Meditations on Hate

“Nature seems made up of antipathies: without something to hate, we should lose the very spring of thought and action. … Hatred alone is immortal.”
William Hazlitt, 1826

No human feeling has been more maligned, slandered, abused, and misappropriated in contemporary culture than the humble and dignified hatred. Wars have been declared against it. Legislation seeks everywhere to strangle it. It has been presented as the source of all evils, and as the great enemy of our time. This primordial emotion is the red-headed stepchild of our contemporary psychological spectrum and the exile of our political language, ever-present but covered up out of embarrassment, shame, or subterfuge. Entire categories of crime and speech have been segregated under the rubric of Hate, and set aside for especially harsh punishment. “Hate facts” are provable realities allegedly tainted with hate, and thus represent aspects of material existence deemed so awful they are denied despite their evident truth.

Hate, it would seem, just can’t get a break. Few are willing to speak on its behalf, even among those classed primarily as “haters.” The latter are apt to protest to deaf ears that they don’t hate anyone but merely love their own kind. All of this denial and disavowal occurs despite the fact hate is as crucial to human existence, if not more so, as love. It is omnipresent. Without hate, you have no history and no literature, no passion and no capacity for action. The plot of the Iliad essentially revolves around the wait for Achilles to reach an optimal state of hatred that then morphs into martial ecstasy and final victory. Imagine Hamlet merely possessing a mediocre dislike of his uncle Claudius. Without Ahab’s detestation of the whale there is no Moby Dick. Even if it were true that love makes the world go round, it would appear that hate greases the axle. It’s time for an exploration from a justified hater.

The Genealogy of Postmodern Morals

The origin of the contemporary war on hate is worthy of some consideration. Religion, contra Nietzsche, doesn’t offer a complete explanation. Take the Bible, for instance, which for the most part offers no injunction against enmity, intense dislike, or revenge except in cases of silent resentment in fraternal, co-ethnic, or communal relationships (Lev. 19:17, 1 John 3:15). The Hebrew god is said to be a hater of lying (Ps. 119:163) and the Psalmist professes to hate his enemies (Ps.139:22) with a “perfect hatred.” Ecclesiastes (Ecc. 3:8) mentions, without judgment or further commentary, that there is “a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.” The entire history of the Jewish people can be read as involving a quite shameless hatred for the rest of humanity. The only exception in the Bible is located within the “love thy enemy” section of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:44) which, given that it was most probably written while the persecutions under Nero were ongoing, was likely inserted to both promote non-violent resistance and represent a further denial that Christians were a danger to Roman authority (alongside “render under Caesar” etc., also in Matthew). It sits uneasily with much of the rest of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, which makes Nietzsche’s critique of the entirety of these religions as exemplifying unique slave moralities, based almost entirely on amplifications of the concepts of loving one’s enemy and “turning the other cheek,” seem rather tendentious.[1]

Opposition to hatred, and being kind to one’s enemies, can as easily be found among the ancient Stoics and the Buddhists. For Nietzsche, although he focused overwhelmingly on Judaism and Christianity, these were all positions of life-denial, weakness, and dishonesty. Certainly these responses were weaker than simply hating your enemy. For the Stoics, the goal was individual happiness, and resentment and intense dislike were viewed simply as burdensome barriers to that goal — better to be rid of the enemy, yes, but also to be rid of negative feelings for them. For the Buddhists, the soft, supple branch that bends with the fall of heavy snow is more likely to survive winter than the brittle branch that resists and then snaps under increasing weight. Giving way, if necessary, to enemies, was therefore viewed as a form of tactical strength and a means to survival and happiness.

These positions are ultimately weak and evasive in my opinion, because they reject the principles of overcoming obstacles and engaging in direct competition with opponents. Hatred is only a psychological burden when it can’t be fulfilled, thus involving not only hate of the other for their provocation, but hate of the self for the inability to obtain resolution. The mental burden of hatred is found predominantly in the latter, and many flee from it into perverse and ultimately insincere forms of forgiveness. When they “forgive their enemies” they are rather forgiving themselves for not overcoming their enemies.[2] The Stoic and Buddhist approaches are therefore weak not simply because of their superficial rejection of hatred, but because their rejections are themselves evidence of intrinsic weakness in the rejector. If history tells us only one thing, however, it is that no man, and no religion, is immune to the arising of hate, and few escape it altogether. Differences in outward expression, in Christianity, Buddhism, Stoicism, or Judaism thereafter are mere points of tactics.

Unlike Nietzsche, I don’t think specific answers for our current situation can be found so clearly in religion, or even in the distant past. Hate, and the flight from hate among the weak and cowardly, have been with us from the beginning of time, even if it is worsening in the present age. Contemporary hypocrisy and widespread dishonesty in relation to hatred is primarily a result of decadence in modernity, and is related in no small part to duplicitous Jewish activism on behalf of the emotional anaesthetic known widely now as “tolerance.” What is the genealogy of postmodern morals? In ‘The Genius of the Crowd,” Charles Bukowski wrote that “the best at hate are those who preach love,” which couldn’t be more appropriately applied to those now insisting that every country on earth should learn to love their Jews. We live in an age where the problem isn’t that “hate is on the march” but that it marches under innumerable masks, appearing here as “love” and there as “tolerance.” The “war on hate” that we witness today isn’t a war on hate at all, but a hypocritical war on the White capacity to feel and express hate. It should be starkly obvious that every other race on earth is free to hold all the resentments, bitterness, aggression, and calculated coldness it wants, but these qualities are deemed too dangerous, too volatile in Whites. Better that Whites be rendered emotional eunuchs; timid cattle put out to graze in pastures of fast food and mind-blunting entertainment. Stoicism, Buddhism, and interfaith “tolerance” branches of Christianity are enjoying a widespread boom across the West, fueled by a culture that wants Whites to be “the branch that bends.” And rest assured it is only in the West that the “war on hate” is taking place. There is no universal campaign for universal brotherhood and friendship outside ubiquitous Western multicultural propaganda. The campaign against hate, including its legal manifestations, is inseparable from multiculturalism, mass immigration, global capitalism, and the demographic decline of Whites.

War on Hate, War on Whites

It has become an axiom of Western culture that “being strongly against” anything is morally unsound or quasi-fascistic. Everywhere, and in all sections of the political spectrum, groups struggle to avoid being seen as “against” something, lest they be accused of hating what they oppose. Better to be “pro-life” than “anti-abortion,” and better to be “pro-choice” than “anti-foetus”! Better to be “for strong borders” than to be “against immigration.” Better to say you “support the Palestinians” rather than bluntly declare yourself an “anti-Zionist.” Better to say you support the privacy of women than let it be known you despise the notion of gender-bending miscreants entering into bathrooms alongside your wives and daughters. Better to say you are “pro religious freedom” than assert your hatred of the notion that two men can marry each other. Every sinew is strained to couch one’s feelings in positive terminology, so that you might be seen as a “positive” person with “positive” intentions. Even in our own movement I’ve noticed slices of semi-sincere rhetoric where we increasingly preface our assertions of identity and interests with claims that we support the identity and interests of all peoples (I don’t), even the Zionism of the Jews (I don’t)! The rot, my friends, is universal. Everywhere in the West, being “anti” anything is regarded as highly suspect, unless you are “anti-fascist” or “anti-racist,” in which case you are merely against the idea that Whites have the audacity to be against something.

The war on hate is founded on a ridiculous premise — that everything in modern culture is perfectly agreeable and that there are no logical or moral grounds for strongly opposing anything or anyone in our midst. What is hatred? A feeling of intense dislike. Contemporary political and social mores would have you believe that any White man or woman who looked about them and was aroused to a state of intense dislike must be some kind of monster. Merely sharing your feelings of intense dislike, now termed “inciting hatred,” has been deemed criminal conduct in scores of Western countries. Criminal conduct! This despite the fact there has never been a point in our history more deserving of the deepest loathing, the most scathing contempt, and the most vicious hatred. This seething morass of ethnic encroachment, miscegenation, perversion, ignorance, degeneration, degradation, and humiliation is worthy of every last drop of spite and abhorrence that can feasibly be poured upon it. I hate it all, and if you have any genuine natural instincts left, and if you haven’t been conditioned into a perpetual state of consumerist ennui, you will hate it too.

I take particular pleasure in considering the appellation “Hope not Hate,” attached to a UK “anti-fascist” group dedicated to being against the idea that White people are against anything. To be sure, they occasionally pepper their activities with token gestures on Islamic extremism, but really they should be called “Hope not [White] Hate.” I find it especially interesting that they don’t call themselves “Love not Hate,” which would surely be the logical way of presenting an alternative to hate.

And yet it makes sense that they didn’t choose “love” for two reasons. In the first instance, anyone who opposes hate must intrinsically obstruct love. These opposites exist on the same emotional spectrum, and if you distance from one you enter into a type of emotional tunnel vision in which you lose sight of the other. If anyone tells you earnestly that they don’t hate anyone, you can be sure you’re either talking to a liar or a passionless member of the emotionally castrated. Secondly, those behind this group were probably confronted with the reality that what they have designated “hate” — nativism and nationalism — can’t rationally be opposed with “love.” What were activists and supporters supposed to love? Hordes of anonymous third world migrants? Clearly too large an ask, they settled instead on “hope.” What is hope? Hope for what? Hope is optimism at its most irrational extreme. Hope is when you’re chased to the edge of a cliff by a pack of rabid dogs, when you look down at foaming waves, and “hope” that when you jump, you’ll miss the rocks and survive. Hope is what you feel when all options, and all rational grounds for optimism, are exhausted. Truly there can be no better name for an organization dedicated to the flooding of White countries with mass migration. I congratulate the group’s leaders on their decision.

It is a special irony, of course, that the priests of the war on hate are the Jews who, for more than a century now, have posed themselves as angelic warriors against bigotry and hatred. This from a people known since the days of Caesar as world-haters possessing the most extraordinary instinct for misanthropy. And here, perhaps is their greatest strength — that they learned to preach anti-hatred while retaining, protecting, and refining their own hatreds. For what does the Jew possess more intense dislike than the homogeneous White nation? Fingernails running down a chalkboard — this is the traditional White nation to the Jews.

The Jewish campaign against hate is a new attempt at a revolution in values. Those European imbeciles who nibble at this bait, convinced that they are part of some moral crusade for universal brotherhood, are throwing themselves into a campaign supporting Jewish hate. Isn’t it obvious that Europeans who adopt the new values aren’t “against hate” but merely sublimate their instincts and agree to hate themselves? What are speech laws, waves of migrants, and the imposition of new values by outsiders if not a hateful violation of sovereignty and the infliction of a systematic cruelty? Imagine the audacity of introducing these measures under the banner of “fighting hate”! All of these things, to the extent that they restrict and punish the natural feelings of the European, bring obvious pleasure and satisfaction to Jews. It is a matter of great joy to Jews that Whites should sign up by the thousands to purge their own ranks of all capacity for opposition. By preaching “a world without hate,” Jews promote a world of docile and dwindling Whites. And they are considerably advanced in this cause.

What is hate? A feeling of intense dislike, but also something else. Coming to the realiation that one intensely dislikes something is the prelude to action against it. I need to be clear on my meaning here. Contemporary propaganda saturation would have you believe that hate “causes” violence and terrorism. This is a nonsense. Consult the work of any serious terrorism expert and you won’t find “hate” anywhere listed as a serious explanation for any act of terrorism at any point in history. Hate is primarily an understanding, and then a state of mind. One can find terrorism motivated in small part by hate, but also by love, fear, confusion, desperation, tactical consideration, religious enthusiasm, personal anguish, psychopathy, peer pressure, mental illness, drug addiction, greed and even a combination of all of these things. When I say that hate is primarily an understanding I mean that it shapes trajectories of behaviour and conditions responses. Hate is not spontaneously self-creating. It doesn’t arise in a given man simply because that man is “bad.” Hate arises in response to stimuli, some kind of provocation. Hate always has a cause and an object. And the person at peace in their hatred is someone willing to believe that he can ultimately overcome and defeat what he hates.

The Longest Hatred

Jews have described anti-Semitism as the “longest hatred.” I disagree. It is clear to any educated onlooker that Semitism itself, insofar as Semitism is defined as the behavioural expression of the Jewish hatred of mankind, represents the oldest hatred in recorded history. The interesting point here is that all Jewish examinations of what they perceive to be the “longest hatred” are conspicuous in their avoidance of the issue of cause and object. Hatred of the Jews is, for Jews, entirely spontaneous and self-creating. Hatred, a human emotion, is often quarantined from reasonable human consideration and represented in Jewish understanding as something not-quite-human — a virus, a theological mutation, or a psychological malfunction. Europeans in Jewish writings are quintessential haters insofar as this involves Europeans giving themselves over to something entirely irrational and inexplicable. Unwilling to examine their own role as cause and object, or to look at their own hatreds in the cold light of day, Jews promote the idea that hate itself, or at least hate among Europeans, is always devoid of cause and object. The White man’s hate is always spontaneous, always irrational, always self-creating, always inexplicable. Ultimately, as we have seen, hate in the European is “criminal.”

If Semitism is, as I have argued, the true “longest hatred,” then what is its cause and object? Causes here are both internal and external to Jews. Judaism, the precise origins of which will remain forever unknown and unknowable, commands a strict separation from other humans and the formation of an ethnic caste above all others. It asserts an ultimate, cosmic superiority, and permits the infliction of a lesser ethics upon presumed inferiors. Jewish hate has arisen from time immemorial in the simple fact that other humans (collectively lumped together simply as goyim) refuse to accept this state of affairs, and that they fail to indulge Judaism’s dominance fantasy. From the beginning of Judaism until the present day, Jews have encountered populations who refuse to see Jews as their superiors. These non-Jewish populations have consistently refused to be subjected to lesser treatment, and they have hated the Jews for attempting to impose it upon them. Jews have responded to this reactionary hatred with a further hatred of their own — a dishonest hatred that hides even from itself and postures as a morose remembering of past injustices. The cycle continues endlessly, with Jewish hatred thus internally and perpetually powered via the momentum of the past.

The lachrymose history of the Jews is in fact the story of frustrated attempts at dominance, and although it presents as a tale of woe, it is in fact a hit-list for revenge. Adam and Gedaliah Afterman have written of the Medieval period as a time in which Jews cultivated a powerful theology/ideology of revenge for perceived wrongs perpetrated by host populations. One Medieval Ashkenazi tale, for example, portrays God as “listing on his garment” the names of all Jewish victims of Gentiles over the course of time so that in the future the deity would have a record of those to be avenged.[3] Isn’t it clear that this tale is a mere externalizing of deeper instincts? Isn’t Jewish culture and historiography the  real “garment” upon which Jews name their “victims,” thereby paving the way for a future vengeance executed not by a deity but by the true object of Jewish worship — the Jews themselves? Every act of Jewish hate is therefore ultimately dishonest, being predicated on false conceptions of vengeance (since the antagonistic Jews were never truly wronged) and therefore incapable of being fulfilled. Jewish hate does not act on immediate causes and objects, but on causes and objects from all nations and from all time periods including the distant past and future. The contemporary infliction of mass migration and cultural degradation on the United States is therefore part of a scheme of vengeance that has its roots in ancient Rome, and in medieval Toledo, and in 1920s Romania, etc. In this kaleidoscopic form of self-denial, Jews seek to fundamentally change your nation not because they “hate” you, and certainly not because they love you, but because they know only too well the dangers of the past. In the midst of such reasoning, their obvious hatred is obscured even to many of their own number.

By contrast, the hatred of the Europeans for the Jews, being honest to itself, has always been capable of fulfilment. European hate for the Jews has been predicated much less on the past than on immediate cause and object, and European resistance to attempts at Jewish dominance has for the most part been satisfied with curtailments of certain monopolies. We have no equivalent of the lachrymose history, and are notable for our lack of any kind of “garment” on which we’ve listed the victims of Jewish machinations. Europeans have never sublimated their hatred for outsiders, or disguised these hatreds to themselves. European hatred doesn’t hide from itself, or take on the aspect of mere resentment. It has always been concerned with action and results. Expulsions, the most radical answer to provocative Jewish causes and objects, were in most cases short-lived, illustrating the lack of serious grudges among Europeans and a willingness to renew the contexts for relations. This alleged “longest hatred” among the Europeans therefore has the remarkable quality of large gaps, resets, reversals, and numerous chances at decent relationships. As a people, we have always lived in the present and, but for the fact that this has been taken advantage of, this forgetfulness has, as Nietzsche observed, been a source of robust health, action, joy, and pride. The only error of the historical Europeans was to assume that the slate had also been wiped clean on the Jewish side, whereas in fact the Judaic garment of vengeance was growing ever-longer.


The current revolution in values is designed to make Whites the “branch that bends.” In giving up hate, Europeans everywhere will have resigned themselves to non-resistance and to a psychological state in which successful opposition to the negative forces of contemporary life becomes impossible. Honest hate among the strong is healthy, good, and necessary. It is especially necessary in an environment in which opponents of all kinds are engaged in mass duplicity, disguising their own selfish interests as “love,” their own grudges as “tolerance,” and their own hatred as “kindness.” Surrounded by detestable things lingering under dishonesty, we must embrace a “perfect hatred,” and be at peace in it, in the certain knowledge that, while the weak fall by the way side, we will carry it to its completion.

[1] I tend to concur with Roger Scruton’s assessment of Nietzsche’s fixation here that it was both “obsessive, if not tedious.” See Scruton, A Short History of Modern Philosophy (1995).

[2] This kind of thinking has expanded rapidly in modernity because justice has become an increasingly watered down and impersonal affair in which individual access to adequate retribution is frustrated.

[3] A. Afterman & G. Afterman, “Meir Kahane and Contemporary Jewish Theology of Revenge,” Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 98, No. 2, (2015), 192-217, (197).

86 replies
  1. todd hupp
    todd hupp says:

    Those wishing to observe real hate please check out the Talmud: regarding the goys.

      • Aryan Seacrest
        Aryan Seacrest says:

        That was the case in the past but now they’re at the point of just interpreting away the Greatest Hits. appears to have the full Steinsaltz, and they left in this gem from Sanhedrin 55b:

        “Therefore, just as one who engages in intercourse actively is not liable if he is less than nine years old, as the intercourse of such a child does not have the halakhic status of intercourse, so too, if a child who is less than nine years old engages in homosexual intercourse passively, the one who engages in intercourse with him is not liable.”

        If they leave that in, I can’t imagine what they’d leave out.

        • bumpercrop
          bumpercrop says:

          It would be almost comical, if not so painful, and yet remains the ultimate irony. The tribe that is marinated in the ultimate hate & deception, whose religious and tribal writings are filled with violence & malevolent plotting against non-Jews, are now dictating to others, especially the White race, that hate must be eradicated. In truth, the Jews are terrified their historical crimes against humanity will be revealed and on a large enough scale to alter mass mind. Because any legitimate criticism of Jews in power, is hateful to the Jew’s own original goals of hate.

      • Aitch.
        Aitch. says:

        Yes, I’d always assumed this to be so. If Amazon are selling an unexpurgated edition, which I doubt, please tell me which one it is. Many thanks.

    • Nick Dean
      Nick Dean says:

      Perhaps the best proof that we are not the ‘real Jews’ like the Christian Identity dupes imagine. We Whites prefer to live and let live, while Jews just won’t leave anyone alone.

  2. Patrick
    Patrick says:

    Very good article. I suspect the current covid ‘lockdown’ is a part of ‘Jewish revenge’. I mean it seems to be the most effective weapon yet in causing western societies to implode and to neuter all productive activity. And it’s all done by the countries themselves no need for Jewish involvement aside from setting it up. Like the way Muslim countries were targeted after the massive false flag of 9/11 western countries are being targeted after the covid hoax. As further ‘proof’ of this idea I offer the fact that for the last 3 years or so most all of the ‘hoaxes/false flags featured ‘white nationalists’ as the new figure to hate and fear (Christchurch, Pittsburgh, Poway, Hanau etc etc) this after about 15 years where the muslim filed that role (Paris, Manchester, Burssels, Nice, Munich etc etc). Whomever runs these hoaxes/false flags including this covid one and 9/11 can be presumed to be ‘running things’ No prizes for guessing which ‘tribe’ predominates in this sphere.

    • Amateur Brain Surgeon
      Amateur Brain Surgeon says:

      The New Testament warns the reader about the danger of private interpretation

      As for your mistaken take away from what Jesus taught, here is some reasonable exegesis, as opposed to your bizarre eisegesis:

      Brother shall deliver the brother to death, &c. Because they believe in Me and preach Me. Christ fortifies beforehand the Apostles and believers by predicting the persecutions which they were about to suffer from their unbelieving relations, who (forgetful of natural ties and affections) would persecute them even unto death. As Bede says, “He foretold the future trouble, in order that, being known beforehand, they might more easily bear it.” “For the darts which are seen coming are less likely to strike,” says S. Hilary. As examples of the fulfilment of these words, S. Barbara was killed by her own father for the faith of Christ. So, too, was S. Christina. S. Lucia was accused by her own son Euprepius of being a Christian, and was crowned by the judge with the martyr’s laurel on the 16th of September, A.D. 303. S. Wenceslas, prince of Bohemia, was treacherously killed by his brother Boleslas and his mother Drahomira, who were unbelievers. The Emperor Maximian caused his sister Artemias, a Christian, and Diocletian, his wife Serena, Pope S. Caius, and his brother S. Gabinus, with his holy daughter Susanna, his cousins, to suffer martyrdom because they were Christians.

      And ye shall be hated of all men, &c. All—that is, many, almost all, as was wont to be in councils, judgment-halls, and theatres where the martyrs were. For the faith and preaching of Christ crucified was at the first new and paradoxical to the whole world. Wherefore both Jews (who were accustomed to Moses) and Gentiles (who were attached to their gods) rose up against the Apostles, who preached this doctrine, and against the little flock of believers who were converted to it.

      You hate us Christians. Big deal, Jesus prepared us for men like you

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          Bumpercrop: Unlike Jews, Christians really were persecuted.

          Read Eusebius on the first three hundred years of the Church.

          • bumpercrop
            bumpercrop says:

            Dear Eric, The three Abrahamic religions have three main similarities in common. They are all three based in exclusivity: one must be chosen, saved, or fitrah, or one is goyim, unsaved, or infidel. All three Abraham religions believe in a Messiah come to save the believers, and all three believe in an End Times. The Muslims, like the Christians before them, and the Christians, like the Hebrews before them, all complain endlessly of being persecuted to this very day, whilst all three religions set eagerly about persecuting others not belonging to their religions.

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            I don’t hear Christians claiming to be persecuted. Where are the widely-released movies and documentaries about persecution of Christians during the Red Terror and the Holodomor? Most Christians aren’t even aware of those (relatively recent) events. Most Christians don’t even seem to be aware of the fact that Christians are being persecuted/slaughtered in the Middle East right now. Much less are they complaining about it.

            “Christian America” is a lot quicker to take Muslim refugees from the Middle East than it is to take Christian refugees. Christian complaints (which hardly rise to a peep of protest) appear to be limited to such things as banning prayer in public schools, and crosses and Nativity scenes on public property. Those bans arose out of a totally unjustified sense of persecution on the part of Jews and atheists. Did they not know that America was a mostly Christian country from its founding?

            You want complaints? You’ll find plenty from those groups, especially Jews.

            We live in a world of good and evil. I think this notion is what separates Christians from atheists. The true, the good, and the beautiful are absolute. They exist objectively, they are not merely subjective opinions. This is another notion that separates Christians from atheists. The world is not a random “happening,” but arose out of a superior power and intelligence. Yet another difference.

            You either see things this way or you don’t. If you do, then Christianity begins to make sense. I don’t know enough about Islam to comment on it. I do not regard Judaism as it exists today to be a religion. It is a tribal attempt to gain maximum power. What is “good” is strictly what is good for the Jews according to the Jews.

            For Christians, what is good and right is not what is good and right subjectively (as a convenience for them) but objectively. The Christian fears God as the personification of righteousness. The Christian knows that he falls short of righteousness and is sinful and deserving of punishment. But the “good news” is that he can be spared this punishment; he can be saved.

            For whatever reason, Christianity does appeal to you. That’s fine, as far as I’m concerned.

            In the ethnostate I envision for white people, we can have Christianity, Buddhism, the worship of Zeus or Odin, atheism, or people who just don’t care about religion. What we can’t allow is the presence of Jews and Muslims.

  3. Rob M
    Rob M says:

    Bravo Dr Joyce. This gets to the very core of a deep rooted problem with such clarity. An essay to stand the test of time I think.

  4. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    lol, my Croatian father told me a story about the Gypsies of that country and WW2. The gypsies being forced to fight were given guns to kill the Germans but they would point and fire their guns into the sky. When questioned as to why they were doing this instead of at the approaching Germans they replied, we hate the Germans so much that we can’t stand to even look at them and so we fire up into the air.

    Yeah, We Choose Hope but when that day arrives when mankind does what is right in their own eyes or when “every imagination of their hearts is only evil all of the time,” God to Noah, violence will take over as it did then. There is no stopping hate. The best example of that is surely the words of Christ:

    You will be hated by all nations for my names sake.

    take His words and then dwell on this quote asking why?

    “Nature seems made up of antipathies: without something to hate, we should lose the very spring of thought and action. … Hatred alone is immortal.”
    William Hazlitt, 1826

    You may then understand well the words:

    For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Hebrews 4:12

    What ultimately are the real motives?

    • hgbt
      hgbt says:

      The gypsies ran away and sold the weapons or kept them to stablish a drug selling guetto, etc.
      You are delusional in many ways.

    GEORGE F. HELD says:

    For your edification:

    οὔτοι συνέχθειν, ἀλλὰ συμφιλεῖν ἔφυν.
    It is not my nature to join in hate, but in love.
    Sophocles, Antigone 523

    Odi et amo. Quare id faciam, fortasse requiris?
    Nescio, sed fierei sentio et excrucior.
    I hate and I love. Why I do this, perhaps you ask.
    I know not, but I feel it happening and I am tortured.
    Catullus, 85

  6. Barbara
    Barbara says:

    I wish you had a thumbs up button. I don’t have anything at all to add to this amazing article but I would love to give it as many thumbs up as possible. Andrew Joyce is a treasure.

  7. Ceridwen
    Ceridwen says:

    Excellent essay, thank you.

    One has to hate that which threatens everything we care about, how else do we protect it?

    One of the rare, sane things (Jew loving) Rajneesh said:
    Who teaches you how to hate? For thousands of years all the religions, politicians, pedagogues have been teaching one thing and that one thing is love. Love your enemy. Love your neighbor. Love your parents. Love God… Hate is pure. When you hate, your hate has an authenticity, you feel it in your gut.

  8. JRM
    JRM says:

    Excellent article, as always, by this beloved author. His remarks on Jewish psychological warfare against Whites via preachments of “tolerance” are, of course, fully correct.

    But I think some distinction needs to be drawn about the role of anger in the harboring of a hatred. The article doesn’t really address the difference between effective, useful hatreds and self-harming or ineffective hatreds.

    It may be that our friend is advocating the natural role hatred can play in personal and societal boundary-keeping; when someone walks over us, a momentary but effective hatred, expressed through anger, is natural and adaptive. “Don’t tread on me”.

    I do see a downside to harboring resentments and nursing hatreds that have no means of reaching a healthy outlet of cathartic action. I’ll use myself to illustrate: I hate George Soros. I hate Bill Gates. I hate more than one CNN anchor. I hate a couple of former Presidents of the USA. I have a list of about a dozen well-known people whom I simply detest (Strangely, though, I have almost never risen to hatred against anyone I’ve known personally; I may have disliked a few, but I didn’t hate them).

    But none of these famous people know me. I have had zero impact on their lives, and never will. So, if I go about my daily chores thinking about them, loathing their every breath, I only succeed in ruining my own day. Ergo, I just file them away, and don’t give them a thought unless I happen to read something about one of them. I generally have a pretty good day.

    So, yes, hatred gets a “bad rap”. It is, however, natural and healthy, part of our set of responses to threats or potential threats, or just people or institutions that offend our sensibilities. Hatred even has its “aesthetic” side: some objects, buildings, organizations, etc., earn our enmity simply by existing in contradiction to our values.

    So let’s rehabilitate hate, but let’s also work on finding channels for its expression that results in a better world for ourselves or our people.

  9. Heimdall in Africa
    Heimdall in Africa says:

    Magnificent Dr Joyce.
    Many talking points to remember here.
    Thank you!
    Ps:I see the’morass of ethnic encroachment ‘ first hand here in what’s left of South Africa. Should be a warning to still nominally European countries. And, even here, the jews were disproportionately pushing the anti apartheid agenda (predictably you may add)

  10. bumpercrop
    bumpercrop says:

    “Unlike Nietzsche, I don’t think specific answers for our current situation can be found so clearly in religion.” Have you read the Old Testament, or Torah? It is the basic playbook for the Judaic control of the planet. And as far as the Hebrew Jesus, yes he did say to love your enemies, and he also said to hate your family, twice in scripture. Turn the other cheek, white man, while we take over. Jesus stated he came only for the lost sheep of Israel, and he fully supported usury. It was Paul aka Saul who never even met Jesus, who promoted the new religion to non-Hebrews, after he realized the Hebrews weren’t converting. I am tired of brainwashed or cultural Christians denying the evils of the bible and the fact that a Judaic religion was forced upon our people. And Jews were heavily involved in spreading Buddhism in the West as well. Just detach from it all, rise above the desire to secure your government from parasites. We are all one, don’t you want to have good karma? See who can stare at a wall the longest with crossed legs and become enlightened. While we Jews steadily take control. Religion is the single most controlling factor in this nonsense. Now let’s see how long before a brainwashed believer decides to set me straight….This is the major reason we are in our current position, people arguing to remain imprisoned by Jew mind control programs.

    • Gerry
      Gerry says:

      @ bumpercrop

      “Unlike Nietzsche, I don’t think specific answers for our current situation can be found so clearly in religion.”

      Really and what about climate change? The Old Testament is the answer to it all and even provides the solution. Very strange however, that of all of the people who should be at the forefront of teaching and warning us it should be the Jews. They however, are not because they like so many in all religions just pick and choose the best parts while ignoring the hard and difficult things the scripture have to say. Just take climate change as an example. In the Old Testament we have the reasons for it all:

      “The Lord is slow to anger but great in power; the Lord will not leave the guilty unpunished. His way is in the whirlwind and the storm, and clouds are the dust of his feet.” {Nahum 1:3}

      Do you know what a whirlwind is? Tornado’s yes?

      It is this one scripture though that surely sums it all up perfectly!!!

      “See, the storm of the Lord will burst out in wrath, a whirlwind swirling down on the heads of the wicked. The anger of the Lord will not turn back until he fully accomplishes the purposes of his heart. In days to come you will fully understand it clearly.” (Jeremiah 23:19–20)

      Is this not incredible a thing to read? And get this “In days to come you will understand it clearly”

      How’s that exactly? I mean its been just over 2 thousand years since this was given and what no one in all those years has been able to understand it clearly? What is it waiting for someone like Gerry Fox an unknown white guy of no Jewish ancestry at all lol? Climate Change the Work of God.

      This guy has proven not only the existence of God with verifiable proofs but has done the unthinkable really!

      Here just a small taste of the truth:

      “According to a radio newscast I heard while in my car during the Iraq war, a lone Moslem in the city of Baghdad had been screaming, “Hey, look what God is doing to the U.S. Forces.” Upon hearing this, I scoured the newspapers for any news about what this gentleman was talking about and came across a report about Bravo Company when they were some twenty-five miles from Baghdad. They were stopped dead by a series of storms that sprung up out of nowhere. The day had begun calmly enough, clear and sunny, but as they neared the city, they encountered a windstorm so fierce that it obscured the sun, turning the desert black. The wind was strong enough to batter and shake their tanks and personal carriers. After several hours, the sandstorm turned into a hailstorm with accompanying thunder and lightning. It turned the sand into mud, bogging down their vehicles and stalling their advance. They had to deal with the forming of a lake which almost swamped their vehicles.

      This is typical of how God Almighty works. The conditions of the Old Testament are literally coming back in the Middle East. Sadly, it took one lone citizen of the city of Baghdad—a Moslem, no less—to recognize it for what it was: an act of Almighty God. He, of all people, could see what others could not. No doubt this was due more to his acclimatization to that environment than his education in matters of the Bible or the Koran (assuming there’s anything in that book regarding the weather). In the desert, no one ever lives to see a hailstorm, in so abrupt a manner and over an army.”

      Further to the above scripture get this one:

      “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle? Job 38

      What is this God is a military commander with His own weapons?

      Does this then explain what occurred at Fort Carson???

      Raises some serious questions does it not?

      Industrial pollution what lies we are faced with everyday and it took a white guy to teach us? LOL!!!!!!!!!!

      • End
        End says:

        – conquered by persians
        – by greeks
        – destroyed by romans
        – their cartaginians coisins crushed to the ground
        – expulsed time and time again like bothersome flys in europe for thousand years

        Meanwhile we make your biggest masturbatory phantasy became real while you poisoned yourself in hate and envy for thousands of years
        The post ww2 western world is a testament of that auto destructive hate and envy that consume you and everything you touch , while the west crumble from inside under your mismanagement china and the rest of the world grow stronger every day ; even when you win you lose .

        You bring the desert everywhere you go while we make a rose flourish in the desert .

        The legitimate king will raise to reclaim his throne and send the fake prophets to hell where they belong, the world can wait any longer .


      • bumpercrop
        bumpercrop says:

        Dear Gerry, Your response was incoherent, but thank-you for responding and making my case. I am not an Atheist, as it is only logical to expect life was created from life itself, rather than a void. But I find world religions to be too limited and more concerned with keeping their systems going, than the search for truth. The god created by the Hebrews, Yaweh, was an insane psychopath, which conveniently gave the Hebrews the right to slaughter and cheat their neighbors, ie making evil out to be holy. Just as today the Jews hide their organized criminality under the guise of a religion. And Jesus was a nutter too. He didn’t turn on the money-changers, ie Pharisees, until they refused to accept him as their “messiah”. Geoengineering the weather has long been a goal of those who arise from a culture in which the Hebrew bible stated that man should “have dominion” over the Earth and nature, and self-fulfilling “prophecies” are a clever way to carry out the nonsense of the bible and fool the masses. Abraham religions and their antithesis, Luciferianism/Satanism, have retarded humanity from an intelligent and logical response to our human condition and acknowledgement of nature itself. The love of Truth should be our human motivation, no matter how painful, not a religion created by Hebrews, 3000 years ago. The bible scriptures that your minister refuses to highlight in sermons, far outweigh the cherry-picked scriptures so commonly known. Here are just a few. Yaweh gives a recipe to Moses to induce abortion. Numbers 5:11-31. Yaweh instructs Hebrews to charge interest to foreigners but not to fellow Hebrews “in the lands they are entering to possess” : Deuteronomy 23:20. Jesus also supports usury. Matthew 25: 14-30….There are so many, many others, but these examples should be enough for a logical mind to understand the psychological operation that is the bible. It is interesting to note as well the good advice from the bible was lifted from other cultures, such as the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Moby Dick also provides good advice, but we don’t worship Herman Melville. There was a reason Catholic mass was only spoken in Latin until 1965, and there were reasons to make it illegal for believers to even own a bible until the 1600’s, to hide the fact that Christianity was a Jew religion, from the White Europeans. Europeans had already been mistreated by Jews via usury and other underhanded treatment, in accordance with their Jewish Talmudic mandates as well as the Torah (Old Testament), instructing Jews how to obtain the upper hand on all non-Jews.The bible was also made illegal for the common person to read, in order to hide the disturbingly insane scriptures & dictates from the European mind. I abhor huffpost, but they got this right.

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          “it is only logical to expect life was created from life itself”

          Infinite regress logical?

          • bumpercrop
            bumpercrop says:

            Just because the human mind has not discovered the answers to how life originated, does not mean the answers do not exist. It takes a level of humility to state one does not have all the answers. I think the Cosmos sustains itself in the only manner in which it would be possible to do so. Perhaps a theory that has not even yet dawned in the human mind, exists. But the big-bang theory of matter blowing out into empty space due to density, well that theory also appears to fall under the category of “infinite regress”. There is something more than our limited, human minds. We can observe space and acknowledge that fact. Why is it so important to Atheists to denounce the possibility of something more than this physical realm? Ironically, Atheism seems to be just another world religion. Do you suggest that humans simply forget their commonly shared, natural instinct to have curiosity about life’s origins?

          • Trenchant
            Trenchant says:

            What you’re saying sounds like atheism, ie. stuff begat stuff. Creation is the mystery of God.

          • bumpercrop
            bumpercrop says:

            Trenchant “What you’re saying sounds like atheism, ie. stuff begat stuff. Creation is the mystery of God.”
            I stated in my post, I was not an Atheist. I also stated I don’t have all the answers as to how the Cosmos came to exist, yet that doesn’t mean the answers do not exist. I think the Cosmos must sustain itself the only way in which it can. Much thought could go into that assertion. But instead, let us read about Jewsus…or Moses…and people surviving being in a whale’s belly for 3 days….
            And what do you consider, “God”? The God of the Torah or New Testament? If so, and one rejects the “God” of the Jews, is one is an automatic “Atheist”, or as some followers of Yahweh and Yahweh Jr. might accuse, a Satanist/Luciferian? By the way, Jews dominate the field of Atheism, but they don’t write much about the logical problems in the Torah, Talmud or the Kabbalah. I wonder why not. I find it a perfect example of their arrogant pretentiousness that they have chosen to call themselves by the obviously contradictory term, “Atheist Jews”. Even as denouncers of any possible, higher existing knowledge of existence, they place themselves as superior and special over all other Atheists. Why no: “Atheist Christians”? “Atheist Muslims”? Atheist Hindus? Atheist Buddhists? Cultural Jews turned Atheist Jews, leading the movement of statists worshiping corrupt governments and the corrupt government’s high priests of fraudulent science, the new halls of Marxist Academia and dangerous technocratic surveillance technologies, fully on board with the ongoing social engineering of Western societies, in fact, leading the way… The “Atheist Jews” are still as smug, arrogant, and supremacist toward all the goyim as the most reverent Jews. The “Atheist Jews” are claiming there is no higher pattern of life, no organization, yet they still hold on to the basis of their tribal religion, ie we are superior and therefore should rule, thus the ends of our criminality justifies the means. The “Atheist Jews” carry on the base tenets of their religion, whilst simultaneously claiming their tribally, created war-god, Yahweh, does not exist.

    • End
      End says:

      Jesus said a lot of things , pragmatically we modeled cristianity as a usefull tool even if is true that is not best adapted for our people .

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      It looks to me that it likely will take something like a miracle for the christian sheeple majorities to escape the grip of their jewmaster mind kontrols . Until enough of them realize that they are being gradually genocided , per Fabian socialism , to nothing less than at least technical extinction , there is no worthwhile future for them .

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      Keep in mind that Jesus was telling the hateful JEWS to love their enemies and to hate their ethnocentric brethren. He was telling the murderous JEWS (who would slaughter hundreds of thousands of their unsuspecting pagan neighbors — see Gibbon) to turn the other cheek.

      He was not saying those things to “white men” (who at the time would have been pagan Greeks and Romans).

      When he said he came for “the lost sheep of Israel,” you have to ask who those lost sheep were. 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel were expelled from the Holy Land by the Assyrians. The tribe of Judah was only one of those tribes. And it was not “lost.”

      How do you reconcile Jesus’ “support for usury” with his chasing the money changers out of the temple?

      Charlemagne forced Christianity on the northern Germanic peoples. I can’t deny that. But you also need to face a fact that you can’t deny. Europe became Christian. And stayed that way for 1500 years. Christianity was modified to suit European culture and vice versa. You’re not going to get rid of it so easily. I think it is more productive to reform it. To make it support Europeans and white people. That isn’t impossible. It is natural for Europeans to want to be just and good, in addition to being strong. If that weren’t the case, Christianity would not have survived as long as it has.

      Look at Russia today. After seventy years of persecution by Communist Jews, Orthodox Christianity is undergoing a huge revival. The white man in Russia has a much healthier state of mind than the white man in the West. And, unlike our churches in the West, the Orthodox Church — like the Byzantine Empire out of which it arose — has no illusions about the Jews. They are the children of the devil.

      Last, how resistant were the pagans of Greece and Rome to the Jews? They had the same problems with them that Christians have had. They were no more successful than the Christians in dealing with them. Nor do atheists have any solutions to the problem.

      • bumpercrop
        bumpercrop says:

        Jesus, the Hebrew in the New Testament: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” Luke 21:24 Hebrew in the Torah (Old Testament) “….they (the Gentiles) shall bow down to thee (Israel) with their face toward the earth, and lick the dust off thy feet…” Isaiah 49:23. (one of many such verses) There is ample evidence, both in the scriptures as well as written history detailing the historical Zealots, which prove Jesus was a Zealot and an insurrectionist against Rome. Amongst a huge crowd of people gathered in Jerusalem during Passover, Jesus set out to work up the crowd in reference to the OT prophesy that the “King of Zion will ride upon an ass into Jerusalem.” Zechariah 9:9 This act was designed to whip up enthusiasm for the Hebrews hungry for a Messiah who would rule the world and also as an affront to the Romans, always on guard for Hebraic insurrectionist uprisings. There are at least 2 scriptures & verse in which Jesus supported usury, so making a scene at the Temple in which he drove out the money changers, was an act designed to undermine priestly authority & prep the Hebrews for an uprising against the priestly authority as well as the Romans. Jesus was rubbing his “Kingship” into the Romans faces. Immediately after the Jesus Passover event, we read this in the scriptures: John 2:17: His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” Jesus was angry at the “money changers” or priestly class because they weren’t financially backing him as the King and Messiah who would take on the Romans, and rule over all the Gentiles….Luke 22:36-38 Jesus stated this clearly, & what part of the word “ONLY” don’t believers understand? “I come only for the lost sheep of Israel.” And again, Matthew 10:56 “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Indeed, as you stated, Jesus was speaking & preaching to the Hebrews. He was all about the Hebrews lording over the non-Hebrews, and bringing on the insurrection against Rome. Jesus state he came to fulfill the law of the Torah. It was Saul aka Paul, (Acts 23:6-Then Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament,( who later called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees.”Acts23:6)) Saul/Paul was a Jew, citizen of Rome, & a paid informant & former bounty hunter of insurrectionists against Rome. When Saul/Paul began promoting the supposed, new & better brand of Abraham Religion#2 to the Gentiles, it both stunned and angered the disciples of Jesus.(another post) “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!” stated Jesus, this was a fire not to help the non-Hebrew, but so the Hebrew would rule over the Gentile. Luke 12:49- Doesn’t that sound a lot like the Jews throughout history stirring up unecessary trouble, so they can manipulate the outcome?
        Jesus was not a god created by or even a hero for the non-Jew. That is why it was illegal to even own a bible until the 1600’s, to hide that fact. One can make an argument for non-Jews maintaining the Jew religions, but we shall just continue more of the same mentality because one can not separate the Old from the New Testament, and for that reason among many, Christianity will always be vulnerable to Jew infiltration. ex. the Christian Zionists, and to a large extent, all the denominations, including the Vatican. We could rid the 501-C-3 tax exempt status on churches which prohibits free speech as a first step toward mental freedom. The Gentiles will never be mentally free of the Jew until we face the deeply flawed, conflicting, mish-mash of the bible and how it ultimately keeps us mentally enslaved and I think, retarded from sound wisdom and policy. From Peter, the “rock” upon which Jesus built his church. “Slaves, in reverent fear of (our God Yahweh) submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.” 1 Peter 2:18 And from Paul, aka Saul (they do so love to steal our Goyishe names-promotion to the Gentiles?- step one-take a Gentile name-first things first) Here he goes, writing to Timothy, 1 Timothy 6:1-2 “All who are under the yoke as slaves should regard their own masters as worthy of all respect, so that God’s (Yaweh’s) name and his teaching will not be blasphemed.” People of European DNA must decide what kind of future they would have, a world under their own European mind & innate sensibilities, or with our hands tied behind our backs via the Abraham religions which include their increasingly out in the open antithesis, the occultic Satanism/Luciferianism which includes the cult derived from the Sabbatean-Frankists. Odd how we are given the choice between evil and or evil, quite similar to our political choices. Do you think that is a mere coincidence? Read the words of Saul aka Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament, and is referred to as a Saint by the Christian church. He was writing a letter to the church in Corinth, Greece. 2 Corinthians 12:16 “But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.”
        And here are the words of Jesus: Can’t get any more chosen or supremacist than this: “Ye Samaritans worship ye know not what: we (Jews) know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.” John 4:22


        (Mod. Note: Bumpercrop, since this mod has to read every comment, you can help me out by keeping in mind, 1. Brevity is the soul of wit, and 2. paragraphs make clarity more likely … or something like that. Thanks in advance.)

          • bumpercrop
            bumpercrop says:

            I thoroughly addressed Jesus’ “support for usury” with his chasing the money changers out of the temple. My apologies for my failure to use paragraphs and indentions, it made my comments harder to read. Please review my comment regarding your question.

            I agree with you completely in that Jesus, as he stated himself in scriptures &verse, came “only for the lost sheep of Israel”. Let us remember the Ten Commandments, (lifted from the Egyptian Book of the Dead) were also written for tribal members only. This explains how Jews justify lying to the non-human goyim, because the Ten Commandments were behavioral guides for Jews toward each other. The rabbinical commentary on the Torah, the Talmud was written law on how to treat non-Judaics. Thus we have the deception. This is further proof the Judaic religions are harmful for our race.

            Jesus taught his fellow tribe members to be kinder toward each other, he never told them the non-Jews were there equal. Jesus maintained the Judaic ideology that he was superior to all other Goyim, because the Hebrew-created god told him so. Jesus was the typical Jewish supremacist, and he never once spoke against human slavery.

            Indeed, in the Judaic bible, both the Torah and New Testament, fully support slavery. How can a supposed prescient God of the Cosmos have supported human slavery? Jesus was well aware of the oral tradition of Talmudic studies and their blatantly evil views of non-Judaics. He even told the Hebrews to respect the Pharisees (keepers of the Talmud) just to do as they say and not as they do, as they were hypocrites.

            It is ironically symbolic, the members of the most supremacist and hateful tribal religion & ethnicity on this Earth, now accuse others of hate & racism. This is a symptom of deep tribal mental illness and soul sickness.

            If you read my comments you will find I have left examples of Jesus supremacist quotes. thanks.

  11. Anthony
    Anthony says:

    Many of us have found that the most hateful, intolerant, angry, and narrow-minded people are liberals.

    If you disagree them they hate you.

  12. End
    End says:

    Europeans shouldnt have expulsed the jews but we should have grow strong enought so the jews thenselfs understood the futility of their actions and abandon our countries or their own.

    Since the most ancient past europeans have lived surrounded by foreign people :aryans , greeks, romans , cruzaders , spaniards, russians, british…..
    So for a people with a universal projection , with an extrange impulse to see whats behind the orizon and tame it see the expulsion of the jews as the only alternative is a profound failure .

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      I guarantee you that the Jewish parasite will not leave the host unless it is forced to do so.

      There is one other solution besides expulsion, but it would be inadvisable to talk about it here.

  13. End
    End says:

    John Derbyshire wonders why Europeans are so susceptible to guilt. One explanation is that all cultures have a foundation myth that tells them who they are, and the foundation myth of modern Europeans is a negative one.

    How do you recognise a foundation myth? It fulfils three functions.

    1)It explains the origin and structure of the world (and society).
    2)It defines ultimate good and evil (and from those definitions are derived the values that are used to justify the holding of power).
    3)It determines what is held sacred in that society.

    For modern Westerners the story of WWII has become their foundation myth. It fulfils all three functions.

    1)We live in the ‘Post-War World’. The lines on the map, the institutions, the sense of what era we live in, all arise from the starting point of WWII.

    2)Ultimate evil is Nazis. Ultimate good is opposing Nazis. The values derived from these definitions are anti-racism, equality, diversity, anti-nationalism and so on.

    3)The only thing that is held sacred, that cannot be denied or mocked in the contemporary West, is the Holocaust.

    The problem is that all three functions are backwards or negative.

    Instead of the origin event being one of fertility and new life, it was a conflagration of death and destruction.

    Instead of ultimate good taking the central position in the story that slot is occupied by ultimate evil. Everyone knows that Adolf Hitler, the personification of evil, holds the centre point of the WWII story.

    Instead of that which is held sacred being something mysterious and sublime it (the Holocaust) is an obscenity.

    Having a negative foundation myth means the tree of life for Westerners is poisoned. People don’t realise it but the bounds of allowable thought and the orientation of ideas are all downstream from the myth of the society. As long as our understanding of who we are is determined by this negative foundation myth the only direction is down

    Whites need a new founding myth , even the name white is a testament to our failure , white is nothing more than a racialized cultureless term coined by our enemies that in usa include jews north africans …..

    We need to embrace a new founding myth that os in consonance with our roots and nature and that we feel proud of it like hitler undertood perfectly , bashing the jew won’t take us only to feel powerless and blackpilled but afirming a positive founding myth will take us to victory

    There is only a one way forward embracing our aryan roots , once every ” white” across the world identify as an ARYAN its game over the rest of the world jews included.

    Pd. For every jewish related article thete should be at least two speaking about our aryan roots

    • Rerevisionist
      Rerevisionist says:

      A difficulty is that there are few ‘foundation myths’ amongst whites. This is because Jews, and their related fanatics, Christians, hate the people and do what they can to remove their stories and history. Early Christians destroyed writings in Europe, and elsewhere, for example in south America. Writings and inscriptions from Babylonia etc were destroyed where possible. Jews for the last few centuries bought documents and letters where they could, and destroyed the many they didn’t like. It was and is an active and deiberate policy.

    • JRM
      JRM says:

      I suspect “End” is talking specifically about the European White experience in this post, not the American one. There have been efforts by the Jews, especially in the 1970’s and 1980’s, to expand the “Holohoax” mythos to make it foundational here as well, in order to capitalize on resulting White guilt.

      But Whites in the U.S. have (or had) our own foundational story, the epic tale of Religious Freedom from 1620, and Political Freedom from 1776. From Pilgrims to Minutemen, we most certainly had our own Myth, one that was generally uplifting, if not truly accurate (there was a lot more selfish action, and a lot less self-sacrificing altruism in the reality of the era).

      Today, we are in the midst of a massive retooling of that story. Slavery and Native American Genocide (but much more of the former and somewhat less of the latter) are now our Newly Corrected “Difficult” Genesis tale.

      Students of both History and Human Nature can watch this historic retooling now in progress on a daily basis.

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        JRM: Yes, things have changed radically, and in a relatively short period. I remember the semi-rural county I grew up in having a yearly grape festival. There were vendors who sold trinkets and souvenirs. One vendor offered a choice between kid-sized Union and Confederate soldiers’ hats. Of course, there were toy rifles and guns sold as well. The America I grew up in had cultural markers completely different from the America of today. We learned to read by reading books about Tom, Dick, Jane and Spot. “Look at Spot run. Run, Spot, run!” We had the Boy Scouts, “Boy’s Life” Magazine, Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.” — books that I only came to appreciate as an adult.

        We had “The Hardy Boys” and “Nancy Drew.” We camped, fished, hunted, hiked, went on adventures, got into trouble.

        There was no obvious Jewish influence in the culture. But that changed with TV becoming a bigger part of our life.

        The Holocaust? Hardly anybody thought about it or mentioned it until the mini-series “Holocaust” was shown on TV in the 1970s. 1970 itself was a watershed year. Suddenly, sitcoms were political: “All In The Family.” And preachy “M*A*S*H.”

        The poison was administered, first slowly, and then more intensively.

        At what point did the Jews finally triumph in their cultural revolution? I would say not all that long ago. In fact, the election of Trump may have been the tipping point. And that happened less than four years ago.

  14. Noah
    Noah says:

    It’s time to clear up a few things regarding the Bible. First, the Israelites were not Jews, but Jews were Israelites. 2nd, modern Jews are not the physical descendants of the people in the Bible but are descendants of 7th C. Khazar converts to the religion of Judaism. OT Israelites went into captivity in 586BC and never returned, except for a remnant of 3 tribes, recorded in Ezra. Most of these were destroyed in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. That was the fulfillment of the “last days” prophesied in the OT. It was never about 2,000 years later. Modern Israel is a fraud and Zionist Christians are deceived. Jesus was not a Jew. Christianity is not Jewish. But it has been hijacked by Jews who have I steered themselves into the story of the Bible. Nowhere is Moses or Abraham or the patriarchs called a Jew. The word Jew doesn’t even occur in the Old Testament until the last chapter of II Kings. Many of the Jews living at the time of Christ were half breed descendants of Esau and the Cannanites. Paul is often called a Jew, but what he meant was that he was from the region of Judea. He was not of the tribe of Judah. There is no letter J in the Hebrew. A Jew is often mistranslated with Judean. They are not the same, just as a Texan is not a race. The entire world in the time of Christ spoke and wrote Koine Greek. Jesus and the Apostles spoke Greek. Aramaic was the language that the diaspora Israelites developed in captivity over a few hundred years. They had lost the use of Hebrew, except for a few scholars (scribes ) who bothered to meddle in the dead language. So the belief that the OT was written in Hebrew is false. It was translated almost entire from Aramaic into Greek. The NT was written entirely in Greek. In fact, the so called Hebrew of the Bible was created from Masoretic texts developed around 1000 AD. There are no OT manuscripts that predate 300 BC, and all of them are overwhelmingly Aramaic. The Dead Sea scrolls proved that the Greek Bible was more accurate than the Masoretic texts, which omits many verses and twists scripture. I say all this because it needs to be said. Jesus was NOT a Jew. Christianity is NOT Jewish. Jesus did not predict a literal physical bodily return to Earth 2,000 years later. The “coming of the Lord” was hyperbolic language about the judgement of Israel and was fulfilled in AD 70. Jesus is not coming again and these are the post ‘last days’.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      Noah, I’m impressed by your knowledge. Here are some thoughts of mine, which you might or might not agree with.

      I agree that the Israelites were not Jews. Judaism was a system of control developed by Levite priests over the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. This happened long after Abraham, Noah, and Moses. It only began when the Israelites split up into two kingdoms: Israel in the north and Judah in the south. The northern tribes (who were never Jewish0 were expelled by the Assyrians and lost to history. The Kingdom of Judah and its Jewish temple were later conquered by the Babylonians. From 586 B.C. to 1948 A.D., there was no Jewish nation or kingdom — a period of around 2,500 years. So much for the Jews claiming Israel as their ancient homeland. It was only theirs for about 400 years — and then only a part of it, not the whole.

      When a remnant of Jews returned to Jerusalem from Babylon (after its defeat by the Persians), what had formerly been the kingdom of Judah was controlled by Persia. Then it was conquered by Alexander the Great. After that it was taken over by the Romans. Then it became a part of the Byzantine (eastern Roman) Empire, which by this time was Christian. Then it fell to the Muslims. In 1918, Turkey, allied with Germany in WW I, had to cede rulership to the British under a League of Nations mandate.

      It was when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem in 586 B.C. that the Jewish diaspora began. It might have even begun earlier. So by the time of Jesus, there were large Jewish populations in Rome, Cyrene, Cyprus and Alexandria. They were troublesome to say the least, and so Rome ended up making war on the Jews.

      The Jewish religion created by the Levite priests came to an end with the final destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans. No temple, no sacrifice, no Jewish religion. Christianity is actually an older religion. What the Jews have now is a paltry substitute religion based on the Talmud.

      Assuming that the first five books of the Old Testament — the Jewish Torah — were written by Levite priests after the founding of the Kingdom of Judah around 900 B.C., it follows that the true history of the Israelites has not been given to us. It has been filtered through a particular tribal group that had split away from its fellow tribe members.

      The homicidal Yahweh of the Torah is an invention by priests trying to scare people into submission and separate them from the rest of mankind. Can this be the same god as the Christian god? No. The Christian god wants all people to worship him, not just Jews. Can it be the same god who made promises to Abraham (a Babylonian, not a Jew) and his descendants? Again, no. The promise to Abraham was unconditional (unlike with the Jews) and prophetic. It promised rulership of many kingdoms and untold multitudes of people to his descendants. Christians, not Jews, have had many kingdoms and over a billion church members.

      Was Jesus a Jew? He preached in the Jewish temple, but he was not a temple authority. He referred to gathering “the lost sheep of Israel.” But most of those lost sheep and their descendants were never Jews.

      The more we look, the more doubtful it becomes that he was a Jew. His parents were Nazarenes, considered “heathens” by the temple authorities. His apostles, I believe, were Nazarenes as well, except for Judas. Many Greeks had settled in that region. At that time, they were full-blooded Aryans. The fair-complexioned Jesus would fit in to that group, not the Jewish group.

      Why did Jesus pick the Jews as his primary audience? He could have preached to pagans instead. I suppose, off-hand, he thought it would make more sense to preach to a people who believed in only one god rather than in many. After all, he claimed to be God in human flesh and that there was only one god.

      He might also have hoped that Christianity would put an end, once and for all, to the satanic cult of Judaism. He called the Jews who rejected him children of the devil. But the devil rules this world.

      • bumpercrop
        bumpercrop says:

        “The homicidal Yahweh of the Torah is an invention by priests trying to scare people into submission and separate them from the rest of mankind. Can this be the same god as the Christian god?
        Of course it is the same Christian god. Are you claiming the Torah is made up fiction and the New Testament is true? Your mind is simply reeling from cognitive dissonance. Matthew 23:2 “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:”The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” The Pharisees, gave oral tradition equal authority to the written Torah or Old Testament. The Pharisee Hebrews, later known as Jews, eventually wrote down this “Oral Tradition” into what is today known as “The Talmud”.
        “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them.” said Jesus in Matthew 5:17
        So following “the law” pertains to the laws such as the following commanded by Yahweh: Deuteronomy 20:10-17.
        Jesus opposed the Pharisees, because they refused to accept him as their tribal “messiah” and it made him angry. In the scripture of the New Testament itself, it appears in the beginning, the Pharisees were open and at least curious to hear what Jesus had to say.
        Matthew 12:38-42

        Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”
        Wouldn’t that be a logical request from the spiritual leaders of a tribe, of a man claiming to be their Messiah? “But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given…” That’s not a very wise method of responding to the revered religious leaders of the day. Especially when one is stating he is the Messiah during an historical time when there were many such claimants. Asking for a sign, would be a rational request of a prophesied Messiah who claims to be turning water into wine and walking on water.

        • Eric
          Eric says:


          Thanks for your reply.

          “Are you claiming the Torah is made up fiction and the New Testament is true?” I am stating the position of some Christians, a position I believe makes sense. The god of love seeking to redeem and save all of mankind cannot also be a genocidal murderer favoring only a particular tribe.

          You speak of my supposed cognitive dissonance. Nothing could be more cognitively dissonant than identifying the homicidal Yaweh of the Old Testament with the loving (but stern) God of Christianity. Too many Christians do this. As far as I’m concerned, they are not Christians.

          As for your quotations from Matthew: Jesus was trying to convert Jews from believing in their homicidal Yahweh into believing in him. He couldn’t do that by snapping his fingers. Not if he wanted them to make their decision freely. So he paid diplomatic lip service to their superstitions. “Do what your masters say — but note what hypocrites they are!” Thus is the seed of doubt planted.

          As for his “fulfilling the law” (Matthew 5), Christian doctrine holds that the law was in fact fulfilled through his death on the cross. The Jewish law was abolished by his sacrifice for mankind’s sins. Christianity, in turn, abolished the Jewish franchise — the claim of the Jews to be God’s chosen. Anyone could be God’s chosen by believing in Jesus and following his commandments.

          You failed to provide needed context for Matthew 23 — namely, Matthew 22:35-40: “35 Then one of them [the Pharisees], which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all they heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

          Here we see a huge contrast. The minutiae of Jewish law and ritual vs. a law that in many ways contradicts and demolishes that Jewish law. Note also the importance Jesus places on the prophets — who the Jews killed.

          Jesus is saying that the Jewish authorities are radically wrong. And he goes on to reinforce this point in Matthew 22:41-46: “41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.”

          Here, Jesus attacks the materialism of the Jews. The Messiah they are looking for can hardly be described as a spiritual being, much less God in human flesh (Jesus), who existed before time itself existed.

          As for Matthew 12: 38-42, you’ve taken it out of context: “38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. 39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.” You left out the last seven words. I’ll leave it to you to look into “the sign of the prophet Jonas.”

          My quotations are from the KJV.

          • bumpercrop
            bumpercrop says:

            Dear Eric, You make such interesting and poignant comments on other topics, yet flail about whilst searching for methods to make sense out of the bible. In several ways your response encapsulates a common situation that repeatedly surfaces within the truth movement. Many of us have faced up to how Jew religion was forced into our ancestral heritage, until it was accepted and ponder over its social effects, especially on our people. Yet many of us have chosen to remain brainwashed to think that w/o Christianity, White people would have been running loose, completely w/o morals, unhinged, and it was the Jew religion Part 2, that literally saved our souls from sin. But this is a major part of the programming. While it is true that a religion held by a majority within a populace can help maintain social cohesiveness & thus strength, it is also true a religion based on violence, lies, fantasies, (ask what you want in my name and it shall be done) and bad advise, can retard a culture, and lead to an ultimate downfall. Aren’t churches some of the major players in helping the “immigrants” flooding into our Western nations? Aren’t churches some of the major players in supporting Israel? What are churches doing to resist the massive corruption within our governance? They sure do spend a lot of energy resisting abortion, when obviously if they actually read the bible, they would know Yahweh gave Moses a recipe for abortion. (Numbers 5:11-31)I’ve noticed there is a literal army of apologists at the ready, anytime the outrageously violent or obviously ridiculous scriptures in the bible are even questioned. It is common to find an entire treatise making an effort to apologize away a single sentence from the Old or New Testament. The truth is, Jesus repeatedly acknowledged the God of the Old Testament/Torah, to be “his father”. And the God of the Torah/Old Testament is Yahweh. How can this be denied? Yet believers twist around fantastic stories of denial, and appearing almost demented while doing so. ex: Whites were the real Jews. Jesus was not a Jew. Jesus did not worship the God of the Torah. Jesus fulfilled the Torah, so it’s no longer necessary for a Christian to even read the Torah/Old Testament. The Christian Zionist minister, John Hagee in his book, “In Defense Of Israel” actually claims that “Jesus did not come to Earth to be the Messiah”.
            The truth is plain. The Torah or Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, was written by Hebrews. Jesus was wholeheartedly in support of his tribe of Hebrews as the chosen people above all other people, created by their Hebrew God, known as Yahweh. Even the heavily redacted by Jews, Wikipedia, states this regarding the God of the Torah or Old Testament, Yahweh. “In the oldest biblical literature he is a storm-and-warrior (WAR god) deity who leads the heavenly army against Israel’s enemies.(the enemies being non-Hebrews or Gentiles) At that time the Israelites worshipped Yahweh alongside a variety of Canaanite gods and goddesses, including El, Asherah and Baal. By the end of the Babylonian captivity (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh (a war-god) was proclaimed, (by the Hebrews) to be the creator of the cosmos and the one true God of all the world. It was the huckster and massive hypocrite, as proven in the scriptures themselves, that Saul aka Paul, pushed the Jewification of the Gentiles. Read 1 Corinthians 9:20-22. Saul/Paul had never even met Jesus. After Jesus had been crucified and now under the tutelage of his new teacher, Saul/Paul, Peter visited the home of the Gentile Roman centurion, Cornelius. wherein a large group of Gentiles had gathered. In Acts 10:28, Peter addresses the gathered Gentiles: “And he said unto them, “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” Peter, the disciple the now crucified Jesus had called “his rock” goes on to address the same gathering of Gentiles in Acts 10:34-35, Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.” Peter had spent years learning at the feet of Jesus, and still he did not learn it was wrong to snub Gentiles? Jesus never straightened Peter out on the Judaic law of supremacy and overt “racism of hate” toward non-Jews? If Gentiles were intended to be a target for the Christian outreach program, then why did not Jesus (“I come ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel, do not go into the regions of the Gentiles”) lay this point out for his disciples from the very beginning? Because Jesus, being a devout traditionalist Jew himself,did not believe it was permissible to associate with Gentiles. Those are the harsh truths hidden in plain sight in the scriptures themselves. But when one wears rose-colored glasses whilst reading scripture, the mind ignores, or when disturbed, turns quickly to read the army of apologist’s lengthy explanations, to find reassurance and comfort.

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            Galatians 3:28-29: (KJV) “28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” I think this statement is something to keep in mind when analyzing the Bible.

            “Yet many of us have chosen to remain brainwashed to think that w/o Christianity, White people would have been running loose, completely w/o morals, unhinged, and it was the Jew religion Part 2, that literally saved our souls from sin.”

            That’s a straw man argument. The Greeks and Romans were pagans, and they were not “completely without morals,” unhinged, etc. If most people don’t know that, then our educational system really has failed.

            I agree with you that the churches are major players in bringing in immigrants from the Third World and supporting the murdering state of Israel (which murders Christian as well as Muslim Palestinians).

            The present day Pope could qualify as an Anti-Christ, and the same is true of John Hagee and other “Christian” Zionists. These people, quite simply, are not Christians, they are imposters.

            There is an obvious contradiction between Jesus’ demeanor and that of Yaweh in the old Testament. But Christianity holds that Jesus IS God in the human flesh. So the contradiction, for the Christian, necessarily resolves itself in favor of Jesus.

            There is no question that Jesus would have to be rejected if he were like the Yaweh of Genesis. But he isn’t like him. Yaweh would not allow himself to be crucified and spat on by a bunch of Jews.

            “Jesus was wholeheartedly in support of his tribe of Hebrews above all other people.” That is not true. The Jews were chosen to bring the message of God “to the Nations” — that is, to the Gentiles. That is not the same thing as being “better than” or “above” the Gentiles. Jesus wanted his disciples to preach to everyone, not just Jews.

            You quote Peter: “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but respects from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.” And you quote Peter when he says, “…but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”

            Following these two quotes, you write, “Peter had spent years learning at the feet of Jesus, and still he did not learn that it was wrong to snub Gentiles?”

            How did he snub them? He did the opposite, declaring that God accepts men from every nation and that God has told him not to call any man common or unclean.

            Maybe you were thrown off by God being “no respecter of persons.” That does not mean that God has no regard for anyone except Jews. It means that he doesn’t place any importance on the distinctions we human beings make between different groups of people (See Galatians above).

            Christianity began as a break-away religion of the Jews. Its first adherents were Jews. Jesus preached to them because they alone believed in only one god, and so it made sense to use them as a vehicle to bring God’s message to the world.

            Jesus did not preach to them because he was a Jew. Jesus is God. Is God a Jew? Of course not. God existed before time, before there was anything such thing as a Jew.

            I am on the fence about Christianity in the sense that I still have questions about it. But I think it is too simplistic — and just plain inaccurate — to dismiss it as “Judaism for the goys.”

            Anyway, I’m glad we’re having this discussion.

          • bumpercrop
            bumpercrop says:

            Dear Eric, You missed my entire point, and perhaps it was due
            to my failure to write in a more clearly stated structure.

            Jesus never appealed his message to non-Hebrews. That is a fact
            that no apologist can deny, although they make continual attempts.

            It was Saul aka Paul, who had never even met Jesus, that promoted
            the Judaic religion to the Gentiles. This was not the intention of Jesus,
            according to the statements made by Jesus himself as recorded in the scriptures.

            Pauline Christianity (Paulinism, Paulanity) is a term applied to
            the religious teaching unique to Paul’s writings and distinct from the gospel of Jesus.
            That is, Jesus taught one thing, and Paul taught something completely different.

            Please re-read my previous, poorly formatted comment for clarification.

  15. Swan
    Swan says:

    Thank you, Dr. Joyce, for this fantastic essay. I cannot help but have a searing, bile spewing, visceral hatred for this insidious parasite on our people. But, at the same time, I feel compelled to temper myself as I’m a mere rabbit facing a pack of starving wolves eager to destroy me for wrong think. The question arises: how to properly channel our just hatred. The only thing I can think to do is wake people up, but this proves extremely difficult. The conditioning is difficult to break.

  16. J J Daley
    J J Daley says:

    Andrew Joyce’s essays are always good for a cerebral rush, especially this one. I haven’t even finished reading it and I’ve already had a few.

  17. Luke
    Luke says:

    I never seem to hit the peak of being amazed at the incredibly brilliant talent of Andrew Joyce’s writing skills.

    This article has to be one of his best ever contributions.

  18. Whit
    Whit says:

    Great article. I also suspect that the skyrocketing rates of depression and consequent deaths of despair among whites are related to their Jewish-conditioned inability to externalize their hate to this devil that says it loves you, thereby double-binding an entirely justified survival emotion into even more guilt, hopelessness, and self-loathing. Probably adding to their frustration and despair in many cases are the communication patterns in some of their own white families and among other fellow whites whom they encounter more intimately yet as an immediate source of individual pain and insult that prevents them from the seeing the bigger picture of the calculated, systematic, and very Jewish program to displace and dispossess our race. I myself for example lived in such a white family but looking back I can say that all the traumas I am heir to by way of their influence pale in comparison to those organized Jewry inflicted by way of subverting the traditional institutional backstops of white family dysfunction—our schools, culture, and racial integrity. And I will healthily hate the individual Jews responsible for this destruction till the day I die.

  19. michael fury
    michael fury says:

    If you cannot truly hate that which seeks to destroy those you love, you do not truly love them.

    Their love for their imperiled heritage

    The Enemy announced was “hate”, and in his rage

    Demanded all must hate their hate and all

    Must hate without exception any soul

    Unwise enough to show them sympathy

    Or face the trials of his antipathy,

    From social exile to the heavy threat

    Of laws he promised soon to legislate

    Against the merest overheard expression

    In defiance of his anti-white suppression.

  20. michael fury
    michael fury says:

    Their gathering fate was but a wraith

    Still in the West to many, but to more

    Every minute what seemed a nightmare

    Resolved itself in daylight as the end

    Of all they loved or could love. It was then

    Our champions by grace were given fury.

    Not despair, not hopeless misery,

    but destiny’s transfiguration,

    Though all Hell promised annihilation.

  21. Tom
    Tom says:

    Excellent historical analysis but for me the effectiveness of the anti-hate movements since the 60s and 70s stems from a more recent transformation of western society’s moral metaphysics. Basically, I see it all as an outgrowth of the hippie “I’m OK, you’re OK” standard of “morality” – which implies that any and all actions of a consensual nature are intrinsically good and moral and therefore must be protected by the state and even furthered by government legislation. Prior to the childish hippie mentality, not even the most devout of liberals thought it acceptable to invite the whole world into western nations so that the Third World incompetents could be nurtured and made into sacred objects. That’s why we had the Peace Corps, for example – to educate primitives so that they could make a better life for themselves in their own nations. But once it was deemed OK for Third World people to take direct advantage of western living standards and OK for the West to invite the unfortunates in, this ridiculous consensus was made into a categorical imperative for multiculturalism and open borders simply because the new universal categorical imperative became the notion of consensus itself. So, if I want the Third World to flood into my country, the mere consensus between myself and the wishes of illegal aliens renders the proposition sacrosanct. Consequently, existing laws against illegal entry into the West are evil by definition and those who oppose open borders must hate morality.
    Naturally, this is an entirely silly axiomatic proposition but it nonetheless explains the thought processes of idiotic liberals and academics. But the really saddening thing for me is that western common sense has plummeted to such a grammar school level that even our most respected elites adhere to such juvenile levels of stupidity. Banality always explain the absurd.

  22. Joe
    Joe says:

    If I could ask God one question, it would be this:
    “Is it wrong to hate that which you KNOW is evil?”
    If yes, then we must accept evil everywhere and never fight against it.
    If no, then hate is a good thing when properly aimed.

  23. Drew Fraser
    Drew Fraser says:

    I wholeheartedly sympathize with Dr. Joyce’s analysis of “hate” as an essential biocultural defense mechanism in the war against whites. I do however reject his suggestion that, when Jesus called upon his audience at the Sermon on the Mount to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”, he thereby threw the Old Testament God under the bus. Dr Joyce suggests that to command his followers to care for their enemies “sits uneasily with much of the rest of the of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures” in which the Lord God, the Father repeatedly expresses a “perfect hatred” for his enemies. To which, my response is “Well, not really. It depends very much on the meaning of the English word enemy”.

    This is an issue that I discussed here last year in my article on “Global Jesus versus National Jesus”. As I wrote there, in the original Greek of Matthew 5:44, Jesus “refers specifically and only to ‘private’ enemies (echthros) not to ‘public’ or ‘alien’ enemies (polemoi). In English, the word “enemy” blurs the distinction between personal and political enemies; such as, most immediately, the Jewish authorities who were about to persecute Jesus and his followers in the service of the evil one. Jesus did not ask his flock to “love” their persecutors; rather, he urged his audience to “pray” on their behalf.

    In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus exhorted his audience to prepare for the suffering they could expect while waging a spiritual struggle against the official, public forces of evil likely to be sanctified by the cult of the Temple. Facing public enemies aplenty, his followers could not allow their attention and energy to be consumed in petty disputes with their private enemies. Jesus acted like a non-com telling his troops to forget the petty, personal grudges dividing them. If the national destiny foretold by the law and the prophets was to be fulfilled, spiritual solidarity in the face of their collective enemy was the key to victory.

    As it happened, the Jewish servants of the evil one came to need the prayers of the first Jewish Christians some forty years later, when Jesus came again to wreak divine judgement on Old Covenant Israel in alliance with the Roman armies which destroyed the Jerusalem Temple. The suffering and death of Jesus on the cross turned out to be but a shadow or a type of the blood sacrifice of Israel according to the flesh at the long-prophesied Day of Vengeance in AD 70. Jesus made no secret of his hatred for the synagogue of Satan or of his willingness to enter into a working arrangement with Caesar to consummate the creation of a new heaven and a new earth.

    The Christian church became the new Israel. In the world of late antiquity Christians still grasped the distinction between private and public enemies. More importantly, unlike mainstream Protestant and Catholic churches today, they were well aware of the existential difference between “friends” and “enemies”. Unlike the “national Jesus” of the New Testament who died to save the “lost sheep of Israel”, the “global Jesus” worshipped by the modern church calls upon his followers to “love those who persecute us”. “Global Jesus” sets out deliberately to undermine “every tendency to build our identities according to ‘us’ and ‘them’”.

    Blinding itself to the existential distinction between friend and enemy, the church has transformed Christianity into a deracinated, cosmopolitan cult of the Other. To cite the Sermon on the Mount in support of such pathological altruism is nothing short of sinful. I am sure that Dr Joyce would agree that what we need today is a political theology that empowers (I would say, especially, Anglican) churches to teach the Saxon, once again, how to hate.

    • Sophie Johnson
      Sophie Johnson says:

      ‘… that empowers (I would say, especially, Anglican) churches to teach the Saxon, once again, how to hate.’

      Thank you, Drew! The wonderful Kipling assurance that ‘when the Saxon began to hate’ there was a right-real to-do has been on my mind a lot lately. But it was not the churches that woke the Saxon back then. Nor are they anywhere near capable of doing that now. Kipling’s Saxon self-ignites. And I think we saw him very recently as Piers Corbyn and his friends defying the mask and the lockdown in Central London. That was a heartening sight.

  24. Right_On
    Right_On says:

    Re that name “Hope not Hate”.
    I’ve always thought that hope was a piss-poor aspiration.
    “What did you do in the war daddy?”
    “Well son, I hoped we would win.”

  25. Mark Green
    Mark Green says:

    Outstanding essay by Andrew Joyce. Hate is not the world’s worst evil. In fact, it’s not evil at all. This moral pretension is a post-Holocaust fairy tale.

    The fraudulent ‘anti-hate’ campaigns that have arisen in America over the past 50 years are all politically oriented and racially-motivated. Their objective is not the elimination of ‘hate’, but the deligitimitisation of white identity, white cohesion, white advocacy, and white continuity.

    Ironically, to achieve these unadvertised goals, these camouflaged campaigns rely on derision, division and defamation. In their wake are invidious double standards which not only disadvantage white peoples, but elevate Jewish nationalism (Zionism). This artifice tears at the very core of Western (white) civilization.

    If you love justice and fairness; if you love your family and your people, you must hate those responsible for this ongoing and detestable war of aggression.

    • Jacobite
      Jacobite says:

      Hate is an emotion. It may, or may not, result in an action. If no action results, I think the other people’s hate will win. Across Europe and the Anglosphere, effective action already is mostly criminal, and the laws dealing with hate-speech are trying to eliminate the emotion.

  26. Nick Dean
    Nick Dean says:

    I have commented elsewhere something along this line before, if Kevin MacDonald was a guest on a podcast, the first question he should be asked is, “Kevin Macdonald, why do you hate the Jews?” MacDonald would reply, “I don’t hate the Jews, what I have done is provide a critical analysis of Jewish behaviour, such as … (CofC).” The second question from the host is, “Kevin MacDonald, why [i]don’t[/i] you hate the Jews.”

    The truth is, despite it all, we just don’t hate. Consistency and fairness and self-defense are more easily mobilisable. Hate isn’t our way.

  27. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    Dr Joyce, I’m not sure what the scope of hate is. Does it entail distaste and revulsion? Or is hate distinguished by the desire/intention to seek the physical destruction of the hated object? If it is, then I have to admit that I am too cowardly to hate.
    I have along wondered what Jews have in mind when they call us ‘haters’. Are we, to them, people who find them revolting? Or are we people who want them physically destroyed? Alternately, might their ‘haters’ accusation be nothing more than revenge for their unspoken ‘We know we revolt you’ perception? I suspect it is. After all, ‘we are revolting’ is much harder to swallow than ‘we are hated’. And there is no ground for the revolting to voice protest against the revolted, for it is the revolting who have, without a doubt, caused someone’s revulsion. So they are the perpetrators, not the victims. (I have in mind the possibility of a banner: ‘I don’t hate you at all. But you are revolting.’)

  28. lucius vanini
    lucius vanini says:

    From my decades of intensive reading of Nietzsche I don’t recall the great German’s ever characterizing Judaism as a Sklavenmoral–Slave Morality; he reserved that name for that other originally Hebrew excrescence, Christianity. Actually, Judaism is a religion intrinsically compatible with its adherents’ prosperity and survival, having a backbone of healthy (albeit toxic to us) egoism, no misgivings about reproduction, a great valuing of nationhood, and no qualms about exacting violent retribution.

    Nor were the Stoics peddlers of altruism. The farthest they strayed from flat-out egoism is encapsulated in Epictetus’ “Try to enjoy the Festival of Life with other men [i.e., people].” They were not even pacifists. Marcus Aurelius was a perfectly self-consistent Stoic notwithstanding his wars against the Germans and the Parthians.

    No, it was Christianity that helped infect Europe with the disease of altruism, of self-alienation and self-abnegation; and its ethic was and is explicitly pacifistic, what with its “Resist not evil” and its enjoining our blessing and praying for and LOVING our victimizers as well as turning the other cheek for another blow….

    What causes doubt regarding Christianity’s being an utter Slave Morality, and a will to the end as Nietzsche depicts it, is the failure to distinguish its intrinsic ideology from NOMINAL Christians’ historical behavior. White Nationalists who wish to defend it can indeed point to the self-professed Christians of the Age of Exploration and Colonialism, when Europeans were much more churchgoing than today and ALSO created a European Global Hegemony anchored on several multicontinental Empires.

    But our forebears were wholly false to the creed they professed to have. Too lean and mean and vital to be actual Christians, they had a NEED of hypocrisy; and while they praised a Prince of Peace on Sunday they lived by the sword the rest of the week. Now, don’t get me wrong: it need hardly be said that being a hypocritical Christian is a thousand times healthier than being an earnest one.

    As someone obsessed with the question of European self-preservation, I have no problems with Europeans being Christians just so long as they are profound HYPOCRITES. The simple fact is that when Merkel says her pro-migrant policies are alone consistent with Christian values, she is merely speaking the truth; and when the race-traitor pope says Italians are bad Christians if they don’t welcome sub-Saharan migrants, all of whom are needy, he too is only speaking the truth.

    Among the chief dangers of the Sklavenmoral today is that its altruism has been inherited by Western secular morality–so that people who’ve abandoned its metaphysics and eschatology retain much of its morality (see Nietzsche’s smashing aphorism in TWLIGHT OF THE IDOLS (#5, entitled “George Eliot,” in the section “Meditations of an Untimely Man”). Also, and in connection therewith, the European of today is as soft as gelatin compared with his hard forebears who bequeathed him so much. Fat and enervated partly by inherited wealth and privilege, he has become capable of embracing altruism; and the Sklavenmoral (whether directly fed him in church or indirectly from liberal secular sources) provides a convenient and honorable-appearing copout from mounting the resistance he badly needs to mount but is too soft and unused to struggle to wish to do so.

    See “Threats to European Civilization–#1: Ourselves”:
    And “Our Deadly Altruism Gene”:

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Briliant observations . Spiritualists/religionists are prone to the hazards of self-delusions that are a normal consequence of their inveterate propensity to ensconce themselves in the artistic creations of metaphysical alchemistry of thought to relentlessly conjure dysfunctional control narratives that dismiss or simply ignore significant and often virtually indestructible materiel facts-of-life such as race genetics among many other materializations of the reifications of their proclaimed deities .

  29. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    ‘Jesus’ who seems never to have existed did NOT say ‘a lot of things’. The attributed sayings collected together are not extensive and they are very unclear. Most practices of whites do not follow those sayings. But they did provide some money to selected followers.

  30. Susan
    Susan says:

    I am posting this to pass along a little information on “hate.” I’ve been looking into some of the post-World War II anti-white propaganda. One writer of that era was Dorothy Baruch, a psychologist who “lectured all over the United States and in Europe on intercultural relations.” She authored a book, “Glass House of Prejudice: A Study of Prejudice–What it Does to Your Neighbor–What it Does to You…” in 1946. The first chapter is “The Disease of Hate.” This book was one of many contemporaneous writings that pointed an accusatory finger to whites as bigots. Each chapter has a different recipient of irrational white hatred–Negroes, Jews, Mexicans, and Chinese. Chapter 8 is entitled, “When Hatred Organizes,” so the emotion in her view can morph into something that has volition and act affirmatively. She advises haters to “recognize our resentments” and “test our own reactions”. She co-wrote a number of reading text books for American elementary school children. I don’t know if she was the first to talk about hate as a disease needing to be eliminated but she was one of the early ones.

  31. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    “Imagine Hamlet merely possessing a mediocre dislike of his uncle Claudius.”

    As if that masterpiece can be reduced to the title character’s hate.

    “Without Ahab’s detestation of the whale there is no Moby Dick.”

    No. Without Ahab’s obsession with redemptionism there’s no Moby Dick.

    Which is why the anti-redemptive storyteller Ishmael (Melville) is the lone survivor.

    “I tend to concur with Roger Scruton’s assessment of Nietzsche’s fixation here that it was both “obsessive, if not tedious.””

    Surprise, surprise. Two ideologically committed writers dismissing one aspect of a man’s thought, whose work towers over anything they’ll ever achieve, by using adjectives.

    Kind of like two aboriginies chasing away a Oort Cloud comet the same way they chase away a wild animal that’s wandered on their territory, and for the same reason, fear.

    Both the aboriginies and the ideologues, incapable of seeing their actions as an exercise in futility, actually think it’ll work.

    The only difference is the aboriginies are more innocent, and more honest.

    In their anxiety to convince themselves they’re right ideologues rarely think very carefully.

    It’s always sad to watch someone betray his considerable intellectual gifts by placing them under the iron paw of ideological redemptionism.

    The only thing any ideology will ever redeem is verbal behavior.

    And, as redemtions go, that doesn’t amount to much, for a reason.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      As I’ve said before, in so many words, I think Andrew is one of our brightest and best.

      I’m not making a personal attack.

      I’m making a point.

      And the point is, that thanks to our educational systems throughout the West (ie, the world) even one of our brightest and best has not learned to do one of the most, if not the most, important things a thinker/writer must do.

      They must slam their ideas against the wall, dig into their pockets, and if they yield nothing of value, cut their throats without mercy.

      If this was told to every graduating high school senior about to either enter the workforce or go to college we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in today.

      Things would still be messy, of course.

      But far less messy and far more manageable.

      Exactly because there would be more commitment to ideas and less to ideologies.

      The expectation that we will somehow or other (and in a way that’s never adequately explained) actually be redeemed by an ideology is a belief few have outgrown.

      Since expectations are resentments waiting to happen, maybe this is the real source of all unhealthy hate.

      • Dave Bowman
        Dave Bowman says:

        The expectation that we will somehow or other (and in a way that’s never adequately explained) actually be redeemed by an ideology is a belief few have outgrown

        With all due respect, you sound like a [Redacted Personal Insult] trying to assure others he is intelligent. Are you insecure here ?

        No one has suggested we will be “redeemed” by an ideology.

        But from what you dismissively label “ideology” (which correctly means a prepared, considered, decided, firmly-held, profoundly-committed, perhaps deeply unpopular, and always utterly ruthless personal conviction for permanent change) springs personal – and group – action. Is that so difficult to understand ?

        • Richard B
          Richard B says:

          You were so emotionally triggered by my comment that you responded with ad hominems.

          So, obviously, you’re the one who’s insecure.

          “With all due respect, you sound like a [Redacted Personal Insult] trying to assure others he is intelligent.”

          Since I don’t need anyone’s approval I have no reason to want to assure them of anything.

          It’s you who is trying to convince yourself that you’re intelligent.

          And you need to do that exactly because you’re insecure.

          You very well may be intelligent. But not intelligent enough to understand my comment.

          Which is why you misrepresented it so badly.

          Basically, you attacked your interpretation of what I wrote. Not what I wrote.

          That’s why the best you could do is respond with ad hominems.

          Because you’re insecure.

Comments are closed.