cocoon of what I would call extreme skepticism without investigation. Fine with me.

        • Jack Halliday
          Jack Halliday says:

          Never mind that 80% of European culture is pre-Christian. What is a cultural Christian? Please, give me some examples that Christianity shaped any part of our culture that helped us in any way. Was Hypatia being gang-raped and flayed alive a form of Christian cultural enrichment?

          I don’t understand how you can say that Christian morality is bad, yet we should appreciate the very thing which lead to this morality.

        • Sophie Johnson
          Sophie Johnson says:

          ‘Unfortunately it was rejected and Christianity retained its bond with the Old Testament.’

          The obvious point is that Christianity was not free of Judaism ab initio, for reason alone of its founders. And it is really only the ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’ doctrine that separates the Christian from the Judaic ethic (and that only inasmuch as this doctrine is not an element of Judaism). But we have not ever understood this doctrine, nor its integral ‘turn the other cheek’ component. We have therefore not implemented it in our philosophy of life. So have we ever actually become Christian, or are we still on our way there?

          Christianity spread like wildfire in the world. I wonder if we dare ask who did the spreading, knowing, as we cannot help but know, that Christianity was a very Jewish-influenced movement right up to the 12th century? Then came the 12th century renaissance during which the Church forbade ‘judaising’ in ritual, and Rome divested itself of its Jewish converso administrators. The Church was very powerful then, right up to the 16th century, when Protestantism came with its emancipation of the Jews. The re-absorption of Jews into the Church then accelerated to the present silly point where holocaustianity is much more a living ethic than Christianity. We need only heed the pronouncements of our senior clergy.

          Still, we are nothing like the Jews, and they and we know it. The Christianity they influenced, and continue to influence, did not shape our sensibilities. Something did, though, for here we so wonderfully are, working to debunk holocaustianity, and to blow sky high the nasty blood libel that the German people have been made to endure for the past 70 years. In other words, we have a sense of ‘us and them’, and it is growing ever sharper. Perhaps this heralds a new renaissance.

        • Friedrick the Grosse
          Friedrick the Grosse says:

          Abandon Old Testament, but retain the New Testament? – the new one is even more cucked than the old, which at least has some connection with reality (wars, ethnocentrism, struggle for survival), when the new one preaches hippie kumbaya lala-land.

          If we are to survive, we must not only abandon christian morality, but get the understanding of the destructive impact of christianization on European soul, which is directly comparable to the islamization of today. Christianization brought us the mind virus of egalitarianism, which devolved later in liberalism and communism. Christianity was indeed the bolshevism of antiquity.

      • Lyle Bright
        Lyle Bright says:

        Hello there. Is this the real Carolyn Yeager?

        I wrote: “If one has some issue with Christianity, or the fact that it encompasses Judean forms, one need only see how this was transformed by the Greco-Christians and one need place emphasis there.”

        You said: “We need to unlink from the Judeo forms, and even words. We cannot allow it to be contained within ‘our traditions.’ How do you suggest we do that?”

        It is in fact impossible to undo, if you will, the synthesis that has been carried out between the 4 major poles: Judea, Rome, Greece and then Alexandria. ‘Alexandria’ is bot the real place and, if you will, the conceptual place where the influences blend. And all these infulences, in my view, are ‘part of the self’ and certainly part of the European self.

        Therefor what you are recommending is in fact impossible. How could you undo 1500 years of our own history? Better to go deeply and deeper into our historic foundations and to understand the different elements. In my view this does not mean negating the pagan element. It is certainly a part of the ‘self’.

        What I see in you and in your opinions is a danger: the danger of taking action which results not in the restructuring of the European soul, nor the empowerment, but the weakening of it. One becomes weakened when one is not fully enconsed, as it were, in the self.

        Christ and the Greek concept of logos are enter-meshed. The Logos is certainly not a Jew, the Logos is an overarching idea about Reality. And the notion of the Logos is very much ‘ours’ and thoroughly fundamental to our ideation.

        I do not mean to make statements or share ideas which appear in any sense to bring a debate to a close, and I also refuse to break ranks with anyone that I feel is on the same side, but I do think we need to recognize the enormity of the task that stands before us: the renovation of our own selves and the culture and civilization that has made us us. The avenue that I choose, becuase it links me most viscerally and tangibly with ‘Europe’ is Catholicism of a traditional sort. And I understand Catholicism and being essnetially a synthesis which contains the pagan idea-world. One can of course choose to emphasize and bring out the pagan elements, for example through Greek studies and studies of Platonism. But the really important thing is not to lose sight of the real goal: literally the rebirth of Europe.

        Not to achieve that = death. To manage to achieve that = life.

        Thus I will suggest, because I really believe it to be true, that Christianity offers to one 1500 years of the work and will of untold generations in defining ‘life’. It is part-and-parcel of the European soul.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          To Lyle,

          Yes, it is. My name is hyperlinked to my website. I pretty much knew that you would say that it is impossible. I am in conversation with my nephew, who is a conservative Catholic that I am trying to educate about the anti-European and anti-Church intentions of the Jews. He says (no surprise) that the Jewish roots of Christianity cannot be cut off or “it makes no sense.” I understand that. He is quite open and willing to listen to my ideas but unfortunately has never seen the Jews as a problem (because the material he reads doesn’t talk about the Jews), but only Islam.

          What I especially liked that you said was: “The attitude I recommend gives a great deal more agency to ourselves especially as we face a monumental and historical project of reclamation of power, reclamation of identity, accomplishment and value.”

          If we really had this attitude of our agency in reclaiming power, identity, accomplishment and value, then we would succeed. But if “us” includes Jews we will never succeed. It really is that simple at bottom.

          All that you say about 1500 years of (Christian) history is true enough, but how many of our people care enough or are intelligent enough to actually familiarize themselves with those ideas? Hardly any. Modern Jewish culture bombards our youth constantly, making it effortless to adopt. Yet, you hope they will do all this deep work to restructure their/our soul?

          In the past, the Catholic Church controlled what our people were able to think. So they became Christians. Now the Jews control it. And the Church is afraid not to go along with the Jews. The result is we are becoming Jews.

          I may be a danger to your ideas, but your ideas are hardly doable. I agree we have to be able to identify with who we really are, our entire history (including National Socialism for Germans, btw), but I don’t think we can do that while we’re being further judaized on a continual basis. You admit “the enormity of the task” and that traditional Catholicism is the avenue with which you choose to accomplish it. But that doesn’t account for the fact that Catholicism is becoming more non-white, non-European all the time and those adherents are not interested in the European soul or the European historical experience. There is a huge disconnect here.

          • Lyle Bright
            Lyle Bright says:

            Thanks for your interesting response. Do keep in mind that when I said ‘impossible’ I gave certain reasons why.

            I would also mention that if one is specifically concerend to unmask the Jewish enterprise vis-a-vis the Occident that a militant Catholicism is a friend and not an enemy.

            I am very interested in what must occur in our people for a successful movement of regeneration to take place. I can only tell you where I stand in respect to this. I feel I could outline a course of study that, in my view, would enhance and bolster ‘identity’ trmendously. And I do agree that many will not be able to undertake this self-education, and yet I will say that someone must do it. We have access to prepared people (Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald, E Michael Jones for example) who then format general ideas for people who cannot or will not take the time.

            My argument is that in the course of resisting the ‘bombardment’ that you accurately describe that people must, in one way or another, recover and reestablish a platform within themselves where ‘strong identity’ can stand. We will either do that or we won’t. And within that declaration is my personal sense of militancy.

            I would say that over the course of well over a thousand years people have been thinking in terms defined by ‘the Christian school’ taken in a wide sense. I do not see the essence of Catholic doctrine as ‘control’ in the sense that you mean (though I do recognize and understand what you mean). For example I do not see Thomistic theology as ‘control’ but rather organization of logos-principles. And therein is the essential difference.

            In my view Catholic theology and social work needs to be militized within our present against many different levels of contamination. But to understand and define ‘contamination’ requires a logos-centered intellect.

            I think that we must accept within this developing movement that we have to rub shoulders with others, and also coperate with others (and as I say avoid breaking ranks) who follow their inner inclinations and attempt to live what their understanding and conscience demands. I do not see you as a ‘danger’ to my ideas, though you are welcome to see what I propose as requiring correction, but I do consider the conversation we are happening to be relevant and important.

            I do agree with you that Christianity’s center has moved generally toward the colored world. Yet I am still of the opinion that if there is hope for us it will be through a re-identification project within our own ‘categories’. That is going on in Europe to some degree now. It needs to increase greatly. That is the topic that I dedicate myself to.

            Thanks for engaging. I do remember carefully going over a good part of your material in the past.

          • Lyle Bright
            Lyle Bright says:

            An afterthought:

            You wrote: “He says (no surprise) that the Jewish roots of Christianity cannot be cut off or “it makes no sense.”

            I think this assertion can be challenged. I think that in many ways, or in certain ways, Greco-Christianity is precisely a de-rooting from Judaism. While some may choose, as one example, to see Paul as Jew and to see his idea-project as an extension of Judaism, I think this is a mistaken idea. He became radical to Judaism and established this radicalism at fundamental points.

            And I would also say that it is not even that hard, if one wished to, to cut off the Jewish aspects of Christianity from Judaism and lose nothing or very little. One could interpret/reinterpret a Christian praxis, as it were, through Platonism, holding quite definitely to the so-called pagan aspect and to the logos-aspect. There really is a sort of ‘philosophical Christian’ position that has little need even of the Torah portions.

            Although he is hyper-Protestant (?) I would also call to mind Houston Chamberlain whose disquisitions on ‘Jewish will’ as notable and aberrant had a certain effect on my understanding.

            A very defined counter-Judaism can be defined on Christian principles. And since I do not know how ‘traditional’ is your nephew I can’t say much. But the entire post Vatican Church is said to be in crisis and, IMO, only the traditionalists are holding to the ‘real docrines’.

          • Alan Donelson
            Alan Donelson says:

            Most here might subscribe to the work of E. Michael Jones — perhaps referenced in this thread — I suggest Michael Hoffman’s The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome as a resource for contemplating and debating the excisement of Judaism from Catholicism. Raised “Roamin’ Catholic” in a mixed marriage between mother (Catholic) and father (Church of Brethren), I escaped as did my father from the “church” at age of 18 years, as soon as I could leave home and church for college!

            I never even though to look at someone as “Jew” — or any religion! — and always welcomed those of differing color for as long as I can remember! UNTIL — encountering the domain and its literature on DOOM & GLOOM.

            I think our dilemma goes deeper, to SELF, to Mind, Body, and Soul. Whatever can lead us onward, within, we might treasure, for sure.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Thanks for this afterthought – I like it better than your first thoughts. I think someone(s) should work on this way Christianity can stand on its Greco-Roman foundation, including Platonism and however it can be demonstrated. As you say, with even little need of the Torah. This would take a great deal of courage, I realize, but it needs to be done. It could be the salvation of the Church as well as the West.

            My nephew is not part of the Traditional movement. Conservative is his word, in all areas. He just prefers the most conservative church and priests he can find and also with the private Catholic school to which he sends his sons. He hates liberalism in all its aspects, which is what we now share (although he grew up as a Democrat, as did I).

            Next time I talk to him I’ll ask him what he thinks of your “afterthought” ideas about freeing us from Jewish roots. He’ll probably say “it’s not possible”, haha. He’ll need to be persuaded.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            “A very defined counter-Judaism can be defined on Christian principles. And since I do not know how ‘traditional’ is your nephew I can’t say much. But the entire post Vatican Church is said to be in crisis and, IMO, only the traditionalists are holding to the ‘real docrines’.” -Lyle Bright

            I talked to my nephew last night. His opinion is that the SSPX is not Catholic; something to do with the Bishops which I don’t exactly recall now. He is Conservative but not Traditionalist. He doesn’t try to defend Jews (except for the ones that he perceives as good Conservative Americans) but he doesn’t have any interest in getting rid of church law that Judaism is what Christianity grew out of. He says he’s like the next Pope to be an American.

            He is reading my book, “The Artist Within the Warlord” – is about halfway through.

    • Karen T
      Karen T says:

      “This is mine, this is me. That is yours and that is you.” Well said. The most profound is often the simplest.

    • Sophie Johnson
      Sophie Johnson says:

      ‘If one has some issue with Christianity, or the fact that it encompasses Judean forms, one need only see how this was transformed by the Greco-Christians and one need place emphasis there.’

      I should love to hear you expound upon this, Lyle. I can see the huge social difference between our Christianity and the Eastern Orthodox/Greek Church one. I have spent time in Greece, Serbia and Russia, and found in all those places are huge connection between religion and nation. The Greek will tell you that ‘to be Greek is to be Orthodox’, and Serbs and Russians each voice a similar sentiment. That entails a distinct exclusivity. I’d love to learn something about their theology, but I can find no English works on it.

      • Lyle Bright
        Lyle Bright says:

        Dearest Sophie,

        I wrote: “If one has some issue with Christianity, or the fact that it encompasses Judean forms, one need only see how this was transformed by the Greco-Christians and one need place emphasis there.’

        You commented: “I should love to hear you expound upon this, Lyle. I can see the huge social difference between our Christianity and the Eastern Orthodox/Greek Church one. I have spent time in Greece, Serbia and Russia, and found in all those places are huge connection between religion and nation. The Greek will tell you that ‘to be Greek is to be Orthodox’, and Serbs and Russians each voice a similar sentiment. That entails a distinct exclusivity. I’d love to learn something about their theology, but I can find no English works on it.”

        I can recommend a few sources that have helped me a great deal. Though not related specifically to Eastern Orthodoxy I think all the work by Christopher Dawson is first rate. ‘The Historic Reality of Christian Culture: A Way to the Renewal of Human Life’ is a good title. But I think what you might wish to find is something even more substantial, and thus I would recommend Werner Jaeger’s ‘Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture’. It is 3 detailed volumes that trace the presence of Greek ideation that form the base of Europe and the European person.

        The Eastern Traditions were grounded in a different cultural reality in comparison to the Occident. I gather that what you noticed is that these traditions are more ‘alive’ in those places? Yet to understand how our connections have ‘died’ or become sick and moribund, that requires a good deal of historical exposition! (And Dawson is very good in that area. He has another title which I recommed: The Making of Europe.

        The more we understand of our own history the better we can understand our own self. And the more that we empower this self the more likely that we can foment renovation. That is how I see things!

        • Ben Clayton
          Ben Clayton says:

          Until you realize the HEBREWS were WHITE people nothing will make sense. The JEWS (Modern term coined by Roamans) has nothing do do with the tribe of Judah only Judaism developed from the Babylonian Talmud. The ‘ Jews’ were totally racially disimilar being Canaanites, Edomites and Assyrians also now Khazaars. The Catholic Church was a containment mechansim to Christianity. Knowing this the old Testement can be read differently. Look up Patrick (Bertrand) Comparet and listen to this man – much to learn.

        • Sophie Johnson
          Sophie Johnson says:

          Thank you so much, Lyle! I shall lose no time for laying in the literature you so kindly alerted me to. You are a gold mine.

          Yes indeed traditions are more alive in those places! But the most gripping, for me, is the presence there of a firm faith-nationhood nexus. That absolutely excludes interference from disruptive entities. One local informant of mine was a bit surprised when I asked about Jewish converts among them, and shrugged my question off with: ‘They have their own religion.’ He was, however, quite happy to take me to a service at his church. Three hours of magnificent Gregorian chant in beautiful Church Slavonic delivered by bass voices brought me very close to understanding the meaning of spirituality. Sadly, I have never had this experience in Western Christian churches.

          Thanks again, Lyle.

          • Lyle Bright
            Lyle Bright says:

            Glad I could be of some help. ‘Understanding Europe’ is a good source for getting a sense of the breakdown and dissolution of our own traditions, especially that if the faith-nation nexus as you say. I might suggest looking up some of the videos on the traditional Latin Mass. Where it is offered the churches are often full. Still, the Western Church, and certainly Catholicism, is in rather deep crisis. But so is the West. All I can really think of to say is to recommend that we find a way to ‘living traditions’ and live them. Best of luck to you and see you around!

      • Irene
        Irene says:

        If you spent time in those orthodox countries the first thing you should have noted – in case you’re a western person- is how backward, corrupt and oriental they are. So what’s your point?

        • Sophie Johnson
          Sophie Johnson says:

          I have no doubt, Irene, that your powers of comprehension are limited by your intellectual and cultural poverty, so I cannot make my point available to you. Dose happily in your share of the habitat of your cut of ‘western person’.

  23. LineInTheSand
    LineInTheSand says:

    Pierce seems to ground his white advocacy in his belief that whites are the highest expression of the life force. I would like to have asked him if he would still advocate for whites if he came to believe that whites weren’t the best.

    A better position is to defend whites because they are our people, warts and all, not because we believe we are objectively the most advanced manifestation of evolution.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:


      Fantastic point. A true nationalist loves his nation as a mother loves her child, faults and all. No mother goes forth seeking the most superior child to claim as her own.

      And if evolution is the goal, then likely a breeder is wanting to take positive traits from all the races.

      Cosmotheism is just another flavour of left-wing (impious) thought. We’re given plenty of options, but they’re all left-wing; the true right-wing (pious) ideas are kept from us.

  24. BlackedOut
    BlackedOut says:

    Why is it that whenever someone receives messages, tablets, signs from god, they are always alone? Moses receving the 10 commandments, Noah instructed to build the ark, Joseph Smith getting his tablets, Mohammed getting his wisdom etc.

    Maybe they really do worship the same god. And he doesn’t do crowds.

  25. JRM
    JRM says:

    One thing that continues to perplex modern White advocates for our cause is the history of cultural entanglement between “European” peoples and the doctrine of Christianity.

    The comments often fall into two camps on this site: the group that esteems “Christian Europe” and the group that rejects Christianity (especially going forward) as a foreign and self-defeating mindset that hobbles us as a people.

    To understand the triumph of Christianity in the West, start with an understanding of the late Roman Empire. There was a virtual smorgasbord of cults from which to choose. The early Christians can be better understood by studying the cultural dynamics of Rome, the outreach to Gentiles by the Jewish followers of Jesus, and the consolidation of Church orthodoxy, for example, at Nicea.

    The rest of Europe was converted at the point of a sword over ensuing centuries. There was also some appeal to the psyche of the converted tribes or Christianity would not have been sustainable for as long as it was. The history of the Church is a political and military history, however.

    Much of our current confusion could be set aside if everyone involved had a better understanding of how Christianity came to such a position of cultural consolidation of power.

    • Lyle Bright
      Lyle Bright says:

      JRM writes: “The rest of Europe was converted at the point of a sword over ensuing centuries. There was also some appeal to the psyche of the converted tribes or Christianity would not have been sustainable for as long as it was. The history of the Church is a political and military history, however. Much of our current confusion could be set aside if everyone involved had a better understanding of how Christianity came to such a position of cultural consolidation of power.”

      Based on my researches and the sources I have studied this is superficially true, or true in some degree, but not fundamentally true. Christianity as part of a larger legal, jurisprudential and municipal structure asserted itself and dominated in the urban centers, ‘for good reasons one might saw’.

      It was thus an urban movement which for a long time left the countryside (rural areas) untouched. I do not know the degree that ‘the sword’ was necessary in drawing the rural areas into the administration of the urban centers — perhaps it was inevitably? — but one must I think see ‘Christianity’ in a wide sense as a sensible choice.

      But there is always, and certainly in Christianity, a notion and a program of ‘bringing the rebel into the fold’, of taming, of ‘civilizing’. But this fits into the pattern of the urban world dominating the rural world.

      And as you say: We would be better off to have a thorough understanding of how the Christian social and political complex came to dominate. Certainly force at some level, but also ‘strength of idea’. I think that is a fair way to state it.

  26. Walter Lewkowski
    Walter Lewkowski says:

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to form Christian arguments that affirm White Identity, Interests, and Culture?

    It seems foolish trying to get Christians to trade in their faith in Christ, their immortal souls, and eternal happiness, for belief in Thor and an immortality that that ends with their death.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Mr. Lewkowski,
      Yes, it makes sense, and so do you. But surely you must have noted that making sense hasn’t gained a lot of traction hereabouts of late.

    • Sophie Johnson
      Sophie Johnson says:

      Agreed wholeheartedly, Mr LewKowski, re the need ‘… to form Christian arguments that affirm White Identity, Interests, and Culture’. Sorry to push my bandwagon (above) at you, but would you not agree that developing the ‘love your neighbour’ doctrine is fertile ground towards a theology that would affirm the values you cite?

    • Chesley Miller
      Chesley Miller says:

      Walter, Christian arguments have been made and are being made on this site whose sole purpose is to form them and communicate them. From this article which frames it the initial salvo, you can browse the the selections to find others of specific interest. We need to know how and be wiling to answer every challenge. I commented on just one idea, “meek”, below, a most misunderstood word http://faithandheritage.com/2011/01/a-biblical-defense-of-ethno-nationalism/

  27. kikz
    kikz says:

    interesting… only one reference to Hypatia… but none of the ‘scholars’ here even mentions the profound presence/influence of her contemporaries Morgan/Kelly, Pelegius/Colestius; Pelegianism. it was a ‘British Isles’ direct response to the excesses/debauchery and tyrannical stranglehold of the RCC on Man/mind, and cut out the usurious middle men, their priests. it like the Cathar/Albigensians/Huguenot had to be destroyed as threat to the RCC’s power (to save their souls, of course, “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.” wasn’t that the call made at Beziers?). RC writings can be very illuminating in how they portray their enemies and subjugated races……………….

  28. Allison
    Allison says:

    Jan Irvin at Gnostic Media, along with a host of researchers are producing brilliant research as regards to Tartary. Intrigued by the highly regarded Russian mathematician,Victor Fomenko, who asserts that the official historical time line is incorrect and the Middle Ages were largely a construct, Irwin continues to dig deeper into historical cover-ups. We have been lied to about history on a major level. Revelations regarding investigations of Varronian Chronology, the ancient inscriptions sourced and indexed by Joseph Scaliger, his Chronology and gross blunders in textual analysis and mathematics, his influence in the world of academics during the late 16th and early 17th centuries, and the repercussions we experience to this day. If nothing else read Irwin’s article, “Spies In Academic Clothing”.
    Jesus told his followers to hate their family but love their enemies. He instructed his followers to hate their family not once, but two times in scripture.

    Isn’t that what whites are doing when they turn their backs on their own race and embrace the incoming marauders from another race? They are hating their family and loving their enemy. Very clever how that has worked.
    Did you know the Puritans or Pilgrims focused mainly on the Torah or Old Testament? Please verify for yourself. Have you ever wondered why the history of the European people, pre-Yahweh Religion #2, is so difficult to find?

    Listen to Gnostic Media disclose info regarding the Puritans and the infamous Salem witch trials.
    Research is now occurring based on uncovered facts regarding the official historical time-line. It appears the time-line was deliberately changed. Why?
    I love the info revealed on Occidental Observer and from the commenters as well. Thank-you.

    • Walter Lewkowski
      Walter Lewkowski says:

      Let’s say you are advising a Jew today on converting to White Identity, Interests, and Culture, (presuming that this were possibly), maybe he is the son of George Soros, Noel Ignatiev, or Barbara Spectre, would you not warn him that he must be willing to hate his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters if he were truly to be a White Identity, Interests, and Culture disciple.
      You would skip the part about, “his own life too” because you are not promising eternal life.

    • Sophie Johnson
      Sophie Johnson says:

      Allison, you do really well to call attention to Gnoticism! I have been on that terrain only lightly, and only with regard to the Nag Hammadi Early Christian manuscripts. The lying we have been subjected to is pretty clear, as you say. It is clear even to someone with my limited contact with the radical Gnostic perspectives.

      But we have a serious problem with this sort of interpretation: ‘Jesus told his followers to hate their family but love their enemies’ because it is not the only available one. Nor is it a fully tenable one. Even I can easily offer at least one much more defensible interpretation.

      And we have not only this problem, but also the huge one to do with the fact that the text of the New Testament must have been extensively redacted and interpolated to fit whatever the dominant theology of the Roman Church was at its various eras.

      Even so, I do not think that turfing out the NT is our solution. I propose instead that we use it as a text, albeit of uncertain source and far from internally consistent, that contains some spiritual gems. We should treasure those, give new interpretations to the less palatable texts, and generally, fit the NT to our levels of spiritual advancement. I.e., we can pick and choose, and be enlightened by Gnostic commentary.

      Thank you for bringing up Gnosticism. You have inspired me to return to that scene soon.

    • Sophie Johnson
      Sophie Johnson says:

      Karen, there is no argument here of the kind you name. The distinction a few of us have made, in very broad strokes, is between Eastern (Orthodox) and the Western Christianity. And the point of the distinction is, among other things, that the latter has long been judaised, whereas the former is (probably) still true to its bedrock Greco-Roman intellectual and spiritual tradition. This discussion rests on the observation that the Greco-Roman tradition is the source of European values, and is thus much more congenial to European man than are other, e.g., judaic, value systems.

      • Karen T
        Karen T says:

        Which is why Pope Francis hides his crucifix when in the presence of Jews and washes the feet of Africans? Which is why Eastern Europeans are fighting against the influx of third worlders to the chagrin of Jewry while western countries welcome them?

      • Karen T
        Karen T says:

        I was going to let it pass for fear of being seen as patronizing, a sure sign of the middling, suburban intellect, but the Eastern Orthodox church has its roots in the Byzantine period and the Catholic church in the Greco-Roman period.

  29. Weaver
    Weaver says:

    Pierce’s desire for man to “evolve into gods” is impious and unlike historical paganism. It would be objectionable to historic pagans just as it is to Christians today.

    Zoroastrians believed genetic mutations and harmful species to be created by their bad god. The good were created by their good god. But, there was no desire for man to direct improvement. Good genes, as well as bad, were the work of the two gods.

    There’s an enormous difference between viewing nature as tied to the divine and in viewing nature as something for man to meddle with. We see the steel and glass of modern cities as soulless; Pierce would have us view nature as equally soulless.

    Progress falls to relativity. A sustainable religion cannot be built around evolution. It’s emptier than StarTrek’s “religion” (mission) to explore the universe or libertarians’ desire for individual “freedom”.

    Cosmotheism, like any other ideology, is akin to a virus that can only destroy a civilisation but cannot sustain one. Christianity, however, can fit with nationalism.

    What’s needed is piety to ancestors and to God and wise prudence towards change. We should learn from tradition and from history, learn what works and realise our “reasoning” often fails to take all things into account.

    Overly simplistic “reason” and disregard for the past seems to be why the West is dying today. We never would have been conquered by Jews had we kept in place our traditional safeguards.

    Nature has a way of exterminating bad mutations. Cosmotheism is a bad mutation. Progress worship and the embrace of individualistic “reason” has resulted in the degradation and partial enslavement of Anglos.

  30. cm miller
    cm miller says:

    How clever is the Enemy to destroy the Christian Faith by perverting its truths, slurring boundaries with other religions, nullifying its strong bulwark against evil, ignoring its balance, redacting scripture, replacing worship of the Creator with worship of the creation. Take just this one example of the misuse of terminology used in the Bible:

    Meek, Like a Warhorse

    “The Greek word “praus” (prah-oos) was used to define a horse trained for battle. Wild stallions were brought down from the mountains and broken for riding. Some were used to pull wagons, some were raced, and the best were trained for warfare. They retained their fierce spirit, courage, and power, but were disciplined to respond to the slightest nudge or pressure of the rider’s leg. They could gallop into battle at 35 miles per hour and come to a sliding stop at a word. They were not frightened by arrows, spears, or torches. Then they were said to be meeked.

    “As centuries went by the secret of training such animals was passed from the Greeks to the Roman legions, then to the Moors, the Spanish conquistadors, and finally the Austrian Empire. We see a few war horse descendants today in the Lippizanner horses of the Spanish Riding School of Vienna.

    “To be meeked was to be taken from a state of wild rebellion and made completely loyal to, and dependent upon, one’s master. It is also to be taken from an atmosphere of fearfulness and made unflinching in the presence of danger. Some war horses dove from ravines into rivers in pursuit of their quarry. Some charged into the face of exploding cannons as Lord Tennyson expressed in his poem, “The Charge of the Light Brigade.”

    “These stallions became submissive, but certainly not spineless. They embodied power under control, strength with forbearance….”


  31. Weaver
    Weaver says:

    Just to make one addition, which is related to Cosmotheism and evolution-worship:

    Secular posters here tend to believe religiously (ironic yes) in how whites are genetically predestined to be individualistic, progressive (“Faustian”), altruistic, secular, etc. This is believed in, though we have examples such as Beowulf of whites acting quite differently (group oriented). And we have many examples of sophisticated white religions, which were clearly believed in.

    In Ha-Joon Chang’s book “Bad Samaritans”, he writes how the Germans, Japanese, and Koreans were all previously viewed negatively (regarding economics). Race, religion/culture were given as the explanation.

    Yet, today, we attribute race and religion/culture to why these three prosper. So, the conclusion is races and religions can be adjusted within a system. Race, religion, etc. matter, but the overall system also matters.

    Similarly, Machiavelli speaks on the differences between people accustomed to life under a republic/”freedom” and those accustomed to life under a monarchy. Man is somewhat malleable.

    I believe whites are a religious and moral race that has often been vigorously group-oriented, though also taking morality into account.

    The statements of genetic predetermination here, believed by so many, are *religious beliefs*, not reality. As the saying goes, “We know what a Christian believes in, but an Atheist will believe in anything (eg. superstitions).”

  32. Titus
    Titus says:

    A very clear way to understand the jewish-aryan relations is in biological terms. THE JEW IS A PARASITE, he is a parasite in human form and he is so aware of it he
    has separated himself from the rest of humanity (goyim). Looking into parasitical strategies in nature will show many similarities with the practices of the jew, and this practices in nature have similar outcomes. They for example, increase biodiversity, allow inferior species to compete, hinder/kill the
    host, etc. Said this, one question we have to ask ourselves is if this parasite somehow benefits us (and humanity as a whole) or it is wholesome pernicious for the human race, and thats hard to answer since “the ways of the Lord are inscrutable”. Fighting against it is compulsory though, because you either fight or die.

    Christianity is a product of this parasite and part of his parasitical strategy, remember the bible is the book of the jew and the evangelists and foremost early christians were jews. If you take your enemy’s religion you become his slave, and we partially took the jew’s religion embedded within Christianity and that assured not only their existence among us but often times their privileged position. I take the word of Nietzsche, Gibbons, Revilo P. Oliver and others, and claim Christianity was a weapon against the Aryans.
    Said this, we have to remember that judaism and christianity are successful group evolutionary strategies and whatever is good from this religions we should take and whatever is bad we should reject.
    We now understad a lot more of the history of the Aryans and we have the capability to create a better mythology/system than that one of the jews.
    Besides, who was Jesus? Ancient history scholars don’t believe he ever existed.
    Christianity is most likely exausted (at least in the West), some Christians may want to become the next jews, living in diasporas and small communities a fosilized faith.
    Maybe to survive we need to stick to it for a while or maybe a little tribulation is what we need to get rid of Christianity and move forward. Whatever happens the truth of RACE and the improvement of it must be taken into account in the near future, just like the jews constantly do with their program of breeding talmud scholars, genetic screening, etc.

    PS: Dr. William Luther Pierce, was a prescient man, among other things predicted in his podcasts that Trump would be the next “kosher candidate” after Bush, federal building bombings, 9/11 (he couldn’t predict it would be the Mossad doing it though), and more. Listening to his archived podcasts is a must.

    • cm miller
      cm miller says:

      For your consideration, I will contend that we have the evidence that Jews were not chosen to birth the Christ because they were a superior people, but by all accounts unworthy and despicable according to our early historians. Yet they were faithful to ethnocentric principles and carefully recorded families, tribes, and nations to prove his lineage. Remember the Roman, Pontius Pilate, only under intense pressure agreed to his death, and I make the case that if he were sent to us he would not have been killed. Why were they chosen? We can trust the Jews to kill a righteous man.

      Supersessionism, a word lost to Modernist Cultural Marxist Christianity, means that having done their job for which they were chosen, even the name Israel no longer applies to them, but to others, because they have been superseded by nations – yes nations – which have embraced the Christ. This also puts the lie to Christian Zionism which holds to their special place still.

      First among those believers are the Europeans, prepared, tested and chosen to carry the gospel, addressed in Acts as the people to whom Paul of Tarsus was sent as specifically stated not to Asia, but in a vision beckoned by the man from Macedonia to come to them. Yes, those of us who know these things will go underground; apparently the cowardly Christian church doesn’t mind shepherding us into labyrinths again.

      The morality of the central European Celtic people, described in Germania by Tacitus, was an easy fit for Christianity and it spread like wildfire among us. Even today you will not find Jews in Christian churches, but Messianic Jews separate themselves into their own groups. Their hatred and rejection of us is unabated…

Comments are closed.