DON’T miss Tiberge’s post on Dominique Venner’s suicide at Notre Dame. Venner is being portrayed as a traditionalist Catholic by some in the press, but he was in fact deeply hostile to Christianity. Tiberge quotes the French writer Yves Daoudal, who knew Venner:

I found him very unlikeable. And it isn’t because he was “pagan”, since I know pagans whom I like. Behind his paganism, there was, in truth, as one can see in his final message at his blog (before his suicide letter), but one can see it also in his manner of relating history, a total atheism, hence an absolute, hateful rejection of all that is religious. There was in him something satanic. That is how I perceived it. And his death confirms it.

 And she quotes an anonymous reader of Daoudal’s piece:

– (…) I completely approve of your article on the death of Dominique Venner. I knew the man well when I was a student. It was in my house that he hid for several weeks when the police were after him as an active sympathizer of the OAS (he was not really a member I’m sure, despite what they say). He was really pagan, but it was a modern paganism particularly hateful of Christ, despite his austere morals. Secretly he was a great admirer of Hitler, whom he never reproached except that he failed. He profoundly, viscerally, despised Christianity and regarded Christians as weaklings. He detested the catholic nature of Christianity, preferring the exalted notion of national tribalism. What he liked in chivalry, was absolutely not the chivalric side, Christianized, but the dark side, brutal, almost perverse. (…) Like you, I believe that his deed was an ultimate provocation, a final act of defiance at this Christ whom he doubly hated as a Jew and as protector of the weak. He often said to me, in the years between 1959 and 1962 (…) that it would be necessary one day to resume Hitler’s work and to succeed in annihilating Jews and Christianity. This man’s soul was in the hands of the devil, even though he always showed a friendly manner. I hesitate to say “may his soul rest in peace”!

Note: A reminder that this is an anonymous comment. It may be true, false, partially true, biased or based on emotional factors. We never know for sure who sends comments. These are terrible accusations.

— Comments —

Adam writes:

I have to admit, when I first heard about the shocking suicide in the Notre-Dame Cathedral, my first guess was that this was a protest against sexual abuse by priests in the Catholic Church. My guess was that this was a person who as a child was abused by a priest, and that his desperate final act was meant to be a vengeful indictment against the Church.

While that scenario would still have been sad and shocking, I find the truth more disturbing. This man seemed to be consumed by a deep hatred of the Church and a love and longing for his pre-Christian, pagan ancestral roots. His nihilistic rejection of his self, of his very life and being, cannot be regarded as anything positive or as an effective protest against the forces of liberalism and multiculturalism.

I am reminded of something Lawrence Auster wrote: “Since liberalism is the principle of non-existence, and specifically the principle of Western suicide, it is in surrender to the anti-liberal Other, and to the Nothingness that ensues, that liberalism most truly fulfills itself.” If this is true, then it is not possible to protest against liberalism through suicide. Since liberalism is in favor of Western non-existence, for a Western man to choose non-existence rather than submit to the liberal order really goes along with the liberals’ plans for traditionalists, whom they wish would all disappear. In order to protest against liberalism, surely a person has to first exist — to be alive. The best protest against liberalism is the living person who lives his life with joy, love for his family, and belief in a traditional and moral order to human life despite the myriad ways that liberals attempt to make such a life impossible.

Robert Marchenoir writes:

I asked Yves Daoudal about the trustworthiness of the comment he published, which came from a person who, purporting to have met Dominique Venner between 1959 and 1962 , said Venner used to voice his admiration of Hitler at that time. Here is his answer :

“This text has been sent to me directly. I know the author’s name. I do not know him personally, but his name was known to me beforehand. I have every reason to think he tells the truth. I published his comment because everything he says confirms what I knew of Dominique Venner. I cannot vouch that his statement is genuine, but I would say it is highly likely. Nothing leads me to think otherwise.”

As an aside, your blog is an inspiration to me.

Laura writes:

Thank you.

Please follow and like us: