AN ANTIDOTE TO THE JEWPILL (PART 2: ANTICHRISTIANITY)

by James Lawrence  

In the first part of this post, we took a hammer to the work of Dr. Kevin MacDonald – albeit not primarily to destroy, but to build. What we built was a theory in which the revolutionary, progressive ideology co-opted and converted the Jews to its own purposes, rather than the other way around.

 

The order of events in history being what it is, we might assume that this theory could not possibly be opposed by any intelligent person. In Europe, it was the French revolution that emancipated the Jews, not the Jews who unleashed the revolution. In America, it was the Progressive and New Deal movements that raised them into the governing elite, and set the stage for everything that MacDonald describes in The Culture of Critique. Even Zionism, contrary to popular belief on the Dissident Right, was a 19th-century Protestant religious obsession (called 'restorationism') before it was taken up by Jewish nationalists like Emma Lazarus and Theodore Herzl.

Alas, this theory contradicts the central dogma of white nationalism: that racial self-interest is primary, and truths, doctrines and ideas are secondary. WNs want to live in a dark fever-dream, where every race except the white one is strategising for its self-interest under a cynical veil of ideals – and we need only become paranoid enough to perceive the hidden strategies, and deceptive enough to conceal our own self-interest in the same way. They do not want to live in the light of consciousness, where ideals really motivate individuals, and solidify the cohesion of groups – because in this reality, their own dream is reduced to a narrow and paltry ideal, a cult of biological race.

What they need, in order to defend their dogma, is some way of inverting the historical narrative and projecting Jewish machinations onto revolutionary movements before the 20th century. As I showed at the end of the first part of this post, MacDonald's Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition can be of little use here, as it shows too much fidelity to history. Although presented as a supplement to MacDonald's trilogy on the Jews, this book in fact undermines them, by laying out a theory of 'moral communities' based on shared ideals rather than racial interests. Once we understand the revolutionary, progressive ideology as just such a 'moral community' – to all intents and purposes, a separate religious tribe in its own right – we can no longer follow MacDonald in excusing gentile elite behaviour as 'individualism', while attributing collective motives for social destruction solely to the Jews.

Now, it is a matter of historical fact that the progressivist religion originated not from Judaism, but from post-Reformation Christian heresies that adapted their doctrines to the corruptions of power. And having passed through all sorts of mutations (or degenerations), it now bestraddles the US imperial order in much the same way that the Catholic Church once bestraddled Western Christendom. Can we expect a vacuous, amoral, narrow-minded cult of the white race to do battle with this dragon? Somehow it seems more likely that when a lie has metastasised into a universal, absolute lie, then only a universal and absolute truth can do battle with it.

Enter Dr. E. Michael Jones, stage right, into the dissident movement.

Jones has a solution: the West has to go back to its old church, the Catholic one, and reject progressivism and white nationalism alike. Not only does he assert the primacy of religion over race, ideals over interests, God over Man, etc., but he even goes as far as to say that race does not exist. I can't say I agree with him on that last point, but you have to admire his total lack of compromise on it. He is out to convert the Race Cult to his religion, and has no intention of being converted to its idolatry.

But the Race Cult doesn't need to convert Jones. All it needs is to use his book, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit (hereafter JRS), as ballast to plug the holes in the Jewpill that always open up when progressivism is traced back beyond the 19th and 20th centuries. The synthesising glue will be the Darwinist ontology of the Race Cult (i.e. racial interests come first, religious ideals second) – which allows white nationalists to talk about 'God' and 'Truth' and 'Logos' and so on with a nudge and a wink, knowing that all of these are just so many adaptive memes to be utilised by the biological tribe. A superficial acceptance of Christianity will allow the Race Cult to lie low in an increasingly religious and traditionalist Dissident Right, until it has gathered up enough energies to return to its activist form and repeat its destruction of the Alt-Right.

Am I being uncharitable? Paranoid? Preposterous? You be the judge – at least one Jewpiller is already getting started with the synthesis of Jones and MacDonald, and hinting none-too-subtly at its desired results:

 

"Of course, Jones is dead wrong about [race], but...this intellectual chasm between the two men is all the more reason to achieve a synthesis of MacDonald and Jones...over the last two decades I’ve found myself accepting a belief in the existence of Satan and Evil, and undeniably, from the perspectives of Whites and other non-Jews, Jews are inextricably associated with Satan, though I’ll leave it to others to argue whether they are, in some sense, actually Satan or more along the lines of being under the spell of that malicious being." (emphasis added)

Satan as Le Happy Merchant! And "from the perspectives of Whites", no less – because every good WN takes his religious truths and moral absolutes with a large pinch of Salter, and treats them as relative to the material interest of the ethnic-genetic tribe!

 

This is not so much heresy as outright travesty, so we can assume that Jones would not approve. However, by writing a book full of outrageous fallacies that blames the revolutionary tradition squarely on the Jews, he has given the Race Cult all it needs to keep its hold on a dissident movement increasingly sceptical of activist herdthink and atheistic social science. And thus he has given us more than enough reason to treat him as a Jewpiller in this post, although strictly speaking he is not.

 

The Revolutionary Spirit and the Jews

I welcome Jones's emphasis on truth and reason over irrational racial strivings. But wisdom is a harsh mistress, and those who lack the competence to court her will end up embracing the same delusions as those who reject her outright.

This book has some value as history, but ought to
be renamed to The Revolutionary Spirit and the
Jews, for this is its true subject matter.

And I really do mean the exact same delusions. Just like MacDonald – who claimed that the Jewish God was a symbol for Israelite genes in A People That Shall Dwell Alone – Jones begins his study with an eccentric definition of Judaism. The difference is that this idea is much more important to the coherence of Jones's argument, because he tends to work by logic where MacDonald would work by empirical evidence. This book contains over a thousand pages of detailed narrative history, but it is all held together by a few flimsy logical threads – which we will now proceed to cut.

So what is Judaism, according to Jones? It is a tribal identity, but more importantly, it is a tradition of revolutionary opposition to the Christian principle of Logos:

"At this point we come to...the Jewish attack on Logos, which manifests itself not by the threat of invasion from without, as is the case with Islam...but by the threat of subversion from within, otherwise known as revolution. If Muslims are alogos [i.e. irrational, unreasonable]...then Jews are anti-Logos, in the sense that they reject Christ altogether. Islam did not reject Christ; Islam failed to understand Christ...

 

"The situation with Jews is completely different. The Jews were God's chosen people. When Jesus arrived on earth as their long-awaited Messiah, the Jews...had to make a decision. They had to either accept or reject the Christ, who was, so Christians believe, the physical embodiment of Logos. 

 

"As we will see, the Jews began by wanting to have the Messiah save them on their own terms, which were suffused with racial pride. When the Jews tells Jesus in John 8 that they are the "seed of Abraham"...He changes the term of the argument by replying "If you were Abraham's children, you would do as Abraham did", which is to say follow God's will and accept Jesus as the son of God and the Messiah...

 

"Once Jesus arrives in Jerusalem, the term Jew in the Gospel of St. John is no longer a purely racial term. Jew has come to mean a rejecter of Christ. Race is no longer the focus. The Jews who accept Jesus will henceforth be known as Christians. The Jews who reject him are known henceforth as "Jews". As St. John reports in the Apocalypse, "those who call themselves Jews" are really liars and members of the "Synagogue of Satan"...

 

"The Jews rejected Christ because he was crucified. They wanted a powerful leader, not a suffering servant... When the Jews rejected Christ, they rejected Logos, and when they rejected Logos, which includes within itself the principles of social order, they became revolutionaries." (JRS, pp.14-15; all emphasis added)

Does Jones back up his interpretation of Jewish beliefs with an analysis of the Talmud, or perhaps the Kabbalah? Certainly not – wherever he mentions such Jewish religious writings in his book, it is only to dismiss them as "mumbo-jumbo" or make vague and sweeping assertions about their teachings. His first stop for corroborating evidence is the self-report of modern American Jews:

 

"The renowned Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner [says], tellingly, that Christianity plays a special role in defining who counts as a Jew either ethnically or religiously: "the ethnic community opens its doors not by reason of outsiders' adopting the markers of ethnicity...but by reason of adopting what is not ethnic but religious... While not all Jews practice Judaism, in the iron-clad consensus among contemporary Jews, Jews who practice Christianity cease to be part of the ethnic Jewish community, while those who practice Buddhism remain within."
 
"Without knowing it, Neusner is simply restating the thesis of this book: when Judaism rejected Christ it rejected Logos as well. In rejecting Christ, Judaism took on a negative identity... The recent Jewish convert to Catholicism, Roy Schoeman, writes: "I remember praying, 'Let me know your name – I don't mind if you are Buddha, and I have to become a Buddhist; I don't mind if you are Apollo, and I have to become a Roman pagan; I don't mind if you are Krishna, and I have to become a Hindu; as long as you are not Christ and I have to become a Christian!'"" (p.18, emphasis added)

Before we even start scrutinising the not-so-orthodox credentials of Neusner and Schoeman, common sense should tell us that the "iron-clad consensus among contemporary Jews" is heavily influenced by modern liberalism, nationalism and progressivism. (The same, of course, can be said for the "iron-clad consensus" among contemporary Christians – which is, of course, that Jews are poisecuded victims who dindu nuffin and that people like Jones are bigots.) Traditional, religious, shtetl-dwelling Jews – i.e. the ones discussed throughout most of JRS – would not give the time of day to a 'Jew' who didn't practice Judaism and conflated the name of God with Buddha, Apollo and Krishna, regardless of what they thought of Christianity.

But Jones pronounces this basic-bitch secularised Semitism to be entirely consistent with the Talmud – on the grounds that that three-thousand-page tome, among its innumerable hairsplitting dialectics, contains a "deliberate and sophisticated anti-Christian polemic" (very logic!) Then he brings up the history of Jewish support for revolutionary, anti-Christian forces – citing the theory of Kevin MacDonald (much reason!) – and traces it back to the Jewish national revolts against the Roman Empire, a polytheist state that also treated Christians as subversives (so rationality!) This, at least, serves to make the point that the Jews chose revolution over the spiritual conquest of Rome because they wanted a "carnal" Messiah:

"Political messianism is a manifestation of the carnal Jew. According to the Church Fathers, the Jews perennially await a Messiah who will restore their political power. Christianity is incompatible with political messianism and Jewish revolutionary activity because it recognises another [spiritual, otherwordly] Messiah." (p.66; emphasis added)

 

From this point, Jones goes on to write a fairly standard Trad-Cath history of humanism, Renaissance occultism, Protestantism, heretical millenarianism, Enlightenment liberalism, and revolutionary communism and progressivism – albeit bound up with the conceit that those who took part in these movements were "linked to Jews or heavily influenced by Jews" (p.20). As we'll see, most of the historical facts presented by Jones do not justify this narrative focus. And the chapters of the book in which the Jews recede furthest into the background are precisely those that deal with the crucial outbreak of heresy and revolution, in the Renaissance and early modern eras.

 

During these chapters, Jones is wending through the history of revolutionary movements overwhelmingly carried out by Christians, and leans heavily on the idea that the revolutionaries were "judaisers" or "demi-Jews" serving an essentially Jewish cause. Sometimes he will find an immediate foothold for this in the fact that so-and-so studied Hebrew, dabbled in the Kabbalah, had some contact with Jews, or made overtures to the Jewish community. Ultimately, though, the equation of Christian revolutionaries with Jews is nothing but a brittle, hollow crook of casuistry, crafted out of the borderline-nonsensical arguments made at the beginning of JRS.

Tfw you publicly take up the cause of defending logos,
only to hang a thousand pages of convoluted narrative
history on a fallacy of the undistributed middle

It can be expressed as follows: 1) Judaism is synonymous with revolution, anti-Christianity, carnalised messianism, and racial tribalism (plus extraneous and irrelevant "mumbo-jumbo"); therefore 2) anything else that is revolutionary, anti-Christian (i.e. anti-Catholic), carnally messianic, and somehow favourable to the Jewish racial tribe is synonymous with Judaism. Kick this crutch out from under Jones's narrative, and it turns upside-down – or rather, right-side-up – and becomes a history of Christian-derived revolutionary movements that allied with and partially converted the Jews.

Am I strawmanning Jones? Misrepresenting him? Let's lay out a few examples from JRS (all emphasis added hereafter), so you can judge for yourself:

"Around the time of the first crusade, millennialism, the Jewish Messianic philosophy of history and political liberation based on the Book of Daniel, broke out in Europe after remaining largely dormant for a millennium. Ironically, it broke out among people who were not Jews, and, more ironically, the Jews suffered at their hands." (p.88) 

 

He's talking about the Rhineland massacres of Jews during the People's Crusade, an outburst of popular messianism sparked off by Pope Urban II and led by the anti-Jewish Peter the Hermit. In this case, the so-called Jewish revolutionary spirit not only had nothing to do with the Jews, but was not even "somehow favourable to the Jewish racial tribe". So it looks like I have, indeed, misrepresented Jones – by steelmanning him.

"The concept "holy nation" as a conflation of the  secular "regnum" with the spiritual "ecclesia" is a Jewish idea. The Hussite revolution was, at its core, a rejection of the Roman Church and its adherence to Christ's claim that his kingdom was not of this world. The popes would term the idea that a holy nation wielding the sword could create heaven on earth a return to the vomit of Judaism. This was the essence of revolution then, and revolutionaries from Bar Kokhba to Trotsky have remained faithful to this creed." (p.153)

This is from the fifth chapter on the Hussite movement in Bohemia – in which Jones points out circumstantially that Prague was a centre of Jewish usury, and that the local Jews mucked in with the rest of the population when the Hussites had to defend it against a royalist siege, but comes up with precious little else by way of direct Jewish involvement. There was certainly a foreign influence on the heretical ideology of the Hussites, but it came from the Englishman John Wycliffe – whose country had been purged of Jews by Edward I over a hundred years earlier.

"Luther was a philo-Semite, who in a few years would become a violent anti-Semite, but he was also a Judaizer malgré lui [in spite of himself]. Luther did for Christianity what Jochanan ben Zakkai did for Judaism: he turned the evangelical Church into a debating society, in which the evangelical rabbis would offer competing interpretations of scripture with no way of adjudicating differences except by splitting off from whomever one disagreed with." (p.266)

 

Luther's vacillations on the Jews are quite typical of the Christian heretics and revolutionaries described in this book. They point to the obvious conclusion, which is that the alliances between the two groups have always been based on convenience, and not on some sort of essential identity. Note how Jones tries to muddy these waters by a vague reference to "evangelical rabbis".

 

"The accusation that Protestants were Jews was not new. Calvin claimed an opponent "called me a Jew, because I maintain the rigor of the law intact." Others claimed the Genevan reliance on "jure gladii", the law of the sword, to suppress dissent made Calvin "a Jew." Calvin was a lawyer before he became a reformer; his reliance on the law to micromanage the minutiae of everyday life reminded many of Jewish proscriptions in Deuteronomy and Numbers... The idea that Calvin was a Jew or that he was working for the Jews [!] was, therefore, not new or far-fetched." (p.334)

Here the underlying fallacy of this book emerges into plain sight. Jones is deliberately conflating the Christian exegetical concept of judaising – i.e. emphasising the Hebrew Bible over the New Testament – with the actual Jewish religion and people, who are supposedly incriminated every time Christians decide to read heresies into their own canonical religious texts. Of course, Jones could just claim that he is analysing the ideas phenetically – but why, in that case, does he find it necessary to sift through the lurid rumours, accusations and counter-accusations of warring Christian sects to find every Jew in history who so much as mumbled mazel tov to a revolutionary heretic?

 

What makes this even more spurious is Jones's repeated assertion, elsewhere in his book, that Judaism by the Middle Ages had become centred on the Talmud and Kabbalah instead of the Hebrew Bible. Unless the likes of Luther and Calvin also adopted these texts (which they did not), they could no more become Jews than Renaissance humanists like Petrarch could become ancient Romans. Like MacDonald's definition of a group evolutionary strategy – which is 'switched on' whenever he looks at Jewish misbehaviour, and 'switched off' whenever he looks at non-Jewish elite misbehaviour – Jones's definition of Judaism is a vague and protean entity that he adapts to the immediate purposes of his argument.

"Contact with the Jews tended to encourage Millennialist fervor, not "rationalism", among Judaizing Christians. The converse was also true. Contact with 17th Century millennialist sects like the Ranters, Diggers, Quakers, and Puritans, encouraged Millennialism among the Jews." (p.415)

Note: on p.329 of JRS, Jones claims that the Jews remained
in England after 1290 "under the mask of Christianity" (note
the shifting of definitions here, as he usually accepts converts
to be sincere unless proven otherwise) and that the Lombard
bankers in London were "crypto-Jews". Rarely for Jones, this
is backed by no names, no details, no references, and I cannot
but suspect he made it up. But I don't make such accusations
lightly, and I'm willing to be proven wrong by evidence.

So now Jones admits that he doesn't even know who's jewing who anymore. But the answer is easy when we remember that all those sects emerged in 16th- and 17th-century England – a country that looms large in Jones's narrative as the early modern hub of revolution, regicide, conspiracy, capitalism, and millennialism. Yet during these centuries, England was still Judenrein as a result of Edward I's expulsion in the thirteenth century – and as Jones correctly notes, the Jews were not readmitted to England by the anti-papist Elizabeth or the revolutionary Cromwell, but by the relatively conservative Charles II in return for "contributions of mony, Armes or Ammuncion". In order to somehow join up the right angles of his narrative, Jones is reduced to dark speculations about the role of the Freemasons in brokering this new Anglo-Jewish alliance.

"Freemasonry provided a forum for the exchange of ideas of intense interest to the Christians. It also provided protection for the Jews. Both were bound by vows of secrecy and loyalty; both were united by a desire to learn the secret knowledge of Cabala and by a desire to find practical application for that knowledge, be it in buildings or governments." (p.490)

This is a common argumentative tactic of Jones. Having muddied the lines between Judaism and Masonry by the sort of sophistries that could misconstrue a snail as a tortoise, he then attempts to set them up on the common ground of the Kabbalah – a tradition that has always been studied by Christians for its magical and esoteric properties, and not as some sort of gateway drug to the Talmud. We might just as well look at the large number of alchemical texts that passed into European hands from the Arabs, then make some spurious connection with the influence of Averroes on certain Renaissance humanists, and end up concluding that the outbreak of revolution in Europe was some sort of Muslim terrorist conspiracy.

 

You can well believe that I could go on throwing out more examples and commentary, but I think I've said enough to make my point: that the bulk of the factual content in this book has little or nothing to do with its thesis. Jones's work on the Jews has found an uncritical reception in white nationalist circles (e.g. at the Occidental Observer, run by that scrupulous academic who considers my humble blogpoasts beneath his notice, where Jones only ever seems to be criticised for his views on the nonexistence of race). But it would long ago have been laughed out of a serious dissident movement animated by a genuine interest in the truth.

To be more charitable to Jones, we could say that he has made the same basic misstep as the brilliant Eric Voegelin – who conflated modern revolutionary progressivism with the ancient Gnostic heresy in The New Science of Politics. There is certainly a common ground between Gnosticism and revolution: namely, the conviction of intellectuals that the world is ordered on evil and irrational lines. The difference is that the Gnostic seeks to escape the world spiritually, whereas the revolutionary seeks to destroy and reconstruct it materially – resulting in chaos, injustice, bloodshed, madness, etc. 

 

In much the same way, the commonalities between Judaism and the modern revolutionary spirit are decisively outweighed by the differences. Both are messianic – but the Jew waits for the Messiah, whereas the revolutionary seeks to become the  Messiah. Both lay out all-embracing rules for life, justified by pettifogging dialectics – but the Jew must trace his rules back to Biblical tradition, whereas the revolutionary traces them forward into utopian "progress". And both stand in opposition to Christianity, but so does every rival monotheistic religion, e.g. Islam.

 

(And no, before you ask, these conflations have nothing to do with analogies made across time and space – such as ancient druids : mediaeval priests: modern academics, or Roman imperator : Persian shahanshah : Chinese huangdi. Essentialist, archetypal reasoning can dispense with most of the details, but historical narratives must take full account of them. And anyone who cannot tell the difference needs to put logos down gently, and back away slowly, before he has someone's eye out with it.)

The True Name of the Revolutionary Spirit

Later in life, Voegelin admitted that the revolutionary spirit could not be simplistically equated with Gnosticism:

"I paid perhaps undue attention to gnosticism in the first book I published in English, The New Science of Politics... ... But in the meanwhile we have have found that the apocalyptic tradition is of equal importance, and the Neo-Platonic tradition, and hermeticism, and magic, and so on. ... So there are five or six such items – not only gnosticism – with which we have to deal." (quoted in Ellis Sandoz's introduction to Voegelin, Science, Politics and Gnosticism)

 

The best way to illustrate this point in the case of Jones's book is by way of a thought experiment. Let's imagine two alternative versions of JRS, rewritten around different theories of the revolutionary spirit. Each of these rewrites would change the title and the narrative focus, and add a certain amount of extra material, while subtracting nothing from the factual history presented in Jones's original.

 

Our first rewrite is by an Orthodox Jewish author (I will leave the invention of a suitably Semitic name for him to the imagination of the reader), and its title is The Christian Revolutionary Spirit. 

 

According to this character – who certainly observes all 613 Jewish commandments – the revolutionary essence is not carnality or messianism, but antinomianism, namely the idea that the spiritual elite are not bound to obey the moral law. Naturally, the trouble all started when the Romans destroyed the Temple and the Christians stopped observing circumcision and the dietary restrictions, and now here we are at the thick end of the wedge with 613 genders and the Passion of St. George Floyd. 

 

The narrative of CRS would get off to a difficult start, because it would find it necessary to do the same hatchet job on Christianity that JRS does on Judaism. It would have to ignore the fact that some of Jesus's teachings (notably on divorce) are stricter than the pre-existing Jewish ones, and that the Pauline epistles endorse the hierarchy of husbands over wives, fathers over children, masters over servants, etc. It would also be obliged to explain why the Christian revolutionary spirit lay more or less dormant for about a thousand years, until it was revived at the end of the Middle Ages by movements that championed the Old Testament and sometimes allied with the Jews.

"Napoleon issued a decree on May 1806 summoning a General
Synagogue of the Jews in Paris on June 15. Napoleon scheduled
the first meeting on a Saturday, causing an immediate split between
orthodox and reform Jews. When they finally assembled on February
4, 1807, Napoleon put the Jews on the defensive by questioning their
loyalty as Frenchmen. ... If the Jews were serious about accepting
Napoleon as their Messiah, he was going to make sure they accepted
 him on his terms, not theirs." (JRS, p.556)

But once he got to Jones's chapters on the Hussites, Anabaptists, Protestants, Puritans, etc., our Jewish apologist would need only to play them straight. As we've touched upon, in chapters five and ten, Jones stumps up precious little evidence of Jewish involvement in the Bohemian and English revolutions; in chapter nine, on the Anabaptist rebellion in the Low Countries, he stumps up nothing at all. And the pickings for his thesis are not much richer in the middle-to-late chapters, when Cromwell's Puritans are shown deciding against the readmission of the Jews, and when Napoleon is shown manipulating them into messianic fervour. Whole swathes of JRS that appear as vast digressions would be very much on-topic for CRS.

 

At first glance, Jones's position stands on stronger ground in the later chapters of his book – such as chapter fifteen, on late 19th-century Russia, which describes a revolutionary movement disproportionately run out of Jewish shtetls and staffed by Jewish activists. But Jones is not MacDonald, and the focus of his argument is religion and ideology, not biological group strategy. What were the ideas, doctrines, and beliefs of revolutionary Jews, and did they have anything to do with Judaism? Let's turn to Jones, and try to keep our eye on this ball throughout his usual hand-waving routine:

 

"What began when Grigorii Peretts [a converted Jew who participated in the Decembrist revolt] imbibed from the stream of [Moses] Mendelssohn ended when Trotsky rode Bolshevism to power in 1917. ... The continuity in radical Jewish behaviour was traceable to the Enlightenment in general and Mendelssohn in particular. [Erich] Haberer [author of Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Russia] feels that Mendelssohn is the ultimate source of Jewish Nihilism because Mendelssohn's "example proved irresistible to the younger generation of Maskilim who had been seized and cast adrift by the forces of modernity which irreparably cut them loose from the moorings of Judaism."" (JRS, p.653)

The Maskilim were the members of the Haskalah movement, a.k.a. the Jewish Enlightenment – which, as this name suggests, secularised the Jews in much the same way as the wider Enlightenment secularised Christian society. To a biological theorist like MacDonald, rabbinical and secularised Jews are uniformly and primarily 'Jewish', just as pagan, Christian and secular Europeans are uniformly and primarily 'European'. But Jones, who professes to take religious categories more seriously than racial ones, cannot make this move. If he wants to say that secularised Christians are dissenting from their religion, but that secularised Jews are affirming theirs, then it behoves him to come up with some sort of reasoning to justify this double standard.

And he does, indeed, come up with some sort of reasoning:

"The Jewish position derived from their rejection of Christ and would perdure beyond the Enlightenment. Christians, according to this point of view, are not blind; they are credulous and self-deluded. Christians believe in an impossible fairy tale about Christ rising from the dead. Because Christianity has nonetheless prospered for the past 2000 years, the Jew, religious or not, naturally tends to be a debunker, who comes up with ever new variations on a common theme: everyone thinks such and such, but the real story is this. So for Marx, everything is economic, for Freud, Moses was really an Egyptian and "all men" really want to have sex with their mothers and sisters, and for Derrida, meaning is really an illusion." (p.564)

But Jews steeped in Talmudic and Kabbalic lore must believe an even larger number of fairy-tales – so surely their own religion would be the first casualty of such a culture of critique. In order to square this circle, Jones must summon up the Mephistophelian spectre of Derrida, whom he has just dismissed:

"As a result of their contact with the German Enlightenment, the Jews of the younger generation converted to nihilism during the course of the 1860s. The Talmud played a crucial role in that transformation. The Talmud, as Jacques Derrida noted...has always been a sign of absence. When the Temple was destroyed, "everything became discourse", which is to say talmudic-like commentary on commentary. [At this point Derrida is quoted at length] 

 

"The Mendelssohnian Enlightenment had a catastrophic effect on young Russian Jews in the 1860s because it destroyed orthodoxy without putting anything in its place. The Talmud had been a source of contention among Jews since Maimun's attacks in Berlin in the 1780s. When the Talmud finally succumbed to the blows of the Maskilim, the Jews awoke to the realization that there was nothing to take its place, and nihilism, always latent in the Talmud's methodology, followed almost automatically." (p.648)

Well, that clears things up. So what happened was that the Talmud deconstructed itself, because it was based on nothing, and once that nothingness had been nothinged there was nothing to take its place. And so to nihilism, which was the absent centre of Judaism all along. Logos wins again! And there was I, thinking that the movement from Judaism to liberalism to secular messianic lunacy looks a lot like...the movement from Christianity to liberalism to secular messianic lunacy.

Still, at least someone like MacDonald could say that the secularised Jews remained committed to their group interests. Oh, wait – according to Jones, they didn't:

"Before long, [Lev] Akselrod began to see himself as "the Russian [Ferdinand] Lassalle", who would eschew the narrow goal of Jewish emancipation in favour of the universal quest for brotherhood and equality. The Jewish question paled in significance next to Lassalle's universal vision which encompassed all of mankind:

 

"[Quoting Akselrod:] I still remember how, reading the book of Lassalle, I felt a kind of shame at my concern for the interests of the Jewish people. What significance, it seemed to me, could the interests of a handful of Jews have in comparison with the "idea of the working class" and the all-embracing, universal interests of socialism. After all, strictly speaking, the Jewish question does not exist. There is only the question of the liberation of the working masses of all nations, including the Jewish. Together with the approaching triumph of socialism the so-called Jewish question will be resolved as well. Would it not be senseless and also sinful to devote one's energies to the Jewish people, which is no more than a single element in the vast population of the Russian Empire?" (p.652)

 

Ah yes, but MacDonald has instructed us well in the ways of self-deception! What matters is that the actions of Jewish revolutionaries never harmed the group interests of the Jews. Oh, wait – according to Jones, they did:

"There is no real evidence that the government promoted the pogroms [after the 1881 assassination of the Tsar], but there is a significant body of material showing that the revolutionaries did. The revolutionaries, many of whom were Jews, felt the same way about the Jews as Karl Marx did [see here] and promoted the pogroms as an attack on nascent Russian capitalism and the abuses that went along with it as a way of parleying local resentment into global revolution. The failed pogroms in Odessa and Yekaterinoslav were probably the work of Narodnaia Volia, which hoped to capitalize on the pogroms to foment a general revolution in Russia. On August 30, 1881 the Narodniki, who were, it should be remembered, significantly Jewish, circulated fliers attacking the Jews: "Who took over the land, the woods, and the bars? The Jews... The Jew offends mankind, deceives him and drinks his blood."" (p.662)

I'll say one thing for Jones: throughout most of his book, the facts are all there, and we need only interpret them with a pinch of salt and an ounce of common sense. Alas, most Jewpillers have far too much of the former and not so much as a drop of the latter.

Along with the early modern role of England, the lack
of Jewish influences on the Northern racial-religious
crusade against the South is another huge hole in the
Jewpill, and at least one WN honestly admits this. 

But let's get back to asking what our imaginary Jew would make of all this material. Surely he would take the line that the Maskilim had been co-opted into enlightenments and revolutions derived from Christianity, which did not develop independently among the Jews in the Muslim world. From there he would move to amend Jones's chapters on America – such as the discussion of the Civil War in chapter fourteen (in which he concentrates almost entirely on the soap opera between the Jewish feminist Ottilie Assing and the black abolitionist Frederick Douglass), or the later chapters on the Leo Frank and Scottsboro Boys trials (in which he focuses solely on the Jewish role in events that took place in the context of longstanding Northern moral hysteria against the South).

Game, set, and match? Not exactly. Let's bring in some competition from our second rewrite of JRS – this time by a Protestant fundamentalist author, and entitled The Pagan Revolutionary Spirit.

Let's make this author an Anglo with libertarian leanings, and let's say that he understands the essence of revolution to be state-worship. Just as Jones traces Jewish revolution all the way back to Simon bar Kokhba, this author would trace pagan state-worship all the way back to the Roman empire whose emperors were posthumously deified. Like Jones, he would be able to back up his views with Biblical chapter and verse – specifically, the Book of Revelation, in which the famous number of the beast corresponds to the name and title "Nero Caesar". The figure of Nero can be interpreted as a synecdoche of Roman state-religious tyranny, which persecutes true Christians and furthers the coming of the Antichrist.

 

PRS would make a subtle but devastating change to the narrative of the original book. As we've already touched upon, Jones consistently puffs the pudding of Jewish influence throughout the early and middle chapters of JRS, and one of his favourite tactics is to bring up the study of Hebrew or Kabbalah by Renaissance humanists and Enlightenment philosophers. The implication that these aspirants were being recruited into a Jewish revolutionary cause is questionable in the extreme:

"[Ludwig] Geiger claims Pico [della Mirandola] was interested in the writings of Plato, but what really fascinated Pico were the later neoplatonic texts, and what neoplatonism and Caballah had in common was gnosticism and magic. There is no Greek-Hebrew dichotomy. Pico was as avid to learn from the Hebrews as [Johann] Reuchlin. He was not afraid to avail himself of Jewish teachers...who taught him Hebrew and Caballah. Pico claimed he could derive from the Caballah proof for Christian teachings like the Incarnation of the Word, the arrival of the Messiah, and original sin. But his main interest was magic. ... To get to the meat of the magic tradition, one needed the oral tradition through the Caballah and the Hebrew language. ... The magic Reuchlin proposed was not the "forbidden art" found repugnant in others. It was, as Pico had indicated, a tool for Christian apologetics: "Caballah provides the weapon of choice against the Jews, who of course in their own way honour the Caballah but without having insight into it."" (JRS, p.250)

This shows that Christians who studied the Kabbalah and Hebrew were generally after magical and esoteric knowledge, and were not necessarily well-disposed towards the Jewish religion and people. But what it also shows – and what should be obvious – is that they also sought these things in all sorts of non-Christian traditions, such as Pythagoreanism, Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, and Arab alchemical texts. Arguably, these pagan-esoteric influences were stronger than the Jewish-esoteric ones – to take as an example just one of the occult works discussed by Jones, the Monas Hieroglyphica by John Dee, anyone can scroll through it and see that its symbolism owes more to hermetic-alchemical imagery than that of the Kabbalic Tree of Life. 

 

And all of this took place amidst the Renaissance intellectual obsession with ancient Greek and Roman culture, which predated and influenced the Protestant obsession with Old Testament morality (even the arch-villain Luther changed his name from Luder in homage to the Greek word eleutheros, meaning free). In PRS, all of this would be presented as one vast religious-ideological reversion to the vomit of paganism. And it would not be at all hard to find corroborating evidence in the political ideas of the time, which were shifting in favour of Roman law and the absolutism that comes with it. 

But what, we might ask, was the living nexus of this vast neopagan conspiracy? Why – our author would respond – none other than the semi-heathen seat of Romish popery, with its fey priestly wiles and imperial presumptions of sovereignty!

By taking this line, our Protestant polemicist would be able to plug a yawning gap in Jones's narrative: the high-water mark of papal power during the High Middle Ages. Having begun from an attempt to secure the independence of the Church against the secular power of the Empire, this expanded into a progressive extension of religious authority into the realm of temporal power, which arguably laid the foundation for all the carnal messianism and absolutist hubris that followed. We've seen that Jones's narrative is already full of evangelical rabbis and Calvinist mitzvoth; it will not become any more grotesquely confused by the addition of mediaeval Catholic colour revolutions, humanitarian interventions, struggle sessions, #MeTooings, etc. etc.

 

Leaving such lurid analogies aside, the opinion that the Church was being corrupted by power-lust was very common among mediaeval Catholics (although you'd never know it from reading Jones's sectarian historical journalism). Dante committed greedy and ambitious popes to Hell in his Divine Comedy, and wrote a separate tract called De Monarchia in which he advocated the separation of religious authority and political power. At the other end of Europe, William Langland's poem Piers Plowman (itself an inspiration to rebels) had this to say about the Donation of Constantine:

Whan Constantyn of curteysye Holy Kirke [en]dowed

With l[a]ndes and [landsmen], lordeshipes and rentes,

An angel men herde [o]n [high] at Rome crye,

'Dos ecclesiae this day hath y-[drunk] ven[o]m

And tho[se] that ha[ve] Petres powere ar[e] a-poysoned alle.'

The author of PRS would trace this 'poison' to the vestiges of the Roman Empire in the Catholic Church, and would see nothing but its symptoms in all subsequent revolutionary outbreaks. And he would find some backing for this view in Larry Siedentop's Inventing the Individual, which traces the genesis of individualism to the legal and political authority of the mediaeval papacy. Individualism, of course, is the social basis of liberalism, the ideological gateway drug to modernity:

"The process of turning the church into a unified legal system did not take place overnight. Its complete development awaited the thirteenth century. Yet its implications would prove to be revolutionary. For although it was the popes who first claimed a 'sovereign' authority within their sphere, it was not long before secular rulers came to understand their authority in the same way. The example of the church as a unified legal system founded on the equal subjection of individuals thus gave birth to the idea of the modern state." (Inventing The Individual, p.207; my emphasis)

Siedentop quotes St. Bernard of Clairvaux, a founding father of mediaeval monasticism (and if he's not Catholic enough for Jones, I don't know who is), as having this to say about the growth of priestly temporal power in a 12th-century missive to the pope:

"What slavery can be more degrading and more unworthy of the Sovereign Pontiff than to be kept thus busily employed, I do not say every day, but every hour of every day, in furthering the sordid designs of greed and ambition? What leisure hast thou left for prayer? What time remains over to thee for instructing people, for edifying the church, for meditating on the law? True, thy palace is made to resound daily with noisy discussions relating to law, but it is not the law of the Lord, but the law of [Roman Emperor] Justinian." (ibid., p.213)

 

Although he would easily trace a line between the mediaeval power of the Church and the modern-day Church of power, our Anglo apologist might have a hard time explaining why Protestantism did so much to advance that Church. But he could simply argue that the project of sola scriptura was never fulfilled in the long term, and provided nothing more than a passing phase of religious freedom and moral purity through which modernity passed on its way to full pagan barbarism. This argument is by no means watertight, but it is no leakier than anything in Jones. And it is certainly easy to argue that revolution moved faster, bottomed out sooner, and ended up with more tyranny in countries like France and Russia where there was no entrenched Protestant culture. So you can stick that in your Puritan Theory and smoke it.

 

Now, I'm aware that Jewpillers tend to read my posts with an inquisitorial eye (when they can be bothered to read them at all), so let me clarify that I'm not endorsing either of these two perspectives. In their own ways, they are both as wrongheaded as Jones's original thesis, and that is the whole point. What I am trying to do is to show how easily a narrative of religious decline can degrade into omissions, distortions, conflations, and recriminations, when the intent to shed light on the tragedy of the West gives way to the desire to sling muck at some modern scapegoat. 

 

What I am suggesting is that we discard the dross of all these narratives, synthesise the gold, and come up with a true name for the revolutionary spirit. This is my proposal:

 

 

As you can see, we have accommodated all three of the preceding narratives, while reaching beyond the sum of their parts. From CRS, we have accepted that the modern revolutionary spirit emerged into the world through transformations of Christianity; from PRS, that it was midwifed by early modern attempts to restore classical culture and wet-nursed to maturity by the state; and from JRS, that it went through a phase of 'judaising' Christianity and made allies and converts of the Jews. What we have not accepted is that the revolutionary spirit can be called Christian, when it has abandoned all reference to God and legitimised every Biblical sin; that it can be called pagan, when it is incapable of bridging the thousand-year gap between modernity and antiquity; and that it can be called Jewish, when it did not originate among the Jews, and seems to be slowly sloughing off a habit of philosemitism that has outlived its usefulness.

The name Antichristianity captures several things about the revolutionary spirit: that it was originally derived from Christianity, that it always opposes more traditional and orthodox forms of Christianity, and that it inverts Christian doctrines in much the same way that a pool of water inverts the sky above it. Of course, this name is also a provocative reference to the figure of the Antichrist – which implies, on the one hand, that Christians ought to stop compromising with the revolutionary spirit, but on the other hand that they should view it as a permanent 'occupational hazard' of their religion. Whenever the focus on God is lost, the doctrine undergoes degeneration, and priestly power becomes an end in itself, the unworldly spirituality of Christianity is at risk of degrading into revolutionary madness. 

Postscript: The Jewpill Achieves Its Final Form 

 

It is a truism of war that any attempt to counter the moves of an enemy must also involve mirroring them to a certain extent. For example, if the enemy attacks you from the sea, you must go seaward to meet him; if his secret weapon is Greek fire, then you must learn the ways of Greek fire; and if he mobilises ten thousand men, then you must oppose him with comparable numbers. Needless to say, this also applies to religious and ideological war: if the enemy falsifies something then you must correct it, if he controls the dominant culture then you must set up a counter-culture, etc. etc.

In the first part of this post, we explained how the Race Cult takes advantage of this principle, by peddling the distorted picture of subversion and revolution that we have called the Jewpill. No-one in his right mind wants to convert to what this cult is actually offering: a brutish, atheistic, amoral religion of racial phenotypes, genes, group interests, reproduction, the amity-enmity complex, etc., based on the sort of evo-psych silliness ridiculed by David Stove in his book Darwinian Fairytales. But witness the change that takes place when 1) this religion of race is attributed to the Jews, and 2) the Jews are magnified into the rulers of the world and the main agent of Western decline. Now the principle of mirroring one's enemy kicks in, and people strive to believe in biological tribalism, which they falsely see as a winning strategy. And the more they fail, the more they double down – creating the white nationalist cargo cult, which has long furnished the livelihoods of some of the worst degenerates and scoundrels on the Dissident Right.

Well, the antidote to the Jewpill works on the same principle. Once we know that the true cause of our problems is religious degeneration, then it also becomes clear that the long-term solution to those problems must involve some sort of religious correction. We raise our heads above the hog-trough of political ethnic conflict, and fix our eyes on the overarching enemy: the Antichristian Church, composed of the Cathedral (academia and media) and the Curia (bureaucracy and quangocracy). Mirroring this enemy, in immediate terms, means countering its false teachings with the truth. Ultimately, it means reversing the line of degeneration that has brought us from God to nihilism, spirituality to hubris, Christ to Antichrist.

But how can this be done? There are more thickets than clearings in my own thoughts on this subject, and it would be unwise to reach beyond the limits of this post by trying to hack through them here. For the time being, I have concentrated on preparing the ground for religious correction, by annihilating the idols of the Dissident Right – delusional larping, right-wing activism, universal nationalism, race-cultism, and the Jewpill. My intention has never been to denigrate white self-defence, the ethnos, constructive action, or the Muse of imagination. However, just as we have ceased to identify conservatism with liberty and pharisaical churchgoing with morality, we must extricate all of these good things from the Race Cult stuckment and reintegrate them into a truth-based dissident movement.

But wait – the Jewpill is not beaten yet. Here's how it can still win.

 

There are many possible answers to the question of religious correction, and one of the more obvious ones is that Christianity has been the problem all along. To the mind of a Darwinist philistine, the history of religious degeneration looks more like the metastasisation of a cancer – and the carcinogen, needless to say, was none other than the Eternal Jew. By subsuming Christianity, Antichristianity and Judaism into one gigantic bimillennial Happy Merchant psyop, the Race Cult can place the Jew back at the starting-point of Western decline – and negate most of our arguments at a stroke.

Of course, we can still fight a stiff rearguard action. Before its conversion to Christianity, wasn't the culture of the Roman Empire a morass of infanticide, degeneracy and religious unbelief? Wasn't it full of foreign immigration, urban crime and rampant bureaucracy, ruled by foreign emperors, and defended by barbarian mercenaries who were mercilessly set on its provincial rebels? And didn't the Catholic order of mediaeval Europe improve on this in many respects? None of this supports the notion that all Semitic influences must be bad, or that all good influences must be Aryan.

 

Alas, to expect to make any headway with such arguments would be to misunderstand the Jewpill and the Race Cult. Its biological narratives of 'original sin', by which it explains our fall from a supposedly natural state of homogeneous harmony, typically involve two sides: 1) the native Adam and Eve of universalist ambition and individualist sentiment, and 2) the foreign body of Jewish memes and genes that slithers into the garden and proffers the apple of degeneracy. The fact that Europe was in decline before its conversion to Christianity is quite compatible with this theme. And as for the virtues of mediaeval Christendom, they can be credited to the Germanic barbarians (thus handily closing up another hole in the Race Cult worldview, namely the role of blond-'n'-blue Northern Europeans in vandalising social orders centred on Southern Europe).

 

Throw in James C. Russell's The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity – as well as some chapters of MacDonald's Separation and its Discontents and Individualism and the Western Tradition, which show the Catholic Church rallying Christians against Jews and building on pagan Roman customs – and you have souped up the Jewpill to the point at which everything in Jones's book can be reinterpreted by its dim lights. This new narrative framework might be called the Pearl Theory of the Christian Revolutionary Spirit: much as an oyster turns a foreign body into a pearl by covering it up with its own substance, so Europeans 'romanised' and 'germanised' the Christian religion until its subversive essence was neutralised. Naturally, when the early modern Catholic Church confronted the Protestant heretics, it was a racial proxy war of 'aryanisers' against 'judaisers' – and the more Christian side won.

 

All of this is quite wrongheaded, but it is also quite immune to rational argument, and nothing more can be asked of a delusion. We must admit that our adversary has been steelmanned. But the catch is that this steelmanning comes with an obligation to stump up an alternative religion, for nothing less will do once Christianity and Antichristianity have both been rejected as Jewish. It is at this point that the edifice begins to rust and crack and crumble – for although it is an open secret that the equation of race and religion is the Holy Grail of the Race Cult, no-one agrees on how to find it fabricate it.

 

The reason for this, I would argue, is that the equation simply does not add up. Even if we use the broadest possible definition of the word religion (as we have done in this post), it would seem that you cannot have a religion without some sort of immortal, timeless and supra-human principle to serve as an object of worship. This might be the 'God', 'gods', 'enlightenment', 'spirits' or 'Truth' of traditional religions, or the 'humanity', 'nature', 'progress', 'power' or 'Science' of modern secular religions.

 

Admittedly, a cult of race might just about fit this bill, as a race is perpetually self-regenerating and theoretically immortal. But such a cult would occupy a low natural place in any pagan pantheon, ranking below higher objects of worship that are further removed from the realm of time, flux and mundanity. Instances in which a race or nation seems to be the object of religious worship should be examined more carefully, for what we tend to find is that the race or nation has been bound up with a higher religious principle that nonetheless transcends it. 

 

Statements like "Jews are God's chosen people", or "the Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith", can be understood as expressing a marriage of biological race and religious principle. Such a marriage is not a one-way street, and indeed the religious principle is in the superior position, with the racial collective bound to obedience (i.e. Europe cannot be equated to the Faith if it has lost that Faith, Jews cannot call themselves chosen unless they uphold Jewish law, etc.). White nationalist mantras like "our race is our religion", and MacDonald's conceptions of Jews who worship their own genes through the allegorical medium of God, can be compared via the same metaphor to the sterile modern larp of narcissistic marriage.

 

So yes, a biological race can be worshipped as a sort of idolatry or collective egoism, but white nationalists do not want to assume the natural low place that belongs to such a narrow fertility cult. What they want is, to put it charitably, a noble lie – something that looks like a marriage of race with a timeless and supra-human religious principle, but is actually just a disguise for a one-sided racial idolatry and biological tribalism. They will usually excuse this by saying that the predicament of Europe demands that our religious beliefs be aligned with our racial interests. But if the 'religious' side of racial religion must always fall into line with the 'racial' side (and never the other way around), then this ought to tell us which side is secondary, subordinate and disposable.

Let's take a closer look at this alt-idol of the Right, drawn up to oppose Antichristianity on the Left. This time we will begin with the full picture:

The white-nat cults named here (only a selection of the total) show a wide range of religious and idealistic pretensions, but it's easy enough to strip off the plating and expose the base metal beneath. Neopagans profess to worship the old Aryan gods – but they would rather seek knowledge of those gods in European tradition across a centuries-long gap, precariously bridged by Christian-era sources like the Eddas, than convert to the living Aryan polytheism of India. Faustians embrace the all-exploring, all-conquering Western spirit, and identify a higher purpose for white nationalism in the conquest of space – but they will not advocate the one-world government that would enable humanity to devote more attention to space-conquest, and nor will they countenance breeding with Orientals to produce a high-IQ super-race that could populate colonies of astronauts. The pretended summum bonum must always defer to race, but never the other way around, which tells us that race is the true summum bonum and that the Aryan gods and Faustian spirit are proxies for the Race Cult.

 

Sometimes we come across a crude alloy of race-cultism and spirituality, but they are easily separated. Throughout The Lightning and the Sun, Savitri Devi harps on the themes of René Guénon – the modern world is the Dark Age of Tradition, the Golden Age has been lost and will come round again, humanity is degenerating through the passage of Time, etc. But these concepts made sense to Guénon because he believed in a universal, spiritual, transcendent concept of Tradition, which occasionally comes into the world by divine revelation and is handed down by religious and initiatic groups. By sleight of hand, Savitri substitutes an entirely different concept of Tradition, which is fully immanent in the world and consists of the worship of matter and energy:

"It is the notion of Divinity conceived as something absolutely impersonal and undefinable, immanent in all material and non-material existence, and identical in nature both to visible Matter (to the visible flaming Disk [of the Sun], everlasting and self-created) and to invisible Energy – Heat-and-Light – also self-created and everlasting, and as inseparable from Matter as Matter is from It." (LAS, p.126; emphasis added)

 

This concept of Tradition is bound up with two things: the race and religions of the Aryans (and never those of the Semites), and the ethos of vegetarianism and animal rights (Savitri was something of a 'cat lady'). Thus, it is also faithfully expressed by the "National Socialist Idea", which Savitri describes as follows:

"Fundamentally, it is nothing else but the expression of the collective will of the race to survive and to rule, of its readiness to combat and eradicate all that which, from without or within, stands in the way of its survival and expansion, of its healthy consciousness of itself – of its strength, of its youth – and of the Godhead within itself: a biological reality stressed in political and in social life, rather than a "political" idea." (ibid, p.197; emphasis in text)

 

In summary, Savitri's idea of Golden Age Tradition consists of a naturalistic religion of the will-to-life ("there is no other "God" but the immanent, impersonal divinity of Nature – of Life, the universal Self", p.382) and a combative Aryan will-to-power expressed in the ideology of Hitler (which "attacked the very root of historical decay as such: biological decay, the consequence of sin against the primary natural Commandment of blood purity", p.126). But none of this is doomed to degenerate and get lost in the inevitable passage of time, because none of it comes from beyond the ordinary material world. The sun shines on us just as brightly as it shone on Akhnaton, Savitri's guru, and the biological material of a race is perpetually self-regenerating. So Guénon's Dark Age of Tradition would seem to be a 'superstition' or 'stolen concept', by which I mean a plant without roots in Savitri's own worldview.  

The truth, I think, is that it is an 'adaptive meme' – to be more specific, a cope. Hitler and the National Socialists lived by the sword of Darwinian natural selection, and when they died by that sword their movement was discredited according to its own premises. By purloining Guénon's idea of the Kali-Yuga, in which the virtuous are doomed to inevitable defeat by the vicious, Savitri was able to conjure up a cloud of mysticism in which her failed political leader could enjoy a ghostly afterlife as a prophet. And this obscurantist old bat has bequeathed her bag of tricks to Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents – a site that claimed until recently to be guided by the principles of Guénon (adding only in passing that they come "by way of Savitri Devi"), although anyone who reads it regularly knows that it is just the intellectual upper crust of the Race Cult.

 

And as for Apollonians (a category that includes Richard Spencer), they claim to worship the god of light and truth and reason, yet...oh wait, the founder of Apollonism came out and admitted that his religion is just a racial allegory. "Apollo is a synonym of the Aryan race", "a lie that is salubrious", "a moralizing propaganda" – you have to admire his frankness, and I recommend his other posts (e.g. this one) to anyone who wants to fathom the Dionysian depths of the Jewpill. And the Gaean mundanity, as well – for Apollonism may or may not be fake and gay, but it is certainly fake and Gaean. Perhaps there is some poetic justice in the fact that Apollo, who overthrew the ancient cult of Gaea and took over her oracle, has been turned into the face of a modern cult of Gaea.

What I'm alluding to here is that there is, I would say, a timeless and supra-human religion behind all of these cults of the white race. This is the worship of Nature, or NAG (Nature-as-God) – a deity that sometimes goes by the name of GNON (Nature-or-Nature's-God), which is misleading because the 'revelations of GNON' are always identical with the 'laws of Nature'. The word GNON, of course, is associated with neoreactionaries rather than white nationalists. But having argued that Antichristianity is fundamental to progressivism, we might also say that the religion of Nature-as-God is fundamental to modern conservatism. So, too, is the grim hope that Nature will take vengeance on progressives for contravening natural laws – which is what we see in neoreactionary musings on GNON, no less than in Kipling's hundred-year-old poem "The Gods of the Copybook Headings", whom he believed would return "with terror and slaughter" to put a stop to all that newfangled Bolshevist nonsense.

 

Any day now, boys! And in the words of the Nazi Cat Lady, "the sooner it comes, the better"!

Unfortunately, as of the present day, it looks like NAG is restraining Antichrist only to the same degree as the physical body of a madman restrains his will. And as we wonder at the reasons for this, it seems relevant to note that Nature-as-God is better known as Mother Nature – and that this feminine deity, to all intents and purposes, is the same terf-mother worshipped by feminists under the guise of Marija Gimbutas's Great Goddess. Although this version of NAG is all too benevolent and sanitised, it captures something missed by conservatives – the fact that nature-religion is inherently gynocentric, irrational, egalitarian, quantitative, and hence anti-traditional, as theorised at length by Camille Paglia in Sexual Personae. Now that misandrists are the new greatest allies of conservatives, perhaps this common ground will be openly acknowledged – and perhaps those who purport to be dissidents will finally break out of NAG's cuck-shed, and realise that there is something more than 'world-denial' in thinkers like Schopenhauer who refused to exalt her as the highest good.

But the development of that thought will have to wait for another time. For now, I will content myself with having destroyed a great many frauds and delusions, which have long been losing their hold over the minds of dissidents anyway. And if anyone should accuse me of indulging negativity and blackpilling for their own sake, I would reply that the blackpill is the first step to the whitepill – or in plainer language, that Socratic ignorance and humility constitute the first step to knowledge of the truth, and that the truth has always been the only weapon in the arsenal of the Dissident Right.