Robert Morgan’s comment

Pro-white racism has always, ever since the founding of the USA, been only a minor theme of white America. Far more important to it has been wealth, power, and growth of empire. Yes, you had white supremacy as in race-based slavery, but you also had America’s most costly war fought to abolish it and establish citizenship for the negro and grant him legal equality with whites. Yes, you had the Naturalization Act of 1790 which specified whites only as qualified for naturalization, but you also had many non-whites who became citizens in ways other than being naturalized (for example many non-whites became citizens automatically when Texas was added to the Union). Even at the time of the ratification of the Constitution free negroes were allowed to vote in several of the states. So the country as a whole has never been explicitly racist. Largely this is due to Christianity having shaped its culture.

The ideal of racial equality is built into the Christian worldview, as are many other racially harmful ideas. White pride? Look into what the Bible says about pride. Nothing good. The Bible preaches the opposite, humility and meekness. The cult of the victim? Jesus is the ultimate victim, the archetype. People only began seeing virtue in being a victim because of his example. God is love? What does that make you, if you hate negroes? It means you are against God. The Christian worldview acts against white survival in all kinds of ways. It not only inhibits a proper response, but it actively encourages race suicide.

Because a final solution to the racial problem necessarily involves transgressions against Christianity’s moral strictures, it’s obvious that nothing effective can or will be done until that morality is eradicated. White survival will take a cultural revolution, and the political organizing you’re calling for can’t and won’t take place until that’s accomplished.

Robert Morgan’s comment

“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 also why they fought against Nazi Germany—because Hitler was giving bigotry a bad name! Standing up for bigotry by crushing white supremacy wherever it reared its ugly head. That’s what white American bigots are all about!

And it’s also why they passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, and the Fair Housing Act in 1963. Because before 1970 white Americans were just plain bigoted.

The history of white American bigotry is truly appalling. It’s a disgrace to humanity.

Published in: on March 27, 2019 at 9:04 am  Comments Off on Robert Morgan’s comment  

Occidental ‘Dissent’

Joseph Walsh in yesterday’s thread:

Greg Johnson’s comment that Tarrant’s actions were ‘evil’ really betrays the Christianity behind his thinking. What the Christians term ‘evil’ is what Aryan man needs to behave like.

Today a southern nationalist wrote:

Jack Ryan and the overwhelmingly majority of OD [the American southern nationalist site Occidental Dissent] readers completely condemn the terrible, cowardly terrorist attack in Christ Church NZ.

Source: here. On that thread a Rudolf said:

This article is pacifist cuckoldry in its purest form. Instead of not commenting at all, the author chooses to be first in line of the traitorous weaklings who disavow their brothers in arms. This heap of effeminacy and meekness doesn’t even deserve to be addressed point by point. It’s all so tiresome.

And in a previous thread on Tarrant the admin of that site said:

I own plenty of guns, however, I have no intention of using them to shoot other people for that would be immoral.

Source: here.

But they were shot by the yanks, right?

What is striking about this Christian superego of 2019 is that eight years ago Occidental Dissent published an article by William Rome about the Breivik incident, ‘Knights Templar: Honesty and Hypocrisy’ that started with the words: ‘A lot of people are going to be infuriated by this post so I might as well get started early: I will not shed a single tear over the dead brats of Norway’s traitorous elite…’

The article is no longer available on Occidental Dissent, but I saved it for this site (here, see also here).

Published in: on March 25, 2019 at 7:35 pm  Comments (5)  

A paradigm shift in pro-white forums

Today a friend in the UK sent me a link to yesterday’s article, ‘The Jewish Rape of Europa vs the Awakening Lion…’

What these guys don’t want to see is that Protestantism created the cultural milieu for accepting Jews again in the island after Edward the Great had expelled them centuries before. They also don’t get, as another overseas commenter said in a previous thread, that ‘The dominance of Christian ethics on the western mind is the real problem’.

There are even commenters using the term ‘psychopath’ or ‘sociopath’, one of which I did not let pass because I am fed up of their silly monocausalism (it was the thread quoting the Unz commenter’s thought-experiment about snipers on the border).

The article linked above, ‘The Jewish rape of Europe’ could easily be renamed as ‘Whites allowing the rape of Europe’ and precisely because of Christian ethics: which is why I am quoting the Unz commenter on a daily basis.

Commenting on the new subtitle of this site, ‘The JQ and Christianity are one and the same’, Joseph Walsh re-tweeted yesterday: ‘In order to solve the Jewish Problem Aryan males have to overcome Xtian ethics. To defeat the outer, biological Jew it is necessary to defeat the inner, mental/psychological Jew (Jesus)’.

But white nationalists are not doing that. They still obey the inner Jew. Just see how they have treated Brenton Tarrant in sharp contrast to how Jews love Benjamin Goldstein (pic left). Obviously, most white nationalists not only ignore that Jews are merely a secondary infection and that the primary one is Christianity. By obeying the inner Jew white nationalists are also traitors to the white race.

In other words, the point of view this site provides is a paradigm shift in pro-white forums. And as all paradigm shifts, the first stage means that most nationalists will simply ignore us. Just compare the zero comments in our latest post that substantiates that the JQ = Christianity with the hundreds of comments that sites such as The Unz Review get.

Feels lonely sometimes. But this is the price for breaking away from the current paradigm in white nationalism.

Robert Morgan’s comment

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. I must conclude that if there is hope, it won’t be found in politics.

Published in: on March 23, 2019 at 8:59 am  Comments (2)  

Robert Morgan’s comment

The wall is a good example of why the issue is cultural, not the result of a conspiracy. Endless excuses are given for not building it (too expensive, won’t work, will cause too much environmental damage, will interfere with local jurisdictions, etc.), which of course is part of its charm for those who, like Trump, really don’t want a wall anyway. But a moment’s thought shows that calling for a wall in itself proves the lack of seriousness with which American whites take the problem of illegal immigration.

The approximately 2000 mile long border with Mexico could be better protected by perhaps a hundred roving snipers who shoot to kill, and this at an infinitesimal fraction of the cost of a wall. Each sniper could be made responsible for a 20 mile stretch of border, upon which he could station himself at random, ever-changing locations. After only a few illegal crossers are shot and killed, it’s overwhelmingly likely that attempted infiltrations would drop to close to zero. After all, would you want to cross the border illegally if you knew for a fact that there was even a 1 in 100 chance it would be the last thing you ever did? Thus, instead of billions for a wall, the problem could be made to disappear essentially for the cost of a few bullets.

A simple solution like this is ruled out though by Christian ethics, which has so influenced Western culture that it’s considered outrageous; completely beyond the pale even by those who nominally are opposed to Christianity itself. When even non-Christians and anti-Christians subscribe to Christian ethics, then you know that Christianity’s cultural dominance is total.

Published in: on March 21, 2019 at 1:31 pm  Comments (19)  

On empowering birds feeding on corpses

‘Christian ethics was like a time bomb ticking away in Europe, a Trojan horse waiting for its season’. —William L. Pierce

‘1945 was the year of the total inversion of Aryan values into Christian values’. —Joseph Walsh

The articles of The Occidental Observer are academic. But Tobias Langdon’s article yesterday on how the left has begun to devour itself is fascinating.

Yesterday I was also watching Monster Bug Wars. As I dream to exterminate all the arachnids in my Parrishesque paradise, it gives me pleasure to see fights to the death between them. The war that is currently waged on the left, as narrated in Langdon’s article, also gives me pleasure: it is like seeing two different species of spiders fighting to the death: whoever wins devours, still alive, the other.

Langdon’s article deals with the cultural war that transgender men are winning over radical feminists—including mulatto, lesbian and Jewish feminists that one would imagine are, in the inverted epoch of today, the most powerful.

Currently, trans men have begun to place themselves at the top of the pyramid thanks to Orwell’s observation: all men are equal but some are more equal than others. These men only have to declare themselves women and in several states of the US they are allowed to enter their bathrooms, changing rooms and showers. Langdon mentions a tranny, who still has a penis and a couple of balls, who is very interested in the feminine tampons that pubertal girls leave in the baths. Of course: in our sick society he’s untouchable…

Tucker Carlson and the radical feminists complain a lot that trans men are also beginning to dominate women’s sports. The most impressive phrase of the article by Langdon in the Observer is that ‘Stale pale males who were at the very bottom of the victimhood hierarchy have leapt to the very top of it in a single bound, thanks to the superpower of transgenderism’. So true: the radical feminists who dare to criticise these trans men are now being deplatformed from social media with typical accusations that their complaints are ‘hate’.

The whole freak show really looks like the videos of two arachnids fighting to the death with the fittest cocooning the other alive and, after injecting a poisonous cocktail into the beaten spider, sucking its body as a protein shake. Read Landon’s article and then watch a clip of Monster Bug Wars!

A woman commented about Langdon’s article at the Observer: ‘We need no further proof that Satan rules the world…’ I would argue the opposite: at last Christ rules. Why? Because white nationalists have a rather superficial idea of the history of Christianity. Their knowledge of our parents’ religion does not go beyond historical books at the level of those Reader’s Digest books for families of pious Christians that I find in the library my father left behind.

A deeper look beyond the Reader’s Digest level reveals that the reversal of the scale of values that has now maddened the West originated nothing less than in the Gospel. Every time some Christians wanted to apply the Gospel message in its purity, the medieval Church, in all its wisdom, crushed them: they knew how dangerous that would have been for the health of pre-Reformation Europe.

I am not asking white nationalists to read the ten volumes of Karlheinz Deschner on the history of Christianity. If they only read the best historical novel that has been written about the period to which I refer in the previous paragraph, they would realise what I mean. The Name of the Rose of Umberto Eco, contains a passage that throws great light on what happens today with the empowering of trans men: until recently, the most dispossessed creatures of the kingdom of God.

Adso: ‘But you were speaking of other outcasts; it isn’t lepers who form heretical movements’.

William of Baskerville: ‘The flock is like a series of concentric circles, from the broadest range of the flock to its immediate surroundings. The lepers are a sign of exclusion in general. Saint Francis understood that. He didn’t want only to help the lepers; if he had, his act would have been reduced to quite a poor and impotent act of charity. He wanted to signify something else. Have you been told about his preaching to the birds?’

Adso: ‘Oh, yes, I’ve heard that beautiful story, and I admired the saint who enjoyed the company of those tender creatures of God’, I said with great fervour.

William of Baskerville: ‘Well, what they told you was mistaken, or, rather, it’s a story the order has revised today. When Francis spoke to the people of the city and its magistrates and saw they didn’t understand him, he went out to the cemetery and began preaching to ravens and magpies, to hawks, to raptors feeding on corpses’.

Adso: ‘What a horrible thing! Then they were not good birds!’

William of Baskerville: ‘They were birds of prey, outcast birds, like the lepers. Francis was surely thinking of that verse of the Apocalypse that says: “I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven: Come and gather yourselves together at the supper of the great God; that ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them…!’’’

Adso: ‘So Francis wanted to incite the outcasts to revolt?’

William of Baskerville: ‘No, that was what Fra Dolcino and his followers wanted [the violent and revolutionary wing of the Fraticelli], if anybody did. Francis wanted to call the outcast, ready to revolt, to be part of the people of God. If the flock was to be gathered again, the outcasts had to be found again. Francis didn’t succeed, and I say it with great bitterness. To recover the outcasts he had to act within the church; to act within the church he had to obtain the recognition of his rule, from which an order would emerge, and this order, as it emerged, would recompose the image of a circle, at whose margin the outcasts remain’.

The dialogue between these two Franciscan monks of the 14th century hits the nail regarding the POV of this site: the two epigraphs that appear at the top of this entry.

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 such as those of a St. Francis, has finally arrived. Following the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI in 2013, a papal conclave elected the Argentinean Jorge Mario Bergoglio as his successor. As Bergoglio chose Francis as his papal name in honour of St. Francis of Assisi, my father, a great fan of the saint of Assisi, expressed a few words of surprise. He wondered while watching the 2013 ceremony how it was possible that only until the 21st century did an elected pope choose the name of the most beloved saint for Catholics? Short answer: because the Catholic Church was not openly suicidal as it is today.

Since the native language of this Argentinean pope is Spanish, when I hear him speak I understand him better than those who don’t know the language. It really seems to me that, for the first time in the history of the Church, the purest message of the Gospel has reached the Vatican. I remember very well, for example, the occasion when Bergoglio, already Pope, declared that the theme of poverty (the lepers of yore) was at the very core of the Gospel. I also remember his words about homosexuals (Bergoglio is the first pope to use the Newspeak term ‘gay’: a word that was not used to designate them when he and I were children) and the trans men who visited him in the Vatican.

What they say in the forums of white nationalism is false: that the Pope has betrayed his principles. On the contrary: The dream of gathering again the ravens, magpies and birds feeding on corpses has been fulfilled.

When I discovered white nationalism the term used to designate the enemy was the very generic ‘liberalism’. In his Observer article Langdon uses the term currently in vogue, ‘cultural Marxism’. Recently I suggested that the most accurate term would be ‘neo-Christian’. This term covers the scale of values of both Christians and liberals: the last (e.g., the tranny) shall be the first and the first shall be the last. After all, Francis wanted to call the outcast, ready to revolt, to be part of the people of God. If the flock was to be gathered again, the outcasts had to be found again. Francis didn’t succeed, and I say it with great bitterness. To recover the outcasts he had to act within the church; to act within the church he had to obtain the recognition of his rule, from which an order would emerge, and this order, as it emerged, would recompose the image of a circle, at whose margin the outcasts remain.

Feels lonely sometimes

This morning I was looking for another of Linder’s archived quotable Gab quotes and, while finding this one—:

The theory that “exposing the jews” would solve the problem was first put out there by Henry Ford. We now have 100 years to judge “how’s that theory working out for you, White man?”

—at the same time I was listening to the first episode of Black Wolf Radio: two voices of English men I’ve met personally. In the podcast, one of them used the word ‘Marxist’ repeatedly.

(Left, Soviet Union stamp commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Manifesto.) Luis Salazar, a Marxist teacher of the Madrid School (a school founded by those Spaniards who fled the Franco regime), taught us Marxism in Mexico City in the middle 1970s. This word has changed so much since the 70s that presently it means something altogether different.

In white nationalist circles, it now means the ideology of white genocide through the inversion of values. I still remember pretty well the content of the Communist Manifesto that we had to study at the Madrid School, and thus I believe that the term ‘neo-Christian’ would better describe the ideology of white genocide.

Of course: ‘cultural Marxism’ is the term in fashion in white nationalist circles after the old term ‘liberalism’, in the sense of liberalism ran amok, fell into disuse. But since classical liberalism and classical Marxism weren’t ideologies aimed at the extermination of whites, the priest of the 14 words should try to develop a more concise vocabulary. From the POV of the priest, white nationalism uses terms very loosely because it has failed to settle accounts with Christianity.

If one cries ‘Marxist’, the impression on the listener is that things were going on well until Karl Marx in the 19th century. But the French Revolution enforced egalitarian principles before Marx was even born. And long, long before the French Revolution white culture was overwhelmed by an ideology of Semitic origin that erased almost all vestiges of the original Greco-Roman world.

The terms used by white nationalists only convey the level of awakening in the movement, and this includes Linder’s quote above. Yes: some of those who destroyed the Greco-Roman world were anti-Semites, but the virus of enforced egalitarianism in the Ancient World (that could only be implemented by destroying everything noble that whites had created) was far more destructive for classical culture than to Judaism.

This is White history, as every regular visitor of this site should already know. Alas, as Mauricio said, ‘The leap from level 5 to level 6 is astronomical due to the Xtian malware rejection. Feels lonely sometimes’.

What’s wrong with exterminationism?

In this blog I have cited two Jews, Marcus Eli Savage and Mitchell Heisman, who admitted that Christianity was nothing but a psyop devised by their tribe to control the blond beast.

Before I woke up to the Jewish question I used to read the books of another Jew, Stefan Zweig (perhaps the only Jew whose libretto for an opera by Richard Strauss was accepted at the time of the Third Reich). Zweig begins his biography of Mary Baker Eddy with a very deep idea, ‘The most mysterious moment of a man is when he becomes aware of his intimate personality; the most mysterious moment in the history of mankind is the birth of their religions’. That is why I have placed so much emphasis on this site when analysing Paul and Mark the Evangelist: the literary authors (Jesus did not exist) of a religion that would eventually castrate all Aryans around the globe.

So castrated actually that, recently, in the comments section of a well-known blog of southern nationalists in the US, a commenter who detests me explained his reasons for why he hates me: because I criticise Christianity almost full time in this blog and also, because I promote an exterminationist ideology.

Only modern emasculated whites, what I call Jew-obeyers, can complain about that. We can already imagine the ancient Greeks or the Romans being frightened of a fellow citizen who criticised a Jewish sect called Christianity (remember the quotations of ancient Greeks and Romans about Jews and Christians in the ‘masthead’ of this site). If during the siege of Jerusalem in the year 70—when Mark wrote his gospel!—a Roman would tell Titus that an exterminationist ideology would have to be implemented, no one would have been frightened. At most, they would have told the exterminationist that it was better to enslave the survivors and sell them in the Mediterranean market for economic gain, what they actually did.

Had the ancient Romans benefited from the hindsight of the modern era—that the miscegenation that they were already beginning to practice in the 1st century would result in the collapse of the Empire—, they would have accepted the arguments of the exterminationist philosopher.

So what’s wrong with exterminationism? Not for nothing in this site have I called miscegenation ‘the sin against the holy spirit’, in the sense that it is so unforgivable sin that, once consummated, only the gradual decline and the eventual fall of an Aryan empire can take place. Those white nationalists or Southerners who have not yet learned the role that miscegenation played in ancient Rome would do well to read ‘The Race Problem of the Roman Empire’ by the Swedish philologist Martin P. Nilsson. Only after that it will be somewhat more digestible to understand what William Pierce wanted to tell us in a chapter, ‘Extermination or Expulsion’, from his only non-fiction book.

Food for thought:
Martin P. Nilsson’s text.
William L. Pierce’s text.

Unhistorical Jesus, 1

Romulus appearing to Proculus Julius.

I have read the first three chapters of Richard Carrier’s book, On the Historicity of Jesus, in addition to the later chapter on Paul’s epistles. In my entry on Thursday, about the dark night of the soul suffered by the Aryans in general and the white nationalists in particular (including the so-called revolutionaries), I mentioned the finis Africae that was in the tower that housed a large library in Umberto Eco’s gothic novel. Following the plot of the novel,[1] if there is a book that a latter-day Jorge de Burgos would like to destroy, it is precisely that of Carrier.

Last Monday I said I was tempted to start reviewing On the Historicity of Jesus for this site. The first pages of chapter 4 convinced me that I should do it.

In ‘Dark Night of the Soul’ I said that all white people are heading to Jerusalem, a metaphor that must be understood in the context of the first paragraph of ‘Ethnosuicidal Nationalists’. How Christianity managed to invert the moral compass of the Aryans, from pointing at Rome to pointing at Jerusalem, is discovered by researching the motivations of those who wrote the Gospels (remember: there’s no historical Jesus, only gospel authors).

Keep in mind what we have been saying on this site about the inversion of values that happened in the West when whites, including atheists, took the axiological message of the gospels very seriously. Based on this and the crucial part of Evropa Soberana’s essay on Jerusalem and Rome, let’s see what Carrier says at the beginning of chapter 4 of On the Historicity of Jesus.

In Plutarch’s book about Romulus, the founder of Rome, we are told that Romulus was the son of god, born of a virgin, and that there were attempts to kill him as a baby.

As an adult the elites finally killed him and the sun darkened, but Romulus’ body disappeared. Then he rises from the dead.

Some people doubted and, on the road, Romulus appears to a friend to transmit the good news to his people (see image above). It is revealed that, despite his human appearance, Romulus had always been a god and was incarnated to establish a great kingdom on earth (keep these italicised words in mind in the context of the quotation below).

Then Romulus ascends to the heavens to reign from there. Before Christianity, the Romans celebrated the day when Romulus ascended into heaven. Plutarch tells us that the annual ceremony of the Ascension involved the recitation of the names of those who were afraid for having witnessed the feat, something that reminds us of the true end of the Gospel of Mark (Mk 16.8) before the Christians added more verses.

Carrier comments that it seems as if Mark was adding a Semitic garment onto Romulus’ original story: a Roman story that seems to be the skeleton on which the evangelist would add the flesh of his literary fiction. The phrase of Carrier that I put in bold letters convinced me that On the Historicity of Jesus deserves a review in several entries:

There are many differences in the two stories [the fictional stories about Romulus and Jesus], surely. But the similarities are too numerous to be a coincidence—and the differences are likely deliberate. For instance, Romulus’ material kingdom favoring the mighty is transformed into a spiritual one favoring the humble. It certainly looks like the Christian passion narrative is an intentional transvaluation of the Roman Empire’s ceremony of their own founding savior’s incarnation, death and resurrection [page 58].

My two cents: White nationalists are still reluctant to recognise that what they call ‘the Jewish problem’ should be renamed as ‘the Jewish-Christian problem’.

________

[1] The 1986 film The Name of the Rose featuring Sean Connery betrays the real plot of the novel. In the book the bad guy was the librarian Jorge de Burgos and the Inquisitor, Bernardo Gui, a secondary character. In the novel Gui burns the beautiful semi-feral peasant girl at the stake whereas in the Hollywood film the girl’s life is spared. In no way I recommend watching the movie unless the novel is read first (Umberto Eco’s only good novel in my humble opinion).