Apocalypse for whites • IV

by Evropa Soberana

 
Judea

The Jews, in many ways, were the exact antithesis of the Romans, but they had something in common with them: ritual rigidity and loyalty to customs. In the Jewish case, the character was tinged with certain fanaticism, dogmatism and intransigence. The Romans considered such religiosity sinister: the Biblical religious background, which is the matrix of Judaism—also of Christianity and Islam—, comes from an ancient Syrian-Phoenician-Canaanite-Semitic tradition, which among other things sanctioned human sacrifice, including the one of first-born children.

Jewry, which had a long record of nomadism, slavery, persecutions and expulsions from Egypt and the Mesopotamian civilisations, had maintained, despite its great swings through a thousand deserts and a thousand foreign cities, its essentially undisturbed idiosyncrasy.

From the remotest antiquity, the Jews proved to be an unassimilable and highly conflictive people, endowed with an unprecedented ability to climb the social positions of other civilisations, undermine their institutions and destroy their traditions and customs from a parasitic and advantaged position; enrich themselves in the process, take whatever was useful, become increasingly sophisticated and, finally, survive the fall of the civilisation they devoured, taking a baggage of experience and symbols stolen to the next civilisation destined to suffer the repetition of the cycle.

In all the countries that welcomed them, the Jews were accused of appropriating the riches of others without working (usury), of exercising vampirism over the economy, of being sycophants with the nobility and openly hostile to the people, of indebting the States and to mortally hate, in secret, all the non-Jewish humanity.

Those who held power among the Jews were the rabbis: priests who had spent their lives learning the Torah and exercised firm psychological control over their people by threatening the wrath of Yahweh and manipulating the individual’s fears and feelings such as guilt or sin. The Greek historian Strabo would end up describing the Jewish priests as ‘superstitious and with the temperament of tyrants’.

This is the first temple in Jerusalem, also called the temple of Solomon or Zion, built on the esplanade of Mount Moriah, around the year 960 BCE. It was razed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE, and rebuilt seventy years later by those Jews who, led by Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah, returned from the deportation of the so-called ‘Babylonian captivity’. It is a rather modest structure and, of course, following the fundamentalist Semitic tradition, lacked images or representations of the human figure: literally, Judaism was a religion without idols. The Carthaginians, associated with the presence of haplogroups J and who had been crushed by Rome in the course of the Punic wars, had also been heirs of the Phoenician tradition of child sacrifice.

But to be a ‘barbarian’ and ‘third-world’ people, despised and considered destined for slavery, the Jews had a very high literacy rate and, because of their experience, they handled themselves extremely well in urban environments, since from all over the world they were the people that had lived the longest in civilised conditions.

There were also among them, without any doubt, extremely smart and astute men, good doctors, accountants, fortune tellers, merchants and scribes; and their radical monotheism, almost sophisticated in its total rupture with everything else, differentiated them well from any another people.

27 Comments

  1. EVROPA SOBERANA touches more upon ‘Judaism was a religion without idols’ in another post (I cannot remember which, but it had something to do with art and the Palaeolithic) where he says that the Neanderthal brain was not adapted to physical beauty, at least in their cultural works, but that the Cro-Magnon was.

    The NRC states that the Armenid is a part descendent of the ‘Eastern Neanderthal’ as the Neanderthals were themselves split into subgroups. Supposedly,as far back as prehistoric times, the Neanderthals practised abstract art (this explains the origin of expressionism: not necessarily a by-product of a mental illness like schizophrenia, but rather a genetic predisposition, most likely hereditary) and the Cro-Magnon, which are essentially the Proto-White Nordid, who were also described by this blog as the most evolved human type to have ever existed, were known to be responsible for the European cave paintings depicting the hunt and for statues representing their pagan gods.

    Does this not explain the Burqa? Why the early Christians burned the pagan temples and sculptures. It is no coincidence that our art that we have had for centuries depicts pale nymphs which give us that nice little feeling in our lower abdomen, without being pornographic (although I myself have felt a deal of disgust at these portrayals of our races fair and infinitely beautiful females. I think that my disgust is a nasty by-product most likely developed from my very disturbed childhood).

    You are dead on when you speak of the extermination of the Neanderthals. It is time for the reawakening of the Cro-Magnon which is responsible for all the beauty and behaviour of the Aryan that we find admirable. The Neanderthal responsible for all the bad, for all unnecessary suffering.

    • If memory serves, you are the first one who uses my expression ‘the extermination of the Neanderthals’!

      I elaborated it in Mexico during imaginary dialogues, fantasising telling people that ‘We must replace the phenotype we see in the subway for more contemplable creatures’.

      Though unlike the Mex, American white trash have good DNA, they’re ‘nerdels’ as well (again, an abbreviation in my monologues).

      Since today you used the expression in the other thread, it looks like finally I am getting some feedback about my uttermost passion: the extermination of most humans.

      This is the subject-matter of my last book, previously called Exterminio, on which I’m adding the last touchups.

      • I mentioned in ‘Women in Combat’ that I previously would have found the idea of exterminating most of humanity, including many whites unnecessary and even reprehensible…

        How times have changed.

      • I reached such apparently outrageous conclusion after what my parents & their society did to me. In a nutshell, people say:

        ‘It takes a whole village to raise a child’.

        But they omit the dark side:

        ‘It takes a whole village to destroy him’

        —which is the subject of my two books in Spanish (of which Day of Wrath are only translations minus my autobiographical confessions).

  2. Sorry Cesar, they changed my username for some reason.

  3. I find it dangerous to speculate about ancient history and the origins of men without hard scientific evidence. If you’re not careful, you will descent to “ancient Russians built the pyramids of Giza” kind of schizophrenia.

    Don’t Whites have _more_ Neanderthal genes than other races according to modern data? Would be awkward if true.

    Personally, I can’t hate the majority. The majority will always be ugly and stupid. That’s their place in the world, even if eugenics could’ve improved them somewhat over centuries.

    • @First paragraph

      The editors of EVROPA SOBERANA, from what I can tell, are a team of dedicated anthropologists and biologists, so what they say is as a result of a lot of research, a great amount of which has been carried out in different continents(this is particularly true for The New Racial Classification)

      @Second Paragraph

      You are correct. The White Nordid is a cross between Cro-Magnons and European Neanderthals whose seemingly mongrel offspring have evolved and minted within Scandinavia into the pure ‘White Nordid.’ We also have Neanderthal DNA from the ‘Near Eastern Armenid’, ‘Pure Dynaric’, ‘Neolithic farmers'(whatever you prefer, though it would not be inaccurate to call them a sort of ‘Proto-Jew’) whom is a cross between the Eastern Neanderthal* and the Khoisanid or perhaps a proto-Khoisanid, whose descendants minted into a newly evolved race (the Armenid) either within the Near East or the Caucasus, all during the Wurm Glaciation.

      What you must understand is that everything beautiful and noble that our race has ever imagined or accomplished is because of the Cro-Magnon and it’s racial heir, the White Nordid**. The Neanderthal blood is responsible for all the bad, read my first comment at the top of the comments section to understand more fully.

      @Third paragraph

      I disagree. If eugenics is to work towards both Nordid types,(Red and White (though the White is more admirable and worth saving from what I have inferred), then the masses will not be ugly and stupid, at least if this eugenics is cultivated over centuries(ugliness is a result of Nordid varieties and their mixes with non-white races).

      *According to EVROPA SOBERANA, the Neanderthal was split into sub-races who were very different from each other physically and mentally. The European variety having a large constitution, great strength and possibly having a more admirable soul than the others, though that is debatable. The Eastern variety has a thin and gracile physical constitution and most likely less admirable, hence the nasty Armenid mind-set that this type gave birth to.

      **Unfortunately, the NRC does not say what the evolutionary ancestors of the Red Nordids were, as that is still up for research and speculation (the lineage tree on the site is constantly being updated) but even though the contemporary NRC says that Reds and Cro-Magnons are not related, Valg says they are, but I think neither claims they have Neanderthal ancestors. The Indo-European tribes had a high constitution of R1a and R1b, which are Red lineages and the more prosperous and beautiful parts of Sicily are places with a higher constitution of Red Nordid on top of the Congid that is prevalent in that lovely, greasy melting pot that birthed the Mob.

      • I do not believe those who use terms that nobody else uses. It’s a mark of a cult. You either go with modern genetics (e.g., Y-chromosome haplogroups), or you use the pre-1945 classifications (e.g., Deniker).

        I’m not against coining out a new racial classification in the distant future, but it cannot be done by some obscure blog such as Evropa Soberana. You need peer reviewed articles, not poetry, bullshit and faith.

        Semites of the Middle East (including Jews, excluding Phoenicians) abandoned human sacrifice millennia before the Nordics of Gaul and Scandinavia. Explain this.

  4. ‘Semites of the Middle East (including Jews, excluding Phoenicians) abandoned human sacrifice millennia before the Nordics of Gaul and Scandinavia. Explain this’.

    This is explained in my Day of Wrath. (It must be said that the Nordid Greeks also abandoned child sacrifice after the Homeric age, I also mention this in DOW.)

    And by the way, the Carthaginians (who were Phoenicians) did not abandon their practise of burning their children alive. The practise was abandoned only after the Third Punic War, when the Romans razed the city.

    • Is the Homeric Child sacrifice you are referring to the Spartan form of negative eugenics where deformed babies, or babies unfit for combat, were thrown off a mountain?

      If so, then people need to learn, especially adunai, that the NS authorities lethally injected such individuals.

      Or perhaps it is a different form of infanticide?

    • I was specifically referring to ritual child sacrifice (e.g., the one in Euripides’ Iphigenia situated in Homeric times).

  5. @Adunaithethird

    Instead of arguing with fear and you own petty emotions, actually explain why the NRC is wrong. Explain why my comment I just made is wrong.

    >’explain this’

    Armenid blood in the Aryan psyche?

    • I do not argue with pseudosciences. They all sound really convincing if you give them a chance. Peer-reviewed articles.is what I need. before 1945 or after. Evropa Soberana is not such.

      I read Cesar’s blog because it’s about politics and philosophy, not science. The desire to exterminate cruel races is just an opinion, you don’t need to prove anything (the fact that non-Whites are cruel is widely known).

      About infanticide. From what I know, this is one of the topics where this blog goes beyond the historical NS. Hitler said nothing about psychoclasses unlike deMause. But at the same time, Cesar wants to keep as close as possible with the historical NS, so some infanticide is good in his ethnostate (because sanctity of life is a Jewish concept, etc.).

      @Cesar My post was mainly aimed at the Europeans of the time. Let’s take Israel that abandoned child sacrifice in the early 1st millennium BCE, and Gauls of modern France who still sacrificed people when Caesar came.

      • Decades ago I was so naive that I considered ‘peer reviewed’ journals as a standard for good science.

        The group CSICOP (now called CSI) changed my mind.

        For years I subscribed The Skeptical Inquirer and purchased many books from its Prometheus publishing house.

        Now I know that the real standard for science is the falsifiable hypothesis. I explain it in my article debunking psychiatry (which also appears in DOW).

        My guess is that the NRC can be presented in falsifiable form, just as the older classifications.

        I lean toward the NRC because of another fundamental scientific criterion: Occam’s razor, that entities (e.g., many races) should not be multiplied unnecessary (e.g, believing in four races: whites, blacks, Asian yellows and Amerindian reds when the latter may be encompassed in the Asian race, etc).

        The same goes for Evropa Soberana’s NRC.

      • You can’t just point and label something ‘pseudoscience’. It is simply childish.

        The desire to exterminate an alien race which is in your domain to prevent mixing and being conquered is not ‘an opinion’, it is a necessity.

        The ‘infanticide’ you are most likely referring to is the murder of deformed babies. German mothers were known to leave their babies out in a forest for wolves to eat if they were deformed. The NS Germans also lethally injected babies unfit for combat.

        The sanctity of all human lives is not a Jewish concept. no one is claiming that. We are claiming that it is a Christian concept which has perverted the compassionate, altruistic part of the Aryan mind. You, my friend, appear to still be stuck in this egalitarian worldview.

    • Here is my problem with the racial classification:

      Pure:
      WN
      RN
      Armenid
      Mongolid

      All have straight hair…

      So all Caucasians with (even slightly!) curly hair must have…residual Congid/Khoisanid/Australid DNA?

      This demands explanation in my view.

      • Wow! I had never thought of that. It’s shocking but it seems you’re right.

      • I agree completely.

        My father,as a teenager, before he lost his hair, had skin which tanned to a swarthy tone, if he was out in the sun for extended periods of time, and had hair which was quite greasy and kinky even.

        The thing is, there is no evidence of mudded or full nig-nog DNA in my ancestry.
        My maternal lineage goes back to Northern England, and my Paternal lineage goes back to Ireland.

        We cannot, however, just ignore the entire NRC altogether because something doesn’t make much sense. There is supposed to be a part 2 which goes into the pure non-white types (Mongolid, Congid, Khoisanid).

      • I recently received an email from Evropa Soberana (of course: in Spanish) and he’s too busy. I guess that, alas, other fans of the NRC will be the ones who do the research and write the 2nd part…

  6. @Cesar I can definitely see your point. And I admire your stance on pseudosciences. I just think that elaborate racial classifications are not that needed right now. I would divide Europeans into 3 categories: Nordics, non-Nordic mudbloods (Slavs, French), and the swarthy men (Sicilians). More practical from the Nordicist PoV.

    @JackHalliday Christian = Jewish. I’m not an egalitarian, it’s just the anti-infanticide position sometimes may seem so. Again, Hitler did not talk about historical child rearing at all. So whenever one speaks of children, he may seem like a Swedish fag (Sweden banned child beating in 1979).

    P.S. The rise of Christianity coincided with the stark decrease of outright infanticide. And the rise of Soviets in Russia coincided with the rise in literacy levels. Even though I’m of the opinion that the good would’ve been reached without the bad anyway (literacy without Soviets, that is).

    • I understand. What strikes me as strange though (and correct me if I am wrong) is that you seem to think a healthy ethno state tolerates the existence of children with cerebral palsy, down syndrome and other soul crushing forms of deformity (think of Quasimodo or Joseph Merrick).

      Of course this is not the fault of the children who are afflicted with these lives, but killing them is simply humane, as was understood very well by Himmler. I know this is a fictional anecdote, but was it not a priest who took pity on the squalling Quasimodo baby, instead of punishing him by making him live a life that nature would not allow him to live anyway(hence, farmers kill weak piglets).

      If we are referring to the ritual infanticide that even pre-Homeric Greek communities did, then I understand, but this was stopped soon after and I don’t see white communities doing this again. I do see Semites doing this though.

      As for your message to Cesar, what you need to know is if you are referring to non-Nordic Europeans as mud bloods, you must understand that anyone who is not either fully Red Nordid or White Nordid is a mud blood, for example, a tall, pale, blonde German from East Saxony who has an aquiline nose is a mud blood. Also, why do you describe the Slavs and French as mud blooded but the Sicilians are only swarthy? You cannot hang on to obsolete 1950s anthropologists who didn’t even know that humans have ANY Neanderthal DNA! Nothing suggests that the old anthropology is more practical, in fact only the NRC can make it abundantly clear that Meds have Nigger blood (a fact which White Nationalist ignore to this day). Whether it is practical or not doesn’t matter. What matters is if it is true or not, and so far nothing suggests that it isn’t.

      • Indeed. But even historians of the white race like Pierce and Kemp have said the same: that Meds and others are actually mudbloods, even without the NRC.

        The essay on Portugal in this blog, published long ago at Stormfront, should have been a milestone. Yet it never made a dent in WN worldview because the movement is almost fake.

  7. This is an extremely incorrect narrative on the ethnographical dossier of the jews. You are amalgamating ancient Israelites with Canaanites and explaining it in a way that makes it look like the Bible endorsed human sacrifice. In fact, Yahweh declares the shedding of man’s blood by other men – if done through ritual or lying in wait – to both be acts of wickedness.

    Honestly, this sounds like some jew pretending to be against jews for the purpose of lying about a third issue – namely, the efficacy of the moral and civic laws of Bible being the basis for a white ethno-state. Because everything we hate about modern jews and all of their exploits against us are capital offenses in biblical law. Anyone who disagrees is ignorant or wants you to remain ignorant.

    • I am not the author of the post but recent studies, such as Jon Levenson’s The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity have suggested that the ancient Hebrews did not differ much from the neighboring towns but that they were typical examples of Semitic peoples of Canaan.

    • So, let me get this straight:

      A book where two girls get their father drunk and fuck him to ‘strengthen the bloodline’ is a book for Aryan interests?

      You maggots have not learned a thing.

      • Jack, that event is regarded in scripture as both a corruption of the bloodline of Lot and a capital offense, proven by the fact that the Israelites in later were forbidden by God from mixing with those people because they were considered cursed AND biblical law makes that sin a capital offense.

        The mere mentioning of an event in scripture does not imply the endorsement of that event.

        That’s like me describing the jewish support of the LGBT agenda, and then someone hearing me state it, and accusing me if being in support of it, when in actuality I find it reprehensible. There’s no difference in your logic at all.

        A description is not an endorsement. But I’m the maggot who knows nothing? You might not be as informed as you suppose you are.

      • Sorry, I haven’t read enough philosophical nonsense about how a Jewish book is a book for Aryans. I must be in the wrong here.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: