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)  

Stop being insane

Editor’s note: Below, a passage from an article by Kevin Alfred Strom, ‘Stop Being Insane’, published on National Vanguard in 2017. Strom’s entire article hits the nail as to why the Christian problem is larger than the Jewish problem. Not only the traitors are more wicked than Jews (as betraying your own race is morally worse than an external foe who wants to exterminate you), but there are more demented Christians than external foes.

Of Strom’s piece, pay special attention to the sentences: ‘They [American Christians] may not know where their own people were 2,000 years ago, what they lived and died for, what they believed, how their ancestors struggled…’ And also: ‘they [evangelicals] view Jewish history as their own’. On the other hand, ‘They see images of our Germanic or Classical ancestors and there is not the slightest sign of recognition in their dull eyes’.

Do you see now why stories or foundation myths are so important? Do you see why every single white nationalist must read William Pierce’s story about their race?, why Christian-friendly white nationalism is so ridiculously blind?
 

______ 卐 ______

 

And the “Christian Embassy” behind all these projects is just a small-time operation, a tiny fraction of the overall Christian support for the Jews and their murderous state given by the likes of Pat Robertson, Liberty University, John Hagee, and their ilk!

These deranged White men have been programmed by a 2,000-year-old psyop to work against their own best interests and use their money and energy to help Jews, when there are poor White children in this country who will never reach their potential for lack of money, and honorable White grandmothers who eat out of dumpsters or go hungry.

Why do these fools care so much about Israel? According to the magazine Christianity Today,

Many evangelicals have vivid memories of sitting in Sunday school rooms, staring at maps of Bible Lands and listening to Bible stories week after week. Through such experiences, evangelicals came to view the Bible’s story as their own and the land of the Bible as a kind of home away from home.

They may not know where their own people were 2,000 years ago, what they lived and died for, what they believed, how their ancestors struggled so that they might live and have the blessings of civilization—but they sure know, or think they know, all about the Jews; they view Jewish history as their own and call the Middle East the “Holy Land”; and identify with the Jews as a kind of superior and more godly version of themselves. They see images of our Germanic or Classical ancestors and there is not the slightest sign of recognition in their dull eyes. But show them a picture of a Jew in the desert near a burning bush and they identify with it instantly. How bizarre this is—and how infinitely tragic.

No doubt these “Christian Zionists,” as they sometimes call themselves, sincerely believe the Jewish verse they constantly quote again and again: “To the Jew first!” To the Jew first, indeed!

Can’t you see how insane this is? The Jews support their own institutions, their own state, their own people, as any rational nation would do. But millions of the men and women of our European civilization, White men and women, heirs of the greatest culture the world has ever known, do not support their own people. With the words written by an alien race—“to the Jew first!”—upon their lips, they ignore the basic needs for the survival of their own race, their own nation, and ignore even the cries and suffering of their own poor and destitute, and give their all for the Jews. They justify and support genocide and brutal occupation (if done by Jews), and gladly tax themselves and sacrifice the lives of their children to make it possible. All based on a preposterous hoax that Jews are somehow holy and sacred and intimately connected to God.

What fantastic power to control the minds of their hosts the Jews attained when they hit upon the brilliant idea of taking over monotheism and remaking it in the image of their tribal, ethnocentric god Yahweh.

Not only will this misplaced loyalty and religious perversion be fatal to us and lead to our extinction in the long run if it is allowed to continue, but it is extremely dangerous in the short term as well.

Published in: on June 15, 2019 at 12:01 am  Comments (12)  

The Antichrist § 17

How can anyone still defer to the naïveté of Christian theologians these days when they decree that the development of the idea of God from the ‘God of Israel’, the god of a people, to the Christian God, the epitome of all goodness, counts as progress?

But even Renan does this. As if Renan had the right to naïveté! The opposite is what strikes the eye. When the presuppositions of ascending life, when everything strong, brave, domineering, and proud is eliminated from the idea of God, when he sinks little by little into the symbol of a staff for the weary, a life-preserver for the drowning, when he turns into the God of the poor, the sinners, the sickly, when the predicates of ‘saviour’ and ‘redeemer’ are the only ones left, the only divine predicates: what does this sort of transformation tell us?, this sort of diminution in the divine?

Of course: this will increase the size of ‘the kingdom of God’. God used to have only his people, his ‘chosen’ people. But then he took up travelling, just as his people did, and after that he did not sit still until he was finally at home everywhere, the great cosmopolitan, – until he had ‘the great numbers’ and half the earth on his side.

Nonetheless, the God of the ‘great numbers’, the democrat among gods, did not become a proud, heathen god: he stayed Jewish, he was still the cranny God, the God of all dark nooks and corners, of unhealthy districts the world over! His empire is as it ever was, an empire of the underworld, a hospital, a basement-kingdom, a ghetto-kingdom… [Editor’s bold-type above]

A new religion for whites, 2

by Kevin Alfred Strom

This week we continue our exploration of the evolution of religion and religious thought in National Socialist Germany. With profounder ideals and a stronger will than any other leadership structure of any other society for thousands of years at least, Germany ultimately sought to spiritually shepherd the unique expression of the Life Force and the growing consciousness that is our race through the dangers of the 20th century and beyond. Those dangers include 1) being trapped in an earth-bound Semitic creed designed to ensnare us in universalism, weakness, and worship of our enemies; 2) rejecting that Semitic creed in favor of an atheistic materialism and individualism that destroys our ability to grow and act as a natural biological and spiritual community; and 3) rejecting that Semitic creed in favor of the equally alien, spiritually empty, and equally debilitating equalitarian creed of Marxism.

We’ll be hearing of this spiritual evolution in the words of National Socialist writer Savitri Devi, from her “National Socialism and Neo-Paganism,” an excerpt from her book Gold in the Furnace, most of which was written while she was imprisoned for her ideas in postwar Germany.
 

Munich theatre decorated for a “Day of German Art and Music” celebration during the National Socialist period: Can anyone
doubt that a new spirituality was being developed here?

 

National Socialism and Neo-Paganism, part 2

by Savitri Devi

The same inspiration—the same quest of the eternal Aryan faith under its present-day Germanic form—fills Johann von Leers’ History on a Racial Basis which I mentioned. There too one finds, applied to the domain of religion and culture, that passionate assertion of the rights of the Aryan North which constitutes, perhaps, the most characteristic feature of National Socialism on the political plane. For a political awakening of the type that Adolf Hitler provoked, stirring a whole nation to its depth, cannot go without a parallel awakening in all fields of life, especially in that of culture and religion—of thought, generally speaking. There too, one finds—based this time upon the extensive researches of Hermann Wirth in ancient lore—a protest against the idea, current in all the Judeo-Christian world, that the old Aryan North was something “primitive” and “barbarous”; and a vision of the future in which Germany in particular and the Aryan race at large will rise again to unprecedented greatness, having re-discovered their glorious, eternal collective Self. The passage of Johann von Leers’ book which comes a few pages after his tribute to Hitler as “the greatest regenerator of the people for thousands of years” is worth quoting in extenso:

After a period of decadence and race-obliteration we are now coming to a period of purification and development which will decide a new epoch in the history of the world. If we look back on the thousands of years behind us, we find that we have arrived again near the great and eternal order experienced by our forefathers. World history does not go forward in a straight line, but moves in curves. From the summit of the original Nordic culture in the Stone Age, we have passed through the deep valleys of centuries of decadence, only to rise once more to a new height. This height will not be lesser than the one once abandoned, but greater, and that, not only in the external goods of life…. We did not pass through the great spiritual death of the capitalistic period in order to be extinguished. We suffered it in order to rise again under the Sign that never yet failed us, the Cross of the great Stone Age, the ancient and most sacred Swastika.

The form and particulars of a modern Aryan religion destined to rule consciences in the place of obsolete Christianity are not yet laid out—and how could they be? But the necessity of such a religion could not be more strongly felt and expressed; and its spirit and main features are already defined. It is the healthy religion of joy and power—and beauty—which I have tried to suggest in the beginning of this book. In other words, it is the eternal aspect of National Socialism itself or (which means the same) National Socialism extended to the highest sphere of life.

I have previously recalled the Führer’s words of wisdom concerning the growth of a new religion, better adapted than Christianity to the requirements of the people, namely, that “until such a new faith does appear, only fools and criminals will hurry to destroy what is there, on the spot.”

In 1924—when he wrote Mein Kampf—he obviously felt that the time was not yet ripe for such a revolution.

From what one reads in the famous Goebbels Diaries, published by our enemies in 1948 (and therefore, no one knows to what extent genuine) he would appear to have been in perfect agreement with the Reich Propaganda Minister’s radical opposition to the Churches at the same time as with his cautious handling of the religious question during the war. As long as the war was on, it was, no doubt, not the time to promote such changes as would, perhaps, make many people realise too abruptly that they were fighting for the establishment of something which, maybe, they did not want. But, when victory would be won, then, many things that looked impossible would be made possible. According to the Diaries, the Führer was even planning, “after the war,” to encourage his people, gradually, to alter their diet, with a view to doing away with the standing horror of the slaughter-houses—one of the most laudable projects ever seriously considered in the history of the West, which, if realised, would have at once put Germany far ahead of all other nations, raising her conception of morality much above the standard reached by Christian civilisation [reddish emphasis by C.T.].

He was certainly also planning the gradual formation of a religious outlook worthy of the New Order that he was bringing into being. Already, the most devotedly radical among the active Party members, the corps d’Élite; the SS men—were expected to find in the National Socialist Weltanschauung alone all the elements of their inner life, without having anything to do with the Christian Churches and their philosophy. And if one recalls, not the Führer’s public statements, but some of the most striking private statements attributed to him, one feels convinced that he was aware of the inadequacy of Christianity as the religion of a healthy, self-confident, proud, and masterful people no less than any of the boldest of the National Socialist thinkers, nay, no less than Heinrich Himmler himself and those whom he had in mind when he repeatedly wrote, in his brilliant booklet, Wir Heiden—“We Heathens.”

I know that the sayings attributed to a man, either by an admiring devotee in a spirit of praise or by an enemy, in a spirit of hatred, are, more often than not, of doubtful authenticity. Yet, when, while quoted in order to praise the one alleged to have uttered them, they in reality condemn him, or when, while quoted as “awful” utterances, with the intention of harming him, they in reality constitute praise; and when, moreover, they happen to be too beautiful, or too true, or too intelligent for the reporter to have invented them wholesale, then one can, I believe, accept them as authentic or most probably so.

Of the many books written purposely to throw discredit upon our Führer, I have only read one through and through; but that one—the work of the traitor Rauschning, translated into English under the title Hitler Speaks—I read not merely with interest, but with elation, for it is (much against the intention of its author) one of the finest tributes paid to the Saviour of the Aryan race. Had I come from some out-of-the-way jungle and had I never even heard of the Führer before, that book alone would have made me his follower—his disciple—without the slightest reservation. Should I characterise the author of such excellent propaganda as a scoundrel?

Or is he not just a perfect fool: a fellow who joined the National Socialist Movement when he had no business to do so, and who recoiled in fright as soon as he began to realise how fundamentally opposed his aspirations were to ours? His aspirations were, apparently, those of a mediocre “bourgeois.” After he turned against us, he did not actually lie; he did not need to. He picked out, in the Führer’s statements, those that shocked him the most—and that were likely to shock also people who resemble him. And he wrote Hitler Speaks, for the consumption of all the mediocre “bourgeois” of the world. As there are millions of them, and as the world they represent was soon to wage war on the Führer, the book was a commercial success at the same time as an “ideological” one—the sort of success the author had wanted: it stirred the indignation of all manner of “decent” Untermenschen against National Socialism.

But one day (if it survives) a regenerate Aryandom will look upon it as the unwilling tribute of an enemy to the greatest European of all ages.

And Hitler’s words about Christianity, reported by Rauschning in the fourth chapter of his book, would be admired—not criticised—in an Aryan world endowed with a consistently National Socialist consciousness, for they are in keeping with our spirit—and ring too true not to be authentic. “Leave the hair-splitting to others,” said the Führer to Hermann Rauschning before the latter turned renegade:

Whether it is the Old Testament or the New, or simply the sayings of Jesus according to Houston Stewart Chamberlain, it is all the same Jewish swindle. It will not make us free. A German Church, a German Christianity, is a distortion. One is either a German or a Christian. You cannot be both. You can throw the epileptic Paul out of Christianity—others have done so before us. You can make Christ into a noble human being, and deny his divinity and his rôle as a saviour. People have been doing it for centuries. I believe there are such Christians today in England and America—Unitarians, they call themselves, or something like that. It is no use. You cannot get rid of the mentality behind it. We do not want people to keep one eye on life in the hereafter. We need free men, who feel and know that God is in themselves.

Indeed, however clever he might have been, Rauschning was not the man to concoct this discourse out of pure imagination. As many other statements attributed to the Führer in his book, this one bears too strongly the stamp of sincerity, of faith—of truth—to be just an invention.

Moreover, it fits in perfectly with many of the Führer’s known utterances, with his writings, with the spirit of his whole doctrine which is, as I said before, far more than a mere socio-political ideology. For, whatever might be said, or written, for the sake of temporary expediency, the truth remains that National Socialism and Christianity, if both carried to their logical conclusions—that is to say, experienced in full earnest; lived—cannot possibly go together.

The Führer certainly thought it premature to take up, publicly, towards the Christian doctrine as well as the Churches, the attitude that the natural intolerance of our Weltanschauung would have demanded; but he knew that we can only win, in the long run, if, wherever essentials are concerned, we maintain that intolerance of any movement sincerely “convinced that it alone is right.” And he knew that, sooner or later, our conflict with the existing order is bound to break out on the religious and philosophical plane as well as on the others.

This is unavoidable. And it has only been postponed by the material defeat of Germany—perhaps (who knows?) in accordance with the mysterious will of the Gods, so as to enable the time to ripen and the Aryan people at large, and especially the Germans, to realise, at last, how little Christianity can fulfil their deeper aspirations, and how foolish they would be to allow it to stand between them and the undying Aryan faith implied in National Socialism.

That Aryan faith—that worship of health, of strength, of sunshine, and of manly virtues; that cult of race and soil—is the Nordic expression of the universal Religion of Life. It is—I hope—the future religion of Europe and of a part at least of Asia (and, naturally, of all other lands where the Aryan dominates). One day, those millions will remember the Man who, first—in the 1920s—gave Germany the divine impetus destined to bring about that unparalleled resurrection; the Man whom now the ungrateful world hates and slanders: our Hitler.

Imprisoned here for the love of him, my greatest joy lies in the glorious hope that those reborn Aryans—those perfect men and women of the future Golden Age—will, one day, render him divine honours.

___________

Editor’s note: For the footnotes and an audio accompanying this text, see the original article: here.

SJW: an offshoot of Christianity

Editor’s note: Last month I mentioned that the medieval monk Fra Dolcino (1250-1307) tried to create a new egalitarian society based on mutual aid, holding property in common and respecting gender equality. Fra Dolcino used thugs against the rich and fat bishops in his social justice war. Yesterday I posted ‘Lincoln refutes monocausalism’, where I quoted Robert Morgan’s comments in the last few months on Unz Review. The following is the most recent exchange of Morgan with folks on the right who still don’t get that Social Justice Warring has medieval roots:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

“I wonder if it has to do with the declining importance of religion among white liberals? That this SJW nonsense has taken the place of religion and they are its true believers out to stamp out any heretics.”

It’s a big mistake to set up an opposition between Christianity and modern liberalism. Modern liberalism is a Jesus-less sect of Christianity; one that, as Spengler observed about Marxism, has its roots in Christian theological thought. It acts like a religion and its adherents act like religious zealots because it is, and they are. Recognize that big liberal causes in contemporary America such as women’s rights and minority rights can trace their genealogy back to the Second Great Awakening of the 1820s, which fueled the abolitionist movement and eventually led to the Civil War, the result of which was full citizenship and the vote being given to negroes. All the rest of the unfolding racial disaster white America is currently experiencing got its start there.

America was founded by Puritans, Christian religious fanatics so uncompromising in their beliefs they had to leave Europe, and has never collectively apostatized from that religion [emphasis added]. Liberals may deny being Christians, and revile other Christians and even Christ himself, but unless they reject Christian ethics, specifically, the utopian Christian vision of universal brotherhood, they should still be regarded as adherents of rabbi Jesus. Disputes between Christians about what constitutes true Christianity and what is heresy have raged for almost two thousand years, so their seeming enmity towards each other isn’t unusual; it’s more the rule than an exception.

Obscuring this connection serves the purposes of both sides though, so it’s easy to lose sight of it and become deceived. Church-going Christian “conservatives” want to distance themselves from liberals even though liberals merely call for them to live up to raceless Christian ideals. They also can use the dispute to call for a return to “real” Christianity [Editor’s note: exactly what Fra Dolcino wanted], by which they mean their particular sect; so it’s a good recruitment tool.

Liberals, on the other hand, may want to distance themselves from church-going Christians and even Christianity, but this is just a pose, like an ex-prostitute who now claims to be reformed, or an alcoholic who got on the wagon and stopped drinking. No matter what they may claim, liberals remain the spiritual descendants of abolitionist John Brown, a Christian religious fanatic referred to by his contemporaries as “the last Puritan”.

Published in: on June 8, 2019 at 9:45 am  Comments (3)  

Judeo-Christianity

Today, during my meal’s dessert, a revelation came to me. The symbol of this blog could very well be an iceberg. While white nationalists can see the iceberg’s tip (Judaism), they cannot see what lies beneath the sea (a Christianity that sustains it).

In modern America, the red carpet was rolled out for the Jews since the 19th century in line with the dominant Judeo-Christian, liberal ideology. So obvious it is that the latter is the invisible basis of the former that, as I said yesterday in ‘The Worst Scum’, if the pagan Vikings had conquered the American continent, Jewry would never have been empowered in North America.

Published in: on June 4, 2019 at 3:08 pm  Comments (6)  

The worst scum

‘If we forget what we have been or what we’ve done, we are not men anymore; just animals. Your memories don’t come from books. Your stories aren’t just stories. If I wanted to erase the world of men I would start with you’ I quoted in my previous post. This is much like what an adept of classical culture would be telling one of the few surviving Roman intellectuals or historians when the night king of Judeo-Christianity was sweeping away all the temples, statues, and libraries of ancient knowledge.

The quote above comes from a TV film. In the real history of the West the night fell, indeed, on the white man: a night in which he was apparently going to wake up in the Renaissance but the forces of evil won with Luther, as Nietzsche clearly saw, to the extent that the grotesquely named Renaissance of the North, represented by the Catholic Erasmus, was also a regression to psychosis and evil, as I’ve already said.

The Enlightenment did not wake us up completely. It was an imperfect apostasy of Christianity insofar as the ideals of the French Revolution not only left Christian ethics intact (‘human rights’, etc.) but strengthened those values, now from a purely secular point of view. Only until a Nietzsche, who was still sane when my paternal grandmother was born, someone really broke away from Christian moral tenets, as we have seen so many times on this site.

The Nazis followed this complete apostasy of Christianity and, as a punishment, the American Christians and the Judaized Soviets committed a holocaust of German victims: the greatest secret of the century in which we were born.

On the other side of the Atlantic, at least one awakened mind followed the German awakening not only by putting Christianity in its place in his writings, but by revaluating values as the leadership of Nazi power had done. Alas, as Pierce said, history carries on a great inertia. After his death the pro-white movement suffered a Christian and neo-Christian (‘enlightened’) regression that coined new terms: white nationalism in the mid-1990s and alt-right in recent years. In a way, the regression suffered by both Christians and non-Christians of that movement is a triumph of the story that has been killing the white man since Judeo-Christians took power more than 1,600 years ago.

Whites who claim to defend the white man at least in their blogs are reluctant to finish crossing the psychological Rubicon. Yesterday night came to me the thought that Jews and Muslims never condemn their terrorists (which they see as freedom fighters), but many opinion leaders of the white cause condemn their own. They do this precisely because they are unable to shake off the Christian morality that compels them to love their neighbour. That’s why I call most of today’s anti-Semites ‘Jew-obeyers’.

Everything has to do with stories. From Constantine the white man was forced to believe a false story about his past, which includes worshiping the god of the sworn enemy of the white race and a Jew who never existed. Those who have not read my post on Friday about the Romulus story will be unable to see the level of subversion that represented the infinite change from an Aryan story (Romulus) to a Jewish story (Jesus). In other words, the gospels are more subversive than all the Western media monopolised by Jewry that white nationalists complain about on a daily basis.

In a parallel world, if the Vikings had conquered the continent (including ethnically cleansing it of American Indians and from the Aztecs to the Incas), New Scandinavia would not have waged war on a Hitler who wanted to conquer the enormous lands of Judeo-Marxism for the Aryan race. But the world that we had to live in is not that parallel world. It is a world in which the worst scum of Christians of the Old World conquered the most powerful nation in the New World. And the so-called white nationalists and people of the alt-right have failed to repudiate this scum: many of them are part of it. That’s why they focus so much on Jewry, as if there were not more Christians than Jews!

The Arrival of the Pilgrims Fathers
Antonio Gilbert (oil on canvas).

I have said it several times and I must repeat it: the traitor is worse than the external enemy. The Christian is worse than the Jew. Without Christians, there would be no darkest hour in the West. The ideas of this site are ignored by nationalists simply because they represent a paradigm shift. While I accept the Jewish question more or less as a MacDonald exposes it, I also expand that vision onto Judeo-Christianity. (I insist on this term, ‘Judeo-Christianity’, because there is no such thing as a ‘pagan Christianity’—a mental jerk of those males who believe that the chimera exists.)

There’s nothing in the world more powerful than a good story. Nothing can stop it. No enemy can defeat it, not even the Jews who control the media—if at least we told that story to ourselves. If Westerners began to repudiate the great lie (the story of the non-existent Jesus) without replacing it with the story of the Enlightenment (axiological neo-Christianism), but rather with the story of Romulus, so to speak (in the sense of reconnecting with the classical world), in a single stroke the night king would be torn to pieces in a myriad of ice cubes, together with his army.

But this is something that, we know, won’t happen. At least it won’t happen soon in North America. The level of the conquest of the Aryan psyche by the worst scum who arrived to the continent is truly overwhelming.

Only a convergence of catastrophes could save them. Only an Apocalypse could, at last, change the story that these folks have been telling themselves from the pilgrims to a story in which, instead of finding inspiration in biblical Jews, a new generation of Americans find in Leonidas, Brutus (as Caesar betrayed the Republic), Hermann, Charles Martel and from there a leap to Hitler.

Published in: on June 3, 2019 at 1:22 pm  Comments (2)  

Unhistorical Jesus, 4

Editor’s note: Here I continue with some passages from Richard Carrier’s book On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, especially a follow-up of what Carrier says in my first instalment of the series.

It really looks like the authors of the Gospels, presumably Semites, thoroughly plagiarised the foundational myth of Rome in order to sell us another myth (compare this with what my sticky post’s hatnote links about toxic foundation myths). This new myth did not only involve replacing an Aryan hero (Romulus) for a Jewish hero (Jesus). It did something infinitely more subversive. As Carrier wrote, which I highlighted in bold in my first instalment of the series:

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 [reddish colour added].

On pages 225-229 of On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt we read (scholarly footnotes omitted):
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Element 47: Another model hero narrative, which pagans also revered and to which the Gospel Jesus also conforms, is the apotheosis, or ‘ascension to godhood’ tale, and of these the one to which the Gospels (and Acts) most conform is that of the Roman national hero Romulus. I discussed this already in Chapter 4 (§1), and the points made there should be considered a component of the element here.

The more general point is that this narrative concept of a ‘translation to heaven’ for a hero (often but not always a divine son of god) was very commonplace, and always centered around a peculiar fable about the disappearance of their body. All these fables were different from one another, and therefore those differences are irrelevant to the point: all still shared the same core features (see my discussion of how syncretism works in Element 11). And when it comes to the Romulus fable in particular, the evidence is unmistakable that Christianity conformed itself to it relatively quickly—even if all these attributes were accumulated over time and not all at once.

Romulus, of course, did not exist. He was invented, along with legends about him (largely put together from previous Greek and Etruscan mythology), much later in Roman history than he is supposed to have lived. His name was eponymous (essentially an early form of the word ‘Roman’), and his story was meant to exemplify ideal Roman aspirations and values, using a model similar to Greek tragedy, in which the hero sins in various ways but comes to self-understanding and achieves peace by the time of his death. He otherwise exhibits in his deeds the ‘exemplary qualities’ of Rome as a social entity, held up as a model for Roman leaders to emulate, such as ending ‘the cycle of violence’ initiated by his sin and pride by religiously expiating the sin of past national crimes in order to bring about a lasting peace. His successor, Numa, then exemplified the role of the ideal, sinless king, a religious man and performer of miracles whose tomb was found empty after his death, demonstrating that he, too, like his predecessor Romulus, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

The idea of the ‘translation to heaven’ of the body of a divine king was therefore adaptable and flexible, every myth being in various ways different but in certain core respects the same. But the Gospels conform to the Romulus model most specifically. There are twenty parallels, although not every story contained every one. In some cases that may simply be the result of selection or abbreviation in the sources we have (and therefore the silence of one source does not entail the element did not then exist or was not known to that author); and in some cases elements might have been deliberately removed (or even reversed) by an author who wanted to promote a different message (see discussion in Chapter 10, §2, of how myth­making operated in antiquity). For example, the ‘radiant resurrection body’ (probably the earlier version of Christian appearance narratives) was later transformed into a ‘hidden-god narrative’ (another common trope both in paganism and Judaism) as suited any given author.

But when taken altogether the Romulus and Jesus death-and-resurrection narratives contain all of the following parallels:

1. The hero is the son of God.
2. His death is accompanied by prodigies.
3. The land is covered in darkness.
4. The hero’s corpse goes missing.
5. The hero receives a new immortal body, superior to the one he had.
6. His resurrection body has on occasion a bright and shining appearance.
7. After his resurrection he meets with a follower on a road from the city.
8. A speech is given from a summit or high place prior to ascending.
9. An inspired message of resurrection or ‘translation to heaven’ is delivered to a witness.
10. There is a ‘great commission’ (an instruction to future followers).
11. The hero physically ascends to heaven in his new divine body.
12. He is taken up into a cloud.
13. There is an explicit role given to eyewitness testimony (even naming the witnesses).
14. Witnesses are frightened by his appearance and/or disappearance.
15. Some witnesses flee.
16. Claims are made of ‘dubious alternative accounts’ (which claims were obviously fabricated for Romulus, there never having been a true account to begin with).
17. All of this occurs outside of a nearby (but central) city.
18. His followers are initially in sorrow over the hero’s death.
19. But his post-resurrection story leads to eventual belief, homage and rejoicing.
20. The hero is deified and cult subsequently paid to him (in the same manner as a god).

Romulus, of course, was also unjustly killed by the authorities (and came from a humble background, beginning his career as an orphan and a shepherd, a nobody from the hill country), and thus also overlaps the Aesop/­Socratic type (see Element 46), and it’s easy to see that by combining the two, we end up with pretty much the Christian Gospel in outline (especially when we appropriately Judaize the result: Elements 3-7, 17-20, and 39-43). Some of the parallels could be coincidental (e.g. resurrected bodies being associated with radiance was itself a common trope, both within Judaism and paganism), but for all of them to be coincidental is extremely improbable. The Christian conception of Jesus’ death and resurrection appears to have been significantly influenced by the Roman conception of Romulus’s death and resurrection.

Even if we discounted that for any reason, the Romulus parallels definitely establish that all these components were already part of a recognized hero-type, and are therefore not surprising or unusual or unexpected. The story of Jesus would have looked familiar, not only in the same way all translation stories looked familiar even when different in many and profound ways, but also in the very specific way that among all such tales it looked the most like the story of Romulus, which was publicly acted out in passion plays every year. And this was the national founding hero of the Roman Empire. What better god’s tale to emulate or co-opt?

The perfect antidote to Jesus

by Joseph Walsh

Editors’ note: White nationalists have misdiagnosed the causes of white decline. It’s not only the power of the Jews in the media and the academy, but the fact that whites candidly accept their anti-white narrative. The recent statements of Hunter Wallace in Occidental Dissent shed light on the ultimate cause of Aryan decline: the complete internalization of the suicidal ‘ethics’ that the New Testament writers sold us.

Recently Joseph Walsh said the following in the context of the narratives that have seized the white soul:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Christianity + the false, lying WWII narrative from the Jews’ perspective = a lethal cocktail for the Aryan mind.

Removal of Christianity + the truth about Adolf Hitler, National Socialist Germany and WWII = liberation for the Aryan psyche.

But most Aryans, even WN, don’t appear to have the strength to face the truth and remove the lies from their worldview. And if most Aryans are too cowardly to face the truth, even though it means their own extinction as a consequence of not facing the truth (indeed many Aryans seem to prefer extinction to facing the truth) then aren’t Aryans but the very goyim Jews have assessed them as?

As of note, National Vanguard have an incomplete series on their website called A New Religion for Us and in part 5 Kevin Alfred Strom said that in future parts of the series they will “consider the martyrdom of Adolf Hitler—the martyrdom of Germany, and the near-extinction event that the entire White race is now undergoing—as elements of a new faith for our people.” I’m still waiting for that next part of the series.

You’re right [the admin of this site] that Aryans need a new story, really a new religion, a new mythos to enable us to revive and survive into the further future. Jews have a foundation myth in the Torah and a holy book with their ideology in the Talmud as well as a long memory of their history. Aryans need the same things—a new foundation myth, a new holy book and a reclaimed knowledge of their history as well as knowledge of who they are, of the essence of the Aryan race.

Hitlerism should play a big role in any future Aryan religion. After we lost our old pagan blood religion and indigenous culture to Judeo-Christianity, Hitler appeared as the perfect antidote to Jesus. Hitler was the earthly incarnation of the collective psychic power of the Aryan, repressed for a millennium by Judeo-Christianity and a veneer of domestication that it imposed.

As Carl Jung said, Hitler embodied the collective unconscious of the Aryan race. Aryans need to understand who they are again, who Nature made them to be. They need to have a strong sense of their own racial identity like the Jews do. Then our racial immune system will be healthy once again, as it used to be before the HIV virus of Christianity was introduced into it.

Published in: on May 30, 2019 at 2:21 pm  Comments (20)  

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)