The two popes

I’ve just watched The Two Popes. It is a typical product of the Netflix provider, with its eternal anti-white and anti-western motivations. However, it is a good film to illustrate what we have been calling ‘the Christian question’ (the CQ).

Countless times I have said it but it is worth repeating:

The current pope is not an anti-pope as the Christian forums of white nationalism claim. On the contrary: he is the first pope who tries to take the message of Jesus in all its purity to the real world. That’s why Jorge Bergoglio, whom I understand pretty well since we share the same mother tongue, chose Francis as his papal name: something that no one who sat in Peter’s chair had dared to do before.

So anti-western and anti-white is the film that it ends with black ‘refugees’ in the Sistine Chapel, and with the words of Francis sympathising with them. It was not the only bad message of the film. But the one that best represents the CQ.

Published in: on January 12, 2020 at 12:32 am  Comments (1)  

Confused nationalists

Recently I quoted Francis Parker Yockey: ‘The Jewish-American entity is Jewish as respects its head, American as respects its body… It will not surrender, since the very existence of Jewry is at stake, and the whole United States and its population is there to secure the existence of Jewry’.

My fundamental difference with white nationalism is the diagnosis of Aryan decline. White nationalists blame Jewry. Like Yockey, who was not a white nationalist, I say that it is the Americans who empower Jewry.

If white nationalists really wanted to get rid of the Jews, they would give up Jesus. Everything else is a non-starter. In other words, seek ye first the rejection of your enemy’s god and his ‘righteousness’, and the white ethno-state shall be added unto you.

But American white nationalists are extremely confused. As an example, see what Christian RamzPaul said today.

Published in: on January 8, 2020 at 2:18 pm  Comments (23)  

The double helix

Tomislav Sunić
(a.k.a Tom Sunic)

Remember the conference in Hungary where Richard Spencer was arrested for thoughtcrime? In ‘Defying the Budapest Ban: The Rebel vs the Dissident’, on October 2014 Tom Sunic said:

Despite the ban by the Hungarian government, the NPI conference did take place in Budapest on October 5, albeit in a truncated version but with an air of rebellion and emotional intensity. A day earlier, despite the arrest of the NPI Chairman Mr. Richard Spencer, despite constant police surveillance of all NPI guests, and despite the fact that there were only two official speakers, the conference turned out to be a surprising success. The distinct possibility of a police crackdown on the venue did not prevent more than 70 people from attending the dinner and listen to the speeches delivered by Jared Taylor and myself. Two journalists, one from the BBC, the other from the German daily Die Welt, covered the event and interviewed the speakers.

Last Tuesday I quoted a Serbian. Now I would like to say something about the Croatian Sunic. Starting from this moment of his Budapest speech, Sunic blamed both the Catholic Church (he could have simply said ‘Christianity’) and capitalism for the phenomenon of mass non-white immigration into the West.

He said that cardinals and the pope himself are fond that such immigrants come because ‘they are all our brothers in the face Jesus Christ’. Sunic added that capitalism to a large extent is a secularised version of Christianity and mentioned that according to Adam Smith ‘merchants know no borders’. Capitalists are interested ‘in cheap labour’ at the expense of all ethnic loyalty.

Now you could imagine what a society based on both would become: Christianity and capitalism, the double helix of the United States. After all, the business of Christian America is business, right?

Published in: on January 3, 2020 at 12:01 am  Comments (2)  

Crazy white nationalist Christians

Whatever you want to call it, thinking you can aid in saving the white race while, at the same time, bending the knee to Jewish deities (Yahweh and Yeshua) is some kind of combination of insane, dishonest, cowardly, naive, or very stupid. To bottom line it, it won’t and can’t work.

—Mike

Published in: on December 30, 2019 at 1:15 pm  Comments (7)  

The power to *see* the past

Recently I used the three-eyed raven symbol, a fictional character in A Song of Ice and Fire, to make a point. I would like to continue clarifying it.

Last week I mentioned three American junk culture fans who didn’t understand what Yezen wanted to convey about Game of Thrones. One of the criticisms of these guys refers to the penultimate season of GoT, the seventh, claiming that it was implausible that Sansa and Arya outwitted Littlefinger.

The problem is that this season suppressed a crucial scene:

Bran Stark actor Isaac Hempstead Wright revealed in a past interview with Variety that he and his Game of Thrones co-star Sophie Turner, who plays Sansa, shot a sequence in which Sansa consults him ahead of Littlefinger’s trial. You see, Sansa was first convinced that her own sister, Arya, was out to murder her in attempts to become the Lady of Winterfell. Arya felt certain of the same—and it was all thanks to the master manipulator Littlefinger. Viewers were sweating buckets watching the season 7 finale, believing that one of the Stark girls would turn on the other and commit fratricide within the halls of their House’s ancestral seat. Sansa and Arya flipping the script and sentencing Littlefinger to death was a massive twist—and seemed to leave a wide plot hole that went completely unpatched. The deleted scene Hempstead Wright discussed with Variety would have stitched up the gap and detailed exactly how the Stark sisters knew what Littlefinger was up to and how they arrived at their plan to execute the former Master of Coin.

In the scene, Sansa consults Bran about what to do regarding the whole “I think our sister is going to kill me” dilemma. Using his newfound abilities as the Three-Eyed Raven, Bran peers into Littlefinger’s past and unearths every underhanded thing he’s done to secure power.

As Hempstead Wright describes it, “We actually did a scene that clearly got cut, a short scene with Sansa where she knocks on Bran’s door and says, ‘I need your help,’ or something along those lines. So basically, as far as I know, the story was that it suddenly occurred to Sansa that she had a huge CCTV department at her discretion and it might be a good idea to check with him first before she guts her own sister. So she goes to Bran, and Bran tells her everything she needs to know, and she’s like, ‘Oh, s***.’”

Though audiences can fill in the blanks without this scene, it makes Bran’s powers all the more real, and, frankly, terrifying. Nothing can be kept from him, and as a result, nothing can be kept from his family. There is no secret Bran cannot uncover—and the biggest skeleton he drew out of the proverbial closet was the truth behind Jon Snow’s birth. Bran knew of his brother-cousin Jon’s true parentage and real identity as Aegon Targaryen, the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark, and his rightful claim to the Iron Throne over the wannabe queen Daenerys Targaryen before others did. His knowledge spread to Samwell Tarly, then to Jon himself, and (spoiler alert) quickly made its way to Sansa and Arya themselves.

When I saw the scene of Season 7 when Littlefinger was executed after a summary trial, I filled the blank assuming they had consulted Bran. But apparently others did not fill it with their imagination, such as the aforementioned fans arguing with Yezen. But the point is that this fantastic story serves to explain the power of ‘seeing’ the past, the power of The West’s Darkest Hour (WDH).

The history of the West, as I have been saying, is as if the Night King had killed the three-eyed crows. (This is a title rather than a special person. Originally, the one who held the title was the old mummified guy among a tree’s roots, whose image appears in the sticky post. When he died his young pupil, Bran, inherited the title of the three-eyed raven—or ‘crow’ in George R.R. Martin’s novels.)

Unlike GoT, the real history of the West is tragic. It is as if Sansa, without consulting her brother Bran, would have gutted Arya by believing the apocryphal story of Littlefinger. This is so as, for more than a millennium, all westerners have believed the stories of martyrs, and that the Christianisation of southern Europe was peaceful. As we have seen on this site, it was actually a story as violent as the bloodthirsty conquest of India by Islam. Conversely, the Christian martyr stories are largely fictional. (In addition to Evropa Soberana’s essay of Judea against Rome in The Fair Race, see what Deschner says about the stories of martyrs in this book.) In other words, what the Aryans have believed about Christian history is an exact inversion of the facts, and the objective of inverting history in this way is for the Aryans to invert their values from these lies, as it tragically happened.

The metaphor makes sense. In this parallel GoT story, Arya (the Aryans) was killed by Sansa (her white sister) for believing the apocryphal story of Littlefinger (curiously, Littlefinger seemed like a Jew for a commenter on this site). The business of WDH is to set the record straight with respect to what happened in the 1st to 6th centuries of our era, when Christianity was imposed in southern Europe not through Jesus-like methods but through extremely violent and even genocidal methods. (Since I also mention the 1st century, I not only refer to the texts of Evropa Soberana or Deschner but also to what Richard Carrier wrote about the inexistence of Jesus.)

The problem is that not even the so-called anti-Semites of white nationalism believe Bran. They still believe Littlefinger so to speak. Who among them is interested in knowing what happened in the 1st to 6th centuries (this is one of the reasons I call them ‘Jew obeyers’)?

By the way, although on one occasion I identified myself with the three-eyed raven, since it is only a title, the identification is not absolute. On this continent, before me the crow was William Pierce, who died at 68, for having seen the past in Who We Are. And after I die (I am already in my seventh decade in this world, almost mummified among the branches of the heart tree) the ideal is that the ‘title’ will pass to a much younger pupil, a Bran so to speak.

I wouldn’t like to finish this symbolic post without the scene in which, thanks to Bran’s retrocognitive vision, his Stark House executes Littlefinger, the master of palatial intrigues and lies. In the real world, the equivalent would be for Westerners to take very seriously what Evropa Soberana (the ‘crow’ on the other side of the Atlantic) has written. The power to see the past as it happened has the potential to change the ethno-suicidal paradigm, and the first thing to do is to ‘execute’ the false story about early Christianity:

Published in: on December 17, 2019 at 2:02 pm  Comments (11)  

An entire continent worships the enemy god

Or:

The secrets of evolution are death and time

White nationalists hold a very poor diagnosis of Aryan decline. They are able to analyse the Jewish problem at incredible levels and, at the same time, be completely incapable of the most elemental insight, of the most elemental seeing themselves in the mirror: as it was whites themselves who have empowered them.

As we know, the tragedy began when a Roman emperor decreed that it was only legal to worship the god of the Jews, either in the churches or in the synagogues. The cult of the Aryan gods was declared illegal. Thus began the Dark Ages from which we have not yet left.

So badly done is the diagnosis of the whys of white decline—and this includes the supposedly secular webzines of Kevin MacDonald and Greg Johnson—, that these guys seem to see nothing wrong with the fact that an entire continent has been conquered for the god of the Jews!

Not seeing this means stubborn blindness at such level that I would dare to say, without fear of exaggeration, that the movement of white nationalism is quackery.

Here down the south of the Río Grande, where I live, this extension of the West was not founded from the Reformation, but from the Counter-Reformation. Miscegenation began even before the Conquest, as I accuse in one of my books that I hope to translate into English. For the fourteen words, the Christian version of the Counter-Reformation was even more catastrophic than that of the northern neighbours, as the pollution of the Iberian white gene began since the 16th century.

But the northern neighbours, with their stubborn and continuous worship of the god of our enemies, were destined to become New Zion.

My prediction is that white Americans won’t make a good diagnosis of their decline until several years, if not decades, after the forthcoming collapse of the dollar. It is impossible for them to dare to see the truth of their nation unless they cross the long process of historical suffering that atones for sins.

But that does not mean that those who today publish articles on the webzines of MacDonald, Johnson or Jared Taylor will see the light. Paraphrasing Thomas Kuhn, this generation of sinners is required to die —time + death = evolution!— so that new generations of American whites are brave enough to see that their nation started badly from its very origins. Or was it not George Washington himself who, having the Jews in mind, said that the United States ‘gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance’?

Published in: on December 16, 2019 at 1:38 pm  Comments (16)  

‘Pro’ white charlatans

Although I no longer read literature from webzines that grotesquely claim to defend the white race, I have a morning routine. I visit Goebbels Hub and see the headlines of three sites: American Renaissance, Counter-Currents, Occidental Dissent and sometimes The Occidental Observer. I generally don’t read the articles. I only do it to know if I am not missing out on important news.

In the last two sites, the most recent articles (here* and here) of very Christian authors display their Judeo-Christianity in a way that seems extremely offensive to me. Just compare what I say in the bulleted points in ‘Forgive Game of Thrones’ with what these guys write.

Obviously, none of the admins of those sites will answer the information that I have been collecting on this site about the religion of our parents. Their doublethink of being Jew-wise and at the same time promoting a religion created by Jews for white consumption will be taken into account when, in the future, a coloured historian tries to explain the extinction of whites.

Let’s not fool ourselves. These racialist Americans are not going to be cured of their sin, so well portrayed by a Jew and an Aryan on pages 163-174 of The Fair Race.

__________

(*) The admin deleted his piece, ‘Protestants: The Faith that Made the Modern World’ while I was working on this entry. Maybe it’s because, as he himself wrote, ‘This is a work in progress’ which means that he will probably republish an updater version later.

Published in: on December 11, 2019 at 1:51 pm  Comments (4)  

Christianity and the West

by Robert Griffin

Editor’s note: Below, part of ‘William Gayley Simpson on Christianity and the West’ by Robert S. Griffin, an article published last year on The Occidental Observer.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
We are a physical organism, a part of nature, at a particular point in the evolutionary process, argues Simpson. Church dogma and practice obscure those realities, and that does us a disservice. Christianity does not concern itself enough with strength, vitality, distinctions based on blood and breeding, and aristocratic excellence, which support the qualitative advancement of the race.

Claims Simpson, Christianity has had a weakening, emasculating effect on Western civilization, as it has enslaved us to ideals and ways that vitiate our vigor as a people. Christianity is characterized by “soft” values: unselfishness, charitableness, forgiveness, patience, humility, and pity. The church has focused too much, Simpson holds, on “the poor, the sick, the defeated, the lowly, and sinners and outcasts” and not enough on “the well-constituted, and healthy, and beautiful, and capable, and strong, and proud.”

Simpson believes that people will become what they most value and what they most attend to, and Christianity points us in precisely the wrong direction. Christianity places too great an emphasis on one’s subordination to an external deity and the transference of responsibility and power to this higher authority. Simpson points out that prior to the dominance of Christianity, Europeans stretching back for three thousand years of their history believed most in the individuals who were noble and excellent. They expected people to stand on their own two feet and make something of themselves and looked to leadership from those who proved themselves to be truly superior.

Christianity’s sentimentality and otherworldliness has undercut man’s belief in his innermost self. It has taken away his struggle, without which there is no growth, no fulfillment. It has not encouraged man to get his roots deep down in the soil, to food and drink, and to force his tender shoots up to the sky, to sun and air. To the contrary, it has told man that all this costly and painful labor has been done for him by another, and to accept this fact and rest in it, and eventually he will be transplanted to another garden (heaven) and be miraculously transformed into a full-grown and perfect flower. There simply isn’t any other garden, says Simpson, and to live as if there is will result in this garden on earth, our garden, the only one there is, remaining—or becoming—barren.

Simpson looks upon Christianity as a Semitic religion and foreign to the European spirit. […] He envisions a bible that holds up our own ideals and traditions, that is the record of our supreme achievements and triumphs, that tells the story of our saints and heroes, and that contains the admonitions of our great wise men and guides and the vision of our own hopes and dreams and purposes pushed deep into a distant future.

Why, Simpson asks, cannot Aristotle be our Moses, Homer or some of the Icelandic sagas our Exodus and Judges? Why cannot […] Goethe take the place of Job? Why cannot Blake supplant the Revelation of St. John and Shakespeare replace Ecclesiastes? Why cannot the Psalms be superseded by the record of some ones of us, in the past or now or yet to come, whose lives and teachings are most inspiring to our collective soul?
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Most articles published on The Occidental Observer are more sympathetic to Christianity, as can be seen in the site’s articles dealing with Christianity. In the comments section of TOO’s Wednesday article, ‘Jews, White Guilt, and the Death of the Church of England’ by Andrew Joyce, a Vespasian said (I’ll take the liberty to correct the spelling of the commenter):

“Jewish aggression against Christianity is, of course, nothing new” [a phrase in Joyce’s piece].

I would not only dispute your assertion but argue to the contrary, as Christianity has atomized its populations to the point of powerlessness in the face of Jewish collectivism.

I didn’t get a chance to comment on Dr. MacDonald’s last article, but the individualism inherent in Christianity has had the effect of individualizing populations (the personal savior concept is a psychological divide and conquer strategy), created a false worldview (militarism is the correct worldview), and misdirecting focus into the absurd idea of an afterworld (Jews don’t believe in an afterlife).

The fact of the matter is Christianity is, and has been the reason for Jewish domination over our societies for centuries and if Christianity didn’t exist, the Jews would invent it because it has been such a disorientating, confusing, disarraying and atomizing effect on western man.

You’re too wrapped up in it to see it. It’s not whether something is true or not, only the effect it has on behavior, and that behavior has been extremely destructive.

An idiot responded to Vespasian with wishful thinking: ‘…a new Counter-Reformation which would include a Tridentine revolution against contemporary Rome. I would call that progress’. In that same thread, another idiot commented: ‘A true Christian understands that Christianity was never a Jewish religion, that Jesus was not a Jew, and that the Israelites were not Jews’.

Sometimes I wonder how long it will take American racialists to shake off the monkey of Christianity from their backs…

On ignoring the other side

In his article today Hunter Wallace said: ‘It was only in the years between 1935 and 1945 that American racial attitudes were transformed and that “racism” went viral and became stigmatized’.

I have no stomach to look now for the links in which, with strawmen, Wallace answered my question of how an anti-Semite white advocate is capable of worshiping the god of the Jews. (He responded by claiming that my question was ‘What is your perspective on Luther?’, something I never asked.) Since I am not an American, I would not mind that the Christian who in the US advocates the interests of his race ignores the content of this site. But the fact is that they also ignore other Americans who have taken Christianity to the dock with more incisive arguments than those of Connor Grubaugh, whom Wallace quotes.

Yes: anti-racism went viral when Wallace’s nation fought Germany. But Wallace does not seem to realise that the American Robert Morgan has been demonstrating in Unz Review that American anti-racism has much older roots (see for example the following posts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and also my collection of fifty-five quotes of ‘Jack Frost’: 10). All those posts in a nutshell: Anti-racism clearly dates back to the times of the American Civil War if not before: something that Wallace should know as he calls himself a southern nationalist.

Beyond Morgan’s controversy with the racialist Christians with whom Morgan discusses in Unz Review, the southern nationalist who overcomes the prejudice that the admin of this site is not American should weigh upon what I recently said in red letters in ‘The uniqueness of this site’. If this hypothetical American visitor wants to delve deeper into the subject, I suggest you read Part I of the PDF that is linked in the sticky post, as well as Ferdinand Bardamu’s criticism of Kevin MacDonald in that same PDF.

All of this is related to Christianity. But neither Wallace nor other Christians have tried to respond to this information. Why?

Published in: on November 28, 2019 at 2:24 pm  Comments (5)  

Führer quote

The priests of antiquity were closer to nature, and they sought modestly for the meaning of things. Instead of that, Christianity promulgates its inconsistent dogmas and imposes them by force. Such a religion carries within it intolerance and persecution. It’s the bloodiest conceivable.

Hitler’s Table Talk, pages 322-323

Published in: on November 27, 2019 at 8:16 am  Comments Off on Führer quote