Über cuck: Alexander the Great

I have been in friendly discussion with a correspondent from New York about my criticism of monocausalism. Like some white nationalists, he’s a proponent of reductionism. I’ll illustrate his point with an anecdote.

Yesterday an erudite criollo that speaks fluent Latin and also reads in Greek visited my house. As he was a professor of Hispanic literature at Harvard, he’s fairly knowledgeable of the history of the Americas.

He informed me about something I was unaware of: the ‘prueba de sangre’ (for a wiki article on the subject see: here) that the New Spaniards performed on those suspected of being crypto-Jews. What I ignored is that it was far tougher than the Nuremberg laws, as no less than eight generations in the past were investigated to make sure that the guy in question would not behave subversively in New Spain (now Mexico).

However, even with such stringent controls, the New Spaniards committed ethnosuicide through the miscegenation approved by the Pope himself. My New Yorker correspondent still believes that it is possible to salvage the single-cause hypothesis (Jewish subversion as the primary factor of white decline) as he sees Christianity as a form of Jewish psyop for whites.

I appreciate and respect his point, but the sad truth is that even before Christian takeover after Constantine, so well explained in the masthead of this site by the Spaniard Evropa Soberana, very powerful Aryans suffered from ethno-suicidal behaviour. In ‘Costin Alamariu Is Damn Right About The Alt-Right’ the author includes a quote of Alexander the Great that proves my point: side by side with the JP we have an Aryan Problem.

Alexander was one of the most startling universalist figures of his day. His Oath from 324 BC, as recorded by Eratosthenes and others, reads:

‘From now on, let all mortals live as one people, in fellowship, for the good of all. See the whole world as your homeland, with laws common to all, where the best will govern regardless of their race. Unlike the narrow-minded, I make no distinction between Greeks and Barbarians. The origin of citizens, or the race into which they were born, is of no concern to me. I have only one criterion by which to distinguish their virtue. For me, any good foreigner is a Greek and any bad Greek is worse than a barbarian’.

12 Comments

  1. Maybe he is like this because a nanny raised him instead of his mother and so as a result he looks to people outside his family to get love. A lot of the rich universalist whites probably look at black women as their mother and so view white segregationists as people insulting their mothers.

  2. Alexander, the original socialist. Tell this to the British, French, Germans and Swedes. Tell this to the Afrikaners.

    I note he does not specify how they are to be ruled and I note he omits the Jew. If only Alexander had known what I know about the Jew.

    Ah callow youth, Alex sounds kinda like Emma Lazarus, “Give us your tired your poor, your Greeks and barbarians.” But then maybe he was a Jew, I mean after all, look at Kirk Douglas.

  3. “let all mortals live as one people… See the whole world as your homeland…..best will govern regardless of their race…. no distinction between Greeks and Barbarians” All this sounds like Saul-Paul + NWO. Wonder (((who?))) Alexander’s adviser was on the campaign, or perhaps a later interpolation? Uummm. Ancient Greeks never used the word-concept “race”. As indeed in this quote, the distinction was “Greek-Barbarian”. Just thinking. Very interesting quote either way you look at it – the AP or the JP.

    • I checked other more accurate translations and the translator used a different term, not ‘race’. At any event, check what Pierce, Kemp and even Will Durant say in this site about Alexander the ‘Great’.

  4. That’s the technology of empire. How else to keep the peace than by intermarrying? But while the idea of all men being brothers predates Christianity, and Alexander promotes it here for his own reasons, it only acquired an overwhelming moral force with the coming of Christianity. If it had remained a mere philosophical position, then it could have been more easily displaced by evidence to the contrary. With the triumph of the Christian worldview, it became an obsession in Western culture. Under such a condition, facts no longer matter; or more precisely, worldview determines both what is regarded as fact, and how those facts are interpreted. Thus, refuting a worldview with mere facts is always very difficult if not impossible. The Christian worldview, based ultimately as it is in faith and not evidence, is particularly refractory.

    Alexander may have gotten this idea from Diogenes the Cynic, who was much admired by Alexander and is reported to have considered himself a citizen of the world. Historians also tell us that upon meeting Diogenes, who was living at the time outdoors, like a modern-day homeless person, Alexander said that if he couldn’t have been Alexander, he’d like to have been Diogenes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_and_Alexander

    • “..the idea of all men being brothers predates Christianity….it only acquired an overwhelming moral force with the coming of (((Christianity)))”. Good point.

    • Diogenes’ life is the definition of degenerate.

  5. Alexander was an alcoholic homosexual. All this proves is that gays have no “skin in the game” and cannot be trusted to preserve their tribe.

  6. The Romans used the same technique.

    Here is part of Claudius’ speech to the Senate, as given in Tacitus, Annals, Book XI, section 24:

    What was the ruin of Sparta and Athens, but this, that mighty as they were in war, they spurned from them as aliens those whom they had conquered? Our founder Romulus, on the other hand, was so wise that he fought as enemies and then hailed as fellow-citizens several nations on the very same day. Strangers have reigned over us. That freedmen’s sons should be intrusted with public offices is not, as many wrongly think, a sudden innovation, but was a common practice in the old commonwealth. But, it will be said, we have fought with the Senones. I suppose then that the Volsci and Ædui never stood in array against us. Our city was taken by the Gauls. Well, we also gave hostages to the Etruscans, and passed under the yoke of the Samnites. On the whole, if you review all our wars, never has one been finished in a shorter time than that with the Gauls. Thenceforth they have preserved an unbroken and loyal peace. United as they now are with us by manners, education, and intermarriage, let them bring us their gold and their wealth rather than enjoy it in isolation. Everything, Senators, which we now hold to be of the highest antiquity, was once new. Plebeian magistrates came after patrician; Latin magistrates after plebeian; magistrates of other Italian peoples after Latin. This practice too will establish itself, and what we are this day justifying by precedents, will be itself a precedent.

    After which, Tacitus informs us:

    The emperor’s speech was followed by a decree of the Senate, and the Ædui were the first to obtain the right of becoming senators at Rome.

    • If only the Romans had stopped with absorbing tribes that were broadly of the same ethnos, Gauls, Samnites, etc. But once the brotherhood worldview gets a look in, it’s then hard to keep the true aliens out.

      • To conquer the world necessarily involves assimilating it, unless the conquered peoples are completely exterminated. But human greed and lust being as they are, that has only rarely been a path taken. Why kill them, when you can make them slaves and concubines, and sell them off for money? That’s been the usual reasoning. Extermination was seen as a wasteful use of a valuable resource; it’s not efficient.

  7. These are great finds CT with the stuff Tacitus said and thing Alexander stated. Thankyou for the work you have done in educating us on these matters.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: