Great personalities defend eugenics, 3

by Evropa Soberana

 
Christian domination

In the Middle Ages, through persecution resulting in actual death, life imprisonment and banishment, the free thinking, progressive and intellectual elements were persistently eliminated over large areas, leaving the perpetuation of the race to be carried on by the brutal, the servile and the stupid. It is now impossible to say to what extent the Roman Church by these methods has impaired the brain capacity of Europe. (Madison Grant, The Passing of the Great Race).

The coming of Christianity plunged classical philosophy into centuries of near-oblivion and clashed with the established and ancient European belief in the inequality of men. Spreading first among the slaves and lowest classes of the Roman empire, Christianity came to teach that all men were equal in the eyes of a universal Creator God, an idea that was totally alien to older European thought which had recognized a hierarchy of competence among men and even among the gods.

Opposing the traditions of classical philosophy and scientific enquiry, Christianity introduced the concept of a single, omnipotent “God of History” who controlled all the phenomena of the universe with men and women being creations of that God. Since all men and women were the ‘children of God’, all were equal before their Divine Maker! Faith in the church’s interpretation of supposedly prophetic revelations became more important than scientific or philosophical enquiry; and to question the church’s view of reality came to be perceived as sinful. (Eugenicist Roger Pearson, ‘The Concept of Heredity in the History of Western Culture’, Part I).

Primitive Christianity represented an atrocious trauma for the West and the European collective unconscious. It swept away the teachings of the classics and only very slowly could Europe recover, step by step, re-conquering and gathering the scattered pieces of wisdom that had been hers and that suffered destruction at the hands of fanatic parasites, poisoned by the desert dogma virus.

The Church had a foreign and anti-European concept of God, taken directly from the Bible. When the early Judeo-Christians taught that God had incarnated in a Jew who died at the hands of the strong (the Romans) for the ‘salvation’ of the weak and sinful—the slaves, the sick, the criminals, the prostitutes, the excrement of the Roman streets and throughout the Empire—, they were laying the groundwork for an atrocious trauma from which European man has never recovered.

In fact, under more modern forms (‘solidarity’, ‘humanitarianism’, ‘equality’, cowardice, sedentary lifestyle, herd mentality, servility, pacifism, conformism) almost all modern Westerners drag variations of such Christian ballast. In the above image, the crucified Christ by Velázquez, the talent of a great Spanish painter was wasted with a strange anorexic, passive and masochistic Jewish idol, instead of some triumphant pagan god.

European populations, especially Celts, Germans, Balts and Slavs—who had always been instinctively governed by eugenic principles—were suddenly engulfed in a misunderstood humanism, which had fermented in the crowded and dirty cities of the Eastern Mediterranean. Christianity frustrated any eugenic, biological and pro-natural possibility for centuries and centuries, so we should not be surprised at the shortage of eugenic testimonies in that era.

In Christendom heretical groups such as the Cathars, the Templars, the alchemists, the old Masons, the Rosicrucians, certain religious orders (orders that accumulated knowledge, such as the Franciscans, Benedictines, Cistercians) and, of course, the Renaissance, could have meant a great change for Europe and a flip-flop for the Church had it not been thwarted by Protestantism, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation and the Thirty Years War (1618-1638).

This war meant the end of the paganising alternative, the fall of the Holy Empire and the death of a third of the total German population, inaugurating a repulsive period of plagues, famines, religious hysteria, internal wars and witch hunts that devastated the Germanic European layers of better biological quality (Huguenots, Quakers) until Christian authority started to lose strength and credibility in favour of even more dangerous dogmas: the ‘Enlightened’ dogmas.

Therefore, if there is anything salvageable from the Middle Ages it is, undoubtedly, the ‘other’ Middle Ages of castles, knights, troubadours, crusaders and princesses. Three institutions deserve mention: the cavalry, the nobility and the Holy Empire.

When the descriptions of the great characters of the time are read or someone examines the skeleton of a prominent king, there is nothing but awe: Emperor Charlemagne (742-814) measured more than two metres; Roland, his paladin, was also described as a giant; the Norwegian king Harald Hardrada (1015-1066) measured seven feet, that is, approximately 2.10 metres; the redhead Sancho VII the Strong (1194-1234), king of Navarra, measured even more; Jaime I the Conqueror (1208-1276), king of Aragon, was described as a giant, and the same goes for the first Crusade kings of Jerusalem.

All these men were, in addition to heroes of their time, giants of genetics belonging to a practically extinct lineage—but likely to be resurrected by an appropriate selective bio-politics. As the Spanish author Enrique Aynat wrote, ‘The Nobility, like it or not, has natural causes. It was born from the primitive inequality of talents and characters. It has remained a sought and conscious selection, set by an institution. The Indo-European had naturally accepted ,without coercion, the superiority of the Nobility knowing that it had left families that, both physically and morally, represented the summum of the selection’ (Eugenesia, Editor’s translation).

Roger Bacon (1214-1294) and Francis Bacon (1561-1626).

Roger Bacon was an English Franciscan friar greatly ahead of his time. A compulsive scholar, in his work he wrote treatises on grammar, physics, optics, mathematics and philosophy. He was even interested in the manufacture of gunpowder and the situation and size of celestial bodies.

Long before Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo and the Renaissance, Roger Bacon foresaw the invention of flying devices and steamboats, and in his detailed optical studies he anticipated the possibility of designing artefacts such as microscopes, telescopes and glasses. Along with his revolutionary alchemical experiences, all this was considered suspicious of heresy in his time and he became imprisoned. Roger Bacon died forgotten and fell out of favour.

Three centuries later, natural philosophers like Bruno and Francis Bacon rehabilitated Bacon’s reputation and portrayed him as a scientific pioneer.

Although it seems innocuous, the phrase by Francis Bacon I quote below is inconceivably heretical. It suggests that man is subordinate to Nature and the same principles can be applied to animals.

Naturam non vinces nisi parendo (‘You will not master nature unless you obey it’).
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Note of the Editor: I have redacted the above passages because in the original text there is confusion between Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon. Even today, with their anti-Nordicism and Christian ethics, white nationalists are not obeying Nature. (As to his Christian ethics, see what I said about Greg Johnson this Monday.)
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Sir Thomas More (1478-1535) was a lawyer, statesman, a friend of Erasmus and an English writer known for his Utopia where he disguised his ideas of state leadership under the science-fiction genre.

In Utopia there is a eugenic policy very similar to the Spartan, where the couple should, first of all, look naked to find out what kind of person they married in terms of genetic qualities. Thomas More criticised such an idea to escape the possible religious repression, but what he does is expose it to the public eyes. He would be beheaded for refusing to recognise King Henry VIII as head of the Church in England. For that reason alone the Catholic Church canonised him.

In choosing their wives they use a method that would appear to us very absurd and ridiculous, but it is constantly observed among them, and is accounted perfectly consistent with wisdom. Before marriage some grave matron presents the bride, naked, whether she is a virgin or a widow, to the bridegroom, and after that some grave man presents the bridegroom, naked, to the bride.

We, indeed, both laughed at this, and condemned it as very indecent. But they, on the other hand, wondered at the folly of the men of all other nations, who, if they are but to buy a horse of a small value, are so cautious that they will see every part of him, and take off both his saddle and all his other tackle, that there may be no secret ulcer hid under any of them, and that yet in the choice of a wife, on which depends the happiness or unhappiness of the rest of his life, a man should venture upon trust, and only see about a handsbreadth of the face, all the rest of the body being covered, under which may lie hid what may be contagious as well as loathsome. (Utopia, published in 1516).

William Penn (1644-1718). A member of the Puritan religious society of the Quakers, he emigrated to America for religious persecution in Britain and founded the province, now a state, of Pennsylvania. Many of the political principles he adopted there laid the foundations for the subsequent American Constitution. Penn represented the old Puritan English race, considered as foundational for the United States. He was held in high regard by the later American eugenicists that we will see later.

Men are generally more careful of the breed of their horses and dogs, than of their children (Reflections and Maxims, 1693).

Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), an English economist and demographer, was the first to point out that the world’s population grew faster than resources grew; that overpopulation was a danger, that natural resources were limited and that man was bound to hunger, conflict and epidemics if he did not behave responsibly as to his reproduction, hence the expression ‘Malthusian catastrophe’.

It does not, however, by any means seem impossible that by an attention to breed, a certain degree of improvement, similar to that among animals, might take place among men. Whether intellect could be communicated may be a matter of doubt: but size, strength, beauty, complexion, and perhaps even longevity are in a degree transmissible…

As the human race, however, could not be improved in this way, without condemning all the bad specimens to celibacy, it is not probable that an attention to breed should ever become general; indeed, I know of no well-directed attempts of this kind, except in the ancient family of the Bickerstaffs, who are said to have been very successful in whitening the skins and increasing the height of their race by prudent marriages, particularly by that very judicious cross with Maud, the milk-maid, by which some capital defects in the constitutions of the family were corrected. (‘An Essay on the Principle of Population’, 1798).

Frederick the Great (1712-1786), King of Prussia, an example of strategic-tactical genius, top-notch politician and one of the most brilliant military commanders of all time, colonised the East with German peasants and pushed Prussia into the category of a European superpower. At his death he had laid the foundations of what in the 19th century would become the Second Reich.

It is unpleasant to see the work that is taken under our harsh climate to grow pineapples, bananas and other exotic fruits, while dealing little with human prosperity. At any event, man is more important than all bananas together. He is the plant to cultivate, which deserves all our attention because he represents the pride and glory of our country.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), politician, inventor, scientist and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. His ideas about freedom, finance, banking and independence opposed him to the great powers of his time. In a letter to a doctor, Franklin observed:

Half the lives you save are not worth saving, as being useless, and almost all the other half ought not to be saved, as being mischievous. Does your conscience never hint to you the impiety of being in constant warfare against the plans of Providence?

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), a German philosopher who was influenced by Plato, Hinduism, Buddhism, Goethe and who in turn influenced Wagner, Nietzsche and Hitler himself. Schopenhauer attached great importance to the will as a universal force, restored dignity to Nature, spoke about the importance of the species, denied the validity of Christianity and made important criticisms of the faulty tenets of Western civilisation; criticisms that led him to defend eugenic policies.

If we now connect the conviction we have gained here of the inheritance of the character from the father and the intellect from the mother with our earlier investigation… we shall be led to the view that a real and thorough improvement of the human race might be attained to not so much from without as from within, thus not so much by instruction and culture as rather upon the path of generation.

Plato had already something of the kind in his mind when in the fifth book of his Republic he set forth his wonderful plan for increasing and improving his class of warriors. If we could castrate all scoundrels, and shut up all stupid geese in monasteries, and give persons of noble character a whole harem, and provide men, and indeed complete men, for all maidens of mind and understanding, a generation would soon arise which would produce a better age than that of Pericles. (The World as Will and Representation, Vol. II).

The English imperial aristocracy. The British ruling class that took England to very high levels of glory during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries is considered of Germanic heritage, owing its blood mainly to Anglo-Saxons and Normans. Its system of upbringing and selection, as its militaristic orientation, was admired even by Nazis such as Günther, Darré, Hitler, Rosenberg and Savitri Devi who saw in the Anglo-Saxon countryside the repetition of Germanic ideas that continued alive in North America and Australia. Their mentality is summed up in the maxim ‘To breed, to bleed, to lead’.

As examples of the nation that gave birth to eugenics, we see here two members of the British ruling class, so reminiscent of the Roman patricians. Left, Charles George Gordon (1833-1885), famous for victorious campaigns in China and Egypt, and for being killed as governor of Sudan during the Mahdi rebellion. Right, Reginald Dyer (1864-1927), a veteran of endless campaigns in India, Pakistan, Burma and Afghanistan. In his time he was criticised by some (‘bloodthirsty madman who murdered hundreds of innocents’) and praised by others (‘he avoided the killing of whites throughout India’).

Great personalities defend eugenics, 2

by Evropa Soberana

Antiquity

With the de-barbarization that ensued after the emergence of a sedentary lifestyle, the people soon realised that a society uprooted from Nature immediately degenerates. In short, humanity woke up to the dangers of civilisation.

To compensate for it, the leaders of these societies set up processes aimed at counteracting the pernicious effects of the greatest cancer that humanity has suffered: dysgenics, that is, the degeneration of the race that results from the absence of natural selection.

Here we will see that, in many civilised societies of antiquity, the laws of Nature were automatically followed. Its leaders intervened consciously and voluntarily to stop human reproduction and allow reproduction only to the best, so that the species did not degenerate. As Madison Grant wrote, where the environment is too soft and luxurious and it is not necessary to fight to survive, not only weak individuals are allowed to live. Strong types also gain weight mentally and physically!

The most illustrative examples of this era are Hindus, Greeks (among these the Spartans) and Romans. The Hellenic ideal of the kalokagathia, that is to say, an association of goodness-beauty—achieved by maintaining the purity of blood within the framework of a process of selection of the best—laid the foundations to everything that in the West has been considered ‘classical’ and ‘beautiful’ since then until recently.

In another long essay we have seen that the art that has come to us from European antiquity is perhaps only two percent of what existed and, to top it off, probably the least interesting and sublime: primitive Christians destroyed almost every legacy Greco-Roman civilisation. No one can know how many philosophers and authors suffered total destruction of their works, without anyone knowing again who they were or what they thought; and many other classic writings were censored, adulterated, corrected or mutilated.

However, we have at least some spoils of the pre-Christian era. Although ninety-eight percent of classical art was destroyed by the early Christians, what survived speaks for itself as a tribute to the selection, balance, health and excellence of all human qualities.

The Hindus. The Indo-European (i.e., Nordic) invaders arrived in India around 1400 BCE and immediately placed measures to favour high birth rates of the best elements of the population, identified with the Aryan invaders, and the decline of the worst, identified with the Negroid-Dravidic stratum.

The entire caste system was a great eugenics process in which the chandala (a term also used by Nietzsche to define the morals of Jews and Christians), the outcast, the untouchable, the sinful caste, the one considered inferior, was subjected to a horrendous lifestyle: using only the clothes of the dead bodies, drink only water from stagnant areas or animal tracks, not allow their women to be attended during childbirth, prohibition of washing, work as executioners, burials and latrine cleaners, and an unpleasant etcetera. Such impositions favoured that diseases were endemic among them; they fell like flies so that their numbers never constituted a danger for the best.

We are therefore faced with an example of negative eugenics: limiting the procreation of the worst. These measures are included in the Laws of Manu, the legendary Indo-Aryan legislator who laid the foundations for caste hierarchy. According to scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky, a renowned Ukrainian geneticist, ‘The caste system of India has been the greatest genetic experiment ever conducted by man’ (Genetic Diversity and Human Equality).

A woman always gives the world a child endowed with the same qualities as the one who has fathered him… A man of abject birth takes the natural evil of his father or his mother, or both at the same time, and can never hide its origin (Law of Manu, Book X).

Lycurgus (8th century BCE), a regent of Sparta, travelled through Spain, Egypt and India accumulating wisdom and, later, carrying out a revolution in Sparta after which the polis would militarize and establish a social system based on eugenics. The measures of this program highlight the infanticides of deformed, ugly or stupid newborns. Broadly speaking, Lycurgus’s policy was based on training perfect human beings that gave birth to perfect human beings, and there was no place for genetic engenders in that plan. On the other hand, the crypteia, carried out by the Spartan authorities on the helots (the submissive plebs) can perfectly be considered a very brutal and primitive example of negative eugenics.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Having helots as slaves was a fatal flaw for Spartan civilisation. The laws of Lycurgus did not foresee that eugenic customs would fatally relax after a catastrophic war (as would happen after the Peloponnesian War). A real solution would have been, as William Pierce saw in his study on Greece, to exterminate the non-Nordic Mediterraneans of Sparta and extend such policy to all Greece, and eventually to all Europe.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
As for the Spartan policies of positive eugenics—favouring the multiplication of the best—we see popular rituals such as the coronation of a male champion and a female champion in a sports competition, or a king and queen in a beauty pageant, or tax exemption to the citizens who left four children. The best were expected to marry the best. Single people over twenty-five years old were extremely frowned upon and punished with fines and humiliating acts.

If the parents are strong, the children will be strong (Fr. 7).

Heraclitus (535-484 BCE), a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher known for his aphorisms in the style of the Oracle of Delphi. He established that wisdom was much more than a mere accumulation of knowledge and intelligence, also valuing intuition, instinct and will. He said: ‘I ask all mortals to father well-born children of noble parents’.

Leonidas (dies in 480 BCE), King of Sparta and supreme commander of the Greek troops in the Battle of Thermopylae. He fought in numerical inferiority against the Persians until the end, giving time for the evacuation of Greek cities, granting margin for an Athenian victory in the battle of Salamis and laying the foundations of the definitive Persian defeat in Plataea. Leonidas and his Spartans are an example of heroism, dedication to their people, a spirit of sacrifice, training and honour for all Western armies of all time.

Marry the capable and give birth to the capable! (exhortation to the Spartan people before leaving for the Thermopylae according to Plutarch, On the Malice of Herodotus, 32).

Theognis of Megara (6th century BCE) was one of the great Greek poets. He has bequeathed us in his Theognidea a series of interesting reflections and advice to his disciple Cyrnus. Among other things, Theognis divides the population into ‘good’—the nobility, identified with the Hellenic invaders—and ‘bad’—the native plebeian population of Greece, which progressively accumulated money and rights:

In rams and asses and horses, Cyrnus, we seek
the thoroughbred, and a man is concerned therein
to get him offspring of good stock;

Yet in marriage a good man thinketh not twice of wedding
the bad daughter of a bad sire if the father give him many possessions;

Nor doth a woman disdain the bed of a bad man if he be wealthy,
but is fain rather to be rich than to be good.

For ’tis possessions they prize;
and a good man weddeth of bad stock and a bad man of good;
race is confounded of riches.

In like manner, son of Polypaus,
marvel thou not that the race of thy townsmen is made obscure;
’tis because bad things are mingled with good.

Even he that knoweth her to be such, weddeth a low-born woman for pelf,
albeit he be of good repute and she of ill;
for he is urged by strong Necessity, who giveth a man hardihood.

 

Critias (460-403 BCE), Athenian philosopher, speaker, teacher, poet and uncle of Plato. He is known for being part of the Spartan occupation government known as the thirty tyrants. We will appreciate the importance that this man attached not only to inheritance, but to sports training without which a human being will never be complete.

I begin with the birth of a man, demonstrating how he can be the best and strongest in the body if his father trains and endures hardness, and if his future mother is strong and also trains.

Plato (428-347 BCE), probably the most famous philosopher of all time, was inspired by Sparta to propose the measures of Greek regeneration in his work The Republic, plagued with values of both positive eugenics—promoting the best—as negative eugenics—limit the worst—, especially with regard to the caste of the ‘guardians’. Plato, like most Greek philosophers, was in favour of exposing defective children to the weather so that they died.

It is necessary, according to our principles, that the relationships of the most outstanding individuals of one sex or the other are very frequent, and those of the lower individuals very rare. In addition, it is necessary to raise the children of the first and not of the second, if you want the flock to not degenerate (The Republic).

Based on what was agreed, it is necessary for the best men to join the best women as often as possible, and on the contrary, the worst with the worst; and the offspring of the best and not the worst should be raised, so our flock will become excellent (Statesman, 459).

That even better children are born from elite men, and from useful men to the country, even more useful children (Statesman, 461).

Xenophon (430-354), soldier, accomplished horseman during the Peloponnesian war, mercenary in the heart of Persia during the expedition of the ten thousand, philosopher, pro-Spartan and historian. Notorious anti-democrat who abhorred the Athenian government, he longed for fairer forms of government such as those he met in Persia and Sparta, where he sent his children to be educated. Together with Plutarch, Xenophon is the greatest source of information about Sparta, admiring the eugenic practices established by Lycurgus.

[Lycurgus] considered that the production of children was the noblest duty of free citizens (Constitution of the Lacedaemonians).

An old man had to introduce his wife to a young man in the prime of life whom he admired for his qualities, to have children with him (Constitution of the Lacedaemonians).

Isocrates (436-338 BCE), politician, philosopher and Greek teacher, was one of the famous ten Attic speakers and probably the most influential rhetorician of his time. He founded a public speaking school that became famous for its effectiveness and criticised the politics of many Greek cities, which instead of stimulating their birth rate inflated their numbers through the mass immigration of slaves, which he considered inferior to the Hellenic population. In this quotation it is verified to what extent Isocrates valued quality versus quantity:

It should not be said as happy that city which, from all extremes, randomly accumulates many citizens; but the one that best preserves the race of the settled since the beginning.

Euripides (480-406 BCE), playwright, a friend of Socrates and undoubtedly one of the greatest poets of all antiquity; his stain was an excessive machismo that led him to criticise the greater freedom enjoyed by women in Sparta. Disappointed and disgusted by the policies of a decadent Greece he retired to Macedonia, a place where Hellenic traditions were still pure, where he finally died.

There is no more precious treasure for children than to be born of a noble and virtuous father and to marry among noble families. Curse to the reckless who, defeated by passion, joins the unworthy and leaves his children to dishonour in return for guilty pleasures (Heracleidae).

Aristotle (384-322 BCE), the famous philosopher who educated Alexander the Great and laid the western foundations of Hellenism, logic and sciences such as biology, taxonomy and zoology. Aristotle extends extensively in his work Politeia on the problems posed by eugenics, birth control, childhood feeding and education (books VII and VIII). He generally admired the ancient Spartan system, with some reservations—in my opinion unfounded as Sparta was not decadent—because the ephorate was tyrannical.

(Left, a Patrician bust.) The Patricians were the Roman leaders in the early days, when Rome was a Republic. These men were the patriarchs or clan chiefs of each of the thirty noble families descended from Italic invaders, and they ran all Roman institutions including the legions, the courts and the Senate. Sober, pure, ascetic and hard, their people held them in high regard as repositories of the highest wisdom and Roman posterity honoured them as gods.

Their descendants formed the Patricians, the later Roman aristocracy, which gradually decayed throughout the Empire until almost completely dissolving, turning Rome into a disgusting decadent monster that deserved to be razed. After the Punic wars and Julius Caesar, Rome largely lost its Indo-European spirit.

In the IV of the XII tablets of the law, it was established that deformed children must be killed at birth. It was also left to the patriarchs of the patrician clans to decide which were the unfit children. They were usually drowned in the waters of the Tiber River, and other times abandoned, exposing them to wild animals and elements in a process called exposure. Apparently, the Romans did not fare so badly with this purifying tactic as we see in their conquering history.

Distorium vultum sequitur distortio morum, ‘A crooked face follows a crooked moral’—Roman proverb.

Meleager of Gadara (1st century BCE), Greek epigram compiler within the Hellenistic stage, who wrote: ‘If one mixes good with bad, a good progeny would not be born, but if both parents are good, they will beget noble children’ (Fr. 9).

Horace (65 BCE-8 CE) said: ‘The virtue of parents is a great dowry’ and ‘’The good and the brave descend from the good and the brave’ (Odes, IV, 4, 29).

Seneca (4 BCE-65 CE), Roman philosopher of the Stoic school (the same school that Marcus Aurelius and Julian the Apostate belonged), of Hispanic-Celtic origin and teacher of Emperor Nero.

We exterminate hydrophobic dogs; we kill the indomitable bulls; we slaughter sick sheep for fear that they infest the flock; we suffocate the monstrous foetuses and even drown the children if they are weak and deformed. It is not passion, but reason, to separate healthy parts from those that can corrupt them (Of Anger, XV).

Plutarch (45-120 CE). Philosopher, mathematician, historian, speaker and priest of Apollo at the Oracle of Delphi. It is also one of the important sources of information about Sparta in his books Ancient Customs of the Lacedaemonians and Life of Lycurgus.

Leaving a being who is not healthy and strong from the beginning is not beneficial for the State or for the individual himself (Ancient Customs of the Lacedaemonians).

When a baby was born he was taken to a council of elders to be examined. If the baby was defective in some way the elders threw him down a ravine. Such a baby, in the opinion of the Spartans, should not be allowed to live (Life of Lycurgus).

Great personalities defend eugenics, 1

by Evropa Soberana

‘The worst form of inequality
is to try to make unequal things equal’.

—Aristotle

‘Equality is a slogan based on envy’.

—Alexis de Tocqueville

Editor’s note: In the preface below the author says: ‘…before the Earth and Nature react violently to the uncontrolled proliferation of a lower, sick and bloated human kind, which has become a malignant tumour for the planet’.

These words are key to understanding what I have been calling ‘the extermination of the Neanderthals’, and I hope that the abridged translation of this long essay, published six years ago in Spanish and that I will be translating this month, sheds light on the subject.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

What we have here, which extends the previous Introduction to eugenics, is a compilation of great characters defending the eugenic mentality. Therefore, I should not be held responsible for what others said: I only present the quotes and I offer my comments to give an idea of the variety of opinions among the pro-eugenicists.

Some of the concepts by the people mentioned in this essay are certainly outdated, and it is clear that I do not approve of everything that is said here. For example, great advances have been made through genetic engineering: wonders over the most primitive methods advocated here by some authors. But they are worth, in any case, as a curiosities, especially in these times, when the biggest problem on the planet—overpopulation—threatens to unleash tremendous natural and artificial catastrophes that will result in unnecessary deaths of innocent beings.

What is eugenics? It comes from the ancient Greek eu (good) and ygenes (birth): ‘well born’ or ‘the birth of the good’. Wikipedia defines eugenics as ‘applied science or biosocial movement that advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic makeup of a population’.

Eugenics means biological socialism, biopolitics, a new social engineering based on logic, biology, genetics, compliance with the natural laws of life, and the will to grow in harmony with both: the planet and the creatures that populate it. Eugenics is the will of a gardener who tries that the species does not become a field where weeds grow in disorder, but a garden where, thanks to the intervention of a higher intelligence, weeds are ripped and beautiful and fruitful plants cultivated: sharing harmony between them, being kind to the holy ground on which they germinate and grow, and to which they owe their very existence. It is the will to improve man or, preferably, to overcome it, since it is already known that man is an imperfect being whose creation is incomplete.

Eugenics, in short, is the instinct to carry forward the evolution of the species and create the Overman.

There’s nothing new under the Sun. From the Neolithic, man found ways to domesticate animals that were biologically useful for him by providing good milk, meat, eggs, wool, etc., and dedicated himself to raising them with care to improve the quality of their herds generation after generation. The same happened with plant varieties, especially with cereals. In each generation, the old farmer prevented the non-useful varieties of his flock or crop from reproducing, and instead he tried to ensure that the best specimens had a prolific offspring. Thus, their crops and their herds were improving little by little.

If, by such methods, larger bulls, more nutritious wheat or more fertile hens could be obtained, why would they not be able to obtain more intelligent, brave and stronger human beings? Is the body of man not subject to the same laws as those governing wild animals?

Unfortunately, this mentality, which was applied to livestock and crops, was not applied to man, and the conquest of better living conditions, as well as the adoption of unnatural habits and diets, relaxed natural selection triggering the degeneration of civilised man.

Eugenics speaks of the need to prevent (negative eugenics) the multiplication of undesirable mutations in the human genome (as blindness, deformity, varied congenital diseases, mental retardation, the progress of crossbreeding, Down syndrome, etc.) by prohibiting their reproduction before it is too late for the species and before the Earth and Nature react violently to the uncontrolled proliferation of a lower, sick and bloated human kind, which has become a malignant tumour for the planet.

On the other hand, it is necessary to favour (positive eugenics) the propagation of the best-equipped human specimens, to give them the evolutionary advantage. This especially refers to birth, sports training, food, outdoor life, the cultivation of mental and will faculties, general culture and health.

In the eyes of the species, any method is legitimate to achieve such goal, from in-vitro fertilization, pre-natal diagnosis or embryo selection, to advanced engineering, surgery and genetic therapy techniques that are just around the corner. If this is not done, it is precisely because Western Civilisation is governed by people who do not care at all about the destiny of race, civilisation and humanity. What moves them is the immediate economic benefit and short-term success.

The West is dying and what is paramount for us is an authoritarian and socialist System in which the regeneration of race and biological quality will regain strength to balance the planetary unbalance that, currently, is inclined towards the proliferation of a human type of zero quality.
 

Introduction

We might think that Galileo was not the first man of the European post-classical era to rediscover that the Earth revolves around the Sun. There was access before to the classical works, and I sincerely believe that in the Middle Ages many sages knew the truth. But none had the courage to publish it for fear of the Church and the word ‘heretic’, all capable of ruining his career and even ending his life in a bonfire, to the sound of the applause of the common peoples. A clique of Pharisees, representative of an obscurantist idea, exercised control over a ‘God-fearing’ flock, keeping them forever in darkness, stripping them of their old traditions to replace them with the Bible and reign as one-eyed kings in a world of the blind. Galileo, like others, was forced to recant under penalty of being burned as a heretic.

Well, today we have:

• A new Church: the pro-globalist system.

• New unquestionable dogmas: the ‘politically correct’, ‘equality’ at all costs, feminism, globalisation, multiculturalism, rebellion against anything that is well constituted, hatred of the superior, individualism and the desire not to offend bloodsucking and whining parasites.

• A new Inquisition: the media, NGOs and globalist lobbies, Jews, homosexuals, feminists, pro-third-worlders and democrats, among others.

• We have new heretics: revisionists, ‘ultra-rightists’ and dissenting scientists.

• New untouchable taboos: genetic engineering, the ‘holocaust’, racism, Nazism, fascism, anti-Semitism, male chauvinism, homophobia… and eugenics.

• New witch hunts: scandals and trials against notable dissidents or any suspect of ‘racism’ or patriotism.

• New repentant pioneers in the style of Galileo, such as the scientist and gifted Englishman James Watson, who retracted his ‘racist’ phrase in 2007, under penalty of being burned at the stake in the media. As in the case of Galileo, time will demonstrate the truthfulness of his words, and posterity will honour as true those words he muttered under his breath: And yet it moves.

• We have new bonfires: ostracism, defamation, conviction, imprisonment, boycott and even direct physical aggression.

• We have the usual Pharisees: great magnates of finance and the media, progressives and ambitious politicians who would sell their brother for money and notoriety.

• And a new Satan, Antichrist or Lucifer: Hitler.

So we can affirm, without any fear of exaggeration, that exactly the same thing is happening today as in the Middle Ages with the Church. If history teaches us anything, it is that history repeats itself and that, in times of taboos, science just cannot advance. Modern society, in full biological regression, and poisoned by junk genes, criticises the taboos of the remote past: but it seems to forget that these taboos have been replaced by new taboos. The only objective of this sinister levelling, anti-evolutionary and egalitarian front remains the same for millennia: to frustrate man on his way to reach deity.

Even stripping the issue of passion and idealism, eugenics seems an issue from the logical and objective point of view—so logical that we can only wonder what kind of person could oppose it. Why, then, is there so much opposition to an issue as extremely urgent and necessary as eugenics? We can attribute it to two reasons:

1.- Two millennia of cultural Judeo-Christianity and its derivatives.

2.- The ignorance and the very low physical, mental and moral quality of a good part of the modern population thanks to the annulment, for centuries, of natural selection, the persecution of freethinkers, the depletion of the best blood in wars, the mania to help the worst rather than the best and, thanks to a deliberate praise of vulgarity and mediocrity in the media—which is nothing more than a new form of Christianity—, the glorification of the miserable, the mediocre and the downtrodden.

In contrast to this anti-evolution, no one can deny that the vast majority of men who today are considered to be great personalities supported eugenics. The intention of this essay is to ‘cheer up’ a bit those who would defend pro-eugenic measures and to see that millennia of history support them. Also, that people are more aware of the world of science, because progress and interesting debates are taking place which show that there are very prepared people who realise what is happening.

Unfortunately, modern science is heavily intervened by the official System. Funds are granted to investigate only matters that can result in a direct economic benefit in the short term, which clearly cuts off hopes of research paths, perhaps more arduous, but that in the long term produce more important benefits. Humanity has to get tired of being ruled by greedy clowns, simple and vulgar desert merchants who only think of seeking new twisted financial deals and new markets to sell useless goodies.

But there will come a day when scientists will stop investigating various creams and silicones to patch the disgusting worn-out bodies of old paranoid women, and will direct their efforts to improve the genetic inheritance of the human being so that in the future he will never need ‘amending’ it again. The day will come when doctors will stop striving in the search for medicines and prolonging, through aberrant methods, the lives of terminal patients with a broken body, instead dedicating their energies to the creation of a human type who doesn’t need any medicine.

The so-called ‘scientific community’—made up of scientists who are servile to the official system, crying lackeys of the ‘politically correct’, possessed by dubious ambitions and eager to climb the ladder—attacks those who speak out dissident ideas about the mainstream dogma even if that someone is their best ‘colleague’.

But the truth, Pharisees, is not changed because the truth is forever. Like the Phoenix, that great truth that is the law of human inequality and the need to cultivate the best and place reproductive limits on the worst will emerge again. In fact, it is an open secret in the minds of many doctors and scientists of what in the future will be the most important science of all: the science of man and of life. A day will come when these heralds of truth will come to light proclaiming their teaching and warning:

Civilisation has made human beings degenerate, and it is necessary to undertake radical emergency measures to reverse this sinister process, or we will become a weak, involved, inferior, pathetic, vulnerable, sickly, effeminate and, above all, harmful to the planet and unable to overcome adversities. We will be a filthy and gelatinous species that will crawl between machines. And that is when Nature will go for us. On the other hand, ‘race’ is much more than ethnic-anthropological features. It is the biological quality of the lineage. It must be strong and bright to withstand the tension to which life subjects it.

Just as the paradigm revolution from geocentric to heliocentric worldview, in future times the truths defended by the dissidents will be considered obvious certainties, and those who once stupidly tried to rebut them will be ashamed for having done it: as the Church is ashamed for having denied that the Earth revolves around the Sun. And in the same way that Christian obscurantism was finally overwhelmed by a Renaissance that the Church was unable to contain, we too, even in this most decadent age, are headed towards the definitive Renaissance of the ancient Indo-European spirit.

Thus, the old Nazi approach of 1933 has not been refuted or satisfactorily answered by the System, which has limited itself to pouring demagogic defamations on National Socialism but never trying to refute its arguments.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: To the list above in bold-type I would add:

A new God or Divine Trinity: the ideology of the equality of Race, Gender and Sexual orientation.

The new god of whites reminds me of a film located in the 5th century in Britannia, in which the island’s natives spoke of ‘the new god of the Romans’, referring to the Christian trinity.

Basic intro to eugenics

Without my editorial note, I’ll probably add Evropa Soberana’s ‘Introduction to eugenics’ as second essay in the 2020 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. Some would say that the essay is for normies, but then why folks in the Alt-Right have produced babies with non-Aryan Caucasoids (just compare the nymphs on the pic with Richard Spencer’s former wife)?

Published in: on May 30, 2019 at 9:00 pm  Comments (3)  

Introduction to eugenics

by Evropa Soberana

‘All people can be Gods people now through the New Covenant… all peoples have a right to exist and continue to exist, but no race is superior in the sight of God. Each people has been given specific attributes and responsibilities but to God every soul is valuable’ —Matt Heimbach.

Editor’s Note: Is race a social construct? This is what liberals believe—and apparently Christian white nationalists like Heimbach believe that, for God, race is a mere human construct. (No wonder why people say that liberalism is the bastard son of Christianity…)

Below, my abbreviated translation of ‘Intro a la eugenesia’, published six years ago by the Spaniard blogger Evropa Soberana:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

It is undeniable that in the species and in any human group there are diversity of qualities.

Some individuals are intelligent and others are stupid; even there are morons. Some individuals have health of steel and others are sickly. Some individuals are tall, others are short. Some individuals are strong, others are weak. Some individuals are brave, others are cowards. Some individuals are disciplined and hardworking, others are lazy and slothful. Some individuals are honest, noble, righteous and loyal, others have a clear inclination towards lying, falsehood, disloyalty and betrayal.

It is also undeniable that almost all these qualities are hereditary and depend on genetics to a greater or lesser extent (usually more greater than lesser).

The question that arises is: what qualities, from those listed above, seem more desirable to us and which ones would we like they end up prevailing in the future world if we want the Earth to be a better place?

If you are a logical person I address the following question: in the path that, as a species, we have been going through the last millennia, what qualities, of those listed above, tend to be selected?

The current mentality, produced by a civilisation isolated in its technological bubble, ignores a hundred percent the laws of Nature, of blood, of selection and of the inequality of men; laws that, necessarily, place the best ones above and the worst ones below. The modern world is, then, the perfect example of a diabolical selection in reverse, or dysgenics. Many people of inferior genetics have been perpetuated, and many people of superior genetics have not done so (for example, in medieval times because of fratricidal wars, witch hunts and celibacy of very large social sectors at the hands of the Church). That hurts the race. When the number of biological waste increases and that of bodily monuments to the gods decreases, we can be sure without any doubt that we are moving towards a future of biological trash.

Today, the individual is sacred and untouchable, while concepts such as ‘race’ and ‘homeland’ are considered abstractions, when the only abstraction is the individual who is born and dies fleetingly and while only human groups are solid and lasting realities.

In harder and more authentic times, the birth rate was vigorous, but the harshness of environmental conditions cut off the lives of the weakest. Thus, in a family of ten children, it was possible that they reached reproductive age only five. Each of these five would have, in turn, ten children, of which five would survive, the fittest. The result was that, in several generations, the defectives were virtually eradicated and the only ones left standing were the fittest. Thus, fighting against the elements, in wars, epidemics and catastrophes, the population of the planet remained stable but, nevertheless, as a species, we tended to improve generation after generation. Each ‘litter’ tended to be better than the previous one.

Humanity was not spiritually prepared for the advent of the modern industrial revolution, technology and health services. Obviously, the technology turned out to be in many ways salvation for Man, but he forgot to foresee that the immense population growth that would inevitably take place would have to be compensated in other ways. Instead of foreseeing measures that would continue to maintain a selection of the best ones to regulate the population, the uncontrolled proliferation of human beings was allowed, at the expense of Nature and of the biological quality of the population.

Ever since health services, technology, social services and Judeo-Christian morality have spread freely, a whole legion of sick, decrepit, retarded and handicapped people invade the horizon of the species that in a world dominated by Nature would never have seen the light, or they would have lasted a short time. We, who have the technique and the means to quickly and painlessly do what Nature usually does slowly and painfully, are propagating and perpetuating the inferior seeds.

It is argued that technology in itself is not good or bad, but depends on the use that is given. Today, it is being used diabolically, oriented to make us sick, to weaken us and to get away from the Earth and our own nature. In the future, when the imbecility of this civilisation has been overcome, the application of technology must take a 180-degree turn.
 

But then there would be a selection: we would choose the types to prevail, we would discriminate, and that is unfair (for me, of course: because I want to perpetuate my genes, and with them, the associated declines)!

It will be unfair to you, but it is fair to the race, which is more important than you. On the other hand, it is unfair for the species that your hereditary rubbish spread like the plague, no matter how much that offends you.

And yes: it sounds to me like selection. It’s like in the exams. He who gets more than a 5, approves, and he who gets 5 or less stays out… a ‘selection’ in full rule. How monstrously unfair! What ominous discrimination towards those who did not pass! How politically incorrect!

Just like those places where they do not let you pass if you do not wear shoes, or if you wear piggy pints, or if you don’t go with female company, or if you dislike the Romanian gatekeeper.

Or those expensive restaurants where you cannot go if you’re not with tie and well dressed. Or those clubs where they only accept Latin bitches. Or those 5-star hotels where if you lack dosh to pay for a suite they don’t accommodate you. Or those bars where they would crush you if you say, ‘Long Live Spain!’

This is discrimination and pure and hard selection, which surrounds us 24 hours a day, and always in much more unjust and unnatural ways than genetic discrimination.
 

But then a caste system would be formed and the equality would be destroyed!

Yes, but don’t we have a ‘caste system’ today? Is not that capitalist caste system based on money? Doesn’t that destroy the sacrosanct ‘equality’? Is such an economic criterion of social stratification not infinitely lower, unnatural, unjust and petty than the genetic one? Don’t it tend to enthrone mediocre, vile and malicious individuals?

Nowadays, one can be clown, brat, son of a bitch, depraved, pervert, false, traitor, snake, unfriendly, repellent, drug addict and stupid: but they will open the doors wherever he goes and will bow if he is rotten with money and makes ostentation of it visible.

Likewise, one can be an intelligent, good, healthy, brave, strong and friendly chap that the System will overlook if he is poor.

Today, a chick is ‘good’ if she has a neckline, thong, miniskirt and shows off her body, even if mediocre, while a beautiful gal is not stunning if she goes in tracksuit and shirt. Is not that tremendously unfair?

So what are you afraid of when you suggest the possibility of wiping out all that and selecting the best individuals or genes for higher breeding?
 

But then we would operate modifications on the individual and force changes in the whole society!

So good! You have a son. Don’t you teach him to behave so that he is more presentable? Don’t you wash him and comb him so he looks better? Won’t you give him a better education to make him wiser? Isn’t that ‘operating modifications’?

Don’t we have a ridiculous and pathetic educational system, as well as a monstrous subliminal propaganda apparatus that ‘forces change’ throughout society, even in public opinion? Are not those changes, by the way, worse?

So what are you afraid of when you suggest the possibility of operating modifications for the better?
 

But then we would all end up being tall, handsome, blond, strong, gifted, indestructible, immortal, perfect and blue-eyed!

And what’s wrong with that?

Let’s see… taking the genetic range of yours and your partner, they give you to choose how you want your future child to be. How would you ‘ask’ him?

Short, maybe? Dummy? Black, no doubt? Something ugly, perhaps…?

Wouldn’t you ‘ask’ for the best range within your gene pool and that of your partner?
 

Oh, I don’t care how he looks like, and I’ll love him anyway.

I’m proud of you. Look, I’m going to shed a little tear with so much solidarity, so much progressivism, so much equality, so much tolerance and so many rainbows. But tell me: If the look doesn’t matter, then why the hell do you dye your hair or blow it?

Why do you brush or shave? Being a man, wouldn’t you ignore an ugly gal, fat and with a goatee? Why do you buy clothes designed to enhance your virtues and hide your shortcomings? Why do you make up? Why do you wear heels? Silicone? Implants? Operation of breast augmentation? Rhinoplasty? Lifting? Skin creams? Several liposuctions? Insulin for diabetes? Extirpation of the appendix? Gadgets for asthma? Barbiturates? Sleeping pills? Glasses or contact lenses? Anabolics?

Why, in short, do you try to pretend? Isn’t it because you are aware that this is a treasure? And isn’t all that a thousand times more unnatural than being born with privileged genes?

The problem is that people work on the phenotype, disguising their defects with money, paints, patches, amendments, accessories and harmful chemicals (and expensive, which is a lucrative and convenient business for the System). Perhaps, O hypocrites, wouldn’t you kill for good genetics, for health of steel, for beauty of birth and for not needing all those ridiculous complements to disguise your superficial miseries?

Don’t you spend (you and the State) bunch of monies in such patches and globs to hide your defects and your diseases, cash that could be saved if such defects were eradicated by tuning up certain genes harmlessly? Doesn’t all the waste of keeping the retarded, terminally ill, be cut off in a single generation with a little common sense, for God’s sake?
 

Oh, I wouldn’t choose the looks of my son, I’d just let him be born without messing with his genes.

Once again I’m shedding a tear. Sniff.

But when you see that all your little friends go through life begetting beautiful super-babes, healthy, responsible, intelligent, strong, loving, I have the vague feeling that you don’t want to stay behind, be the less coolest mother and condemn you to have to listen to your asthmatic, diabetic or simply mediocre child, without asking yourself how you were such a scumbag as not to give him a better birth having the means to do so.
 

But then babies born through genetic engineering will be unnatural beings!

Those babies wouldn’t be any more unnatural than a bourgeois obese with toad face; drinker, sedentary, dressed up to the neck and spending five hours a day on TV, or taking his BMW even to go shit.

Nor would it be more unnatural than a 50-year-old fat woman, unlookable, ramshackled, wrinkled, materialistic, smoker, varicosed, sterile, without children—but yes: a progressive, activist, sponsor of children of alien races in foreign countries, with her hair dyed blond, with lots of make up, with a purse, talking on her cell phone and stuffed with gelatinous muffin tops and flabs that none wants to see.

And, of course, they won’t be more unnatural than the troop of the sick, deviant, criminals, whores, parasites, inverted and degenerates who parade through our civilisation and to whom, on the other hand, no one deprived of their right to be born.

You yourself, don’t you take the bus or go by car? Don’t you get into noisy bars to get drunk and distract your will? Don’t you have sex with a condom or with an anti-baby device? Don’t you watch TV? Isn’t all that also ‘unnatural’? So what are you telling me, fucking piece of plastic with legs? I will accept the word ‘unnatural’ as valid only and exclusively if they come from the mouth of someone like Tarzan or Mowgli.

Why, then, almost perfect children, born out of the cross-breeding of the best of the species, should be unnatural and abominable beings? Couldn’t they be ordinary people, and have the same privileges as, for example, a homosexual mestizo, obese, diabetic, squatter and carrier of various venereal diseases?
 

Well, that seems discrimination to me. Who decides who is perfect? Isn’t that playing to be God?

Maybe it is playing God, but since no one is going to come down from heaven to give us instructions, and since we are not going to sit and watch the species degenerate until we become sickly Tinkiwinkies fused with TV, the bag and the car at the same time, someone with judgment has to fill that void.

Bearing in mind, moreover, that the species is on the verge of catastrophe we must favour an exacerbately high birth rate among the best specimens, and prevent the worst from multiplying. Modern Western civilisation is the only civilisation in the history of humanity that does not conceive of sex, marriage, family and birth-rate as biological weapons destined to propitiate ‘the victory of the cradles’—without which ‘the victory of the soldier’ is incomplete.

It will be necessary to cross-breed keeping in mind the selection of qualities such as Nordic blood, good constitution, intelligence, strength, stature, courage, leadership ability, health, resistance, discipline and a very long etcetera, which are the qualities selected by Nature itself when the suicidal and insane Judeo-Christian morality does not interpose between Her and man. It would not be necessary to ‘force’ things in this sense (‘you two are good specimens, let’s mate’), but to encourage their desire to emerge naturally and spontaneously.

If this type of policy was supported by the techniques and means that exist today, we would have, in a matter of generations, an almost perfect race, and all the defects—together with the expenses and miseries they cause—eradicated forever.

‘Good’ is everything that improves the race; ‘bad’ is everything that makes the race worse.

From this point of view, it could be necessary to resort to artificial methods (genetic engineering, state intervention, selective crossings) to correct the indescribable nonsense caused by 2000 years of artificial dementia.

Your urban brothel lifestyle, contaminated, uprooted, unhealthy, asphalted, greasy, degenerated, drunk and immoral harm the species and that is unnatural.

Your compassion and diligence towards junkies, the defective, retarded, homosexual, dirty, delinquent, sickly, parasites and judicially sentenced is something that harms the species and that is unnatural.

Your social-economic selection is something that harms the species, that makes it worse and tends to form a type of inferior man, in addition to being a thousand times more immoral than natural-genetic selection.

Your castration of the instinct of aggressiveness is something that worsens the species and leaves us unarmed before more brutal humanities.

Genetic selection, good birth and the selective matching of the best individuals are things that benefit the race and tend to form a type of superior man. Therefore they are good and desirable in themselves.

Conclusion: as long as an intervention in human reproduction is not a reality, mate only with individuals of similar genetic and racial quality of you. Guide yourself through the traits of the body, the soul, health and the tone of skin, eyes and hair.

Nordicism and National Socialism, 12

(Wolfgang Willrich, unknown man.)

Thanks to an acute sense of the law that governed the origin of their species, peoples like the Spartans resorted in their selections to the same principles of inflexible severity originally prescribed by Nature, and this even after having reached more hospitable territories.

Other peoples of the Nordic race, like our German ancestors, naturally obeyed the biological laws that governed the creation of their species.

Notebook of the Schutzstaffel (SS) No. 7 of 1942. The biological sense of the selection. The habitat produces a certain kind of selection. Drawn from ‘The SS Order’, OSS I.3.2.

Published in: on March 23, 2019 at 7:05 pm  Comments Off on Nordicism and National Socialism, 12  

Why Europeans must reject Christianity, 21

by Ferdinand Bardamu

 
A Europe without Christianity?

The world of classical antiquity shone as a lamp in the dark, filled with a youthful vigor that ensured its institutions and ideas would endure long after Greece and Rome ceased to exist as viable political entities. Science and reason were then snuffed out by the darkness and imbecility that followed in the wake of Christianity. Libraries were destroyed; art treasures were smashed; building in non-perishable materials almost vanished from memory; personal hygiene disappeared; ignorance was considered a virtue; chaos ensued. This was the triumph of Christianity, a syphilis of the mind that nearly wiped out Western civilization. Although Christian power and influence were shattered long ago by the rediscovery of science and reason, a resurgent Christianity now dominates the West in the form of liberal egalitarianism and cultural Marxism. These philosophies serve as the ideological basis of endless mass Third World immigration and other multiculturalist policies. This neo-Christianity has been imposed on the West by totalitarian liberal-leftist governments.

Understanding Christianity through the prism of group evolutionary strategy can shed light on the significant threat the religion poses to Europeans. As a seminal concept originally formulated by Prof. Kevin MacDonald, it was used with devastating effect in his analysis of 20th century Jewish intellectual and political movements. In a world characterized by in-group ethno-racial preference, absence of a group evolutionary strategy allowing populations at the species and sub-species level to survive and replicate is highly maladaptive.

A group evolutionary strategy is defined as an “experiment in living.” This refers to the establishment of culturally mediated processes or ideological structures that allow humans to exercise control over natural selection at the group level. The basic characteristics of Jewish evolutionary group strategy are:

1.) the rejection of both genetic and cultural assimilation into neighboring populations. Jews in Europe and the Middle East segregated themselves from gentiles by fashioning a distinct identity for themselves. This was accomplished through enforcement of strict endogamy and residential segregation. The genetic relatedness between Jewish groups, such as the Sephardi and Ashkenazi, is higher than between Jews and European populations because of this age-old resistance to assimilation; 2.) successful economic and reproductive competition that has driven Europeans from certain sectors of their own societies (such as finance); 3.) high ethnocentrism; 4.) within-group altruism favoring Jews at the expense of outgroup members, and; 5.) the institutionalization of eugenic practices that selected for high intelligence and conscientiousness in Jewish populations.

In contrast, Christianity undermines group survival by suppressing natural ethnocentric tendencies and maximizing the spread of dysgenic traits. Christianity provides no effective barrier to the cultural and genetic assimilation of Europeans by surrounding non-white populations; for example, during the Spanish and Portuguese colonization of the Americas in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church aggressively promoted miscegenation among the conquistadores. Ecclesiastical officials encouraged the European colonists to marry and interbreed with their native Indian and African concubines. This resulted in large-scale demographic genocide, which replaced European genetic homogeneity with mestizaje.

That Christianity is a non-ethnocentric ideology based on moral universalism is another serious problem with the religion. Europeans will always champion the interests of hostile out-groups at the expense of fellow Europeans in the name of Christian love and brotherhood. Christianity also opposes the high aggressiveness directed towards outgroup members; instead, believers are expected to practice nonviolence and compassion in the face of demographic replacement. High aggressiveness is a defining feature of Jewish group evolutionary strategy. It has allowed Jews to outcompete Europeans in their own societies.

Lastly, Christianity is militantly anti-eugenic, which is why it allows weaklings to survive and reproduce. This has decreased average IQ and the prevalence of other beneficial traits in European societies. In contrast, Jewish group evolutionary strategy institutionalizes eugenic practices that positively select for these traits, especially high intelligence. These eugenic practices have allowed Jews to exercise a degree of influence over Western societies vastly disproportionate to their actual numbers. Unlike Judaism for Jews, Christianity does not function as a group evolutionary strategy for Europeans, but as a recipe for racial and cultural suicide on a massive scale.

All aggressively pro-active measures against Christianity are certainly ethically justifiable in the face of Western decline and European racial extinction. In this essay, a more scientific approach is recommended. The European intellectual, before he devises any plan of action, must first acknowledge that no other biological process is as important for humans as evolution through natural selection. If he is to have any belief-system, it must be the civil religion of eugenics. Incorporating eugenics into the fabric of civic life would obviate coercion, making racial hygiene a matter of voluntary acquiescence. He would also do well to embrace the trifunctional worldview of the ancient Indo-Europeans.

For many thousands of years, trifunctional ideology served as an effective deterrent to the pathology of moral universalism. By envisaging the tripartite caste system as the fundamental pillar of a new order, the iron law of inequality is exalted as the highest law, the one most conducive to the achievement of social harmony. In this vision, the highest caste, equivalent to the brahman of Aryan-occupied India or the guardians of Plato’s Republic, would be absorbed in scientific and technological pursuits for their own sake. They would be entrusted with the material advancement of civilization. Their moral system, informed by the principles of evolutionary biology and eugenics, would be derived from the following axiom:

What is morally right is eugenic, i.e. improves the race biologically;

what is morally wrong is dysgenic, i.e. degrades the race biologically.

The second class of individuals will be bred for war and the third will consist of industrial and agricultural producers. These correspond to the Aryan kshatriyas and vaishyas or the “silver” and “bronze” castes of Plato’s Republic. Since these individuals do not possess the cognitive ability to participate in the highly abstract civil religion of the brahmans, they will worship their distant ancestors as the racial gods of a new religion founded on eugenic principles.

Christianity is an irrational superstition, which means that its influence will not be mitigated through logical argument. The child-like simplicity of Christian dogma is “a feature, not a bug.” Without an ability to appeal to the lowest common denominator, Christianity would not have spread as rapidly as it did during the 4th century. An enlightened European humanity, educated in the principles of Darwinian evolution and eugenics, cannot co-exist side by side with this ancient Semitic plague. The negative correlation that exists between Christian religiosity and intelligence simply reinforces this conclusion. Christianity is a seemingly intractable problem for primarily eugenic and biological reasons. Although a eugenic approach is clearly needed, other things must be done. If Christianity is to be abolished, all state-sanctioned programs of multicultural indoctrination must be completely eliminated along with it.

Through a program of rigorous eugenic breeding and media control, Europeans will be weaned from the neo-Christian ethical system they have imbibed since childhood. They will come to see eugenics as a necessary form of spiritual transcendence instead. Through a process of evolutionary development that is both culturally and technologically mediated, the lowest castes will embrace the brahman civil religion and see themselves as gods; the more evolved brahmans will move on to a more intensive contemplation of increasingly sophisticated mathematical and scientific abstractions. This progressive development of European racial consciousness will ensure the adoption of a successful group evolutionary strategy among Europeans.

The gradual phasing out of individuals with IQs below 100 will be carried out as an act of religious devotion among the lower castes. Aryan kshatriyas, the “knights of faith” of the new Aryan race religion, will impose a eugenic regime over the entire globe, repopulating the Third World with highly evolved super-organisms that will turn these former hellholes into terrestrial paradises. Wasting precious material resources caring for less evolved members of the human species will be a thing of the past. Humanity, whose scientific and technological progress stagnated during the late 20th century, will once again resume its upward journey toward the stars.

Eugenic breeding will force Europeans to realize the truth of Nietzsche’s core insight: Christianity, a transvaluation of all values driven by ressentiment, is a slave morality. It is the revolt of the underman against the aristocratic Indo-European virtues of strength and magnanimity, pride and nobility. By repudiating the syphilitic poison of Christianity, Europeans will become a race of value-creators, once again in charge of their own destinies as they affirm the beauty of life in all its fullness.

– End of Bardamu’s essay –

Kriminalgeschichte, 32

Editor’s note: The author states below: ‘This provision [by Constantine] had serious consequences, as it was one of the first to deprive Jews, in practice, of owning farms’. This is how the first seeds were planted for the Jews to do what today is called ‘white collar’ jobs.

In the days of Ancient Rome the Jews still did not have an IQ superior to Whites. This policy of cornering Jews to work outside of what is now called ‘blue collar’ jobs continued until the French Revolution. Although the anti-Semitic seed of Constantine described below could be applauded by white nationalists, seeing it in perspective was a shot that backfired.

Parallel to allowing Jews in banking and usury, throughout the Middle Ages the best genes of White intellectuals ended, excuse me the crude expression, in the asses of the novices of the monasteries instead of in the fair sex. Unlike the Christians, medieval Jews never practised vows of celibacy. The artificial selection of genes that raised the IQ of the Jews at the expense of the lack of descendants of intelligent Whites (Aryan monks) was a courtesy of Christendom.

In previous chapters the author constantly used quotation marks around the word ‘pagans’. In this chapter he removed the quotation marks. Since ‘pagan’ was Christian newspeak of the 4th century, in some instances of this entry I’ll take the liberty to substitute the textual ‘pagan’ for something like ‘adepts of Greco-Roman culture’.

Below, abridged translation from the first volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity):

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Constantine against Jews, ‘heretics’ and pagans

The emperor was not very friendly with the Jews, surely he was greatly influenced by the permanent anti-Semitic attacks of the doctors of the Church, which we have seen in chapter 2, and the recent Synod of Elvira, which had sanctioned with very strong penances the relations between Christians and Jews, in particular the attendance to blessings of fields and banquets celebrated by Jews.

The Roman emperors were quite tolerant of Judaism; not even Diocletian tried to force them to comply with the pagan rites. But after the Council of Nicaea Constantine comes to the conclusion, reflected in an epistle to all the communities, that the Jews ‘tainted by delirium’, ‘wounded by the blindness of the spirit’, ‘deprived of the right judgment’, are ‘an odious nation’ and except for one day a year forbids them to set foot on the city of Jerusalem that he and his mother had filled with churches.

In addition, he forbade them to have slaves like Christians. This provision had serious consequences, as it was one of the first to deprive Jews, in practice, of owning farms. The Christian who Judaized was sentenced to death. In addition, Constantine renewed a law of Trajan, promulgated two hundred years before, according to which the pagan who was converted to Judaism was condemned to the stake.

Even harder was the policy against the ‘heretics’, and this already from the time of the regency, from the year 311, on the grounds that many of those who had abjured Christianity wanted to receive baptism again. This resulted in a schism with bloody repercussions that lasted for several centuries. It is at that time when the definition of ‘catholic’ as opposed to the figure of the ‘heretic’ appears for the first time in an imperial document.

The Donatists rejected the association with the State, the Constantinian alliance between the throne and the altar. They judged that they were the true Ecclesia sanctorum and that the Roman Church was the civitas diaboli. They appealed to the Christian’s beliefs by demanding greater austerity for the clergy. Constantine’s campaign against Licinius turned against the Donatists at the instigation of Bishop Caecilianus in a campaign that lasted several years, presided over by the decision to ‘not tolerate even the slightest hint of division or disunity, wherever it may be’. Moreover, in a letter from early 316 to Celsus, vicar of Africa, Constantine threatened: ‘I intend to destroy the errors and repress all the nonsense, in order and effect to offer to all the human race the only true religion, the only justice and unanimity in the worship of the almighty Lord’.

To the Donatists he took away their churches and their fortunes, exiled their chiefs and commanded troops who slaughtered men and women. The hecatomb of the adepts of Hellenism had not yet begun and Christians were already making martyrs of other Christians.

Constantine also fought against the Church of Marcion, an older church and at some point probably also more followed than the Catholic Church. Constantine prohibited the offices of the Church of Marcion even when they were held in private homes; had their images and properties confiscated, and ordered the destruction of their temples. His successors, most likely instigated by the bishops, stepped up the persecution of this Christian sect after having defamed it and by all means, including through falsifications during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. In 326, shortly after the Council of Nicaea, Constantine issued a scathing edict ‘against heretics of every kind’, in case it was authentic of course and not a figment of Eusebius.

Constantine’s actions against the ‘heretics’ set an example, but at least he respected life most of the time. After all, he did not care about religion as much as the unity of the Church on the basis of the Nicaea Council, and hence the unity of the empire. Undoubtedly, he had an exclusively political concept of religion, although religious problems always, and from the first moment, were presented in relation to social and political conflicts. In the interest of state power he promoted the unity of the Church. This, and not another, was the cause of his hatred of all kinds of discord. ‘I was sure that, if I could complete my purpose of uniting all the servants of God, I would reap abundant fruits in the public interest’, he wrote in a letter to Arius and Bishop Alexander.

In the year 330, Constantine sends a sentence against the Neo-Platonic school and even orders the execution of Sopater, who had been presiding over this school since the death of Iamblichus. The adepts of Hellenism become ‘fools’, ‘people without morals’ and their religion a ‘hotbed of discord’. Constantine’s true intention was that all humans ‘revered the one true God’ and that they forsake ‘the temples of the lie’.

While the adepts of Hellenism of the western provinces still enjoyed relative tranquillity, in the East the persecutions began after the definitive defeat of Licinius (324). Constantine forbade the erection of new statues to the gods, the worship of existing ones, and the consultation of oracles and all other forms of Greco-Roman worship.

In 326 Constantine came to order the destruction of all the images, while in the East he began the confiscation of temple properties and the plundering of valuable works of art. In his new capital, blessed on May 11, 330 after six years of work funded in part through the treasures confiscated from the temples, Constantine banned the worship and the festivals of the adepts of Hellenism and rents were no longer paid to the temples of Helios, Artemis Selene and Aphrodite.

Constantine, described as a ‘renegade’ and ‘innovator and destroyer of ancient and venerable constitutions’ by Emperor Julian, but praised by many modern historians, soon prohibited the repair of Greco-Roman temples and ordered numerous closures and destructions ‘directed precisely against those who had been most revered by the idolaters’ (Eusebius). He arranged the closing of the Serapis of Alexandria, the temple to the Sun-God in Heliopolis, the demolition of the altar of Mamre (because the Lord himself had appeared there to Father Abraham, in the company of two angels), and that of the temple of Aesculapius in Aegae, the latter being fulfilled with such diligence ‘that not even the foundations of the ancient ravings remained’ (Eusebius).

Constantine also ordered the destruction of the temple of Aphrodite on Golgotha, for the ‘great scandal’ that it represented for the believers; it was also the turn of Aphaea in Lebanon from whose sanctuary came ‘a dangerous web to hunt souls’ and which, according to the emperor, ‘does not deserve the sun to shine’. There was no stone left upon a stone; and the very famous Heliopolis was burned down and reduced to rubble by a military command.

Constantine burned Porphyry’s controversial writings. From the year 330, when Neo-Platonism was forbidden, Christians abounded in looting of temples and breaking images, as all Christian chroniclers celebrated and despite such activities having been implicitly prohibited by the Council of Elvira.

Contrary to what Christian historians would like us to believe, the emperor, naturally, was not interested in fighting face to face with the Greco-Roman culture that still held the majority in much of the empire and retained part of its strength, which of course does not mean that there were not well received ‘the small material expropriations’ (Voelkl): the stones, the doors, the bronze figures, the vessels of gold and silver, the reliefs, ‘the valuable and artistic ivory votive offerings confiscated in all the provinces’, as Eusebius highlights.

‘Everywhere they went stealing, looting and confiscating the images of gold and silver and the bronze statues’ (Tinnefeid). Constantine did not even respect the famous tripods of the fortune-teller of the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi. The historian Kornemann notes ‘a theft of works of art as has never been seen in all of Greece’.

Even St. Jerome criticized that the city of Constantinople had been built with the booty of almost all other cities. ‘In the blink of an eye, whole temples would disappear’, rejoices Eusebius. The entire Olympus was gathered in the ‘new Rome’, where the emperor, even without daring to tear down the temples, had all the statues removed from them. The most venerated gods were installed in bath-houses, basilicas and public squares. The deified Apollo, which had been the most venerable monument in the Hellenic world, was converted into a Constantine the Great. ‘Immense riches disappeared from the coins or went to fill the empty coffers of the Church’, Voelkl reminds us.

Eusebius tells us that… the temples and sanctuaries, once so proud, were destroyed without anyone ordering it, and churches were built in their place and the old delirium was forgotten.

However, at the Easter of 337 the sovereign fell ill. First he sought remedy in the hot baths of Constantinople, and then in the relics of Lucian, protective patron of Arianism and disciple of Arius himself. Finally he received on his farm, Achyronas of Nicomedia, the waters of baptism despite his desire to take them on the banks of the Jordan in imitation of Our Lord. At that time (and until about 400) it was customary to postpone baptism until the last minute, especially among princes responsible for a thousand battles and death sentences. As Voltaire suggests, ‘they believed they had found the formula to live as criminals and die as saints’. After the baptism, which was administered by another colleague of Lucian named Eusebius, Constantine died on May 22 of the year 337.

While the Christians have almost dispensed with their common sense for praising Constantine, obviously there are very few testimonies of his critics that have reached us, among them those of the Emperor Julian and the historian Zosimus.

Eugenics and Race, 6

Clear thinking on Race and Eugenics? We suppose it is rather early to expect the uniformed and careless mass of mankind to accept such ideas. A number of our early forbears did practice a crude form of eugenics—the Spartans for one and the Indo-Aryans for another—and the agricultural revolution in eighteenth century Europe was based on ideas of selective breeding of both plants and animals, but the true significance of biological forces has only been appreciated since the late nineteenth century, since the development of the theory of evolution and the discovery of Mendelian heredity.

What is more, these scientific views have come on the stage at a time when sentimentalism is deeply rooted in the public mind, and ‘internationalists’ preach the equality of man, regardless of biological inequalities, and try to prove that one can make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, in direct contradiction to the ancient Teutonic folk-dictum. Yet unless something is done, and done quickly, it seems that mankind, with its present mania for race-mixing (largely the product of the blind war-propaganda of the 1939-45 war), intends to throw away its heritage, renounce the future, and consign progress to the limbo…

To think and practice eugenic and racial morals ourself is our duty, but this is not enough in the troubled state of the world today. It is necessary for each and every one of us to work to bring these ideas home to our fellow beings. We must talk and write about eugenics and race; we must help to make the ideas ‘fashionable’ as quickly as we can. Let there be no confusion, also, between the two concepts for basically they are one and the same…

Today mankind, in a welter of sickly sentiment, seeks to destroy the biological and evolutionary structure on which the whole edifice of human progress is raised, thus to discard the work of thousands of generations of evolutionary specialisation and shaping. We can only prevent the destruction of this edifice if we take it upon ourselves to overcome our inherent shyness of such topics, to forget that we might possibly say something that might offend our neighbours, and start talking about race, racial hygiene and human eugenics. Only thus can we ensure that our children and—their children—will be able to find fitting partners for marriage.

Only thus can we ensure the survival of our own kind and our own species—and also lay the foundations for a noble future.

______________________

These are passages from the sixth and last chapter of Eugenics and Race, a booklet now available at 75% off from Daybreak Publications (here).

Published in: on August 28, 2017 at 1:23 pm  Comments Off on Eugenics and Race, 6  

Eugenics and Race, 5

Note from the Editor:

A former sponsor of this blog speculated that I wanted to exterminate Mediterraneans like him. That is nonsense—I myself look like a Med. Not even Himmler wanted to do such thing.

This said, Richard Spencer fails horribly when fantasizing a New Rome that does not distinguish between, say, Sicilians and Norwegians.

These passages from the fifth chapter of Eugenics and Race (available here) show what mudblood states in Europe ought to do if they wanted inclusion in a Fourth Reich.
 

In a Brave New World such as Aldous Huxley pictures, it is quite conceivable that the citizens of a state might be persuaded by propaganda (or even forced) to accept foster parenthood, in which case future generations would be produced from parents specially selected for this role… Nations which have been largely mongrelised could be rejuvenated through the proper selection of representative donors for artificial insemination…

It must be possible to show that the donor has a ‘pure’ and ‘healthy’ genetic constitution, not merely a seemingly fit body, mind and personality himself. This means that he must be ‘racially’ pure—capable of breeding true to the healthy lines required. If in his family history there are inherited faults present in his genes, due to earlier crossing with unhealthy stock, then the individual cannot be allowed to donate either egg or sperm.

Eventually we must aim to build up a capable and healthy race which will breed only capable and healthy kind. When that is achieved we shall have a ‘pure race’ (for a pure race is no more than a group of individuals who are capable of interbreeding and reproducing similarly pure kind). To obtain a ‘pure race’, however, we have to rely on breeding from pure stock: from stock which has proved itself racially true through several generations.

Fortunately, relatively pure healthy stock of every main racial type still does exist, and so the nations and the races of the world, if they act early, can use artificial insemination as a boon to mankind, and so go far towards breeding back the ‘ideal’ types that must once have existed—or even improve on these types. We in Northern Europe for our part can perhaps hope to recreate a society comparable to that of the Heroes of Asgard.

Published in: on August 21, 2017 at 10:48 am  Comments Off on Eugenics and Race, 5