Kriminalgeschichte, 62

The ignorance of Aryans in general and of white nationalists in particular exasperates me. Not long ago, a Christian commenter on Occidental Dissent glorified Theodosius in the comments section of that blog. Once one becomes acquainted with the history of Christianity written by a non-Christian, unheard-of facts emerge that the typical educated Westerner knows nothing about.

Left, an idealised painting of Ambrose barring Theodosius from Milan Cathedral as, in real life, Ambrose was a non-white. After hearing about the Massacre of Thessalonica, the bishop of Milan refused to celebrate a mass in the Emperor’s presence.

Below, an abridged translation from the first volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Christianity’s Criminal History).
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Theodosius’ massacres

What Theodosius ‘the Great’ was capable of is a good example of what happened in the year 387 in Antioch, after a revolt of the people as a result of an increase in taxes in February. The tax was exorbitant. Death sentences were issued, and countless people, including children, were beheaded, burned or thrown to the beasts—and yet, almost a trifle compared to the bloodbath of Thessalonica.

In February of the year 390 the people of Thessalonica killed Butheric, the Gothic military commander, because of the imprisonment of a popular charioteer, who was courting Butheric’s beautiful cup washer. The pious Theodosius, one of the ‘notoriously Christian sovereigns’ of the century (Aland), immediately ordered to gather the population into the circus with the lure of a spectacle, and had them killed right there.

Bishop Theodoret describes it in poetic terms: ‘as in the harvest of the ears, they were all cut off at once’. Although Theodosius later denied it, his slaughterers put to the knife, for several hours, more than seven thousand women, men, children and the elderly. It is one of the most monstrous massacres of Antiquity, which does not prevent St. Augustine from glorifying Theodosius as the ideal image of a Christian prince. The Church granted the sovereign the nickname of ‘the Great’ and went down in history as the ‘exemplary Catholic monarch’ (Brown).

On Covington’s corner

Within the pro-white forums, would-be revolutionaries are starting to like Harold Covington’s plan of snatching off a northwest corner of land from Uncle Sam to create a Neonazi republic. These people are forgetting that Uncle Sam is to blame for two anti-white wars in 1861-1865 and 1942-1947. Remember that after 1945 Uncle Sam and the Russians perpetrated a holocaust of German people for a couple of years. There is no reason to assume that this time Uncle Sam will behave differently, allowing Covington’s corner to thrive in the northwest.

James Mason had it right in Siege: ‘The enemy today is the U.S. Government itself and it is, by every standard of measure, the most evil thing that has ever existed on earth. This, once it has sunk home, should be a good enough indicator of the sort of struggle we have ahead of us’.

In a nutshell, Covingtonistas are deluded.

Published in: on April 30, 2018 at 9:56 am  Comments (18)  

William quote

What they call ‘racist’ is simply what every sane European knew to be true prior to 1945.

—William XIII

Published in: on April 30, 2018 at 12:01 am  Comments Off on William quote  

Julian, 32

Julian presiding at a conference of Sectarians
(Edward Armitage, 1875)

 
Priscus: I can. And you certainly can! After all, you were living at Antioch while that little beast was Caesar.

Curiously enough, Julian almost never mentioned Gallus to me, or to anyone. I have always had a theory—somewhat borne out by the memoir—that Julian was unnaturally attracted to his brother. He continually refers to his beauty. He also tends to write of him in that hurt tone one uses to describe a lover who has been cold. Julian professes to find mysterious what everyone else found only too obvious: Gallus’s cruelty. Julian was naïve, as I find myself continually observing (if I repeat myself, do forgive me and blame it on our age).

Actually, the member of the family for whom I have the most sympathy is Constantius. He was quite a good ruler, you know. We tend to undervalue him because his intelligence was of the second rank, and his religious mania troubling. But he governed well, considering that he had problems of a sort which might have made any man a monster. He made some of his worst mistakes for the best of reasons, like creating Gallus Caesar.

It is significant that Julian blames Gallus’s wife for the reign of terror in the East. I had always thought that they were equally to blame. But you lived through what must have been a terrible time. You doubtless know who was responsible for what.

Published in: on April 29, 2018 at 12:00 pm  Comments Off on Julian, 32  

Revolutionary podcast – 1

Ex Gladio Libertas speech
protected by Brandenburg v. Ohio

— Listen to it here! —

WDH host: Joseph Walsh
Special guest: Norman Spear

Published in: on April 28, 2018 at 11:34 pm  Comments (14)  

The Story of Philosophy, 4

Socrates

If we may judge from the bust that has come down to us as part of the ruins of ancient sculpture, Socrates was as far from being handsome as even a philosopher can be. A bald head, a great round face, a deep-set staring eyes, a broad and flowery nose that gave vivid testimony to many a Symposium—it was rather the head of a porter than that of the most famous of philosophers.

This should alert us. Ugliness in ancient Greece was almost a refutation (cf. the articles about ancient Greece in The Fair Race). Now that we have been seeing that, throughout the centuries after Constantine, the Christians burned down every library from the ancient world they found, why did the Platonic vision of Socrates was spared?

They were a motley crowd, these youths who flocked about him and helped him to create European philosophy. There were rich young men like Plato and Alcibiades, who relished his satirical analysis of Athenian democracy; there were socialists like Antisthenes, who liked the master’s careless poverty, and made a religion of it; there was even an anarchist or two among them, like Aristippus, who aspired to a world in which there would be neither masters nor slaves, and all would be as worrilessly free as Socrates.

This should also alert us and for the same reasons. Why did it have to be precisely a preamble to Christian ethics what came to us from the classical world as ‘ancient wisdom’?

Philosophy begins when one learns to doubt—particularly to doubt one’s cherished beliefs, one’s dogmas and one’s axioms. Who knows how those cherished beliefs became certainties with us, and whether some secret wish did not furtively beget them, clothing desire in the dress of thought? There is no real philosophy until the mind turns round and examines itself. Gnothi seauton, said Socrates: Know thyself.

But no philosopher ever knew himself. No one! As a professional autobiographer I can say this without blushing. As I quoted a certain writer in the first of my autobiographical volumes:

‘Only a ripe artist, one thoroughly acquainted with the workings of the mind, can be successful here. This is why psychological self-portraiture has appeared so late among the arts, belonging exclusively to our own days and those yet to come. Man had to discover continents, to fathom his seas, to learn his language, before he could turn his gaze inward to explore the universe of his soul. Classical antiquity had as yet no inkling of these mysterious paths. Caesar and Plutarch, the ancients who describe themselves, are content to deal with facts, with circumstantial happenings, and never dream of showing more than the surface of their hearts’.

There had been philosophers before him, of course: strong men like Thales and Heraclitus, subtle men like Parmenides and Zeno of Elea, seers like Pythagoras and Empedocles; but for the most part they had been physical philosophers; they had sought for the physis or nature of external things, the laws and constituents of the material and measurable world. That is very good, said Socrates; but there is an infinitely worthier subject for philosophers than all these trees and stones, and even all those stars; there is the mind of man. What is man, and what can he become?

The old distinction between science and philosophy. But Socrates provided the baobab seeds that, after Christianity, grew to cover the Western planet for centuries, as we will see in my next comment.

How could a new and natural morality be developed in Athens, and how could the state be saved?

It was his reply to these questions that gave Socrates death and immortality. The older citizens would have honored him had he tried to restore the ancient polytheistic faith; if he had led his band of emancipated souls to the temples and the sacred groves, and bade them sacrifice again to the gods of their fathers. But he felt that it was a hopeless and suicidal policy, a progress backward, into and not “over the tombs”. He had his own religious faith: he believed in one God, and hoped in his modest way that death would not quite destroy him; but he knew that a lasting moral code could not be based upon so uncertain a theology. [1]

There is no doubt about it: Nietzsche was right in his first book, which was so liked by Wagner, by claiming that Western thought had suffered a deformation since Socrates! If there is anything historical about Durant’s appreciation, where on earth did Socrates get his monotheism? Wherever he got it, there is no doubt that the Christians, who imposed a Semitic monotheism upon us, took advantage of this wandering philosopher, who ‘never worked’ as Durant tells us, and who ‘neglected his wife and children’.
 
_______________

[1] Cf. Voltaire’s story of the two Athenians conversing about Socrates: “That is the atheist who says there is only one God” – Philosophical Dictionary, art. “Socrates.”

Published in: on April 28, 2018 at 2:03 pm  Comments (5)  

Race and appearance of Jesus

A brief exchange in my previous post moves me to copy-and-paste the below paragraphs from a Wikipedia article with the same title of this entry.

 
Despite the lack of direct biblical or historical references, from the 2nd century onward various theories about the appearance of Jesus were advanced, but early on these focused more on his physical appearance than on race or ancestry. Larger arguments of this kind have been debated for centuries.

Justin Martyr argued for the genealogy of Jesus in the biological Davidic line from Mary, as well as from his non-biological father Joseph. But this only implies a general Jewish ancestry, acknowledged generally by authors.

The focus of many early sources was on Christ’s physical unattractiveness rather than his beauty. The 2nd century anti-Christian philosopher Celsus wrote that Jesus was ‘ugly and small’ and similar descriptions are presented in a number of other sources as discussed extensively by Eisler, who in turn often quotes from Dobschütz’ monumental Christusbilder. Tertullian states that Christ’s outward form was despised, that he had an ignoble appearance and the slander he suffered proved the ‘abject condition’ of his body.

According to Irenaeus he was a weak and inglorious man and in The Acts of Peter he is described as small and ugly to the ignorant. Andrew of Crete relates that Christ was bent or even crooked: and in The Acts of John he is described as bald-headed and small with no good looks.

As quoted by Eisler, both Hierosolymitanus and John of Damascus claim that ‘the Jew Josephus’ described Christ as having had connate eyebrows with goodly eyes and being long-faced, crooked and well-grown. In a letter of certain bishops to the Emperor Theophilus, Christ’s height is described as three cubits (four feet six), which was also the opinion of Ephrem Syrus (320–379 AD), ‘God took human form and appeared in the form of three human ells (cubits); he came down to us small of stature.’

Theodore of Mopsuhestia likewise claimed that the appearance of Christ was smaller than that of the children of Jacob (Israel). In the apocryphal Lentulus letter Christ is described as having had a reddish complexion, matching Muslim traditions in this respect. Christ’s prediction that he would be taunted ‘Physician, heal yourself’ may suggest that Christ was indeed physically deformed (‘crooked’ or hunch-backed) as claimed in the early Christian texts listed above. In fact, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Ambrose actually considered lack of physical attractiveness in Jesus as fulfilling the Messianic prophecy ‘Suffering Servant’ narrative of Isaiah 53.

A study on the 2001 BBC series Son of God attempted to determine what Jesus’ race and appearance may have been. Assuming Jesus to be a Galilean Semite, the study concluded in conjunction with Mark Goodacre that his skin would have been ‘olive-coloured’ and ‘swarthy’—these results were criticised by some media outlets for being ‘dismissive’ and ‘dumbed down’. However, this type of analysis suggests, that even though Caucasian, Jesus may not have fit into all modern definitions of whiteness in the Western world.

In academic studies, beyond generally agreeing that ‘Jesus was Jewish’, there are no contemporary depictions of Jesus that can be used to determine his appearance. It is argued that Jesus was of Middle Eastern descent because of the geographic location of the events described in the Gospels, and, among some modern Christian scholars, the genealogy ascribed to him.

For this reason, he has been portrayed as an olive-skinned individual typical of the Levant region. In 2001, a new attempt was made to discover what the true race and face of Jesus might have been. The study, sponsored by the BBC, France 3 and Discovery Channel, used one of three 1st-century Jewish skulls from a leading department of forensic science in Israel. A face was constructed using forensic anthropology by Richard Neave, a retired medical artist from the Unit of Art in Medicine at the University of Manchester.

The face that Neave constructed suggested that Jesus would have had a broad face and large nose, and differed significantly from the traditional depictions of Jesus in renaissance art. Additional information about Jesus’ skin colour and hair was provided by Mark Goodacre, a senior lecturer at the Department of Theology and Religion at the University of Birmingham. Using 3rd-century images from a synagogue—the earliest pictures of Jewish people—Goodacre proposed that Jesus’ skin colour would have been darker and swarthier than his traditional Western image.

He also suggested that he would have had short, curly hair and a short cropped beard. This is also confirmed in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where Paul the Apostle states that it is ‘disgraceful’ for a man to have long hair. As Paul allegedly knew many of the disciples and members of Jesus’ family, it is unlikely that he would have written such a thing had Jesus had long hair.

Although not literally the face of Jesus, the result of the study determined that Jesus skin would have been more olive-coloured than white, and that he would have most likely looked like a typical Galilean Semite of his day. Among the points made was that the Bible records that Jesus’ disciple Judas had to point him out to those arresting him. The implied argument is that if Jesus’ physical appearance had differed markedly from his disciples, then he would have been relatively easy to identify. James H. Charlesworth states Jesus’ face was ‘most likely dark brown and sun-tanned’.

Published in: on April 28, 2018 at 12:18 am  Comments (6)  

Postscript note

‘And if Christ wasn’t raised to life, our message is worthless, and so is your faith’. —St Paul (1 Corinthians 15:14).

The final paragraph of my previous entry says: ‘It is my hunch that a white awakening can only happen if the diagnosis of white decline is complete. We only have half of the diagnosis, what I call the purple-pill. If I could convince nationalists that Christian ethics is the poisoned apple, real progress to a general awakening would start…’ (italics added).

There is something I must clarify. I cannot convince white nationalists that they were deceived 1600 years ago, and even before the Christians conquered Rome. Since the article ‘Why my books in Spanish are important’ was a response to a thought experiment, let’s propose another Gedankenexperiment: that someone invented machines to see the past, as in Arthur Clarke’s sci-fi novel Childhood’s End:

‘All political problems’, Karellen had once told Stormgren, ‘can be solved by the correct application of power’.

‘That sounds a rather cynical remark’, Stormgren had replied doubtfully. ‘It’s a little too much like “Might is Right”. In our past, the use of power has been notably unsuccessful in solving anything’.

‘The operative word is correct’ [answered Karellen].

By the standards of all early ages, it was Utopia. Ignorance, disease, poverty, and fear had virtually ceased to exist. The memory of war was fading into the past as a nightmare vanished with the dawn; soon it would lie outside the experience of all living men.

It was known that the Overlords have access to the past, and more than once historians had appealed to Karellen to settle some ancient controversy. It may have been he had grown tired of such questions, but it is more likely that he knew perfectly well what the outcome of his generosity would be. The instrument he handed over on permanent loan to the World History Foundation was nothing more than a television receiver with an elaborate set of controls for determining co-ordinates in time and space. It must have been linked somehow to a far more complex machine, operating on principles that no one could imagine abroad Karellen’s ship. One had merely to adjust the controls, and a window into the past was opened up. Almost the whole of human history for the past five thousand years became accessible in an instant.

Though it had always been obvious to any rational mind that all the world’s religions writings could not be true, the shock was nevertheless profound. Here was a revelation which no one could doubt or deny: here, seen by some unknown magic of Overlord science, were the true beginnings of all the world’s great faiths. Within a few days, all mankind’s multitudinous messiahs had lost their divinity. Beneath the fierce passionless light of truth, faiths that had sustained millions for twice a thousand years vanished like morning dew. All the good and all the evil they had wrought were swept suddenly into the past, and could touch the minds of men no more. Humanity had lost its ancient gods: now it was old enough to have no need for new ones.

Not only would they see that Jesus was not resurrected, and therefore, following St. Paul, that what Christians say has been worthless for millennia. Whites would also see that the Christians of the 1st century were Semites and mudbloods—Orcs—and that the so-called ‘pagans’ were, in reality, whites.

The blow of the images would also make them see that those who destroyed the temples, the beautiful statues of the Aryans and the libraries of the Greco-Roman world, were mostly non-white. All the pieces of the criminal history of Christianity that I am trying to gather with the writings of Deschner, always taking as a guide-light Soberana’s essay, the 21st century white man would see on his own home television, in full colour, and with the real characters—not a film of Jewish producers, Jewish directors and Jewish scriptwriters!

What I will not achieve with this humble blog would be achieved by the machines to see the past. With Jesus demystified thanks to the damned machines, white Christians—including a large part of the white nationalists in the United States—would experience the sensation that the stars, all the sky and worldview, are falling… It would be the great awakening of the race white!

Just as George Lincoln Rockwell became very angry when, at the beginning of his Nazi career, he learned that the media had concealed who was behind the ill-named Russian Revolution, a good number of whites would tear their clothes seeing images in which the Orcs of the Ancient World destroyed everything beautiful and noble of the Aryan culture that existed before Constantine. There is no way to avoid the psychic toll that the machines’ images would cause: ugly Semites destroying the statues made of white marble in the representation of white skin and, concurrently, making them believe that the Saviour himself of the Aryans is now a Semite!

The window to the past would break the trance in which the white man of today finds himself, including the people of the Alt-Right; and if that were not enough, it would reveal the true holocaust of World War II committed against the Germans. But what I think would cause the greatest shock are the images of the historical Jesus, which the Christians, desperate, would seek and find when reviewing the career of the procurator Pilate in Judea; tracing the lives of all the unruly people he sent to crucify. And the same could be said of the dispassionate light that the machines would throw on the characters of the Old Testament…

The true story of what happened in Palestine in the 1st century, together with the images of Orcs destroying the Aryan culture in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries, would do the trick in the Aryan psyche of our times. Alas, since I am incapable of designing these machines, I cannot help but continue to show the content of what is within my reach.

Rules of engagement

The best way to debate Jews is to never allow debate with Jews. The Jew aims to talk you into suicide. Only a fool would give the Jew an audience. Never give Jews a chance. You are not here to debate your existence with Jews. You force Jews to submit to your right to exist. That is the only way to live with them. Jews have no say on our destiny.

It is not your duty to convince the Jew of your right to exist. You must be convinced of that yourself. Prohibit any debate about the matter. And this is what the Jew preys upon. The Jew knows you are not convinced of your right to exist by your willingness to entertain him in debate. That is all he needs to win, to talk you into suicide.

Give the Jew a chance and he will take it all. The Jew is a brain-fly looking for an opening on the weak-minded, the smiling idiots, of a people to destroy it entirely.

—Anonymous priest of the 14 words

Published in: on April 27, 2018 at 12:13 am  Comments (4)  

Why my books in Spanish are important

Below, my reply to a Gedankenexperiment in a recent thread:

 
No: I think that without Jews it would be far easier to recover sanity. What the Iberians did in the Americas was not due to self-hatred but to greed (Aztec and Inca gold and silver). Nowadays, if all Jews dropped dead things would calm down and, after a while, the most radical voices on our side would start to be heard.

What in my family happened a long time ago, the axis of my two books in Spanish is eerily similar to the whole Jew-white dynamics that happened since remote times: the thesis of Soberana’s essay on Judea versus Rome. Eve provides the poisoned apple and a naïve male swallows it all! The tragedy of my family occurred after my father swallowed my mother’s claims: malicious slander about her children, believing every hysteric word and tantrum that came out from her viper tongue. Instead of putting her a screeching halt, he found more convenient to start sharing her psychosis, becoming the worse offender, and soul-murderer, among the two…

Believe it or not but my autobiography, the analysis of this folie à deux, sheds a good light on the folie that whites suffer today by believing everything that the Jews said in the New Testament or its secular incarnation, cultural Marxism. Without the influence of my mother, my father became miraculously sane: something that my brother observed—a really weird phenomenon to watch! I am sure that without Jews we would witness the same psychological phenomenon: white sanity.

Of course, of my parents, I despise more my late father, as his focalised psychosis on me was not something inherent in his mind: it was imported from my mother’s deranged mind. He could have chosen to listen to me (‘hojas susurrantes’ is a dream I had decades ago while sleeping about dad listening to me). But he chose Evil instead. In the same way, Louis Beam is right by blaming whites for their passivity, and I would say even behaving like Dobermans of their Semite owners, barking and biting poor whites. The eerie phenomenon of such folie à deux persists today and is something that its whys must be investigated.

The question of white vulnerability before Jewish psyops is something rarely studied in white nationalism. I do believe that Soberana’s essay provides a clue; he’s a sort of Sherlock Holmes in historical matters. Some years ago Hunter Wallace changed his penname to ‘Detective Hunter Wallace’ but as a Lutheran he’s no Holmes at all. Nor is MacDonald a good detective, as he has to appease his Christian audience.

In a sense, I disagree with Louis Beam (was he a Xtian preacher?) and Joseph Walsh regarding white passivity. It is my hunch that a white awakening can only happen if the diagnosis of white decline is complete. We only have half of the diagnosis, what I call the purple-pill. If I could convince nationalists that Christian ethics is the poisoned apple, real progress to a general awakening would start to be made. White nationalists are not making a difference in the real world because they still have to complete the analysis of the poison in the apple.

Published in: on April 26, 2018 at 7:10 pm  Comments (1)