Hollow-headed Britons

Recently I complained that the 1998 movie adaptation of Les Misérables committed an insult by using a nigger for the role of revolutionist Enjolras, who in Hugo’s novel is a good-looking white. Today I watched Richard II, a 2012 British television film based on William Shakespeare’s play of the same name, commissioned by BBC under the series title The Hollow Crown.

HollowCrowns-BaronRos

Was the 6th Baron de Ros a mulatto? Following the grotesque steps taken in the said adaptation of Les Misérables, Rupert Goold, the director of Richard II, chose Peter de Jersey as William de Ros: the sixth Baron de Ros (1370-1414), the brown sat flanked by two white actors in the photo.

To boot, was the Bishop of Carlisle a nigger? Adding insult to injury and not content with that, the director chose Lucian Msamati, a Zimbabwean actor, as the Bishop of Carlisle (bishop from 1397 to 1400): an even blacker and purer Negro!

On a lesser note, several other actors in this first episode of Hollow Crown look not like Anglo-Saxon Aryans but like Mediterraneans, sand-niggers and some even resemble Semites. For example, the actor Ferdinand Kingsley who played “Bushy” in Richard II doesn’t look like a credible character of 14th century England, and the actor David Suchet, who interpreted the Duke of York, is indeed of Jewish descent.

hollow_crown_Henry-4I haven’t watched the last episode of Hollow Crown, but regarding the episode of the series about the reign of Henry IV, why these looks of King Henry that evoke the appearance of a Jew? Could it be because the producer, Sam Mendes, is the son of an English Jewess? Whatever the cause, Britons must be empty-headed to watch such rubbish in the name of Shakespeare!

Tomorrow I’ll see the last episode, this one about Henry V. If further treason is spotted I shall add a brief note. How I remember now my tender years when I watched movies about historical England in the elegant and large theaters of Mexico City with pure Anglo-Saxon actors…
 

P.S. of November 5th

Yes: they managed to use another fucking nigger to play the role of the Duke of York (1373-1415).

Non-nazis are evil

“Men are the devils of the earth, and the animals are its tormented souls.”

—Arthur Schopenhauer

 
Why evil? Because they allowed the more malevolent races to exist and breed and even conquer large parts of the world. Hadn’t most whites become accomplices of the greatest crime of all history, that we might start calling The Hellstorm, by now the Third Reich would have become a massive Empire from the Atlantic to the Urals, which culture and philosophy included the most elemental animal rights.

The Nazis for example prohibited vivisection and said that those who “still think they can continue to treat animals as inanimate property” would be sent to concentration camps. Hadn’t the evil Anglo-Saxons intervened, after the Soviet Union China might have been conquered by the Germans as well: presently the most notorious nation where our brother animals are systematically, and officially, tortured on industrial scales. The below article is taken from PETA, and must be read in the context of my previous post “Animal hell & White sin.”

PETA_logo_2013

When undercover investigators made their way onto Chinese fur farms, they found that many animals are still alive and struggling desperately when workers flip them onto their backs or hang them up by their legs or tails to skin them. When workers on these farms begin to cut the skin and fur from an animal’s leg, the free limbs kick and writhe. Workers stomp on the necks and heads of animals who struggle too hard to allow a clean cut.

When the fur is finally peeled off over the animals’ heads, their naked, bloody bodies are thrown onto a pile of those who have gone before them. Some are still alive, breathing in ragged gasps and blinking slowly. Some of the animals’ hearts are still beating five to ten minutes after they are skinned. One investigator recorded a skinned raccoon dog on the heap of carcasses who had enough strength to lift his bloodied head and stare into the camera.

Before they are skinned alive, animals are pulled from their cages and thrown to the ground; workers bludgeon them with metal rods or slam them on hard surfaces, causing broken bones and convulsions but not always immediate death. Animals watch helplessly as workers make their way down the row.

Undercover investigators from Swiss Animal Protection / EAST International toured fur farms in China’s Hebei Province, and it quickly became clear why outsiders are banned from visiting. There are no penalties for abusing animals on fur farms in China—farmers can house and slaughter animals however they see fit. The investigators found horrors beyond their worst imaginings and concluded, “Conditions on Chinese fur farms make a mockery of the most elementary animal welfare standards. In their lives and their unspeakable deaths, these animals have been denied even the simplest acts of kindness.”

On these farms, foxes, minks, rabbits, and other animals pace and shiver in outdoor wire cages, exposed to driving rain, freezing nights, and, at other times, scorching sun. Mother animals, who are driven crazy from rough handling and intense confinement and have nowhere to hide while giving birth, often kill their babies after delivering litters.

The globalization of the fur trade has made it impossible to know where fur products come from. China supplies more than half of the finished fur garments imported for sale in the United States. Even if a fur garment’s label says it was made in a European country, the animals were likely raised and slaughtered elsewhere—possibly on an unregulated Chinese fur farm.

The only way to prevent such unimaginable cruelty is never to wear any fur.

Alas, this last line of the article only reflects PETA’s cowardice. As I have stated elsewhere, the only way to prevent such cruelty is simply to exterminate the human Neanderthals who perpetrate these crimes. Kill ’em all. (If you have not already discovered them, it’s high time to read my “Dies Irae” and “A postscript to Dies Irae”.)

Anglos & Hitler

This causal comment was such a gem
and it portrays so well the pain I feel
that I’ll leave it linked at the top:


Hitler and frau

The truth surrounding Hitler and his catastrophic betrayal by the Anglos is what one finds at the deepest level of the rabbit hole. Unfortunately many on the right are unwilling to venture that deep.

Perhaps this is because the truth is so utterly depressing. Hitler overcame such incredible odds and came so close to freeing the Aryan soul from its Jewish chains, only to be struck down one step from the finish line. I can think of no other feat in western history that rivals it. His success was so critically important, his defeat was our greatest tragedy.

Reflecting upon his legacy inspires me and also fills me with despair. Seeing the growing number of people who are beginning to understand and support him give me hope.

Hyperborean


Isildur’s mess

“What I failed to realize for many years was the depth of the evil and the resistance to individual redemption. Obviously, if people are evil when evil people rule, and good only when good people rule, they are not really good.” –Andrew Hamilton


This morning I reread my “Dies Irae,” the sharpest piece I have written about how I feel about my own species.

In a postscript to that piece I said that Andrew Hamilton’s November article, “Flawed Racism,” was potentially the most worldview-shattering article that has been written to understand the West’s darkest hour “without the knowledge of its readership including the author himself.” By the end of my postscript I added that Hamilton’s words (see epigraph), which include the overwhelming majority of whites, demonstrate that humans “are not really good.”

That Hamilton still doesn’t get the implications of his discovery is manifest in his most recent article, which reminded me what William Pierce always said about the “controlled media” and also Kevin MacDonald’s chapter in The Culture of Critique demonstrating that Jews own it. In today’s article Hamilton writes:

It makes no sense to scratch one’s head, perplexed, wondering, “Why don’t whites wake up?” That’s not the way the world works. Everything boils down to this one-sided power distribution.

Hamilton is afraid of taking a step further and ask the question that Tom Sunic has been asking for some time: “One can naturally concur that Americans are influenced by Jews, but then the question arises as to how did it happen?”

But Hamilton already answered that question in his November essay, which is worth rephrasing here: If whites are evil when evil people rule—Americans watching several hours per day a TV controlled by the subversive tribe—, and good only when good people rule—young Germans in the 1930s reading Hitler’s Youth booklets—, whites are not really good.

That’s the crux of the whole issue in this darkest hour of us.

The fact is that the Jews in America who control the media did not drop from the Moon. Deracinated Anglo-Saxons empowered them. And they did it because, like the rest of whites, they are not good people.

That’s the whole point in a recent post on bicausalism. I used an image of Isildur to show, in a single visual stroke, that if this darkest of all ages is menacing us it’s because our own sin, a pure Aryan sin. The sin that marked a whole Era: allowing the subversive tribe to infect our minds through their holy book offering a new testament as a bait.

Isildur_tries_to_use_One_Ring
Isildur, corrupted by the Ring’s power, refuses to destroy it. Later Isildur is killed by Orcs as a result of his betrayal.

I know that the way I have expanded Hamilton’s insightful phrase goes far beyond everything and anything that is acceptable for nationalists and non-nationalists alike: that most people are not good. (Hence my wild, exterminationist fantasies.) But if you really want ultimate answers to ultimate questions, there is no way to avoid philosophizing along unimaginably tough lines.

MacDonald reviews Gottfried

macdonald[Paul] Gottfried rejects much of the received wisdom on issues related to the German past. In “Germany’s War Wounds” he notes the hypocrisy of framing World War II as a moral crusade while ignoring the crimes against the German people. While England suffered around 21,000 civilian deaths from German bombing, over 600,000 German civilians died as their cities were bombed, with much of the carnage occurring after the war was effectively won and the cities were defenseless. Yet we have intellectuals like Christopher Hitchens stating that Germans who complain show “a combination of arrogance and self-pity tinged with anti-Semitism.” […]

Gottfried notes that the influence on England to completely break away from its past and become a multicultural society “patterned itself on American reforms and American visions.”

I strongly suspect that this is true throughout the West. Once America became militarily and culturally dominant in the post-World War II era and given the international and hierarchical nature of elite culture (particularly apparent in the academic world), it was only a question of time before other Western countries followed in its footsteps. One can only imagine the pressure that would be exerted on, say, Australia if it had retained the White Australia policy into the present. […]

In “The Managerial President,” Gottfried notes that “All the major conflicts into which our leaders thrust us from the Civil War on, with the possible exception of Viet Nam, are seen as morally desirable actions. … [These historians] have never been as anti-Communist as they are anti-fascist and Teutonophobic. … The U.S. is a land of morally driven, energetic presidents who have made us into the envy and dread of the world.” […]

The WASPs barely fought back, instead leaving the stage laden with guilt and groping for a sense of moral righteousness—traits that were deeply embedded in their Puritan ancestors and cynically exploited by their Jewish conquerors. As a result, we now have a Jewish-dominated elite that is far more corrupt and far less representative of the country than the previous elite, but whose power and motives (the latter rooted in a boundless hostility although often phrased as a love for humanity) are completely outside of the boundaries of acceptable public discussion.

No people can long survive when they become dominated by an elite that is hostile to them and their culture.

__________________

Read it all: here.

On Christianity


 
During the turbulent and eventful fifth century the Germans largely completed their conquest of the West. In the early years of that century German tribesmen, who had been raiding the coast of Roman Britain for many years, began a permanent invasion of the southeastern portion of the island, a development which was eventually to lead to a Germanic Britain.

In 476 Odoacer, an Ostrogothic chieftain who had become a general of Rome’s armies, deposed the last Roman emperor and ruled in his own name as king of Italy. Meanwhile the Visigoths were expanding their holdings in Gaul and completing their conquest of Spain, except for the northwestern region already held by their Suebian cousins and an enclave in the Pyrenees occupied by a remnant of the aboriginal Mediterranean inhabitants of the peninsula, the Basques.

And throughout the latter part of the century the Franks, the Alemanni, and the Burgundians were consolidating their own holds on the former Roman province of Gaul, establishing new kingdoms and laying the basis for the new European civilization of the Middle Ages. Everywhere in the West the old, decaying civilization centered on the Mediterranean gave way to the vigorous White barbarians from the North.

Oriental Infection. But the Germans did not make their conquest of the Roman world without becoming infected by some of the diseases which flourished so unwholesomely in Rome during her last days. Foremost among these was an infection which the Romans themselves had caught during the first century, a consequence of their own conquest of the Levant. It had begun as an offshoot of Judaism, had established itself in Jerusalem and a few other spots in the eastern Mediterranean area, and had traveled to Rome with Jewish merchants and speculators, who had long found that city an attractive center of operations.

It eventually became known to the world as Christianity, but for more than two centuries it festered in the sewers and catacombs of Rome, along with dozens of other alien religious sects from the Levant; its first adherents were Rome’s slaves, a cosmopolitan lot from all the lands conquered by the Romans. It was a religion designed to appeal to slaves: blessed are the poor, the meek, the wretched, the despised, it told them, for you shall inherit the earth from the strong, the brave, the proud, and the mighty; there will be pie in the sky for all believers, and the rest will suffer eternal torment. It appealed directly to a sense of envy and resentment of the weak against the strong.

Edict of Milan. By the end of the third century Christianity had become the most popular as well as the most militant of the Oriental sects flourishing among the largely non-Roman inhabitants of the decaying Roman Empire. Even as late as the first years of the fourth century, under Emperor Diocletian, the Roman government was still making efforts to keep the Christians under control, but in 313 a new emperor, Constantine, decided that, if you can’t lick ’em, join ’em, and he issued an imperial edict legitimizing Christianity.

Although one of Constantine’s successors, Julian, attempted to reverse the continuing Christianization of the Roman Empire a few years later, it was already too late: the Goths, who made up the bulk of Rome’s armies by this time, had caught the infection from one of their own slaves, a Christian captive whom they called Wulfila. Wulfila was a tireless and effective missionary, and the Goths were an uprooted and unsettled people, among whom the new religion took hold easily. Wulfila’s translation of the Bible into Gothic greatly speeded up the process.

Conversion of the Franks. Before the end of the fourth century Christianity had also spread to the Vandals, Burgundians, Lombards, Gepids, and several other German tribes. A little over a century later the powerful nation of the Franks was converted. By the beginning of the second quarter of the sixth century, the only non-Christian Whites left were the Bavarians, Thuringians, Saxons, Frisians, Danes, Swedes, and Norse among the Germans—and virtually all the Balts and Slavs.

One can only understand the rapid spread of Christianity during the fourth and fifth centuries by realizing that, for all practical purposes, it had no opposition. That is, there was no other organized, militant, proselytizing church competing effectively with the Christian church.

Athanaric the Goth. The Christians had many individual opponents, of course: among the Romans several of the more responsible and civic-minded emperors, such as Diocletian, as well as what was left of the tradition-minded aristocracy; and among the Germans many farsighted leaders who resisted the imposition of an alien creed on their people and the abandonment of their ancient traditions. Athanaric, the great Gothic chieftain who led his people across the Danube in 376 to save them from the invading Huns, was notable in this regard.

Athanaric and the other traditionalists failed to halt the spread of Christianity, because they were only individuals. Although there were pagan priests, the traditional German religion never really had a church associated with it. It consisted in a body of beliefs, tales, and practices passed from generation to generation, but it had no centralized organization like Christianity.

Folk-religion. German religion was a folk-religion, which grew organically out of the people and out of the land they occupied. The boundary between a tribe’s most ancient historical legends and its religious myths, between its long-dead heroes and chieftains and its gods, was blurred at best. Because German religion belonged to the people and the land, it was not a proselytizing religion; the German attitude was that other peoples and races likewise had their own folk-religions, and it would be unnatural to impose one race’s religion on another race.

And because German religion was rooted in the land as well as in the people, it lost some of its viability when the people were uprooted from their land. It is no coincidence that the conversions of the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians, Lombards, Franks, and many other German tribes took place during the Voelkerwanderung, a period of strife, disorientation, and misery for many of those involved: a period when whole nations lost not only their ancient homelands but also their very identities.

Fire and Sword. After the Voelkerwanderung ended in the sixth century, the Christianization of the remaining pagan peoples of Europe proceeded much more slowly—and generally by fire and sword rather than by peaceful missionary effort. Whereas the Franks had become Christians more or less painlessly when their king Clovis (Chlodweg) converted for political reasons at the end of the fifth century, it was another 300 years before the Frankish king Charlemagne (Karl the Great) was able to bring about the conversion of his Saxon neighbors, and he accomplished that only by butchering half of them in a series of genocidal wars.

Early Christianity, in contrast to German religion, was as utterly intolerant as the Judaism from which it sprang. Even Roman religion, which, as an official state religion, equated religious observance with patriotism, tolerated the existence of other sects, so long as they did not threaten the state. But the early Christians were inspired by a fanatical hatred of all opposing creeds.

Also in contrast to German and Roman religion, Christianity, despite its specifically Jewish roots, claimed to be a universal (i.e., “catholic”) creed, equally applicable to Germans, Romans, Jews, Huns, and Negroes.

The Christians took the Jewish tribal god Yahweh, or Jehovah, and universalized him. Originally he seems to have been a deity associated with one of the dormant volcanoes of the Arabian peninsula, a god so distinctly Semitic that he had a binding business contract (“covenant”) with his followers: if the Jews would remain faithful and obedient to him, he would deliver all the wealth of the non-Jewish peoples of the world into their hands. Observant Jews even today remind themselves of this by fastening mezuzoth to the door frames of their homes, wherein the verses from their Torah spelling out the Jews’ side of their larcenous deal with Yahweh are inscribed (Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21; Yahweh’s reciprocal obligations are in the verses immediately following).

Nevertheless, the early Christian church, armed with an effective organization and a proselytizing fervor, and armored with a supreme contempt for everything non-Christian, was able to supplant Jupiter and Wotan alike with Yahweh.

The Germans, however, recreated the Semitic Yahweh in the image of their own Wotan, even as they accepted the new faith. The entire Christian ritual and doctrine, in fact, were to a large extent “Aryanized” by the Germans to suit their own inner nature and lifestyle. They played down the slave-religion aspects of Christianity (“the meek shall inherit the earth”) and emphasized the aspects which appealed to them (“I come bearing not peace, but a sword”). The incoherence and the multitude of internal inconsistencies of the doctrine made this sort of eclecticism easy.

Yule, Easter, Harvest Festival. In general, the Germans accepted without difficulty the Christian rituals—especially those which, like Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving were deliberately redesigned to correspond to pagan rituals and festivals of long standing—and the myths (parthenogenesis, turning water into wine, curing the blind, resurrection from the dead, etc.), and they ignored the ethics (turn the other cheek, all men are brothers, etc.).

A Frank of the seventh or eighth century would tremble in superstitious awe before some fragment of bone or vial of dried blood which the Church had declared a sacred relic with miracle-working powers—but if you smote him on the cheek you would have a fight on your hands, not another cheek turned.

As for the brotherhood of man and equality in the eyes of the Lord, the Germans had no time for such nonsense; when confronted with non-Whites, they instinctively reached for the nearest lethal weapon. They made mincemeat out of the Avars, who were cousins to the Huns, in the seventh century, and the Christianized Franks or Goths of that era would know exactly what to do with a few hundred thousand rioting American Blacks; they would, in fact, positively relish the opportunity to do what needed doing.

It could not have been expected to be otherwise. In the first place, a totally alien religion cannot be imposed on a spiritually healthy people—and the Germans were still essentially healthy, despite the dislocations caused by the Voelkerwanderung. Christianity had to be modified to suit their nature—at least, temporarily. In the second place, the average German did not have to come to grips with the alien moral imperatives of the Sermon on the Mount. All he had to do was learn when to genuflect; wrestling with Holy Writ was exclusively the problem of the clergy.

It was not until the Reformation, in the sixteenth century, that the laity began studying the Bible and thinking seriously about its contents. Even then, however, the tendency was to interpret alien teachings in a way that left them more or less compatible with natural tendencies.

Slave Morality. But Christian ethics—the slave morality preached in the Roman catacombs—was like a time bomb ticking away in Europe—a Trojan horse brought inside the fortress, waiting for its season. That season came, and the damage was done. Today Christianity is one of the most active forces working from within to destroy the White race.

From the Christian churches came the notion of “the White man’s burden,” along with the missionaries who saw in every African cannibal or Chinese coolie a soul to be saved, of equal value in the eyes of Jehovah to any White soul. It is entirely a Christian impulse—at least, on the part of the average American voter, if not the government—which sends American food and medical supplies to keep alive swarming millions of Asiatics, Africans, and Latins every time they have a famine, so that they can continue to outbreed Whites.

The otherworldly emphasis on individual salvation, on an individual relationship between Creator and creature which relegates the relationship between individual and race, tribe, and community to insignificance; the inversion of natural values inherent in the exalting of the botched, the unclean, and the poor in spirit in the Sermon on the Mount—the injunction to “resist not evil”—all are prescriptions for racial suicide. Indeed, had a fiendishly clever enemy set out to concoct a set of doctrines intended to lead the White race to its destruction, he could hardly have done better.

The “White guilt” syndrome exploited so assiduously by America’s non-White minorities is a product of Christian teachings, as is the perverse reverence for “God’s chosen people” which has paralyzed so many Christians’ wills to resist Jewish depredations.

Moses Replaces Hermann. Not the least of the damage done by the Christianization of Europe was the gradual replacement of White tradition, legend, and imagery by that of the Jews. Instead of specifically Celtic or German or Slavic heroes, the Church’s saints, many of them Levantines, were held up to the young for emulation; instead of the feats of Hermann or Vercingetorix, children were taught of the doings of Moses and David. Europeans’ artistic inspiration was turned away from the depiction of their own rich heritage and used to glorify that of an alien race; Semitic proverbs and figures of speech took precedence over those of Indo-European provenance; Europeans even abandoned the names of their ancestors and began giving Jewish names to their children: Samuel and Sarah, John and Joan, Michael and Mary, Daniel and Deborah.

Despite all these long-term consequences of Christianity, however, the immediate symptoms of the infection which the conquering Germans picked up from the defeated Romans were hardly noticeable; White morals and manners, motivations and behavior remained much as they had been, for they were rooted in the genes—but now they had a new rationale.

Today’s Christian Patriots. And it is only fair to note that even today a fairly substantial minority of White men and women who still think of themselves as Christians have not allowed their sounder instincts to be corrupted by doctrines suited to a following of mongrelized slaves. They ignore the Jewish origins of Christianity and justify their instinctive dislike and distrust of Jews with the fact that the Jews, in demanding that Jesus be killed, became a race forever accursed (“His blood be on us and on our children”).

They interpret the divine injunction of brotherhood as applying only to Whites. Like the Franks of the Middle Ages, they believe what suits them and conveniently forget or invent their own interpretation for the rest. Were they the Christian mainstream today, the religion would not be the racial menace that it is. Unfortunately, however, they are not; virtually none are actively affiliated with any of the larger, established Christian churches.

 

_____________________________

The above is my abridgement of chapter 18 of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are. These days I have been reproducing abridged chapters of Pierce’s book at WDH’s addenda: here.

Towards White Zionism

Essay-review of Separation and its Discontents:
Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism

by Cesar Tort


I’ve just read the second book of Professor Kevin MacDonald’s study on Jewry, and I must say that it is my favorite book of his trilogy, that I read within a timeframe of two-and-a-half years.

To me, the moral of Separation and its Discontents (hereafter SAID) is that the current decline of the West was caused because the white man did not replace, in due time, the collectivism of the Catholic Church—Christendom was basically immune to Jewish subversion—with another collectivist strategy, like the one in National Socialist Germany.

The reading of SAID made me discover that the critique of universalism and individualism predates the blogs that awakened me in the last few years. MacDonald wrote:

Western societies, unlike prototypical Jewish cultures, do not have a primitive concern with racial purity. Rather, concern about racial purity emerges only in the late stages of Jewish-gentile group conflict…

Despite a great deal of commonality among Western anti-Semitic movements [i.e., Christianity and NS], there was a great difference between the universalistic, assimilatory tendencies of traditional Western Christianity and the exclusivistic, racialist program of National Socialism. Indeed, we have seen that beginning in the 19th century an important aspect of German anti-Semitic ideology was a criticism of Western universalism and the development of peculiarly German conceptions of Christianity. A critical component of official National Socialist ideology, as represented in the thought of Alfred Rosenberg, was the idea that “the twin forces of disintegration, namely universalism and individualism, act in perpetual conflict with the Germanic concept of race.” In this regard, National Socialism was indeed profoundly anti-Western. In rejecting both universalism and individualism, National Socialism resembled, much more closely than did medieval Western collectivist Christianity, its mirror image rival, Judaism. [page 196]

In a previous chapter MacDonald had written:

We shall see that with the rise of the National Socialist movement in Germany, the universalist themes of Western Christianity were completely overthrown in favor of a full-blown racialist ideology of the ingroup. In Chapter 5 I will argue that National Socialism is a true mirror-image of Judaism. Not surprisingly, it was also the most dangerous enemy that Judaism has confronted in its entire existence. [page 133]

If MacDonald is right, and I believe he is, this alone demonstrates that even white nationalists are behaving, to use James Bowery’s term, like “extended phenotypes” of Jews, especially the Anglo-Saxons. In fact, I believe that if the white race goes extinct, Anglo-Saxons will be blamed by the surviving Chinese or Muslim historians in a future that views the Germanic movement as Europe’s last chance to win her centuries-old battle against Jewry.

Just one example. In a 2010 open thread on Hitler at Occidental Dissent (excerpts here) some white nationalists were calling Hitler a “beast” and claimed that their founding fathers were a “raging festival of awesome” superiority compared to Nazism. This ignores that the American Constitution mandates individualism, egalitarianism and a liberty with economic interests over racial interests. Those people who called Hitler a “beast” in his birthday added that Occidental Dissent, which is not a neonazi site, “is disgraced by his picture and a posting saluting him.”

Such commenters are totally unaware of the fact that the Allied forces committed more serious crimes before and after the Second World War than those attributed to the Nazis during the heat of war. This is why I will never tire of repeating that, before any serious discussion of white interests can even take place one should read Hellstorm, the very first book of my list. It makes absolutely no sense trying to discuss our current woes if even white nationalists are plugged in the matrix of Jew-controlled media and the postwar narrative of the academia. By siding the current narrative about Germany, they completely ignore the most elemental facts of our history.

Unlike the common Anglo-Saxon, only by understanding the Jewish problem, and the ways that the Germans reacted against it in the century when we were born, it is possible to comprehend the current mess. One of the most fascinating hypothesis advanced in SAID provides much food for thought. MacDonald wrote, “I propose that the Christian church in late antiquity was in its very essence the embodiment of a powerful anti-Semitic movement…” (page 112).

This is something I had never heard of, and reminds me my first readings of psychohistory and Lloyd deMause’s insights on why the Christ archetype galvanized the population of the ancient world, although MacDonald’s hypothesis is totally distinct and is presented from an altogether distant point of view. But after digesting what both deMause and MacDonald say, for the first time I feel I am starting to comprehend facets of Christianity that would have never occurred to me from a conventional reading to history. If MacDonald is right, the Roman Catholic Church was the earliest attempt toward a type of society that we may call collectivism for European-derived peoples.

Although Christianity always held universalist ideals at its core, it nonetheless fulfilled its role of impeding (like the Muslim nations) that Judaism became a destructive force for the indigenous culture of the late Roman Empire and the Early Middle Ages. One of the facts that I learnt in SAID is that most restrictions enacted against the Jews, initiated in the period from Eusebius to Justinian, were still active throughout Christendom until the French Revolution hit the continent with all its fury. It was precisely the so-called “Enlightenment” what inspired the founding fathers of the United States of America. And contrary to those “white nationalists” who insult Hitler and the movement he created, the mortal sin of the French Revolution—the emancipation of Jewry—was not properly atoned in Europe until the arrival of a specifically racial ideology. Alas, the traitors, the Judaized Anglo-Saxons, did everything in their power to obliterate a nascent, competing worldview. The 20th century should have been the German century, not the Jewish century!

But not only Nazi Germany has been demonized in the public mind. The Inquisition is widely seen as a black page in the history of the Church even by the most Catholic individuals that I know. In contrast to the popular view, MacDonald presents us with a radical reevaluation of what was precisely the role of the Inquisition. On page 147 he states: “I here develop the view that the Spanish Inquisition was fundamentally an authoritarian, collectivist, and exclusionary movement that resulted from resource and reproductive competition with Jews, and particularly crypto-Jews posing as Christians.”

In fact, thanks to the Inquisition, for three-hundred years (1521-1821), before the movement of independence that gave birth to “Mexico,” New Spain was Judenfrei.

While reading SAID I could not escape the thought, as I wrote in a notebook, that “whites are brutes” because “unlike the Jews and with the exception of William Pierce and Arthur Kemp, very few have a notion of who we are” (the title of Pierce’s book). And I added that I had seen a television program featuring New York Hassidic Jews celebrating, in one of their holydays, their victory over the ancient Greeks who tried to assimilate them. I wrote: “When do we celebrate the victory of Antiochus IV over the Jews, or Titus’s conquest of Jerusalem?

Bust of Antiochus IV

We cannot celebrate these victories precisely for the reason that both Kemp and Pierce explained so well: neither the Greeks nor the Romans exist today. (And incidentally, what about celebrating the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492?) What we call contemporary Greeks or Romans are the product of centuries of blood mixing that devalued not only the genotype of the original Indo-European population, but their extended phenotype as well: the Greco-Roman ethos and the pagan, classical mythology. Those Greeks and Romans who embraced Christianity were a totally different breed compared to the pure Aryans of Sparta or the austere Romans of the pre-imperial Republic.

MacDonald himself acknowledges on page 190 that “the Jews have continued as a creative race into the present, while the Greeks gradually merged with the barbarians and lost their distinctiveness—a point remarkably similar to Chamberlain’s ‘chaos of peoples’ in which the decline of the ancient world is attributed to loss of racial purity.” Conversely, I would say that since the Jews have conserved their genotype almost intact throughout the millennia they are able to celebrate their Maccabean revolt… in New York as if it was yesterday! In other words, had we Meditarraneans preserved our genes intact, we might still be celebrating Antiochus’ victories over the tribe. Or at least if we knew our history with the same passion that Jews know theirs, we might still be celebrating the fall of the temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD, or the more recent expulsion of the tribe from the Iberian peninsula.

What conventional historians ignore is that, once the Church lost its power to sell whites a peculiar narrative after the late 18th and early 19th centuries, our overwhelming individualism put us at the mercy of a collectivist tribe. Fortunately, since the dollar will crash and divine justice will finally befall upon the treasonous individualists that empowered the tribe and murdered their ancestors, there is hope that some of us will lean towards White Zionism in a post-crashed world. On page 10 MacDonald says that “in congruence with the results of social identity research, anti-Semitism is expected to be most prominent among those most in competition with the Jews and during times of economic crisis…”

I hope he is right, and although most fans of MacDonald treasure The Culture of Critique as their favorite of the trilogy, I like SAID most because, despite the crime of the age committed by the Allies, there will still be one last chance for the white peoples to reclaim their civilization against the alien invasion, and MacDonald’s work may help us understand white collectivism.

I would even venture to surmise that, pace Alex Linder and other pro-white libertarians, collectivism might be exactly what we need, though at present it does not has to be necessarily Christian or even religious. In order to defeat the tribe a revaluation of the collectivist movement that thrived in Germany when my parents were kids could be considered.

Vikings and Christianity (1)

Excerpted from the 21st article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:


Called many names—Danes, Geats, Norsemen, Rus, Swedes, Varangers—they are best known to us by the name which is also used to characterize both the age in which they flourished and the way of life of many of them: Vikings. Like two great waves of raiders, conquerors, and colonizers before them, the Goths and the Anglo-Saxons, they came from the Nordic heartland: southern Sweden and Norway, the Danish peninsula, the adjoining portion of northern Germany, and the nearby North Sea and Baltic islands.

Essence of Whiteness

They are of special interest to us in our endeavor to understand who we are, not so much because most of us have Viking forebears (although a great many people with immediate roots in Ireland, Scotland, England, and northwestern France, as well as in Scandinavia, do), but because they give us a clearer, more detailed picture of that pure essence of Indo-Europeanism of Whiteness—which is the common heritage of all of us, whether our recent ancestors were Germans, Celts, Balts, or Slavs, than we can obtain from a study of any other European people.

German in language like the Goths and the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings retained other aspects of Germanic culture which those earlier emigrants from the Nordic heartland had already lost by the dawn of the Viking Age. In particular, the Vikings held to their Indo-European religion and worldview longer than any of the other Germanic peoples. They also remained hardier, fiercer in battle, and more venturesome than those who had been softened by the more civilized living to the south.

Best and Worst in Our Race

The Vikings not only serve us as an especially useful epitome of Whiteness at a time when our survival demands a renewal of the best of our old values and strengths, but they also provide us with a clear reminder of the danger inherent in one of our most lethal weaknesses: excessive individualism and lack of racial solidarity. A study of the Vikings acquaints us with both the best and the worst (or, in this age, the least affordable) of the characteristics of our race.

No Viking Democrats

The men who inhabited this region were necessarily self-reliant, tenacious, energetic, and resourceful. No anemic democrats these: the terrain was not suited to the placid, ant-heap mentality of lesser races to the south; it bred men with strong wills and stronger egos, a natural warrior aristocracy.

Cultural Unity

The isolation by terrain and climate of many Viking communities did not prevent the Vikings from having a remarkable unity of culture, language, and spirit but it certainly did not encourage political unity. Viking individualism seemed to be inimical to a sense of racial solidarity. While more subjective races to the south were often drawn together by the perceived need for mutual support in the face of a hostile world, Vikings were much more inclined to face the world as individuals.

Their loyalty and sense of community seldom extended beyond the fighting band to which they belonged or, at most, to that limited region of Norway or Denmark or whatever which they considered “home”. And they would as gladly—or almost as gladly—hew down the Vikings of a rival band as a monastery full of trembling priests in some southern land. Within the band, however, the Viking ethos demanded a solidarity as uncompromising as that of the other Germanic peoples of their time.

Ralph the Walker

Just as in England and Ireland, however, Vikings who at first came only to seize women and gold later came to seize land as well. This process reached its climax early in the 10th century when a Viking band wrested away from the West Franks a substantial piece of territory in northwestern France, south of the lower Seine.

First White American

A few years later another Greenland Viking, Thorfinn Karlsefni, made a determined effort to establish a permanent Viking presence in America. He fitted out three longships and recruited 160 men and women to accompany him on the westward voyage. They built a community in North America which they called Straumfjord, and in 1004 Thorfinn’s wife Gudrid bore him a son, Snorri, there: the first native White American.

Unrelenting attacks by Indians made life very difficult for Thorfinn’s American colonists, however, and after three years they abandoned their settlement and returned to Greenland.

Had the Vikings’ weapons been technologically superior to the bows and arrows of the [Amerinds]—as Columbus’ firearms were—then White history in America would have begun 500 years sooner than it did. As it was, the individual superiority of the Viking warriors in battle could not make up for the enormous numerical advantage enjoyed by the hordes of Red men who opposed them.

Purest Cultural Heritage

Today these North Atlantic islands, of which Iceland with its quarter-million inhabitants is the most significant, preserve the Viking cultural heritage in its purest form. The modern Icelandic and Faroese languages are nearly identical to the Old Norse spoken by the Vikings, while English and the other Germanic languages have undergone great changes during the last 1,000 years. In folkways as well, many Viking traits have been preserved in the islands, especially in Iceland and the Faroes. There has even been a return to the Viking religion by some Icelanders in recent years.

No Minorities

Iceland is outstanding in another respect as well: alone among the White nations of the world it does not bear the curse of non-White minorities; it has no Blacks, no Jews, no Vietnamese, no Mexicans. Iceland has not been invaded for the last 1,000 years, except during the Second World War, when the country was occupied by American troops. The bulk of the foreigners withdrew after the war, and Icelanders insisted that future U.S. troops sent to man the air base which the United States was allowed to maintain on the island include no non-Whites.

The greatest debt that the White race owes to Icelanders is for their preservation of the Norse literary heritage: the Viking sagas. While church officials in other European countries were rounding up and burning all the pre-Christian books they could lay their hands on during the Middle Ages, Icelandic scholars were busy writing down the sagas which still existed only in oral form and transcribing, annotating, and expanding those which had been put into writing earlier.

Genocidal Evangelism

Beginning in 772, a year after he became sole king of the Franks upon the death of his brother Carloman, Karl, later known to the French as Charlemagne, son of Pepin the Short and grandson of Karl the Hammer, waged a 32-year campaign of genocidal evangelism against the Saxons. The campaign began with Karl’s destruction of the Irminsul, or World Pillar, the Saxon equivalent of the Norse World Ash, Yggdrasil, located in the Saxons’ most sacred grove, at Eresburg (on the site of the present Marburg), and it became bloodier, crueler, and more intolerant as it wore on.

In 774, at Quierzy, Karl issued a proclamation that he would kill every Saxon who refused to accept the sweet yoke of Jesus. Henceforth a contingent of Christian priests accompanied the Frankish army on its expeditions against the Saxons, and in every Saxon village those who refused to be baptized by the priests were slaughtered on the spot.

Damned Anglos!

The Anglo-Saxons, in their attempt to destroy Germany, ended up destroying themselves. Instead of being Germany’s right hand man in a National Socialist Europe, Great Britain became a triple colony, first a military colony of the United States, second an economic colony of the European Union and finally a sexual and biological colony of Jamaica and Pakistan.

How many of the brave lads who burned thousand year-old cities to the ground and roasted white Christian women and children alive lived long enough to see their grand-daughters pushing their mongrel bastards around in baby carriages, and how many came to the realization that Uncle Adolf maybe wasn’t such a bad guy after all?

Prussiancroat

White suicide since Alexander

A comment by Franklin Ryckaert:

It would be nice if a person with the talent of a Prof. MacDonald would write a trilogy on the problem dealing with:

1) The innate psychological characteristics of Whites (individualism, abstract idealism, universal moralism).

2) The influence of Christianity and its secular outgrowth of Liberalism (inversion of values, altruism as the only form of moralism even to a suicidal degree).

3) The Jewish exploitation of both.

Central to the weakness of Whites is what I call naive inclusivism.

It is naive because it not only believes that all non-white peoples can and want to become like Westerners, but also that including them in Western societies will lead to a Utopia instead of racial suicide.

This naive inclusivism is as old as the European expansion outside Europe itself:

• Alexander the Great wanted to include all peoples of the Middle East in his Hellenistic ideal, even initiating miscegenation with them.

• The Romans included all non-European peoples in their Empire bequeathing Roman citizenship to all who they thought deserved it. They even had one time an Arab emperor (Philippus Arabs).

• When the Western European peoples began to colonize the world, they made the same mistake. The Spaniards and Portuguese miscegenated with the natives of their colonies on a mass scale and later also with their imported African slaves.

• The Dutch miscegenated with the Indonesians and accepted their mixed offspring as “Europeans”.

• The French accepted educated Blacks, the so-called evolués, as their equals. France doesn’t keep statistics about its ethnic and racial minorities because it considers them all as “Frenchmen”.

• Only the British kept aloof from the natives in their colonies and didn’t allow them to immigrate into the white settlement colonies or Britain itself. But that has now radically changed, the British having become the most extreme both in terms of immigration and miscegenation.

We simply cannot ascribe this suicidal behaviour to Jewish machinations, rather it is the age-old inclination of Europeans to include the whole world in a universal ideal. You aptly describe Jewish destructive influence as an “epiphenomenon”; it couldn’t function as it does without the above-described preconditions.

Tanstaafl and Carolyn Yaeger refuse to acknowledge this basic fact, ascribing its recognition to “treason”. Self-criticism hurts, but it is absolutely necessary.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 201 other followers