The society-wide pandemic of anti-racism and philo-Semitism we are experiencing has very clear Christian origins.
This is a 2013 threaded comment in this blog:
The average human being in any walk of life, irrespective of class, sex, faith, culture, education, etc., can only grasp facts through an extremely summarized, simplified prism. In other words, the overwhelming majority of people can only think in terms of platitudes and clichés—the few ones that can think at all. Therefore, it is understandable that the average white nationalist feels uncomfortable with a nuanced view of the race question. Raw, complex facts don’t fit well in a cartoonish narrative.
Most Whites are stupid, period. The regular white nationalist is less dumb than the common White on the street, but not by a large margin. Try to discuss the historical onus of Christianity for the White race or hint at violence as a legitimate political tool (Breivik, e.g.), and most of them will either walk away from you or try to shut you down.
A shame that the author of the above comment is the same miscreant from Brazil whose behavior I exposed elsewhere. I wish an Aryan had written it!
The threaded comment can be directed not only to those white nationalists who won’t break away from our parents’ toxic religion, but also those who believe in 9/11 or JFK assassination nonsense (the overwhelming majority of white nationalists, according to a Daily Stormer poll); cannot grasp the subtleties of what I call B-type bicausalism but insist in thinking Jew is the root-cause of all ills, therefore cannot even read Pierce’s non-fiction book demonstrating that the mess started well before kike takeover or his fictional book about the proper use of violence (see my latest post on The Day of the Rope). They cannot even do the most elemental research about the financial accident that is coming.
Moreover, many white nationalists cannot tolerate anything but the most demented form of egalitarianism regarding Europeans. This is a rant from Australia I did not let pass yesterday:
All this talk about who is white in Europe is a waste of time and you are all delusional nordicists. After insulting Italy and Greece and Spain you are going to lose your last hope of any nordic blood surviving beyond 2020. This is largely the fault of American nordicist community who believe that Italians and Greeks and Spanish are like Mexicans… If you go to Greece or read the obituries of Greek and Italian newspapers you will see that that they are white people you morons… Jews control the world. It is all over… Instead of being united, nordicists in America just played into the hands of the Jews, that is how fucking stupid they are… So fuck all you nordic cunts. I hope the muslims kill you all and the niggers rape your daughters and mothers and then throw them to the Jews.
This Aussie does not even know that I’m not an American. Like him other white nationalists become mad as hell as the typical liberal when confronted with the fact that there was a degree of mongrelization in some parts of Europe before our times and hinting—The horror! You must be Lord Voldemort!—that less mixed whites have better genes than the mudbloods. See the most scholarly article in this blog about racial studies, whose author is a Spaniard, not a North American “nordicist.”
White nationalists really cannot break away from biological egalitarianism, not even the pundits who refrain from profanities. Stupid indeed…
It is true that I have praised Paul Kurtz, who died in 2012 and I used to call a “mentor” for his work debunking precisely the pseudosciences that made me lost many years of my life. The photo in the Wikipedia article on him (also at the left) was uploaded by me after I requested it directly to Kurtz.
Alas, after he died I discovered this video where in the last five minutes Kurtz said that “America is a universal culture” and, mentioning the immigration fauna in the US, he added the phrase, “We are part of the planetary community.”
Kurtz then agreed with the interviewer that “the genetic makeup of the human race is all one” and, incredibly for someone who made a career defending real science against pseudosciences, he added: “There are no separate races. We are all part of one human family.”
The interviewer defined Kurtz as the “father of American secular humanism.” On a 2013 Occidental Observer thread a commenter opined about the “secular humanists”:
The new atheists are pure scum. Yes, despite their adolescent hatred of Christianity, their morality is a hundred percent Christian; anti-racism, egalitarianism, brotherhood of humanity, etc. Pathetic. I have far more respect for the average Christian than I have for those soulless, deadened worshippers of “reason” and “logic.”
I could not resist the temptation of naming Kurtz “scum” in that thread, in spite of the fact that Jews and Christians are presently on the same page here. This happened just after I discovered the above-linked video, where Kurtz stated also that WASPs have no exclusive claim to North America, and mentioned the Inuit as a group that, according to him, settled there before whites. Go figure! Before I became Jew-wise once I even harbored the thought of dedicating my autobiographical book to this guy…
Looking directly at the camera by the end of the interview, Kurtz concluded that “the First Principle in planetary ethics is that we ought to treat every person on planet Earth as equal,” after which he mentioned the races and the ethnic groups.
Well, well… I am still grateful that Kurtz’s writings, his magazines Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry, and the organization of skeptics he founded has helped a lot of people who, like me in the past, went astray in parapsychological cults. But when I met him personally in 1989 and 1994—in the 1994 Seattle conference of skeptics I also met Carl Sagan and shacked hands with him—I ignored that both Kurtz and Sagan had Jewish ancestry.
In 2012 on The Occidental Observer Franklin Ryckaert answered this question: “Why can’t we have a Christianity that is compatible with some form of race realism?”:
That would indeed be desirable, especially for Christian America. Unfortunately Christianity has exactly the opposite qualities a “race realist” ideology would require. And what are those?
1) Taking the material world as real.
2) Thinking in terms of biological groups (“races”).
3) Seeing the human races as different and unequal.
4) Seeing the world as a battle field of competing biological groups.
5) Thinking in terms of the survival and flourishing of the own biological group.
6) Thinking in long terms (centuries, millennia).
Christianity has quite the opposite qualities. To wit:
1) Unlike the Indian religions Christianity doesn’t consider the material world as an illusion (“maya”) from which one has to be liberated, it sees the world as created by God but corrupted by man. Still it is wrong to strife for worldly advancement in this “fallen world” as long as it has not been redeemed by the “resurrection”, for which one has to wait.
2) Christianity doesn’t think in terms of groups, let alone biological groups; it thinks in terms of individuals whose souls have to be saved.
3) Human races may be outwardly different, but inwardly they have the same souls equally capable of salvation.
4) The world may seem to be a battlefield, but the task of man is not to win the battle on that battlefield but to bring “peace on earth”.
5) Moral is not what is good for the own group. It is exactly the opposite: what is good for the other. Christianity is therefore the most “other directed” ideology in the world.
As you see it would require an impossible juggling trick to change Christianity into a group evolutionary strategy for the white man, but that is what Judaism actually is for the Jews, as professor MacDonald has demonstrated so well.
6th September 1942, midday
Racial mixtures—Sailors on leave.
What a fine race the Dutch are! The girls are splendid and very much to my taste. The blemishes in the Dutch are due to interbreeding with the Malays, and that, in its turn, is the result of sexual urge and the lack of a sufficiency of white women in their colonies. We had much the same thing in our own colonies; a German had the right to marry a negress, provided she was a Catholic, but not a German girl, if she happened to be a Protestant.
Even today, the Catholic priest chatters for months if one of his flock wishes to marry a Protestant. It is not very long ago that, in the country, a marriage between Catholic and Protestant was stigmatised as an insult to the Holy Altar; but no body bothered their heads about the colour of bastards! In the British Empire, things are very different; but the Church of England is a political, rather than an ecclesiastical, organisation.
Again and again I am asked to sanction marriage between one of our soldiers and a foreign girl; and as often as not the soldier is a splendid young lad and the girl a little trollop.
Nothing but catastrophe could come of such unions. The branches of the services most exposed to this danger are the Navy and the antiaircraft units, because they stay in one place longer than anyone else. It was the same in the first war. The Flemish girls were most attractive, and, had the war had a normal ending, many of them would undoubtedly have married German soldiers.
The Fuehrer turns jestingly to Admiral Krancke: Your sailors have only three hours’ liberty ashore each day; can’t you give them a bit more? If they must hang about in port, they will be best employed chasing the girls!
Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.
Murka is done, it is finished. It is a thermodynamic, spiritual, and cultural wasteland. Except for its obedient pooch, Israel, it does not have a friend in the world. It spirals towards its Puritanical, Evangelical-New Zionist, preordained destiny. It has been hot-wired for ontological decadence since 1776. No amount of too-little-too-late, feel-good leg humping, pretending to be European, can alter this trajectory. Murka has pursued its loud, obnoxious, boisterous, murderous, ugly, and imperialistic exceptionalism without regard for any nation or culture except its own. And now “The House on the Hill” gets to eat the bitter consequences of its chosen Manifest Destiny; it gets to sleep in the poisonous bed that it has made.
Empty of spirit and culture, undergone a lobotomy of racial memory by the scalpel of popular culture, the Jewnited States of Murka is a done deal. “Amerika” has not been a “nation” since at least 1865. There is no “America.” There is only the ethno-racial Melting Pot of its chosen destiny. Puritanical Anti-Europe/New Zion has become exactly what it set out to become: New Zion […].
A lie can also be represented by omission. A prime example is the murder by starvation of 750,000 German POWs by the victorious Allied general, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Nowhere is it evident that “da Jooz” held his toes to the fire. Always remember: the vanquished do not write history.
To those who are still skeptical that today’s suicidal ethos throughout the West is related to the deranged altruism in the gospels let me remind them that, between 1879 and 1880, in the miserable industrial district of Borinage in Belgium, Vincent van Gogh, apparently imitating Jesus and St Francis, lived a kind of primitive and communal Christian life; gave his clothes to the poor sharing with them the food and even made their beds: all of which undermined his health to such an extent that he never again recovered completely.
Staggering and with mental health issues, in 1883 he returned to test this doctrine of charity. In The Hague, where he engaged at the time the study of art, brother Vincent took a sick prostitute to live with him with one of her five children; then the woman became pregnant again by one of her clients. Brother Vincent took care of her, paid the medical expenses, shared his food and hunger, and wanted to make the prostitute his wife…
Why should we wonder when this “imitation of Christ” reaches levels of insanity such as bringing masses of non-white immigrants into our homelands (see e.g., my Christmas post)?
Excerpts from Roger Pearse’s review of Joseph Hoffmann’s Porphyry’s Against the Christians: The Literary Remains:
The sixteen-book work by the Neoplatonist Porphyry Against the Christians is lost. Constantine ordered that all copies should be destroyed; a century later Theodosius tacitly acknowledged that this had not occurred by issuing a similar edict.
Constantine burning Arian books
Porphyry adopted an “idiot-boy” literalism as his tool to debunk. Anything that could be made to sound discreditable, anything that did not fit with the tenor of contemporary prejudice, any statement that could be made to sound contradictory, could be presented as a reason to deride the Christians. However, such a approach is unimpressive to anyone except a believer. Such people could have their faith in anti-Christianism bolstered, and be encouraged to sneer and have gibes ready to throw. But the unconvinced reader would see easily that such statements can be made about anything, however worthy.
Instead, the essential argument is an appeal to the irrational herd-instinct of mankind and its need to conform. Many of Porphyry’s arguments consist simply of assertion that something is shameful or embarrassing, rather than rational discussion. This can only work if the flavour of the times is such that the subject is unfashionable. To look for a modern analogy, modern readers will be aware that “anti-racism” has not acquired the power it has in our society by rational argument. Instead it relies on repeated assertion and intimidation, to create a climate in which only certain ideas can be said. In the ancient world, likewise, certain ideas went without saying. The Christian ethos was not part of this; and indeed, as a novelty, was embarrassing. The idea that the poor might be important was disgusting. Porphyry simply harps on the subconscious need to the reader to conform to what he knows society expects, rather than reasoning objectively what is right.
But once the times changed, the approach worked in reverse. It was Porphyry’s ideas that went against the tenor of the times.