Counter-Currents
Titans are in Town:
Preface to Pierre Krebs, Fighting for the Essence
Tomislav Sunić
1,844 words
There are books that are timely, but there are also books whose time is yet to come. The time has come to urgently read and reread Pierre Krebs’ book Fighting for the Essence, which was first published in the German and French languages in 1997 and 2001, respectively. This excellent English translation, which was made by Dr. Alexander Jacob, has finally seen the light of day.
Dr. Pierre Krebs is a Franco-German philosopher and writer who, along with Alain de Benoist, was one of the founders of the think tank which came to be known in the late 1970s under the French acronym ‘GRECE’,[1] the first organisation of the so-called European New Right. Krebs was born in 1946 in French Algeria, and holds degrees from the Faculty of Law at the University of Montpellier, a degree from the Superior School of Journalism of Paris, and another from the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences in Paris. He is considered one of the foremost experts in the history of Scandinavian languages, specifically Old Norse, and he also holds a doctoral degree in French literature from the Paris 12 Val de Marne University. He has participated in numerous conferences and has published several books on philosophy, literature and metapolitics.
As a young student in the 1960s, Krebs was active in Europe-Action and Le Rassemblement Européen de la Liberté (The European Assembly for Liberty), whose main goal was the metapolitical rebirth of Europe in both the east and west. During the early 1980s, Krebs founded the group Thule-Seminar[2] in Kassel, Germany, and which continues to carry out research today. He is also one of the leading figures of the Neue Kultur (New Culture) movement. Krebs is an indefatigable fighter for the cause of the European peoples. Among his books, one must also single out Das unvergängliche Erbe: Alternativen zum Prinzip der Gleichheit (The Immortal Heritage: Alternatives to the Principle of Equality) in 1981 and Mut zur Identität (The Courage of Identity) in 1988.
For some putative White nationalists or traditionalists, reared within the culture of Christendom, this book may serve as an introduction to an alternative worldview. But this book also needs to be read by every person who is searching for ways to extricate himself from the modern multicultural and politically-correct verbiage spewed out by the so-called ‘free’ Western media and its tenure-guarding scribes in academia. Granted, the book may not be an easy read for everybody in view of the fact that it presupposes at least cursory knowledge of the ancient pre-Christian mindset or, short of that, some insight into the significance of Nietzsche’s prose.
Krebs’ book actually urges the reader to decolonise his mindset, purging from it the images and concepts that have been contaminating White European brains over the last two millennia, and which resulted in a distorted perception of objective reality and a perverse form of White identity. In a word, this book can be described as an epistemological primer for those looking not just for the reasons behind the ongoing decadence in Europe and America, but also for those interested in the root causes of that decadence. Before combating the vileness of the present system, a modern man or woman of European extraction must make an effort to critically examine the origins of the founding myths of that system. Why waste time on futile talk about the ‘dying White race’, ‘the troubles of Europe’, ‘the dictatorship of the ideology of comfort’, or the ‘immigration disaster’ if the heart of the problem is wilfully ignored? In doing so, one only cures the symptoms of the disease while failing to address its causes.
Even if a reader finds the answer to the problem, the cure may not be that simple. For even if his methodological analysis is fairly successful, the endless ranting and ravings, so common among many so-called White nationalists or others which attempt to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of others, who allegedly pollute academia and public discourse, must be tossed aside and replaced by more sober and serious analyses. To address these problems, we must first solve the issues that lie within our own cultural baggage. To put it in plain English, the house needs to be built up from its foundations, not down from its roof.
This book is important because it advises the reader about how to decipher the causes and consequences of our decadent age. Being himself a disciple of European heavyweights such as Homer, Nietzsche, and Heidegger – to name only a few – Krebs correctly traces the root of the problem of White racial decay and cultural decadence not to liberalism and multiculturalism, but to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Above all, Krebs focuses on the destructive forms of the monotheistic Judaeo-Christian mindset which prevails among both the so-called Leftist and Right-wing intellectuals and their respective disciples. In fact, by using quotes from and commentaries concerning many important, albeit deliberately ignored European scholars, Krebs demonstrates that all political concepts that we take for granted today are basically modified ideas, myths, legends and impostures that originated in the Middle East and that are now making headway into our secular, godless society.
Granted, the clergy have been dethroned from their former position in public discourse, but their ideas about bringing about paradise on Earth, as well as their arbitrary definitions about who is good and who is evil, or who is noble or who is a ‘terrorist’, are still anchored in the legacy of Judaeo-Christianity. Although many of the political revolutions of modern history have, on the surface, been hostile to this legacy, all of them have nonetheless retained the idea of linear history unfolding in the course of an ongoing conflict between ‘good’ believers fighting the ‘evil’ ones, ending with the inevitable victory of the former over the latter.
Krebs aptly dissects the discourse and the mindset of modern Marxists and liberals who, in spite of the fact that they often profess to be atheists or agnostics, nonetheless adhere to the monotheistic conceptualisation of the world that was handed down by the Judaeo-Christian tradition, through its secular and postmodern offshoots. In the same vein, Krebs adroitly warns against those modern political neuroses which appear quite often among many so-called Right-wingers, which causes them to rely too much on blaming all the problems of Whites on outsiders; or, in a grotesque flip side, to embrace outsiders at the expense of one’s own. Both manifestations are wrapped up in the same Judaeo-Christian package. How can a White nationalist, a racialist, or a traditionalist, or whatever he may call himself, and regardless of whether he lives in Europe or America, successfully combat hostile and alien worldviews and adopt different methods of conceptualisation, while at the same time revering these same alien referents and the same paradigms which are, ironically, part and parcel of the same non-European mindset he wishes to reject?
Here we have a case study of a classic pathogenic scenario, so well exposed by Krebs, namely that the so-called archetypical ‘Right-wing White man’, while desperately attempting to reject the alien Other, forcefully and violently tries to make him look the same. What is the point of attacking one’s opponents while adorning oneself with words, epithets, and signifiers whose entire conceptual arsenal is traceable directly to belief systems that originate from other traditions, including those which preach the gospel of racial and cultural promiscuity for all the peoples on Earth?
Krebs applies the same method of analysis to studying the mindset of the so-called Leftists and liberal world-improvers, who in the name of a fictitious egalitarianism advocate racial panmixia,[3] which they mendaciously dub ‘diversity’, thereby killing all cultural differences and erasing all forms of genuine racial and intellectual diversity. As a result, not only the White European race and culture, but all cultures and races worldwide are threatened by extinction through intellectual and racial mongrelisation – courtesy of the globalist mindset.
The book covers several important topics. First, the author rejects the synonym ‘the West’ for Europe. He sees Europe as being the very opposite of the ‘West’. The very concept of ‘the West’ has today lost its original meaning, a meaning once assigned to Europe by the very same people who now use it as a synonym for the vanishing White civilisation. For that matter, so-called Western civilisation, which long ago attained its apex in America, is the very opposite of what Europe is or what Europe was intended to be. Both White America and White Europe (the West?) are in mortal danger today. The matrix of the West, as Krebs argues, is no longer territorial or political. It lies in the White man’s experiment with Christianity, which began as merely an obscure Oriental cult – a cult which has absolutely nothing in common with the spiritual homeland of the White man: ancient Greece.
The book also covers the unstoppable steamroller of the ideology of progress and its obsession with economic growth, for which the French language uses the word économisme – an obsession which has done so much harm to all White peoples worldwide. Both the idea of economic progress, coupled with its infatuation with egalitarianism and racial panmixia, stem again from ideologies which have their roots in the Judaeo-Chistian tradition, and which have, today, become an integral part of the public discourse of the West.
Krebs wrote this book before the economic and racial chaos had reached its current levels, a chaos we are witnessing today in all its destructive splendour. The Titans[4] are back in town today, and this may be very good news. Why? The pending economic and racial cataclysm will inevitably provide some opportunities for the revival of our own, European traditions and our own concept of the sacred. The answer Krebs offers to intelligent White readers in America and Europe who are seeking an exit from the modern multicultural straitjacket and the conceptual mendacity of liberalism is simple, although it will require a great deal of courage: the return to our lost pre-Christian European roots. Novus rerum nascitur ordo.[5]
Tomislav Sunic
November 23, 2011
Zagreb, Croatia
Notes
[1] The Groupement de Recherches et d’Études pour la Civilisation Européenne, or Circle for the Research and Study of European Civilisation — Ed.
[2] Thule-Seminar maintains a Web site in German at www.thule-seminar.org. — Ed.
[3] Panmixia is a term from biology which refers to a population in which all members are potential reproductive partners for all other members, leading to random mating. — Ed.
[4] In Greek mythology, the Titans were the gods who had ruled the universe during the earlier, paradisiacal Golden Age. They were eventually overthrown by the Olympians, who comprised the pantheon of gods worshipped by the ancient Greeks. — Ed.
[5] Latin: ‘a new universal order is born’. It is taken from Virgil’s fourth Eclogue, in which he is describing the birth of a leader who will usher in a new age. Its exact meaning is debated, with some claiming it heralded the rise of the Roman Empire with Julius Caesar, and others claiming that it was a reference to the birth of Jesus Christ. — Ed.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
43 comments
I’m getting soooo tired of this. I’m a committed Christian and a white separatist. I’m also a believer in many of the political tactics of Adolph Hitler.
I dodge the traffic to make it across the street to church about twice a month. I’ve also been stalked and intimidated by Anti-Racist Action types. (I’m a street activist.) I’m living proof that Christianity and nationalism are highly compatible at least in some individuals.
I also find it ludicrous to take the ascendancy of Christianity in Europe as the cause of our current problems. Nine centuries after the Christianization of central Europe our civilization stood over the entire world in the form of hundreds of millions of whites established over seas and the European empires.
Our downfall didn’t begin until WWI at the earliest. Boy doesn’t the time coincidence between the entry of Christianity into Europe and our near destruction just knock you off your feet?
Another thing that is getting real tiresome is the contention mentioned by many armchair white nationalists here that there is some inherent defect in white socio biology that makes us uniquely susceptible among the world’s races to suicidal behavior.
Well what the h e double ll do you think was the social biological defect that caused 900 mostly black Jim Jones followers to be talked into the mass suicide at Jones Town Guyana in 1978?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FCYg4v9lBE&feature=related
Get this through your thick skulls– mass suicidal behavior is not restricted to the white race.
Dam-. As I recall, having read Mein Kampf about three times, Hitler didn’t publicly attack Christianity. He said you can’t come to political power by attacking ALL the institutions of society. I do recall in MK he specifically bemoaned the tendency of Lutherans and Catholics in his movement to pit themselves against each other.
He’s beef was its pacifist nature as I recall. He made a concordant with the Catholic Church, he died a Catholic.
Why in heavens name pit our selves against both wings of Christianity?
Oh, and Sunic stood up before our Council of Conservative Citizens meeting about a year back and made the remark that “all Jews aren’t bad.” Well I’d agree. But their culture is dam- sure our deadly enemy.
About the first part of our Council of Conservative Citizens charter proclaims America is a Christian nation. That’s true.
Other than tamping down more extreme forms of anti-Semitism I don’t know what Sunic’s assigned mission is, but articles like this are near certain to drive away a bunch of conservative white Americans.
To Sumic’s boss, if you’re reading this, some of the tactics he’s pursing here are so potential divisive and destructive among the white nationalist movement that if you don’t call him off I’m likely to tell what all I know about your as—.
I’ve some problems with Harold Covington’s strategy; a teeny bit too much emphasis on a near term revolution, but Harold has got one thing right for sure. Trying to gain traction among the conservative white masses in America while attacking their religion is a mind bogglingly stupid maneuver.
Oh and one last thing, the Jewish nation in Diaspora being our deadliest enemy, (due to it’s culture of critique, not any supposed evil genetic defects), if we go to pre-Christian paganism I guess there goes the whole “Christ Killers” thingy.
Phil;
Threatening Tom Sunic and/or his “boss”?
Why are you here?
The truth is not a threat, but I probably shouldn’t tell it.
Attacking Christianity in America is still a dumb stunt. I understand it’s not so damaging in Europe, but Sunic lives in America now.
If he’d not translated this into English I cut him some slack.
Read Mein Kampf again – he does speak against Christianity. He wanted to phase it out gradually. Obviously he didn’t want a Revolution on his hands.
Identity is interesting since it says Whites are the real Israelites. That puts the problem in a whole new light since WE would then have access to the ruthless tactics and reopolitic of the Old Testament. Obviously, the New Testament is inadequate on its own. As the Sufis say, Christ taught the way to the Other World while Mohamad taught the way on Earth as well as the Higher World. Christianity needs to reappropriate the Old Testament in order to compete against other Religions and other Ethnes – even “Christian” ones. It wasn’t so much of a problem when we were just among our own in Europe but now in a global forum, we are hopelessly compromised without the Machiavellian and Eugenic outlook of the Old Testament.
Good points. Christianity still uses the old tesstament. Anything else is Jewish cultural distortion that has infiltrated our churches.
Spread this verss around.
“The is a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.”
Eccleseasties 3:8
I’m also thinking of using my own verson of Bob Whitakers tactics.
“Sermon for this Sunday, Jesus doesn’t hate white children.”
I agree it’s disappointing to see such effusive praise from Tom Sunic for what appears to be a pretty shoddy book.
F. Roger Devlin’s review alluded to the dubious and downright ludicrous claims in Krebs’ book, as well as to his intellectual arrogance (purporting to understand writers better than they understood themselves).
F Roger Devlin (my emphasis):
This reviewer is happy to agree that the rise of Christianity, with its promise of salvation to the world-weary, was closely bound up with the decline of Graeco-Roman civilization. Indeed, I suspect this historical context better accounts for what Krebs finds decadent in Christianity than does its racially alien origin. But does it make sense to blame Christianity also for the decadence of modern civilization?
There is surely considerable temerity in reducing the thirteen or fourteen centuries of European civilization between the conversion of Constantine and the Enlightenment to a list of fifteen personal favorite figures. And the temerity is increased by the implied claim to have understood several of these figures better than they understood themselves.
It is a familiar observation that enlightenment thought amounts to a secularized version of Christian doctrine, a displacement of its eschatology into the realm of politics. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is just one example of a Christian conservative who stressed this connection, citing the Latin proverb corruptio optimi pessima: “the corruption of the best is the worst.”
But Krebs the admirer of Pelagius cannot mean this; his explicit positions would force him to deny that the secularization of Christianity is the essential misstep. Instead he must hold that (1) Christianity itself is responsible for the specific way in which it was negated by the Enlightenment, and that (2) Europe has been in a state of decadence since at least the fourth century AD. This bold interpretation of European history may deserve consideration, but the author has hardly made a case for it in the brief manifesto under review.
https://counter-currents.com/2012/02/europe-vs-the-west/
Every interpreter worth his salt understands a thinker better than he understood himself, for the simple reason that the passage a time does give us some perspective on implications of ideas that may not have been grasped by the original thinker.
In response to Devlin’s remarks, yes, Krebs is committed to the claims that (1) Christianity is responsible for the trajectory of its secularization, and (2) that Western Civilization has been ruled by decadent values since the fourth century, when the Christianization of the Roman Empire received state power from Constantine. Both of these claims are defensible in Nietzschean terms, and Nietzsche is Krebs’ prime source here.
(1) Christianity is responsible for the trajectory of its secularization, because secular liberalism represents a triumph of Christian values over Christianity itself. Nietzsche argues that the Christian valorization of truth as something worth dying for was turned against the supernatural, faith-based elements of the creed. And once the supernatural, “pie in the sky” elements of Christianity are discarded, then nothing stands in the way of the progressive/utopian realization of Christian values in this world, values like the worth of every human life and the o
(2) These values were dominant in the West beginning with Constantine, but they were never really taken all that seriously. Spengler is right: the values of the New Testament are the Bolshevism of antiquity, and Christianity was as devastating to ancient pagan civilization as the Bolshevism of the 20th century. But once in power, the church readily compromised with pre-Christian values and social forms because of its essentially otherworldly focus. And they condemned as heretics those who demanded that the Church live by the values of the gospels. When the Reformation triumphed, however, and Christians started actually reading the Bible and thinking of ways to live by it in this world, the corrosive power of Christian values became fully liberated to do their work.
Regarding Greg’s Point 2, I continue to like using Evola’s remark about the Roman Church being more Roman than Church. Christianity in power simply took over the existing Roman structure [as with Monty Python, what have the Romans ever done for us, besides the roads, schools, hospitals, aqueducts, peace, etc.?] and necessarily soft-pedalled the pacifist/communist la-de-dahs.
The Reformation was an explosive rebirth of Judaism that worked to destroy the Imperial Ideal but even Luther saw the need to compromise with the resulting princelings. Calvin and Savonarola, not so much, and they were tossed aside after trying to establish “God’s Kingdom”.
But in general, Prot. represents the Judaic element in some way or other; hence, the radio preachers are always denouncing the RC as “paganism”, “formalism”, a “creation of men,” “vain repetitions” etc.
Reflecting on some comments at another blog, it occurs to me that the Brits, or at least the Puritans, have always been the White Jews of Europe. Cromwell’s first act was to bring back the Jews. Nation of shopkeepers, etc. WWI, Balfour Declaration, WWII; notice how all the one-world and psychiatric meddling is Brit? Huxley, Tavistock, Laing, Russell, Wells, etc.
The Puritans established the Judaic framework we now groan under and which the Tea Party idiots want to “return” to. Better they should wear yarmulkes than tri-corns. Founding Fathers, sacred scriptures to be “interpreted” and supercede the people’s will, New Jerusalem, New Zion, Biblical names for everything child and town, laying the map of Palestine over the New World; where do you think the deep affinity of Texas Evangels and Zionist thugs comes from? As Kevin Phillips pointed out, it’s hard to tell the difference between fat Texas lounging by the pool on the ranch on stolen land, and their Israeli counterparts.
James J. O’Meara,
Can you remember where exactly Julius Evola said that Catholicism was more Roman than Church?
I recently noted that the Hugues Rebell reportedly identified himself as a pagan and a Catholic. In a long footnote (pp. 21-22) in his essay, Union des trois aristocraties (Paris: Bibliothèque artistique et littéraire, 1894), he wrote: “I do not attack Catholicism at all, but rather primitive Christianity, which is very different from it. Catholicism is a religion conforming to the sensual and sentimental needs of humanity, like the ancient religions, while Christianity, at its beginning, was above all a popular party, and was able to arise and develop only by elevating the poor to the detriment of the rich.” After discussing the evolution of Christian attitudes towards wealth, Rebell remarked: “It is rather, indeed, the sentimental parables of the Gospels which have been the point of departure for the cold deductions of Marx and his disciples on wages and capital.” In others words, Rebell regarded primitive Christianity as a proletarian cult and an ancient form of Bolshevism.
I meant to write “the French writer Hugues Rebell” but somehow mangled it into “the Hugues Rebell” when editing my comment. I should also have added that he was a Nietzschean and was involved with the early Action Française.
Ah, another book on my to read list.
There are many denominations of Christianity Phil. While I do respect those people who do truly believe and try to live a sacred and Holy life, there are so many frauds and charlatans that it makes my mind boggle. My dentist just committed suicide. He belonged to a fundamentalists church which believed in good works getting you to heaven, as well a faith healing and exorcisms. This church convinces people that if the healing does not work you are to blame and that you did not believe hard enough. Oh my. He sold his practice when his wife got sick and low and behold she died. I do not believe he committed suicide because he could no longer live without her. I believe he was totally misled believing his and her faith would somehow save her and it didn’t . He was left with nothing and do gooder Christians bringing him dinners and cakes was not going to fill that feeling of incredible betrayal. He had no preparation for that loss of faith that he had spent 60 years cultivating. I watched my father succumb to loss of faith by reading Kierkegaard, one of his aphorisms was that Before God, you are always in the wrong. He became a whiny degenerate old man feeling deserted by God. He destroyed our family for his God.
Of course Hitler did not publically denigrate Christianity. He used it and its methods.
rhondda:
The loss of faith you mention began when Occam undermined the Faith and peace was removed when Copernicus had our planet in constant motion rather than sitting still at the centre of the universe. With the removal of the Faith and peace is it no wonder so many Christians can’t take it anymore and families are destroyed.
Thankfully shepherds are judged differently from the sheep and we are called sheep by Jesus for a reason. Good works won’t get you to heaven although you might get a reward because of them. Faith will get you to heaven but faith without good works shows what kind of faith you really had. Believing that you are to blame and that you did not believe hard enough is straight from the Talmud. It is the old struggle between what Jesus taught and the “works of men.”
As Marx said, “We are more Jewish than the Jews” and unless the shepherds sober up the world is going to get colder and colder.Your father and the dentist were sitting ducks and didn’t stand a chance. But I wouldn’t worry too much about it as it will all work out – you’ll see.
Rhondda:
“Hitler did not publically denigrate Christianity. ”
My point too. Adolph and I agree on that tactic.
Based on this preface, it appears that Krebs collected every nationalist bromide about Christianity into a single work. Quite a feat!
I am somewhat perplexed by seeing this argument put forward by Sunic and Krebs. Before further comment I should note that I have´nt read Krebs Fighting for the Essence, but I will do so very soon. However by Sunic´s summary I find it rather missing the point by adhering to a false notion. He puts traditional christianity and modern gnosticism (which bears exactly those teachings and concepts that Krebs ascribes to “judeo-christianity”) under the unified, and false, label of “judeo-christianity”.
The teachings that Krebs dismisses in his concept of a “judeo-christianity” is nothing but gnosticism and a tranformation or pervertation of christian dogma under a false name.
These teachings and concepts have existed on the european continent for two millenia under different names and masters; ramism, manicheism, hermetism tought by such different groups as the kathars, the bogomils, the stoics etc. They have preached the double standard of egalitarianism for the masses and human divinity for the “illuminated” or Enlighted (it is rather telling that the Enlightenment led up to the very manifestaion of gnosticism in european, french, legislature; the Revolution) in accordance with the dualistic principals of gnosticism.
This is evident in several works of the intelligentia of the “republique des lettres” that swarmed northern France with its pamphlets and books in the 18th century and made way for the Revolution; Saint-Simons “Reorganisation of European Society” or his “New Christianity”, Bonnevilles “Manifesto of the Friends of Truth” or Marechals “The Golden Age”. These are “philosphes” that wanted nothing else than the fall of Christianity; they sacrificed their very life in their fight against the Church and Tradition. They laid down the foundations of modernity; the gnostics that the Church always have damned as heretics (well, until the second Vatican anyway). This is evident in many of the traditional clergys writings, if one cares to look.
“Gnosticism” is not the cause of racial suicide. The problem is orthodox Christian values, like those expressed in the Sermon on the Mount or in the Pauline letters.
Quite evidently it is since Europe was quite fine under traditional christianity, but have crushed down under the gnostic modernity.
What you dub “gnostic modernity” is merely Christian axioms being taken to their logical real-world conclusions. And “gnostic modernity” is a rather marginal phenomenon considered alongside the modernizing thrust of the Reformation. What you point to as the heyday of European Christianity was merely, from a Christian point of view, the hypocritical compromise of the church with pre-Christian sensibilities and social forms. When the Reformation actually got Christians reading the Bible and trying to take it seriously, decay really got underway.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS
My concern with both Sunic’s review, and some of the comments that follow, is what seems to be a conflating of ideas, all of which lack clear definition. Above all, in terms of the metapolitical project, full marks go to “phil” for citing Harold Covington’s comment:
Attacking “Christians” guarantees we will never be burdened with the opportunity to prove ourselves correct in any political system whatsoever. More importantly, and subtly, why, of all issues to fight on, would they choose THIS one, unless they were essentially, self-defeated nihilists, trapped in the oppositional defiance of the eternal adolescent…
Bingo.
Some quick comments:
(1) There is no such thing as Judeo-Christianity. There is Judaism, and there is Christianity. Attempts to meld the two have simply gelded Institutional Christianity to the point that it has no power whatsoever. Men are leaving the Institutional Churches in droves. Stripped of masculine power, nothing gets “done” in such social systems. Do you think this is by accident?
Neither do I.
(2) Christianity is defined by too many as limited to the Incarnation, and the various Churches out of this. This reduces Christ to a miniature watchmaker, who builds the watch, winds up it, and walks away. This is pretty much the Christ our Enemies wish for us to adopt. He posed no threat to anyone, as he is Somewhere Else doing Something that does not seem to matter to His Followers.
(3) In fact, Christianity began as a religion, but it is greater than all religions, as it, alone, fulfills the purpose of all religions, which is to make a way Back to the heavens from which we came. After all, the Latin root of the word “religion” means to bind back. However, Christianity is superior as it binds FORWARD, to transforming our Selves, and the Earth, into organisms, and organizations, that fulfill a metapolitical purpose.
(4) The Pagan Faiths, and the Druidic Faiths, were part of the outworking of Christ. The Norse mythos, in particular, serves Him.
(5) The source of the Renewal of Gnosticism is a gentleman named John Lamb Lash. He is a full-tilt, take no prisoners gentleman of deep intellectual honesty. He is well worth reading. In effect, he heralds the renaissance of Gnosticism. He’s the real thing.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
Greg, I think we need a strong philosophical refutation of Xtianity that is not perceived as vitriolically and mean-spirited as that of Nietzsche.
I agree with Nietzsche, but his language turns people off.
I’m no fan of Ayn Rand, but specifically, on the question of altruism she doe a better job defending what would be a ‘pagan’ position.
Maybe you are right, but if Nietzsche is right, there is no pretty way to describe the ugly psychological processes that gave birth to and sustain slave morality.
I see little use in Ayn Rand’s ethics, but her novels are useful, but precisely because of the unreconstructed Nietzscheanism that comes through despite her efforts to break with Nietzsche.
How can anyone take Nietschze seriously? The man who taught of the “super-man” but himself was catered and nursed by his own mother, rotting away in sicknes and mental illness. An archetype for Western/Northern Man? I think not.
Morality needs metaphysics, and metaphysics needs Tradition. Tradition needs to be lived, not to be picked as an intellectual and/or ideological exercise of post-modern syncreticism.
Nietzsche never claimed to be a superman. He was the prophet of the superman. He believed that the European men of his time had killed God out of their own baseness and that they needed to become godlike in order to be worthy of the crime.
Kim Petrusson in blockquote:
A common misunderstanding calls for gracious correction.
The error made here is to equate the Man, at his least, with the Message, at its best.
Consider the tremendous physical suffering Nietzsche dealt with in the physical vehicle, on the physical Plane. Tremendous credit is due to a man who transformed it, and, through clearly Seeing, powered by tremendous Will, wrote books that transform Western Civilization, calling it forward to manifest greatness in the service of Destiny.
Tradition also needs to redefine itself so as to best serve the unique needs of each Cultural Moment. This is done by working with the Principles behind Tradition to address the unique Cultural Moment before one and all.
Can you imagine what Nietzsche would have transformed what Christianity has become, into what Christianity could – and should – have been?
All he did, he did with a body that fought him at all points, including giving him blinding migraines.
Triumph of the Will, and all that.
I read John Lamb Lash’s “Not In His Image” I kind of like the idea of Sophia the Goddess of Wisdom having a deep faith in humanity. However, his universalism seems to me to be extremely romantic. –the Gnostic Pagan Beatific Vision and the Gaia hypothesis all rolled into one.
He seems to forget Gaia can be very cruel and does not forgive mistakes.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
rhondda in blockquote:
His DVD, which summarizes certain of his observations, is well worth reviewing, as is his website. My impression from one and all is that he is fully aware that Gaia “can be very cruel,” indeed.
I especially appreciated his no-nonsense efforts at “complet(ing)” Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity, and his continual references of the importance of being focused on the Earth in the writings of Nietzsche. His analysis of the victim-perpetrator syndrome in light of the Redeemer Complex as a religious cover for perpetration of this relationship is simply breathtaking. I really do leave with the impression that Nietzsche was quite something of a Gnostic Initiate, even if he was not either personally aware of it, or simply could not convey this at our level.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Lash’s analysis of the Archons really does have relevance for us, particularly for those who see the dynamic between Judaism and Christianity.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
I actually enjoy reading Sunic (and others) try to explain the pre-christian ethos of the West…it helps me understand how the Germanization of Christianity worked as the West moved from the classical to the medieval phase of our civilization. Great article!
That said, “Judeo-Christianity” is just a perversion of the old faith (Germano-Christianity) by the Puritans to see themselves as the ‘chosen people’ who shouldnt have to pay taxes to the king, the church, or anyone who wasnt as completely world-bound as themselves. The sons of bitches took the Pharasaic spirit Jesus railed against and made a beautiful, mature religion into a complete inversion of the spirit of Christ. These are the kind of people who would have been the money changers in the Temple. Rules, rules, and more worthless rules regulating every insignificant aspect of people’s lives; while they bound themselves to the worship of money in complete opposition both to the teaching of Christ and the Prophets.
This has devolved into most of them being borderline-atheists today, Christ-deniers in name as well as spirit, totally immersed into money worship and materialism. Truth has left them. Christ has left them. There is no sin in calling them what they are: the foot soldiers of evil. If Christ, as St. John posits, represents the Logos of creation; then you can see the fruits of their heresy. Order is their enemy, perpetual chaos must reign as they “play god” in erasing every God-given distinction between the nations, races, sexes, and even now the different species of the earth (think: dolphins are people, too).
At least *our* athiests worship the Truth.
I bring this stuff up in Church settings all the time. When you speak the Truth (Jesus said he embodied the principle of the Truth) in love, you would be *shocked* to see how well it is recieved. I see the lightbulb go off in good people’s eyes all the time when I show them that the world order of the day doesnt just come against the name of Christ, they go against His good, time-tested, beautiful, wonderful Order in Creation. When they GET this, fighting for Christ opens up into a 3-D image as a fight for order, beauty, ethnonationalism, masculinity, femininity, fecundity, and etc. etc. etc.
Also, reminding them the blessing of Japheth in the Old Testament and how that relates to the fulfillment of Christendom in Europe flabbergasts people and develops a sense of self-worth racially. This is crucial. Transition Noah’s promise that Japheth would be enlarged and dwell in the tents of Shem to both our massive expansion as a people and our being the first continent to be Christianized and it starts becoming a cakewalk. If they still aren’t convinced remind them of the Macedonian call and how God directed the apostles to preach to the Greeks and then the Romans instead of turning east into Asia.
It works. Civilization is crumbling. People are looking for answers that “Judeo-Christianity” cannot provide. They are looking for traditional living…the last glowing ember of Christendom lives on but it is dying. Christ was preached to the Saxons as a God who battled death itself for our sake because he loved his men. There is no greater love than this. Subvert and conquer.
In Hoc Signo Vinces
Greg:
I tried to reply to your comment above, but it did´nt work out so here it is:
I don´t “dub” it gnosticism, modernity IS gnosticism. If you do not agree, then at least make a case how it is not so. The double standards of gnostic duality is manifested in the very core of modernity and described by the founders of the Revolutionary faith I mentioned above (Saint-Simon, Marechal, Robespierre, Marx, Feuerbach, Babeuf et cetera), where the subversion of western tradition have been transformed into socialism, liberalism and/or modern nationalism. They are all manifestations of the same faith, the same system, and the church has always condemned this faith. One could ask why the primary target of the Revolution has been the Church since the very beginning (the Reformation).
In the Eastern churces, the Bible has been available in native languages, the Gothic Bible was translated as early as 400 AD, but without the consequences you described above; Eastern christianity prevailed and prospered.
Thank you Tom Sunic,
You perform an important service in standing up to 2,000 years of enforced nonsense. It takes skill and courage. Kudos to you and your “bosses” – what a joke. As if Sunic has a boss.
The idea of inverting the inversion back upon them is catchign on. This article received a hour of talk on TPC tonight. Before CCP was online, I heard Greg Johnson talk about using the tactics of our enemies against them to expose their lies, something to that effect.
These folks have a couple of tactics that will become mainstream as we approach the coming Diversity Horrors. With the Internet and FoxNews (for how much longer, each?), the joy of pointing out hypocrisy in a way that neutral minds can’t ignore is now institutionalized.
Did you see the citizen reporter chasing down and questioning the two congresswomyn about the million dollar donation from Bill Mahr, who insults conservative women much worse than Limbaugh did the tax sucking slut. The congresswomyn ran away with disgusted looks of distain on their faces. Shame on Fox for not putting in into an entire week’s rotation.
What does GJ think of this?
http://faithandheritage.com/2012/02/a-meta-strategy-for-white-advocacy/
@YT is the new BLK;
It’s about much more than “using the tactics of our enemies against them to expose their lies”
If we just “expose their lies” by providing arguments for “the truth”, we are merely getting into a discussion, a discussion that’s not “win-able”. Why not? Precisely because the DO LIE. You cannot have an argument or a discussion with a liar, precisely because he lies.
The trick isn’t to “expose” any so-called “Lies”, but to point out the contradictions contained in the system of lies, which is a closed system that relies on nobody NOTICING the obvious fact that they’re lying.
There is a specific technique for this, and if you don’t know about that technique and how to deploy it, listen to this hour-long introduction to “how it works”: http://www.whiterabbitradio.net/audio/ridingshotgun10.mp3
To learn more, visit http://whiterabbitradio.net/podcast-2 and listen to podcasts 1-12, and 17 and 20.
Those wanting to involve themselves in PRACTICAL politics, not discussions and voting, will find these resources useful.
Greg Johnson:
In response to Devlin’s remarks, yes, Krebs is committed to the claims that (1) Christianity is responsible for the trajectory of its secularization, and (2) that Western Civilization has been ruled by decadent values since the fourth century, when the Christianization of the Roman Empire received state power from Constantine. Both of these claims are defensible in Nietzschean terms, and Nietzsche is Krebs’ prime source here.
Perhaps this is why Tom Sunic said knowledge of Nietzsche is a basic prerequisite for appreciating this book. I know classical art and thought inside and out but little about Nietzsche. So when you write the claims are defensible in “Nietzschean terms,” I have no idea what that means. The only work by Nietzsche I have ever read from cover to cover is the The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music. If you mean the claims are defensible as some sort broad metaphor for Western history, then perhaps that’s true.
But the problem with metaphorical interpretations of history is this. Although it might sometimes be useful to look at civilization in metaphorical terms, there is also an actual historical record to consider. Therefore, when Krebs takes the position that European man has lived under “decadence” since the time of Constantine, it leads Krebs into the position that all of the high cultural achievement of European man was a product of… decadence.
What does it mean to say that Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Bach and Mozart were the products of a decadent culture? It seems a pretty absurd position.
Krebs might be one of these critics who simply refuse to acknowledge anything good about Christianity. These people while often brilliant on many topics but are not reliable on this one (Christianity).
With this type of person, if you point to the art, they will often say (as William Pierce did) that it wasn’t inspired by Christianity at all but by the Aryan spirit.
If you point to Charles Martel as evidence that the Gospel does not require Christians to “turn the other cheek” in every circumstance, they will say “well they did not take the Sermon on the Mount seriously.”
If you ask them what great Christian theologians ever wrote “turn the other cheek” requires allowing yourself or your people to be murdered, none of them ever answer because from Augustine forward no Christian theologians have ever said it.
At the extreme end of this group, you will find people like Krebs arguing that anti-Christian Marxism is descended from Christianity even though Stalin ordered the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow destroyed.
If you ask them what great Christian theologians ever wrote “turn the other cheek” requires allowing yourself or your people to be murdered, none of them ever answer because from Augustine forward no Christian theologians have ever said it.
Applying “Turn the other cheek” is like any other skill whether it be plumbing or investing. At one point Jesus is telling his disciples to sell their shirts to raise money to buy weapons and at another time he is telling them to turn the other cheek. Sadly, the modern Christians skills at discerning the words of the master are as good as his skills at investing in real estate.
Lew, your engagement with this question is stalled at the pointing and sputtering stage. You and I both know there is not a dime’s worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats in terms of their fundamental values. Yet I imagine that a person with a more naive and superficial understanding of American politics could point at all sorts of vicious partisan fighting and then shake his head in dismay at our naivete in thinking that there is no important difference between Obama and Gingrich, for example.
The same can be said of the bloody battles between Protestants and Catholics. Surely, one might argue, it would be naive to think that there are no fundamental differences between them, given how viciously they have persecuted one another. Yet there is no fundamental difference in terms of the values and beliefs of Protestants and Catholics.
Well, I would make the same argument about the vicious battles between Christianity and its secularized offshoots like liberalism and Communism: these creeds have the same fundamental values in common, but that does not prevent them from fighting with one another. In history, values are fundamental, and one should focus on the fundamental value identities, rather than the superficial doctrinal differences, between Christianity and its secular successors.
Remember what Rockwell said: Liberalism is Communism’s pimping little sister.
Wayne Dwyer was on the Public Broadcasting TV fundraiser today, talking about your mind is part of the Universal Mind because we are all One together from the One Source, the Same Source. He must believe that his mind is just a special case of the generalized Negro mind. He’s a rich Whitey. We need to put his neighborhood under a Diversity Audit, and his kids’ private schools.
The funny part came when he introduced the children’s choir with a “heart warming” story of how Newman wrote Amazing Grace and returned the slaves to Africa. (What became of those repatriated “suffering just” compared to those who didn’t get sent home by a Christian Whitey who had a conversion in a sea storm?)
The large choir was FULLY Diverse, with two blonds who stood out like the full moon on a clear night. The rest were Asian, Hispanic, and black, with the now ubiquitous mix of mongrels you can’t identify- maybe a black-mex mix, but dangerous, obviously.
The choir sang, and Dyer praised them for being our future. The Whites Only audience gave a standing ovation for the Diversity future. We’re doomed.
But if the Old Time Religion can come back, we’ll have hope. This comes from when Christianity in the South was authentic:
“Remember always my son, there is nothing in the obligations of Christ’s brotherhood that should make a Southern patriot agree to let his country sink into mongrelization!” Thomas Dixon, The Flaming Sword, 1939
One of the books that opened my eyes as to how artists, thinkers, and others managed to survive with their integrity intact during Christian domination is a strange little cryptic book by Ioan P. Couliano called Eros and Magic in the Renaissance. It is mostly about Girondano Bruno whom the church burned at the stake for heresy. He was the other side of Machiavelli and thus much more dangerous. Much like white witches were worse than black witches according to the inquisition. I say cryptic because one really has to read between the lines or really think about what he is saying, and it is strange that Couliano was murdered and the case never solved.
One has to read Chaucer the same way and others too. Just like today code words are triggers. Brilliance is in the individual who has risen above the so called political correct version of life in their society and opened a path for the rest of us. Today we are caught in mental slavery. I am very grateful for this site helping me see my way out of it.
Rhondda, Couliano is indeed interesting, not just for his ideas but also for the fact that he was assassinated by the Romanian Iron Guard in his office at the University of Chicago in 1991.
@YT Privilege at Bay:
You’ll hear that mush from many a liberal Christian pulpit; but you’ll also hear it from many modern pagans. For every race-conscious neo-Viking roaring against the Slave God of the Meek, there are thousands of weekend wiccans who see themselves as peaceful sheep harried by the intolerant, warlike Christian wolves. Liberal egalitarianism is a universal plague that cuts across religious boundaries.
@ How can anyone take Nietschze seriously? The man who taught of the “super-man” but himself was catered and nursed by his own mother…
I am listening to you, but N’s mental health is a separate issue that has been already discussed at length in other CC threads.
What we badly need throughout the West after the coming financial crash is what Nietzsche called the Umwertung aller Werte, the transvaluation of the most toxic Christian and Secular Christian values back to the Greek, and particularly Roman, values: precisely what Mussolini and Hitler tried to do.
This is the crux of the article on the “Red Giant” (Christianity, soon to be turned into a mere white dwarf star) that was mentioned in another CC thread:
Evola had very positive things to say about al-Islam’s being a “complete” path —- you can find his essay on it on-line. It’s about as dense as anything ever written about the “Din”.
The relationship of National Socialism with Christianity was definitely more complex than some commentators here seem to acknowledge. National Socialism was a large, complex, and heterogeneous movement. It had non-Christian, anti-Christian, and pro-Christian factions within it. Was it essentially secular or religious? Was it essentially atheist, pagan, or Christian? One can argue that one or another faction was more influential and important than the others, or that one or another faction represented the essence of National Socialism in a purer form than the others, but it would be wrong to say that the other factions did not form part of the National Socialist movement. National unity, not sectarian supremacism, was a paramount concern of National Socialism.
Apparently Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) is a good work on the subject. The historical revisionist Germar Rudolf sold it through his book service before he was imprisoned. It might warrant a review at Counter-Currents.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment