2019 edition

I recently flipped through the copy of the 2014 edition of The Fair Race that I own and was surprised that, since that year, I have eliminated no less than… fifty essays!

Many of the removed essays were brief, as the 2014 edition has 432 letter-size pages. Unlike that clumsy size for the first edition, the most recent ones of The Fair Race are of regular size for printed books. The 2019 edition for instance (pic above) contains 580 pages.

In the prologue of this last edition I mention the impact that, since the end of last year, Richard Carrier’s book has caused in my vision about the historicity of Jesus. For the same reason, I removed a footnote I had added, in the 2018 edition, within Evropa Soberana’s essay, ‘Rome vs. Judea; Judea vs. Rome’. On that note, now obsolete, you see that the previous year I still believed that there could have existed an ordinary Jew who became deified by the primitive Christian community. Now I believe that the whole story about Jesus was an invention of Mark the Evangelist. To understand the whys see the bold letters in my first essay-review article of Carrier’s book.

Almost ten years ago I discovered the literature of white nationalism, when I lived in the island Gran Canaria, Spain. As can be seen in the metamorphosis recorded in the several editions of The Fair Race, with those 50 eliminated essays (as well as adding other essays), I constantly sharpen my vision of the world. Given my perfectionism, and that I am interested that new visitors of this site open the updated PDF of Soberana’s essay, I have deleted the old PDF of ‘Rome vs. Judea; Judea vs. Rome’ that contained that obsolete footnote. Instead, in the sticky post I have linked the version of Soberana’s essay that now appears in the print edition of 2019, the version without that footnote (see the first comment below).

Such perfectionism has a setback, of course. As I had been linking the old PDF in several entries and even in comments in other forums, when they click on my old links no document will show up. However, the most updated version of Soberana’s essay will always be linked in the sticky post of this site.

If there is a book that now contains the crème de la crème of the literature in favour of the 14 words, it is the latest edition of The Fair Race.

Published in: on February 1, 2019 at 12:01 am  Comments (8)  

8 Comments

  1. My footnote that I removed:

    According to biblical scholar Hyam Maccoby, the split of early Christianity and Judaism took place during the first century. Traditional Christian doctrine aside, it is more likely that the point of conflict between Jesus and the religious authorities was political rather than religious. It had its roots right after the driving of the traders from the Temple of Jerusalem. [Note of 1 February 2019: The Gospel according to commenter Arch Stanton!] Jesus thus came into direct conflict with the High Priest, a Sadducee: the one who officiated the Temple.

    The texts known as the ‘New Testament’ are Christian propaganda. They were not written in Jesus’ Aramaic but in Greek, when the early church entered into conflict with the Pharisees. (At the time that the gospels were edited the Sadducees had lost their leadership and the Pharisees were the sole repository of religious authority.)

    Although the evangelists specifically mention the Pharisees as those who Jesus scolds, and even the author of this essay [Evropa Soberana], Maccoby postulates that the fight of the historical Jesus was with the Sadducee faction of Judaism: the bourgoise priesthood that represented the Temple, the collaborators with Rome. (On the other hand Talmudic Judaism, as known today, is the offshoot of Pharisee theology with Jews already in the Diaspora.)

    It is likely that, by editorial intervention, the name ‘Pharisees’ was substituted for the original ‘Sadducees’ in several gospel verses, in times that early Christians clashed with the Pharisees.

    • Have you any thoughts on the Hebrew Matthew being the original, and also the Peschitta -Syrio-Aramaic new testament. A preconciliar Chaldean Catholic Bishop in 1957 said it was the original.

      • Are you familiar with the so-called quest for the historical Jesus? Even a large illustrated book for normie Catholics such as Ian Wilson’s Jesus: The Evidence explains why the consensus since the 19th century has placed Mark as the earliest gospel.

      • I have it as an audiobook. Haven’t got around to listening to it all yet. I will, though.

        I am just wondering is there a gap in my knowledge. Can apologists argue from Hebrew Matthew and the Peschitta, and I would not be able to counter it.

        Mark is the earliest. According to Roman Catholicism, he was a Roman pagan who was buried in Venice. Matthew has to correct him on points of Judaism.

      • It is suspicious that the very earliest gospel—Mark’s—was written right after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and that its content is nothing less than an axiological inversion of Romulus’ story. Perhaps I should mention why Mark’s gospel was the earliest in my Monday review of Carrier’s book?

      • Carrier gets rid of Q or Quella, a theorized common source used by the Synoptists and to a lesser extent John. He says that the 4 gospels were all written as responses to one another. The Jesus of John even seems to troll an earlier Jesus in the Garden of Ge thsemane, calling out that earlier synoptic Jesus for cowardice.

        So John’s Jesus has a completely contrary Gethsemane scene to an earlier Synoptic Jesus, and seems to call that earlier synoptic Jesus out for cowardice

        This is why there is no “real Jesus” or “real Christianity” or “true interpretation” of the Bible. We see John here writing his Jesus like a character in a play. The New Testament was written by Heresiarchs of competing Jesus-movement sects who were all in competition, and who all hated one another.

  2. I’ve almost finished reading FRDH, and I must say, although it’s a god-damn (literally!) treasure trove of red-pills and hidden history, it really is, like you said, for normies. I will be borrowing this book to many acquaintances when we all reach angry mode – when political correctness won’t be stinking up the dining room.

    Are you planning for an update on Day of Wrath?

    • Yes, FRDH is for normies. Last month I gave a copy of it to a couple that visited Mexico: a Dutch guy who married a completely white Mexican girl (a friend of my family since she was born).

      Day of Wrath on the other hand is only for priests of the 4 & 14 words. That’s why I’ve recently moved its front cover to the bottom of this page…

      Not long ago I added the article ‘God’ to DOW, on page 196 of the latest edition. Since DOW is a translation from selected essays of my two books in Spanish, I will probably add more.

      My two books in Spanish (again, see the page’s bottom) are mainly autobiographical. But I managed that only the non-autobiographical stuff reached the pages of DOW! Since 2017, I abandoned the writing of From St Francis to Himmler (which continued a lineal autobiography). But the idea occurred to me to write another book, From Jesus to Hitler, which I am actually writing (a non-lineal autobiography). Surely in the future, I’ll be tempted to add a couple of these new chapters to DOW.

      By the way, the full violence of my work is not in English but in Spanish. I’ve not dared to translate autobio stuff precisely because the confessions are pretty disturbing. Remember what we recently said in the post ‘Dark Night of the Soul’: that enlightenment is not achieved by imagining figures of light, but by ‘making ourselves familiar with our darkest side’.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: