Persistent scepticism

A visitor to this site sent me the following e-mail:

This comment of mine was originally going to be posted in response to a comment of yours about abducting and raping the Sabine women on your blog post entitled ‘Initial scepticism’. Though my comment was not addressed to you directly but to anyone who reads your blog:

It’s sad that white males seem to be only able to talk about solutions to such problems as the Female Problem in future tense. White males speak about what they’re going to do “one day”, “in the future”, just not now. We’re going to abduct and rape our women “one day”…. meanwhile Muslims and Blacks abduct and rape our women now. In the UK Muslim men are having their lust fulfilled with thousands of white girls. Granted UK law is not hard on these Muslim men and actively favors them but at the same time Black men in America do suffer long imprisonment for rape, yet they still rape white women each year on a colossal scale. In addition Black men and Muslim men have their own women under greater control than white men have their women. Black women in Africa have the highest birth rate in the world and Blacks are projected to become the largest race on Earth as we near the end of the century. And Muslim men have their women following a patriarchal rule, covered up with burkas and banging out babies. Meanwhile they rape our own women on the side.

White boys (I’m not going to call us White Men, most of us don’t deserve to be called Men) talk about what they’re going to do “after the collapse”, hoping for a collapse that will cause society to collapse into chaos so the police are dispersed and they can get away with what it is they want to do. But the collapse may never come. What white males have to be prepared for is that killing their enemies and raping their women could very well require breaking their enemies laws. That the only way forward is to become outlaws. True revolutionaries. If the minority of us white males who want our race to survive won’t sacrifice our meaningless ‘freedom’, pleasures and life and endure prison, torture and even death then our race may not be able to survive. If we’re not willing to put anything on the table we don’t deserve to get anything back. Our forefathers sacrificed for their race time and time again. If white males have become incapable of doing what’s necessary for survival then our race is unfit to survive.

If white males were serious about their race’s survival they would be dropping out of society, draining the enemy system for all the welfare money they can, radicalizing themselves and other white males with racist literature, living a lifestyle where they are constantly in and out of prison due to their subversive activities, and finally carrying out terrorist attacks. There are thousands of radicalized Muslims in countries like France and the UK and they successfuly commit terrorist attacks. Imagine if there were thousands of radicalized neo-Nazi extremists in France and the UK. We would be unstoppable! A 1,000 Robert Bowers=11,000 dead Jews! Ultimately White Men have no-one to blame but themselves for their failure to secure a future for white children. White Men are deliberately holding themselves back for various reasons. It appears most white males don’t have the imagination or capability to break with the System and its programming. They are victims and slaves of their own making. Their ‘resistance’ will always be safe non-violent activism within legal parameters.

Thanks for reading, Cesar

T.

As we can see, the visitor used the phrase ‘But the collapse may never come’. In reality, the collapse is inevitable: as can be seen in these four videos by Mike Maloney that, five years ago, I embedded on this site (first, second, third and fourth).

Regarding what the visitor says above, that the coloured ones are already raping white women while the Aryan males only fantasise about doing so in the future, this is obviously due to the fact that the anti-white empire that reigns in the West forbids to some what it allows to others. The author of ‘Lycanthropy: How will the Castilian Wolf deal with Little Red Riding Hoods after the crash’ made it very clear that it is necessary for ZOG to be fatally wounded before white males recover their wives.

The good news is that the System will soon suffer a huge blow with the looming financial accident: a golden opportunity for white nationalists, finally, to grow a pair.

Boring team White!

Further to my today’s post ‘WDH radio nuked’ and also to my yesterday’s chess metaphor. Commenting about today’s chess game of the World Chess Championship 2018, grandmaster Peter Svidler (pic below), after 2:32 of this video said:

It is extremely dispiriting to have what has been happening in this match, happen day after day after day. [He has in mind the 9 draws in a row since the match started.] You show with White [chess pieces]; you go absolutely nowhere, you go home. At some point, to me, that would have been kind of soul destroying.

Following my yesterday’s metaphor of ‘Team White vs. team Jew’, I would say that I find the following Normie, Alt-Lite, Alt-Right and White Nationalist internet sites extremely dispiriting and even soul destroying!:

American Renaissance

Black Pigeon Speaks [Youtube]

Black Pilled [Youtube]

Breitbart News [Normie]

Brother Nathanael

Chateau Heartiste

Counter-Currents Publishing

Daily Stormer

David Duke

Gates of Vienna [Gates of Tel Aviv]

Infowars [Normie]

Jean-Francois Gariépy [Youtube]

(((Lauren Southern))) [Youtube]

Majorityrights

Mark Collett [Youtube]

Mark Steyn [Normie]

Millennial Woes [Youtube]

Occidental Dissent

Occidental Observer (The)

Political Cesspool (The)

Quillette [Normie]

Radio Free Northwest (*)

RamZPaul [Youtube]

Reddit (Debate the Alt-Right)

Red Ice TV

Richard Spencer Podcast (The)

Right Stuff (The)

Roosh V

Stark Truth With Robert Stark (The) [Alt Left]

(((Stefan Molyneux))) [Alt Lite – Youtube]

Steve Sailer

Styxhexenhammer666 [Alt Lite – Youtube]

Taki’s Magazine

Tara McCarthy [Youtube]

Trad News [Cuck News]

Unz Review

Way of the World [Cuck] (Youtube)

VDARE

The common denominator of these sites is that they are reactionaries, not revolutionaries. (In the case of Radio Free Northwest, marked with an asterisk above, the introduction of female voices strikes me as un-revolutionary.)

I propose to create a truly revolutionary radio show on BitChute. It is easy not to break First Amendment limits (like inciting immediate violence against X or Y persons). A regular podcast that contrasts sharply with the above Boring Team White is already crying, as the first breaths of fresh air, to be born.

Any volunteers?

Published in: on November 21, 2018 at 4:02 pm  Comments (25)  

Team White vs. team Jew

I would like to answer what commenter Highrpm posted in my previous post, ‘The bondage of groupthink’, with a whole new entry.

The problem, Highrpm, is that not every single nationalist was so badly mistreated by his parents. Why do white nationalist Christians are still addicted to their Jewish drug? Because of the bondage of societal groupthink, that ultimately is intellectual cowardice pure and simple. Aryans could win the Team White game vs. Team Jew easily, yet they chose rather timid moves, such as the moves chosen by the Alt-Right on the board of life.

Yesterday, Fabiano Caruana, born to Italian parents, could have beaten Magnus Carlsen in game 8 of the World Chess Championship 2018. Below, the position after 23…Bd6.

Caruana, playing White, could continue a promising attack with 24. Nc4 or 24. Qh5. However, he played the timid 24. h3?! which was too slow and allowed Black to mount an effective defence beginning with 24…Qe8! The game ended in a mere draw. Nationalists love to play timid 24. h3?! moves in real life. Instead, I would go for the killing with 24. Nc4! (see the whole game beautifully explained by Daniel King: here).

Incidentally, as a result of a single tournament that I played the last decade, I obtained an international chess rating of 2109 (Magnus Carlsen, the world champion, has 2835). Any nationalist willing to play chess with me online…?

Published in: on November 20, 2018 at 3:55 pm  Comments (15)  

Mere reactionaries

The fact that white nationalists and southern nationalists are voting (and that former neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer recommends voting) demonstrates that they merely are reactionaries, not revolutionaries. In a few minutes the #212 show of The Public Space will start. Election night will be the subject of that show featuring Duke, Spencer, Collett, Edwards, Striker, RamZPaul and others.

I doubt that any of them will start talking like a true revolutionary, which makes me think, Who beside me has included these folks within the NPC category? Or do you honestly believe that non-violent democracy will save the white race from the current extermination program?

Published in: on November 6, 2018 at 6:21 pm  Comments (28)  
Tags:

On banning feminists

Last Wednesday I explained my reasons why those who cry ‘Jew!’ while losing an argument should be banned on this site. Now I would say the same about ethno-suicidal feminists. Simon Elliot (pic: here) for one did not cry ‘Jew!’ certainly, but he told me:

Men usually like it when women are attractive, and since you don’t, and you *claim* not to be an old testament fanatic, the only conclusion I’m left with is that you must be a homosexual. I see no other explanation.

All false. I do like attractive women and I’m not a homo. But I am not banning Simon for that comment, who by the way uses the avatar of a girl in his Twitter account (this one). I am banning him because his feminist ideology is destroying in his country what I care the most: Lane’s 14 words. This for example was his very last comment on this site:

You are clearly in agreement with Anglin, that repulsive little gremlin, when it comes to women. The consensus here is clear. Unless they’re pumping out babies to be used as cannon fodder in your race war, they’re worthless whores who may as well drop dead. So much for your love of English roses. You will destroy them if you arrange for them to reproduce with hyper-masculine males. I warned you of that, and you can resent it all you want, but it remains true. Genetics is a bitch.

I will leave others to respond to that.

Tonight I am watching how nasty British feminists are (‘Jordan Peterson destroyed by feminist NPC | Facts and logic not even needed, TPS #209’). Simon is a typical feminist Briton. Ever since our initial interactions he confessed he hates Roger Devlin. (Unlike the troll Anglin whose style I happen to like, Dr. Devlin uses an academic prose in his scholarly papers against feminism.)

pride-and-prejudice 2005 filmI am now closing the thread where Simon made his last comment. Contra him and other ethno-suicidal Britons, I would say that if our civilization is under the grip of liberal mores, especially the belief that non-discrimination on race and gender is the highest moral value, when values are transvalued back to Austen mores our women will be having six or more kids.

If whites are to survive as a people the vagina gentium must be reopened, whether our spoiled women, or feminized Britons, like it or not.

What is wrong with white nationalism?

White nationalism, Alt-Right, race realism. You name it: it is a thoroughgoing weak movement. Once you reach the other side of the psychological Rubicon (pro-white exterminationism), these stepping stones look like a thing of your past. Last month, for example, Jared Taylor told Grégoire Canlorbe, Vice President of the Parti National-Libéral:

If Europeans are to be replaced, I would far prefer that we be replaced by Asians than by Africans or Middle-Easterners and, certainly, by Muslims. I hope, of course, that Western civilization will survive, that white people will carry their civilization and their biological substrate forever into the future. I hope that’s what happens. But, if we are—if we really are—to be bred out of existence, or if we do not reproduce ourselves, if the continent of Europe becomes non-white, if North America becomes increasingly non-white, I would prefer they became Asian rather than African, Middle Eastern, or Latino. Asians are a high IQ group, and they would organize superior societies, whereas if the United States became populated by people like Guatemalans, Haitians, Syrians, then the United States would become a Third World mess.

You can imagine an exterminationist like the William Pierce who wrote the Diaries talking like that!

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)