Facing Racial Realities

Facing Racial Realities Kevin Alfred Strom

The word "racism" has been turned into a synonym for evil. But racism only means having racial feelings -- a feeling of kinship with your racial brothers and sisters, a feeling of understanding and belonging, a feeling of being part of a culture, a part of something bigger than ourselves.Racial feelings are inborn in us. They are good and natural. And it is one of this century's most horrible deceptions to paint them as somehow wrong. If you want to call our normal racial feelings racism, then so be it. We'll call those feelings racism. As long as there are races there will be racism. It is inborn, has an evolutionary purpose and survival value, and is even present in non-human species. Racial feelings are about as likely to disappear as are sexual feelings. Actually, racism is good and necessary for the continued branching off of new types of human beings from the existing stocks. Evolution, so far as we know, operates primarily by such branching, and racial feelings are an important part of what keeps the branches apart. At some point, homo sapiens sapiens refused to breed with the sub-men around him. Mallards and wood ducks can interbreed, and may even do so under certain freak conditions. But the mentality of these birds, even when they live in the same territory, makes them shun the other type. The branches, once one, are now separate for all time. Most Whites -- even most liberal Whites -- instinctively choose Whites as neighbors, school mates, and life mates. This is good and natural and really has nothing at all to do with the emotion of hate. Evolution, branching, and separation have brought about all the wonderful diversity of creation that we see around us. It is Nature's way. It is God's way. And virtually all of natural history is testament to the natural preference of species, subspecies, and races to cleave to their own kind. It is only by acknowledging the wisdom of our racial feelings that the wonderful qualities of our race can be preserved. Our society once protected (admittedly in an imperfect way) the gene pool that produced Da Vinci, Aristotle, Mozart, Beethoven, and the builders of the Saturn V rocket. It does not do so any longer. The multiculturalists and multiracialists are in the ascendant in the West and promulgate a moral paradigm in which defense of our gene pool is evil ("racist"). This, in my view, is destructive, even genocidal. White Americans -- and Whites around the world -- are, in increasing numbers, beginning to see themselves (again) as a people with a common history and common interests and values. Whites instinctively feel a kinship that they do not feel with Arabs, Africans, Asians, or Australoids. They inwardly respond to Beethoven as they cannot respond to the call from the Minaret or the beat of African drums. They are inspired by the Gothic spires of Germany and Spain, the Parthenon, the Pantheon, and the Arch of Titus; but the Wailing Wall, the altars of the Incas, and the cryptic tribal art on the walls of the New York subway system, fascinating though they may be, remain alien. The Parthenon The fact that other races see us as one people, and at times attack us as one people, aids this process of rising racial consciousness. A similar situation prevails among Blacks. European Americans are awakening, and we are starting to take charge of our own destiny again. Such is the way that peoples and nations are formed. Such is the way of Nature. And the screams from the ivory towers of the academic elite will not stop this process. One of the latest hysterical screams from the academic left is the claim that the White race simply does not exist, that there is no such thing and never has been. A large number of degreed whores of Academe say so -- but then they also think that Bill Moyers can be taken seriously. There is a political agenda behind the "there is no such thing as the White race" malarkey, and it exposes itself every time the obvious corollary is stated: If there is no such thing as the White race, then there is no collective responsibility for the real and imagined sins it committed against the equally imaginary African, Amerind, and other races which stand impatiently in the handout lines for what's left of the tax money after the bureaucrats have taken their cut. No more affirmative action -- races do not exist! No more "Holocaust" reparations -- races do not exist! No more "diversity" training -- races do not exist! Oh, that would never do. It is only the White race which does not -- cannot -- exist. It cannot exist, because if its existence were admitted, then the genocide which is now being practiced against it would become immediately obvious. And even a few honest liberals might pale at that and spoil the whole show. The multiracialists have painted themselves into a corner. What to do? Probably just mumble that the "oppressed" groups are "peoples," "nations," or something of the sort. And they will hope that Whites never wake from their stupor and coalesce into a "people" just as conscious of its interests and destiny as, say, the Jews. What a different world that would be. If it is illegitimate morally and untenable scientifically for Whites to organize on the basis of a perceived common race or ethnicity (or even to claim that their race exists), then surely the same would hold true for Jews and Blacks. Perhaps one day "liberal" true believers will wake up and discover that nothing exists. That is the end of the road for their mode of thinking. The verb "to be" is anathema to them. The thought that there might be an absolute reality outside themselves, a reality which is what it is regardless of their wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees is as intolerable to them as it is to a two-year-old. Believe it or not, they have even developed a language (called "e-prime") -- a version of English which eschews completely the verb "to be." "Liberals" are very suggestible, and are really the victims of, not the originators of, the "race does not exist, but some races must be favored" swindle. It is convenient to demonize and dehumanize people that you are going to commit genocide upon. And it is easier to commit genocide when you convince your henchmen that the victims really don't exist. That is what the "White race does not exist" con is really all about. It is a warrant for genocide. Another lie which the academic elite rams down the throats of our children on a daily basis is that their technique of genocide -- racial mixing -- is really good for us because it brings "hybrid vigor." Hybrid vigor refers to exceptional growth which sometimes manifests itself when scientists cross or hybridize strains of plants or animals experimentally. Hybrid vigor signifies nothing in terms of the human genius needed to create and sustain a civilization. Where it exists, such as in corn or apple trees, it usually peters out after a few generations. A far more important concept in the crossing of human races is "regression to the mean." This means that even if you mate a Negro genius with a White person the offspring are, on average, likely to exhibit Negroid characteristics more typical of the average Negro, and not necessarily of that particular Black genius, and this is even more true of succeeding generations. Regression to the mean in the case of interbreeding with Africans means regression to the African mean, with Asians to the Asian mean. Neither holds out promise of raising the level of the upper half of our bell curve -- rather the opposite. The other races have mixed with Europeans, and everywhere the results are, to say the least, unimpressive. They have nothing to offer us. Some advocates of racial mixing point to areas where the other races are superior to Whites: Blacks in athletic ability, Asians in social unity, etc. But we cannot (yet) select such characteristics, especially when you are talking about random interbreeding as advocated by liberals and Communists. In the long run you will get random combinations of the different characteristics, most of which will not be superior. You will get regression to the mean. For such a questionable experiment, you would destroy one of Nature's creatures? Would you force bald eagles and fish eagles to mate? Lions and tigers? The European race has all the diversity it needs for health and further evolutionary development. It is a moral and environmental crime of the highest order to destroy it by breaking down all its defenses against interbreeding. The academic whores and shills who call for genocide are always prating about how we can't say for sure how much of our intelligence and our civilization is genetically determined and how much is caused by environment. (They used to say that it was all environmental, but the evidence is too contrary, so they've given up on that score.) But I say to them -- even you admit that you don't know that our unmatched civilization is not the result of our genetic makeup. If it is, and you obliterate that unique genetic code, do you realize the enormity of what you have done? Whites should be allowed to re-erect their traditional barriers against mating and social contact with non-Whites in order to preserve our kind. Anything else is genocide. I can hear the academic genocide-justifiers coming out of their holes and whispering to our young people -- "There is only one race -- the human race. We are all one species." There is a great deal of debate on species boundaries. The question has been raised: Should the races be treated as separate species, or just subspecies of the same species? They certainly vary enough for subspecies classification. After all, some species of mammals differ so little that a human observer cannot tell them apart. (Two species of Siberian hamsters come to mind. Among these two species a scent, discernible only to the hamsters and laboratory olfactory instruments, is the main difference and the means by which the female chooses a mate of the correct species.) The position that there are no subspecies among men -- that they do not even exist -- is indeed a novel one. It would imply that the Australoid, the Capoid, and the European, each developing separately for at least one hundred thousand years and possessing startling physical differences, are not only the same species but must be defined as the same subspecies. No one can scientifically defend such a thesis. [Image: New Guinean head-hunter.] I cannot speak for anyone else, but in my eyes the European race, imperfect as it may be, is a race of light and beauty. It is the race of Shelley and Keats and Poe and Shakespeare, the race of the Parthenon and Chartres Cathedral and Stonehenge, the race of Mozart and Beethoven and Liszt and Brahms, the race of Vermeer and Raphael and Rossetti, the race of Caesar and Alexander and Washington and Jefferson, the race of Ford and Marconi and Goddard and Von Braun and Shockley. [Image: Claudia Schiffer.] And our race is threatened. Nowhere is our birthrate above replacement level. Everywhere our borders have been opened and the new elite teaches our children that intermarriage is good and desirable. Everywhere the new elite teaches our children that to defend our genetic heritage is the very definition of evil. The end result, if trends continue, will be genocide. The end result will be death for the uniquely beautiful, intelligent, and creative people called by the name of the goddess Europa.

Jews, Islam, and Orientalism

Jews, Islam, and Orientalism Irmin Vinson

In Western history the Spanish Reconquista stands as an important landmark. Spain had once belonged to Islam, but with Reconquest the long Islamic intrusion which had begun in 711 was brought to an end, apparently decisively. From a Christian perspective the Reconquista was the gradual expulsion, beginning in the eleventh century and ending in the fifteenth, of Muslim unbelievers from the southwestern corner of Christendom; from a racialist perspective it was a literal culture-war of Europeans against Moors, waged by Spaniards, Frenchmen and Portuguese, the chivalry of White Europe. In simple political terms, comprehensible to anyone regardless of political affiliation, it was the end of foreign domination. Southern Spain had been under Muslim occupation for almost eight hundred years, and with the fall in 1492 of Granada, the last Muslim kingdom in Spain, the Reconquista was complete. Under Ferdinand and Isabella, the most successful chapter in Spain's history was just beginning.Three centuries later the German-Jewish poet Heinrich Heine (1797-1856) would envision this epochal Reconquista much differently: "On the tower [in Cordova] where the muezzin called to prayer there is now the melancholy tolling of church bells. On the steps where the [Muslim] faithful sang the words of the Prophet, tonsured monks are acting out their lugubrious charades."  * For Heine Islamic Spain -- here represented by formerly Muslim Cordova, reconquered in 1236 -- had fallen victim to "the dark tricks of history," and the Reconquista, far from being a righteous European triumph over an alien and expansionist adversary, marked a terrible cultural disaster. The Spain that emerged from her national victories was spiritually impoverished and intellectually desolate, filled with the sterile ceremonies of mindless Catholicism. Spain, in short, was better off Islamic. The wrong side had won. Heine's lines are from his poem "Almansor," which was based on his play of the same title. They are quoted in Martin Kramer's introduction to The Jewish Discovery of Islam, a collection of essays discussing Jewish contributions to the European investigation of the Muslim world. Kramer, the collection's editor, treats Heine's poetic lament for Muslim losses as an example of European Jewry's "heightened empathy and sympathy for Islam," but another motive is also clear. Heine sympathized with the Muslim invaders of Europe because he disliked Europeans. His enemy's enemy was his friend. Empathy for Islam was hostility to Christian Europe. Thus at the end of "Almansor" the poem's Muslim protagonist, though baptized a Christian (a formality that Heine himself would undergo in 1825), feels the growing anger of Cordova's famous cathedral, once a mosque in the happy days of Islamic occupation, and dreams of seeing the desecrated mosque crash vengefully down upon the Spanish congregants below, "while the Christian Gods shriek and wail." Kramer, an expatriate American Jew who works at Tel Aviv University's Moshe Dayan Center, planned The Jewish Discovery of Islam as a Jewish response to the Palestinian literary critic Edward Said's poisonously influential Orientalism (New York: Vintage, 1978), easily the most destructive anti-Western book of the past half-century. The object of Said's attack was the academic discipline of Orientalism, the study of the East and its various cultures, especially Islam. European scholarship, he argued, had defined and essentialized Islam as a hostile and culturally inferior Other, while ignoring the profound interconnections between East and West. Orientalism, an expression of the West's arrogant Eurocentrism, had created a distorted representation of the East's inferiority and then proceeded to justify and extend European colonialism on the basis of the self-interested simulacrum it had produced. "Orientalism," Said wrote, "was ultimately a political vision of reality whose structure promoted the difference between the familiar (Europe, the West, 'us') and the strange (the Orient, the East, 'them')," and in an oft-quoted pronouncement he alleged that "every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequently a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric" (Orientalism, 43, 68). Said's Orientalism has become the bible of fashionable Third Worldism and the central document of postcolonial studies, which it did much to spawn. As a result of its remarkable influence the term "Orientalism," which once denoted an arcane discipline specializing in esoteric languages and odd religious practices, has become a powerful slur, not much different from "racism." And like anti-racialism, Saidian anti-Orientalism denies our right to see the world through our own eyes, to see the Islamic world as indeed Other, substantially different from the West in ways that traditional Orientalism had enumerated. If today we view the burqa-shrouded women of Afghanistan as symptoms of a strange and primitive culture, then we are guilty of Eurocentric Orientalism, because we immorally claim for ourselves the right to judge the Muslim Other by our own standards. Said, though wrongly labelled an anti-Semite for his criticism of Israel, carefully avoided distinguishing Jewish from non-Jewish Orientalists. All were European and therefore all equally "racist." Kramer's book is an attempt to remedy that deficiency. Jewish Orientalists, Kramer explains, did not suffer from the essentialist, polarizing prejudices of their non-Jewish colleagues: "The work of Jewish orientalists -- liberals and Marxists, Zionists and assimilationists, believers and atheists -- subverted the idea that East and West were polar opposites. Much of Europe debated whether the Jews belonged to one or the other; Jews replied that the question itself lacked validity. The work of Jewish orientalists at every turn challenged the tendency to interpret Islam or Judaism sui generis, and their message was remarkably uniform: Islamic history (like Jewish history) can be subjected to the same analytical tools as Europe's; Europe's civilization rests also on Islamic (and Jewish) foundations; Islam (like Judaism) is no anachronism, but undergoes constant adaptation, and would accommodate even European modernity. Jews urged European respect for peoples bearing cultures of extra-European origin, precisely because the Jews were the most vulnerable of these peoples, residing as they did in the very center of Europe." Jews, in other words, were de facto anti-Orientalists well before Edward Said launched his attack on Eurocentric Orientalism. All of this will sound familiar to readers of Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique, which documents how ostensibly neutral Jewish scholarship has often served a hidden racial agenda. Jewish scholars wrote sympathetically about Islam in order to attack Europe indirectly. While maintaining the pretense of disinterested objectivity they sought to dismantle categories that helped Europeans to define themselves, and by challenging generalizations about Muslims they hoped to inhibit similar generalizations about Jews. Their principal target was Europe's confident belief in its cultural superiority, and insofar as Christian Europe defined itself in contrast to Islam, they would attack Europe by elevating its opposite and by challenging the boundaries between East and West and Islam and Christendom that formed parts of Europe's insufferable self-image. We can think of this, keeping in mind the example of Heine's sublimated hatred, as restrained aggression expressed through a calculated sanitizing of Islam, with the aim of undermining Europe's identity and eliminating its suspicion of the Muslim outsider. As Heinrich Heine placed his own racial aggression in the thoughts and experiences of the fictional Muslim Almansor ben Abdullah, so Jewish scholarship concealed its anti-European aggression in the learned pages of sympathetic studies of Islam. Kramer is bold in assessing the effects of this intellectual subversion: "The respect for Islam that Jews had done so much to disseminate not only survived in Europe but served as the basis for Europe's tolerance of Muslim minorities after the war. The mosque-like synagogues erected by Jewish communities in the nineteenth century prepared Europe to accept the real mosques which Muslim communities erected across the continent in the twentieth." Bernard Lewis, the most distinguished of modern Jewish Orientalists, recently predicted in Die Welt that "Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century"; for this demographic catastrophe Kramer claims credit on behalf of Islamophile Jewish scholarship. That may be too great a burden for the musty tomes of half-forgotten Jewish Orientalists to bear, but Jewish promotion of Islam does provide at least a partial explanation for the massive loss of European will that has allowed the growing Muslim invasion once again assailing the continent, this time without (as yet) any significant resistance. And there can be no doubt that the West's old view of Islam as hostile and alien, a reasonable response to a long history of Muslim invasions, has been almost entirely eradicated. When NATO elected to empower Muslim terrorists in Kosovo by bombing Serbs in Belgrade, that nominally Western decision powerfully signaled the breakdown of our former cultural self-image. Any reflexive assumption that Serbs are Europeans and Muslims alien outsiders had vanished. For this, if Kramer's analysis is correct, we can blame Jews. French president Jacques Chirac has spoken of "a Europe whose roots are as much Muslim as Christian." The idea is bizarre, and traditional scholarship conceptualized French national history in precisely contrary terms. France was spared the Islamic invasion that swept across Spain by Charles ("the Hammer") Martel's victory in 732 at the Battle of Poitiers; France could become French only because she had first defeated Islam. Ideas, like people, have a lineage, and we can be certain that Jacques Chirac's fantastic belief in Europe's Muslim roots cannot be traced back to the polarizing interpretations of Eurocentric Orientalists. It is a subversive Jewish idea that has made its way into the conventional mind of a politician, much as the widespread myth of Muslim religious tolerance -- an idea George Bush is fond of mentioning in his many homilies on Islam the religion of peace -- was (to quote Bernard Lewis) "invented by Jews in nineteenth-century Europe as a reproach to Christians...." Both ideas are false, but it was once useful for Jews to circulate them. We should take note of the philo-Semitic environment in which Jews worked to subvert Europe's cultural self-understanding. Among the Gentile Orientalists who numerically dominated the discipline in the 1800s, the most prominent White racialist was the brilliant Ernest Renan (1823-92), who believed that Jews were Europeans, which is to say that Renan was not much of a racialist at all. "Jewish scholars," Kramer writes, "were not to be regarded as Semitic specimens, but as fellow Europeans, who could participate as intellectual equals in Europe's discovery of Islam." The subversive, Islamophile Orientalism of Jewish scholars flourished in an academic environment characterized by low levels of anti-Semitism, but clearly this racial tolerance did not emotionally bind these Jews to the West. In the academic history Kramer outlines tolerance was not repaid with gratitude and cultural loyalty; it simply afforded Jews a position of safety from which to pursue their racial interests and launch their campaign against Europe. A scarcity of anti-Semitism is always an open invitation to Jewish misbehavior, because it frees Jews from inspection of their motives. Kramer himself is no tolerant Islamophile, and he feels none of the "heightened empathy and sympathy for Islam" that he honors. He is an anti-Muslim neoconservative, and like all neoconservatives he advocates a hard American stance against the Muslim world, including the bombing of Iraqi cities and the destruction ("democratization") of anti-Zionist Muslim nations, all for the betterment of Israel. "The moment America's commitment to Israel seems diminished in Arab eyes," he argues elsewhere, "the region is destined to spiral into war." Kramer praises the tolerant Jewish Orientalists of bygone centuries because they are safely dead, and he has no intention of following their example. In their covert race war against Western civilization Jews once benefited from sanitizing Islam and from making the strange seem familiar, yet retaining the old model of Jewish Orientalism would provide no advantages today. Islam has very few virtues, but anti-Semitism is, luckily, among them. Muslims hate the West, but they hate Jews and Zionism even more. The recent Jewish discovery of deep, apparently ineradicable Muslim anti-Semitism has convinced neoconservative Jews like Martin Kramer that in our era any "heightened empathy and sympathy for Islam" would be a dangerous mistake. Kramer can boast of how, in his opinion, Jewish scholarship helped bring millions of violent Muslims back into Europe, but he knows that today Muslims are a formidable enemy of Jews and the Jewish state, and so he and his fellow neoconservatives have assumed a new role as truth-telling opponents of Islamism and vigilant defenders of the West, a West whose center of gravity is located in Tel Aviv.

*Almansor

Text by Heinrich Heine (1797-1856)Translated into English by Joseph Massaad 

deutsch - français

---

In fair Cordova's cathedral, Thirteen hundred columns stand there, Thirteen hundred giant columns The mighty dome securely bear.And on dome and walls and columns, One can see a clever display Of Koran's Arabic maxims, Twining in a flowery way. Moorish kings formerly fashioned This vast house to Allah's glory, But much then has been inverted, Through the dark tricks of history. Over the turret where the watchman Summoned the people for prayer, Now one can hear the Christian bells, With their melancholic murmur. On the steps whereon the faithful Sang the prophet's words, now alas! Bald-headed priesthood exhibits The trivial wonders of their Mass. Before the multi-colored doll, Oh, how they twist and how they turn! They bleat, they burn incense and ring, And the candles stupidly burn. In Cordova's cathedral stands Almansor ben Abdullah, viewing In deep silence all the columns, And these bated words murmuring: " Oh you columns, strong and mighty, Once adorned to Allah's great fame, Now must you to Christendom, Humble homage, display in shame! You have submitted to the times, And bearing your load, were patient; The more reason for the weaker, At this time to be complacent. " And Almansor ben Abdullah, Showing his most serene front, Bends, in Cordova's cathedral, His head on the baptismal font. II He quickly left the cathedral, On his wild steed, onward speeding, While, upon the wind, his moist locks And his helmet's plumes are dancing. On the road to Alcolea, Along the Guadalquiver's flow, Where the snowy almonds blossom, And fragrant gold oranges grow, Thither hastens the merry rider, With whistles, songs, happy laughers, And the birds all sing in chorus, And the stream resounding waters. In the fort at Alcolea, Fair Clara de Alvares dwells, Her father battles in Navarre, And, in her freedom, she revels. And from afar Almansor hears Drums and clarions resounding, And beholds, through the shady trees, The fort's lights, glittering. In the fort at Alcolea, Dance twelve ladies, gaily dressed, With twelve knights in gay apparel, But Almansor's dance is the best. As if winged by merry humor, All around the floor, he flutters, And every one of the ladies, With the sweetest words, he flatters. The fair hands of Isabella, He's quick to kiss, then changes place, He now stands before Elvira, And he merrily scans her face. Laughing, he asks Leonora: If today, he'll win her favors? And, stitched inside his mantel, He, the golden cross discovers. He in turn assures each lady: That she in his heart is dwelling, And, " as I am Christian! " swears he Thirty times upon that evening. III In the fort at Alcolea, Joy and music have now vanished, Knights and ladies have departed, And the lights are all extinguished. Donna Clara and Almansor, In the hall above still linger, And one single lamp is casting, Over both its feeble glimmer. On a seat, the lady's sitting, The the knight sits on a stool; his head, Slumber-weary, he reposes On the knees of his beloved. Rose-oil out of a golden flask Pours the lady, sadly musing, On the brown locks of Almansor, Who, from his deep heart, is sighing. Then, with her sweet lips, the lady Gives a sweet kiss, sadly musing, On the brown locks of Almansor, While his brow with gloom is clouding. Flowing tears from eyes that sparkle, Weeps the lady, sadly musing, On the brown locks of Almansor, And his lips begin quivering. And he dreams he's once more standing, His head lowly bent and weeping, Before Cordova's cathedral, Many dismal voices hearing. And the mighty giant columns, Full of anger, hears he murmur, That no longer will they bear it, And they tremble and they totter. And they wildly fall together, The priests and people all grow pale, While the dome crashes upon them, While the Christian Gods shriek and wail.

European Americans-Why the Apathy?

Why the Apathy? Dr. Brent Nelson

The America that European Americans founded and sustained for over two hundred years will, given no change in current trends, be swept into oblivion in another generation. Given the same trends for two generations, America will find itself closer to Third World status than to the European way of life. Already, in the last decade of the twentieth century, this oncoming doom of European America has become glaringly apparent in many different areas of the country.Despite a growing awareness of a coming national demise, the masses of European Americans seem to be unconcerned. We are often told that "things must get much worse before people wake up." Yet all the evidence is that people are awake, but preoccupied with other interests. Their unconcern about the decline of European America is so deep-seated, so pervasive, that it obviously arises from something more than a lack of knowledge. Why the apathy? To attempt to answer this question, which must be done before we can hope to formulate a strategy to dispel the apathy, we must take an unflinching look at certain fundamental changes which have taken place in the lives of the average European American during the past hundred years. Looking at this reality will not be a pleasant experience, but looking away from it and denying it can only lead to a final defeat. The American Dream once included not simply a vision of a life of reasonable comfort, but also a life of maximum freedom. European Americans sought economic independence for themselves even before they won political independence for their nation. Against royal decrees, they moved into the lands west of the coastal colonies, seeking to carve out from the wilderness a life for themselves. At least half the colonists knew servitude as indentured servants and wanted no more of it. The land was before them, seemingly limitless. In the following decades, they were joined by millions of immigrants from Europe, who were also fleeing serfdom in the Old World. By the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the overwhelming majority of Americans were self-employed as farmers, craftsmen and tradesmen. No matter how poor their standards of consumption might have been or how backbreaking their work might have been, it was theirs, theirs alone, not dependent on the dictates of a "master" (as in eighteenth century England) or a "boss" (as in early industrial America) or a "supervisor" (as in today's post-industrial America.) Today, of course, 90 percent of European Americans (leaving out their dependents and those who are retired) know no such freedom because they are simply someone else's employee. The loss of freedom has been gradual and insidious, but it has been all the more real and is now almost beyond the memories of all living today. The new serfdom is an internalized sense of servility which arises from the unending need of every employee to obey the will of a supervisor if he is to keep his job. The employee's habituation to acting only upon the instructions of a supervisor develops within him or her a passivity which is all the stronger for its being almost subconscious. The resulting apathy about public affairs among most of the working people of America suggests that Jefferson may have known something when he warned that "Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition." Today most European Americans belong to a great middle mass -- caught between a ruling elite and what is often called an "underclass." The most important fact for this middle American is that he or she is dependent on employment paying a wage or a salary. He or she holds a job which is dependent on factors beyond the employee's control. The factors can be as immediate as a supervisor's whim or as distant (and irresistible) as "market forces" that economists talk about the way people once talked about Providence or Fate. Alienated from their work, which is work in a place they do not own and under the direction of others, these middle Americans jealously guard their "free time" as if time spent in productive activity were time spent in slavery. The average man, who resents the time he spends working under the supervision of someone else, is almost ferociously determined to spend his "free time" in play, much the way a child, weary of adult tutelage, runs amuck on the playground as soon as the school lets out. Practically all time not spent on the job is expended in recreation, in personal concerns. It is as if being deprived of the most important kind of private property -- the property which enables a man to earn his own livelihood with his own possessions in self-respect and dignity -- makes the proletarianized American all the more determined to privatize the small sphere of his life that does belong to him. Most civic activity arises from the ranks of the upper middle class and upper class European American. The upper middle class, which comprises the self-employed (mostly independent professionals and small business owners) generates many political and civic leaders, and cannot be said to be apathetic in the commonly accepted sense of the term. Although less than 10 per cent of the population, this group produces the overwhelming majority of civic leaders on a local and state level. While not apathetic, the European American upper middle class has rather narrow interests. For these successful people, political interests are largely limited to concerns about taxes and government regulation of their businesses. The doom of European America means little to them. Usually living far from the areas which feel the impact of the Third World underclass, the upper middle class entrepeneur is only anxious to ignore any issue having racial overtones. Increasingly, the upper middle class American is not of European origin. This is even more true of the small but very powerful upper class or ruling elite, the one percent of the population which owns most of the means of production and distribution. Moreover, the ruling elite, whether or not it is of European origin, greatly fears civil disorder. Threats of disorder from the Third World underclass generally result in compromise, if not total capitulation. Any evidence of militancy on the part of European Americans generates an extreme overreaction from the ruling elite. The elite will mobilize literally thousands of police and military to subdue a mere half-dozen supposed "White supremacists" in Idaho or Montana or Arizona. It is likely that most members of the ruling elite recognize the real meaning behind Multicultural America as well as its formal meaning. The real meaning of Multicultural America is that (1) it is a makeshift to sustain liberal democracy by maintaining inter-ethnic peace, and (2) a means of enhancing profit margins by flooding the labor market with cheap immigrant labor. The resulting brake on wages and salaries is probably essential to the survival of not simply single industries, but of the profit system as a whole. It is also likely that the ruling elite recognizes that the apathy of the European American middle mass is simply a mask for a much deeper layer of alienation or estrangement from the system. Beneath this alienation lurks, or so the elite fears, a seething mix of fear and anger. Conflict management and control -- both among the visibly distinct racial groups and within the mass mind of the European American working class -- is essential to the continued existence of the system. Could racial conflict be the primer to set off a critical mass of working class alienation? The elite does not wish to learn the answer to this question. European American change agents can come from all strata of the population. Exceptional individuals at the outset, it is their task to increase their ranks until they grow into a movement while simultaneously stripping away the layering of mass apathy through the building of a sense of community among European Americans. No opinion will be offered here as to the chances for their success, for the American situation is one which is historically unique. Whatever may come of it, there has never been any nation comparable with the synthetic composite nation that is America.

Guillaume Faye-Intolerance and Deception in Islam

Intolerance and Deception in Islam Guillaume Faye

Islam is in essence intolerant, and its highly Machiavellian logic alternates between force and deception: deception, when Muslims are weakest and form a minority; force, when their dominance begins to be assured. Among Arabo-African immigrants Islam is not conceived of as a spiritual religion (its moral precepts are seldom followed) but as a revanchist form of ethnic self-assertion against Europeans, often called "crusaders." Much more than Christianity, today enfeebled, Islam is fundamentally a religion of the imperative revealed truth and it has always believed, with a thoroughly blind conscience, in its own rightness, and it has justified all acts, even atrocities, committed in the name of Islamic expansion and for the glory of Allah.Europeans, naive defenders of Islam, fail to comprehend it and interpret the Koran as a sincere whole, as a single unified text with a consistent logic, whereas in fact it is rich in prevarication, a text with multiple gears. Islam can propose "tolerance and fraternity among religions" and "the freedom of the believer's preferred faith" on the basis of a Koranic precept: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (Sura 2.256); it can insistently reject any fundamentalism and fanaticism: "Islam is the community of the just balance" (Sura 2.143) or "no violence in matters of religion! Truth stands out clearly from error" (Sura 2.257). Islam can commit itself to compassion and forgiveness of offenses: "evil must be requited by good" (Sura 41.34; 22.96); Islam can even commit itself to humane treatment of an enemy and the Islamic obligation to offer him aid (Sura 9.6). Yet these verses are absolutely contradicted by fourteen centuries of Islamic behavior, for Islam has always preferred violence whenever the balance of power is in its favor, ignoring forgiveness and compassion, eradicating or subjecting in ghettos other religions in the territories that it has conquered, and tolerating in the latter neither pagan polytheists nor atheists. These peaceful Koranic verses are a ruse. Theologically they have beenannulled by the bellicose verses written later, in particular those of Sura 4 .... Almsgiving (zakat), which constitutes the third "pillar of Islam," is completely different in character from Christian charity. The latter is universalist and altruistic -- which seems quite naive to a Muslim. Although Muslims and their allies, by a pure propaganda trick, attempt to convince us that Islamic almsgiving is a philanthropic requirement that demonstrates the humane and peaceful spirit of Islam, reality is very different. Zakat concerns only the umma, the community of Muslim believers. A Muslim is by no means held responsible for giving alms to impoverished Jews and Christians, nor to succor them in any way; as for acts of charity toward the pagan or the atheist, they are deemed blasphemous. Charity is not based on commiseration or love of one's neighbor in this conquering, intolerant and warlike religion. It is motivated, according to the Koran, by two considerations: first, to practice solidarity toward indigent members of the umma, in order to foster cohesion within the community; second, to teach any Muslim that he is not the real owner of the goods at his disposal, which are merely a loan authorized by Allah in order to illustrate his power and to spread Islam everywhere, by conversion or the sword. There is thus no question of a Muslim indiscriminately coming to assistance of other human beings. For this implacable revealed monotheism, the Infidel is unworthy. Some may have noticed, though the media largely ignored it, that the Muslim Red Crescent during the wars in the Balkans only aided Bosnian refugees or Muslim Kosovars, completely indifferent to the fate of the Orthodox Serbs or the Croatian Catholics afflicted by war. The Red Cross, on the other hand, did not make any ethnic or religious distinctions. Generally, Islam practices a policy of peace and apparent tolerance only when it is weak and remains in the minority. Many Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, absolutely proscribe the construction of churches in their territory. Christian worship is prohibited to foreigners stationed in these countries. In the majority of Muslim countries, the entry or residence of Christian priests is almost impossible; any proselytism is prohibited, under penalty of immediate expulsion. In Europe, however, Muslim proselytism is encouraged and financed (e.g. the construction of mosques) by the authorities, whose secularism is tantamount to naivety. The rule of reciprocity that governs international law is completely scorned; to their discredit Europeans readily accept this double-standard, which in the eyes of Muslims betrays a sign of weakness and resignation that encourages and legitimates, as though justified by divine will, their movement of ethno-religious conquest in Europe. For the Islamic mind, the fact that Europeans do not demand from Muslim countries the same secular neutrality, the same freedom of worship that we extend to Muslims, means this: "Europeans know that they are in error, they recognize the superiority of Islam and the superiority of Allah; they prostrate themselves before us and acknowledge themselves to be Infidels, and thus it is just that they should become a land for our conquest." These remarks were made by an Egyptian imam in the Cairo newspaper Al Ahram. Dar al-IslamIn the conservative tradition of Islam the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the house of God, and dar al-Harb, the house of war; the home of the infidels or unbelievers. The goal of the Islamists is to expand the borders of dar al-Islam at the expense of dar al-Harb, and to create a universal Islamic community. This is one meaning of the termJihad. The Saudi Wahhabists and their philosophy are a prime example of this doctrine. Bin Laden's rhetoric is also reflective of this dichotomy .... From Wikipedia. Europeans are unaware of the very foundations of Islam, notably the cynical imperative of the three stages of conquest. Initially a Muslim community established in a foreign land and still forming a minority practices Dar Al-Sulh, "temporary peace," because the Infidel, in his blindness and naivety, permits Islamic proselytism in his country, without demanding any reciprocity on Muslim soil. This is the stage that Europe is currently experiencing, which makes many believe that a "secular and Europeanized Islam" is possible. Only in the second stage, after the settlement of an Islamic community has been established, does the requirement of conquest and violence become apparent. This is Dar Al-Harb, in which the Infidel's soil becomes a "zone of war," either because of resistance to the establishment of Islam, resistance that must be broken, or because Muslims, now in sufficient numbers, no longer need peace and can abandon the prudence that marked the first stage of their conquest. This phase will soon be upon us: We can already see its premises. In the third stage Muslims end up dominating. This is Dar Al-Islam, the "reign of Islam." The Jew and the Christian are tolerated but reduced in status, enjoying at best an inferior position, that of dhimmis("protected") paying a special poll-tax and deprived of most of their rights; pagan polytheists ("idolaters") and atheists are persecuted; and the whole population must submit to Islam's social regulations. Under this "reign of Islam" the non-Muslim has no chance of occupying any leading social position. In Morocco, where Christians and Jews were the most tolerated and protected, they were nevertheless compelled to leave at the end of the French protectorate, even though there had been no war, as was the case in Algeria. For many of the leaders of international Islamic networks today, the ultimate objective is to impose on Europe the law of Dar Al-Islam. It is a consequent project, propelled by an unwavering political will, which has already been set in motion. Because God has so ordained. Guillaume Faye, La Colonisation de l'Europe: Discours vrai sur l'immigration et l'islam (Paris: Aencre, 2000), 70-72. Trans. Irmin. Faye and his publisher were found guilty and fined, at the behest of the "anti-racist" organizations MRAP and LICRA, for "spreading racial hatred" -- that is, for the thought crime of writing critically about Islam and Third World immigration. There is a review of Faye's most recent book on the Occidental Quarterly website.

Abrogated Verses in the Koran

Abrogated Verses in the Koran

"Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clear from error" (Sura 2.256). Apologists for Islam often quote this verse, and most Westerners, unfamiliar with the Koran and imagining that it must obey the same theological logic as the Christian Bible, assume that Islamic scripture mandates religious toleration toward non-Muslims. That assumption is inaccurate.The Koran includes many abrogated verses, called mansukh, and abrogating verses, nasikh; the latter cancel the former, rendering them invalid, though they nevertheless remain in the Koran and are deceptively quoted, for Western consumption, as though they still represented genuine Islamic beliefs. Nasikh and mansukh are legion: Of the Koran's 114 suras (chapters), only 43 are without abrogated or abrogating verses. That is naturally surprising, and so unexpected that few Westerners are aware that significant segments of the Koran have been theologically annulled. Mohammed's non-Muslim contemporaries were just as surprised. How does one know, when two verses are contradictory, which is abrogated and which is abrogating? It is a question of date: Later texts abrogate earlier texts whenever there are inconsistencies between them. The Koranic verses that teach tolerance and peace, in particular those that prohibit compulsion in religion, are among the earliest of Mohammed's many revelations and are thus liable to abrogation, whenever Allah felt the inclination to revoke his immutable word. Although Islam, unlike Judaism and Christianity, received its revelation from a single person within a short period of time, roughly twenty years, Mohammed was nonetheless able to impose upon his followers the implausible belief that the inerrant Muslim God had routinely changed his mind. The pacific, tolerant message of Sura 2.256 reflects the historical circumstances of its composition. Islam was still then decidedly a minority faith and Mohammed and his small band of followers, in Medina and surrounded by non-Muslim enemies, were threatened with destruction. The early Koran of necessity presented religious tolerance as a divine command because nascent Islam had not yet acquired the physical power to compel conversion: "The Apostle had not been given permission to fight or allowed to shed blood ... he had simply been ordered to call men to God, endure insult, and forgive the ignorant" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah). But when Islam became powerful, Allah's eternal message changed. Islam could now "call people by the sword" -- that is, compel conversion -- and accordingly "verses of the sword" were conveniently revealed to the Prophet, verses that sanction and indeed command conversion of the Infidel by armed violence, which historically would be Islam's preferred method. Sura 2.256 was thus abrogated by a later verse, composed after Mohammed had begun to prepare his new Muslim empire for Jihad against the non-Muslim world: "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush" (Sura 9.5). This "verse of the sword" not only abrogates 2.256, but also abrogates well over a hundred earlier verses that formerly taught peace and tolerance toward non-believers. Only the later, abrogating verse now represents authentic Muslim teaching. Islam: "Religion of Peace""Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter." (Sura 5.33) "O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. Allah guides not the people of the evildoers." (Sura 5.51) "Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: 'I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!' That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah." (Sura 8.12-13) "In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [i.e. non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost." (Sura 8.37) "And fight them until there is no more fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone (in the whole world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah) then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do." (Sura 8.39). "Muster against them [i.e. non-Muslims] all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah." (Sura 8.60) "O Prophet, urge on the believers to fight. If there be twenty of you, patient men, they will overcome two hundred; if there be a hundred of you, they will overcome a thousand unbelievers, for they are a people who understand not." (Sura 8.65) "It is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter in the land." (Sura 8.67). "Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book [i.e. Jews and Christians] -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled." (Sura 9.29) "If you do not go to war, He will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men." (Sura 9.39) "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Sura 9.73) "They [i.e. faithful Muslims] will fight for the cause of Allah, they will slay and be slain." (Sura 9.111) "O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness, and know that Allah is with the godfearing." (Sura 9.123) "When We resolve to raze a city, We first give warning to those of its people who live in comfort. If they persist in sin, judgement is irrevocably passed, and We destroy it utterly." (Sura 17.16) "We have destroyed many a sinful nation and replaced them by other men. And when they felt Our Might they took to their heels and fled. They were told: 'Do not run away. Return to your comforts and to your dwellings. You shall be questioned all.' 'Woe betide us, we have done wrong' was their reply. And this they kept repeating until We mowed them down and put out their light." (Sura 21.11-15) "When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take a ransom from them, until war shall lay down her burdens." (Sura 47.4) "Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Sura 48.29) "May the hands of Abu Lahab [Mohammed's uncle, who had refused to embrace Islam] perish! Nothing shall his wealth and gains avail him. He shall be burnt in a flaming fire, and his wife, laden with firewood, shall have a rope of fiber around her neck!" (Sura 111.1-5)

Guillaume Faye-The Essence of Archaism

The Essence of Archaism Guillaume Faye

Guillaume Faye, born in 1949, was, along with Alain de Benoist, one of principal organizers of GRECE (Groupement de Recherche et d'Etude sur la Civilisation Européenne) and of the New Right, which he left 1986, reproaching his former colleagues for their increasing timidity and sterile intellectualism. Preferring to follow his own path as agitator and Nietzschean provocateur, he has recently published in rapid successionL'Archéofuturisme (1998), La colonisation de l'Europe (2000), andPourquoi nous combattons (2001).In Archéofuturisme Faye envisages, sometime within the next two decades, a large-scale civilizational crisis, provoked by what which he calls a "convergence of catastrophes." For the post-crisis world Faye proposes, in terms that at times recall the Italian Futurists of the early twentieth century, the construction of a European Empire founded on essential, archaic values and on a bold, aggressive exploitation of science and technology: hence the concept of "archeofuturism," the re-emergence of archaic social configurations in a new context. It is probable that only after the catastrophe which will bring down modernity, its world-wide saga and its global ideology, that an alternate vision of the world will necessarily impose itself. No one will have had the foresight and the courage to apply it before chaos erupted. It is thus our responsibility -- we who live, as Giorgio Locchi put it, in the interregnum -- to prepare, from this moment forward, a post-catastrophic conception of the world. It could be centered on archeofuturism. But we must give content to this concept. It is necessary, first, to return the word "archaic" to its true meaning, which, in its Greek etymon archê, is positive and non-pejorative, signifying both "foundation" and "beginning" -- that is, "founding impetus." Archê also means "that which is creative and immutable" and refers to the central concept of "order." To attend to the "archaic" does not imply a backward-looking nostalgia, for the past produced egalitarian modernity, which has run aground, and thus any historical regression would be absurd. It is modernity itself that now belongs to a bygone past. Is "archaism" a form of traditionalism? Yes and no. Traditionalism advocates the transmission of values and, correctly, combats the doctrines of the tabula rasa. But it all depends on which traditions are transmitted. Not every tradition is acceptable -- for example, we reject those of universalist and egalitarian ideologies or those which are fixed, ossified, demotivating. It is surely preferable to distinguish from among various traditions (transmitted values) those which are positive and those which are detrimental. The issues that disturb the contemporary world and threaten egalitarian modernity with catastrophe are already archaic: the religious challenge of Islam; geopolitical contests for scarce resources, agricultural land, oil, fisheries; the North-South conflict and colonizing immigration into the Northern hemisphere; global pollution and the physical clash of empirical reality against the ideology of development. All these issues plunge us back into age-old questions, consigning to oblivion the quasi-theological political debates of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which were little more than idle talk about the sex of angels. Moreover, as the philosopher Raymond Ruyer, detested by the left-bank intelligentsia, foretold in his two important works, Les nuisances idéologiques and Les cents prochains siècles, once the historical digression of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has finally closed, with egalitarianism's hallucinations having descended into catastrophe, humanity will return to archaic values, that is, quite simply, to biological and human (anthropological) values: distinctive sexual roles; the transmission of ethnic and popular traditions; spirituality and sacerdotal organization; visible and supervisory social hierarchies; the worship of ancestors; initiatory rites and tests; the reconstruction of organic communities that extend from the individual family unit to the overarching national community of the people; the deindividualization of marriage to involve the community as much as the couple; the end of the confusion of eroticism and conjugality; the prestige of the warrior caste; social inequality, not implicit, which is unjust and frustrating, as in today's egalitarian utopias, but explicit and ideologically justifiable; a proportioned balance of duties and rights; a rigorous justice whose dictates are applied strictly to acts and not to individual men, which will encourage a sense of responsibility in the latter; a definition of the people and of any constituted social body as a diachronic community of shared destiny, not as a synchronic mass of individual atoms, etc. In short, future centuries, in the great pendulum movement of history that Nietzsche called "the eternal recurrence of the identical," will in some way revisit these archaic values. The problem for us, for Europeans, is not, through our cowardice, to allow Islam to impose them on us, a process which is surreptitiously occurring, but to reimpose them on ourselves, while drawing upon our historical memory. Nietzsche's "Eternal Recurrence""O Zarathustra," said then his animals, "to those who think like us, things all dance themselves: they come and hold out the hand and laugh and flee -- and return. Everything goes, everything returns; eternally rolls the wheel of existence. Everything dies, everything blossoms forth again; eternally runs on the year of existence. Everything breaks, everything is integrated anew; eternally builds itself the same house of existence. All things separate, all things again greet one another; eternally true to itself remains the ring of existence. Every moment begins existence, around every 'Here' rolls the ball 'There.' The middle is everywhere. Crooked is the path of eternity." Thus Spoke Zarathustra Recently, an important French press baron -- whom I cannot name, but known for his left-liberal sympathies -- made to me, in essence, the following disillusioned remark: "Free-market economic values are gradually losing out to Islamic values, because they are exclusively based on individual economic profit, which is inhuman and ephemeral." Our task is to ensure that the inevitable return to reality is not imposed upon us by Islam. Obviously, contemporary ideology, hegemonic today but not for much longer, regards these values as diabolical, much as a mad paranoiac might see the features of a demon in the psychiatrist trying to cure him. In reality, they are the values of justice. True to human nature from time immemorial, these archaic values reject the Enlightenment error of the emancipation of the individual, which has only ended in the isolation of this individual and in social barbarism. These archaic values are just, in the Ancient Greek sense of the term, because they take man for what he is, a zoon politicon ("a social and organic animal integrated into a communatarian city-state"), and not for what he is not, an isolated and asexual atom fitted out with universal but imprescriptible pseudo-rights. In practical terms, archaism's anti-individualist values permit self-realization, active solidarity and social peace, unlike egalitarianism's pseudo-emancipating individualism, which ends in the law of the jungle. Excerpted from L'Archéofuturisme (Paris: L'Aencre, 1998). Trans. Irmin. The original French text is online at the Faye archive. Ellipses in the online text have been removed.

Savitri Devi-Paul of Tarsus

Paul of Tarsus, Or Christianity and Jewry Savitri Devi

If there is a single fact which anyone who seriously studies the history of Christianity cannot help but be struck by, it is the almost complete absence of documents regarding the man whose name this great international religion bears -- Jesus Christ. We know of him only what is told to us in the New Testament gospels, that is, practically nothing; for these books, though prolix in their descriptions of miraculous facts relating to him, do not give any information about his person and, in particular, about his origins. Oh, we do have, in one of the four canonical gospels, a long genealogy tracing his ancestry from Joseph, the husband of Jesus' mother, all the way back to Adam! But I have always wondered what possible interest this could have for us, given that we are expressly told elsewhere that Joseph had nothing to do with the birth of the Child. One of the many apocryphal gospels -- rejected by the Church -- attributes the paternity of Jesus to a Roman soldier, distinguished for his bravery and accordingly nicknamed "the Panther." This gospel is cited by Heckel in one of his studies on early Christianity. Yet accepting such evidence would not entirely resolve the very significant question of Christ's origins, because we are not told who his mother Mary was. One of the canonical gospels tells us that she was the daughter of Joachim and Anne, although Anne had passed the age of maternity; in other words, she too must have been born miraculously, or could perhaps have been simply a child adopted by Anne and Joachim in their old age, which hardly clarifies matters. But there is something much more disconcerting. The annals of an important monastery of the Essene sect, located only about twenty miles from Jerusalem, have recently been discovered. These annals deal with a period extending from the beginning of the first century before Jesus Christ to the second half of the first century after him, and they refer, seventy years before his birth, to a great Initiate or spiritual Master -- a "Teacher of Righteousness" -- whose eventual return is expected. Of the extraordinary career of Jesus, of his innumerable miraculous healings, of his teaching during three full years in the midst of the people of Palestine, of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, so brilliantly described in the canonical gospels, of his trial and his crucifixion (accompanied, according to the canonical gospels, by such striking events as an earthquake, the darkening of the sky for three hours, and the rending of the veil of the Temple in two) -- of all this, not a single word is spoken in the scrolls of these ascetics, eminently religious men who would surely have taken an interest in such events. It would seem, according to these "Dead Sea Scrolls" -- I recommend, to anyone who is interested, John Allegro's study in English -- either that Jesus did not make any impression on the religious minds of his time, as avid for wisdom and as well informed as the ascetics of the monastery in question appear to have been, or else ... that he, quite simply, never existed! As troubling as this conclusion is, it must be placed before the general public and, in particular, before the Christian public, in light of the recent discoveries.  With regard to the Christian Church, however, and Christianity as an historical phenomenon, and the role it has played in the West and in the world, the question has much less importance than might at first appear. For even if Jesus lived and preached, he was not the true founder of Christianity as it presents itself in the world. If he really lived, Jesus was a man "above Time" whose kingdom -- as he himself, according to gospels, told Pilate -- was "not of this world," a man whose every activity and every teaching aimed to reveal, to those whom this world could not satisfy, a spiritual path by which they could escape from it and could find, in their own internal paradise, in this "Kingdom of God" which is in us, God "in spirit and truth," whom they were seeking without knowing it. If he actually lived, Jesus never dreamed of founding a temporal organization -- and especially not a political and financial organization -- such as the Christian Church so quickly became. Politics did not interest him. And he was so determined an enemy of any interference of money in spiritual affairs that some Christians have, rightly or wrongly, seen in his hatred of wealth an argument proving, contrary to the teaching of all the Christian Churches (except, naturally, those, like the Monophysites, that deny his human nature absolutely), that he was not of Jewish blood. The true founder of historical Christianity, of Christianity as we it know in practice, as it has played and still plays a role in the history of the West and of the world, was not Jesus, of whom we know nothing, nor his disciple Peter, of whom we know that he was a Galilean and a simple fisherman by vocation, but rather Paul of Tarsus, who was Jewish by blood, by training and by temperament, and, what is more, was a literate, learned Jew and a "Roman citizen," in the same way that so many Jewish intellectuals today are French, German, Russian, or American citizens.  Historical Christianity -- which is not at all a work "above Time" but well and truly a work "in Time" -- was the work of Saul called Paul, that is, the work of a Jew, just as Marxism would be two thousand years later. So let us examine the career of Paul of Tarsus.  Saul, called Paul, was a Jew and, furthermore, a Jew both orthodox and learned, a Jew imbued with a consciousness of his race and of the role that the "chosen people" must, according to Jehovah's promise, play in the world. He was the pupil of Gamaliel, one of the most famous Jewish theologians of his time, a theologian of the Pharisees, precisely that school which, according to the gospels, the Prophet Jesus, whom the Christian Church would later elevate to the rank of God, most violently combated on account of its pride, its hypocrisy, its practice of theological hair-splitting and of putting the letter of the Jewish Law above its spirit -- above, at least, what he believed to be its spirit; on these points we can assume that Saul was a typical Pharisee. Moreover -- and this is crucial -- Saul was a learned and conscious Jew born and raised outside of Palestine in one of those cities of Roman Asia Minor that succeeded Hellenistic Asia Minor, while retaining all its essential characteristics: Tarsus, where Greek was everyone's lingua franca, where Latin was becoming increasingly familiar, and where one could meet representatives of all the various peoples of the Near East. In other words, he was already a "ghetto" Jew having, in addition to an intimate knowledge of Israelite tradition, an understanding of the world of the goyim -- of non-Jews -- which would later prove invaluable to him. Doubtless he thought, like every good Jew, that thegoy exists only to be dominated and exploited by the "chosen people," but he understood the non-Jewish world infinitely better than did the majority of the Jews in Palestine, the social environment that produced all the earliest believers in the new religious sect which he himself was destined transform into Christianity as we know it today.  We know from the "Acts of the Apostles" that Saul was initially a fierce persecutor of the new sect. After all, did not its adherents scorn the Jewish Law, in a strict sense of the word? Had not the man that they recognized as their leader and that they said had risen from the dead, this Jesus, whom Saul himself had never seen, set an example of non-observance of the Sabbath, of negligence of fast days, and of other highly blameworthy transgressions of the rules of life from which a Jew must never deviate? It was even said that a mystery, which could portend nothing good, surrounded his birth; perhaps he was not entirely of Jewish origin -- who knows? How not to persecute such a sect, if you are an orthodox Jew, a pupil of the great Gamaliel? It was necessary to preserve the observers of the Law from scandal. Saul, who had already shown proof of his zeal by being present at the stoning of Stephen, one of the first preachers of this dangerous sect, continued to defend Jewish Law and tradition against those whom he regarded as heretics, until he recognized, finally, that there was something better -- much better -- to be made of it, precisely from a Jewish point of view. This he recognized on the road to Damascus.  History, as the Christian Church tells it, would have us believe that it was there that he suddenly experienced a vision of Jesus -- whom he had never, I repeat, seen in the flesh -- and that he heard the latter's voice saying to him: "Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?," a voice he could not resist. He was, moreover, supposedly blinded by a dazzling light and thrown to the ground. Taken to Damascus -- according to the same account in Acts -- he met one of faithful of the sect that he had come there to combat, a man who, after restoring his sight, baptized him and received him into the Christian community.  It is superfluous to say that this miraculous narrative can only be accepted, as it stands, by those who share the Christian faith. Like all narratives of this kind, it has no historical value. Anyone who, without preconceived ideas, seeks a plausible explanation -- convincing, natural -- of how events actually transpired, cannot be satisfied with it. And the explanation, to be plausible, must take into account not only the transformation of Saul into Paul -- of the fierce defender of Judaism into the founder of the Christian Church as we know it -- but also of the nature, content and direction of his activity after his conversion, of the internal logic of his career; in other words, of the psychological link, more or less conscious, between his anti-Christian past and his great Christian enterprise. Any conversion implies a link between the convert's past and the remainder of his life, a profound reason, that is, a permanent aspiration within the convert which the act of conversion satisfies; a will, a permanent direction of life and action, of which the act of conversion is the expression and the instrument.  Now, given all that we know of him, and especially what we know of the rest of his career, there is only one profound and fundamental will, inseparable from the personality of Paul of Tarsus at all stages of his life, that can provide an explanation of his Damascene conversion, and that will is the desire to serve the old Jewish ideal of spiritual domination, itself the complement and crowning culmination of the ideal of economic domination. Saul, an orthodox Jew, a racially conscious Jew, who had fought against the new sect on the assumption that it represented a danger to Jewish orthodoxy, could renounce his orthodoxy and become the soul and the arm precisely of so dangerous a sect only after having recognized that, revised by him, transformed, adapted to the requirements of the wider world of the goyim -- the "Gentiles" of the gospels -- and interpreted, if it were necessary, so as to give, as Nietzsche would put it later, "a new meaning to the ancient mysteries," it could become, during the centuries that followed and perhaps even in perpetuity, the most powerful instrument of Israel's spiritual domination, the means that would accomplish, most surely and most definitively, the self-professed "mission" of the Jewish people to reign over other peoples and to subjugate them morally, all the while exploiting them economically. And the more complete the moral subjugation, it goes without saying, the more the economic exploitation would flourish. Only this prize was worth the painful effort of repudiating the rigidity of the old and venerable Law. Or, to speak in a more mundane language, the sudden conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus can be naturally explained only if it is admitted that he must have had a sudden glimpse into the possibilities that nascent Christianity offered him for the profit and the moral influence of his people, and that he would have thought -- in a stroke of genius, it must be said --: "I was short-sighted in persecuting this sect, instead of making use of it, whatever the cost! I was stupid to stick to forms -- mere details -- instead of seeing the essential issue: the interests of the people of Israel, of the chosen people, of our people, of us Jews!"  The entirety of Paul's later career is an illustration -- a proof, insofar as one can think of "proving" facts of this nature -- of this brilliant reversal, of the victory of an intelligent Jew, a practical man, a diplomat (and whoever says "diplomat" in connection with religious questions really says deceiver) over the orthodox, learned Jew, concerned above all with problems of ritual purity. After his conversion Paul indeed gave himself up to the "Spirit" and went where the "Spirit" suggested, or rather ordered to him to go, and he spoke the words which the "Spirit" inspired in him. Now, where did the Holy Spirit "order" him to go? Was it into Palestine, among the Jews who still shared the "errors" that he had just publicly abjured and who would seem the first to be entitled to his new revelation? Never! That's the one thing he won't do! It is instead in Macedonia, as well as in Greece and among the Greeks of Asia Minor, among the Galatians, and later among the Romans -- in Aryan countries, or at any rate in non-Jewish countries -- that the neophyte preaches the theological dogma of original sin and of eternal salvation through the crucified Jesus, and the moral dogma of the equality of all men and all peoples; it is in Athens that he proclaims that God created "all nations, all peoples of one and the same blood" (Acts 17.26). In this denial of the natural differences among the races, the Jews themselves had of course no interest, but it was from their point of view very useful to preach it, to impose it on the goyim in order to destroy in them those national values which had, hitherto, formed their strength (or rather simply to hasten their destruction; for, since the fourth century before Christ, they had already been declining under the influence of the "hellenized" Jews of Alexandria). No doubt Paul also preached "in the synagogues," that is, to other Jews, to whom he presented the new doctrine as the outcome of prophecies and messianic expectations; no doubt he said to the sons of his people, as well as to the "fearers of the Lord" -- to the half-Jews, like Timothy, and to the Jewish quarters that abounded in Aegean seaports (as in Rome) -- that Christ crucified and resurrected, whom he announced, was none other than the promised Messiah. He gave new meaning to Jewish prophecies just as he gave new meaning to the immemorial mysteries of Greece, Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor: a meaning that ascribed to the Jewish people a unique role, a unique place and a unique importance in the religion of non-Jews. For him it was simply the means of ensuring for his people spiritual domination in the future. His genius -- not religious, but political -- consists in having understood this.  But it is not only in the field of doctrine that he can demonstrate such disconcerting flexibility: "a Greek with the Greeks, and a Jew with the Jews," as he himself says. He has a keen sense of practical necessities, as well as impossibilities. He is himself, although initially so orthodox, the first to oppose any imposition of the Jewish Law on Christian converts of non-Jewish race. He insists -- against Peter and the less conciliatory group of the first Christians in Jerusalem -- that a Christian of non-Jewish origin has no need of circumcision nor of Jewish dietary regulations. In his letters he writes to his new faithful -- half-Jews, half-Greeks, Romans of doubtful origin, Levantines of all the ports of the Mediterranean: to everyone without race, to all those he is in the process of shaping into a link between his immutable people and their traditions, and the vast world to be conquered -- that there does not exist, for them, any distinction between what is "clean" and what is "unclean," that they are permitted eat whatever they please ("whatever is sold in the market"). He knew that, without these concessions, Christianity could not hope to conquer the West, nor could Israel hope to conquer the world, through the intermediary of the converted West.  Peter, who was not at all a "ghetto" Jew and was thus still unfamiliar with conditions in the non-Jewish world, did not see things from the same perspective -- not yet, in any case. It is for that reason that we must see in Paul the true founder of historical Christianity: the man who formed, from the purely spiritual teaching of the prophet Jesus, the basis of a militant organization "in Time" whose goal was, in the deep consciousness of the Apostle, nothing less than the domination of his own people over a world morally emasculated and physically bastardized, a world wherein a misunderstood love of "man" leads directly to the indiscriminate mixture of the races and the suppression of all national pride -- in a word, to human degeneration.  It is time that the non-Jewish nations finally open their eyes to this reality of two thousand years, that they grasp all its poignant topicality, and that they react accordingly.  Written at Méadi (near Cairo) on June 18, 1957. First published as Paul de Tarse, ou Christianisme et juiverie(Calcutta: Savitri Devi Mukherji, 1958). Trans. Irmin. The original French text is also available. Savitri, almost certainly writing from memory, makes two small factual errors in the preceding essay: (1) the account of Mary's parents to which she refers appears in the apocryphal Gospel of James, not in the New Testament; (2) the rumor that Jesus' father was a Roman legionary nicknamed Panthera was reported by the pagan philosopher Celsus in his anti-Christian polemicTrue Doctrine. It does not appear in any of the apocryphal gospels, as Savitri mistakenly suggests. Variations on the story can be found in the Jewish Talmud.