Nativity fiction

Gerard David (Flemish painter, 1460-1523) The Nativity
 

Two of the four canonical Gospels—Matthew and Luke—give accounts of the conception and birth of Jesus. John tells us only of the Incarnation—that the Logos “became flesh”—while Mark says nothing at all about Jesus until his baptism as a man of perhaps thirty. Either Mark and John know nothing about Jesus’ background and birth, or they regard them as unremarkable.

Certainly Mark, the earliest Gospel, knows nothing of the Annunciation or the Virgin Birth. It is clear from 3:20-21 that in Mark’s view the conception of Jesus was accompanied by no angelic announcement to Mary that her son was to be (in Luke’s words) “Son of the Most High” and possessor of the “throne of David” (Luke 1:32 NEB [New English Bible]).

According to Mark, after Jesus had openly declared himself Son of Man (a heavenly being, according to Daniel 7:13), his family on hearing of this “set out to take charge of him. ‘He is out of his mind,’ they said.” Surely Jesus’ mother and brothers (so identified in Mark 3:31) would not have regarded Jesus’ acts as signs of insanity if Mark’s Mary, like Luke’s, had been told by the angel Gabriel that her son would be the Messiah.

But Mark’s ignorance of Jesus’ conception, birth, and background was no hindrance to the first-century imagination. Many first-century Jewish Christians did feel a need for a Davidic messiah, and at least two separate groups responded by producing Davidic genealogies for Jesus, both to a considerable extent imaginary and each largely inconsistent with the other. One of each was latter appropriated by Matthew and Luke and repeated, with minor but necessary changes, in their Gospels. Each genealogy uses Old Testament as its source of names until it stops supplying them or until the supposed messianic line diverges from the biblical. After that point the Christian imaginations supplied two different lists of ancestors of Jesus.

Why, to show that Jesus is “the son of David,” trace the ancestry of a man who is not his father? The obvious answer is that the list of names was constructed not by the author of Matthew but by earlier Jewish Christians who believed in all sincerity that Jesus had a human father. Such Jewish Christians were perhaps the forbears of the group known in the second century as the Ebionites.

The two genealogies in fact diverge after David (c. 1000 B.C.) and do not again converge until Joseph. It is obvious that another Christian group, separate from the one supplying Mathew’s list but feeling an equal need for a messiah descended from David, complied its own genealogy, as imaginary as Mathew’s in its last third. And like Mathew’s genealogy, it traces the Davidic ancestry of the man who, Luke insists, is not Jesus’ father anyway, and thus is rendered pointless.

Moreover, according to Luke’s genealogy (3:23-31) there are forty-one generations between David and Jesus; whereas according to Mathew’s, there are but twenty seven. Part of the difference stems from Mathew’s remarkably careless treatment of his appropriated list of names.

Thus we have a fascinating picture of four separate Christian communities in the first century. Two of them, Jewish-Christian, were determined to have a messiah with Davidic ancestry and constructed genealogies to prove it, never dreaming that Jesus could be thought of as having no human father.

But gentile Christians in the first century, who came into the new religion directly from paganism and were already infected with myths about licentious deities, had a much different understanding of what divine paternity meant. Plutarch speaks for the entire pagan world when he writes, in Convivial Disputations, “The fact of the intercourse of a male with mortal women is conceded by all,” though he admits that such relations might be spiritual, not carnal. Such mythology came with pagans converted to Christianity, and by the middle of the first century, Joseph’s paternity of Jesus was being replaced by God’s all over the gentile world.

“The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and he shall be called Emmanuel,” a name which means “God is with us.” (Matthew 1:20-23)

The Septuagint, from which Matthew quotes, uses, at Isaiah 7:14, parthenos (physical virgin) for the Hebrew almah (young woman) as well as the future tense, “will conceive,” though Hebrew has no future tense as such. Modern English translations are probably more accurate in reading (as does the New English Bible), “A young woman is with child.” We can scarcely blame the author of Matthew for being misguided by this translation (though Jews frequently ridiculed early Christians for their dependence on the often-inaccurate Septuagint rather than the Hebrew). We can, however, fault him for reading Isaiah 7:14 quite without reference to its context—an interpretative method used by many in his time and ours, but a foolish one nonetheless. Any sensible reading of Isaiah, chapter seven, reveals its concern with the Syrio-Israelite crisis of 734 B.C. (the history of which appears in I Kings 16:1-20).

It is clear, however, that though the mistranslated and misunderstood passage in Isaiah was Matthew’s biblical justification for the Virgin Birth, it was not the source of the belief (indeed Luke presents the Virgin Birth without reference to Isaiah). The doctrine originated in the widespread pagan belief in the divine conception upon various virgins of a number of mythic heroes and famous persons in the ancient world, such as Plato, Alexander, Perseus, Asclepius and the Dioscuri.

Matthew writes that Joseph, having been informed in his dream, “had no intercourse with her until her son was born” (Matt. 1:25). Luke gives us a different myth about the conception of Jesus, in which the Annunciation that the messiah is to be fathered by God, not Joseph, is made to Mary rather than to her betrothed. Embarrassed by the story’s clear implicit denial of the Virgin Birth notion, Luke or a later Christian inserted Mary’s odd question (“How can this be, since I know not a man?”), but the clumsy interpolation makes hash of Jesus’ royal ancestry.

In due course, Jesus was born, growing up in Nazareth of Galilee, a nationality different from the Judean inhabitants of Jerusalem and its near neighbor, Bethlehem. After Jesus’ death, those of his followers interested in finding proof of his messiahnship in the Old Testament worked a Christian reinterpretation of Micah 5:2 concerning the importance of Bethlehem as the birthplace of David and his dynasty:

You, Bethlehem in Ephrathah, small as you are to be among Judah’s clans, out of you shall come forth a governor for Israel, one whose roots are far back in the past, in days gone by.

That is, the one who restores the dynasty will have the same roots, be of the same ancestry, as David of Bethlehem. Prophesying, it would appear, during the Babylonian exile, Micah (or actually a sixth-century B.C. interpolator whose words were included in the book of the eight-century B.C. prophet) hoped for the restoration of the Judaean monarchy destroyed in 586 B.C.

But since some first-century Christians did read Micah 5:2 as a prediction of the birthplace of Jesus, it became necessary to explain why he grew up in Nazareth, in another country, rather than Bethlehem. At least two different and mutually exclusive narratives explaining this were produced: one appears in Matthew, the other in Luke.

Matthew has it that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem when Jesus was born, and continued there for about two years, fleeing then to Egypt. They returned to Palestine only after Herod’s death. For fear of Herod’s son, they did not resettle in Bethlehem but moved rather to another country, Galilee, finding a new home in Nazareth.

Luke, on the other hand, writes that Mary and apparently Joseph lived in Nazareth, traveling to Bethlehem just before Jesus’ birth to register for a tax census. They left Bethlehem forty days later to visit the temple in Jerusalem for the required ritual of the first-born, returning then to their hometown of Nazareth.

Examination of these two irreconcilable accounts will give us a good picture of the creative imaginations of Luke, Matthew, and their Christian sources.

In most of Matthew’s Gospel, the major source of information about Jesus is the Gospel of Mark (all but fifty-five of Mark’s verses appear in Matthew, either word-for-word or with deliberate changes). But Mark says nothing about Jesus’ birth. When one favorite source fails him, Matthew inventively turns to another—this time to the Old Testament, read with a particular interpretative slant, and to oral tradition about Jesus, combining the two in a noticeably uneasy way.

We must remember that for the Christian generation that produced our Gospels, the Bible consisted only of what Christians now called the Old Testament, and a particular version thereof, the Greek Septuagint. But before they wrote the New Testament, Christians created another entirely new book, the Old Testament, turning the Septuagint into a book about Jesus by remarkably audacious and creative interpretation. Meanings it had held for generations of Jews, its historical and poetic content especially, ceased to exist; it became not a book about the past but about its own future.

Of course, other groups such as the Qumran sect also read the Bible oracularly, but Christians specialized this technique, finding oracles about Jesus of Nazareth. If a passage in the Septuagint could be read as a prediction of an event in the life of Jesus, then the event must have happened. Thus, if Micah were understood to mean that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, then Jesus must have been born there, no matter what his real hometown. But as it happens, the Bethlehem birth story, dependent upon the Christian interpretation of Micah, and the magi-and-star legend, dependent upon Hellenistic and Jewish oral tradition, fit together very uneasily. The story of the magi (“astrologers” is a more meaningful translation) says that “the star which they had seen at its rising went ahead of them until it stopped above the place where the child lay” (Matt 2:9).

In all the stories, the astrologers point to a special star, symbol of the arrival of the new force (Israel, Abraham, Jesus). Says Balaam: “A star shall rise [anatelei astron] out of Jacob, a man shall spring out of Israel, and shall crush the princes of Moab” (Num. 24:17 LXX). The astrologers in Matthew likewise point to a star: “We observed the rising of his star” (Matt. 2.2).

Now the source of the story of the king (Nimrod, Herod) who wants to kill the infant leader of Israel (Abraham, Jesus) shifts to the account of Moses in Exodus, the classic biblical legend of the wicked king (Pharaoh) who wants to slay the new leader of Israel (Moses). Indeed, the story of Moses in the Septuagint provided Matthew with a direct verbal source for his story of the flight into Egypt. As Pharaoh wants to kill Moses, who then flees the country, so Herod wants to kill Jesus, who is then carried away by his parents. After a period of hiding for the hero in both stories, the wicked king dies:

And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, “Go, depart into Egypt, for all that sought thy life are dead” (tethnekasi gar pantes hoi zetountes sou ten psychen—Ex: 4:19 LXX).

When Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel for those who sought the child’s life are dead” (tethnekasin gar hoi zetountes ten psychen tou paidiou—Matt 2:20).

Of course, Moses flies from Egypt to Midian, while the Holy Family flees to Egypt through Midian.

“This was to fulfill the words spoken through the prophets: ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’” (Matt. 2:23). There is, however, no such passage in all the Old Testament. Matthew had apparently vaguely heard that such a verse was in the “prophets,” and since he really needed to get the Holy Family from the supposed birthplace to the known hometown, he reported the fulfillment but left the biblical reference unspecified.

Like Matthew, Luke faced the same problem of reconciling known Nazarene upbringing with supposed Bethlehem birth. His solution, however, was entirely different, and even less convincing. Whereas Matthew has the Holy Family living in Bethlehem at the time of the birth and traveling to Nazareth, Luke has them living in Nazareth and traveling to Bethlehem in the very last stages of Mary’s pregnancy. Though Luke 1:5 dates the birth of Jesus in the “days of Herod, king of Judaea,” who died in 4 B.C., he wants the journey from Galilee to Bethlehem to have occurred in response to a census called when “Quirinius was governor of Syria.”

As historians know, the one and only census conducted while Quirinius was legate in Syria affected only Judaea, not Galilee, and took place in A.D. 6-7, a good ten years after the death of Herod the Great. In his anxiety to relate the Galilean upbringing with the supposed Bethlehem birth, Luke confused his facts. Indeed, Luke’s anxiety has involved him in some real absurdities, like the needless ninety-mile journey of a woman in her last days of pregnancy—for it was the Davidic Joseph who supposedly had to be registered in the ancestral village, not the Levitical Mary.

Worse yet, Luke has been forced to contrive a universal dislocation for a simple tax registration. Who could imagine the efficient Romans requiring millions in the empire to journey scores of hundreds of miles to the villages of millennium-old ancestors merely to sign a tax form!

Needless to say, no such event ever happened in the history of the Roman Empire.

_______________________________

This is part of the chapter “Nativity legends” in Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms that I typed directly from the book. I omitted adding ellipsis between unquoted passages.

Isabel (TV series)

I’m relocating this paragraph, originally posted on October 30:

I’ve just watched the first season of Isabel, a 2012 Spanish-produced historical and fictional TV series about the life of Queen Isabella I of Castile, and I am afraid to say that the Spanish media is now Hollywoodesque. The Jew Andrés Cabrera (1430-1511), who in real history held a key position in the control of the royal treasury, is depicted as an innocent lamb and the anti-Semite Juan Pacheco (1419-1474), interpreted by Ginés García Millán (extreme left on the pic below), as an unscrupulous and ambitious fanatic. Long ago was that era when the Spaniards founded the first Judenfrei city in the American continent (a city where I was born and still happen to live in…).

isabel-tv

Now (December 23), that I watched the second, 2013 season of the series, I found myself making copious notes, especially how the scriptwriters handled the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by the end of the 15th century. But before that it is interesting to see that in this season the Archbishop of Toledo tells Ferdinand of Aragon, “She [Isabella I] has stolen you the right that by natural law is only of males,” the right to rule.

Feminism in the 15th century? In the first episode of this second season it is said that this couplet was sung in a Castilian tavern:

Isabelle and Ferdinand reign backwards
Governs the lady and not the Aragonese
Like Henry our former king, Ferdinand,
faced with a female gets smaller…

In Spanish it rhythms. Despite its political correctness, the series surprised me because it is the first time in my life that I see on film a reenactment of the civil war between the old Christians (ethnically non-Jews) and the new Christians of Spain (ethnically Jewish).

In Isabel the first major conflict between these two groups is located in Burgos, and it reminded me that in Separation and Its Discontents Kevin MacDonald writes specifically about this conflict. It shocked me to learn in Separation that the Jews were allies of the medieval kings, who used the subversive tribe in their conflicts against their own people. In the Isabel series, Isabelle at least is depicted as reversing this process and demanding: “Mark them all with a round, scarlet ring on their clothing to facilitate their identification wherever they are.”

The converso Andrés Cabrera shouts after such measure, “She didn’t hesitate in humiliating them! She has paid allegiance with infamy!” It is interesting that in the whole series it is the first time that this “converso” is critical of the crown (in the previous season he had always been loyal to Henry IV of Castile). But Isabelle, nonetheless, names the very respected figure of Abraham Senior, a rabbi, as her collector of taxes—still following some steps of the traitorous medieval kings.

Following the advice of her two influential advisors, the rabbi and the converso Cabrera, Isabelle commands Cabrera to destitute the mayor of Segovia, substituting him for a cousin of the converso.

isabel y judío etnico

Once in power the Jew betrays the queen’s confidence and there’s an uprising when even the queen’s daughter is on peril of being abducted by the rabble that suffered the taxes of the new mayor. But the betrayal is not depicted clearly so as not to give the impression that blame should be placed on the subversive tribe. While the converso Cabrera is sent on exile, it is a shame that the producers missed the opportunity to illustrate for the Spanish audience how the “rise of the Jews” runs parallel to the dispossession of the natives to the point that the natives react. The producers knew their history well, but were very reluctant to offend sensitivities and watered down the crude facts.

The influential and most respected rabbi Abraham Senior, in addition of being very white, is depicted as noble, temperate, compassionate and wise. In contrast, a Christian rabble is shown throwing a stone on his head. The inhabitants of Burgos “have thrown false accusations against my own,” claims the rabbi. However, even in this politically-correct series once in a while the point of view of the Old Christians is heard. A Dominican monk says vehemently:

“Your Grace: The Christian converts have only costume. Their mission is to infect our religion from within to destroy it. May God have mercy with a benevolent Castile with heretics.”

But the series had to immediately amend the rant somehow. Fray Hernando, a Hieronymite monk and confessor of the queen, asks in private the Dominican why he is full of hate. The Dominican refutes him with proof that the conversos in fact “Judaize” in private, the word in vogue in those times to mean that the conversos continue to circumcise their children and maintain food restrictions. “The rage of the old Christians is righteous” he says.

Then a great conflict explodes between the Jews and the Christians of Seville. “This Dominican slandered us!,” says a Jew (pic above beside the queen). Unfortunately, instead of representing the conflict fairly, the episode puts a bigoted woman saying that a medicine of a Jewish physician could invoke demons: a typical inversion of the Spanish theatre of yore when the Jews were depicted as wicked and the Christians noble. After a scene the king Ferdinand congratulates the Jew physician for having made fertile Isabelle again. He is overjoyed.

Reyes

The actors chosen for the emir of Granada in the Alhambra and his heir are good-looking, which means that they are not to be seen as the “bad guys” of the series. The emir is also a good lover who treats the white Christian woman who was abducted as a westerner would treat his wife (nothing of the sort of how abducted white women were treated in the harem).

Back in Seville, a cardinal suggests Isabelle to found a tribunal for the faith, the Inquisition, in Spain. But just as the old emir and young heir are depicted almost as good, the conversos of Seville are depicted as innocent and noble. Nonetheless, “the tribunal of which you speak, that still does not exist, would condemn only those who claim to be Christians but lie,” says Fray Hernando once he opened his eyes that some conversos were, indeed, “Judaizing” privately.

A home of conversos, depicted almost as pure doves, is assaulted by a mob of enraged Christians who cut the throat of a child and write on the wall the word “MARRANOS” with the child’s blood before leaving.

“Look to what those dogs that call themselves Christians are capable to do to a child,” with a close-up on the dead child, says the father. “Do you believe,” the converso tells his daughter, “that one of these good Christians we have as servants lifted a finger?”

Then the extended Jewish family of the converso arrives to wash the body of the assassinated child and the converso puts a crucifix inside a box, while all present recite something in Hebrew. The daughter, however, who is a maid of the queen, knows that this is highly dangerous business and suffers inwardly.

Fray Hernando, the queen’s confessor tells Isabelle: “Purifying the faith of converts will be a mission full of obstacles,” and the Inquisition starts its first activities in Spain. In Seville’s square Tomás de Torquemada warns: “There will be no pity. Every Christian who suspects of someone who Judaizes should report it.”

After these first actions Fray Hernando warns Torquemada that the dungeons are filled, even with innocents, though he concedes that some of them “Judaize.” Burning at the stake is still forbidden, and Torquemada’s first action was the confiscation of goods and mandate the use a penitential garment, the sanbenito, for a Judaizer woman who still celebrated the Sabbath and other Jewish ceremonies.

Then a tragedy occurs. The whitest dove of the series, the candid teenage Jewess who worked as the queen’s maid, is caught when trying to conceal evidence in the royal palace: evidence incriminating her father. She is sent to the torture chamber.

en potro

The visual details of her torment are shown to the naïve Spanish viewers in this episode that was aired recently. Under torture the candid Jewess confesses that she was only trying to save her father’s skin and is released. Isabella finally permits capital punishment. The converso father is caught and, unwilling to repent publicly by means of kissing the cross while he is tied on the stake, is burned alive.

en la estaca

The episode ends with a voice in off shouting: “The Jewish plague that ravages Christendom! The plague!”

In the next episode something is missing. In real history the Alhambra musicians had been blinded so that they did not see the naked women dancing. In this sanitized Alhambra none of these barbarities is shown when filming the musicians.

“El Cordobés,” the queen’s best friend and a soldier under the command of Ferdinand (second form left to right in the first pic at the beginning of this entry), one of the non-whites of the series, is shown as militarily wiser compared to Ferdinand after a humiliating defeat inflicted by the Moors.

The converso problem is introduced again but this time in the kingdom of Aragon. In the whole series of Isabel it is shown the conflict between the Christians and Jews and between the Christians and the Moors, but not between the Jews and the Moors. In Aragon a meeting is celebrated with the representatives from the three groups. A converso makes an oath of obedience to king Ferdinand. But other furious conversos assassinate the Dominican monk who would preside the Inquisition in Aragon. The Jewish conspirators are caught, decapitated and their heads shown on stakes.

In the next episode non-Christians are about to be expelled from Malaga. It shows the Iberian blunder in a nutshell: to believe that sprinkling drops of water on Moors or Jews will solve the problem once and for all. (Remember that a thousand years earlier the Iberian Goths fell into the Galilean cult, thus abandoning their healthy anti-miscegenation laws.) Instead of using the race standard, a powerful Spaniard says that they must “expel from Malaga all those who don’t believe in our lord Jesus Christ.” The converso Cabrera and Abraham Senior are worried about the fate of hundreds of Jews in the Alhambra, that will be invaded soon. Here we go again with the non-racial standard in the words of Isabelle about a boy, the heir of the emir who had fallen under her power:

“Today Juan de Granada has been baptized. He was born under the yoke of Islam but thank God he has escaped its clutches. He has reached our faith and as our brother in Christ we welcome him with joy.”

“Our brother in Christ”… This reminds me the words of how American Christians speak about the Negro. In this film shot, just when pronouncing those solemn words in court before the noblemen, a very dark Christian woman is seen beside the mother of the baptized boy.

Ferdinand gets sick during the military campsite and Isabella takes her Jewish physician to the war zone. Later it is told that 450 Jews of Malaga are now slaves: most of them women who talk Arabic or Hebrew and dress like Morisco women. Cabrera and Abraham speak of the huge quantities of gold that they must gather to free them.

Then the episode takes a nasty turn: blood libel. An innocent Jew is taken before Torquemada accused of kidnapping and ritually murdering a Christian kid. (Incidentally, on this subject I disagree with both Andrew Hamilton and Harold Covington. Like MacDonald, I believe that those kind of charges were spurious, although they reflected the legit rage of the old Christians.) On the rack of torture the accused Jew is, once more, depicted as an innocent sacrificial lamb. You have to watch the series and see the face of the man while the Inquisitor wants to extract a confession about “the abduction and murder of that innocent creature.” Alas for the Jew they continue the torture as he cannot confess a crime that he didn’t commit. Torquemada doesn’t want to hear that those who owed money to the Jew invented the accusation and the influential Abraham Senior is allowed to visit the accused in the dungeon.

I must say here that the physiognomic distinction between Christians and Jews is erased in the series. Any viewer would only see two Iberian whites talking to each other in the above scene between Abraham and the accused. This differs from the iconography of the peninsula of those centuries when the races were painted together (e.g., here).

Later Abraham Senior speaks with Torquemada and, naturally, the scriptwriters put Abraham as noble and Torquemada as wicked—black and white. Says Abraham when talking to the accused:

“You know that from time to time the Gentile rage is unleashed against us.”

After another discussion between Abraham and the accused, the latter is left crying with a little face that makes most viewers feel pity.

Christopher Columbus appears many times in these later episodes. The scriptwriter and director make him say, “…a Granada that agonizes under the yoke of Castile.” Soon after Ferdinand and Isabelle tell her physician, “Remember that in your hands is the life of the heir of Castile and Aragon,” the ill son of the kings whom then Jew saves.

More tortures are shown on the poor thing until he claims something that a Mesoamerican would have said in real life, “I was. I murdered that boy. I opened his chest to pull out and eat his heart…” Then Torquemada makes him confess who are his “accomplices” and the poor thing has no other choice but to incriminate other ethnic Jews to end the torture.

A little later in the episode the words of Columbus expose, once more, European idiocy in a nutshell: “…to extend the Catholic faith into unknown lands.” A Spartan, a Visigoth or a NS German would have said instead, “to extend our race into unknown lands.” Extermination or expulsion of non-whites into a corner of the continent was well beyond the Christian sensibilities of those times. Thus the blunder of baptizing Moors in the Iberian Peninsula would be committed again, at the other side of the Atlantic, but this time in a whole continent and on a massive scale. (What was the point of allowing such measures against the kikes if Iberian whites could not protect their own ethnicity in America? Shouldn’t a solution to the kike problem automatically mean a solution to further Iberian white decline? Food for thought for those who still stick to their monocausal monologues in their echo chambers.)

In the following scene Torquemada (left on the pic) launches a speech against the accused, two Jews and six conversos that, in his mind, murdered the Christian child ritually. They are to be burned alive at the stake in addition to confiscating their goods. The Grand Inquisitor even humiliates them further by making them know that the confiscated funds would be used in a newly founded Christian monastery.

torquemada

The whole script of this second season that started in September and finished this month follows the lachrymose, now mandatory version of the history of Jewry. Overall, the reviews of Isabel have welcomed the series, given the number of nominations and awards, both national and international.

Intellectually, traditional Spaniards have been completely disarmed to talk back that the actions of the Inquisition are understandable, and even positive, when viewed from the viewpoint of the clash between two ethnic groups. Within their current, postconciliar Catholic paradigm they will never be able to prevent further demoralization. On the other hand, if Separation and Its Discontents was translated and became a bestseller in Spain, they could understand this historical conflict.

The final episode depicts the peaceful takeover of the Alhambra and has Isabelle hesitating about establishing the Inquisition in Granada. The queen also says, “It is a great opportunity to bring our faith to the Indies.”

It may seem incredible but with the benefit of hindsight—having read MacDonald’s book, which PDF is linked above—the pro-Western reader has to conclude that, leaving all PC BS propaganda aside, Torquemada was the real hero of this story. He is shown as telling the queen:

“The Jews are the real danger to our faith, the source of all heresies. You must remove the evil from our kingdoms. Once Islam has been defeated they know it is their turn. Teach them a lesson! It’s time!”

Words that have to be pronounced again in Europe once the Eurabian problem is solved later in this century! Ferdinand discusses with Isabelle for the first time the final solution to the Jewish problem: expelling them all, and reminds the queen that they have already been expelled from France and other kingdoms. Torquemada wants to expel every ethnic Jew; Isabelle wants to spare those who would embrace Christianity. For Torquemada it is clear that it is impossible to really convert a Jew.

On 31 March of 1492 the expulsion starts with a public declamation by Torquemada: “We demand that all Jews get out from our kingdom” while sad Jews listen. Later in this last episode king Ferdinand says, “The Jews will never disown their faith.” Then the exile is visually depicted.

expulsion judas

“I need you. Who will heal my family now?” tells a concerned Isabelle to her parting physician.

The season ends with this episode #26, with a stunning image of the three caravels of the first of Columbus’ expeditions parting into the Atlantic ocean. Those who know Spanish can watch the entire series for free: here.

Quotable quote

The multicult has absolutely nothing to do with either reality or liberal, universal values of non-discrimination. The multicult is not anti-racist. The multicult is disguised anti-white racial hatred. And combined with open borders and forced integration it becomes genocidal.

—Wandrin

Published in: on December 19, 2013 at 5:02 pm  Comments (3)  

On pre-Hispanic Amerinds, 7

SunStoneColored-NG

 

Standing in a bookstore when I was much younger I read a passage from a book by an out-closet homosexual, the Mexican poet Salvador Novo analyzing the term “pecado nefando” (heinous sin). Novo mentioned Nezahualcoyotl, a 15th-century king and member of the Aztec Triple Alliance, who promulgated a law code that included that those who had engaged in the passive role of homosexual anal intercourse had their intestines pulled out, then their bodies were filled with ash, and finally, were burnt (the active or penetrating partner was simply suffocated in a heap of ash): a punishment more severe than a mere capital punishment against sodomy in the Muslim world. Novo included an illustration of a dead male Amerind with his intestines pulled out, but now that I looked if that image was available in the internet I didn’t find it.

I mention this because one of the reasons why the behavior of pre-Hispanic Amerinds is unknown lies in the fact that the deranged Christians and liberals who are obsessed with out-group altruism have been most reluctant to speak about the level of cruelties in the American continent before the white people arrived. In the latest threads I have spoken about some members in the pro-white movement that get mad when I dare to challenge their dogmas. For instance, in an article at Majority Rights I was once called “Jew” because I dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theories. But in my long life I have had similar experiences with this sort of fanatics.

In my book for example I mention that I have taken issue with my father about Nezahualcoyotl. He has enormously idealized this Indian, to the extent that he even composed a short musical piece for one of the poems that some attribute to Nezahualcoyotl. From time to time I have tried to transmit to my father the fact that the historical Nezahualcoyotl ordered his son to be killed, and that that must be enough to stop idealizing him.

In his uttermost dishonesty, my father has not tried even to respond. He simply continues to idealize Nezahualcoyotl during family meetings and even before visitors from Europe; he continues to flatly claim that figure of Nezahualcoyotl proves that the Aztecs were highly civilized. (Incidentally, in my discussions I never mentioned that Amerind fags were disemboweled in such horrible way after Nezahualcoyotl’s laws; only that he ordered his grown-up first born to be killed.)

Another personal vignette. Back in 2008 I was in a taxi with my father and my six-year-old nephew. Those days I had been discussing with him about the fact that according to my sources the pre-Hispanic Amerinds were cannibals. I even photocopied Mexican newspapers notes saying that such anthropophagy had been corroborated by archeological evidence. Keep in mind that virtually all Mexican press sides the Amerinds against the Spanish conquerors, but even the indigenista press has to acknowledge the facts.

My father simply stopped talking to me in the taxi, changed the subject of conversation and started to talk with my six-year-old nephew…

Of course: people like my father, completely unconcerned with the facts, exist by the millions. But I find it healthy that presently the top cultural institutions of Mexico have been corroborating the facts (not my psychohistorical theories) that I cited in The Return of Quetzalcoatl. That’s why I have been reviewing the academic treatise El Sacrificio Humano in these series about pre-Hispanic Amerinds. So let’s now continue to refute my father’s intellectual cowardice with another chapter of El Sacrificio Humano.

The Aztecs and the Mayas were not the only sons of bitches in Mesoamerica (see the previous entries of these series). In the opening paragraph of “El Sacrificio Humano en el Michoacán Antiguo” Grégory Pereira says that Tariácuri, the founder of the empire of the Purépecha culture which developed in the Mesoamerican Postclassic period, congratulates destiny when learning that his own son would be sacrificed (page 247). This of course reminds me what my father’s “civilized” Nezahualcoyotl did. Pereira cites the Spanish Relación de Michoacán as a reliable source about how the Michoaque people behaved before the arrival of the Spaniards.

The Relación states that part of the captives such as old people and children were sacrificed by extraction of the heart right on the spot of the battle, and that (my translation) “the bodies of these victims were cooked and consumed at the same place.” I mention this only to show how my father, who has a good library in his study including books about the pre-Hispanic Amerinds, simply doesn’t want to face what’s right in front of his nose.

Q3

On page 254 Pereira includes a diagram showing a skeleton with points that show the impact of the rib cut to reach the heart during those sacrifices, and he adds that those who performed the ritual were called opítiecha or “holders” who grabbed the extremities of the victim. He adds: “Once slaughtered and decapitated, the dismembered body was in the house of the priests and the various parts offered up to the gods and eaten by the priests and lords. Those who were killed at the scene of the conflict were eaten by the victors… After the cannibal feast, the bones of the slaughtered apparently were gathered and preserved in the house of the priests.”

On the next page Pereira includes an illustration of the Relación depicting the consumption of human flesh. Later, on page 262, the author reveals that Tariácuri also ordered the killing of another of his sons, Tamapucheca, as punishment for having escaped being sacrificed.

Then Pereira recounts that on the day following the sacrifice, they “wore the skin of the slaughtered in a dance, and for five days got drunk.” That is, the cadavers were skinned so that the priests could wear the skin as clothes.

I just wonder… How would an American leftist react before such information. Like my father did in the taxi?

Xipe, Veracruz

A figurine at the Museo Nacional de Antropología
showing an Amerind covered with a human skin.

On Spain and literature – IV

retrato de soledad anaya
 
Apropos of what I said in my previous post about blaming the Iberians’ lust of gold for their inter-breeding in the Americas, let me quote a translation of some lines of one of the poems of Francisco de Quevedo (1580-1645), “Poderoso caballero es don dinero,” that I reread recently in the book of my teacher Soledad Anaya (pic).

When Quevedo writes, “in the Indies did they nurse him” he means of course that gold is found in the newly-conquered West Indies, the lands of New Spain (now Mexico); and when he says “in Genoa did they hearse him” he means that the gold is buried as jewelry with the corpses of the wealthy merchants of the Italian city Genoa.

Mother, unto gold I yield me,
He and I are ardent lovers;
Pure affection now discovers
How his sunny rays shall shield me!
For a trifle more or less
All his power will confess,
Powerful knight is don money.

In the Indies did they nurse him,
While the world stood round admiring;
And in Spain was his expiring;
And in Genoa did they hearse him;
And the ugliest at his side
Shines with all of beauty’s pride;
Powerful knight is don money.

Noble are his proud ancestors
For his blood-veins are patrician;
Royalties make the position
Of his Orient investors;
So they find themselves preferred
To the duke or country herd,
Powerful knight is don money.

Never meets he dames ungracious
To his smiles or his attention,
How they glow but at the mention
Of his promises capacious!
And how bare-faced they become
To the coin beneath his thumb
Powerful knight is don money.

I’m not sure if the translation of “…to the duke or country herd” conveys accurately the meaning. In the original Spanish it says that the yellow metal “hace iguales al duque y al ganadero,” makes the duke and country herd equals.

You can imagine how the young and ambitious commoners in those times (like Cortés) looked for chances of upward mobility in the “West Indies.”

See Dr. William Pierce’s take on this very subject: here.

Massive Iberian screw-up

As a postscript to my recent post about why the single-cause hypothesis in White Nationalism is untenable—that is, that “Whites can do no wrong and are the eternal victims of Jewish deceit and aggression”—, let me clarify something I said about the Iberian side of the conquest of America and New Spain in particular.

mestizo kid

(A Mestizo kiddie: the symbol of the Iberian blunder.)

The main culprit of the extremely thorough mestization that took place in the American continent at the south of Río Grande, all the way to the lands of the Incas in South America, was the Iberians’ lust for gold and silver.

That was the main culprit that in this blog I have called, inspired in Wagner and Tolkien, as falling prey of the One Ring or “economics over race” policies. That’s also why, at the very top of this blog, I include an image of the real god of spoiled whites, Mammon.

The second culprit was the Catholic Church that allowed the bachelor Spaniards in the continent to marry Amerindian women with a Pope bull only ten years after the conquest of the Aztec Empire. Christianity in general is blind to racial matters and the Church did not give a damn about the havoc that such bull would cause. (The Catholic Church was so powerful in New Spain that by the end of the 17th century it owned more than half of its territories.)

Those are, in my view, the two main factors that explain how the Iberians massively screwed up the continent.

As I said in my previous post, this case proves that whites are capable of committing ethno-suicide by themselves, without the help of the subversive tribe, the Jews, who were persecuted and dispatched when detected in the three-hundred year period that lasted the Colonial times. (Hernán Cortés was the first to burn at the stake a couple of kikes in 1528, even before the Inquisition was formally established in New Spain.) Yes, it is true that even with such controls some cryptos might have entered spheres of influence. According to one biographer, Bartolomé de Las Casas was of converso heritage, although others refer to Las Casas family as old Christians who migrated from France.

But the larger point is that even if Las Casas (and presumably other cryptos who escaped detection) was of Jewish ancestry, it would be ridiculous to claim that they “caused” the thoroughgoing mestization that, with time, ruined the genetic pool of the conquerors.

Bernal_Diaz_del_Castillo

If you want to breathe the zeitgeist of New Spain I would highly recommend reading the primary sources, starting with the stupendous chronicle of Bernal Díaz del Castillo (d. 1585), The Truthful History of the Conquest of New Spain, i.e., the conquest of Mexico-Tenochtitlan. Bernal was a foot soldier and fought with Hernán Cortés during the conquest of the capital of the Aztec Empire.

You will breath in The Truthful History, right from the beginning of the history of post-Columbian Mexico, how gold and religion provided the zeitgeist or axis around which the Iberian dominion over the Americas would move. Whatever happened in this large part of the American continent it had nothing to do with Jewish subversion. It was the Spanish and the Portuguese doing it to themselves. But judge it by yourself if you are interested in history. Read the primary sources that have been translated to English.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk – 10

the-real-hitler
 
Saturday, 26 July 1941, night

[ Monarchy is doomed.]
 

The people needs a point upon which everybody’s thoughts converge, an idol. A people that possesses a sovereign of the stature of Frederick the Great can think itself happy; but if he’s just an average monarch, it’s better to have a republic. Notice that when the institution of monarchy has been abolished in a country—see France and Yugoslavia to-day!—thenceforward the institution is given over to ridicule, and can never again assert itself.

I am tempted to believe that the same thing will happen with the Church. Both are institutions that naturally developed in the direction of ceremonial and solemnity. But all that apparatus no longer means anything when the power that lay beneath it has disappeared.

Orwellian discrediting of history

Published in: on December 15, 2013 at 10:00 am  Leave a Comment  

On Carolyn and Tan

Or:

Blaming the Morlocks, sparing the Eloi

For those who don’t believe Whites are capable of imposing this madness on themselves, I will point to France during the French Revolution which abolished slavery in the name of the “Rights of Man” and made every Negro a citizen of the French Republic.

Hunter Wallace



I have listened to the recent show on The White Network hosted by Carolyn Yeager and my ol’ friend Tanstaafl (Tan). The show was a reaction to Kevin MacDonald’s article on The Occidental Observer: a summary of a collection of papers of the journal The Occidental Quarterly or TOQ about white pathology.

I have to say something about the show. In the first place, I see that after the debacle of the last year Tan—and I must steal a sentence from Franklyn Ryckaert—is still incapable of seeing the difference between guilt tripping by Jews and honest self-criticism by Whites. Tan still seems to think that self-criticism by Whites is nothing but interiorized guilt tripping and he proceeds then to proclaim the total innocence of Whites. Jews are the only ones who are guilty of white decline, and anyone who suggests that Whites have a responsibility of their own is deluded. He calls that “delusion” the “suicide meme.”

Judge it by yourself, visitors. Listen the show and tell me if Tan continues to identify honest criticism with guilt tripping.

This of course reminds me the recent exchange between Tan and Greg Johnson at Counter-Currents, where Johnson said:

If the problem is a coalition of minorities who are “in most cases” but not always Jews, then it really is more accurate to refer to them as minorities than as Jews, isn’t it? Thus your desire to find-and-replace “minorities” with “Jews” betrays a certain monomania and lack of scruple.

Sort of like my Baptist cousin who tries to shoehorn Jesus into every conversation. It is very low-churchy to clamp down on “one thing needful,” insist on discussing it even when it is not appropriate, and then to bitterly accuse people of being evil when they draw back from you, or simply exceed your narrow range of interests.

I don’t like that about you.

Understandably Tan became chagrined about this sharp comment and reacted on his blog Age of Treason saying that Johnson is no longer welcome to republish Tan’s articles.

Back to the Carolyn show but keeping in mind the exchange that resulted in the recent distancing between Johnson and Tan. When Carolyn said something Tan mildly criticized her that she was using “the passive voice.” Tan is a reductionist, like Johnson’s cousin, and wants to use the active voice. That’s why Tan made it very clear in the show that he doesn’t like MacDonald’s term “white pathology,” and it struck me that at the beginning of the podcast Tan always referred to MacDonald as an “expert in psychology,” never as an expert in the Jewish Problem (JP). This is remarkable because MacDonald is the foremost expert on the JP, and Tan only an amateur. (As a professor with tenure MacDonald has been a full-time researcher for a while and people like us, who have to make a living elsewhere, cannot compete with that.)

Carolyn started then to mention, one by one, the authors who contributed to the TOQ issue about “white pathology.” Tan commented that he disliked the phrasing of one of the first authors mentioned by Carolyn, that today’s liberalism “is rooted in equality” because, Tan maintained, the Jew-controlled media bombards us all the time with such message. But that just begs the question. The disturbing fact is that precisely because whites elevated the notion of equality by the end of the 18th century to the level of a civil religion, the Jews were gradually empowered throughout the 19th century.

As far as I know, Tan has not tried to take issue with the many articles by Hunter Wallace on Occidental Dissent. Wallace started the now abandoned blog Antisemitica and in my opinion is fairly aware of the JP. Wallace now believes that the Yankees of the last centuries and the French Jacobins were basically on the same page of the Jews as to white dispossession (what I call in the subtitle of this blog “assisted suicide”).

Napos-big-blunderIt seems to me that Tan commits exactly the same fallacy that the blogger Lew commits when challenged about precisely those roots that show how liberalism was originally a white phenomenon. Lew wants to count serious history since 1910, after the Jews were already empowered, something that misleads his readers by giving the impression that the subversive tribe empowered itself.

Like Carolyn, Tan doesn’t say a peep about the role played by Christianity in the development of suicidal universalism or suicidal out-group altruism. In fact, in Carolyn’s show he did exactly the opposite. About the TOQ contribution of the blogger who goes under the penname of Yggdrasil, Tan disliked it too because Yggdrasil wants to go to the roots (that’s well beyond 1910). Tan commented that pondering into the remote historical past “is a form of escapism” because “now it is Jews running the show,” and added in pretty sarcastic tone that it is silly to go back as far as the French Revolution and—the horror—up to the times of Rome so that these intellectuals “can find excuses for the Jews.”

I very much doubt that the motivation of the TOQ contributors is excusing the Jews. As Aristotle said, to have a profound grasp on a subject one must delve deeply into the past. Few sentences by Greg Johnson have been more illuminating to understand what I have recently been calling the Aryan Problem (economics over race) than Johnson’s phrase, “In ancient Rome, as in modern America, the economic system and its imperatives are treated as absolute and fixed, whereas the people are treated as liquid and fungible.”

Click on the pic of Mammon at the top of this blog and then click again on the Kenneth Clark epigraph. Follow the white rabbit to dismiss the single Jewish-cause hypothesis. But Tan labeled all of this historical pondering in TOQ as “lame,” which misses the whole point of bicausalism that in this post I’ll define as you need two to dance tango, the Morlocks and the Eloi.

Like the TOQ contributors, my motivation has absolutely nothing to do with excusing the “Morlocks.” If we use as a metaphor the novel by H.G. Wells, The Time Machine, I would say that my motivation is to try that the Eloi wake up.

Remember the 1960 film that adapted Wells’ novel for the silver screen? When George (Rod Taylor) spots young blond people by a river, a woman, “Weena” is drowning but the other Eloi are indifferent (I would call this “white pathology”). Later in the film George is outraged by the Eloi’s apathy and finds out that they’re mere cattle for the anthropophagus “Morlocks.”

time machine 1

What Tan and many others in the American pro-white movement don’t want to see is that today’s whites are behaving like the Eloi. We are in this mess because the masses of whites are basically animal conformists. See the insightful quotations by Rockwell, Pierce and Hitler in my previous post. They’re absolutely essential to understand the viewpoint of The West’s Darkest Hour.

I must acknowledge that in the show Carolyn sounded more reasonable by blaming, together with the Jews, the liberal Whites. But Tan made it clear in the show that he disagrees with the use of that word, liberal. “It is hard to blame the poor white people,” the Eloi. According to Tan, all blame should be laid on the feet of the Morlocks.

Tan also said that white behavior comes from the current Zeitgeist, and that the white traitors are just opportunists. But the central question in this darkest hour of ours is, again, who empowered the Jews. My educated guess is that Tan and those who think like him will always avoid this question.

“Don’t they deserve some blame?” asked Carolyn. At least Tan acknowledged that a specific acquaintance of Carolyn’s that she mentioned was not forced by the Jews to harbor such traitorous thoughts. Then both talked about Jared Taylor and his concept of “pathological altruism” among whites but the Taylor case is problematic because he tolerates Jews in his conferences. Suffice it to say that at least Tan conceded that white altruism “may have biological roots.”

About the article that MacDonald himself wrote, Tan commented (remember that I don’t know shorthand):

My reaction was negative. Look at these white people who acted like idiots! [sarcasm]… He specifically identifies Christian philanthropists. The point I’d like to make… [is that even as far back as] 1861… to neglect to mention the Jewish influence in that kind of thinking and its influence on Christianity is a mistake.

In other words, Tan leaves Christianity off the hook. Only Jews are to be blamed. He has never replied to my very iterated argument that here in what used to be called New Spain the Inquisition, already familiar with the Jewish tricks at the Iberian Peninsula, persecuted the crypto-Jews; that New Spain was the first Judenfrei state in the continent, and that even sans Jews the Spaniards and the Creoles managed to blunder on a continental scale to the point of destroying their gene pool with Amerinds and the imported Negroes.

Hardly the Jews can be blamed for what happened here or even at the Iberian Peninsula. It was clearly a case of white suicide sans Jews.

If you don’t like to read my posts on New Spain, Spain or Portugal because you might fear that I may have distorted information on a subject that Americans have little interest, go to Occidental Dissent and see the posts by Wallace that prove that, long before the Jews took over the US, a specific form of evangelical Christianity plus the Enlightenment of the founding fathers already contained the roots of suicidal liberalism.

Let my finish this entry with yesterday’s quotations by Spandrell on an interesting exchange at Counter-Currents:

And yes, Jews are evil, but it’s the white elite who brought them in, as it has been since the early Middle Ages. You can hate Jewish chutzpah, but blaming them isn’t going to solve much, because: you can’t remove them, and even if you sent them all to Madagascar, it wouldn’t solve the problem of white leftism.

That’s more or less the idea. The Dark Enlightenment is about studying leftism per se. You might believe leftism is a jewish conspiracy and in their absence whites would suddenly arise as a sane and anti-egalitarian ethnicity. We disagree.

Not that white polities wouldn’t be awesome: personally I’m all for ethnic segregation. But as a European let me tell you that it’s not that easy.

And later on that thread he added:

I apologize if I misrepresented your views on the Jewish Question. I’m aware of Kevin MacDonald’s work and find little to disagree with, but it’s hard to blame the parasite when the host has developed a symbiotic relationship with it. Still I just think focusing on the Jews is a waste of time, people get emotional and discussions are seldom productive.

Which is why this blog focuses on the Eloi.

Downton Abbey

downton-abbey-wallpaper-8

I have said that, of all recent TV series I have seen, I only found inspiring the first episode of The White Queen. Now I might recommend a series which message, at least until the first season that I watched, is not necessarily negative.

Downton Abbey is a series created by English actor and novelist Julian Fellowes, first aired in Britain on September 2010. The series depicts the lives of the aristocratic Crawley family and their servants in the post-Edwardian era starting with the sinking of the Titanic. Of the only season I’ve watched to date my favorite line upon which the entire drama evolves—that in the recent past women had no right of inheritance—is a dialogue between two humble servants:

“It is the law.”

“Well: it is a wicked law.”

These well-intentioned Britons were naïve of course. We know better now. We now know that from the corruption of women all evils follow. Just compare the decent world of Downton Abbey with today’s Hollywood degeneracy (that incidentally even quite a few white nationalists like).

Remember for instance that filthy film, Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone, during the interrogation scene, shows her pubic hair to the male interrogators. That’s what happens when women are allowed to inherit immense fortunes from their late parents, as Catherine Tramell (Stone) did in Basic Instinct. Remember also when the detectives visited her Pacific Heights mansion to find only Catherine’s lesbian lover, etcetera.

My dream is that later in this century and the next one the West will revert to the mores of Jane Austen in the ethnostate. What I most loved about Downton Abbey, which rather depicts the late Victorians of the early 20th century is that, with the exception of a Turk who died in the aristocratic mansion, non-whites simply don’t exist in that world.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 201 other followers