Western Civilization Must Die

“I am reasonably confident that you do not understand this. … Why not? Because of an innate prejudice; an inability to free yourself from the often unstated assumptions and axioms that underlie the Western weltanschauung you have accepted, giving rise to an inability to use the faculty of pure reason.” – David Myatt

If you have never experienced a gag reflex in response to looking at this interior, it is unlikely that you will understand this page, for the reasons that David Myatt stated above. If you are on the fence, here are additional angles to help you make up your mind.

Due to the global pandemic of Western civilization since the colonial era, modern-postmodern rightism and leftism have closely corresponded to positive and negative evaluations of Western civilization respectively. Rightists believe that non-Western societies should feel fortunate and grateful for all that Western civilization brought them; the only real debate within rightist circles is whether – the neocon* view – Western civilization did the right thing by sharing its content with non-Western societies, or whether – the paleocon view – Western civilization should have kept its content exclusively to itself in the interest of maximizing Western competitive advantage over non-Western societies. Leftists, on the other hand, believe that non-Western societies justifiably feel wronged and resentful for the ideas that Western civilization forced them to adopt (“The white races have imposed their will by force … One solitary success must be conceded to the colonizers: everywhere they have succeeded in arousing hatred.” – Adolf Hitler) and that material gain as a side-effect of Westernization is no compensation for this (“I claim that the English have governed India very well, but their error is to expect enthusiasm from the people they administer.” – Adolf Hitler); the only real debate within leftist circles is whether – the paganist view – traditional non-Western societies were virtually flawless prior to Western interruption, or whether – the National Socialist view - non-Western societies were already fallen long before Western interruption (“We know of no historic civilization based upon a joyous earthly wisdom, implying active love towards all living creatures … neither man-centered nor pessimistic, nor lacking truly universal kindness in the Buddhistic sense of the word. We only know of a very few individuals who have put forward such a philosophy, professed such a religion — consciously or unconsciously — from time to time.” – Savitri Devi) and therefore Western interruption merely pushed them from bad to worse (“It is only in recent years that pernicious influences from the West and from the North … have begun to distort the mind and vitiate the feelings of a number of Hindus, especially of the so-called “educated” ones. It is only now that partiality in favor of man is creeping into India, in defiance of India’s professed Pantheism, and that the noisiest representatives of the Hindu people (and therefore the most well-known abroad) often seem to forget the outlook on life implied in the age-old philosophy of which they are outwardly so proud.” – Savitri Devi).

(* The neocon view structurally includes the Marxist view. Marx, while critical of capitalism itself, viewed the spread of capitalism to non-Western countries via Western colonialism as an indirectly beneficial development, as only thus would non-Western societies be thrust into economic conditions that make communist revolution attractive, whereas communist revolution would have been a much harder sell to non-Western countries had they remained pre-capitalist. Incidentally, this makes it inconsistent for any serious anti-communist to believe in Western superiority.) 

“One has only to consider, for instance, how the White colonists – the foreign devils of Britain and Europe – descended upon and plundered and exploited and changed Africa, to see one legacy of The White Hordes of Homo Hubris. … From being self-supporting agrarian communities they have become impoverished, conflict-ridden, “nations” which often depend on the so-called “generosity” of the foreign devils of the modern West, who still covertly and often overtly control them and who still set, by their Whitey abstractions, their aims, and who still, now mostly covertly, plunder the resources of the world for their own benefit.” – David Myatt

As such, the paleocon criticism of colonialism is not to be confused with the National Socialist criticism of colonialism. Whereas paleocons view colonialism as over-generous ”civilizing” of undeserving non-Western societies, Hitler mocked attempts by the colonial powers to portray themselves as motivated by magnanimity in the lands they colonized. For example, on the British Empire outlawing various suicide-based devotional practices in India, cited as supposed evidence of Western benevolence, Hitler retorted: “The prohibition of suttee for widows, and the suppression of starvation-dungeons, were dictated to the English by the desire not to reduce the labour-force, and perhaps also by the desire to economise wood!” Just as Jesus’ irreverence towards Judaism earned him the admiration of non-Jews in his time, Hitler’s irreverence towards Western civilization accounts for much of his popularity among non-Western countries worldwide today.

“For the English, the ideal existence was represented in the society of the Victorian age. At that time England had at her service the countless millions of her colonial Empire, together with her own thirty-five million inhabitants. On top of that, a million bourgeois—and, to crown the lot, thousands of gentlefolk who, without trouble to themselves, reaped the fruit of other people’s toil.” – Adolf Hitler

Western paleocons often attempt to insincerely befriend non-Western paganists under a pan-traditionalist umbrella as a tactic to disarm non-Western societies, and some naive non-Western paganists fall for this trick, unaware that Westerners want non-Westerners to return to their own traditions only because these non-Western traditions were the ones that Western tradition has already proven capable of dominating, so that a concerted return by all societies to their respective traditions (as pan-traditionalists call for) is a safe formula back to Western dominance.

“Shall I … write about the current war, raging in a part of the world I know, and against a people whose culture I respect? Shall I write of the dishonour that this war is? Of the government who are indulging, like bullies, in modern warfare against a much weaker enemy whose defensive capabilities they have spent over ten years destroying so that when their planned war finally started they knew their enemy could barely defend themselves?” – David Myatt

In contrast, there is no parley between National Socialists and neocons, for even though both camps believe that good ideas should be shared, we are diametrically opposed in what we each consider to be good. Sincere neocons (mostly non-Western neocons) who promote Westernization of formerly non-Western societies as the best way for non-Western societies to strengthen themselves, and hence avoid a repeat of the colonial era, are only encouraging the oppressed to imitate the oppressor, thereby passing on the evil. This is to say nothing of insincere neocons (mostly Western neocons who also want Western dominance but merely believe in a different strategy towards it than the paleocons) who cheer on on-Western societies’ attempts at Westernization precisely because they expect such attempts to fail and thus waste non-Western societies’ time and effort, which accrues to Western competitive advantage.

“Overawed at the western technical greatness, even the cultured Chinese decorated their dwellings with the stale trash of the great warehouses of the European west.” – Alfred Rosenberg

National Socialism encourages non-Western societies neither to Westernize nor to return to their respective non-Western traditions, aware that both routes will eventually lead back to Western domination. For a true alternative, it is Western (and partially Westernized) societies which need to be de-Westernized as the first step, and then all societies together which need to recall and revive their non-traditional pasts as the second step. It was the post-Renaissance rise of Western civilization that flung the world into its present insanity over the last 500 years and gave Jewry almost all the power it today possesses. It is Western civilization that must die before Zionism can be defeated and the world can begin to heal at last. 

What Is Western Civilization?

“A humanity that believed all was permitted because it is endowed with a brain capable of calculations.” – Savitri Devi

“Homo Hubris: that new sub-species of the genus, Homo, … distinguished by their profane “lack of numinous balance”, by a lack of knowing of and feeling for the numinous; by a personal arrogance, by a lack of manners, and by that lack of respect for anything other than strength/power and/or their own gratification.” – David Myatt

By Western civilization, we broadly refer to everything that follows from either Aristotle (in preference over Plato**) or Moses (more via Judeo-Christianity than via Judaism itself). It is called “Western” because its geographical domain has been incipiently the western peninsula of the Eurasian landmass, and only subsequently the lands invaded or otherwise infected by these Western colonial powers (including Russia). In Europe, the Aristotelian strand and the Mosaic strand were separately influential in the classical era, following which the Aristotelian strand temporarily faded from prominence while the Mosaic strand remained prominent throughout the medieval era. Nevertheless, these two strands only became fully interwoven during the Renaissance, thus post-Renaissance Western civilization is the most defnitive of Western civilization as a whole. This is common sense: when we speak of Western medicine, for example, nobody thinks of humourism (which, as a matter of fact, is found in the medical theory of many ancient cultures (“A diet of potato peelings and raw potatoes – will cure beri-beri within a week” - Adolf Hitler), and therefore is not unique to the West), instead everybody thinks of allopathy (which is indeed unique to the West (“That a fatty substance extracted from coal has the same value as olive-oil, that I don’t believe at all!” – Adolf Hitler)).

(** Neoplatonism, despite its name, is actually Aristotelian as well as Judaic, hence part of Western civilization.)

As such, movements that have arisen in the same geographical region but which were both anti-Aristotelian and anti-Mosaic are not to be considered part of Western civilization, but should rather be viewed as attempts to overthrow it. For example, National Socialism – more sympathetic to Platonist thought than to Aristotelian thought, as well as being explicitly anti-Tanakh – is absolutely not part of Western civilization, and is characteristically anti-Western. (“One must clearly see into all that, in order to appreciate properly the significance of the exclamation made by the Roosevelt woman, speaking of ourselves: “It’s a world in which we could not conceivably live!”" – Adolf Hitler) On the other hand, trends that are anti-Mosaic without also being anti-Aristotelian, or vice versa, should still be considered part of Western civilization.

PC and BS misread history in the same way, but merely judge it differently. ZC reads history correctly, but judges it differently than we do.

Jesus, despite his nominally supreme stature in Western history, is not part of Western civilization, as his teachings were never taken seriously for broad application to society, being antithetical to both Mosaic and Aristotelian thought. (The only people in medieval Europe who even tried to follow Jesus’ teachings were small groups such as the Cathars and the Bogomils, who by no coincidence were persecuted relentlessly by both the Catholic and Orthodox branches of Western civilization.) In contrast, Judeo-Christianity as presented by Paul (Jew) is central to Western civilization.

“John … recognised that here [in Jesus] one was dealing with an anti Jewish spirit hostile to the old testament. But this has been covered over by a Jewish tradition which was linked with the spiritual waste products of the Hellenic world.” – Alfred Rosenberg

“We have said various times: we know nothing about what the Cathars were in reality, a sect that appeared in Occitania, along the Catalan Pyrenees, in Carcasonne and other cities of the south. Montsegur was their fortress-temple. Otto Rahn thinks Montsegur was Munsalvaesche, the Castle and Mountain of the Gral. He also claims the Cathars were Druids converted to Manicheanism. They are said to have practiced magic, believe in reincarnation, were vegetarians and had a dualist concept of the world. Among the Gospels they only accepted Saint John. For them the demon was Jehovah, creator Demiurge of this world. None of this is certain, because nothing is known for certain about the Cathars. Otto Rahn believes some troubadours were commissioned by them to spread a certain type of Love initiation in code, that “personal aristocratic religion.” Papal Rome declared the Cathars heretics and ended by annihilating them. Their writings were burned.” – Miguel Serrano

“The struggles and fate of this huge sect of the Cathars had always interested me and, on closer acquaintance, moved me deeply. A queer movement, combining the religious desire for freedom of will and character which was essentially West Gothic, with the late Iranian mysticism that had reached France by way of Italy after the crusaders had come in contact with the Orient. Since the Cathars, that is, the pure ones, wanted to remain Christians, they chose from among the various epistles that of John. Against the religion of the worldly power of the Church of Peter they upheld the teachings of the Baraclete, the Merciful Saviour and God of Mercy. They rejected the Old Testament, avoided the use of any and all Jewish names — a significant attitude, different from that of the later Calvinists and Puritans who also searched for the pure teachings — and shunned even the name of Mary. The crucifix to them appeared an unworthy symbol since, they claimed, nobody would venerate the rope with which a human being, even though he be a martyr, had been hanged.” – Alfred Rosenberg

(National Socialism was a rejection of Western civilization in the same way that Christianity was a rejection of Judaism. However, post-WWII Zionist lies have propounded the narrative – which neo-Nazi useful idiots believe in - that National Socialism was an affirmation and extension of Western civilization, just as earlier Zionist lies have propounded the narrative – which Judeo-Christian useful idiots believe in - that Christianity was an affirmation and extension of Judaism. Accurately, National Socialism should be understood as a militant revival of Catharism.)

Civilization can either be Western, or it can be Solar, but not both. The two are fundamentally opposed. The victory of one demands the destruction of the other.

Post-1960s pop culture should also not be considered part of Western civilization, as the 1960s were when both Mosaic and Aristotelian thought were largely discarded from mainstream consciousness, hence the culture of that period is often (and accurately) referred to as “counterculture” in sociology. Many non-Western conservatives are vocally critical of what they call ”Western” attitudes but which actually refers mainly to rock ‘n’ roll, hip-hop, etc.. Their criticism is not to be confused with our criticism of truly Western attitudes as were still present after WWII during the 1950s (and which, regrettably, have begun to repopularize since the 2000s). In general, we are supportive of 1960s-1990s cultural trends and wish to keep many of their practical manifestations, but would provide them with stronger ideological foundations. The most elucidating yet most overlooked angle in 20th century history is that the 1960s-1990s counterculture was rebelling against the same civilization that National Socialism had rebelled against just several decades earlier.

“Adolf Hitler was one of the first rock stars… think about it… I think he was quite as good as Jagger.” – David Bowie

Uneducated noisemakers (ie. most far-right pundits, including those with numerous academic qualifications) are fond of noisily declaring that Western civilization began with “Greek philosophy”, as if “Greek philosophy” was an internally agreeing body of thought rather than the ferocious debate between irreconciliably opposed perspectives that it actually was. A civilization can only be based on one coherent current of thought, therefore it is more accurate to say that ancient Greek philosophy included proto-anti-Western as well as proto-Western currents (“Gods and beasts, that is what our world is made of.” – Adolf Hitler), with the latter (unfortunately) triumphant in history, thus eventually producing Western civilization as the (disastrous) consequence. Judaism, of course, assisted it in doing so by seamlessly overlaying it with its own ideas at key locations.

Classicists propose that Western thought began with Homer and the so-called “Homeric ideal” of fame as the highest pursuit in life. Technically, it was not Homer himself who advocated immortality through undying fame, but rather Achilles as depicted in Homeric literature (which also depicted other characters with different outlooks). Yet the very fact that Westerners have set the Achillean (rather than, say, the Diomedan or the Odyssean) outlook as definitively “Homeric” strongly suggests that the Achillean outlook most excites the Western psyche. Alexander of Macedon, a student of Aristotle, explicitly subscribed to this outlook after reading Homer, and further cemented it in the Western psyche via his own even greater fame in history. So Homer did play a big part in propagating this outlook due to the overwhelming impact of Achilles (and the comparatively negligible impact of Homer’s other characters) on the formative Western consciousness, whether or not this was ever intended by Homer himself. (Considering that other formative Western literary characters (Beowulf etc.) also extol fame as the proper pursuit of man, we can at least say that this outlook is by no means limited to Homeric literature.)

“In Western armies – and those elsewhere who have adopted Western military training and methods in imitation of the kuffar – soldiers are initially brutalized through a strict training regime. As individuals, they are conditioned through bullying and intimation by NCOs … This conditioning and this training produces, as is its aim, a particular type of individual. This individual is a person who is rather arrogant – who has a high opinion of themselves, and someone prepared and trained to be brutal when commanded. Essentially, such a person is a bully, or is prepared to be a bully when commanded to act and behave in that way or when they are told or they believe “the situation” demands it. The respect which such a person has is for, or is mostly derived from, “force” or from the threat of force – by someone of superior military rank, or from someone of superior physical strength, or from some weapon or piece of military hardware. There is, built-into all Western military armies and all their military training, an intense spirit of competition: of desiring to be “the best”, and thus of feeling superior “to others” … In contrast, the Mujahideen … are not fighting to win some prideful fame or some worldly glory – and neither are they fighting because they have been commanded to do so or because they enjoy it or because they are being paid to do it. Rather, they fight to please Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala and Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala alone: to do their duty, as honourable Muslims loyal to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala.” – David Myatt

“A people can prove to be well fitted for battle even although it is ill fitted for civilisation.” – Adolf Hitler

Enfolded within the Achillean-Alexandrian outlook are the main attributes of Western civilization, all of which can be traced back to characteristics of fame itself. If everyone were famous, fame would have no meaning, so achieving fame has value to oneself only when others fail to achieve it, making it a self-centered competitive goal, absolutely unworthy of being called an “ideal” in the sense of something we would wish for everyone to have. Western feelings of exclusivity, superiority and exceptionalism in self-assessment, together with a generally competition-based society, are all outgrowths from fascination with fame. Also, fame by definition makes spectators the validators of achievement. Besides hereby revealing its own baseness (“A man of talent hits a target others cannot hit, but the man of genius hits a target others cannot see.” – Arthur Schopenhauer), it further demands the perpetual existence of spectators to transmit it on and on without end, which implictly exploits them, so that setting fame as an admirable value necessarily provides an unspoken green light for exploitation. No additional exploitation is then off-limits so long as it can excuse itself as a way to better ensure the transmission of fame. (Judaism – via Judeo-Christianity - supplemented this notion in the Western mind with the analagous behaviour of the Israelites who excuse all their exploitation of Goys as ways to better ensure transmission of Israelite identity, which somehow makes all Israelite cruelty towards non-Israelites beyond reproach.) Moreover, if someone in the past is already famous, then securing fame for oneself requires making one’s own impact larger so as to displace the previous spot-holder (as seen in Alexander’s drive to outperform Achilles), or else it requires becoming famous in a different field of activity, which must eventually involve inauguration of previously nonexistent activities solely for the sake of offering new avenues in which fame is possible. And, after reaching hard limits to impact in every available activity at a given level of technology, the desire for fame leads inexorably to the urge to develop machinery to enable impact on larger scales than was previously possible, and/or in previously impracticable domains of activity. This must occur not only once, but over and over again in response to the hunger for fame which is never sated, as the Western mind never stops seeking “to do/go what/where no man has ever done/gone before”. From this arises the Western belief in endless progress and expansion, later to become admirable values in themselves, their psychological origin mostly forgotten, their folly visible only to those who look back in from outside.

“Suddenly, a rather smoothly running machine, in the service of education and improvement, turned into one that was merely out to break records.” – Alfred Rosenberg

 The civilizational Ponzi scheme

And still they haven’t learned: a problem is not solved by enlarging it.

Belief in progress leads inevitably to empiricism, as it suggests that our later impressions of any phenomenon should be more accurate than our earlier impressions of it, on the account that we have collected more data. Hence arises Aristotelian epistemology that studies numerous particular cases to draw generalizing conclusions. This line of thinking was already present in various narrower guises within pre-Socratic thought, such as Democritus, Heraclitus, and others, but Aristotle, an avid scholar of many pre-Socratic schools, generalized it by applying this line of thought to itself! (Judeo-Christianity supplemented Western empiricism with its theology of a world created by intelligent design in terms of fixed rules from the perspective of the designer.) The folly of empiricism - as obvious to Plato and to other pre-Socratic thinkers such as Parmenides and Pythagoras, as well as to many schools of thought outside of the West - only gradually began to dawn on the Western mind after it finally noticed that observation necessarily changes the system subject to observation, so that what is observed is never the system itself but the system with observer incursion already imposed. This succinctly captures the essence of Western civilization: its roughshod approach to interacting with the world not only always fails to see the world as it should have been, but butchers the forensics so badly in the process that even others with potentially more sensitive approaches can no longer see it as it should have been either (ironically so that no one can prove Western conclusions wrong!) – in short, it ruins everything for everyone.

“He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.” – Lord of the Rings

How to induce a tumour while checking for one (a.k.a. Western medical diagnosis)

Empiricism has also heavily influenced Western arts. For example, Western painting generally feels a need to fill the entire presentational surface with paint, and to simulate a 3D background panorama, which reveals an underlying intent to mimic physical vision rather than to simply portray the subject. (The same intent has manifested more recently in the Western-led abandonment of 2D in favour of 3D in both animated film and video games as soon as computer technology had made the latter practical.) Similarly, Western classical music involves a wide variety of instruments so that many tonal textures can be packed into the same beat and still be distinctly heard, along with scores which place exorbitant demands on physical/administrative coordination in order to perform, together with compositions frequently bearing a structural rather than a thematic title, all of which reveal digression towards acoustic objectives in preference to simple melodic narration. And so on. All arts so influenced became needlessly complex disciplines, mastery of which require formalized training for curbing (as opposed to encouraging) how we as young children spontaneously expressed ourselves via the same tools. A further side-effect is the regular need felt by the talent of each new chronological period to develop its own derivative style in order to make their works stand out from those of the preceding period, again motivated by the desire for fame. Just as Western art cannot help but fill the entire presentational space with its material, it cannot help but fill the entire stylistic space with its fashions. The result of all this is the production of works that lack emotional appeal and at best impress only as demonstrations of skill.

“The orchestra played too loud, the violins were blanketed by the brass, and the voices of the singers were stifled. Instead of melody one was treated to a series of intermittent shrieks, and the wretched soloists looked just like a lot of tadpoles; the conductor himself indulged in such an extravaganza of gesture that it was better to avoid looking at him at all. The only conductor whose gestures do not appear ridiculous is Furtwängler. His movements are inspired from the depths of his being. ” – Adolf Hitler

“The ideal solution would be to teach this people an elementary kind of mimicry. … Of music, they can have as much as they want. They can practise listening to the tap running.” – Adolf Hitler

Too cramped to touch the heart 

“I have the same feeling when I look at paintings by Corinth and Trübner—to mention only two of our German artists. These men started by painting pictures of great merit, and then, urged on by pride, they started to produce the most startling and extraordinary works. … The result is the frightful daubs with which they now inflict us.” – Adolf Hitler

“The real artist is ripened by his own personal experience of life and not by study in some art academy.” – Adolf Hitler

A non-Western painting. Note the spaces left uncovered by paint and hence the obviousness of the paper underneath the painting; this reminds viewers – as opposed to trying to make them temporarily forget - that the scene belongs to the spiritual world, which is not the material world. More technically, executional mistakes cannot (unlike in Western painting) just be covered over by another layer of paint.

The other (and perhaps even more calamitous) major Aristotelian idea is democracy. Democracy is the most unique characteristic of Western civilization, as nowhere else arose on any large scale such an utterly stupid form of government. Upon fine inspection, numerical support as validation for political authority derives from fame similarly being a matter of the sheer number of people who know one’s name (generally without regard for the quality of such people), so that those who value fame will tend also to emphasize quantity over quality of support when faced with the question of governance. And in practical election campaigning, candidates for democratic office are required to make themselves famous among the voting masses as part of the bid to receive as many votes as possible. Therefore democracy too (as well as capitalism, to the extent that capitalist success depends heavily on the popularity – and, by extension, fame – of one’s commodity among the spending masses) can be considered subconsciously Achillean in root.

“A State like Switzerland, which is nothing but a pimple on the face of Europe, cannot be allowed to continue.” – Adolf Hitler

Tyranny of the majority (a.k.a. Western government) – see also lynchings

Even prior to formal attempts at governments voted into power by an electorate, Western mentality differed from that of the rest of the world in its lack of belief that kings were living gods (Alexander was deified by Persians and Egyptians but never really by Greeks themselves), instead implicitly believing that kings owed their position to their popularity among the governed. (Judeo-Christianity supplements this with the notion of constitutionalism: that laws are not codification of a monarch’s will, but rather that the monarch too(!) is subordinate to laws which come from Yahweh (e.g. the Ten Commandments (an early example of a constitution). This meshed harmoniously with Aristotelian notions of “natural rights”, with a constitution supposed to be a definition of these “rights”.) Thus Western civilization has always been averse to true autocracy and especially to absolute monarchism, instead consistently exhibiting a marked tendency not only towards plebiscite but also towards separation of powers. It is misleading to claim that Solonian Athens was democratic while Lycurgan Sparta was non-democratic; Spartan ‘kings’ in practice had to share power not only with ephors, gerousia and apella, but even with each other, for not one but two(!) ‘kings’ (hence the quotation marks) were in place at any one time – all these areanti-autocratic and anti-monarchist measures which any self-respecting (ie. non-Western) monarch would find personally insulting to be subjected to, of which Hitler had personal experience: “This annual meeting had something of farce about it. I would offer my resignation. Two accountants, in the space of two hours, would succeed in checking a balance for a total movement of funds of six hundred and fifty millions. The President of the Assembly, elected ad hoc, would conduct the debates and proceed to the election of the new Committee. Voting was by a show of hands. “Who is for, who is against?” he would ask. His silly questions would arouse storms of mirth. I would then present myself to the Registry of the Court to have our documents registered. The anti-democratic parties, just like the democratic parties, had to go through these grotesque ceremonies.” The Magna Carta signed by John Plantagenet reflects the same Western inclination towards limiting the power of ‘kings’ (a.k.a. constitutional ‘monarchism’), a notion utterly incomprehensible to any authentically non-Western mind. This is to say nothing of the power-juggling between papal authority and royal authority throughout the Catholic period. This is yet another reason why National Socialism, whose attitude towards autocracy is much nearer that of non-Western antiquity, cannot be considered part of Western civilization. As Miguel Serrano describes: “The pharaohs of Egypt, the emperors of China and Japan, the Incas and the Fuehrer embodied Gods, were possessed by a God, becoming the projection of God, here on earth.”

It is worth noting that the Roman Empire could be considered divergent from Western civilization despite heavy early Western influence (Roman Republic era), as it alone among all states in European history prior to the Third Reich more closely resembled the non-Western world in its Imperial Cult encouraging its citizens to view its emperors as living gods, as Hitler notes: “”Caesar” personified the supreme authority. The Japanese also have their own expression to indicate the highest authority: they say “Tenno”, which means “Son of Heaven”.” Furthermore, it is as Rome became more autocratic that it placed greater emphasis on voluntary citizenship – awarded upon completion of service in the Roman Army - and less on ethnic background, refuting the PC/BS claim that citizenship is a democratic institution, and supporting our (and ZCs’) contention that democracy was designed with ethnostates in mind (though ZCs, unlike us, consider this a good thing). By no coincidence, Romans preferred Hector over Achilles as a literary hero: Hector not only disdained Achilles’ intoxication with fame, but championed Helen’s choice to be Trojan despite her Achaean ethnic background, in other words championed the principle of voluntary citizenship.

“The Roman Empire is a great political creation.” – Adolf Hitler

In this context, the shift to full-scale representative democracy (e.g. French Revolution) was operationally indeed a Freemasonic plot to serve the Zionist agenda, but developmentally just a further stretch of a unique tendency that already existed in the Western psyche, and which finds independent expression in jury trials, peer-review journalism, compulsory schooling and other institutions characteristic of Western-style modernity. The essence of this tendency is best described as Western plebian hubris: a refusal to recognize the existence of a few enlightened individuals incomparably superior to everyone else in the same society and who therefore deserve absolute authority as rulers, judges and other arbitrators. Alfred Rosenberg remarks: “It is a significant world historical fact that however religious the European of earlier times was, however much a religious longing is again occurring (admittedly still concealed for many, but nevertheless in many places deep), however many mystics and devout men the west produced—absolute religious genius or completely autocratic embodiments of the divine in one man, is something that Europe still does not possess.” This plebian hubris was by no means egalitarianism; on the contrary, it merely replaced the qualitative belief in the superiority of high-grade individuals worldwide over low-grade masses worldwide with an ethnocentric belief in the superiority of “white” over “non-white” regardless of grade, implying, for example, precedence of ”white” commoners over even “non-white” royalty, which provided the psychological priming for the uniquely Western phenomenon of colonialism.

“Believing, in their arrogance, that the ways of the “white man”, that the culture of “Europe”, that Western values, were and are superior to each and every other way of life, … these White Hordes have used every means at their disposal – from war, invasion, occupation, economic blackmail, propaganda, lies, deceit, flattery, and bribery to torture and imprisonment – to get their own way.” – David Myatt

To be fair, Western civilization only began to believe in “white” superiority from the Renaissance onwards. But long before it was Eurocentric, Western thought was already uniquely anthropocentric, drawing a fundamental line between ”man” and the rest of sentient existence. While other historical civilizations have also considered humans superior to non-humans, and human welfare more important than non-human welfare, they at least recognized non-humans as of fundamentally the same essence as humans (so that, for example, believers in reincarnation considered it possible for a human to reincarnate as a non-human, and vice versa). This is in contrast to the Western form of anthropocentrism, whose predominant belief - consistent from (pre-Christian) Hellenic through Judeo-Christian to secular humanist times - has been that humans alone have souls (or, in modern academic terminology, “conscious self-awareness” (“When a dog looks in front of him in a vague fashion and with clouded eyes, one knows that images of the past are chasing each other through his memory.” – Adolf Hitler)), and therefore that humans have no fundamental spiritual commonality with non-humans. (While considering human reincarnation possible, the idea of humans reincarnating as non-humans, and vice versa, or indeed the very issue of afterlife for non-humans in general, never occurred in Hellenic thought, but only in the anti-Hellenic movements of Orphism and Pythagoreanism, both of which were considered to be alien cults. (“Whoever heard me assert that the grey cat playing just now in the yard is the same one that did jumps and tricks there five hundred years ago will think whatever he likes of me, but it is a stranger form of madness to imagine that the present-day cat is fundamentally an entirely different one.” – Arthur Schopenhauer) In contrast, Judeo-Christianity supplemented Western anthropocentrism with its notion that Yahweh created man alone in his own image.) Even today, Western journalism frequently misuses the term “universalist” to refer to moral ideologies that are in fact no more than humanist, as if non-humans were not part of the universal ethical realm in the first place. As with every other Western characteristic, Western anthropocentrism is Achillean in root, as non-humans do not celebrate human glory and thus are irrelevant to human fame.

“I cannot help here recalling the answer of a French medical student, a member of the “Christian Federation of Students,” whom I had asked, twenty-five years ago, how he could reconcile his religious aspirations with his support of vivisection. “What conflict can there be between the two?” said he; “Christ did not die for guinea pigs and dogs.” I do not know what Christ would actually have said to that.[***] The fact remains that, from the point of view of historical Christianity, the boy was right. And his answer is enough to disgust one forever with all man-centered creeds.” – Savitri Devi

(*** Actually, Jesus did die for guinea pigs and dogs, as every Gnostic Christian knows. But guinea pigs and dogs do not know who Achilles is.)

“The vivisection (that I know of) practiced in the sixth century before the Christian era, under the inclination of the “scientific curiosity” of certain Greeks. … One could also point out the recrudescence of vivisection which coincides with the revival of the interest in experimental sciences in the sixteenth, and especially the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and since.” – Savitri Devi

“The rejection of the belief in the supernatural, and the advent of a scientific outlook upon the material world, has not in the least broadened the Westerners’ moral outlook … The moral creed of the Free Thinker today is a man-centered creed — no less than that of Descartes and Malebranche.” – Savitri Devi

“We shall only recall Norman Douglas’ vivid and all too accurate description of the massacre of lambs in Greece at the time of Easter; we shall recall the cruel way both those and other animals are killed in public slaughterhouses, in markets or at the back of butchers’ shops any where in the Near East or in Mediterranean countries; we shall recall the atrocities daily committed in France for the gratification of man’s gluttony: the stuffing of poultry “de Bresse,” or of those geese from the enormously overdeveloped livers of which “foie gras” is prepared — to say nothing of the horrors of vivisection in all the laboratories of Europe and America (save of the one or two States in which it has been made illegal). Even taking into consideration the few excellent laws passed in recent years in Germany and in England for the prevention of cruelty to animals, the West as a whole has absolutely nothing to boast of compared to India or to any country of Hindu or Buddhist tradition.” – Savitri Devi



In this context, Eurocentrism is merely a further contraction of anthropocentrism so as to exclude “non-white” humans in the same way that non-humans have already been traditionally excluded. (While there exist racists (ie. ethnotribalists) of all ethnic backgrounds, even the most virulent “non-white” racist ideologies do not claim that only people of their own ethnicity have an afterlife while everyone else does not. The belief that only ”whites” have an afterlife is, however, a common belief in Eurocentrist circles. Judeo-Christianity supplemented Eurocentrism via suggestions that the ”beasts of the field” in the Tanakh refers to “non-whites”.)  

When all these attributes are applied in combination, the horrors inflicted by Western civilization on the world since the Renaissance can hardly be considered a surprising result. While all civilizations have done much evil, Western civilization has done it on such an incomparably large scale as to mechanically overload the capacity of our ordinary visualization ability, and via such methods as to appear to put distance between the perpetrators from their collective deeds, that it actually makes sympathy for the victims and fury towards the oppressors more difficult as a mental state due to the sheer number of victims (who end up perceived as statistics rather than as individuals) and the incessant continuity of oppression against them (which ends up perceived as normality rather than as atrocity). This is Western civilization: a giant surround-sound stereo system that amplifies the volume of constantly blasting trumpets so as to easily drown out all the screams of numberless victims whose pain is what drives the motor that powers the stereo system.

Do you see even the slightest hint of empathy on that face?  Additional angles are offered in case you are not convinced.

“But let us consider, for the moment, the “achievements” of the West. You and others of your ilk seem mighty proud of the “achievements” of the West, of its progress – but these so-called achievements, and this so-called progress, derives from the greed of the West, from its lust for conquest, from its pursuit of materialism, from its exploitation, from its colonialism, and have resulted in the killing of hundreds of millions of people in the last hundred years alone. They have also brought about climate change, which will assuredly cause great suffering, great conflict, in the future, for both human beings and the other life on this planet. … Such are the achievements of the West, that in Britain nearly 100,000 women per year seek treatment in the British city of London alone for violent injuries received in their own homes, and, on average, in Britain, two women per week are killed by a male partner or former partner … and every minute of every day the British Police are called by a woman who has been subject to violent domestic abuse. … Such are the achievements of the West … that, every year, nearly twenty million people use an illicit drug and nearly thirty million people receive treatment or counselling for mental health problems. Such are the achievements of the West that Britain has an estimated two million alcoholics. … Are these achievements worth the deaths and suffering that the West has caused for so many centuries, in the lands of the West, in what were the new colonies of the West, and in the rest of the world?” – David Myatt

“Thousands of well-meaning fools who talk about “moral progress” in our times have no idea whatsoever of what goes on (behind the screens) in scientific institutes, in the fur trade and in circuses. Thousands of equally well-meaning and equally foolish people, who take for granted whatever they are given to read and enquire no further; have also no idea of the horrors perpetrated by their compatriots in other people’s countries as colonists or as members of occupying armies … Never has there been, in the world, so much cruelty, allied to such a general attempt to hide it, to deny it, to forget it and, if possible, make others forget it.” – Savitri Devi

So when we listen to the present-day far-right complaining about non-Western political aggression against the West, not only must we remember how miniscule such aggression is when compared side by side against Western aggression over the last 500 years, but also and more importantly we must remember that rightists are not appalled by aggression in itself (or else they would be more appalled by Western aggression) so much as they are incredulous that some non-Westerners do not accept their position as inferiors in the psychopolitical hierarchy established by the West, in other words that these non-Westerners are, to use an expression that only Western civilization could ever have invented, “getting uppity”****. Whatever far-right propaganda claims to say, all it ever really means is that the non-Western world needs to be stopped from getting uppity. This is the unvarnished truth; everything else is sugarcoating. And this tells us all we need to know about what Western civilization has been, is, and will continue to be until the day it is finally destroyed.

(**** Jews have a similar expression - ”having chutzpah” - to refer to Palestinians who fight back against the IDF. This is why we consider Jews to be part of Western civilization.)

The Demographics of Western Civilization

“No nation deserves to live which tolerates any of the atrocities we have mentioned up till now, not to speak of the still more appalling ones practiced in the name of scientific research.” – Savitri Devi

A distinguishing feature of leftism is a strong vision of poetic justice. The wish to see victims of oppression redressed and their oppressors finally held to account for their unfair gains is among the most intense of leftist emotions. One development that many sincere leftists thus long to see realized is the demographics of each former Western colonial power coming to resemble the demographics of its historical colonial empire as a whole at the height of its power, in other words the people from the former colonies at last receiving compensation for their past labour for the benefit of the colonial base, by recovering their fair share of the colonial base. Alfred Rosenberg uses the Far East as an example: “To forbid immigration to North America and Australia to the Yellow races, but at the same time to wish to colonise or rule the far east, is a Capitalist insanity … It is possible that the misused technology of the Whites still triumphs today. It is possible that the Yellow man is pushed back, throttled. But then he will necessarily turn his face in other directions … Bismarck’s words, The Yellow men will one day water their camels in the Rhine, may find fulfilment.” The same reasoning applies to all other regions formerly colonzied by the Western powers.

The problem is that the False Left has itself internalized the rightist narrative to the extent that it feels a need to reassure others that immigrants can and will maintain Western civilization. Thus it implicitly accepts that Western civilization should be preserved, indeed it implicitly accepts the superiority of Western civilization; the only reason why it promotes cultural relativism is to provide itself with an excuse for not declaring this explicitly (unlike rightists who make such an explicit declaration). In line with this, the False Left supplies endless circumstantial excuses (poverty, malnutrition, bad education, unstable homes, institutional discrimination, etc.) for underperformance by ethnic minorities as measured by Western standards whenever such underperformance is statistically visible, or – worse - tries to cover up such underperformance from public knowledge. This does not help the leftist cause, but only makes it appear weak and in retreat.

What the leftist cause needs, and which only the True Left offers, is direct attack on Western civilization. Unlike the insincerely cultural relativist False Left, we are sincere cultural absolutists who do not consider Western civilization superior. For we represent different standards of cultural absolutism, rooted in the wish to simplify rather than complexify. By such standards, Western civilization is decidedly the worst. And underperformance as measured by Western standards could well be a sign of inner health that longs for a simpler lifestyle (“How many men of our Party were regarded in their families as black sheep!” – Adolf Hitler), just as overperformance by these standards (such as Jews best display) is a sign of inner degeneracy that comfortably thrives in complexity. False Leftists may pretend to dislike Western civilization, but why then do False Leftists not complain about democracy, human “rights” and secularism? False Leftists may pretend to dislike Western civilization, but how many False Leftists would be prepared to forgo Western medicine? (“It’s by no means a result of chance that amongst the ancient Egyptians no distinction was drawn between medicine and religion.” – Adolf Hitler) False Leftists may pretend to dislike Western civilization, but why are so many False Leftists fans exclusively of Western classical music? (“Jewry had raised Brahms to the pinnacle. He was lionised in the salons and was a pianist of theatrical gestures.” – Adolf Hitler) False Leftists may pretend to dislike Western civilization, but why do so many False Leftists support the uniquely Western idea of settlement of outer space? True Leftists, in contrast, are inspired by entirely different ideas.

“For quite a few years, I worked on a farm with a man who had worked there for nearly fifty years – all his working life. From him, I learnt many things, especially about the way and manner of hard, outdoor, work. I learnt how to toil for hours on end – to not rush, to settle into a natural slowish working rhythm suited to the job. Then, as now, even the way I walked became unhurried. Gone was the quick walk of a rushing, harassed, man. Many times the two of us would walk – our longhandled hoes slung over our shoulders – along the road from one field to another. We must have seemed to the drivers of the many cars that passed, in our worn working old-fashioned clothes, with our slow amble, our fifty year old hoes, to belong to another age.” – David Myatt

“These realms are the promise of our future: the futures that can be possible if we use our will to change ourselves in a noble, honourable way while pursuing a numinous vision.” – David Myatt

We also see rightists invert reality in claiming that Western countries have become multicultural to a greater extent than non-Western countries. Actually, non-Western countries have adopted more Western content than vice versa by a margin so vast that it has become taken for granted. Islamophobes complain about Eid being recognized as an official holiday in a few Western countries, but never talk about the much more prevalent recognition of Christmas as an official holiday in many non-Western countries. While Western schools increasingly offer study of non-Western languages, non-Western schools have been offering study of Western languages (and associated literatures) for much longer and with much greater emphasis. Similarly, one could easily note the far greater popularity of learning Western musical instruments (and associated compositions) in non-Western countries compared to the reverse. Indeed, present-day national school curricula as a whole in non-Western countries are modelled after Western curricula, not the other way round. And there may be scattered practitioners of non-Western medicine in Western countries, but entire national healthcare systems in non-Western countries practice Western medicine, while experts in non-Western medicine are not invited to international medical conferences. (Indeed, mainstream judgement regarding the therapeutic effectiveness of various systems of non-Western medicine is invariably made based upon Western medical definitions of effectiveness!) This is to say nothing of the normality of Western architecture in non-Western countries as compared to non-Western architecture in Western countries. The list goes on, whether we look at finance, industry, law, sports or almost every other field. Above all, it is non-Western countries which have one after another fallen to democracy, with only a few brave holdouts now precariously remaining worldwide. The so-called multiculturalism in Western countries is mere patronizing tokenism compared to the heavyweight multiculturalism of Westernization in (once) non-Western countries.

And this brings us to the next point. While (as the far-right is so fond of constantly telling us) Western civilization was mostly created by people of pre-modern (post-Renaissance) European ancestry, it does not follow that a future without people of such ancestry is enough to ensure a future without Western civilization, due precisely to Westernization around the world. A future without Western civilization can only arise from a future without pro-Western people, regardless of ethnic background. Pro-Western demographics of pre-modern non-European ancestry are just as dangerous to us, and deserve just as much disdain from us, as pro-Western demographics of pre-modern European ancestry. On the other hand, anti-Western demographics of pre-modern European ancestry are just as valuable to us, and deserve just as much veneration from us, as anti-Western demographics of pre-modern non-European ancestry. The contributions of those throughout history who stood against Western civilization, even though they be of the same ethnic background as the founders of Western civilization, not only will not be marginalized by us when we come to write history, but on the contrary will be exalted more than ever before for their heroism that was all the more heroic because they were willing to ignore traditional social pressure in order to follow their conscience.  

“Both Otto Ernst Remer and Leon Degrelle – both warriors who fought on battlefields – remained honourably loyal to the man to whom they had sworn an oath, on their honour, and both, through their actions both during and particularly after The First Zionist War, were exemplary examples of honourable men, men of natural dignity and of manners, in complete contrast to the uncouth, profane, barbarians of the White Hordes of Homo Hubris.” – David Myatt

Pro-Western demographic unit (a.k.a. rightist)

Anti-Western demographic unit (a.k.a. leftist)

Therefore, while demographic flow from former colonies into their respective colonial bases may be an economic justice, it is no guarantee of ending Western civilization. To end Western civilization requires a shift in favour of anti-Western demographics, and it is unclear whether people with ancestry from former colonies are generally more anti-Western. It is a common observation that such groups on average have been consistently more inclined to support left-leaning political groups, but the predominance of the False Left within leftism has made it such that not all who support left-leaning groups do so for the correct ideological reasons. Only with the False Left replaced by the True Left will a clearer picture emerge. We see it already beginning to happen on small scales with anti-Zionism (thanks in no small part to our activism over the years in conjunction with BDS and other groups) now firmly associated with leftism, and rightists do not like what they see.

A BS infectee accidentally admits that our anti-Zionist strategy is the correct one.

Still, it will not be nearly so straightforward as we proceed to larger scales and wider issues. There remains among people with low-self-esteem from many former colonies a strong residual West-worship (and, to further complicate matters, one that they often refuse to admit and hence enable sincere discussion about) that is bound to create problems later. In order to prepare ourselves to face these problems, our anti-Western ideological foundations must be as firm as possible. It is not enough just to resent Western civilization for its long litany of injustice towards its historical victims; it is necessary that we see the inferiority of the ideas that led to such injustice, as well as the inferiority of what all this injustice has gone into building. Many will be neither intuitively nor intellectually capable of this, and will predictably abandon our cause sooner or later even though they might have initially liked the sound of it. But those few who are so capable are already assured to be the builders of the next civilization that will one day replace Western civilization, for each one of us carries within our own personality more worth than the sum of everything that Western civilization has ever produced.

“We’ll produce from it all a new type of man, a race of rulers, a breed of viceroys. Of course, there’ll be no question of using people like that in the West!” – Adolf Hitler

Doesn’t the WCAR logo remind you of another logo from somewhere?