To begin crossing…

the psychological Rubicon read three texts that appear in this book: a review of Hellstorm, the essay on Judea against Rome and Who We Are by William Pierce. PDF here, hard copy here.

Published in: on October 17, 2019 at 10:13 pm  Comments (1)  

Siding the Christians

Groypers, Spencer and Allied rapists

About the arrest and deportation of Greg Johnson from Norway for pre-crime of a possible thought-crime, isn’t it ironic that Johnson is the one who has written the most against the lone wolves? Will he learn the lesson? It is not enough to comply with the laws of a country: the anti-white System will still get you.

As axiologically I consider Johnson a pseudoapostate of Christianity (see my previous entry to understand the concept of pseudoapostasy), I prefer an openly Christian activist like Nick Fuentes (sample videos here, here and here).

Fuentes is the leader of the Groyper War that is currently exposing the American cuckservatives. Though I would much prefer something closer to what Hitler did in the 1920s, after Charlottesville the System made it clear that it will not tolerate such events, even if no laws were actually broken. So what we have in regards to tolerated activism is a movement led by Fuentes and three other Catholics: Vincent James, E. Michael Jones and Patrick Casey.

In The Fair Race I said: ‘I’m looking forward to Richard Spencer and James Edwards running for president and vice president in 2024 to let white nationalists know that, legally, they’re not going anywhere (cf. Charlottesville). The time has come to speak about a revolution within the limits allowed by the law of the United States’. But now that Spencer has gotten into trouble we should consider the Groyper movement which has deeper roots in America’s superficial culture than Spencer’s more profound Kultur. As a Counter-Currents columnist recently said, ‘The groyper movement is far more than a Nick Fuentes fan club. It is the primal scream of Deep America, of an American nation which intends to make itself known and rise on the world stage. Fuentes is riding this wave—how far, I cannot tell’.

Before the Spencer scandal (more on it below), the McSpencer Group recently assembled ‘to discuss the recent storming of Charlie Kirk’s “Culture War” tour by members of Groyper Nation. Speaking of the Culture War, the group also takes a deep dive into the history of the “paleoconservatives” and the politics of nostalgia—their triumphs, their limitations, and whether their movement and moniker make any sense in the 21st century’, according to the video’s abstract in YouTube. A commenter replied: ‘Got to give Nick credit. This is the type of IRL [in real life] activity we should be doing rather than street battles with Antifa’. But the Groyper movement has its problems for secularists who comment in Greg Johnson’s webzine, as Hector Quinn said a couple of days ago:

The only problem with this groyper uprising is its attachment to extreme right-wing Christianity. Not only does this alienate it from most people, but it’s also not particularly revolutionary. Their questions about gays and “Christian morality” are really just a throwback to the George W era. It’s not interesting and already has a place within mainstream conservatism. The pressing and truly vanguard issues that they should be focused on are those of race and Israel.

I disagree. It doesn’t matter that Groypers are stagnated in levels 3 and 4 in Mauricio’s metric. Compared to those racialists who use the Newspeak term ‘gay’ I am on their side, as can be deduced from what I said about sex in my article on pseudoapostates. Groypers are absolutely right that what the white man needs is a return to morals. Secular nationalists, on the other hand, seem to ignore the information from The Fair Race and other sources: the Spartans, the men in Republican Rome and even German invaders during Christian takeover of Imperial Rome were Puritans: the rock upon which a culture can be built.
 

Let’s go berserk!

Richard Spencer for one is a non-Christian. Regarding the audio about Spencer’s visceral reaction, immediately after the Charlottesville event, I remember seeing and hearing, if not that same audio (with an accompanying video), a very similar one in which Spencer, inside a moving car in the streets of Charlottesville, ranted against the vile ambush by the System.

When I saw that video in August 2017, I felt vindicated: finally someone speaks as violently I speak! But two years later, when the audio became public, Alt-Lighters see things exactly the other way. They talk about a ‘temper tantrum’ or a ‘meltdown’ of Spencer as if his super-healthy, super-cathartic explosion was something negative. How is it possible for normies to see things in photographic negative: white is seen as black and black is white; dark gray is seen as light gray and vice versa? If something ought to be considered positive it is precisely Spencer’s slurs about Jews and blacks in expletive-laden rants, even though for normies’ ears it sounds like the most poisonous kind of white supremacism! Only in a world where Aryan values have been 180° inverted, courtesy of Xtian ethics, could Spencer’s fury be considered mad.

One thing is clear: due to my apparently ugly self (‘ugly’ only for neochristian eyes) I find talking to myself on this site, where I now only post once a week. If this site were popular, many racially aware whites would already know the history of the Berserkers, included in one of the PDF chapters of the sticky post that appears above this article. The Berserkers story is fundamental: it shows that the blond beast must suffer, occasionally, outbursts of holy rage as the Vikings did during their war cries.

But for the castrated white after WW2, and this includes every notable figure in racialism except exterminationists like Linder, that is considered insane. When we talk about transvaluing Christian values to pre-Christian times we mean precisely to recover our warrior manhood, including the ultra-violent cries of war, as part of the psychogenic price we must pay to re-conquer the West. Alas, the average Alt-Lighter is closer to the ultra-pacifist Johnson than to the Viking of yesteryear…
 

Christian apologetics

A piece of older news is that Weev of The Daily Stormer was finally discredited in the movement. Good news, as a Jew would never have been accepted as a contributor in the Nazi tabloid Der Stürmer, times when whites had not castrated themselves.

Originally some people thought that The Daily Stormer would be the webzine for adolescent Berserkers but they could not be more wrong. If that were the case, once the legal age was reached, DS readers would graduate from websites like The West’s Darkest Hour or from those that guard William Pierce’s old essays and speeches. But they stay at the Anglin playground. As far as Andrew Anglin is concerned, more serious than the fact that he had collaborated with a Jew is the POV from which he starts: ‘We cannot let anyone influence our agenda, which must remain what it always was: Pro-White, Pro-Christian… Pro-American’.

Not let anyone influence you? This is also the problem among Groypers and American conservatives in general. What about the historical facts about the origins of Christianity, for the first time systematically exposed on a racist site (this one)? Pro American? Apparently, it doesn’t occur to American conservatives that their Philo-Semitic, Mammon-worshiper country is a major factor in white decline. The only way to fix the problem is to understand the fact that your race is your nation, which means accepting all Aryan history as the story of your true nation (once more, cf. Pierce’s historical essay in The Fair Race).

Recently, like Anglin and the Groypers, Hunter Wallace has been writing apologetics (‘It is a mistake to conflate our particular lifetimes with Christianity. Before the Second World War and the television era, there was no such thing as a social stigma on racism’). Wallace and the southern nationalists of his webzine do not seem to have listened recently to Alex Linder, or the argument which compares Christianity to cancer. Cancer, too, doesn’t necessarily kill immediately. You can have cancer for years until it suddenly metastasises and kills you (cf. Part II of The Fair Race).

These days, for example, I have been watching some of my favourite scenes from the 1959 Ben-Hur movie, based on a novel that was a tremendous bestseller at a time when there was still no television. I am surprised how, even in those times, the Yankees (the novel was written by a Yankee) idealised the Jewish quarter at the expense of Aryan Rome. When the movie was released I was one year old. With a few more decades, the comparatively small cancer that represented the values of that novel and film—the values of the American culture!—would metastasise at runaway philo-Semitic levels, and the anti-Roman values so to speak, of today (cf. the essay of Judea against Rome, also referred to in the sticky post).

Objections aside, I am glad that some American nationalists seem to be awakening on a substantial scale. But something infinitely more challenging that Groypers could be asking to cuckservatives are questions about the lies about the Second World War (‘You call me a holocaust denier but the real Holocaust deniers are you: Why hasn’t the Republican Party said a peep about the genocide of millions of Germans from 1945 to 1947?’).

In stark contrast to the above American news, I would like to change the mood to my usual gravitas and cite some pages of Tom Goodrich’s book on the Americans’ rape of European women:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Meanwhile, to the west, the Americans were engaged in their own version of sexual conquest. Soon after they stormed ashore on D-Day, June, 1944, the worst elements in the US Army were allowed virtual free reign to rob, rape and kill.

“Reports that disciplinary conditions in the army are becoming bad,” General Eisenhower’s personal driver and mistress, Kay Summersby, candidly recorded. “Many cases of rape, murder, and pillage are causing complaints by the French, Dutch, etc.”

Expecting an army of heroic liberators, the Europeans were naturally surprised and shocked at the lack of discipline among the Allied forces, especially that of the Americans. Drunkenness, theft, wanton destruction of public and private property, casual sex on streets and in parks, but above all, violent sexual assault—many French soon referred to the American occupation as a “regime of terror… imposed by bandits in uniform.”

Historian, Mary Louise Roberts, poignantly recounts one such incident:

The handsome American soldier was Elisabeth’s tenth client that evening. Working her trade on the top floor of a dingy apartment block in Paris, she felt that she had seen them all.

For the past four years, the men had been Germans, and now, since the city had been liberated in August, 1944, they were Americans. It made little difference.

Elisabeth held out three fingers of her hand to indicate the price of her body—three hundred francs.

“Too much,” said the soldier.

Elisabeth sighted. She had seen that before as well. Wearily, she kept the three fingers held up, almost as an insult.

There was no negotiation—three hundred was little enough as it was.

“Two hundred,” the soldier insisted.

“Non,” said Elisabeth. “Three hundred or nothing.”

The soldier approached her, hate in his eyes. Elisabeth glowered back, starting to feel scared.

“In that case,” said the soldier, “it will be nothing.”

The soldier then placed his huge hands around Elisabeth’s neck and started to squeeze. She struggled as hard as she could, lashing out, but it was in vain.

After a minute or so she slumped down, her lifeless body falling on to the stained sheets. The soldier then calmly removed his trousers and had sex with her. For nothing.

Afterwards, he went through Elisabeth’s belongings and stole her cash and jewelry. He then went round the block, found another prostitute and took her to dinner and the movies.

For the GI, it had been a swell evening. Paris was just as they said it was.

“The French now grumble that the Americans are a more drunken and disorderly lot than the Germans and hope to see the day when they are liberated from the Americans,” admitted one US general in disgust. “I am informed the Germans did not loot either residences, stores, or museums. In fact the people claimed that they were meticulously treated by the Army of Occupation.”

After raping and robbing their way across France and Belgium, the US Army reacted much like the Soviets once they crossed into Nazi Germany in early 1945. Imagining the Americans to be much like the disciplined and well-behaved Wehrmacht, many German women, young and old, actually greeted the invaders euphorically as the long­sought symbol that the war was finally over and peace was at hand. Unfortunately, most found out too late, just as the boys at Dachau discovered, that these were not the Americans of their imaginations.

“We were crazy with happiness when the Americans came…,” lamented one woman, “[but] what [they] did here was quite a disappointment that hit our family pretty hard.”

“After the fighting moved on to German soil, there was a good deal of rape by combat troops and those immediately following them,” offered Australian journalist, Osmar White, a war correspondent traveling with the Americans. Soon after entering towns and villages the rapes began. Indoors or out, night or day, on park benches, against walls, on shop floors, the sexual attacks continued as the American conquerors laid claim to the conquered. Often going house to house in search of victims, some rapists initially claimed that they were looking for weapons, or food, or German soldiers in hiding. All too quickly their true purpose was made clear. In one German town, a group of six GIs found an attractive mother and her teenage daughter home alone. In the struggle to drag the victims upstairs, the females escaped out the door and hid in a neighbor’s closet. Finding their hiding place, the soldiers immediately threw the mother and daughter onto beds and one after another took turns raping the females, even as the daughter cried out, “Mama, Mama.”

At the Bavarian village of Ramsau, revealed one priest, “eight girls and women [were] raped, some of them in front of their parents.” In other villages, “heavily drunken” US soldiers helped themselves to the females. After raping one woman, a GI bragged that he had “liberated” her. In an apparent attempt to make the job easier for their men, some US officers required all homes to state the names and ages of their inhabitants and then nail the lists to their doors.

“The results of this decree are not difficult to imagine…,” a priest from one town answered. “Seventeen girls or women… were brought to the hospital, having been sexually abused once or several times.”

Rather than use their authority to punish the criminals and thereby stop most of the sexual attacks, American officers, much like their Soviet counterparts, seemed utterly indifferent to the crime, preferring instead to either ignore it entirely or blame the victims. Instead of arresting black soldiers for a massive number of rapes, the victims themselves were blamed because they “smiled” at the negroes while begging food. US Lieutenant General Edwin Lee Clarke went even further. “German women are creating a feeling of great insecurity among our soldiers by untrue charges of rape…,” announced Clarke. “These tactics might be part of a German plan.”

As with the Soviets, the Americans seemed to have no age limit and an elderly woman of 65, or older, could expect to be raped just as could a child of seven, or younger. There were other similarities. Revealed an Allied official:

German women were more frequently injured, beaten unconscious, abused more frequently in front of husbands or relatives and more frequently penetrated orally or anally by Gls than by the British or French.

“Americans look on the German women as loot, just like cameras and Lugers,” confessed a reporter for a New York newspaper.

“[W]e too are considered an army of rapists,” admitted a US sergeant matter-of-factly.

Added a writer for Time magazine succinctly: “Many a sane American family would recoil in horror if they knew how “Our Boys” conduct themselves… over here.

And the duty of concealing from the American public these crimes their husbands and sons were committing in Europe—and later, in Japan—was the job of the Office of War Information. Issuing its unequivocal marching orders to a small army of journalists following along with American troops, the OWI simply perfected a Soviet style censorship on all news and information destined for the US. “The rules for correspondents [were both]… imposed and self-imposed,” explained the American writer, John Steinbeck, about how he and other reporters hid the truth:

There were no cowards [or rapists or murderers] in the American Army, and of all the brave men the private in the infantry was the bravest and noblest… A second convention held that we had no cruel or ambitious or ignorant commanders… We were all a part of the War Effort. We went along with it, and not only that, we abetted it. Gradually it became a part of all of us that the truth about anything was automatically secret and that to trifle with it was to interfere with the War Effort. By this I don’t mean that the correspondents were liars… [but] it is in the things not mentioned that the untruth lies. We felt responsible to what was called the home front. There was a general feeling that unless the home front was carefully protected from the whole account of what war was like, it might panic. Also, we felt we had to protect the armed services from criticism, or they might retire to their tents to sulk like Achilles.

Thus, in effect, each “reporter” was expected to ignore or deny the looting, rape and murder committed by the Americans and exaggerate or invent the war crimes committed by the Germans; to dutifully deify their friends in the one breath and viciously vilify their enemy in the next. In essence, a corp of conscientious, diligent newsmen during times of peace had been transformed into an obedient herd of propagandists during times of war.

While some upright American officers, like their Russian counterparts, tried manfully to control the scourge of rape in their units, most did not. For German women, the baffling contradictions in each army was itself a source of nonstop terror and stress. Near Berlin, when a family encountered their first Soviets at war’s end they were naturally paralyzed with fear, fully expecting a riot of robbery and rape to envelop them. Surprisingly, the Russians were very polite and left without harming anything or anyone, including the family’s females. When the Americans later arrived, however, one of the daughters was raped so brutally that years later she still had not recovered.

Although sexual assaults by French troops in Germany were fewer than other allies, perhaps only because there were fewer French troops to begin with, not so the African colonials under their command—Moroccans, Senegalese and others who raped on a massive scale. Just as with their American and Soviet allies, the French commanders seemed indifferent to the fate of German civilians, especially women. Indeed, many French officers seemed to gloat in their power and allowed their black troops to run wild, robbing, raping, and murdering. “In the next few nights,” boasted one French sergeant, “no woman will go untouched.” When Senegalese troops reached Stuttgart in southwest Germany, they herded thousands of women, and a number of men, into the subway then raped and sodomized them all at their leisure.

While the British were far and away the most disciplined and correct of all Allied forces, that army too had its criminal element. “I didn’t go out and chase my chaps away from the women,” laughed one junior officer. “I didn’t have time. I was doing it myself!”

And thus, in the east, in the west, in their thousands, in their tens of thousands, in their hundreds of thousands, perhaps in their millions, the sexual assaults and spiritual slaughter of German females continued long after the war was declared over.

“I was panic-stricken. I was always afraid that everybody could see it in me. I was insecure in myself. I felt so empty,” confessed one young victim expressing the emotional chaos and confusion of countless others. “I wanted to do away with myself and kept crying. My mother would not let me go anywhere alone, not even to the toilet.”

“Is this the peace we yearned for so long?” cried Elsbeth Losch from a town near Dresden. “When will all this have an end?”

_____________

Editor’s note: Pages 42-47 of Summer 1945. The footnotes have been omitted. Summer 1945 is a book that exposes the atrocities committed by the United States in Japan and Germany. If the reader is interested in a book by the same author that focuses on the holocaust perpetrated by the Allies solely in Germany, obtain a copy of Hellstorm, The Death of Nazi Germany: 1944-1947 (sample chapter: here).

Notification

I will be posting only one entry a week, preferably on Friday mornings. Meanwhile, Rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat has a message for you.

Published in: on November 5, 2019 at 6:19 pm  Comments (8)  

Linder on Christianity

Listen to what Alex Linder says about Xtianity: here, here, here, here, here and here.

Or if you want to listen to the whole thing, almost 8 hours of interview, click: here. In one the last minutes Linder said: ‘I really really have thought a lot about Christianity, and studied it a hell of a lot and when I eventually write something it is going to be part about it. Because I think that is the biggest unexplored territory in relation to racialism and the whole movement—the political aspect of it. That part has not been worked out. I honestly believe that even the significant people in racialism underestimated the problems that come from that direction and [are] basically tolerating it openly as some kind of good a neutral thing. But I literally could go on and on for seven more hours, he he! Anyway…’

Published in: on November 2, 2019 at 12:49 pm  Comments (3)  

Pseudoapostates

Or:

It all starts at Level 6

Hitler said that National Socialism could not be exported. If technically we cannot call ourselves ‘National Socialists’, this explains that a few years ago I started using another expression, ‘priests of the fourteen words’.

The priest of the 14 words does not even have to be pure Aryan as were the members of the SS. By the expression I mean a man devoted to fulfilling the words of Hitler and Lane, which on the internet are represented with the numbers 14/88 (eighty-eight being some 88 words of the Führer in Mein Kampf). About the time when I coined the expression ‘priest of the 14 words’ I began to talk of a first guideline for such priest: ‘Speak only with Aryan males’. You can avoid ninety-seven percent of pointless discussions if you follow this simple guideline. Furthermore, only Aryan men are potentially capable of initiating an armed revolution in pursuit of the sacred words.

But a guideline is not compulsory and sometimes I still try, unsuccessfully, to communicate with non-whites. On the other hand, on page 563 of The Fair Race, writing about the new tablets of stone, I do speak of imperatives: ‘First commandment: “You will keep your blood pure”. Second commandment: “Never use non-whites in any type of work”’ (listen to the interview of Arthur Kemp by Lana Lokteff to learn why using non-white labour is ultimately ethnosuicidal).

Since together with modern civilisation Christian ethics are the mortal enemy of the sacred words, I would like to expand our understanding of the priesthood of the 14 words with four signs of genuine apostasy from Judeo-Christianity. Despite the last line of this article, the priests of the fourteen words (1) do not believe that the god of the Jews exists and therefore (2) do not believe that a Jew was resurrected from the dead in the first century of the Common Era. Nor do they believe in (3) the Christian vision of the human soul or the existence of disembodied entities in the hereafter. Finally, (4) they have transvalued Christian values to Aryan normality (this is central to what I’ll say in this article about the so-called day of the rope).

One might think that with this criterion the people of the ‘Alt-Right’, exemplified in the secular case of he who coined the term, Richard Spencer, could be candidates for this new ecclesia. Actually, Spencer is not a candidate to the extent that he fails at the fourth sign, and it is not entirely clear what his pals think about the third one (see my recent entries on the hereafter). I would like to exemplify why they cannot be priests with the most recent talk of Spencer and his friends who, using the metric of Mauricio, I’d say they are psychogenically trapped between levels four and five while our priesthood starts at Level 6.

While we want to transvalue some American values to NS values; other values to the England of Jane Austen (the laws of the Victorian world virtually forced women to get properly married), and others to Greco-Roman values, the Alt-Right continues to promote Murkan values (even though Spencer said that ‘there is something profoundly wicked in the origins’ of his nation). For example, in their recent YouTube talk, ‘The Self-Defeating Drive for De-Radicalization’, Spencer okayed getting laid during his criticism of the more puritanical incels. When I heard Spencer and his friends I wondered what happened to the sacred institution of marriage in their minds, which even precedes Christianity? Are they so dense that cannot understand that some men simply don’t want to get laid occasionally but marry a decent woman and form a family? Have they not heard what Anglin or Linder say about MGTOW (see for example my own text on the subject: here)?

I also wondered if Spencer & Co. had considered the more conservative texts by Roger Devlin, and now I think the answer is negative. The liberal position of the Alt-Right on sexual maters reminds me of the last novel by the late Harold Covington, which is also his longest novel about the creation of an only-whites republic. Covington’s novel describes an ethnostate in which the most spoiled women, even feminist warriors, coexist with ladies who behave like Austen’s lovely girls—as if that were possible under the laws and mores of a healthy nation!

But it was not Spencer who surprised me the most, but the guy whose face does not appear in the NPI/Radix videos, only his voice (the moment of his speech begins: here). Spencer’s colleague strongly criticised a fan of William Pierce’s The Turner’s Diaries and the day of the rope. The dude did not explain why it was so primitive to like the most popular novel authored by an American racist, even more popular than Covington’s revolutionary novels. He even used strong words: ‘That’s an immature fucking movement. Those idiots…’ Spencer intervened and, commenting about ‘punching right’, he used the word ‘toxic’ without explaining why the day of the rope should be considered toxic for alt-righters.

This is my proposal to the genuine priests of the 14 words: Not only the friend of Spencer who does not show his face, but on every racially conscious white who is frightened by Pierce the label ‘PSEUDOAPOSTATE’ must be stamped.

As we have seen countless times on this site, there is a chasm between apostasy and pseudo-apostasy of Christianity, between Level 5 and Level 6 in the Mauricio metric. Complete apostasy implies the rejection of those Christian standards of morality that prevent Alt-Right folk from thinking in revolutionary terms. And exactly the same happens in White Nationalism, exemplified in how ‘secular’ Greg Johnson experiences hair raising with both Pierce’s fiction and his non-fiction alike. I could be told that what I say is nonsense in the sense that Christians have been slaughtering for centuries without remorse. But remember what we have been saying on this site: it was not until 1945 when, confused by racial warfare, the white man’s moral compass changed orientation toward gospel-inspired values, even among secularists.

In their video, Spencer and his pals talked about the stage they classify as ‘1.0’ of the movement. In reality, compared to National Socialism their movement is a grotesque regression to the most progressive mentality of the 19th century (remember H.G. Wells’ famous essay on ‘free love’, that is, promiscuous sex). It will give me great pleasure when the economic crash that lies ahead hits the bourgeois lifestyle of these four Radix characters…

After the crash of the dollar Americans will psychogenically transit from ‘happy mode’ to ‘angry mode’. If things get worse over the months, and you must watch John Mark’s videos, whites could even go on a defensive state against invaders at home that I’ve been calling ‘combat mode’. And if the government sides the coloured ‘zombie’ invaders looking for food a revolutionary ‘killing mode’, which includes the day of the rope for traitors, could arise.

History might begin to vindicate us priests of the 14 words while lukewarm voices like Spencer’s and his group will barely be taken seriously. To those who are still sceptical that a collapse is coming I would like to change the subject and say the following:

J. M. W. Turner: The Fall of an Avalanche.

I’ve been watching some of the latest videos by economist Jim Rickards, author of Aftermath: Seven Secrets of Wealth Preservation in the Coming Chaos (2019). In one of his last interviews, they told Rickards that for years he had been predicting a financial collapse and that it still doesn’t happen.

Rickards replied with the perfect metaphor: the exact hour of an avalanche cannot be predicted. Although the accumulated snow layers are a sign that sooner or later it will collapse, it is impossible to know when the temperature will rise among factors such as wind, the additional weight of other layers, snowstorms and rainstorms. But the sure thing is that the avalanche will occur sooner or later. This is from a recent article where Rickards says that the world is unprepared for the currency crash:

Previous crises. According to Mr Rickards, the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis could’ve brought the world to its knees if Wall Street banks hadn’t pulled together to bail out US hedge fund Long-Term Capital, which was about to collapse. The crisis spread throughout the world and hit the US causing Dow Jones industrial average to record its biggest point fall in history by October 1997—triggering a trading suspension. However, disaster was averted after Long-Term Capital received a US$3.75 billion bail-out. Had it not been bailed-out, a cascade of secondary bank bankruptcies would’ve ensued with numerous majors around the world including Deutsche Bank, UBS, and HSBC reporting they had either contributed to the bail-out or written off hundreds of millions in losses.

The following 2007-2008 global financial crisis was triggered by the US subprime mortgage market and excessive risk taking by banks with their lending practices. Falling prey to the crisis was Lehman Brothers which went bankrupt and caused the Dow Jones to topple to its lowest in seven years. In this bail-out, it was left to central banks to prevent financial Armageddon, with the US Federal Reserve taking its balance sheet from US$800 billion to over US$4.2 trillion. The US Government took over flailing banks Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while others including Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America received hundreds of billions in US Government bail-outs.

Who’s going to bail out the central banks? With another financial crisis imminent, Mr Rickards posed the question: who is going to bail out the central banks? […] “They’ll close exchanges, close banks, close ATMs, freeze accounts.” When people say that will “never happen”, Mr Rickards explained it has happened many times before including Cypress, Greece and Argentina. He added it also happened in the US in 1933, when US President Franklin D Roosevelt ordered every bank to close. The bank shutdown lasted eight days, but Mr Rickards said no-one knew how long the closure would be and it could easily have been a month-to-two months. He pointed out another financial shutdown occurred in the US in 1914 when World War One broke out. “The New York Stock Exchange was closed for five months—from July 1914 to December 1914.”

What does the future look like in the next crisis? Mr Rickards was quick to point out he doesn’t foresee a dystopian future or an end of the world scenario. However, he said he did expect the crisis will begin with “enormous social unrest”. Elaborating on this statement, Mr Rickards noted the veneer of civilisation is “paper thin”.

“We saw this in August 2005 with Hurricane Katrina in the US where the city of New Orleans was cut off and order broke down within days. By the second day, people were becoming desperate for food and water. By the third day, violence had broken out. You have vigilantes, looters, and the national guard moving in. Civilised behaviour only lasts about three days in the absence of reliable water, food, electricity and all the things we take for granted.”

In a situation where banks are closed and people can’t access their money, Mr Rickards said social disorder will break out “quite quickly”. This will be followed by a breakdown of internal systems. “This is how complex civilisations collapse. It isn’t a barbarian invasion, but an internal collapse, because of too much bureaucracy, too much taxation, and complexity.”

He said the social disorder will be most acute in major metropolitan areas. To survive this new system, Mr Rickards anticipates communities will shift to a semi-barter system where skills are traded and silver, or gold if you have it, can be used to buy food and other essentials. As the crisis unfolds, the US dollar is expected to become worthless—with gold the primary valuable commodity.

Using the metaphor, in 1998 and in 2008 the economic avalanche had started but was stopped twice with a man-made wall. But sheer size matters. Since the cure was altogether artificial, from 2008 until now many more snowpacks have been accumulated, which means that in the next crisis the central banks won’t be able to stop the increasingly accumulated energy of the fall of the avalanche. That the central banks won’t be able to stop the avalanche is recognised also by other economists who don’t buy the economic nonsense promoted by the System (watch for example the crash courses by Martenson and Maloney so many times cited on this site).

Rickards usually has wealthy people as an audience whom he recommends investing their savings in real estate and tangible commodities (including art) and 10 percent of their capital in gold. But those who visit The West’s Darkest Hour are not so rich, some are even relatively poor. To you I would recommend using 90 percent of your capital to obtain ounces of silver. If you don’t even have capital in the bank, I would suggest working to be able to obtain such coins. Living in the third world this is complicated for me but in the first world it is possible.

Among the sceptics some ask us to give them the exact date of the financial collapse, as if that was possible (cf. how the exact timing of the physical, non-metaphorical avalanche is impossible). They behave like children with such irrational demand while they continue skiing in high-risk places. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, not the angels of heaven, but the Father only.

Loneliness explained

Imagine that you have to argue with people that
some kike didn’t actually come back from the dead.

—Alex Linder

After rereading Mauricio’s List, this morning I got the eureka! moment regarding the reason for the reduction of visitors and donations of which I spoke on Wednesday.

It’s as simple as that, thanks to William Pierce, I’m already at Level 10 of the List while the majority of racialist folk are at Level 4 (‘White Nationalism is good. Jews are evil. Christianity is a White religion’). A few are permanently stuck at Level 5 (‘National Socialism is good. America is evil. Christianity has been corrupted by Jews’).

Once one abandons Christian ethics (‘The leap from 5 to 6 is astronomical’ in the words of Mauricio) the next steps to finish crossing the psychological Rubicon can be taken, such as the exterminationist position of Charles Darwin (see what I said about Darwin yesterday).

Mauricio’s full sentence in that entry last year is: ‘Personally I’m a Level 9, verging on Level 10. I’ve met some Level 4, and only a few Level 5. The leap from 5 to 6 is astronomical due to the Xtian malware rejection. Feels lonely sometimes…’

Bingo. And sometimes I wonder if I should reduce my entries on this site to a minimum, in the sense of saying only the essential. What is the point of speaking from Level 10 when most visitors are stuck at Levels 4 and 5?

Published in: on October 25, 2019 at 9:31 am  Comments (10)  

The two Richards

In my previous posts I said that I have been counter-signalling white nationalists because they maintain Judeo-Christian tails, and at the same time I have been citing Richard Carrier’s work on the nonexistence of Jesus. But Carrier is a typical liberal, as can be seen from the debate I heard yesterday between him and Richard Weikart on YouTube:

Hitler is often claimed to have been an atheist or a Christian by believers and skeptics eager to put the dictator in the other’s camp. Christian historian Richard Weikart argues he was neither in his new book Hitler’s Religion: The twisted beliefs that drove the Third Reich. Richard Carrier is an atheist historian who has researched Hitler’s purported anti-Christian statements often quoted by apologists in his book Hitler, Homer, Bible, Christ. He says that Hitler was anti-Catholic but thought of himself as a “positivist” Christian. In contrast Weikart argues Hitler was a pantheist who personally despised Christianity and only used it in public to aid his rise to power.

Everything sharp and forceful that Carrier had in debating (and refuting) the historicists of Jesus collapses when he speaks of Hitler. He is suddenly transmuted into a completely dishonest fellow. In that 2017 debate, you can tell that Carrier overstates his case when he wants to force his view that a Christianity similar to Christian Identity (‘Positive Xtianity’) was always behind Hitler. What would Carolyn Yeager say about such claim?

Weikart repeatedly replied that Hitler used the word ‘Christianity’ in his criticisms, that Hitler was not only referring to Catholicism or the Church. But Carrier, with that alchemy that he refutes in the fundamentalists, transmutes everything that Hitler said about Christianity as if he supposedly referred only to Catholicism. A case of self-delusion, and big time!

The nadir of the debate occurred in the final segment, where Carrier became as dense as those NPCs that Black Pigeon Speaks was making fun of a month ago. I mean: Carrier criticised Trump claiming that what Trump was doing was ‘demonizing Muslims and Hispanics’. Really? Why did Carrier see nothing about Muslim terrorism, and that Trump only wanted to restrict the migration of the seven countries that produce the most terrorists?

This demonstrates once again that intelligence can be accompanied by very serious character flaws that remind me of my favourite Hamlet quote (cited below). Intelligence is of no use if people voluntarily surrender themselves to self-deception. And Carrier does it. For example, in his discussion with Weikart he sugars the pill about Charles Darwin, claiming that his Darwinism was human and sensitive to other races! Does Carrier ignore that according to Darwin niggers were to be exterminated?

Both Carrier and Weikart regurgitate the widespread myth that Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews ‘because they were an inferior race’. At this point, Weikart surprises me more than Carrier, as the latter is not a Hitler scholar, only a Jesus scholar. Is it possible that none have read Esau’s Tears, a 1997 book with an academic imprimatur and good reviews among normies, authored by a Jew who showed the depredations of the Jewish quarter in the 19th century (which caused the German reaction in the 20th century)?

White nationalism has a point. What could we possibly do with these two Richards, a typical Christian and a typical liberal, without the incredibly detailed analysis of the JQ in WN?

You must understand the POV of this site: if I criticise white nationalists, it is because they maintain a tail of Judaism in the sense of Judeo-Christian axiology, so toxic to the Aryan cause. But I don’t criticise white nationalism for its general vision of the JQ. And if there is something in which the two Richards are absolute ignorant it is the JQ. I wonder if any of them know the work of Kevin MacDonald, if they have even looked at The Occidental Observer?

The debate linked above only corroborates something that my female friend told me: that men—including myself—tend to worship the intellect at the expense of character, in the sense that there may be very intelligent people whose moral flaws eclipse their virtues, the Hamlet quote:

So oft it chances in particular men
That for some vicious mole of nature in them,
By the o’ergrowth of some complexion,
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason,
Or by some habit grown too much; that these men–
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
Their virtues else — be they as pure as grace,
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault.

The land of the winning Aryan

‘Only Orga [humans] believe what cannot be seen or measured…’

—Gigolo Robot to David in the film A.I.

Years ago, when I blogged here without counter-signalling what white nationalists said in other forums, I sometimes had as many as two thousand daily visitors. Together with the donations, these statistics collapsed when I started criticising them. I am not going to blog as I did before as, after crossing the psychological Rubicon, there is no going back.

In ‘How Awake Are You?’ Mauricio is right that the leap from a naïve white nationalism to a mature one is as dizzying as crossing a suspension bridge. The transit is, in fact, much more spatially extensive than what it may seem at first glance with mere blog texts.

For example, secular pro-whites maintain atavisms of the previous paradigm, as the belief in the hereafter.

If one revises the texts in The Fair Race about the healthiest moments of the Aryan—Sparta (as unlike the Athenians the Spartans did not have sex with the native Mediterraneans), the Early Rome, the Germans who conquered the decadent Rome, the Vikings and the men of the Third Reich—we won’t see an obsession with the hereafter. Decadent whites became obsessed with death only in the mongrelized Imperial Rome, the dark Middle Ages and more recently with the flowering of the New Age. Even in the most lucid moments of Christendom, let’s say Elizabethan England that flourished thanks to the expulsion of the Jews, we don’t see this obsession with the hereafter. Shakespeare for example seems far more akin to secular Montaigne than the ‘spiritual’ madness of the New Age. (By the way, there isn’t anything genuinely ‘spiritual’ in the New Agers’ beliefs and I hate that they still use that term referring to crazy metaphysical systems.)

The white nationalists who argue that, since prehistory, man believed in life after death are ignorant in one respect. Those same men practiced, at the same time, horrific infanticide rituals—by billions!

I confess that most of my life I believed in life after life. These beliefs began to diminish more or less at the stage when I realised that my belief in psychokinesis was unfounded. But the spiritual odyssey of one does not say anything to the other, unless they intend to cross the psychological Rubicon.

Perhaps the best way to overcome this afterlife obsession is to study the Jews, starting with Kevin MacDonald’s first book: my favourite of his trilogy. In that book it is striking that, unlike Christians, Jews base their Judaism not on the hereafter but on the here and now and in a tribal way: not in an individualistic manner like the Christian (‘Save your soul!’, ‘Get to heaven!’). If we take into account that the healthiest moments of Greece and Rome were also focused on the here and now, it is obvious what we have to do.

But I don’t get my hopes up. I know that very few white nationalists will cross the suspension bridge, ‘the leap from 5 to 6’ in Mauricio’s list. They are much closer to Normieland than to the other side: the land of the winning Aryan. That shows not only in that secular nationalists share Christian ethics but other Christian cultural waste, such as the unhealthy obsession with an imaginary life after death.

Unobsessed with the afterlife, the Jew will continue to beat the Aryan unless the latter repudiates the last vestige of the Christian infection (see the video I embedded in my first comment in the comments section).

Unhistorical Jesus, 7

Or:

How (((Luke))) transvalued an Aryan value

But even if we accede to that hypothesis, it then only confirms the same point: that Luke is not writing history, but myth. He or his sources are simply making everything up. His tales are told for their meaning and rhetorical effect, not because they were researched or came from witnesses. I’ll close with one more example of this, the Emmaus narrative of Luke 24, a resurrection-appearance tale found in no other Gospel and thus distinctive of Luke’s style of invention.

Here Luke tells the story of a man named Cleopas (along with an unnamed friend) who journeys by road from Jerusalem to nearby Emmaus, after they learn the corpse of Jesus has vanished. On the way, the resurrected Jesus appears to them (albeit in disguise) and explains the secrets of the kingdom (which happens to be a spiritual kingdom, not a physical one), then vanishes, and Cleopas recognizes who he was and goes on to proclaim what he was told. Conveniently, the name Cleopas means ‘tell all’, in other words, ‘proclaim’. The story thus has several telltale markers of myth: a name invented or selected for its meaning to the tale rather than any historical truth; an absurdly ahistorical narrative (never heard of from any earlier source [Mark or Matthew – Ed.]) of a disguised divine visitor; an unrealistic conversation with a complete stranger; a miraculous vanishing; and an all-too-convenient rhetorical purpose for all of it. This is the Vanishing Hitchhiker legend—ancient Roman style.

As it happens, the founding myth of Rome, then famously known everywhere and celebrated in annual passion plays, is almost the exact same story: a man named Proculus (archaic Latin for ‘Proclaimer’ or ‘He Who Proclaims’, thus not only again a fictional name designed for the story but essentially the same name as Cleopas) journeys by road from nearby Alba Longa to Rome, after the Roman people learn the corpse of Romulus has vanished; and on the way, the resurrected Romulus appears to him (not in disguise but this time in glorious form) and explains the secrets of the kingdom (literally: how to conquer and rule the world), then ascends into heaven (as Luke eventually has Jesus do as well), and Proculus recognizes who he was and goes on to proclaim what he was told. I’ve already demonstrated the extent to which the Gospels have borrowed this Romulan resurrection tale for Jesus (see Chapter 4, §1, and Element 47). Mark had already fashioned his passion account in light of it, and Matthew embellished it even more in accord. So it is not unexpected that Luke would take the same model further.

And indeed he has. Not only in the ways I have already pointed out in previous chapters but also here, in the tale of Cleopas on the road to Emmaus. lf we accept the identification of Luke’s intended Emmaus as the Ammaus mentioned by Josephus as a town nearby Jerusalem, then in both Luke’s narrative and the Romulan tale the Proclaimers are journeying from a city on a mountain to a city in a valley, roughly the same direction (east to west, like the sun), and roughly the same distance (seven to twelve miles).

But the changes are the point. While Proculus receives his gospel on the road to Rome, Cleopas receives his gospel on the road from Jerusalem: so while the old story suggests ‘all roads lead to Rome’, the new story suggests all roads lead from Jerusalem. While Romulus appears in awesome glory, befitting the awesome glory of Rome’s dominion and the very visible empire he promises, Jesus appears in disguise, hidden, just as the kingdom he promises is hidden, and which, like Jesus, becomes visible (and thus knowable) only in the communion of believers. Luke has thus transvalued the Romans’ founding myth: unlike the Romans, their resurrected hero promises a hidden spiritual kingdom originating from Jerusalem on high. And just as the glorious visage of Romulus is what confirmed to Proculus that what he said was true, so it is the powerful word of the gospel that confirms to Cleopas that what Jesus said was true. Luke thus rewrites the story to communicate how Christian values differ from mainstream Roman values. This is a classic hallmark of mythmaking. [1]

______________

[1] Pages 480-482 of Carrier’s book. Italics in the original but bold-type added by Ed. For more on the Romulus parallels and reversals in the Emmaus narrative see Arnold Ehrhardt, ‘The Disciples of Emmaus’, New Testament Studies 10 (January 1964), pp. 182-201, and Francis Gerald Downing, ‘A Rival to Romulus’, in Doing Things with Words, pp. 133-51.

‘Islam is right about women’

To understand why this meme is making NPCs mad watch what Black Pigeon Speaks said a month ago or what Eli Harman said last Sunday (especially in the first two minutes of his video).

Published in: on October 22, 2019 at 6:16 pm  Comments (3)  

Merrie Melodies

If we remember a passage in The Fair Race (‘The Arab historian Ibn Fadlan, ambassador of Baghdad to the Bulgarians of the Volga, says of the Vikings: “I have never seen physical specimens so perfect, tall as palm trees, blond and ruddy-skinned”’) it is obvious that the other human races should not exist. If they exist for billions it is due to the counterproductive greed of the white man, so well portrayed in The Man Who Would Be King, where the inhabitants of Kafiristan seem apes compared to Sean Connery and Michael Caine. Both white greed and Christian ethics are behind the creation of the billions of non-whites currently flooding the globe.

Those who are familiar with Richard Carrier’s work will know that the strongest point of his argument is his analysis of the epistles of St Paul. The oldest texts of the New Testament, the Pauline epistles, do not mention an earthly Jesus but an exclusively heavenly one. St. Paul does not even locate the crucifixion of Jesus on earth! In recent days I have continued reading Carrier’s book and I came across a chapter on Clement of Rome and his epistle, which may have been written in the first century. Surprise: Clement also fails to speak, in so early writing, of an earthly Jesus. Apparently the stories that Mark and the other evangelists would write had not yet reached Clement’s ears.

The evidence that the central character of the New Testament is fictional is overwhelming to anyone who has read Carrier’s book, or seen the YouTube videos where he discusses with theologians who believe Jesus was a historical figure. How was it that, instead of the religion of the beautiful Hellenes, whites submitted to the Semitic religion of eternal fire for whites? (In the representations of old paintings of hell I do not see gooks or blacks but whites.) This reminds me that I took the expression ‘Fruitcake Hospital’, which I used in my previous article, from a program that I saw in the early 1970s in The Porky Pig Show, although I don’t remember which character was sent to the psychiatric hospital (huge buildings in those times, like the one we saw in Joker).

Many whites who have abandoned Christianity maintain in their minds a Christian residue, the belief in the immortality of the human soul. They do not seem to notice that, in doing so, they inadvertently join blacks and gooks as long as ‘Man is special’ and the rest of creation is treated as despicable creatures—as if a camel were the same as a spider! Such is the axiological by-product of those who maintain that only Man possesses a soul that survives death: the ultimate brotherhood with other races. (*)

Some white nationalists argue that the white race has always had a belief in personal immortality. What they fail to realise is that the obsession to save themselves from the eternal fire caused an unhealthy focus with the beyond that didn’t exist in the Ancient World, at least not among whites. The complete apostasy of Christianity not only implies abandoning Christian ethics, the crux of this site, but abandoning the obsession with the hereafter as well. Otherwise whites seem to me like that character from Merrie Melodies I saw as a kid who was sent to the Fruitcake Hospital.

_______

(*) Oliver Sacks’ books are hilarious and also explain how the faculties of the supposed ‘soul’ can be damaged simply by accidentally injuring the human brain.