Great personalities defend eugenics, 8

by Evropa Soberana

Nuremberg Congress of 1934

The world was dying of Judaism and that disease of Judaism that is faith in Jesus; We teach it the violence and faith of the sword. —Jorge Luis Borges, Deutsches Requiem.

 
The Third Reich

Hitler’s Germany was the culmination of all the processes we have seen, and it was at the 1936 Berlin Olympics where the Germans tried to present themselves as health advocates, announcing their commitment to body culture.

World War II marked a before and after. Before the Third Reich, these issues were talked about without fear. During the Third Reich, they were applied. After the Third Reich, the Pharisees of finance and the media made everything that is eugenic and genetic surrounded by a politically incorrect fog.

In addition to the men cited here, we can mention other prominent scientists who had a prominent role in the elaboration of the Nazi eugenic ideology (known as Rassenhygiene or ‘racial hygiene’), such as Fritz A. Lenz, Erwin Baur, Alfred Plötz, Ernst Rüdin and Ernst Häckel.
 

Leon F. Whitney (1894-1973), American veterinarian, dog trainer, canine psychologist and secretary of the American Eugenics Society, as well as the author of The Basis of Breeding, a book on eugenics for the layman.

The following quotation expresses the opinion of many eugenicists of his time: that the Third Reich was the first State to take from theory to practice all the postulates of almost a century of eugenic debate. This quote, from 1934, was delivered the same year that Whitney proposed the sterilisation of ten million ‘defective Americans’ at a time when the United States had 126 million inhabitants:

Many far-sighted men and women in both England and America have long been working earnestly toward something very like what Hitler has now made compulsory (The Case for Sterilization, page 36, ‘Nazi Connection’).

 

Hans F. K. Günther (1891-1968), anthropologist and professor at the universities of Jena, Berlin and Freiburg, with enormous knowledge of history and classical culture and extensive humanistic training. A Nordicist pioneer who, although he failed in small details, Günther broadly succeeded and left an open path regarding eugenics, Nordic blood in Greece and Rome, and pagan-Germanic romanticism.

Laying the foundations of Nazi racial thinking, and joining the NSDAP in 1932, Günther had an important influence on the racist doctrine of the Third Reich. He was also respected outside German borders, in academic settings of the United Kingdom and the United States. In 1935 Günther was declared ‘Pride of the NSDAP’ and in 1940 Hitler awarded him the Goethe Medal of art and science. After World War II he spent three years in an Allied concentration camp.

Günther never retracted his teachings. He published in 1951 a book that provides some guidelines for the election of a spouse and in 1959 another warning: that in Europe the stupidest people reproduced faster than the intelligent ones, and that that process had to be stopped by ‘family planning’. Günther contributed to the organisation of the Northern League (a Nordicist organization) and denied the Jewish holocaust until his death.

The conviction of the strength of the inheritance may have been weakened by the penetration of Christian ideas, with their accentuation of the separation of body and soul, spirit and flesh… (‘People and State, Inheritance and Selection’).

We must not be afraid to express an unpleasant fact for many educated people of our day: that the same vital laws are valid for the human being as for the animal. It is a side-effect of the medieval-ecclesiastical separation of body and soul, of flesh and spirit, that today more than one cultured person, before the hereditary health doctrine, speaks disparagingly of ‘animal husbandry’ or ‘dog breeding’. It has never seemed plausible to me that the animal is something so low that a comparison with Man cannot be authorised (Ibid.).

The large sums of money that today serve to lower the cultural level will be free, for example, for child allowances in economically weak families with good hereditary predispositions; that is, families that despite their good hereditary predispositions are in a state of need (Ibid.).

Especially for the hereditary capable female youth it is necessary to tell her, in the face of the current educational hoax, that for the German people it is vital that a hereditary high-value young woman, after the corresponding election of the spouse, see her hereditary qualities reborn in a group of their own children, and not through… the academic path of lack of children (Ibid.).

 
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945). Much has been spoken, written and speculated about Hitler and his eugenics. Nothing new is going to be written about him here. We will simply ask a question before letting him speak: How many of those who criticise him have really bothered to know his opinions firsthand? Why are there countries where his writings or speeches are censored? If Hitler was so wrong, why are we afraid to read what he left written (let alone his speeches)? Precisely with the idea of clearing the unknowns about his doctrine, Hitler prepared, in prison, his Mein Kampf (My Fight). Anyone who pretends to refute or hate Hitler should read this book first.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s note: The PDF My Fight is
available through this site (here).

______ 卐 ______

 

[The Jewish quarter] does not want to see a healthy and robust generation. It wants only a contaminated flock apt to be subdued. (My Fight, Volume I, chapter 11).

A racialist State will have, in the first place, the duty to remove marriage from the plane of perpetual racial degradation and consecrate it as the institution destined to create beings in the image of the Lord and not monsters, half man, half monkey…

It is the duty of the Racial State to repair the damages caused in this system. It must begin by making the question of Race the central point of general life. The State has to ensure the preservation of its purity and to consecrate the child as the most precious asset of the people…

Supported by the State, racial ideology will eventually achieve the advent of a better time, in which men will be less concerned with the selection of dogs, horses and cats than raising the racial level of Man himself. (My Fight, Volume II, chapter 2.)

When I tasted the soup of the people of Schleswig-Holstein, it occurred to me that the gruel of the Spartans cannot have been very different. In the time of the great migrations, the tribes were the product of ceaseless mixtures. The men who arrived in the South were not the same as those who went away. One can imagine two hundred young Friesians setting out for the South, like a tank setting out across the country, and carrying with them men belonging to other tribes. The Croats are certainly more Germanic than Slav. The Esthonians, too, have a lot of Germanic blood (Table Talk).

More importantly, we must educate young people about the beauty of the movement, the beauty of the body and the beauty of the spirit. Athletics, personal development, physical training, public competitions, and the resurgence of artistic representations based on Greek models, will help girls know how the man who deserves them should be, and also that the boys know what is the ideal woman. They will voluntarily turn their backs to the flirtatious dolls with dyed hair, painted faces, thick lips and red nails…

And a high selective ‘yes’ will become more important as we look like the people as a single entity. From an early age, day-care, elementary school, Hitler Youth and the German Girls League, all classes must join… (Quoted by Otto Wagener in Hitler: Memories of a Confidant.)

I have studied with great interest the laws of several American States dedicated to preventing the reproduction of persons whose progeny would not be of any value or would be harmful to racial lineage. I am sure that, occasionally, errors occur as a result. But the possibility of excess and error is still not a demonstration of the incorrectness of these laws (Ibid.).

Great personalities defend eugenics, 2

by Evropa Soberana

Antiquity

With the de-barbarization that ensued after the emergence of a sedentary lifestyle, the people soon realised that a society uprooted from Nature immediately degenerates. In short, humanity woke up to the dangers of civilisation.

To compensate for it, the leaders of these societies set up processes aimed at counteracting the pernicious effects of the greatest cancer that humanity has suffered: dysgenics, that is, the degeneration of the race that results from the absence of natural selection.

Here we will see that, in many civilised societies of antiquity, the laws of Nature were automatically followed. Its leaders intervened consciously and voluntarily to stop human reproduction and allow reproduction only to the best, so that the species did not degenerate. As Madison Grant wrote, where the environment is too soft and luxurious and it is not necessary to fight to survive, not only weak individuals are allowed to live. Strong types also gain weight mentally and physically!

The most illustrative examples of this era are Hindus, Greeks (among these the Spartans) and Romans. The Hellenic ideal of the kalokagathia, that is to say, an association of goodness-beauty—achieved by maintaining the purity of blood within the framework of a process of selection of the best—laid the foundations to everything that in the West has been considered ‘classical’ and ‘beautiful’ since then until recently.

In another long essay we have seen that the art that has come to us from European antiquity is perhaps only two percent of what existed and, to top it off, probably the least interesting and sublime: primitive Christians destroyed almost every legacy Greco-Roman civilisation. No one can know how many philosophers and authors suffered total destruction of their works, without anyone knowing again who they were or what they thought; and many other classic writings were censored, adulterated, corrected or mutilated.

However, we have at least some spoils of the pre-Christian era. Although ninety-eight percent of classical art was destroyed by the early Christians, what survived speaks for itself as a tribute to the selection, balance, health and excellence of all human qualities.

The Hindus. The Indo-European (i.e., Nordic) invaders arrived in India around 1400 BCE and immediately placed measures to favour high birth rates of the best elements of the population, identified with the Aryan invaders, and the decline of the worst, identified with the Negroid-Dravidic stratum.

The entire caste system was a great eugenics process in which the chandala (a term also used by Nietzsche to define the morals of Jews and Christians), the outcast, the untouchable, the sinful caste, the one considered inferior, was subjected to a horrendous lifestyle: using only the clothes of the dead bodies, drink only water from stagnant areas or animal tracks, not allow their women to be attended during childbirth, prohibition of washing, work as executioners, burials and latrine cleaners, and an unpleasant etcetera. Such impositions favoured that diseases were endemic among them; they fell like flies so that their numbers never constituted a danger for the best.

We are therefore faced with an example of negative eugenics: limiting the procreation of the worst. These measures are included in the Laws of Manu, the legendary Indo-Aryan legislator who laid the foundations for caste hierarchy. According to scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky, a renowned Ukrainian geneticist, ‘The caste system of India has been the greatest genetic experiment ever conducted by man’ (Genetic Diversity and Human Equality).

A woman always gives the world a child endowed with the same qualities as the one who has fathered him… A man of abject birth takes the natural evil of his father or his mother, or both at the same time, and can never hide its origin (Law of Manu, Book X).

Lycurgus (8th century BCE), a regent of Sparta, travelled through Spain, Egypt and India accumulating wisdom and, later, carrying out a revolution in Sparta after which the polis would militarize and establish a social system based on eugenics. The measures of this program highlight the infanticides of deformed, ugly or stupid newborns. Broadly speaking, Lycurgus’s policy was based on training perfect human beings that gave birth to perfect human beings, and there was no place for genetic engenders in that plan. On the other hand, the crypteia, carried out by the Spartan authorities on the helots (the submissive plebs) can perfectly be considered a very brutal and primitive example of negative eugenics.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Having helots as slaves was a fatal flaw for Spartan civilisation. The laws of Lycurgus did not foresee that eugenic customs would fatally relax after a catastrophic war (as would happen after the Peloponnesian War). A real solution would have been, as William Pierce saw in his study on Greece, to exterminate the non-Nordic Mediterraneans of Sparta and extend such policy to all Greece, and eventually to all Europe.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
As for the Spartan policies of positive eugenics—favouring the multiplication of the best—we see popular rituals such as the coronation of a male champion and a female champion in a sports competition, or a king and queen in a beauty pageant, or tax exemption to the citizens who left four children. The best were expected to marry the best. Single people over twenty-five years old were extremely frowned upon and punished with fines and humiliating acts.

If the parents are strong, the children will be strong (Fr. 7).

Heraclitus (535-484 BCE), a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher known for his aphorisms in the style of the Oracle of Delphi. He established that wisdom was much more than a mere accumulation of knowledge and intelligence, also valuing intuition, instinct and will. He said: ‘I ask all mortals to father well-born children of noble parents’.

Leonidas (dies in 480 BCE), King of Sparta and supreme commander of the Greek troops in the Battle of Thermopylae. He fought in numerical inferiority against the Persians until the end, giving time for the evacuation of Greek cities, granting margin for an Athenian victory in the battle of Salamis and laying the foundations of the definitive Persian defeat in Plataea. Leonidas and his Spartans are an example of heroism, dedication to their people, a spirit of sacrifice, training and honour for all Western armies of all time.

Marry the capable and give birth to the capable! (exhortation to the Spartan people before leaving for the Thermopylae according to Plutarch, On the Malice of Herodotus, 32).

Theognis of Megara (6th century BCE) was one of the great Greek poets. He has bequeathed us in his Theognidea a series of interesting reflections and advice to his disciple Cyrnus. Among other things, Theognis divides the population into ‘good’—the nobility, identified with the Hellenic invaders—and ‘bad’—the native plebeian population of Greece, which progressively accumulated money and rights:

In rams and asses and horses, Cyrnus, we seek
the thoroughbred, and a man is concerned therein
to get him offspring of good stock;

Yet in marriage a good man thinketh not twice of wedding
the bad daughter of a bad sire if the father give him many possessions;

Nor doth a woman disdain the bed of a bad man if he be wealthy,
but is fain rather to be rich than to be good.

For ’tis possessions they prize;
and a good man weddeth of bad stock and a bad man of good;
race is confounded of riches.

In like manner, son of Polypaus,
marvel thou not that the race of thy townsmen is made obscure;
’tis because bad things are mingled with good.

Even he that knoweth her to be such, weddeth a low-born woman for pelf,
albeit he be of good repute and she of ill;
for he is urged by strong Necessity, who giveth a man hardihood.

 

Critias (460-403 BCE), Athenian philosopher, speaker, teacher, poet and uncle of Plato. He is known for being part of the Spartan occupation government known as the thirty tyrants. We will appreciate the importance that this man attached not only to inheritance, but to sports training without which a human being will never be complete.

I begin with the birth of a man, demonstrating how he can be the best and strongest in the body if his father trains and endures hardness, and if his future mother is strong and also trains.

Plato (428-347 BCE), probably the most famous philosopher of all time, was inspired by Sparta to propose the measures of Greek regeneration in his work The Republic, plagued with values of both positive eugenics—promoting the best—as negative eugenics—limit the worst—, especially with regard to the caste of the ‘guardians’. Plato, like most Greek philosophers, was in favour of exposing defective children to the weather so that they died.

It is necessary, according to our principles, that the relationships of the most outstanding individuals of one sex or the other are very frequent, and those of the lower individuals very rare. In addition, it is necessary to raise the children of the first and not of the second, if you want the flock to not degenerate (The Republic).

Based on what was agreed, it is necessary for the best men to join the best women as often as possible, and on the contrary, the worst with the worst; and the offspring of the best and not the worst should be raised, so our flock will become excellent (Statesman, 459).

That even better children are born from elite men, and from useful men to the country, even more useful children (Statesman, 461).

Xenophon (430-354), soldier, accomplished horseman during the Peloponnesian war, mercenary in the heart of Persia during the expedition of the ten thousand, philosopher, pro-Spartan and historian. Notorious anti-democrat who abhorred the Athenian government, he longed for fairer forms of government such as those he met in Persia and Sparta, where he sent his children to be educated. Together with Plutarch, Xenophon is the greatest source of information about Sparta, admiring the eugenic practices established by Lycurgus.

[Lycurgus] considered that the production of children was the noblest duty of free citizens (Constitution of the Lacedaemonians).

An old man had to introduce his wife to a young man in the prime of life whom he admired for his qualities, to have children with him (Constitution of the Lacedaemonians).

Isocrates (436-338 BCE), politician, philosopher and Greek teacher, was one of the famous ten Attic speakers and probably the most influential rhetorician of his time. He founded a public speaking school that became famous for its effectiveness and criticised the politics of many Greek cities, which instead of stimulating their birth rate inflated their numbers through the mass immigration of slaves, which he considered inferior to the Hellenic population. In this quotation it is verified to what extent Isocrates valued quality versus quantity:

It should not be said as happy that city which, from all extremes, randomly accumulates many citizens; but the one that best preserves the race of the settled since the beginning.

Euripides (480-406 BCE), playwright, a friend of Socrates and undoubtedly one of the greatest poets of all antiquity; his stain was an excessive machismo that led him to criticise the greater freedom enjoyed by women in Sparta. Disappointed and disgusted by the policies of a decadent Greece he retired to Macedonia, a place where Hellenic traditions were still pure, where he finally died.

There is no more precious treasure for children than to be born of a noble and virtuous father and to marry among noble families. Curse to the reckless who, defeated by passion, joins the unworthy and leaves his children to dishonour in return for guilty pleasures (Heracleidae).

Aristotle (384-322 BCE), the famous philosopher who educated Alexander the Great and laid the western foundations of Hellenism, logic and sciences such as biology, taxonomy and zoology. Aristotle extends extensively in his work Politeia on the problems posed by eugenics, birth control, childhood feeding and education (books VII and VIII). He generally admired the ancient Spartan system, with some reservations—in my opinion unfounded as Sparta was not decadent—because the ephorate was tyrannical.

(Left, a Patrician bust.) The Patricians were the Roman leaders in the early days, when Rome was a Republic. These men were the patriarchs or clan chiefs of each of the thirty noble families descended from Italic invaders, and they ran all Roman institutions including the legions, the courts and the Senate. Sober, pure, ascetic and hard, their people held them in high regard as repositories of the highest wisdom and Roman posterity honoured them as gods.

Their descendants formed the Patricians, the later Roman aristocracy, which gradually decayed throughout the Empire until almost completely dissolving, turning Rome into a disgusting decadent monster that deserved to be razed. After the Punic wars and Julius Caesar, Rome largely lost its Indo-European spirit.

In the IV of the XII tablets of the law, it was established that deformed children must be killed at birth. It was also left to the patriarchs of the patrician clans to decide which were the unfit children. They were usually drowned in the waters of the Tiber River, and other times abandoned, exposing them to wild animals and elements in a process called exposure. Apparently, the Romans did not fare so badly with this purifying tactic as we see in their conquering history.

Distorium vultum sequitur distortio morum, ‘A crooked face follows a crooked moral’—Roman proverb.

Meleager of Gadara (1st century BCE), Greek epigram compiler within the Hellenistic stage, who wrote: ‘If one mixes good with bad, a good progeny would not be born, but if both parents are good, they will beget noble children’ (Fr. 9).

Horace (65 BCE-8 CE) said: ‘The virtue of parents is a great dowry’ and ‘’The good and the brave descend from the good and the brave’ (Odes, IV, 4, 29).

Seneca (4 BCE-65 CE), Roman philosopher of the Stoic school (the same school that Marcus Aurelius and Julian the Apostate belonged), of Hispanic-Celtic origin and teacher of Emperor Nero.

We exterminate hydrophobic dogs; we kill the indomitable bulls; we slaughter sick sheep for fear that they infest the flock; we suffocate the monstrous foetuses and even drown the children if they are weak and deformed. It is not passion, but reason, to separate healthy parts from those that can corrupt them (Of Anger, XV).

Plutarch (45-120 CE). Philosopher, mathematician, historian, speaker and priest of Apollo at the Oracle of Delphi. It is also one of the important sources of information about Sparta in his books Ancient Customs of the Lacedaemonians and Life of Lycurgus.

Leaving a being who is not healthy and strong from the beginning is not beneficial for the State or for the individual himself (Ancient Customs of the Lacedaemonians).

When a baby was born he was taken to a council of elders to be examined. If the baby was defective in some way the elders threw him down a ravine. Such a baby, in the opinion of the Spartans, should not be allowed to live (Life of Lycurgus).

Veritas odium parit, 2

In the royal chapel of the cathedral of Granada this painting representing the Mass of St. Gregorio is preserved. Jesus shows the wound on his side and the attributes of his passion appear around him. It is a work of a 15th-century painter known as ‘Master of the Legend of St. Lucía’.

Apparently, the images of Christian art that I have been choosing as introductions to different posts have nothing to do with the content of the articles. For example, apparently this painting, in which the most famous Jew in history shows the wound on his side, inflicted by evil Romans, has nothing to do with the phobia that many white nationalists feel toward Nordicism (a Nordicism that, in times of the golden age of the American eugenicists and the Third Reich, was taken for granted).

But art is the Royal Road to understand the Zeitgeist of a stage of Western culture. In his 1969 series, Civilisation, Kenneth Clark showed the Greek head of Apollo as an example of the highest white culture. He then said that, with the arrival of Christianity, the human body virtually disappeared and the only thing that remained were degenerate homunculi in Irish pictorial art, especially as illustrated books.

A lot of white nationalists are still Christians who don’t want to hurt the feelings of the homunculi. If the beauty of the ancient Aryan man had not been demonised throughout Christendom, there would be no anti-Nordicists in the alt-right today. In other words, anti-Nordicism is the tail of the Era in which the Semite convinced the Aryan that His beauty was sinful. This is the last part of the tail of ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond or free, male or female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus’.

The superiority of National Socialism over the American movement today consists in that, like the Renaissance Italians, the Germans transvalued the Christian disvalue of a wounded Jew to the ancient value of Aryan beauty. That was very remarkable in the art, pamphlets and outdoor sports of the Third Reich. Replacing the Jew that shows us his wounds to make us feel guilty (the ancient version of the Holocaust), with the sculpture of a perfect Aryan, is part of the healing process to save the fair race.

The author of Counter-Currents insulted by anti-Nordicists (surely muds with an inferiority complex) wrote:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Northern Europe vs. the Mediterranean

The oft-quoted statement of Aristotle, “Man is a political animal,” is actually a mistranslation. A truer rendering of his words would be, “Man is the kind of animal who lives in a polis.” That Greek word encompasses more than “city-state,” its usual translation. First of all, the English term “city-state” makes the city the dominant element and the surrounding countryside an afterthought, whereas in ancient Greece, most people lived in villages and farming communities. Even in the polis of Attica, which had the bustling city of Athens, the citizens it sent to fight at the Battle of Marathon were mostly farmers.

Such a community, moreover, must be relatively small. Athens was the exception: most Greek poleis had a total population of fewer than 50,000, with perhaps 5-10,000 citizens. In the Laws, Plato sets the ideal, with characteristic precision, at 5,040 citizens. Aristotle did not have Plato’s affinity for applying mathematical exactness to human affairs, but he did believe that a man should know his fellow citizens, if not personally then at least by reputation – else how could he properly judge if a man is fit to govern? He also thought it important that the citizens should be able to assemble in one place. Still, the polis must not be so small that it cannot meet its economic needs and defend itself properly.

Most important of all, by polis Greeks understood a whole nexus of ideas centered around a self-governing community that is bound not just by laws but by traditions and a common religion, language, and history. Absent these elements, the polis ceases to be. If the community is ruled not by itself but from a distant capital, or if it is a vast metropolis comprising a kaleidoscopic range of ethnicities, it is no longer a community in the true sense. What is more, its inhabitants cannot reach their moral, spiritual, or intellectual potential, because their nature has been cramped. Thus, life in the kind of community Aristotle describes is intimately bound up with Western man’s nature; without it, he becomes less human.

Using Aristotle’s criteria, we can see that medieval Iceland, for example, meets the definition of a polis. Overwhelmingly rural, it possessed no metropolis drawing off all financial and intellectual capital from the countryside. While spread over a large territory, the citizens of the Icelandic polis managed to assemble once a year at the Althing. That they knew of each other by reputation, or through a sort of medieval Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, is evident from the impressive corpus of their sagas. In these, newcomers in the narrative always identify their kinship and lineage to an impressive degree, often crossing over between sagas, giving others the proper context in which to place them. The Icelanders governed themselves and were as fiercely independent as the Greeks who faced the Persian invasion. Above all, they were bound by a common history, language, and religion—this latter unity being such an important point that the official conversion to Christianity was decided at the Althing.

It does not take much imagination to see that the polis can also be a tribe: that is, kinship proves more important than geographic location. Aristotle was adamant, in fact, that whatever we call a collection of people who happen to live in the same place and interact merely for the purpose of making money off each other, we cannot call it a polis. Upon closer inspection, then, any of the Germanic tribes described by Tacitus meet Aristotle’s definition of a polis, and this would apply even later, during the period of the great Völkerwanderung that hastened Rome’s demise. But the polis had long since died out in Aristotle’s homeland, which had much to do with his most famous pupil.

Julian, 69

Julian Augustus

It is not easy to understand the Gauls. Their ways are strange to us, despite their many years as Roman subjects. I think they are the handsomest of the world’s people. Both men and women are tall and fair-skinned, often with blue eyes and blond hair. They are forever washing their clothes and bodies. One can go from one end of the province to the other without seeing a man or woman in soiled or ragged clothes. Laundry hangs drying beside every hovel, no matter how poor.

But despite their beauty, they are remarkably quarrelsome. Both men and women speak with curiously loud voices, braying their vowels and sounding hard their consonants. Whenever I gave justice, I used to be deafened by the rival lawyers and claimants, all bellowing like wounded bulls.

They boast that in a fight one Gaul is worth ten Italians. I’m afraid this is true.

They love battle. They have both the strength and heart for it. And their women love fighting, too. It is not at all unusual for a Gaul in the heat of battle to call to his wife to aid him. When she does, his strength increases tenfold. With my own eyes I have seen Gallic women attack the enemy, teeth gnashing, necks corded with veins, large white arms revolving like the cross-piece of a windmill, while their feet kick like shots discharged by catapult. They are formidable.

The Gallic men take pride in military service, unlike the Italians, who think nothing of cutting off their own thumbs to thwart the state’s recruiting officers. Gauls, however, delight in blood-letting, and they would be the greatest of all soldiers but for two reasons: they do not take well to military discipline, and they are drunks. At the most inconvenient moments a commander of Gallic troops is apt to find his soldiers mad with drink, under the excuse that such and such a day is holy and must be marked with a little wine or one of those powerful drinks they brew from grain and vegetables.

I shall not describe my campaigns in Gaul, for I have already published an account of them which flatterers declare is the equal of Julius Caesar’s Commentaries. I will say that I put more care into writing about the Gallic wars than I did in fighting them! But I shall record some of the things which I could not reveal at the time.

Published in: on June 30, 2019 at 12:16 pm  Comments (1)  

Introduction to eugenics

by Evropa Soberana

‘All people can be Gods people now through the New Covenant… all peoples have a right to exist and continue to exist, but no race is superior in the sight of God. Each people has been given specific attributes and responsibilities but to God every soul is valuable’ —Matt Heimbach.

Editor’s Note: Is race a social construct? This is what liberals believe—and apparently Christian white nationalists like Heimbach believe that, for God, race is a mere human construct. (No wonder why people say that liberalism is the bastard son of Christianity…)

Below, my abbreviated translation of ‘Intro a la eugenesia’, published six years ago by the Spaniard blogger Evropa Soberana:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

It is undeniable that in the species and in any human group there are diversity of qualities.

Some individuals are intelligent and others are stupid; even there are morons. Some individuals have health of steel and others are sickly. Some individuals are tall, others are short. Some individuals are strong, others are weak. Some individuals are brave, others are cowards. Some individuals are disciplined and hardworking, others are lazy and slothful. Some individuals are honest, noble, righteous and loyal, others have a clear inclination towards lying, falsehood, disloyalty and betrayal.

It is also undeniable that almost all these qualities are hereditary and depend on genetics to a greater or lesser extent (usually more greater than lesser).

The question that arises is: what qualities, from those listed above, seem more desirable to us and which ones would we like they end up prevailing in the future world if we want the Earth to be a better place?

If you are a logical person I address the following question: in the path that, as a species, we have been going through the last millennia, what qualities, of those listed above, tend to be selected?

The current mentality, produced by a civilisation isolated in its technological bubble, ignores a hundred percent the laws of Nature, of blood, of selection and of the inequality of men; laws that, necessarily, place the best ones above and the worst ones below. The modern world is, then, the perfect example of a diabolical selection in reverse, or dysgenics. Many people of inferior genetics have been perpetuated, and many people of superior genetics have not done so (for example, in medieval times because of fratricidal wars, witch hunts and celibacy of very large social sectors at the hands of the Church). That hurts the race. When the number of biological waste increases and that of bodily monuments to the gods decreases, we can be sure without any doubt that we are moving towards a future of biological trash.

Today, the individual is sacred and untouchable, while concepts such as ‘race’ and ‘homeland’ are considered abstractions, when the only abstraction is the individual who is born and dies fleetingly and while only human groups are solid and lasting realities.

In harder and more authentic times, the birth rate was vigorous, but the harshness of environmental conditions cut off the lives of the weakest. Thus, in a family of ten children, it was possible that they reached reproductive age only five. Each of these five would have, in turn, ten children, of which five would survive, the fittest. The result was that, in several generations, the defectives were virtually eradicated and the only ones left standing were the fittest. Thus, fighting against the elements, in wars, epidemics and catastrophes, the population of the planet remained stable but, nevertheless, as a species, we tended to improve generation after generation. Each ‘litter’ tended to be better than the previous one.

Humanity was not spiritually prepared for the advent of the modern industrial revolution, technology and health services. Obviously, the technology turned out to be in many ways salvation for Man, but he forgot to foresee that the immense population growth that would inevitably take place would have to be compensated in other ways. Instead of foreseeing measures that would continue to maintain a selection of the best ones to regulate the population, the uncontrolled proliferation of human beings was allowed, at the expense of Nature and of the biological quality of the population.

Ever since health services, technology, social services and Judeo-Christian morality have spread freely, a whole legion of sick, decrepit, retarded and handicapped people invade the horizon of the species that in a world dominated by Nature would never have seen the light, or they would have lasted a short time. We, who have the technique and the means to quickly and painlessly do what Nature usually does slowly and painfully, are propagating and perpetuating the inferior seeds.

It is argued that technology in itself is not good or bad, but depends on the use that is given. Today, it is being used diabolically, oriented to make us sick, to weaken us and to get away from the Earth and our own nature. In the future, when the imbecility of this civilisation has been overcome, the application of technology must take a 180-degree turn.
 

But then there would be a selection: we would choose the types to prevail, we would discriminate, and that is unfair (for me, of course: because I want to perpetuate my genes, and with them, the associated declines)!

It will be unfair to you, but it is fair to the race, which is more important than you. On the other hand, it is unfair for the species that your hereditary rubbish spread like the plague, no matter how much that offends you.

And yes: it sounds to me like selection. It’s like in the exams. He who gets more than a 5, approves, and he who gets 5 or less stays out… a ‘selection’ in full rule. How monstrously unfair! What ominous discrimination towards those who did not pass! How politically incorrect!

Just like those places where they do not let you pass if you do not wear shoes, or if you wear piggy pints, or if you don’t go with female company, or if you dislike the Romanian gatekeeper.

Or those expensive restaurants where you cannot go if you’re not with tie and well dressed. Or those clubs where they only accept Latin bitches. Or those 5-star hotels where if you lack dosh to pay for a suite they don’t accommodate you. Or those bars where they would crush you if you say, ‘Long Live Spain!’

This is discrimination and pure and hard selection, which surrounds us 24 hours a day, and always in much more unjust and unnatural ways than genetic discrimination.
 

But then a caste system would be formed and the equality would be destroyed!

Yes, but don’t we have a ‘caste system’ today? Is not that capitalist caste system based on money? Doesn’t that destroy the sacrosanct ‘equality’? Is such an economic criterion of social stratification not infinitely lower, unnatural, unjust and petty than the genetic one? Don’t it tend to enthrone mediocre, vile and malicious individuals?

Nowadays, one can be clown, brat, son of a bitch, depraved, pervert, false, traitor, snake, unfriendly, repellent, drug addict and stupid: but they will open the doors wherever he goes and will bow if he is rotten with money and makes ostentation of it visible.

Likewise, one can be an intelligent, good, healthy, brave, strong and friendly chap that the System will overlook if he is poor.

Today, a chick is ‘good’ if she has a neckline, thong, miniskirt and shows off her body, even if mediocre, while a beautiful gal is not stunning if she goes in tracksuit and shirt. Is not that tremendously unfair?

So what are you afraid of when you suggest the possibility of wiping out all that and selecting the best individuals or genes for higher breeding?
 

But then we would operate modifications on the individual and force changes in the whole society!

So good! You have a son. Don’t you teach him to behave so that he is more presentable? Don’t you wash him and comb him so he looks better? Won’t you give him a better education to make him wiser? Isn’t that ‘operating modifications’?

Don’t we have a ridiculous and pathetic educational system, as well as a monstrous subliminal propaganda apparatus that ‘forces change’ throughout society, even in public opinion? Are not those changes, by the way, worse?

So what are you afraid of when you suggest the possibility of operating modifications for the better?
 

But then we would all end up being tall, handsome, blond, strong, gifted, indestructible, immortal, perfect and blue-eyed!

And what’s wrong with that?

Let’s see… taking the genetic range of yours and your partner, they give you to choose how you want your future child to be. How would you ‘ask’ him?

Short, maybe? Dummy? Black, no doubt? Something ugly, perhaps…?

Wouldn’t you ‘ask’ for the best range within your gene pool and that of your partner?
 

Oh, I don’t care how he looks like, and I’ll love him anyway.

I’m proud of you. Look, I’m going to shed a little tear with so much solidarity, so much progressivism, so much equality, so much tolerance and so many rainbows. But tell me: If the look doesn’t matter, then why the hell do you dye your hair or blow it?

Why do you brush or shave? Being a man, wouldn’t you ignore an ugly gal, fat and with a goatee? Why do you buy clothes designed to enhance your virtues and hide your shortcomings? Why do you make up? Why do you wear heels? Silicone? Implants? Operation of breast augmentation? Rhinoplasty? Lifting? Skin creams? Several liposuctions? Insulin for diabetes? Extirpation of the appendix? Gadgets for asthma? Barbiturates? Sleeping pills? Glasses or contact lenses? Anabolics?

Why, in short, do you try to pretend? Isn’t it because you are aware that this is a treasure? And isn’t all that a thousand times more unnatural than being born with privileged genes?

The problem is that people work on the phenotype, disguising their defects with money, paints, patches, amendments, accessories and harmful chemicals (and expensive, which is a lucrative and convenient business for the System). Perhaps, O hypocrites, wouldn’t you kill for good genetics, for health of steel, for beauty of birth and for not needing all those ridiculous complements to disguise your superficial miseries?

Don’t you spend (you and the State) bunch of monies in such patches and globs to hide your defects and your diseases, cash that could be saved if such defects were eradicated by tuning up certain genes harmlessly? Doesn’t all the waste of keeping the retarded, terminally ill, be cut off in a single generation with a little common sense, for God’s sake?
 

Oh, I wouldn’t choose the looks of my son, I’d just let him be born without messing with his genes.

Once again I’m shedding a tear. Sniff.

But when you see that all your little friends go through life begetting beautiful super-babes, healthy, responsible, intelligent, strong, loving, I have the vague feeling that you don’t want to stay behind, be the less coolest mother and condemn you to have to listen to your asthmatic, diabetic or simply mediocre child, without asking yourself how you were such a scumbag as not to give him a better birth having the means to do so.
 

But then babies born through genetic engineering will be unnatural beings!

Those babies wouldn’t be any more unnatural than a bourgeois obese with toad face; drinker, sedentary, dressed up to the neck and spending five hours a day on TV, or taking his BMW even to go shit.

Nor would it be more unnatural than a 50-year-old fat woman, unlookable, ramshackled, wrinkled, materialistic, smoker, varicosed, sterile, without children—but yes: a progressive, activist, sponsor of children of alien races in foreign countries, with her hair dyed blond, with lots of make up, with a purse, talking on her cell phone and stuffed with gelatinous muffin tops and flabs that none wants to see.

And, of course, they won’t be more unnatural than the troop of the sick, deviant, criminals, whores, parasites, inverted and degenerates who parade through our civilisation and to whom, on the other hand, no one deprived of their right to be born.

You yourself, don’t you take the bus or go by car? Don’t you get into noisy bars to get drunk and distract your will? Don’t you have sex with a condom or with an anti-baby device? Don’t you watch TV? Isn’t all that also ‘unnatural’? So what are you telling me, fucking piece of plastic with legs? I will accept the word ‘unnatural’ as valid only and exclusively if they come from the mouth of someone like Tarzan or Mowgli.

Why, then, almost perfect children, born out of the cross-breeding of the best of the species, should be unnatural and abominable beings? Couldn’t they be ordinary people, and have the same privileges as, for example, a homosexual mestizo, obese, diabetic, squatter and carrier of various venereal diseases?
 

Well, that seems discrimination to me. Who decides who is perfect? Isn’t that playing to be God?

Maybe it is playing God, but since no one is going to come down from heaven to give us instructions, and since we are not going to sit and watch the species degenerate until we become sickly Tinkiwinkies fused with TV, the bag and the car at the same time, someone with judgment has to fill that void.

Bearing in mind, moreover, that the species is on the verge of catastrophe we must favour an exacerbately high birth rate among the best specimens, and prevent the worst from multiplying. Modern Western civilisation is the only civilisation in the history of humanity that does not conceive of sex, marriage, family and birth-rate as biological weapons destined to propitiate ‘the victory of the cradles’—without which ‘the victory of the soldier’ is incomplete.

It will be necessary to cross-breed keeping in mind the selection of qualities such as Nordic blood, good constitution, intelligence, strength, stature, courage, leadership ability, health, resistance, discipline and a very long etcetera, which are the qualities selected by Nature itself when the suicidal and insane Judeo-Christian morality does not interpose between Her and man. It would not be necessary to ‘force’ things in this sense (‘you two are good specimens, let’s mate’), but to encourage their desire to emerge naturally and spontaneously.

If this type of policy was supported by the techniques and means that exist today, we would have, in a matter of generations, an almost perfect race, and all the defects—together with the expenses and miseries they cause—eradicated forever.

‘Good’ is everything that improves the race; ‘bad’ is everything that makes the race worse.

From this point of view, it could be necessary to resort to artificial methods (genetic engineering, state intervention, selective crossings) to correct the indescribable nonsense caused by 2000 years of artificial dementia.

Your urban brothel lifestyle, contaminated, uprooted, unhealthy, asphalted, greasy, degenerated, drunk and immoral harm the species and that is unnatural.

Your compassion and diligence towards junkies, the defective, retarded, homosexual, dirty, delinquent, sickly, parasites and judicially sentenced is something that harms the species and that is unnatural.

Your social-economic selection is something that harms the species, that makes it worse and tends to form a type of inferior man, in addition to being a thousand times more immoral than natural-genetic selection.

Your castration of the instinct of aggressiveness is something that worsens the species and leaves us unarmed before more brutal humanities.

Genetic selection, good birth and the selective matching of the best individuals are things that benefit the race and tend to form a type of superior man. Therefore they are good and desirable in themselves.

Conclusion: as long as an intervention in human reproduction is not a reality, mate only with individuals of similar genetic and racial quality of you. Guide yourself through the traits of the body, the soul, health and the tone of skin, eyes and hair.

Nordicism and National Socialism, 13

Wolfgang Willrich: Maria Weinmayr.

It is not only because the shape of the body of the Nordic man entails certain dimensions in height, width and length, or because it is often characterized by blond hair and blue eyes that we grant it some importance. It is not for that reason that we attribute a certain value to our Nordic inheritance.

Certainly the indications that the form of the body of the Nordic man gives us do not cease to constitute the very basis of our ideal of beauty. This has always been the case in Western history and it is enough to be convinced of this by taking a look at the panorama of the works of art that have been produced over the centuries by all the civilisations and ‘cultures’ that have been appearing on the European territory.

As far back as we go into the past, we always find sculptural figures and paintings that evoke an ideal of beauty, the characteristic forms of Nordic man. Even in certain Eastern civilisations we are in the presence of the same phenomenon. While the deities are represented with distinctly Nordic features, the figures of demons representing lower or dark forces have traits of other human races. In the Indies and even in the Far East there are often Buddhas whose features are distinctly Nordic.

That the Nordic racial body represents for us the ideal of beauty, seems natural to us. But all this only acquires its real and profound meaning because we find in it the expression and symbol of the Nordic soul. Without that Nordic soul, the Nordic body would be nothing more than an object of study for the natural sciences, as the physical form of any other human or animal race.

Just as the Nordic body has become precious and pleasant to us as perfect support and expression of the Nordic soul, so we experience repulsion by certain Jewish racial traits because they are the direct symbol and the true indication of a Jewish soul that for us is totally foreign.

Wise specialists of the matter tell us that a certain racial physical form and a certain racial soul necessarily go together and that they are, after all, more than the expression of one and the same thing. However, nothing seems more difficult for us than to demonstrate scientifically or by other means the accuracy of that homogeneity between the racial body and the racial soul.

‘Annals’, No. 2. Edition of the Belgian Schutzstaffel (SS) Brigade ‘Wallonie’, excerpted from ‘The SS Order’, OSS I.3.3.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: The level of inverted values imposed by Christianity, even among white nationalists, is so evident that few reproduce on their sites images of Aryan beauty. Prior to Christianity, Aryan beauty appeared everywhere in sculptures and paintings. In the Middle Ages the Aryan figure lost its beauty and iconography was replaced with depictions of a Semitic Jesus, so that Aryans no longer experienced repulsion by certain Jewish racial traits.

Published in: on March 24, 2019 at 7:34 pm  Comments (3)  

Nordicism and National Socialism, 1

Editor’s note: Left, a drawing by Wolfgang Willrich, ‘This is what the German soldier is fighting for’.

‘We cannot forget the predilection that the Hellenes felt for this colour [blond]: they could not conceive their noblest deities in another form’ wrote Joseph Arthur de Gobineau 165 years ago in a quote reproduced below. You can imagine what happened to the Aryan psyche after the Judeo-Christians destroyed the statues and temples of the Greco-Roman gods and replaced them with churches and iconography of a Semitic god (which is why we believe that Aryan liberation will only come after we burn down worldwide all Christian churches to the ground).

Here I translate and adapt for this site the first instalment of ‘Nordicismo y Nazismo’, an essay originally published by Evropa Soberana in 2013.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Nordicism was not born with European colonialism or with the rise of Nazi ideas in the interwar period. It is a trend that comes from classical antiquity, which is closely related to art and the human model to which art must aspire. Nordicism tries to answer the question of what is the source of the Indo-European tradition and which is the human race that laid the main foundations of Europe since prehistoric times.

However, the Nordic wave that is closest to us is the one that flourished under the Third Reich. To understand the ideas that underlie National Socialist Nordicism, the content of this piece, we will provide a selection of written fragments from:

• Adolf Hitler

• the SS doctrine

• Nazi ideologues such as Alfred Rosenberg

• Scholars who, without being Nazis, are considered avant-garde precursors of a mentality that culminated in Nazism, like Nietzsche. (H.S. Chamberlain has been omitted since he designates as ‘Teutonic’ what has finally been called ‘Nordic’.)

• Other authors that have nothing to do with National Socialism (they even ended up opposing it!) but that deal with the Nordic race, like Madison Grant.

• I also include images of National Socialist characters as well as propaganda and works of art from Nazi Germany, in which the Nordic type is represented as a reference, ideal and goal to pursue.

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was a German philosopher who influenced, among others, Nietzsche and Hitler. During the First World War, Hitler always carried with him the book The World as Will and Representation. Schopenhauer wrote:

The highest civilisation and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians, are found exclusively among the white races; and even with many dark peoples, the ruling caste, or race, is fairer than the rest, and has, therefore, evidently immigrated, for example, the Brahmins, the Inca, and the rulers of the South Sea Islands. All this is due to the fact that necessity is the mother of invention, because those tribes that emigrated early to the north, and there gradually became white, had to develop all their intellectual powers, and invent and perfect all the arts in their struggle with need, want and misery, which in their many forms, were brought about by the climate. This they had to do in order to make up for the parsimony of nature, and out of it came their high civilisation. (Parerga and Paralipomena, 1851, Volume II, Section 92).

Arthur de Gobineau (1816-1882) was a French ambassador, historian and philosopher with a vast culture and a great intuition. His innovative and monumental work Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races is well-known, but few venture to say that Gobineau was a ‘Nordicist’ in the sense that he identified the original Aryans with the ‘Nordic’ human type.

The colour of the Aryans was white and rosy: so were the Greeks and the oldest Persians; so were the primitive Hindus also. Among the colours of the hair and the beard dominated the blond, and we cannot forget the predilection that the Hellenes felt for this colour: they could not conceive their noblest deities in another form.

Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, 1853 and 1855, Book Three, Chapter I.

In that very remote epoch, the civilising force did not reside in the South: it emanated from the North. It came from Thrace with Orpheus, with Mousaios, with Linos. The Greek warriors appeared tall, white and blond. Their eyes looked arrogantly at the sky, and this memory so dominated the thinking of successive generations, that when a darker polytheism invaded with the growing influx of Semitic immigrants all regions and all consciousnesses, and replaced it with their sanctuaries, for the Olympians the highest expression of beauty, of majestic power, was no other than the reproduction of the Aryan type: blue eyes, blond hair, white complexion, high stature and slender complexion.

Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, 1853 and 1855, Third Book, Chapter III, on Ancient Greece.

What was, in the physical and moral realms, a Roman of the 3rd, 4th or 5th centuries? A man of medium height, of frail constitution and appearance, usually dark, running in his veins a little blood of all imaginable races; believing himself as the first man of the universe and, to prove it, he was insolent, creeping, ignorant, thief, depraved, ready to sell his sister, his daughter, his wife, his country and his sovereign; and endowed with an insurmountable fear of poverty, suffering, fatigue and death. Apart from that, he had no doubt that the Earth and its courtship of planets had been created for him only.

Faced with that despicable being, what was the barbarian? A man with blond hair, white and rosy complexion, broad on his back, tall in stature, vigorous as Alcides, reckless as Theseus, skillful, agile, feeling no fear of anything, let alone of death.

That Leviathan possessed above all, righteous or false ideas but reasoned, intelligent ideas that he struggled to be spread. Within his nationality, he had nourished the spirit of a severe and refined religion, of a shrewd politics, of a glorious history.

Able to meditate, he understood that the Roman civilisation was richer than his, and sought the reason for it. He was in no way that turbulent creature that we ordinarily imagine, but a very attentive adolescent with positive interests, who knew how to arrange himself to feel, see, compare, judge, prefer.

When the vain and miserable Roman opposed his tricks to the vital cunning of the barbarian, who decided the victory? The fist of the latter. Falling like a mass of iron on the skull of the poor grandson of Remus, that muscular fist showed him on which side the force was then. And in what way was the Roman humiliation then avenged? He cried, and he asked the centuries to come to take revenge for his oppressed civilisation. Poor little bugger! He resembled the contemporary of Virgil and Augustus as well as Shylock to King Solomon.

Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, 1853 and 1855, Book Three, Chapter VII, On the Decline of Rome.

First Epistle to the Corinthians

Or

Antimalware software

In a program for Japanese television Jared Taylor said in Japanese, ‘Koreans, Japanese, Chinese for those reasons are superior to White people in terms of IQ, in my view’. A genuine priest of the 14 words would never say such a thing in a public space. Just look at the faces of Taylor and the Asian interviewer and tell me if, from the esthetical viewpoint, he’s not far superior to the Jap (who beside Jared looks like a Neanderthal)?

But Taylor is the typical Neochristian. The son of very pious parents who moved to Japan to preach the Word to the heathens, once he distanced himself from religion he maintained in his mind residual malware that Christianity implanted in our psyches millennia ago. So let’s talk about the original virus.

As we said in the previous entry of this series, it was Saul/Paul the one who first preached about how there should be no distinctions between the peoples of the Roman Empire, Hellenes (whites) and Jews included. We have also linked to the conference by Marcus Borg about the zeitgeist of the first Christians, ‘thoroughgoing eschatology’ as Schweitzer put it or ‘apocalyptic eschatology’ as exegetes call it today. When the eschaton failed to occur—which means that both Jesus and the early Paul (the Paul of 1 Corinthians) failed—, Paul started to rationalise the failure in subsequent epistles (see Paul’s apocalyptic eschatology in chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians). As Karlheinz Deschner noted in Christianity’s Criminal History:

And here there is how the oldest Christian author, the apostle of the peoples, Paul, reacts. If he first explained to the Corinthians that the term ‘had been set short’ and the ‘world is heading to the sunset’, ‘we will not all die, but we will all be transformed’—later he spiritualised the faith about the final times that, from year to year, became increasingly suspicious. Paul thus made the faithful internally assume the great renewal of the world, the longing for a change of eons, was fulfilled through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

(((Paul))) preaching to Hellenes by Renaissance painter Raphael. Instead of the preaching of the kingdom of God, instead of the promise that this kingdom would soon emerge on Earth, Paul thus introduced individualistic ideas of the afterlife, the vita aeterna (eternal life). Christ no longer comes to the world but the believing Christian goes to him in heaven! Similarly, the gospel authors who write later soften Jesus’ prophecies about the end of the world and make the convenient corrections in the sense of a postponement. The one that goes further is Luke, who substitutes the hopeful belief for a history of divine salvation with the notion of previous stages or intermediate steps.

This was Pauline Christianity’s gigantic fraud: selling to us gentiles a salvation Christology when the original Yeshua cult—thoroughgoing eschatology—was something altogether different. (As a defence mechanism before the Roman occupation, the Jesus cult immersed themselves in apocalyptic imaginary: believing that the kingdom would come within their lifespan, something that still lingers in 1 Corinthians.)

But there is something more serious than selling us a religion that had very little to do with the original Yeshua cult. Once again, see the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. In a chronologically ordered New Testament it was Paul the first major writer who sold us the inversion of Greco-Roman values. If accepted by whites, this ideology would be the original virus for Aryan decline: that the strong should be considered evil and the weak good:

Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?… God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe… but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God.

So that no white man may boast before the Jewish god, Paul would have written today. No wonder why Nietzsche wanted to transvalue back these values that Paul had inverted! By the end of chapter 3 Paul reiterates ‘For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God’. In verse 13 of chapter 4 he adds ‘we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now…’

Preaching inversions of values could be interpreted as slogans based on Semite envy before the handsome Roman world. In my Saturday entry I quoted Catherine Nixey’s book about how the scum of the world, once in power, rationalised their drive to destroy the handsome Greco-Roman sculptures: by claiming that they were demons! It was that tiny seed, Paul, the one who first sowed such attitude in his letters. In chapter 10 he says:

I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

Incidentally, it was in this long epistle where Paul wrote his famous words, ‘When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things’.

I wonder when will American racists do away with their childish Xtianity? Or do you believe you can save the race with this malware still installed? Why don’t you see this site as a sort of antimalware software for your minds?

Petr’s rant

Or:

By their fruits ye shall know them

Very rarely people link to this site, presumably because our point of view is so light-years away from the POV of the common mortal that it is impossible for the normie that visits us to cross, in a single jump, the psychological Rubicon without the rosy stepping stones of the Alt-Right.

I think Petr is a Christian, but it is not clear to which ethnic group he belongs. At any event, on The Phora this guy said:

After a long pause, I decided to check out what C.T. is up to nowadays. (I know he is one of the most poisonously anti-Christian net Nazis out there, and I believe in the “know thine enemy” principle.)

And boy, it was an educational, even enlightening experience to see to what depths he and his few hand-around friends have sunk. As a matter of fact, I consider this to be a sort of moral victory; this shows the spiritual dead end that anti-Christian, anti-God WN activism ultimately leads to. They seem have taken the most extreme apocalyptic “Turner Diaries” views of William Pierce and ran with them. Thus they have come to the ultimate reductio ad absurdum of neo-Nazi ideology.

In fact, C.T. and his crew have abandoned not only Christian morality but also any shred of sober pagan morality (“nothing too much,” sophrosyne) and ended up in sheer manic-depressive nihilism. This stuff below is like the nastiest possible Antifa caricature of WNs come to life. I am not eager to “punch right,” but if this were seriously what all Nazis really believe in, then it would be justified not only to punch them, but to hunt them down as hostis humani generis, as the ancient Romans called pirates.

And it’s not just some booze-fueled tough talking or the Daily Stormer-like irony either—C.T. is a humorless fanatic who would clearly like to be taken seriously:

“For an introduction to my exterminationist philosophy see: here.”

But his genocidal fantasies are just impotent wish-fulfillment daydreams, and as such, even more grotesquely pathetic (you should never make threats you cannot carry out). In fact, people like him have now ironically become what Nietzsche caricatured early Christians being like—despised, embittered, resentment-filled losers hiding in dark holes and dreaming of massive vengeance to come. But without any real God to back them up.

All in all, thank God for the Alt Right and WN 2.0. if this is the mentality it freed us from!

Then Petr quotes in toto ‘How Awake Are You?’, the brilliant comment that our friend from the Iberian Peninsula posted last Thursday. Then Petr ended his rant with these words:

And the comments that follow are as pitiful and repulsive (literally so; you feel repelled from the company of such toxic losers) as the piece itself.

The problem with Petr and all those who make a superficial visit to this site is that they do not even read the links that they put themselves. For example, when quoting my words above (‘see: here’), any visitor of true nobility of the soul that clicked on those words would begin to follow the white rabbit. Eventually, he would enter Wonderland and realise that the devils tormenting innocent animals should be removed from the face of the Earth.

Who is the good and who the bad guy: Petr and company or us? Let’s use the parameter of their Jesus to answer the question: By their fruits ye shall know them.

In addition to perpetuating the lives of the devils tormentors, the promiscuous ‘loving’ ideology of Petr & Co. is murdering the fairest specimens of Homo sapiens. On the other hand, if we come to power, our fruits would mean not only the end of the torment of animals but living in the world of Parrish.

Darkening Age, 10

In chapter seven of The Darkening Age: The Christian
Destruction of the Classical World
, Catherine Nixey wrote:

Constantine… demanded that the statues be taken from the temples. Christian officials, so it was said, travelled the empire, ordering the priests of the old religion to bring their statues out of the temples. From the 330s onwards some of the most sacred objects in the empire started to be removed. It is hard, today, to understand the enormity of Constantine’s order. If Michelangelo’s Pietà were taken from the Vatican and sold, it would be considered a terrible act of cultural vandalism—but it wouldn’t be sacrilege as the statue is not in itself sacred. Statues in Roman temples were. To remove them was a gross violation, and Constantine knew it…

The possibility that Jesus would triumph over all other gods would, at the time, have seemed almost preposterous. Constantine was faced with an intransigent population who insisted on worshipping idols at the expense of the risen Lord. He realized that conversion would be more ‘easily accomplished if he could get them to despise their temples and the images contained therein’. And what better way to teach wayward pagans the vanity of their gods than by cracking open their statues and showing that they were, quite literally, empty? Moreover, a religious system in which sacrifice was central would struggle to survive if there was nothing to sacrifice to. There was good biblical precedent for his actions. In Deuteronomy, God had commanded that His chosen people should overthrow altars, burn sacred groves and hew down the graven images of the gods. If Constantine attacked the temples then he was not being a vandal. He was doing God’s good work.

And so it began. The great Roman and Greek temples were— or so Eusebius said—broken open and their statues brought out, then mutilated…

Not all the temple statues were melted down. The ‘tyrant’ Constantine also had an eye for art and many objects were shipped back as prize baubles for the emperor’s new city, Constantinople (Constantine, like Alexander the Great, was not one for self-effacement). The Pythian Apollo was put up as ‘a contemptible spectacle’ in one square; the sacred tripods of Delphi turned up in Constantinople’s hippodrome, while the Muses of Helicon found themselves relocated to Constantine’s palace. The capital looked wonderful. The temples looked—were—desecrated. As his biographer wrote with satisfaction, Constantine ‘confuted the superstitious error of the heathen in all sorts of ways’.

And yet despite the horror of what Constantine was asking his subjects to do there was little resistance…

Christianity could have been tolerant: it was not pre­ordained that it would take this path. There were Christians who voiced hopes for tolerance, even ecumenicalism. But those hopes were dashed. For those who wish to be intolerant, monotheism provides very powerful weapons. There was ample biblical justification for the persecution of non-believers.

The Bible, as a generation of Christian authors declared, is very clear on the matter of idolatry. As the Christian author Firmicus Maternus reminded his rulers—perfectly correctly—there lay upon emperors an ‘imperative necessity to castigate and punish this evil’. Their ‘severity should be visited in every way on the crime’. And what precisely did God advise as a punishment for idolatry? Deuteronomy was clear: a person indulging in this should be stoned to death. And if an entire city fell into such sin? Again, the answer was clear: ‘destruction is decreed’.

The desecration continued for centuries. In the fifth century AD, the colossal statue of Athena, the sacred centrepiece of the Acropolis in Athens, and one of the most famous works of art in the empire, was torn down from where she had stood guard for almost a thousand years, and shipped off to Constantinople—a great coup for the Christian city and a great insult to the ‘pagans’…

Note of the Ed.: After the centuries, Europeans even forgot how the Greco-Roman sculptures that were destroyed looked like. My guess is that Constantine’s bishops were not Aryans. Destroying a representation of the beauty of the Aryan physique was part of the Semitic takeover of white society: Let’s destroy your self-image as a means to undermine your self-esteem. Something similar is happening today with the religion of Holocaustianity: Let’s undermine your self-image from a decent person to historic grievances so that you may accept masses of non-white immigrants.

History is written by the winners and the Christian victory was absolute. The Church dominated European thought for more than a millennium. Until 1871 the University of Oxford required that all students were members of the Church of England, while in most cases to be given a fellowship in an Oxford college one had to be ordained. Cambridge was a little freer—but not much.

This was not an atmosphere conducive to criticism of Christianity and indeed, in English histories, there was little. For centuries, the vast majority of historians unquestioningly took up the Christian cause and routinely and derogatorily referred to non-Christians as ‘pagans’, ‘heathens ‘ and ‘idolaters’. The practices and sufferings of these ‘pagans’ were routinely belittled, trivialized or—more often—entirely ignored. As one modern scholar has observed: ‘The story of early Christian history has been told almost wholly on the basis of Christian sources.’