WN and I are two

That the white nationalists and I live in parallel universes can be seen in today’s commentaries on the visit of Witch Theresa May to the African country that is ethnically cleansing whites from its soil. I just saw a few seconds of this Ramzpaul video on the subject but I won’t see everything. A year ago I wrote:

The South African government had six atomic bombs. If the South Africans had nuked Washington, in addition to New York (which would dispatch quite a few non-gentiles) and Hollywood (thus destroying the Jewish virus factories for the Aryan mind), together with Jerusalem and Tel Aviv (which would have emboldened the surrounding Muslims to re-conquer Israel)—with the surplus bomb being retained for London, Paris, or Moscow—South Africa would have been destroyed by the Evil Empire, but at least it would have died with honour.

In addition to Ramzpaul, other white nationalists and people of the Alt-Right are commenting today on the Witch’s visit to South Africa. Well: I would bet that nobody says, not even remotely, what I wrote a year ago and also through the spoken word in one of the podcasts.

Pierce saw it clearly in The Turner Diaries: if a fraction of the atomic weaponry falls into the hands of revolutionaries, it must be used immediately, even if it is a move of enormous risk.


Nobody thinks like Pierce today! They prefer to follow the loving ethics of humanity, so full of flowers, inspired by Christianity. Next month Greg Johnson publishes his book White Nationalist Manifesto and I’m sure he will continue to say that racists should continue to use porcelain guns instead of fighting.

Yesterday I saw part of this video by Jean-François Gariépy (known simply as JFG in YouTube) about whether the future of the white race will be great or will be extinguished. As far as I watched, at no time was armed struggle discussed as the royal path out of the death trap in which the white man has fallen.

I live, as I said, in a universe parallel to that of white nationalists, folks of the Alt-Right or Alt-Lite vloggers (JFG, for example, is a libertarian). For me it is more than obvious that whoever wants to save his race must convert himself into an army: an army of a single soldier!

That’s why I can no longer tolerate more than a few seconds in sites or videos of WN / Alt-Right. Their lack of martial spirit, and lack of desire to annihilate the Enemy even if that leads to their own death, make me sick.

Heisman’s suicide note, 3

Rupture: How Christ hijacked
the moral compass of the West

The English word “virtue” is derived from the Roman word virtus, meaning manliness or strength. Virtus derived from vir, meaning “man”. Virilis, an ancestor of the English word “virile”, is also derived from the Roman word for man.

From this Roman conception of virtue, was Jesus less than a man or more than a man? Did the spectacle of Jesus dying on a Roman cross exemplify virtus; manliness; strength; masterliness; forcefulness? Consistent with his valuation of turning the cheek, it would seem that Jesus exemplified utterly shamelessness and a total lack of the manly honor of the Romans.

Yet the fame of his humiliation on the cross did, in a sense, exemplify a perverse variety of virtus, for Jesus’s feminine, compassionate ethics have mastered and conquered the old pagan virtues of the gentiles. Jesus’s spiritual penis has penetrated, disseminated, and impregnated the West with his “virtuous” seed. And it is from that seed that “modernity” has sprouted.

Jesus combined the highest Roman virtue of dying honorably in battle with highest Jewish virtue of martyrdom and strength in persecution. This combination formed a psychic bridge between pagan and Jew, i.e. between ideal cruelty in war and ideal compassion in peace. This is one way in which Christianity became the evolutionary missing link between the more masculine ethos of the ancient pagan West and the more feminine ethos of the modern West.

The original Enlightenment notion of revolution reflects a quasi-creationist view of change that makes the sudden rupture between the moral assumptions of the ancient and modern world almost inexplicable. However, if we take a more gradualistic view of social change wherein modern egalitarianism evolved from what preceded it, then the origins of modern political assumptions become more explicable. The final moral-political rupture from the ancients became possible, in part, because Christianity acted as an incubator of modern values.

Christian notions of “virtue” were not an outright challenge to pagan Roman virtue by accident; these values were incompatible by design. To even use the Roman term “virtue” to describe Christian morality is an assertion of its victory over Rome. The success of the Christian perversion of the manliness of Roman “virtue” is exemplified by its redefinition as the chastity of a woman.

A general difference between ancient Greco-Roman virtue and modern virtue can be glimpsed through the ancient sculpture, the Dying Gaul. The sculpture portrays a wounded “barbarian”. Whereas moderns would tend to imitate Christ in feeling compassion for the defeated man, its original pagan cultural context suggests a different interpretation: the cruel defeat and conquest of the barbarian as the true, the good, and the beautiful.

The circumstances of the sculpture’s origins confirm the correctness of this interpretation. The Dying Gaul was commissioned by Attalus I of Pergamon in the third century AD to celebrate his triumph over the Celtic Galatians of Anatolia. Attalus was a Greek ally of Rome and the sculpture was only one part of a triumphal monument built at Pergamon. These aristocratic trophies were a glorification of the famous Greco-Roman ability to make their enemies die on the battlefield.

A Christian is supposed to view Christ on the cross as an individual being, rather than as a powerless peasant of the despised Jewish people. If one has faith in Jesus, then one “knows” that to interpret Jesus as the member of a racial-religious group is wrong and we “know” that this interpretation is wrong. How do we “know” this? Because we have inherited the Christianity victory over Rome in that ancient war for interpretation.

Liberalism continues the Christian paradigm by interpreting Homo sapiens as individuals, rather than members of groups such as racial groups. If it is wrong to assume Jesus can be understood on the basis of group membership, then the evolutionary connection between Christianity and modern liberalism becomes clearer. Jesus was a paradigmatic individual exception to group rules, and his example, universalized, profoundly influenced modern liberal emphasis on individual worth in contradistinction to assumptions of group membership.

Love killed honor. The values of honor and shame are appropriate for group moralities where the group is valued over “the individual”. Crucially, such a morality is inconceivable without a sense of group identity. Jesus’s morality became liberated from a specifically Jewish group identity. Once it dominated gentile morality, it also eroded kin and ethnic identity. The Christian war against honor moralities became so successful and traditional [that] its premodern origins were nearly forgotten along with the native pagan moralities it conquered.

Jesus’s values implicated the end of the hereditary world by living the logical consequences of denying the importance of his hereditary origins. This is a central premise underlying the entire modern rupture with the ancient world: breaking the import of hereditary origins in favor of individual valuations of humans. In escaping the consequences of a birth that, in his world, was the most ignoble possible, Jesus initiated the gentile West’s rupture with the ancient world.

The rupture between the ancient and the modern is the rupture between the rule of genes and the rule of memes. The difference between ancient and modern is the difference between the moral worlds of Homer and the Bible. It is the difference between Ulysses and Leopold Bloom.

On Nero’s persecution of the Christians, Tacitus wrote, “even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.” The modern morality of compassion begins with Christianity’s moral attack on the unholy Roman Empire. Christianity demoralized the pagan virtues that upheld crucifixion as a reasonable policy for upholding the public good.

If, as Carl Schmitt concluded, the political can be defined with the distinction between friend and enemy, then Jesus’s innovation was to define the political as enemy by loving the enemy, and thus destroying the basis of the distinctly political. The anarchy of love that Christianity spread was designed to make the Roman Empire impossible. The empire of love that Paul spread was subversive by design. It was as subversive as preaching hatred of the patriarchal family that was a miniature model for worldly empire.

Crossan and Reed found that those letters of Paul that are judged historically inauthentic are also the ones that carry the most inegalitarian message. It appears that their purpose was to “insist that Christian families were not at all socially subversive.” These texts “represent a first step in collating Christian and Roman household ethics.” For these historians the issue is “whether that pseudo-Pauline history and theology is in valid continuity with Paul himself or is, as we will argue, an attempt to sanitize a social subversive, to domesticate a dissident apostle, and to make Christianity and Rome safe for one another.”

What could be more ridiculous that the idea that Jesus’s attack on Roman values would not need some “modification” before making themselves at home in Rome? Jesus and Paul were heretics of mainstream or Pharisaic Judaism and rebels against Rome. Since the purity and integrity of the internal logic of Christianity is hostile to purely kin selective values, there is no way whatsoever that Christianity could survive as a mass religion without corrupting Jesus’s pure attitude towards the family. Jesus’s values subvert the kin selective basis of family values.

That subversion was part of the mechanism that swept Christianity into power over the old paganism, but it was impossible that Christianity maintain its hold without a thorough corruption of Jesus’s scandalous attacks on the family. If not this way, then another, but the long-term practical survival of Christianity required some serious spin doctoring against the notion that Jesus’s teachings are a menace to society.

These, then, are the two options: the pure ethics of Jesus must be perverted or obscured as models for the majority of people or Christianity will be considered a menace to society. The very fact that Christianity did succeed in achieving official “legitimacy” means its original subversive message was necessarily subverted. State-sanctioned Christianity is really a joke played upon on a dead man who never resurrected to speak on his own behalf.

Official Christianity was making Jesus safe for aristocracy; falsifying Jesus; subverting Jesus. Rome subverted his subversion. Jesus attempted to subvert them—and they subverted him. (Bastards!) Yet without this partial subversion of subversion, Christianity would never have taken the deep, mass hold that is its foundational strength.

This insight, that pure Christianity must be perverted in all societies that wish to preserve their kin selective family values, is a key to understanding the process of secularization. Secularization is, in part, the unsubverting of the evidence for Jesus’s original social program from its compromised reconciliation with Rome. The first truly major step towards unsubverting Rome’s subversion of Jesus’s message was the Protestant Reformation.

The Roman Catholic hierarchy contains elements of a last stand of the old Roman pagan virtue, a reminder that it had and has not been subdued completely. The Reformation begun by Martin Luther was directed, in part, against this last stand. While Luther partially continued the containment of Jesus by checking the advance of the idea that heaven should be sought on earth, this German also continued the work of the Jewish radical he worshiped in attacking the hierarchy of Rome.

Secularization is the unsubverting of Jesus’s message subverted by Christian practice. Modern liberal moral superiority over actual Christians is produced by unsubverting the subversion of Jesus’s message subverted by institutional Christianity. There is an interior logic to Jesus’s vision based on consistency or lack of hypocrisy. Liberal arguments only draw this out from its compromises with the actual social world. In this role, Protestantism was especially influential in emphasizing individual conscience over kinship-biological imperatives based on the model of the family.

The average secular liberal rejects Biblical stories as mythology without rejecting the compassion-oriented moral inheritance of the Bible as mythology. That people, still, after Nietzsche, tout these old, juvenile enlightenment critiques of Christianity would seem to be another refutation of the belief that a free and liberal society will inevitably lead to a progress in knowledge. The primitive enlightenment critique of Christianity as a superstition used as a form of social control usually fails to account that its “social control” originated as a weapon that helped to bring down the Goliath of Rome.

Still, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, this old enlightenment era castigation of Christianity for not being Christian endures without realization that this is actually the main technical mechanism of the secularization of Christian values. When one asks, what is secularization?, the attempt to criticize Christianity for its role in “oppression”, war, or other “immoral” behaviors stands at the forefront. Liberal moral superiority over actual Christians commonly stems from contrasting Christian ideals and Christian practice. This is what gives leftism in general and liberalism in particular its moral outrage.

Secularization arises as people make sense of Christian ideals in the face of its practice and even speculate as to how it might work in the real world. Enlightenment arguments for the rationalization of ethics occurred in the context of a Christian society in which the dormant premises of the Christian creed were subjected to rational scrutiny. To secularize Christianity is to follow Jesus in accusing God’s faithful believers of a nasty hypocrisy:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. (Matt. 23:27-28)

To charge Christians with hypocrisy is to relish in the irony of Jesus’s biting charges of hypocrisy against the Pharisees. Jesus’s attempt to transcend the hypocrisies inherent in Mosaic law’s emphasis on outer behavior was one germinating mechanism that produced Christianity out of Judaism. The same general pattern generated modern liberalism out of Christianity. Just as Jesus criticized the Pharisees for worshipping the formal law rather than the spirit of the law, modern liberals criticize Christians for following religious formalities rather than the spirit of compassionate, liberal egalitarianism. It was precisely Christianity’s emphasis on the spirit that helps explain how the spirit of liberal compassion evolved out of the spirit of Christianity even if the letters of the laws are different.

To recognize hypocrisy is to recognize a contradiction between theory and action. The modern ideology of rights evolved, in part, through a critique of the contradictions of Christian theology and political action. Modern ideology evolved from Christian theology. Christian faith invented Christian hypocrites, and modern political secularism seized upon these contradictions that the Christian hypocrisy industry created. Resolving these moral contradictions through argument with Christians and political authorities is what led to the idea of a single, consistent standard for all human beings: political equality. The rational basis of the secularization process is this movement towards consistency of principle against self-contradiction (hypocrisy).

Modern ideas of political rights emerged out of a dialogue; a discourse; a dialectic in which Christianity framed the arguments of secularists, defining the domain upon which one could claim the moral high ground. The “arguments” of Christian theology circumscribed the moral parameters of acceptable public discourse, and hence, the nature of the counterarguments of “secular” ideology. Secular morality evolved by arguing rationally against the frame of reference provided by the old Christian Trojan Horse and this inevitably shaped the nature of the counter-arguments that followed. Christianity helped define the basic issues of secular humanism by accepting a belief in the moral worth of the meek of the world.

The Roman who conquered Jesus’s Jewish homeland could feel, in perfect conscience, that their conquest should confirm their greatness, not their guilt. Roman religion itself glorified Mars, the god of war. Pagan Roman religion did not automatically contradict the martial spirit—it helped confirm the martial spirit.

Chivalry, the code of honor that tempered and softened the warrior ethos of Christian Europe, is the evolutionary link between pagan virtue and modern virtue. Yet the imperial vigor of the Christian West was made, not by Christian religiosity, but by Christian hypocrisy. Christianity planted in its carriers a pregnant contradiction between Christian slave morality and Christian reality that was just waiting for the exposé of the “age of reason”. Christianity made the old European aristocracies “unjust” by dissolving the prehistoric and pagan assumptions of its existence.

Jesus himself contrasted his teachings with the ways of pagans:

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matt 24:25-28)

To reverse the high political development of kin selection represented by Rome leads towards sociobiological primitivity; to an immature stage where human ontology is closest to a more primitive phylogeny; when humans are closest to our common evolutionary ancestors; when humans are biologically most equal to one another since genes and environment have not yet exacerbated differences.

Christianity reached a state of fruition called “modernity” when a kind of justice was reaped for the ancestral betrayal of a Christian’s pagan forefathers. The pagan values that genuinely supported an ancestral chain of sacrifice for their kin kind and the patriarchal kingdoms of this world were betrayed.

A war of generations broke Christianity from Judaism, and left wing humanism from Christianity. These are only peak points that matured from the gradual kneading of cultural dough; from change guided by visions of the moral high grounds in heaven or on earth. Out of a conflict between generations that Christianity helped leaven, the modern social idea of progress rose.

Royal ape wedding

I do not want to see a single picture of this sin against the holy ghost in the media.

The level of evil of this era has no limits.

Yesterday a white nationalist complained to me by email because I blame Christianity—not wanting to see that Christianity promoted miscegenation since Constantine. Here in Latin America, the first president of Paraguay even came to prohibit marriages between Iberian whites: they had to marry an Amerindian, Negress or Mulatta. That genocidal Orwellianism will soon reach your shores!

Except for a single donor in Australia I do not receive donations precisely because I dare to tell the truth: the religion of our parents is involved to the marrow in white decline, more than Jewry itself.

There was a time decades ago when, after seeing the English women, I wanted to emigrate to England to marry one of them.

The fact that there has not been an attack today, right on the island where the Aryan woman reached its zenith in beauty, shows that the white race will perish—for sure it will perish: they have already lost their will for survival!

I have visited England several times throughout my life. Yesterday I was indulging in the fantasy to immolate myself by doing something heroic but the thought arises: I, who am not an Englishman, giving my life so that the natives themselves not only will not value the sacrifice, but put little candles to honour those who committed a sin against the holy ghost?

As horrific and bloodcurdling as it may seem for my character as a warrior, I have no choice but to continue with these exasperating translations about Christianity: what fried the brains of the white race (and white nationalists still don’t want to see).

My character is not being a writer. I would like to be that warrior I will probably never be because there are no comrades in arms left in the West.

Only faggots.

Published in: on May 19, 2018 at 9:54 am  Comments (26)  

Linder quote

“Whites have a right to exist” sniveled the fag, counterfactually.

—Alex Linder

Published in: on May 13, 2018 at 9:23 am  Comments (6)  

Beam on the Aryan problem!

Louis Beam said: ‘The real problem is you… that has given this land to the enemy… There is no such thing as Jewish domination. There is only white submissiveness. Refuse to submit and there is no longer domination’.

Published in: on April 25, 2018 at 1:38 pm  Comments (22)  
Tags:

A commenter responds to Greg

in a Counter-Currents thread: here

All was going well with this analysis until: ‘…likening White Nationalism to the worst forms of totalitarianism: Stalin, Hitler’.

Everything mentioned in the six points related in this article are imperative points laid out in National Socialism—and put into practice in NS Germany. National Socialism is only a ‘worst form of totalitarianism’ for those who really don’t want those aforementioned points put into practice.

The continuous defamation of National Socialist Germany—as well as its determined leader, Adolf Hitler—by people who claim to want an ‘ethnostate’ is precisely why there never will be another for a long time to come.

This kind of slander aimed at the last true bastion of Aryan independence just demonstrates the ridiculously naive and weak-kneed will of the soldiers-of-the-pen.

These sorts of theoretical discussions about what needs to be done to save the White Race always end with a sort of ‘this is what needs to be done, but we have to do it carefully’ (read: ‘let’s not rock the boat’).

National Socialism rocked the boat and the people praised the men who did so. Theories and discussion are for lesser men—action to duty and indomitable will are for the conquerors who still possess that noble and great European spirit which is the only thing that will save our people.

Turning your backs on the brave and noble people of National Socialist Germany because you don’t want to offend lesser men is indicative of a spineless will that will never achieve the goal.

You people are a disgrace. I’m just so sick and tired of this panty-wasted ‘nationalism’ theorizing. There is already a blueprint left to us. There is already a tried and true form of an ‘ethnostate’ which was very real and present in modern history. All the questions are already answered. What is needed is the spine and the will to go forward. But I’m afraid that this necessity is all but gone for western man.

Simply pathetic.

Unsweetened pill

Recently, in one of his typical videos, Millennial Woes reacted to the subject of admitting women in the movement. He has a point: the presence of female vloggers sweetens the redpill, there’s no question about that. But he goes farther and chastises those who want a boys-only club. Right after the hour Woes said: ‘We have to mature and develop beyond the male insecurity and paranoia that clearly is in abundance in our movement, in our community…’

Like many in the Alt-Right movement Woes is an ahistorical simpleton. He completely ignores that, say, women occupied prominent positions at the beginning of the Church. Hitler called Christianity the Bolshevism of the Ancient World, and we can imagine the female SJWs of the Early Church fighting for the inclusion of those nonwhites marginalised in the provinces of the Roman Empire.

I have not ended my translations of the series Apocalypse for whites, let alone the huge Kriminalgeschichte. For the moment a picture is worth a thousand words:

These are the type of mudbloods and sandniggers that composed the first Christians. The image is taken from funerary portraits of faithful resemblance to Greek-speaking people residing in Egypt. (The portraits survived thanks to the dryness of the Egyptian climate.) Although it is impossible to say who these men or women were, all were early Christians according to the book where I scanned the image.

Female vloggers sweeten the redpill, yes. But ultimately, and pace feminised western males like Woes, what we will need are natural-born killers. Women have their place in the movement lecturing other women. But only men ought to lecture men. If Alt-Right women are lecturing men that only means that the latter are avoiding a real fight in the real world. Moreover, women usually lack the IQ to see why the info provided by the authors of Apocalypse for whites and Kriminalgeschichte (think of the above pic) is so relevant for the survival of the race.

Yes: the women that Woes defends score much higher in YouTube hits than Woes himself. And Woes scores much higher than this humble WordPress blog of yours truly. But sooner of later men will have to make a choice: remain feminised like Woes or, awakened with the unsweetened redpill, fight to the death.

Fuck the British!

How many British men allowed this*
to happen without going full Breivik?

Andrew Anglin

_____________

(*) Child sex abuse gangs could have assaulted
one million youngsters in the UK.

Published in: on December 2, 2017 at 12:01 am  Comments (52)  

On Jared Taylor

Before I start the arid task of arranging today’s post on the Kriminalgeschichte series, I’d like to say something about this interview:

Taylor perfectly exemplifies what we call secular Christianity. Although he now holds a secular worldview, as a child his parents moved to Japan to convert the heathen. As I have experienced religious introjects coming from my parents (and written a lot about it in Spanish), I know there’s always a residual tail that cannot be erased.

Regarding Kevin MacDonald’s admitting a Jew as a contributor, in the latest podcast I told Walsh that more than an Aryan problem I see it as a Christian problem, in the sense of what we are calling ‘secular Christianity’. Like MacDonald, Taylor also seems to subscribe universal love, which includes Jews and non-whites: something absent in pre-Christian Europe.

What bothered me about the interview is that Taylor said that those at his right blame all Jews, completely ignoring William Pierce’s point that even if only ten percent of the kike forest is poisonous for us, the problem is the whole forest. Hasn’t Taylor read Pierce’s article? (Visualise it with the other Semitic tribe that’s infecting the West, Muslims, and you’ll get Pierce’s point.)

Taylor went further to say that he does not like much the term ‘white nationalism’ because it evokes the violence needed to create an ethnostate, and that he’s against any kind of violence coming from us! He added he’s prepared to admit some non-whites in the Aryan ethnostate precisely because he doesn’t want ethnic cleansing!

I didn’t listen the whole interview. But I am sure very few visitors of my site will comprehend the need of continuing the instalments of Deschner’s book for an in-depth analysis of what went wrong with the white psyche. Just think about it: big leaders of our movement hold views that would have been unthinkable for pre-Christian Europeans.

Woeful millenarian

Editor’s note: Chris White, who appeared last month on WDH Radio Show, is now responding to yesterday’s effete video by Millennial Woes:
 

Hailgate? You mean a few guys giving roman salutes in front of Richard Spencer? Are you kidding? What do you want? A reverse nanny state?…

I just typed in ‘Hailgate’ into Google and all I got as the top search results was a small village in North Yorkshire. That was an interesting experience.

Your whinging is preposterous. Biased government-media sponsored lawsuits and political arrests and intimidation are all apart and parcel of being in a political resistance movement you fool.

You should have seen this coming from a mile off, so why isn’t The Alt-Right prepared for it? If The Alt-Right is on a dip at the moment well then this is to be expected given Trump’s ascendance to the White House; it probably has nothing or very little to do with ‘Nazis’ and your patent submission to The Left’s cultural terrorism. If as you say The Alt-Right is ‘failing’ then this is most likely due to the very internalised nanny state tactics and hermitry that you now propose.

A real political resistance organisation would be establishing independent undercover mutually supporting bureaus in every city to monitor and log enemy activity, and to compile lists of both state and non-state enemy actors; would be pooling resources in order to buy up and make money from property; and would be covertly investing in shares and bonds through anonymous agents.

If The Alt-Right is really serious then why isn’t there a list of all public sector workers, their ID’s and home addresses? Where are the lists of journalists and their places of work? Why aren’t there any data gathering operations against the Liberal press and mainstream political parties?

What else do you seem to be advocating for other than yet more boring quasi-homoerotic meetings and conferences where you can all insulate yourselves from the reality outside in a meaningless bubble of time-warped pomposity? I just clocked the disclaimer on this completely unnecessary video: ‘This video is not intended to condone violence or hate’.

This is pathetic. This is not the type of attitude that I would expect from someone who aspires to become a political leader explicitly advocating for freestanding White interests. It is not ‘Nazism’ that has caused The Alt-Right streamliner to run out of steam against the tide, it is the very intellectual masturbation and kosherism that you are now urging us all to adopt.