Great personalities defend eugenics, 7

by Evropa Soberana

 
José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955), Spanish philosopher and writer. Perhaps because he studied in Germany, we can read ideas in the eugenic line from a philosophical point of view.

If Spain wants to resurrect, a formidable appetite of all perfections must take hold of her. The great misfortune of Spanish history has been the lack of egregious minorities and the undisturbed empire of the masses. Therefore, from now on, an imperative should govern the spirits and guide the wills: the selection imperative.

There are no other means of ethnic purification and improvement than that eternal instrument of a will operating selectively. Using it as a chisel, we have to start forging a new type of Spanish man.

Political improvements are not enough: much deeper work is needed to produce the refinement of the race (Invertebrate Spain).

 
Below, Conklin on the cover of Time Magazine, July 3, 1939.

Edwin G. Conklin (1863-1952), biologist, zoologist and American professor, head of the Department of Biology at Princeton University. The quotation below has a lot to contribute in the fight against the pernicious individualism that ravages our time and that underlies, together with self-centeredness, at the bottom of most people who oppose eugenics and strong political and authoritarian regimes.

The freedom of the individual is to society what the freedom of the cell is to the human being. (The Direction of Human Evolution, 1921.)

 
Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), American nurse and precursor of some feminist currents that I don’t find very funny. She is notable for advocating ‘birth control’ and the controversy for opening a clinic in Brooklyn, an area of New York inhabited by Jews, blacks and Italians, with the intention to diminish their birth rates. The police closed the clinic and Sanger was imprisoned for thirty days. She was a friend of Stoddard and also the girlfriend of Havelock Ellis and H. G. Wells, both pro-eugenicists.

Sanger pointed out that one of the reasons for the high birth rate of the worst human elements is that ‘sexual control’ decreases the more it descends on the evolutionary scale, setting the example of Australian aborigines who, according to her, were the lowest human race; a step away from the chimpanzee, and the only reason they didn’t ‘get sexual satisfaction in the streets’ was because of police repression.

Sanger’s problem was that she saw badly the high birth-rate in general and also large families, when precisely what the First World needs is an overflowing birth, while the Third World must reduce their birth rate greatly, with the aim of favouring a constructive colonisation of areas that are now Third World because they are inhabited by inept races.

 
Lothrop Stoddard (1883-1950), political scientist, journalist, historian and American anthropologist. Lothrop was a friend of at least two American presidents, and he had a great influence along with his colleague Madison Grant in laying the foundations of immigration policy and in defining the need for white supremacy. Anti-communist, he wrote key racial books like The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, his most known book; The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under Man, and the pamphlet ‘A Gallery of Jewish Types’.

From a neutral point of view, he testified about a few months stay in the Third Reich in his book Into the Darkness: Nazi Germany Today, in which his admiration is manifest for the German people and the eugenic policies that were carried out in Germany. Until the end, he maintained that the greatest danger to civilisation was neither the ‘reds’ nor the ‘Germans’ but the dark races.

The glitter of civilization has so blinded us to the inner truth of things that we have long believed that, as a civilization progressed, the quality of the human stock concerned in building it progressed too. In other words, we have imagined that we saw an improving race, whereas all we actually saw was a race expressing itself under improving conditions.

A dangerous delusion, this! Especially for us, whose civilization is the most complex the world has ever seen, and whose burden is, therefore, the heaviest ever borne. If past civilizations have crushed men beneath the load, what may happen to our civilization, and ourselves? (The Revolt Against Civilization, chapter I.)

These two phases of race betterment clearly require totally different methods. The multiplication of superiors is a process of race building; the elimination of inferiors is a process of race cleansing. These processes are termed “Positive” and “Negative” eugenics, respectively. (The Revolt Against Civilization, chapter 8, ‘Neo-Aristocracy’.)

Racial impoverishment is the plague of civilization. This insidious disease, with its twin symptoms the extirpation of superior strains and the multiplication of inferiors, has ravaged humanity like a consuming fire, reducing the proudest societies to charred and squalid ruin. (The Revolt Against Civilization, chapter 3, ‘The Nemesis of the Inferior’.)

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s Note: In my hatnote on the first entry of this series, about a few words from the prologue of Evropa Soberana I wrote: ‘These words are key to understanding what I have been calling “the extermination of the Neanderthals”, and I hope that the abridged translation of this long essay, published six years ago in Spanish and that I will be translating this month, sheds light on the subject’.

The same can be said of the above Stoddard quote and the Laughlin quote below. The only difference is that I use more inflammatory language than that of Soberana, Laughlin or Stoddard because I believe that, in the darkest hour of the West, our language must be like fire.

It is almost seventy years since Stoddard passed away and, although his books now seem the work of a Cassandra, in 1950 it did not seem that the white race was heading for sunset.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Harry H. Laughlin (1880-1943) had different priorities for European immigration. He prioritised the Germanic peoples: ‘Teutons’ (North Germans), Anglo-Saxons, Scandinavians and Dutch. At the bottom, the Chinese. Hitler was inspired by his eugenic laws to elaborate on the ‘racial hygiene’ of the Reich.

In his time Laughlin advocated the need to sterilise ten percent of all American society, those considered of lower biological quality. He became president of the Pioneer Fund, a group established in 1937 to finance research projects in matters of race, genetics and eugenics.

The sum of human freedom and human happiness will be greatly promoted, in the long run, by eugenical processes which call for the elimination of degenerate and handicapped strains, from the racial stocks, and the increase of numbers of citizens highly endowed by nature with splendid mental, physical and moral qualities. The state, then, must exercise its undoubted right and duty to control human reproduction along the lines of race betterment, and so doing is fully justified in putting into effect such measures as, in keeping with the Bill of Rights and human principles, will bring about the desired ends. (Eugenical Sterilization in the United States, 1922, p. 339.)

 
Misael Bañuelos (1887-1954), a Spanish doctor, gynaecologist and a Nordicist who drew attention about a certain Asian and African influence in the Iberian Peninsula. He was also a professor in the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Valladolid.

Influenced by eugenicists and American and German Nordicists, as well as the racial authors (Gobineau, De Lapouge, Chamberlain, Grant, Günther, Rosenberg), he thought that the salvation of the West consisted of taking care of the race; that only the nationalist governments were in a position to carry out such a task and that, among them, the Government of Nazi Germany ‘is the only one that has understood, in all its transcendence, the value of blood and the race’. In pre-war Spain, Bañuelos was one of the men who unconditionally admired Hitler.

When linking by marriage, the family must always take into account the value of a new relative belonging to a racial group of superior selection, that s/he may be a beautiful specimen of their race and also well endowed intellectually and morally. That is worth more than thousands of pesetas that families usually grant when it comes to linking by marriage. (Antropología de los Españoles, pages 133-34.)

 

Below, original plates of Darwin and Mendel from Volume 1, Issue 1 of the American Breeders Magazine, 1910.

The American Genetic Association, formerly the American Breeders’ Association, founded in 1903, was active in eugenic research, in the promulgation of certain laws and the regulation of American immigration. This committee was responsible for letting large numbers of individuals of Germanic descent into the country [1]. The Association included, among its ranks, men as prominent as Charles Davenport, David S. Jordan, Alexander Graham Bell, Edward L. Thorndike, Henry H. Goddard, Walter E. Fernald, and the founders of the Immigration Restriction League Robert DeCourcy Ward and Prescott F. Hall.

The time is ripe for a strong public movement to stem the tide of threatened racial degeneracy… America needs to protect herself against indiscriminate immigration, criminal degenerates, and… race suicide. (1910 Committee of Eugenics letter sent to prominent citizens requesting support and militancy. The letter also warned about the ‘destruction of the white race’ if it did not follow a preservation policy.)

__________

[1] Understandably, the American immigration policy was once praised by Adolf Hitler himself, who saw America as a Germanic stronghold, and its measures as the precursors of racial hygiene of the Third Reich.

Western Christian Civilisation – terminal stage

Destruction by Thomas Cole ~ 1835-1836

I have said that white nationalism has developed a myopic diagnosis of white decline: the Jewish question. I have also complained that American white nationalists have not published Who We Are by Pierce, and sell it as a bestseller, to expand such myopic diagnosis into a more accurate worldview. He who introduces the history of the white race encounters patterns that cannot be seen in most nationalist websites.

One of the most conspicuous elements of this pattern is the history of Christianity. And I do not mean only the destruction of the classical world by Christian fanatics in the 4th and 5th centuries. I refer to the Zeitgeist born in the West after such destruction.

In today’s world of florid psychosis, it seems that the fashion to empower transgender people has nothing to do with the Christian Zeitgeist. But this is precisely where the nationalist perspective appears to me as myopic. A few months ago I wrote ‘On Empowering Birds Feeding on Corpses’, where I try to explain that the most psychotic aspects of today’s egalitarianism can be traced back to a 14th-century Franciscan movement that wanted to carry the message of Jesus, in all its purity, to medieval Italy.

The Church of Rome was not tolerant with the egalitarian faction that took the gospel to the letter, and ended up chasing the Fraticelli as heretics. (For an entertaining narrative of that historical drama read The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco: a novel as didactic about the 14th century as Julian by Gore Vidal depicts the 4th century.)

Nobody could have predicted in the Middle Ages that the latent Fraticelli ideals were going to have their historical opportunity once the power of the Church was removed. But that was exactly what happened, centuries later, with the French Revolution.

As the readers of this site already know, the egalitarian ideals of the Enlightenment, implemented by force during and after the French Revolution, were inspired precisely by the gospel message. It may seem incredible to say, but even the most anti-clerical Jacobins subscribed the commandments preached by the fictional character called ‘Jesus’, created by the Jewish and Judaizing Hellenic authors of the New Testament. (*)

If we compare what the West is currently suffering with cancer, we can say that the first cancer cells arose since, in the 2nd century, a faction of Judaism, which Julian would call ‘the Galileans’, began to infiltrate the Gentile world in the outer provinces of the Roman Empire. The infection came to power with Constantine and the Roman emperors who followed him, despite Julian’s best efforts in his brief reign.

The noble spirit of the Aryan managed to tame, in the Middle Ages, the most ethno-suicidal aspects of this Levantine cult that was even imposed on the northern barbarians by force. But it was not until the Reformation and Counter-Reformation when they murdered, again, the revived pagan spirit of the Renaissance when the holy book of the Jews began to be taken seriously, especially in the Protestant world.

Nothing could be more suicidal than worshiping the sacred book of the Jews, insofar as both the Old Testament and the Talmud are sworn enemies of the Gentiles, especially the white man because He represents the best of the Gentile world. But worst of all happened when this virus mutated from its religious phase to its secular phase.

The Western world of today is nothing but an ideological heir to the ideals of the Enlightenment. The so-called enlightened philosophers did not greet Reason, to use the language of the time, and much less the French revolutionaries. Those who truly began to greet Reason since the twilight of the Greco-Roman world were the eugenicists that we have been advertising in my most recent translations of Evropa Soberana. Only they broke away from the Christian dogma that ‘All men are equal before the eyes of God’, or the neo-Christian or secular version of the gospel, that ‘All men are equal before the law’.

The crux is that ‘All men are equal before the law’ has mutated, since the 1960s, as All men and women are ontologically equal: the final or end-stage cancer that currently kills the West.

As the Cassandra named Alexis de Tocqueville foresaw, the virus of equality always demands more equality. It is like a meme that multiplies itself to the absurd. And the absurd has come today not only with the demand that we must consider transgender people our equals, but trans children as well. But per Tocqueville’s observation this last metastasis won’t end with trans children! There are already Western countries that have legalised zoophilia and, in some of them, there are proposals to legalise pedophilia and even necrophilia…

Through this final metastasis, this runaway egalitarianism, the West is already sentenced and it will die. There’s no question about it. Or to say it more precisely, Western Christian Civilisation, which is in its terminal stage, will die soon as a conservative Swede predicted.

But the point is that everything had its origin in the radical message of Jesus: a message that seemed sublime to me at sixteen but that, at sixty, I see it as Semitic poison for the white man. As I said in ‘On Empowering Birds Feeding on Corpses’, the season of the horse of Troy of which Pierce wrote, that is to say the complete inversion of Aryan values into Gospel-inspired values, has finally arrived.

____________

(*) Whoever believes that Jesus was not a literary creation, but a man of flesh and blood, would do well to familiarise himself with the work of Richard Carrier.

Advice to would-be revolutionaries

In his last article against white nationalist terrorism, Greg Johnson said: ‘Yes, Crusius did something evil…’ Despite claims to the contrary, self-styled secular Johnson, who used to deliver Christian homilies in a San Francisco church, has never given up Christian ethics:

By the “Old Right,” I mean classical Fascism and National Socialism and their contemporary imitators who believe that White Nationalism can be advanced through such means as one party-politics, terrorism, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide.

This was the way forward for every triumphant movement, including the conquests of Rome, Christianity, Islam, the Iberian conquests in the Americas and communism. What is Johnson suggesting here? That conquest is possible through purely pacifist means?

Today’s Old Right scene is rife with fantasies of race war, lone-wolf attacks on non-whites, and heroic last stands that end in a hail of police bullets. Intelligent and honorable people have emerged from this milieu. But there have been more than a few spree-killers as well. This kind of violence is worse than a crime. It is a mistake. It does nothing to advance our cause and much to set us back.

Inspiring books like the novels of Pierce and Covington are important. But just as Pierce tried to dissuade Bob Mathews, I would try to dissuade would-be revolutionaries of doing something premature. Mathews could have done much more harm to the System if he stayed alive.

(1) We must be alert to the signs of mental instability and inclinations toward violence and rigorously screen out such people, (2) we need to draw clear, unambiguous intellectual lines between New Right and Old Right approaches, and (3) if anyone makes concrete threats of committing such acts in our circles, we need to be the ones to call the police.

Pierce tried to dissuade Matthews but he didn’t call the police. Obviously, the moral standards of Pierce and Johnson are different.

But Johnson has a point. In fact, I would like to add something about my recent post challenging Charles Manson fans to tell me in what way Manson’s actions are good for the 14 words.

The only major commenter who has recently tried to rationalise Manson’s behaviour is Robert Morgan on Unz Review. A visitor to this site, Adunai, has recently tried to discuss with Morgan on that site. Morgan seems to believe that Manson’s motivations were to try to create a racial war in the United States. According to two sources in the Wikipedia article about Manson, this allegation has been questioned. Since Wikipedia is anti-white, if Manson had really been an inveterate racist his racism would have been fully supported by good sources in that article.

Here is my hypothesis as to why intelligent racists like Morgan and others are attracted to such failed figures as Manson: Many of them—as Manson himself—have suffered hell like the one I suffered as a teenager. But precisely because I have written 1,600 pages in three books trying to understand what the hell happened in my life, a painful literary adventure started in 1988 that ended this year, I’m not hanging on spurious heroes. Rather, I try to help white nationalism in a very different way.

I refer to a profound diagnosis of the darkest hour in the West. The monocausal diagnosis accepted in white nationalism is, in my opinion, myopic: the Jews are responsible. I do not deny the JQ. I simply expand it into the CQ: the Judeo-Christian question. That is to say: I still believe that the theoretical basis of, say, a MacDonald on the group survival strategy of Jewry is correct. What I add to MacDonald’s myopic perspective is the meta-perspective that whites are infected with Judeo-Christian axiology. A perfect example of such axiological infection is Johnson’s use of the word ‘evil’ above (MacDonald himself has said that white nationalism is not about conquering, for instance, Mexico).

So, while I agree with Johnson that it is not time to jump into the revolution, I disagree with the Christian and Neochristian mindset that prevails in white nationalism and the alt-right.

My contribution to the movement is basically axiological. As long as they do not revalue their values, the Judeo-Christian system will continue to beat them. Johnson is right that it is not yet time for politics but for metapolitics. What he and the others fail to understand is that they have to throw away all residue of love for the Other if they want to recover the West.

This is my advice to the desperate man who wants to do revolutionary politics today instead of patient metapolitics: read The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour that appears on the sidebar. If you don’t want to buy it, read the articles on this site where all the content of that book appears. As the last line in the Hamlet play says, ‘The rest is silence’.

Morgan vs. Ryckaert

 
Franklin Ryckaert: Racism= harming people of another race because of their race. Race realism = realizing that races are inherently different and avoiding risky situations with people of other races.

Robert Morgan: Or in other words, racists do what ‘race realists’ would do if they had the courage.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: Franklin Ryckaert exemplifies what is wrong with white nationalism and the alt-right.

Per the Old Testament and the Talmud, Jews must exterminate the Gentiles.

Per the New Testament, Gentiles are commanded, instead, to love the Other including Jews and non-whites.

White nationalists and alt-righters don’t obey the Führer. They obey the Jew who wrote the New Testament: prolefeed for us Gentiles.

It is just that simple.

Whites are condemned to become extinct unless they transvalue Ryckaert’s et al values back to pre-Christian mores. But nationalists won’t do it. They’re self-righteously addicted to their (((drug)))…

A new religion for whites, 4

by Kevin Alfred Strom

Today we continue our exploration of an awakening—an awakening that began with Charles Darwin, exploded into life in the ideas of Shaw and Nietzsche, and found its highest expression in the entirely new kind of human society pioneered by Adolf Hitler in National Socialist Germany. It is an awakening that has just begun.

When we left off last week, we were discussing the nature of Judaism and its offshoots, especially Christianity, and their gods—their crude anthropocentrism, their refusal to acknowledge the evolutionary nature of Life and the Universe, their irrationality, and their utter unsuitability as moral guides to help us do what must be done in order to survive—their total inability to lead us ever upward toward the stars.

Today we will learn that even those who believe they have cast off the superstitions of the Abrahamic faiths—“secular humanists,” atheists, Marxists, most libertarians, liberal elitists—are in truth still in bondage to the poisonous ideas that sprang from Judaism. Instead of leading us upward, toward our evolutionary destiny, they wallow in the mire of a nonexistent “human equality” and waste our time, our energy, and our very lives in pursuit of ignoble goals such as making sure that every arguably human wastrel has a full belly and a large-screen television.

Life, my friends—your life—can be much, much different than the shallow mockery of life offered by these blind men and liars.

Our text for this week is by the National Socialist writer and mystic, Savitri Devi, taken from her book Impeachment of Man.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Man-Centered Creeds versus Racial-
Hierarchical Reality (continued)

by Savitri Devi

But when later Jews proclaimed him to be the God of all mankind; when he crept into Christianity as the Heavenly Father of Christ and the First Person of the Holy Trinity; and into Islam as the One God revealed to man through his last and definitive mouthpiece, the Prophet Mohammed; and finally, when he colored the ideology of the humanitarian theists—and even atheists—as the unavoidable remnant of a tradition hard to die, then the conception of him became more and more irrational. There was less and less any reason for his solicitude to stop at mankind. Yet it did stop there. There was, more and more, every reason for him to evolve into a truly universal God of all life. Yet he did not evolve that way. He could not drop the long-cherished propensity of picking out a fraction of his creation and blessing it with a special blessing, to the exclusion of the rest. That fraction of the great Universe had once been the Jewish people. It was now the human race—a trifling improvement, if one ponders over it from an astronomical (that is to say, from what we can imagine to be the only truly divine) angle of vision.

The great creeds of the world west of India remained man-centered, it would seem, because they never could free themselves entirely from the marks of their particular tribal origin among the sons of Abraham. The Jews never were a race that one could accuse of giving animals too great a place in its everyday life and thoughts. Christ, who came “to fulfil” the Jewish law and prophecies (not to introduce into the world a different, more rational, and truly kindlier trend of thought) appears never to have bothered his head about the dumb creatures. We speak, of course, of Christ as the Christian Gospels present him to us. That Christ—we have no means whatsoever of finding out whether a “truer” one ever lived—never performed a miracle, never even intervened in a natural manner, in favor of any beast, as his contemporary, Apollonius of Tyana, not to speak of any more ancient and illustrious Master such as the blessed Buddha, is supposed to have done. He never spoke of God’s love for animals save to assert that He loved human beings a fortiori, much more. He never mentioned nor implied man’s duties towards them, though he did not omit to mention, and to stress, other duties.

If the Gospels are to be taken as they are written, then his dealings with nonhuman sentient creatures consisted, on one occasion, of sending some evil spirits into a herd of swine, that they might no longer torment a man, and, another time, of making his disciples, who were mostly fishermen by profession, as every one knows, catch an incredible quantity of fish in their nets. In both cases his intention was obviously to benefit human beings at the expense of the creatures, swine, or fish. As for plants, it is true that he admired the lilies of the fields; but it is no less true that he cursed a fig tree for not producing figs out of season and caused it to wither, so that his disciples might understand the power of faith and prayer. Fervent English or German Christians, who love animals and trees, may retort that nobody knows exactly all that Jesus actually said, and that the gospels contain the story of only a few of his numberless miracles. That may be. But as there are no records of his life save the Gospels, we have to be content with what is revealed therein. Moreover, Christianity as an historical growth is centered around the person of Christ as the Gospels describe him. And, as Norman Douglas has timely remarked, it remains a fact that the little progress accomplished in recent years in the countries of northwestern Europe and in America, as regards kindness to dumb beasts, was realized in spite of Christianity, and not because of it.

To say, as some do, that every word of the Christian Gospels has an esoteric meaning, and that “swine” and “fishes” and the “barren fig tree” are intended there to designate anything but real live creatures, would hardly make things better. It would still be true that kindness to animals is not spoken of in the teaching of Jesus as it has come down to us, while other virtues, in particular kindness to people, are highly recommended. And the development of historical Christianity would remain, in all its details, what we know it to be…

That people whose outlook is conditioned by biblical tradition should put a great stress upon the special place of man in the scheme of life; that they should insist on man’s sufferings, and on the necessity of man’s happiness, without apparently giving as much as a thought to the other living creatures, one can understand. They follow the Book to which they may or may not add some secondary scriptures based upon it. They cannot be expected to go beyond what is prescribed in it or in those later scriptures.

But there are, in the West, ever since the Middle Ages, increasing numbers of people who dare to do without the Book altogether; who openly reject all divine revelation as unprovable, and who see in their conscience the only source of their moral judgements and their only guide in moral matters. It is remarkable that these people, free from the fetters of any established faith, still retain the outlook of their fathers as regards man’s relation to animals and to living nature in general. Free Thought, while rightly brushing aside all man-centered metaphysics; while replacing the man-centered conceptions of the Universe by a magnificent vision of order and beauty on a cosmic scale—a scientific vision, more inspiring than anything that religious imagination had ever invented, and in which man is but a negligible detail—Free Thought, we say, omitted entirely to do away with the equally outdated man-centered scale of values, inherited from those religions that sprang from Judaism. Sons of Greek rationalism, as regards their intellectual outlook, the Westerners who boast of no longer being Christians—and the few advanced young men of Turkey and Persia, and of the rest of the Near and Middle East, who boast of no longer being orthodox Muslims—remain, as regards their scale of moral values, the sons of a deep-rooted religious tradition which goes back as far as some of the oldest fragments of the Jewish Scriptures: the tradition according to which man, created in God’s own image, is the only living being born for eternity, and has a value altogether out of proportion with that of any other animal species.

There has been, it is true, in the West, in recent years—nay, there is, for nothing which is in harmony with the Laws of Life can ever be completely suppressed—a non-Christian (one should even say an anti-Christian) and definitely more than political school of thought which courageously denounced this age-old yet erroneous tradition, and set up a different scale of values and different standards of behaviour. [Here Savitri Devi is referring to National Socialism.—Editor] It accepted the principle of the rights of animals, and set a beautiful dog above a degenerate man. It replaced the false ideal of “human brotherhood,” by the true one of a naturally hierarchised mankind harmoniously integrated into the naturally hierarchised Realm of life, and, as a logical corollary of this, it boldly preached the return to the mystic of genuine nationalism rooted in healthy race-consciousness, and the resurrection of the old national gods of fertility and of battle (or the exaltation of their philosophical equivalents) which many a Greek “thinker” and some of the Jewish prophets themselves had already discarded—politely speaking: “transcended”—in decadent Antiquity. And its racialist values, solidly founded upon the rock of divine reality, and intelligently defended as they were, in comparison with the traditional man-centered ones inherited, in Europe, from Christianity, are, and cannot but remain, whatever may be the material fate of their great Exponent [Adolf Hitler—Ed.] and of the regime he created, the only unassailable values of the contemporary and future world. But it is, for the time being, a “crime” to mention them, let alone to uphold them—and their whole recent setting—in broad daylight.

The opposite ideologies, more in keeping with the general tendencies of modern Free Thought from the Renaissance onwards, have only broken off apparently with the man-centered faiths. In fact, our international Socialists and our Communists, while pushing God and the supernatural out of their field of vision, are more Christian-like than the Christian Churches ever were. He who said, “Love they neighbor as thyself” has to-day no sincerer and more thorough disciples than those zealots whose foremost concern is to give every human being a comfortable life and all possibilities of development, through the intensive and systematic exploitation by all of the resources of the material world, animate and inanimate, for man’s betterment. Communism, that new religion—for it is a sort of religion—exalting the common man; that philosophy of the rights of humanity as the privileged species, is the natural logical outcome of real Christianity. It is the Christian doctrine of the labor of love for one’s neighbors, freed from the overburdening weight of Christian theology…

And that is not all. Even Christian theology will perhaps not always remain as totally worthless to them as our Communist friends often think. It may be, one day, that they will bring themselves to use it. And, if ever they do, who will blame them but those nominal Christians who have forgotten the out and out “proletarian” character of their Master and of his first disciples? The myth of the God of mankind taking flesh in the son of the carpenter of Nazareth may well be interpreted as a symbol foreshadowing the deification of the working majority of men—of the “masses”; of man in general—in our times…

The generous “morality” derived from modem Free Thought is no better than that based upon the time-honored man-centered creeds that have their origin in Jewish tradition. It is a morality centered—like the old Chinese morality, wherever true Buddhism and Taoism have not modified it—around “the dignity of all men” and human society as the supreme fact, the one reality that the individual has to respect and to live for; a morality which ignores everything of man’s affiliation with the rest of living Nature, and looks upon sentient creatures as having no value except inasmuch as they are exploitable by man for the “higher” purpose of his health, comfort, clothing, amusement, etc. The moral creed of the Free Thinker today is a man-centered creed…

We believe that there is a different way of looking at things—a different way, in comparison with which this man-centered outlook appears as childish, mean, and barbaric as the philosophy of any man-eating tribe might seem, when compared with that of the Christian saints, or even of the sincerest ideologists of modern international Socialism or Communism.

NOTE

The title of these excerpts is editorial; the text was originally prepared and edited by Irmin Vinson of the Racial Nationalist Library.

Prostrated anti-Semites


Sometimes it is important to focus on a detail of a masterpiece of Christian art; for example, close-ups of Jesus’ feet and hands nailed to the cross. Here we see the contorted feet of Grünewald: a painter of the badly named ‘German Renaissance’. Grünewald ignored the Greco-Roman world of the Italian Renaissance to continue the style of late Central European medieval art.

In the Gates of Vienna discussion forum, ten years ago a Swede commented that all Westerners are now either Christians or liberals. I would paraphrase that statement by saying that every white is either Christian or neo-Christian. This includes the alt-right atheists, unable to let Christian ethics go. Even most anti-Semites remain prostrated before the contorted feet of the crucified Jew.

For that reason I do not even comment on The Occidental Observer anymore. But I am very amused that a few who have broken away with such ethics try to argue with Christians and neo-Christians on The Occidental Observer and Unz Review. In this site I have collected many comments from Robert Morgan, but I have also expressed my differences with him regarding technology.

Well: a regular visitor to The West’s Darkest Hour has been discussing technology with Morgan (here). Morgan is anti-Christian. Adunai, another anti-Christian, has also discussed with others in that webzine. What Adunai replied to one of these Christians reminds me of something that caught my attention from the first time I read Nietzsche, more than forty years ago.

Nietzsche said that while he rejected the universal love ethic that the New Testament preached, he loved the Old Testament because, unlike the gospel, the ancient Hebrews fulfilled Darwinian laws.

Obviously I’m rephrasing Nietzsche, but in essence he said that. What now has piqued my attention is that white nationalists who have not broken with the religion of their parents see things the other way around: they accept the New Testament and reject the Old. They do not realise that, with this, they have fallen into the trap that the Semitic authors of the New Testament set up for them: to use the fairness of the fair race to invert the values of that race. I refer to the transit from a culture when handsome Greco-Roman statues were so much admired to Grünewald’s feet.

Next, Adunai’s responses to Morgan and others on Unz Review:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Robert Morgan said: Civilization too is a revolt against Nature.

Adunai responded: How so? The very definition of humans is a bit anti-Nature, but nothing’s wrong with that. Man invented fire and scorched woods with it—like any other form of life, he wants to kill everything around himself. Humans destroy species in Amazonia, they breed out pathetic mutants such as dogs, cows and wheat—all to consume and to enslave, in order to ensure their own survival.

The problem only arises when their super-animal intelligence bugs out and accepts the anti-Nature inside themselves, the anti-human suicide—see Christianity. No other animal would fall for the schizophrenia of a virgin mother of a resurrected corpse, and for a god that gives ‘life’ as a reward for death. But no other animal has invented a space rocket either.

It’s just hard for humans to accept a science-inspired atheist Darwinian worldview. But I believe it to be possible—see the DPR of Korea.

P.S. It’s a shame Laurent Guyénot is a 9/11 truther. How can one see through the madness of Christianity, and yet swallow the lies of truthers?
 

A commenter said: It is obvious that the OT is just Jew mystical garbage filled with tribal hate.

Adunai responded: You are so Christian, you see the good part of the Bible as the bad one. That tribal hate you speak of is precisely what we need! What we must admire and put into myth! What every single healthy nation has lived with.

Currently, you hate Jews for being racist. That’s insane. No wonder Jews despise Christians—just like a scientist ‘despises’ the poison he has created, he will not drink it himself. Think War—Harm Your Enemies—Produce Children.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘Technological innovation tore those barriers down. With the barriers down and races mingling freely, discrete human races and discrete cultures are doomed’.

Adunai responded: I never understood this position. Hadn’t it be for the Christian axiology, the White race would have cleansed all of Africa, Asia and America of the non-White nations as early as in the 1890s. Or for sure in the 1950s, with the advent of atomic weapons.

Why do you focus so firmly on the technologies failing to see it as a tool Whites have used as they have seen fit? The problem is not the technology, it is purely the axiology. Technology only allowed the HIV to transition into the AIDS.

But for all I care, it’s only for the better. Better to deal with this menace sooner than later. Europe had little hope in 317, even less in 732 and 800 (when the Franks failed to kill the Church). The French, industrial and green revolutions do not change that.

In short, I disagree with your pessimism concerning technology.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘Further, you seem to be very much in the “free will” / man is a special creation camp (basically a Biblical point of view), and as I said above, I’m a determinist, so I believe free will is an illusion’.

Adunai responded: So, you believe the Whites’ conversion to Christianity to have been unavoidable? That is pessimistic.

Of course, there is something in the Aryan’s psyche that has failed him—see Buddhism in India. There is also the deep contradiction that I see between man as an animal and his newfound intelligence and introspection, his ability to commit suicide, his ability to hate all life. It is in our Nature to destroy Nature, and that is healthy, but can inspire Christianity as a side-effect.

But I am an optimist and I disagree that the White man was born irredeemably defective, that the Jew is our perfect parasite. Because if it is so, or at least cannot be fought against, then all hope is lost, or worse yet, never existed to begin with.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘Therefore, when you say something like “whites could have” done this, that, or the other thing, it makes no sense to me. They had what they thought were very good reasons for not doing it, or in effect had no choice’.

Adunai responded: Whites could have made a party that tried to curtail the destruction by technology. Oh wait, they did—namely, the NSDAP. Even the last anti-Christian emperor was born after 317.

What I’m saying is that Whites could have denied Christianity in the 4th, 8th, 16th or 20th century, but chose not to. They could have mastered technology, for with the right axiology, it would have spelled certain doom for all non-White nations on Earth, and not at all led to any race-mixing—but under Christianity, it did provoke suicide. You can only see technology under Christianity, and you think it’s the only way [red emphasis by Ed.].

When you see a car, you see a Negro arriving in Finland. When I see a car, I see Whites arriving in Egypt in 1910 and genociding all the locals. We had the first shot.
 

A commenter said: ‘Given the US Constitution, Eisenhower’s desegregation orders made sense’.

Adunai responded: Yes… Then why won’t you tear down that stupid White-hating Christian document? Why are you trying to rationalize it?

Desegregation is diametrically opposite of the genocide of blacks. Desegregation = death of Whites. Desegregation makes sense due to the Constitution and its idealist Christian egalitarianism… To hell with the Constitution!
 

A comemnter said: ‘Congo Rats are rated as repugnant in reliable tests of racial attractiveness’.

Adunai responded: Who cares how attractive Negroes are? Are you a faggot? Because only faggot feminists think in this way.

The real culprit is White men, and White men alone. It is the White men that allow their daughters marry non-Whites. Not women. Not the attractiveness of said non-Whites. It’s the Christian malware in your head.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘In the context of your example, what I’ve said is that if the negroes had had no way to get to Finland, they wouldn’t be there, and this seems to me inarguable’.

Adunai responded: It is not. Because a non-Christian technological civilization would not have given Negroes access to their technology to begin with. And would have exterminated them in a short while, as predicted by Darwin.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘I agree that in your imaginary world…’

Adunai responded: The world without Christianity. It happened in a localized version in Germany.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘The struggle for survival and human nature determine how it will be employed’.

Adunai responded: No, they don’t. The White race does not struggle for survival. The reason is still unclear, but I blame Christianity first and foremost. You don’t have an issue with doing likewise when it’s about the 1860s America, but when it’s about more recent times, it’s suddenly technology. I fail to see the connection.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘…and almost never have they been killed off completely, even in non-Christian societies. They have usually been assimilated into the conquering race’.

Adunai responded: There were different kinds of conquest in history. The conquest of Europe by Aryans, by Rome, by Mongols. Some were genocidal, others not. Some were empires, others loose confederations of savages.

What is different now? Science. Knowledge of the world. Materialist philosophy that clearly states the supremacy of genetics in the genesis of culture. The issue is not technology—it would only have helped the extermination. The issue is that the idealist poison of Christianity seeped so deep into the Aryan soul that any hope for the materialist worldview was vanquished in 1945 under the double sign of Christianity and Bolshevism.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘The struggle for survival will force this outcome, because if you don’t use slaves in this way, then your enemies that do will become wealthier than you, more powerful, and eventually overwhelm you. This is how, in the real world, human nature and the struggle for survival determine outcomes’.

Adunai responded: I don’t deny it. But how does the industrial civilization relate to it? I say that its advances in sciences would have made race-mixing the highest taboo and race war the noblest goal in any non-Christian society. Industry would only have amplified the desire to healthy life in a population. But in our case, technology has amplified the death wish.

You want to remove industry—then what? A return to pre-industrial society will not bar crude empires from spawning that can and will race-mix anyway. Too rotten to keep healthy values, yet not bright enough to develop racial science and fission weapons. Where’s a good future in that?

Do you put all your hope on the hypothetical barbarians that will burn Rome time and time again? Our pre-industrial Rome ate a good chunk of Europe, mind you—and even all of central Germany might have been romanized and judaized. Mongols and Turks demolished all Aryan culture in Kazakhstan. Vikings interbred with Eskimos in Iceland. What would stop Aryans from perishing in a non-technological world? I posit that only the power of chemical and atomic bonds can assure the existence of the European race once and for all.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Morgan is obviously violating Occam’s razor by multiplying entities (technology) when the Xtian inversion of values alone explains the West’s darkest hour beautifully.

MacDonald the lapsed Catholic?

(Robert Morgan’s most recent comments)

 
Johnny Rottenborough: “[MacDonald] considers Christianity’s role as a major source of Jewish hatred [for whites].”

Sadly, erroneous and ridiculous as it is, what you say is true. MacDonald the lapsed (?) Catholic does consider Christianity a source of white racial solidarity. Christianity, a doctrine created and spread among whites by Jews, which has convinced whites that one Jew in particular is God and that Jews are a special race “chosen” by God, and further teaches that all men are equally creations of God and equal before him; Christianity, whose doctrines and adherents vandalized and collapsed white civilization once before already—this is what MacDonald thinks defended whites, and can continue to defend them!

One would think that his scientific pretensions would require him to explain how this symbiosis came about, and when and how it ended, if it ended. Weren’t Jews in competition with whites then the same as they are today? Doesn’t early Christianity fit the prototype of what, in The Culture of Critique he identifies as a Jewish movements designed to subvert whites? It has all the features: a charismatic, authoritarian Jewish leader, some white figureheads, a “moral, intellectual, and social vision”, etc. How did this wonderful gift received from Jews end up collapsing white civilization in the ancient world, and should it really surprise anyone that its doctrinal features may collapse white civilization again? Not a word from MacDonald on any of this. And his followers are too stupid to notice the omission!

Johnny Rottenborough: “Whites offer Jews a home …”

Why do they do that? And doesn’t choosing to do that make whites responsible for the consequences? After all, if I invite a known arsonist to stay in my house, and he burns it down, it’s at least as much my fault as his.

At this point in the exchange, I suspect there is likely to be some babble about “pathological altruism”, “white guilt”, etc. But really, those aren’t very good excuses, both sickeningly self-laudatory and ad hoc, seemingly tailor-made to exonerate whites and paint them as helpless victims. If they do describe real phenomena though, and are not just figments of MacDonald’s imagination, it should be noted they are things that only developed post-Christianity. MacDonald however not only passes over in silence this connection to the Christian religion, but has been unable to point to even a single instance of white guilt or pathological altruism in white civilization before Christianity. So much for them being part of whites’ “evolutionary psychology!”

Anon: “He doesn’t talk about technology beyond dancing around it since like other ‘White Nationalist’ spokesman he has a narrative of ‘Whites’ as both masters of the world and also hapless victims of the Jews. He won’t talk about the disaster technology and other feats Whitey have wrought since he doesn’t want to consider that just maybe Whitey’s state is at least a bit self-inflicted.”

Yes, you’ve put it succinctly. As I see it, there are two fundamental problems with MacDonald’s attempts to apply evolutionary theory in the context of whites’ interactions with Jews.

  1. By failing to consider unintended consequences of technological development as a cause of white cultural and racial decline, and focusing exclusively on Jews and their alleged “group evolutionary strategy” to manipulate whites, MacDonald presents a worldview that leaves whites with no responsibility for their own actions; they become just “hapless victims” of Jewish machinations. On the other hand, when it comes to things of which he approves, such as whites building world empires or technological “progress” generally, then in his view whites suddenly become responsible for their own actions again. This applies to technological development of all kinds, so long as we are talking only about its “good” effects.
  1. The second problem is allied to the first. MacDonald simply doesn’t go back far enough in history and carry his theory to its logical conclusion. For example, his big book The Culture of Critique focuses only on the twentieth century. But if whites and Jews are in Darwinian competition with each other, then haven’t they always been so? And if so, what does that say about Christianity, whites’ adoption of it, and the liberal ideologies that later arose from it? Were whites’ responsible for their actions then, or were they just as much helpless victims of Jewish manipulation then as he claims they are now? Like the role unanticipated side effects of technological development have played in the white decline, MacDonald doesn’t really want to talk about Christianity’s role either. Nietzsche, Revilo Oliver, and others have put forward the theory that Christianity, a cult which arose from Hellenized Judaism, was developed with the specific intent to undermine white civilization. MacDonald has never addressed this issue as far as I know, and it’s fairly easy to see why. Adopting the pose of an impartial scientist, he claims that Christianity can’t be to blame for the white decline, since it was the religion of whites at what he sees as their peak. If he posits that Jews are responsible for “manipulating” whites into becoming Christian, his theory breaks down into incoherence. Having agreed that in the singular case of Christianity Jews and whites formed a symbiosis that was, in his view, to the great benefit of whites, would commit him to having to explain how that symbiosis broke down, or indeed, if it ever has broken down, and doesn’t still continue; and that, apparently, is something he has no wish to try to do.

Editor’s note: I omitted this comment. My only difference with Morgan is that, as I see it, Asians imitate westerners in everything decadent (technology, capitalism, etc.) but not in suicidal mass immigration. Obviously, the Asians are not infected with Christian and neo-Christian (i.e. secular) altruism, nor they have a Jewish problem. That’s why I focus more on axiology than on technology.

Published in: on June 18, 2019 at 10:24 am  Comments (23)  

Lincoln refutes monocausalism

Editor’s note: This is a corollary to ‘Is Kevin MacDonald a charlatan?’ It seems a falsehood, but a single 340-word comment from Robert Morgan in the comments section of a discussion forum has more value than the scholarly essays published that same day in all alt-right sites!

How is that possible? For the same reason that in Copernicus’ time a single text by him was worth more than all the texts of Ptolemaic astronomy still in vogue at the beginning of the 16th century.

As seen in the texts of the Nazi leadership, including some SS pamphlets and the Führer’s intimate talks, the Germans were aware of the Judeo-Christian problem. Both Judaism and the Christian churches were equally mentioned as the foe.

American white nationalism has represented a regression toward geocentrism, so to speak. Unlike Europeans, a substantial number of Americans cling to their parents’ Christianity, thus the Copernican revolution in the American psyche that could have been born with a seminal book, Who We Are by Pierce, never happened. (In recent threads of discussion I’ve complained that Pierce’s story of the white race—and remember the power of stories—is no longer available in the market.)

Make no mistake: within their life spans, adult American racists won’t be cured of their schizophrenia (anti-Semites who obey the ethno-suicidal commandment of a Jew). It is imperative that sites like The West’s Darkest Hour start to convince racist teenagers that the white nationalist movement represents a gigantic cognitive regression compared to National Socialism.

Morgan, who apparently is American, has tried to communicate with his countrymen but the self-righteousness of the latter prevents them from seeing a simple truth. The main argument of Morgan in his unsuccessful attempts to communicate with them is that Lincoln and the American Civil War refute the notion that the Jewish quarter is solely responsible for white decline, as if whites were not free agents. (Remember: the civil war happened when Jews had not taken over the American media yet.)

The following is just a portion of Morgan’s relatively recent discussions in a forum:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

“The civil war, and it’s aftermath, never intended these inferiors to live amongst us as equals, they are this nation’s biggest liability…”

Sure. It was a complete accident. (/sarc)

“Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man; this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position; discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.” —Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln-Douglas debates, 1858).

“As Abraham Lincoln said in his speeches, it was never his intent to let these feral animals loose in society.”

Nope. In his last speech before being assassinated he proposed making them citizens and giving them the vote.

“The amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the new Louisiana government rests, would be more satisfactory to all, if it contained fifty, thirty, or even twenty thousand, instead of only about twelve thousand, as it does. It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. … The colored man too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it, than by running backward over them? —Abraham Lincoln, last public address, Washington, D.C., April 11, 1865.

“Lincoln … betrayed his own people. If you read his earlier speech with Douglas, he sure didn’t sound like the Lincoln you are quoting.”

That’s right. He betrayed the white race. I agree that he said some contradictory things, such as the quote you give in rebuttal, but the conclusion you should draw from this is simply that he was a liar. He was such an accomplished liar, in fact, that he still has fans like you defending him even after the horrendous consequences of his betrayal have become apparent.

“However, in his heart of hearts, he knew the negro would never fit in. There was a movement to resettle them in Africa, but to the detriment of our civilization, it never happened.”

Don’t pretend to know what was in his heart of hearts. Judge him on his behavior. He was more responsible than any other man for the racial disaster that has overtaken America. The “movement” to resettle negroes elsewhere never got off the ground because it was a joke from the outset.

“Looking in hindsight which is 20/20, do you think he would propose doing anything with these people other than removing them from our shores? I don’t!”

Apparently you are unaware that it was only voluntary self-deportation that was ever under discussion. Nobody, including Lincoln, ever spoke in terms of forcibly rounding up all the negroes and deporting them whether they wanted to go or not.

Organizations such as the American Colonization Society were set up to assist those who volunteered to depart, but never even broached the idea of forcibly removing them.

“Very intelligent and served as soldiers are qualifiers. How many negroes were very intelligent, and how many served as soldiers, Dr. Morgan? If he were for universal suffrage, why didn’t he say so?”

There were hundreds of thousands of negroes who served in the Union Army, and they weren’t any more intelligent than the ones infesting America today. He didn’t say he was for universal suffrage because he was a liar, and knew the idea wouldn’t have been acceptable to his audience. Remember that at the time, even white women didn’t have the vote.

“America was once an unapologetically white nation…”

I have to disagree with this. There was never a time, even in colonial days, when America was without at least a substantial undercurrent of white self-contempt. Abolitionists of the day, adhering to an egalitarianism inspired by their Christianity, regarded race-based slavery as an abomination. In fact, free blacks were legally equal to whites in several of the original colonies, and were extended the franchise in some. This undercurrent of white self-contempt ultimately resulted in the Civil War, at the end of which blacks were made the legal equals of whites nationwide; and this at a time when the country was virtually 100% white and Christian. This act of racial self-abnegation is still without parallel, even in modern times.

* * *

Having studied this issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that preserving their own race is very low on the list of white Americans’ priorities, if it registers at all. Mostly, the opposite is true. The common opinion among them is that any concern for preserving the white race is “racist”, akin to Nazism, and deeply Evil. Of course, without a conscious effort to preserve their race, it’s obviously not going to survive.

Consequently, American whites accept their own looming racial extinction with apparent equanimity. They have approved it directly through their own actions, and indirectly through laws passed by their representatives, for over a hundred and fifty years. They’ve had plenty of time to reverse course, and haven’t done so. Again and again, white dissidents have stepped forward to warn them, and they have been ignored or destroyed. All their efforts have done is underscore the fact that saving a race of people that doesn’t want to be saved is an exercise in futility [editor’s emphasis]. I must conclude that if there is hope, it won’t be found in politics.

“I’ve got news for you snowflakes. A majority of white Americans before 1970 were bigoted.”

Sure they were! That’s why, immediately after slaughtering hundreds of thousands of each other in the Civil War, they gave negroes citizenship, legal equality, and the vote.

It’s interesting to me though that the idea that most whites were bigoted prior to (fill in the year) seems to be a persistent delusion of right wingers on the left half of the IQ bell curve.

I’ve seen it asserted many times. But if “traditionalists” haven’t controlled America’s race policies since the Civil War, what the hell is the “tradition” you think you are defending? The only tradition America has with regard to race is a constant implementation of ever more race-blind egalitarianism. That is what the majority of whites approved for the last 150 years, and continue to approve.

Published in: on June 7, 2019 at 11:34 am  Comments (2)  

Hunter Wallace vs. Joachim Hoch

Update of 7 PM: I cannot believe it. All of Joachim’s videos seem to have disappeared from his channel! Can you see any of them?
 

______ 卐 ______

 
I am starting to believe German commenter Devan’s iterative claim that ‘Whites are Jews’, in the sense that even white nationalists have been Judaized to the core by failing to become apostates of (((Christianity))).

In my previous post I used as an epigraph Matt Heimbach’s silly words to convey the idea that the American pro-white movement is a grotesque chimera from the eugenicist’s viewpoint. (I know: to some visitors my chosen epigraph was like flogging a dead horse after Matt’s sordid scandal with the other Matt a year ago.)

Eugenics as a subject is so important that I had planned not to add new articles until Sunday. But Hunter Wallace recently posted a piece that illustrates my point about the impossible chimera (Christianity + white preservation) that flourishes at the north of Río Grande. Wallace’s basic moral tenets seem fairly similar to Heimbach’s. It is enough to quote Wallace’s recent reply to Joachim Hoch to get my point:

Joachim claims that non-violence is ridiculous (15:13)

The overwhelming majority of White people in this country believe that political violence is immoral.

Joachim claims that survival is its own morality (19:55)

No, that’s barbarism.

Westerners are a civilized people with a deep and rich moral tradition. Joachim is comparing us to animals now. I don’t think we should be encouraging our people to act like animals. We’re not going to persuade our target audience by comparing them to salamanders.

Instead, I believe we should be taking these deracinated people who have been stripped of their own culture and heritage and educating them so that they can start practicing the virtues and obeying God’s law to become better men and women like their ancestors.

Joachim argues that William Pierce, George Lincoln Rockwell and James Mason were morally sound (20:48)

Why are the SIEGE posters so enraptured by this Helter Skelter nonsense? William Pierce wrote violent fantasy novels like The Turner Diaries and Hunter and even created his own cult for alienated people called Cosmotheism.

Joachim claims that […]

Part of being a Christian is suffering and obeying the law: “Christ says that we should not resist evil or injustice but always yield, suffer, and let things be taken from us. If you will not bear this law, then lay aside the name of Christian and claim another name that accords with your actions, or else Christ himself will tear his name away from you, and that will be too hard for you.” – Martin Luther

Violence isn’t the prerogative of the aggrieved individual. In our culture, it can only be sanctioned as self defense or as a just war on behalf of the community. The question is closely bound up with that of who is the legitimate sovereign authority in any given area.

[On the comments section Wallace added:] If there is a God who created the entire universe in all its magnificence, why do you think such a being would be concerned with only your particular tribe or ethnic group [whites]? Wouldn’t such a God be responsible for creating ALL life?

Again, this is indistinguishable from Heimbach’s Orthodox Christianity.

Joachim Hoch is YouTuber ‘Burning Man’. It is precisely because Wallace prioritises Christian morals over racial preservation (‘You cannot serve two masters…’) what started the whole debate.

Joachim’s first reply to Wallace can be listened: here. His second reply after minute 23, aired today, can be listened: here. After minute 73 Joachim asks, ‘Do you want to be a preacher or a political leader?’ and later ‘There’s going to be a split’ of revolutionaries and non-revolutionaries.

Alas, ten minutes later Joachim reveals himself as a Christian and even piously quotes the gospel. He completely misses the point that Wallace (and Heimbach) are right about their interpretation of Christianity regarding Jesus’ commandment of universal love, which includes other races.

His Christianity aside, Joachim’s response to Hunter was really good. I do recommend it to those who visit Hunter’s Occidental Dissent. I especially liked Joachim’s response to Hunter’s words about William Pierce cited above. As to this Luther quote above (my bold type):

Part of being a Christian is suffering and obeying the law: “Christ says that we should not resist evil or injustice but always yield, suffer, and let things be taken from us…”

Wow!

Yes: Wallace follows Christian ethics to the letter. What neither he nor Hoch get is that such deranged altruism is destroying their little race.

Published in: on May 29, 2019 at 7:03 pm  Comments (17)  

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.