Love Germania. Hate the US. – I

Five years ago, trying to communicate with the commenters of The Occidental Observer, Jack Frost said: ‘Although it might be possible to develop a racist interpretation of Christianity (e.g., what the Nazis tried), I’ve never seen a convincing theological justification of it. The fact that all major churches and 99%+ of all who today call themselves Christians reject racism ought to tell you something… You probably want to hang on to most of Christianity as it has been “traditionally” practiced in relatively modern times, while discarding only the anti-racism. Everyone who ever tried that has failed, but I guess you don’t see that as a problem. Then again, the cognitive dissonance issue is nearly as problematic. In order to accept being called a racist or a Nazi with equanimity, normal American whites would have to reconcile that with their country’s history of being violently opposed to racism of any kind, from the Civil War forward. They would have to admit to themselves and to others that all of that blood shed in trying to stamp out racism had been shed in vain, and in fact, worse than in vain, in an evil cause. They would have to admit that their ancestors were evil, and that they themselves had also been evil before they saw the light and became racists’.

Frost thus tried to argue with the Christian white nationalists of the US. Now let’s talk about a normie at the south of Rio Grande.

A guest at my home, a chiropractor, said this week that the covid-19 pandemic is an international conspiracy to force everyone to be vaccinated and implanted with a chip for social control purposes. What is the difference between this nutter and many who, in the white advocacy forums, advance the craziest conspiracy theories? Doesn’t this have to do that all these people, normies and nationalists, are like the Jew Andrew Solomon (i.e., they violate the Oracle of Delphi’s commandment, they don’t know themselves)? If they knew themselves they would know that many of their internal demons (read: conspiracy theories), and even the idea they have about the (non-existent) Hebrew god they worship, is nothing more than the shadows transferred from the parental image. Paleological thinking has not been completely surpassed in the West, not even among racialists. Even high IQ Jews commenting on racial issues grotesquely distort reality.

Consider Ron Unz for example. This Jew likes to brag that he is against the official narrative about World War II and the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as most Americans believe that Oswald did not act alone. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of books about the murder promote conspiracy theories, in addition to blockbuster movies like the filth filmed by Oliver Stone. What Unz doesn’t want to see is that no one reads what he calls the official Warren Report. Instead, they consume all the prolefeed for the proles on JFK with which the System has stupefied the Americans.

It is true that I no longer enter the sites of white nationalism, but I do click on the threads of the commenters when they link to this site. In one of these threads I saw that Jack Frost, who now comments under another pseudonym in Unz Review, accepts the official story about Caligula, which paints him as a monster. Let us remember what Evropa Soberana tells us in the essay that I have promoted the most on this site, which teaches us to understand JQ at its origins. I quote from the chapter ‘Rome against Judea; Judea against Rome’ in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour:
 

Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (‘Caligula’)

In 38, Caligula, the successor of Tiberius, sends his friend Herod Agrippa to the troubled city of Alexandria, to watch over Aulus Avilius Flaccus, the prefect of Egypt, who did not enjoy precisely the confidence of the emperor and who—according to the Jew Philo of Alexandria—was an authentic villain. The arrival of Agrippa to Alexandria was greeted with great protests by the Greek community, as they thought he was coming to proclaim himself king of the Jews. Agrippa was insulted by a crowd, and Flaccus did nothing to punish the offenders, despite the fact that the victim was an envoy of the emperor. This encouraged the Greeks to demand that statues of Caligula be placed in the synagogues, as a provocation to Jewry.

This simple act seemed to be the sign of an uprising: the Greeks and Egyptians attacked the synagogues and set them on fire. The Jews were expelled from their homes, which were looted, and thereafter segregated in a ghetto from which they could not leave. They were stoned, beaten or burned alive, while others ended up in the sand to serve as food to the beasts in those macabre circus shows so common in the Roman world. According to Philo, Flaccus did nothing to prevent these riots and murders, and even supported them, as did the Egyptian Apion, whom we have seen criticising the Jewish quarter in the section devoted to Hellenistic anti-Semitism.

To celebrate the emperor’s birthday (August 31, a Shabbat), members of the Jewish council were arrested and flogged in the theatre; others were crucified. When the Jewish community reacted, the Roman soldiers retaliated by looting and burning down thousands of Jewish houses, desecrating the synagogues and killing 50,000 Jews. When they were ordered to cease the killing, the local Greek population, inflamed by Apion (not surprisingly, Josephus has a work called Contra Apion) continued the riots. Desperate, the Jews sent Philo to reason with the Roman authorities. The Jewish philosopher wrote a text entitled Contra Flaccus and, along with the surely negative report that Agrippa had given to Caligula, the governor was executed.

After these events, things calmed down and the Jews did not suffer violence as long as they stayed within the confines of their ghetto. However, although Flaccus’ successor allowed the Alexandrian Jewry to give their version of the events, in the year 40 there were again riots among the Jews (who were outraged by the construction of an altar) and among the Greeks, who accused the Jews of refusing to worship the emperor. The religious Jews ordered to destroy the altar and, in retaliation, Caligula made a decision that really showed how little he knew the Jewish quarter: he ordered to place a statue of himself at the Temple of Jerusalem. According to Philo, Caligula ‘considered the majority of Jews suspects, as if they were the only people who wished to oppose him’ (On the Embassy to Gaius and Flaccus). Publius Petronius, governor of Syria, who knew the Jews well and feared the possibility of a civil war, tried to delay as long as possible the placement of the statue until Agrippa convinced Caligula that it was a poor decision.

In 41, Caligula, who already promised to be an anti-Jewish emperor, was assassinated in Rome, which unleashed the violence of his German bodyguards who had not been able to prevent his death and who, because of their peculiar sense of fidelity, tried to avenge him by killing many conspirators, senators and even innocent bystanders who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Claudius, the uncle of Caligula, would become the master of the situation and, after being appointed emperor by the Praetorian Guard, ordered the execution of the assassins of his nephew, many of whom were political magistrates who wanted to reinstate the Republic.

This is the probable cause of the unprecedented historical defamation of this emperor: the texts of Roman history would eventually fall into the hands of the Christians, who were mostly of Jewish origin and viscerally detested the emperors. Since, according to Orwell, ‘he who controls the past controls the present’ the Christians adulterated Roman historiography, turning the emperors who had opposed them and their Jewish ancestors into disturbed monsters. Thus, we do not have a single Roman emperor who has participated in harsh Jewish reprisals who has not been defamed by accusations of homosexuality, cruelty or perversion. The Spanish historian José Manuel Roldán Hervás has dismantled many of the false accusations against the historical figure of Caligula (The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, pages 59-63, italics added in this last paragraph).

Roldán-Hervás’ book is in Spanish. But English speakers who are interested in a view of the facts that sticks a little more to history than popular calumnies in the Judeo-Christian era can read the Wikipedia article on the Roman emperor. (Although Wikipedia is enemy territory, they sometimes write comparatively neutral articles. At least the lead paragraph of the article on Caligula, for example, does not describe him as a monster.)

I have said several times that to save the white race from extinction it is necessary to rewrite the history of the West, so I use the symbol of the weirwood tree and the raven that, unlike the normies, can see the past. Following the crow’s lead, it is not only necessary to reclaim the pagan emperors such as Caligula and Nero within a new narrative. Concurrently we must take down from the pedestal those figures that Christianity placed on top, something that I would like to illustrate with Charlemagne.

The only living historian for whom I have respect told me that he would rate Charlemagne well up in the top five most evil characters of European history. I recently acquired Thomas Hodgkin’s The Life of Charlemagne, which I recommend to those who have swallowed the Christian version of this evil man. If we keep in mind the message of the historical sections in The Fair Race, we will see that even after the Aryan apocalypse of the 4th and 5th centuries, there were still many Germanic tribes in the 6th and 7th centuries who refused to worship the god of the Jews. Charlemagne forced these uncontaminated Aryans to worship the enemy god: a historical milestone that, for the 3-eyed raven, has to do directly with the philo-Semitic state that the entire West is currently suffering. (We could imagine a parallel world in which at least part of the Aryan populations had not been worshiping, for more than a millennium, the volcanic demon that appeared to Moses in a desert.)

Christianity, or more accurately the secular ethics that was inspired by Christian ideals after the French Revolution, has hypnotised all whites, racists included. Rarely do I criticise William Pierce, the best mind the United States has produced. But it is about time to do it. The Frost quote at the top of this article nails it. After The Turner’s Diaries, the anti-Christian Pierce cucked with his second novel, Hunter, by putting a Christian preacher as the spark that could awaken Americans from their torpor. That’s a failure to grasp the crow’s view about the CQ!

Now that, thanks to the insight of the three-eyed crow I have broken with American White Nationalism, I have no choice but to start getting acquainted with German National Socialism…
 

Berlin, 1936

Hitler has been in power for three years, a period during which hundreds of kilometres of roads and thousands of houses have been built for the German people. In 1936 the Führer ordered to launch his most ambitious project: the architect Albert Speer would erect a gigantic city in the old centre of Berlin.

In the spring of 1936, Hitler was inspecting the construction of a highway alongside Albert Speer when he suddenly said: ‘I still have left for commissioning an important building, the most impressive of all’. At the time that was no more than a comment, because there were more urgent international policy issues to attend to. Hitler had decided to test England and France by sending German troops to the Rhineland region, whose control Germany had lost in World War I and which was to remain demilitarized under the Treaty of Versailles. London and Paris reacted with weak protests, and Hitler knew then that he might be on the hunt for new territory.

In June Hitler was ready to reveal to Speer his architectural plans for Berlin. The first thing he did was to warn him that he should skip the bureaucracy. ‘The city council is impossible,’ he said. ‘From now on, you make the plans’. Then he gave him two pieces of paper the size of two postcards and added: ‘Take these two drawings and when you have something ready, show it to me’. Hitler’s drawings depicted an enormous triumphal arch and an even larger vaulted hall, with a capacity of 180,000 people. These constructions would be located at the ends of a five-kilometre long avenue inspired by the Champs Elysées in Paris. ‘I made these sketches ten years ago and have kept them because I have never had doubts that one day I would build these two buildings. And that’s what we’re going to do now’, he confided to Speer, who left the meeting thoughtful and surprised.

The architect was thirty-one years old and, in just a decade, he had starred in a meteoric career: from an unemployed draftsman living from his father to a celebrated architect of the National Socialists.

Speer first saw Hitler at a rally in Berlin in the 1930s, and he was dazzled by his charisma, which led him to join the National Socialist Party and work there as an assistant. After Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, he was commissioned to reform the party headquarters in Berlin. His colossal style earned him immediate recognition. When Hitler saw his works, he commissioned him to reform the Zeppelin Field in Nuremberg and, before it was completed, assigned him the following task: rebuilding Berlin as Germania, the capital of the Third Reich that was to last a thousand years.

According to the Führer’s instructions, the works were to be completed by 1950. Speer had a vague notion of the dimensions Hitler was thinking of. To be sure, he enlarged the drawings and compared the size of the buildings with that of the people who appeared there. He also realised that the cupola Hitler had planned for the Grosse Halle was too flat and instead projected an enlarged version of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The triumphal arch, to which the Führer had added a simple balustrade, ended up with a forest of columns.

After several months, Speer had his sketches ready. Out of respect for Hitler’s designs, he did not sign them and left the space blank for the Führer to do so, but Hitler declined the honour.

It didn’t take long for Speer to realise that building a five-kilometre version of the Champs-Elysées in Berlin, with the Grosse Halle on one end and the Arc de Triomphe on the other, was not so easy. Unless it was integrated into a more ambitious city project, the grand avenue would seem out of place. The plan quickly took on gigantic proportions. Speer decided to create two axes (north-south and east-west) that would intersect in the centre, near the Grosse Halle, and would have an airport at each of the four points. Around the city a ring road would extend, within which there would be other circular highways, forming rings. The access roads would come out of the centre, like the spokes of a wheel. The plan included the complete restructuring of the railway network, which would have only two main stations, Nordbahnhof (North Station) and Sudbahnhof (South Station). Areas with roads considered obsolete would be free for other purposes.

The project also included residential neighbourhoods, a university, a hospital area, new parks, and several subway lines. Hitler was delighted but, as the months went by, it became clear that he was particularly interested in Victoria Avenue, included in the north-south axis. In meetings where they talked about the project, he listened patiently to all the news and then asked: ‘Where do you have the plans for the Avenue?’ They saw each other several times a week, in the late afternoon, when the Führer had finished the work of the day, and they could spend hours hunched over pianos and models. ‘One day Berlin will be the capital of the world’, Hitler predicted, and imagined the visitors stunned and intimidated by the magnificence of those buildings.

Hitler had Speer’s office placed near the Reichstag, so that just by walking through a garden, he could go see him and also the thirty-meter-long model of Germania. This was divided into several modules mounted on wheels, so that the Führer could move them and enter the city. He also used to bend down to observe the model at eye level.

He delighted in imagining ministries, exhibition halls, and office buildings of major German corporations; also the new opera, the palaces and the luxurious hotels. ‘I was participating in that reverie willingly’, Speer later wrote. On one occasion, those responsible for air defence heard about the 290-meter-high Grosse Halle project. One of them warned that enemy planes would use the building as a target to attack Berlin, but Hitler ignored it. ‘Goering has assured me that no enemy aircraft could enter Germany. We are not going to let this kind of thing interfere with our plans’, he said. The leader and architect tried to keep the project a secret. Hitler feared the possible reaction of Berliners when they were told that at least 50,000 houses had to be thrown away to make way for new construction; but the mayor of Berlin, Julius Lippert, knew the plans and showed his opposition, which led to Hitler’s removal from office to move on.

The works started in 1939, with columns of workers moved to the centre of Berlin to demolish the buildings. The inhabitants of the area had to abandon their homes and were housed in houses that had belonged to the now expelled Jews. Speer had granite brought from Norway and Sweden, as he believed that this material would impregnate Germania with the magic of the Greek and Roman architecture (see YouTube clip above, ‘What did ancient Rome look like’) and give it an image of greatness and eternity. In 1941, Swedish stone producers signed an agreement with Germany to sell 10 million cubic meters of granite to it. This guaranteed supply for 10 years, but few deliveries were ever made. Just a year later, in 1942, the Third Reich announced that it could no longer receive granite. Germania’s work had been suspended and the workers were assigned to much more urgent tasks. The Germans paid for the purchases of the material, but left the granite stacked in the nations of origin with the intention of collecting it once they won the war.

To secure victory over the Allies, Hitler had appointed his favourite architect, Speer, as the new Minister of Armament. Thanks to his organizational skills, Speer managed to multiply war production by resorting to different methods, including the use of prisoners from concentration camps as slave labour. During the Nuremberg Trials, Speer denied having any news about the extermination of Jews or the concentration camps. At the end of the process, he managed to avoid the death penalty, but was sentenced to twenty years in prison, which he served in Spandau prison in Berlin. When he was released, Speer went to the Tempelhof airport and crossed the area that was intended to be Victory Avenue.

Had it not been for American intrusion in Europe, the Führer’s palace would have occupied an area of two million square meters. As I said, it had to be finished by 1950, the year in which Hitler had planned to start inhabiting it. Today’s white advocates could have visited it!

But due to the Americans Hitler had to commit suicide to prevent the humiliation at Nuremberg. The buildings were demolished. The granite blocks were never collected. After the war they were stored for years in different ports until, in the end, they were acquired by tombstone manufacturers. In this way, a large part of Germania, Hitler’s dream, ended in different European cemeteries. Thus Germania (like the moral of the whole white race) ended up turned literally into tombstones…

Let us now return to the issues at the beginning of this article. To understand this site, it is essential to remember the message of Soberana’s master essay on the surreptitious war that Judea waged against Rome during the Christian takeover of the classical world. It is also necessary to understand that, once Soberana’s vision has been assimilated (whom I have compared to the raven who sees the past as it happened), many so-called civilisation builders of the Christian era become monsters (for example, Charlemagne) and many monsters become murdered heroes (for example, the anti-Semite Caligula).

This transvaluation of values is only possible by seeing the past as it actually happened.

From this angle, which can also be seen in Pierce’s only non-fiction book, the so-called ‘barbaric’ invasions of the Germans in Rome that culminated in 410 AD were, in fact, Aryan invasions on a treacherous city that had been conquered by a Semitic cult. By transvaluing values, the ‘barbarians’ would now be the miscegenated Romans that had been brainwashed by the Semitic bishops to the extent of destroying their classical culture (the German incursions into Rome may have once again brought light into Europe had it not been for what Charlemagne would do centuries later).

The way Judea defeated Rome was very similar to the way Jews in the West have been acting since Napoleon emancipated them: by controlling the narrative with which whites see themselves. In the 4th and 5th centuries subversion was carried out through theologians and Semitic bishops who gained enormous power to educate princes from Constantine forward. From this angle, the imperial Rome of the last centuries is similar to imperial America since Jewry’s presence began to become evident in the media. Charlemagne’s favourite book was St. Augustine’s The City of God Against the Pagans, an ideology that Charlemagne used to genocide the Saxons and convert the Saxon survivors to the Semitic cult. Similarly, as Tom Sunic has written in Homo Americanus, the Americans’ initiative to intervene in World War II was, ultimately, a theologically motivated undertaking. I must quote from Chapter V: ‘In Yahweh We Trust: A Divine Foreign Policy’:
 

Homo Americanus (chapter excerpts)

It was largely the Biblical message which stood as the origin of America’s endeavour to ‘make the world safe for democracy’. Contrary to many European observers critical of America, American military interventions have never had as a sole objective economic imperialism but rather the desire to spread American democracy around the world…

American involvement in Europe during World War II and the later occupation of Germany were motivated by America’s self-appointed do-gooding efforts and the belief that Evil in its fascist form had to be removed, whatever the costs might be. Clearly, Hitler declared war on ‘neutral’ America, but Germany’s act of belligerence against America needs to be put into perspective. An objective scholar must examine America’s previous illegal supplying of war material to the Soviet Union and Great Britain. Equally illegal under international law was America’s engaging German submarines in the Atlantic prior to the German declaration of war, which was accompanied by incessant anti-German media hectoring by American Jews—a strategy carried out in the name of a divine mission of ‘making the world safe for democracy’.

‘The crisis of Americanism in our epoch,’ wrote a German scholar, Giselher Wirsing, who had close ties with propaganda officials in the Third Reich, ‘falls short of degeneracy of the Puritan mindset. In degenerated Puritanism lies, side by side with Judaism, America’s inborn danger’…

In the first half of the 20th century American Biblical fundamentalism resulted in military behaviour that American postmodern elites are not very fond of discussing in a public forum. It is common place in American academia and the film industry to criticise National Socialism for its real or alleged terror. But the American way of conducting World War II—under the guise of democracy and world peace—was just as violent if not even worse.

Puritanism had given birth to a distinctive type of American fanaticism which does not have parallels anywhere else in the world. Just as in 17th century England, Cromwell was persuaded that he had been sent by God Almighty to purge England of its enemies; so did his American liberal successors by the end of the 20th century think themselves elected in order to impose their own code of military and political conduct in both domestic and foreign affairs. M.E. Bradford notes that this type of Puritan self-righteousness could be easily observed from Monroe to Lincoln and Lincoln’s lieutenants Sherman and Grant…

Whereas everybody in American and European postmodern political establishment are obliged to know by heart the body count of Fascist and National Socialist victims, nobody still knows the exact number of Germans killed by American forces during and after World War II. Worse, as noted earlier, a different perspective in describing the US post-war foreign policy toward Europe and Germany is not considered politically correct… [in spite of the fact that] the American mistreatment of German POWs and civilians during World War II must have been far worse than that on Iraq after 2003.

Just as communism, following the Second World War, used large scale terror in the implementation of its foreign policy goals in Eastern Europe, so did America use its own type of repression to silence heretics in the occupied parts of postwar Europe… The American crusade to extirpate evil was felt by Germans in full force in the aftermath of World War II. Freda Utley, an English-American writer depicts graphically in her books the barbaric methods applied by American military authorities against German civilians and prisoners in war ravaged Germany. Although Utley enjoyed popularity among American conservatives, her name and her works fell quickly into oblivion…

In hindsight one wonders whether there was any substantive difference between warmongering Americanism and Communism? If one takes into account the behaviour of American military authorities in Germany after World War II, it becomes clear why American elites, half a century later, were unwilling to initiate a process of decommunisation in Eastern Europe, as well as the process of demarxisation in American and European higher education. After all, were not Roosevelt and Stalin war time allies? Were not American and Soviet soldiers fighting the same ‘Nazi evil’?

It was the inhumane behaviour of the American military interrogators that left deep scars on the German psyche and which explains why Germans, and by extension all Europeans, act today in foreign affairs like scared lackeys of American geopolitical interests…

A whole fleet of aircraft was used by General Eisenhower to bring journalists, Congressmen, and churchmen to see the concentration camps; the idea being that the sight of Hitler’s starved victims would obliterate consciousness of our own guilt. Certainly it worked out that way. No American newspaper of large circulation in those days wrote up the horror of our bombing or described the ghastly conditions in which the survivors were living in the corpse-filled ruins. American readers sipped their fill only of German atrocities. [Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co. 1949), p. 183]

Utley’s work is today unknown in American higher education although her prose constitutes a valuable document in studying the crusading and inquisitorial character of Americanism in Europe.

There are legions of similar revisionist books on the topic describing the plight of Germans and Europeans after the Second World War, but due to academic silence and self-censorship of many scholars, these books do not reach mainstream political and academic circles. Moreover, both American and European historians still seem to be light years away from historicising contemporary history and its aftermath. This is understandable, in view of the fact that acting and writing otherwise would throw an ugly light on crimes committed by the Americans in Germany during and after the second World War and would substantially ruin antifascist victimology, including the Holocaust narrative.

American crimes in Europe, committed in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, included extra-killings of countless German civilians and disarmed soldiers, while tacitly approving serial Soviet genocides and mass expulsions of the German civilian population in Eastern Europe… As years and decades went by, crimes committed by the Americans against the Germans were either whitewashed or ascribed to the defeated Germans…

The exact number of German causalities during and after the Second World War remains unknown. The number of German dead varies wildly, ranging from 6 to 16 million Germans, including civilians and soldiers… It is only the fascist criminology of World War II, along with the rhetorical projection of the evil side of the Holocaust that modern historiographers like to repeat, with Jewish American historians and commentators being at the helm of this narrative. Other victimhoods and other victimologies, notably those people who suffered under communism, are rarely mentioned… According to some German historians over a million and a half of German soldiers died after the end of hostilities in American and Soviet-run prison camps…

The masters of discourse in postmodern America have powerful means to decide the meaning of historical truth and provide the meaning with their own historical context. Mentioning extensively Germany’s war loses runs the risk of eclipsing the scope of Jewish war loses, which makes many Jewish intellectuals exceedingly nervous. Every nation likes to see its own sacred victimhood on the top of the list of global suffering. Moreover, if critical revisionist literature were ever to gain a mainstream foothold in America and Europe, it would render a serious blow to the ideology of Americanism and would dramatically change the course of history in the coming decades.
 

My two cents

What Stalin and the Anglo-Saxons did in World War II produces a phenomenal hatred in me. For the second time in history since Charlemagne, the possibility of Aryan liberation thanks to Germania was crushed… by other Aryans. Today the United States, like the Judaised Rome since the times of Constantine, is the enemy to overcome. It is time to start preaching an infinite hatred for the new Great Whore that must be crushed in the coming apocalypse.

I call the people of the Americanised alt-right ‘Jew-obeyers’ because they have internalised the Christian prohibition to hate. I have recently learned that The Occidental Observer published an article on hate but let me guess: Did that article blame Christianity one hundred percent for the psyop against hating (remember I no longer read alt-right articles)? Instead of a conservative webzine like The Occidental Observer I prefer the words Kai Murros said about hate. Listen to Murros in a very short clip where a couple of bars of Parsifal’s music can be heard: here. Or what Alex Linder wrote:

Hate is not some useless organ like the appendix. It’s there for a reason. Why does Christianity do all it can to talk us out of necessary and functional drives? Well, the answer is that it’s a bit of software meant to disable our enemy recognition module. Christianity preaches blind love, and that love is murdering the West.

Christianity’s Criminal History, 123

Editors’ note: Footnotes have been omitted. To contextualise this section of Vol. II of Karlheinz Deschner’s encyclopaedic history of the Church in 10 volumes, Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, see the abridged translation of Volume I (PDF: here, hard copy: here), which reproduces a syntactically corrected edition of instalments 1-100 on this site. Instalments 101-122 can also be read on this site.
 

The Vandal state

Gaiseric created the first independent Germanic state on Roman soil. This Germanic state had its richest and most fertile provinces: Mauretania Tingitana, Africa Zeugitana, Byzacena and Numidia Proconsularis. Gaiseric also became the owner of Corsica and Sardinia, whose forests were cut down by workers under forced labour to build his ships. By 455 he added the Balearic Islands, which he had already sacked in 425. He dominated the seas from Gibraltar to Constantinople and did not even give nominal recognition to the Byzantine emperor, although in pledge of peace he had to send his son Huneric to Italy. […]

The rich churches and monasteries were sacked, as they were ‘bastions of Roman domination’ (Diesner). It is understood that, in general, the Catholic civilian population offered no resistance anywhere, remaining indifferent or sympathising with the invaders. Some of them even converted to Arianism despite Gaiseric’s attacks which were particularly brutal against clerics, monks, and nuns who were often raped. […] Occasionally, as happened after the occupation of Carthage, the king appropriated all the property, furniture and real estate of the adversary clergy. He also ordered that all churches be closed, handed over to the Arian clergy and used as barracks. […]

As comprehensible as the outrage of the Catholic chroniclers against Gaiseric is, one of them at least concedes something. The Father of the Salvian Church of Marseille praises Gaiseric’s fight against ‘impurity’. Well, this blood-stained Christian was tremendously puritan: a very frequent combination, as we know. He not only fought against pederasty but also against brothels, even forcing all prostitutes to marry.

The king of the Vandals, who, if necessary, was not intimidated by any bloody action, experiences such disgust at the plague of public sexual lewdness—a plague characteristic of the big cities—, and considers it such an abomination for his compatriots, that he proposed to eradicate it from end to end. And everything indicates that he achieved it while he lived.

The history of the Vandal State has only been bequeathed to us, almost exclusively, by Catholic clerics. Even the few historical testimonies of a profane nature are strongly influenced by them. Therefore, it is more than likely to have been distorted by their biases […]. Despite all the exaggerations, even falsifications, of the history by the Catholic tradition, there can be no doubt that the proceeding of Gaiseric towards the Catholic clergy was very tough and sometimes bloodthirsty. That clergy was, of course, not only a bitter adversary of Arianism. Arianism increasingly became an enemy of the State. […]

Gaiseric died very old at the beginning of the year 477. His son and successor was Huneric (477-484), whose wife, daughter of Valentinian III to which Gaiseric abducted from Rome in 455, fled in 472 to Jerusalem: presumably by aversion to her husband’s Arian faith […]. Huneric succumbed early, in December of the year 484, victim of a disease. The Catholics welcomed the news joyfully as every time one of their adversaries dies.

Great personalities defend eugenics, 10

by Evropa Soberana

The Nazis organised the SS, a military and biological elite that was destined to be the aristocracy of the New Order. In the picture, a formation of the SS Division Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, the most elite division of the SS. To enter the Leibstandarte it was necessary to measure 1.84 meters, be between seventeen and twenty-two years old, be Nordic and have a health of steel. For many years, no one who had the slightest physical defect, such as glasses or a dental filling, was allowed to enter the Leibstandarte.

 
The SS Doctrine

As an elite, the Nazis organised, within the NSDAP: the SS, guardians of the National Socialist idea, firmly indoctrinated and severely disciplined. The SS began to incorporate the flower and cream of all Germany (it was common for athletes or prominent scientists to be made SS), and they were laying the foundations of a social order based on the biology, genetics and will of the human spirit.

The SS in general attached great importance to good physical and mental condition and to the cleanliness of the lineage of extra-European influences. The conditions of entry remained very strict until the Second World War. In 1937, Hitler was proud that ‘we continue to admit only fifteen percent of the candidates who present themselves to the SS’. The discipline of these men was extremely severe and rigid, and the punishments even for minor infractions, brutal.

Each SS promised to marry (their wives automatically became SS women with the marriage, and enjoyed the relevant help) a woman of pure blood and have, if possible, four healthy children. Both this and the entire Lebensborn project were framed in the Nazi policies of positive eugenics, while the famous sterilisation of the defective ones was the negative eugenics.

However, the SS were not just a pack of stallions. They proved to be the toughest, trained, fanatic, brave, bold and faithful shock force of the entire World War II, starring true military feats unparalleled in the Eastern Front, and reaching the limits of human resistance in arctic temperatures and in hostile territory, against an enemy that represented an Asian, slave and oriental idea (Bolshevism), and that far exceeded them in number.

Due to its oath of fidelity and its sense of duty the SS was, along with the Luftwaffe and the submarines, the German military body that suffered the most casualties.

At the base of the SS ideological training we can see anti-Christian beliefs. One of the most radical SS commanders in this regard was undoubtedly Theodor Eicke, head of the Totenkopfverbände who initiated an aggressive anti-Christian campaign, during which many SS who clung to Jesus were expelled from the body.

Our Germanic ancestors followed the laws of selection as all healthy peoples whose intelligence and sensitivity had not yet been contaminated by false doctrines of piety. The false conception that the Church had of God denied the divine laws of Nature. The ecclesiastical teaching deliberately opposed the will of Nature.

Once it was preached to the peoples that God had died crucified for mercy of the weak and the sick, sinners and the poor, the unnatural teaching of piety and a false humanitarianism could promote the conservation of the congenital sick. It was considered a moral duty to care and favour mainly the sick, the overwhelmed unfortunates and the poor in spirit…

On the other hand, several hundreds of courageous young Germans fall every year victims of sport or competition, in the fight against ice, in the snow, in automobile races or by plane. No matter how large the number of these victims, no people on Earth have died from war, from bad harvests or as a result of a period of political recession. The peoples have only disappeared when the living substance that ensures their historical life, their blood, their race, have been exhausted. They only die, then, in the following cases:

  1. When the number of births falls due to the regression of the popular force, thus offering the possibility of being crushed by a qualitatively and quantitatively stronger neighbour.
  1. Through racial crossings that have taken away the inner harmony of an originally healthy people.
  1. By disregard of the laws of selection, which causes a decrease in the genetic heritage of value and leads to a reduction of the capacities and qualities in the population.

The death of a people is based, then, on an erroneous conception of life, and is due to the non-observance of the eternal laws of the Earth. Man has learned to despise the laws of life because he has lost the bond with Nature and life. (Notebook SS No. 3, 1939, ‘Why do Peoples Die Of?’ cited in The SS Order by Edwige Thibaut.)

 
The more a human group manages to dominate and transform the conditions of their area of life by establishing a culture faithful to the law of life, the more easily the individual manages to preserve and avoid elimination. The laws of selection and elimination, severe in origin, gradually disappear and are attenuated. The older a culture ages and reaches the state of late civilised times, the more it loses its vigour. She even produces the reverse process. Weak and sick individuals can thus survive and reproduce; different racial types are mixed. The creative law of the species no longer seems to act…

The most favourable case of the cultural relationship with the original biological natural selection appears when the objective of the second is continued with the first. Thanks to a keen perception 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, even after having reached more hospitable territories. Other Nordic peoples, such as our Germanic ancestors, naturally obeyed the biological laws that governed the creation of their species…

The intrusion of Christianity in the culture of our Germanic ancestors has given birth to a form of selection that, from the beginning, was revealed hostile to our race and its laws of evolution. The elite of Christian priests chose appropriate and usable men for their purposes, but prohibited them from perpetuating and conserving the best racial heritage by forcing them into celibacy. (Notebook SS No. 7, 1942, ‘The Biological Sense of Selection’ cited in The SS Order by Edwige Thibaut.)

Published in: on August 17, 2019 at 8:48 pm  Comments Off on Great personalities defend eugenics, 10  

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’).

Julian, 72

XI

On 22 June I left Vienne at the head of an army of twelve thousand men—cuirassiers, crossbowmen and infantry. The whole town came out to see us off. Florentius radiated irony, while Marcellus could hardly disguise his amusement. I am sure that they thought this was the last they would see of me. Helena bade me farewell with stoic dignity. She was the essence of a Roman matron, quite prepared for me to return upon my shield.

It was a sunny day as we rode out of the city. On my right was Sallust and on my left Oribasius. Directly in front of me a standard-bearer carried a hideously lifelike image of Constantius, crowned and wearing the imperial robe. My cousin had recently sent me this effigy, with a long set of instructions on how I was to show it off. He also reminded me that I had not been sent to Gaul as monarch but as a representative of the Emperor whose principal task was to display the imperial robe and image to the people. Despite this small humiliation, I was in high spirits as we took to the road.

We arrived at Autun 26 June. On that same day I defeated the Germans and set the city free. Note to secretary: At this point insert relevant chapter from my book, The Gallic Wars. It should be that section which covers the campaign from Autun to Auxerre to Troyes to Rheims, where I passed the month of August.

Priscus: As Julian described, Sallust on his right, Oribasius on his left, and myself just behind.

His official account of the campaign is generally accurate. From Julius Caesar on, commanders tend to give themselves the best of it in their memoirs, but Julian was usually honest. Of course he tended not to mention his mistakes.

He does not tell how he lost the better part of a legion through carelessness: he sent them through a forest where he had been warned that there were Germans… and there were Germans. But in general, Julian was a cautious commander. He seldom committed a man unless he was certain that the odds were in his favour. Or so the experts assure us. I know practically nothing of military matters, even though I served with Julian both in Gaul and Persia. I was not of course a soldier, though I did fight from time to time, with no pleasure. I experienced none of that blood lust he referred to some pages back, a rather surprising admission because in conversation Julian never once admitted to a liking for war.

Sallust took care of all details. He was most capable and in every way an admirable man. Too admirable, perhaps? One often had the feeling that he was playing a part (usually that of Marcus Aurelius); he was invariably demure and diffident and modest and sensible, all those things the world believes it admires. Which is the point. Less self-conscious men invariably have traits we do not admire. The good and the bad are all mixed together. Sallust was all good. That must have taken intense self- discipline as well as the awareness that he was indeed trying to be something he was not. But no matter what his motives, he was impressive, and a good influence on Julian.

Julian lifted the siege at Autun. He then marched north to Auxerre. He rested there a few days. He always took every possible opportunity to refresh his troops, unlike so many generals who drive them past their strength. From Auxerre we moved to Troyes. This was a difficult journey. We were continually harassed by Germans. They are a frightening-looking people, tall and muscular, with long hair dyed bright red, a tribal custom. They dress pretty much like us, wearing armour pilfered from Roman corpses. In open country, they are easily vanquished, but in forests they are dangerous.

At Troyes we spent several hours outside the walls trying to explain to the frightened garrison that we were not Germans and that this was indeed the Caesar. Finally Julian himself, with that “hideously lifelike” image of Constantius beside him, ordered the people to open the gates.

We stayed at Troyes a day. Then we moved on to Rheims. Julian had previously agreed with Florentius that the main army of Gaul would be concentrated there in August, preparatory to retaking Cologne. So Marcellus was already at Rheims when we got there. Shortly after we arrived, a military council was called. Weary from the long ride and longing for the baths, I accompanied Julian and Sallust to the meeting.

Marcellus was hardly pleased to find Julian so obviously thriving on military life. When Julian inquired if the troops were ready, he was told that they were not. When would they be ready? Evasion. Finally: a major offensive was not possible this year.

Then Julian rose and lied with the genius of a Ulysses. I could hardly believe my ears. He spoke first in sorrow. “I had hoped to find all of you here eager and ready to fight the tribes. Instead, I find nothing is planned and we are on the defensive, as usual.” Marcellus began to mutter dangerously but Julian was in full flow. You know what he was like when the spirit (often identified as Helios) was upon him.

“I was sent here, General, by the divine Emperor to show his image to the barbarians. I was also sent here to recover the cities you have lost. I was sent here to drive the savages back to their forests beyond the Rhine. I have sworn as Caesar to conquer them or to die.”

“But Caesar, we…” That was all Marcellus was allowed to say. As Julian talked through him, he withdrew a document from his tunic. It was the booklet on etiquette that Constantius had given him. “Do you see this, General? All of you?” Julian waved it like a standard in the air. No one could tell what it was exactly, but the imperial seal was perfectly visible.

“It is from the divine Emperor. It is to me. It arrived by special messenger at Autun. It contains orders. We are to regain Cologne. Those are his commands and we are his slaves. We have no choice but to obey.”

There was consternation on Marcellus’s side of the council table. No one had heard of these instructions for the excellent reason that they did not exist. But the bold lie worked largely because Marcellus was a true politician in the sense that he could not admit that there was anything which he ought to know that in fact he did not know. He gave Julian the army.

Published in: on July 28, 2019 at 12:13 pm  Comments Off on Julian, 72  

Veritas odium parit, 7

According to the theologians’ interpretation, the Church is born from the open side of Christ. It is the Church that congregates next to the cross of the Saviour in this painting of a Navarrese-French teacher at the Lázaro Galdiano Museum in Madrid.

The Imperial Church of Constantine and his successors always was a catholic, i.e. universal church. It is the institution that sanctioned universalism in the West. In ‘The Saxon Savior: Converting Northern Europe’ Ash Donaldson said:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Universalism’s pyrrhic victory

It took centuries of relentless indoctrination to get the peoples of Northern Europe to extend the in-group boundaries outward to embrace, first, all those who said the words and bent the knee before the cross, and eventually all of humanity, whose encompassing by the true Faith is a Christ-given goal.

But at the moment of its greatest success, with European missionaries dispatched to the remotest corners of Africa and Asia, Christianity found itself assailed by the very universalism that had provided its appeal in the first centuries. The same weapons it had wielded to discredit the pre-Christian myths and folkways were now turned against it by the advocates of a universalism that had no need for something as quaint as deity. If, today, the notion of God seems less and less of a possibility to the rootless inhabitants of our soulless cities, it is partly because Christian universalism paved the way by making our tribal identities, ancient customs, and cherished myths ultimately irrelevant.

Today, with that thousand-year resistance behind us, we can see how the triumph of universalism, set in motion by a very different sort of savior in the fourth century BC, has gradually left us without a folk, without a polis, and without the means to even comprehend how fully life was once lived. All that remains, it seems, is to double down on Christian universalism, throw oneself instead into a substitute universalism such as Marxism, or chuck it all for an unabashed individualism.

Yet as the past century-and-a-half shows, ethnic identity has a habit of returning with a vengeance. Those who rediscover such myths, folkways, and traditions as have come down to us often find that these things strike a chord within them. They simply fit, without all the caveats and yes-but’s of syncretic universalism.

Ultimately, however, a folkish way of life must have a folk community, and not the virtual communities that exist only on social media. We must have a polis again, in all that the Greeks understood by that term: small, self-governing communities bound by common language, ethnicity, customs, and religious traditions. Such a thing, far from being utopian, would spring from our nature, life as it was lived across thousands of generations.

What is artificial is our divorce from the land, our crowding into cities to live alongside strangers for the purpose of endless consumption, and our insistence on universalism even when we ourselves—those of European descent—lose the most by it. In the long view, all this is fairly recent, and in the North, quite recent indeed. That should give us confidence, for though the line is frayed, it is far from broken.

____________

Bibliographical references appear in the original article.

Published in: on July 23, 2019 at 10:18 pm  Comments Off on Veritas odium parit, 7  

Veritas odium parit, 6

The blood of Christ, the subject of inexhaustible meditation for the believer, is visible in a detail of this Crucifixion by Fra Angelico in which a monk appears contemplating the bloodied feet of his Lord. In the detail of this painting, which is located in the Florentine Convent of St. Mark, it can also be seen how such blood flows from the cross to the truncated tree.

A guilt-tripped man at the feet of the crucified rabbi is the archetypal antithesis of the proud Aryan Berserker of other times: to whom the morbid fascination of Judeo-Christians seemed unhealthy, bizarre and even inexplicable. In ‘The Saxon Savior: Converting Northern Europe’ Ash Donaldson said:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

The Saxon savior

The author of the ninth-century Saxon gospel known as the Heliand undertook much more than a translation, as difficult as that task has proven for missionaries. In his harmonization of the four Gospels into a single narrative, he presented Christ as an Odinic wizard-chieftain, with the apostles as his war-band. Consider the episode of St. Peter cutting off the ear of the Roman soldier arresting Jesus. While it takes up only two verses in John (the other Gospels do not even mention that it was Peter), in the Heliand, Christ’s foremost “swordsman” flies into a berserker rage:

Then Simon Peter, the mighty, the noble swordsman flew into a rage; his mind was in such turmoil that he could not speak a single word. His heart became intensely bitter because they wanted to tie up his Lord there. So he strode over angrily, that very daring thane, to stand in front of his Commander, right in front of his Lord. No doubting in his mind, no fearful hesitation in his chest, he drew his blade and struck straight ahead at the first man of the enemy with all the strength in his hands, so that Malchus was cut and wounded on the right side by the sword! Blood gushed out, pouring from the wound! The cheek of the enemy’s first man had been cut open. The men stood back—they were afraid of the slash of the sword.

Similarly, the author of the Heliand knew that the episode of Joseph and the pregnant Mary searching in vain for a place to stay for the night would be incomprehensible to the Germanic peoples, whose valuation of hospitality is clear from the Hávamál. So when the parents of Jesus arrive at the “hill-fort” of their clan, they are tended to by horse-guards, not shepherds, the former being suitable representatives of the warrior class, while the infant Jesus is placed among jewels.

There is more at work here than cultural transplantation, or even such ambitious modifications as moving the Last Supper to a mead hall or having Satan don a Germanic cap of invisibility to deceive Pilate’s wife. There is little to no valorization of victimhood in the Heliand, and the Beatitudes are reworked as praises of warrior endurance.

Sin, fate, and even generosity are all revised to fit a Germanic hero such as Christ is made out to be (problems which the sympathetic Jesuit who translated it into modern English is at great pains to square with orthodoxy). The author of the Heliand even seems to imply that the twelve members of the apostolic war-band might not even be Jewish, and hail instead from a northern people.

Notably absent from the Heliand gospel, moreover, are two famous parables that would not have sat well with a Germanic audience. The events described in the story of the Prodigal Son would have been unthinkable to a society in which kinship was paramount. The absence of the Good Samaritan parable is even more suggestive, since in the original, Christ uses it to introduce a universal moral obligation to treat strangers and foreigners as one would kin. Such an idea was foreign to the free peoples of the North, and one that Aristotle rejected as well.

And here we come to the nub of the problem. The Mediterranean audience for the Gospels and missionary work of St. Paul had been subjected to a political unification across ethnic and racial lines. [emphasis by Ed.]

Long before its decline, the Roman Empire displayed ample signs of declining civic engagement and social trust, qualities Harvard Professor Robert Putnam has statistically linked to diversity. What kept everyone’s Fagin-like concern for “number one” from pulling the whole thing apart was both the iron fist of Rome and the emperors’ insistence on public worship of the state.

Political universalism was thus reinforced by religious universalism, and Christianity proved more determined and well-equipped to insist upon that universalism than any of the pagan emperors had. Thus, either individualistic hedonism, or some variety of universalism, seemed the only choices to a people who had lost all of the intermediate institutions that tribe and kin provide.

The free peoples of Northern Europe, in contrast, maintained all of the strong links Aristotle identified as natural to our condition. As a result, they rejected individualistic hedonism quite readily and had no concept of universalism or of out-group obligations.

The sagas instead teem with people who have clear obligations framed by ties of kinship and friendship. Had the author of the Heliand presented the parable of the Good Samaritan, his Saxon audience would have incredulously asked, “Where were this man’s kinfolk?” Having no notion that mere physical proximity implied extra-tribal duties—an idea originating in the ethnic melting pot of Mediterranean cities—they would have difficulties extending that concept universally, as the parable seeks to do. That would require centuries of patient indoctrination.

Through syncretism and outright omission, Christianity was presented as—and ultimately became—something less foreign and less threatening to the peoples of the North. A faith that was Semitic in origin won only by becoming partially Europeanized, as James Russell describes in The Germanization of Medieval Christianity. (The Greek language has an admirable way of expressing this phenomenon: in addition to the active and passive voices of verbs, it also has a middle voice, in which the agent is both acting and acted upon.)

Yet today, the Völkerwanderung of Third World peoples is a reminder that this syncretism has gone on throughout the world, giving us such bizarre phenomena as the wildly popular cult of Santa Muerte, reviving the worship of the Aztec queen of the underworld trussed up as a skeletal Catholic saint.

Many tradition-minded people seem to be calling for a revival of Victorian “muscular Christianity,” yet the muscles have always been provided by the pre-Christian elements in this amalgamation, which tends to downplay the very things that the Heliand left out altogether. It is as if such people are trying to work their way back to something more familiar and more intuitive without sacrificing orthodoxy. Yet beyond the trappings of old-school Europeanized Christianity lies a core message that, of necessity, consigns ethnic identity, ancestral traditions, and ultimately this life itself to irrelevance in the face of our ultimate unity with God.

Published in: on July 19, 2019 at 2:44 pm  Comments Off on Veritas odium parit, 6  

Christianity’s Criminal History, 119

Editor’s note: It is vital to see how Honorius, the Christian emperor, behaved in the immediate years before and after the sack of Rome of 410 by the blond Visigoths.

We could define Western Christian Civilisation, in which we still live (I write this in the year 2019 of the Christian Era) as the historical phenomenon in which the barbarians of the North embraced the god of the Jews. If instead the blond beast had embraced the Aryan gods of the Greco-Roman world, we would not be suffering now from the darkest hour of the West.

Intuitively, Emperor Honorius knew what would happen if these free-minded barbarians found a culture that would represent them better than Judeo-Christianity. That is why, in the years around the sack of Rome, he was desperate to obliterate what remained of the ancient world, including the burning of the books of science that Greece had left us. The aim was that under no circumstances did the fiery blondes of the north, who finally broke through successfully in Rome itself, got any knowledge about the classical world.

Honorius succeeded: the barbarians of the north never knew what they must have known: an Aryan culture related to their race was thriving before the cult of Semitic origin that took over Rome. When in 2002 I read the following passage from Deschner’s book, in the margin of the page I wrote in red ink ‘Se acabó’ (‘It’s over’), in the sense that the Greco-Roman culture died with these draconian measures:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Now the monarch no longer only seeks the right to punish the heterodox, but also to change their faith… On March 23, 395 he forces the so-called mathematicians to burn their books before the eyes of the bishops and to enter the Catholic Church. Those who oppose are expelled, and those who are especially reluctant, banished.

On November 15, 407, the destruction of all the cult images and ‘pagan’ altars was ordered, as well as the confiscation of the temples not yet seized, together with all their goods and income.

It is also pointed out that the images of idols that still remain in the temples must disappear, ‘since this, as we already know, has been arranged on several occasions by imperial order’. So-called pagan festivals must also be eliminated, and owners of private chapels must destroy them. A whole series of provisions issued against ‘pagans’ and ‘heretics’ followed on November 24 and 27 of the year 408, January 15 of the year 409, and February 1, April 1 and June 26 of the year 409.

The government of Ravenna promulgated in the year 415 an especially harsh disposition against the ‘perverse superstitions’. The State now confiscated all the real estate of the temples. All the rents that once belonged to ‘superstitions with cursed justice’ must now belong ‘to our house’. All ceremonies of ‘pagan’ nature are also suppressed and certain infidel associations are forbidden.

Finally, on December 7, 415, the use of infidels in the state service is forbidden for the first time through legislation. They no longer have access to any office of the administration, of justice or of the militia. In fact, compared to the forty-seven high Christian positions there were only three who were not. In the last years of the government of Honorius, since 418, there is no senior official of ‘pagan’ confession.

___________

To contextualise these excerpts of a 3-page section of Vol. II in Karlheinz Deschner’s encyclopaedic history of the Church in 10-volumes, Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, read the abridged translation of Volume I.

Holy wrath, 11

by Evropa Soberana

 
Germanism and the advent of Ragnarök

According to the concept of the ancient German pagans, the final storm, at the apex of the Ragnarök, will be a hunt against the forces of evil. Odin, brandishing his spear and riding his eight-legged horse, will descend on Earth. Thor, wielding his war hammer and mounted on his chariot pulled by goats, will appear in the sky roaring furious and surrounded by lightning, causing an overwhelming roar. The Wildes Heer (furious horde), the Oskorei (army of thunder), the army of the fallen, will overwhelm the enemies of the gods, making the ground rumble with the hooves of their horses and the air with their battle cries.

The shadowy Valkyries will ride serenely, paying attention to the development of the battles to choose the new fallen. The crows of Odin, their wolves and all kinds of supernatural beings, will proliferate in the thick of the sorcerous storm, shaking the forces of materialistic slavery, agonisingly shaking the souls of the enemies of the gods, and ominously collapsing the walls that separate the Earth from the Hereafter.

All that was a metaphorical, symbolic and poetic explanation of the end of an era, when heaven finally becomes enraged and falls on Earth, and the apocalyptic combat of the superior against the inferior, the good against evil, is freed.

Perhaps one day, the forgetful apostles of financial civilisation and usury will once again know with horror the thirst for battle of European man, the foaming and anguished rage of the inspired warrior, the instinct of the worker, the conqueror, the pioneer, the explorer, the artist, the soldier, the lord and the destroyer that Europe carries in itself, and whose last example was perhaps, in distant days, the Scandinavian berserker.

Below, a passage from Heinrich Heine in Heine’s prose writings (Walter Scott, London, 1887):

Christianity—and this is its fairest service—has to a certain degree moderated that brutal lust of battle, such as we find it among the ancient Germanic races, who fought, not to destroy, not yet to conquer, but merely from a fierce, demoniac love of battle itself; but it could not altogether eradicate it.

And when once that restraining talisman, the cross, is broken, then the smouldering ferocity of those ancient warriors will again blaze up; then will again be heard the deadly clang of that frantic Berserkir wrath, of which the Norse poets say and sing so much. The talisman is rotten with decay, and the day will surely come when it will crumble and fall. Then the ancient stone gods will arise from out the ashes of dismantled ruins, and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes; and finally Thor, with his colossal hammer, will leap up, and with it shatter into fragments the Gothic Cathedrals.

And when ye hear the rumbling and the crumbling, take heed, ye neighbours of France, and meddle not with what we do in Germany. It might bring harm on you. Take heed not to kindle the fire; take heed not to quench it. Ye might easily burn your fingers in the flame.

Smile not at my advice as the counsel of a visionary warning you against Kantians, Fichteans, and natural philosophers. Scoff not at the dreamer who expects in the material world a revolution similar to that which has already taken place in the domains of thought. The thought goes before the deed, as the lightning precedes the thunder.

German thunder is certainly German, and is rather awkward, and it comes rolling along tardily; but come it surely will, and when ye once hear a crash the like of which in the world’s history was never heard before, then know that the German thunderbolt has reached its mark.

At this crash the eagles will fall dead in mid air, and the lions in Afric’s most distant deserts will cower and sneak into their royal dens. A drama will be enacted in Germany in comparison with which the French Revolution will appear a harmless idyl. To be sure, matters are at present rather quiet, and if occasionally this one or the other rants and gesticulates somewhat violently, do not believe that these are the real actors. These are only little puppies, that run around in the empty arena, barking and snarling at one another, until the hour shall arrive when appear the gladiators, who are to battle unto death.

And that hour will come.

Holy wrath, 8

by Evropa Soberana

The Danelaw and the main areas of Viking settlement in Great Britain. Apart from the designated areas, the entire coast was strongly influenced by Scandinavia.

For a time, the Vikings made England a Danish kingdom. The Anglo-Saxons under King Alfred the Great, Germanics like the Vikings, engaged with them in a war in which the Vikings were confined to the north of England, in a kingdom called Danelaw (‘Danish law’), where Nordic paganism ruled and where there was a wide colonisation by Viking families, to such an extent that they left many words in the English vocabulary. Some historians have called it the ‘other England’ parallel, the ‘Scandinavian England’. Here, the Vikings established capital in Jorvik (York) and devoted themselves to rooting rather than looting, establishing farms, fields and trading centres.

Both the Vikings and the Normans fought over England. The war broke out when King Harold of England, Anglo-Saxon, had to face first with King Harald of Norway and then with King William the Conqueror of Normandy, who fought for the throne. The Anglo-Saxons of Harold confronted the Norwegians of Harald Hardrada (the last Viking king ‘of the old school’) at the Battle of the Stamford Bridge. Having defeated Harald, the battered Anglo-Saxon troops of Harold moved some 360 kilometers from Yorkshire (north of England) to Sussex (south of England), where William awaited them with fresh Norman troops. Exhausted Anglo-Saxon troops clashed with the Normans in the famous Battle of Hastings (1066). For the lack of a good cavalry and because many left the security of the wall of shields and spears to persecute the Norman knights who retired to reload, the Anglo-Saxons lost. Harold died with his skull pierced by an arrow that entered his eye. It was a tragedy for England.

The ‘Normans’ (really Frenchified Danish) imported the French language, polluting the Anglo-Saxon and stripping it of its most Germanic resonances. French became the language of the new Norman court, and the Anglo-Saxon—that is, Old English—the language of the commoners and the dispossessed aristocracy.

England was also infected with the Eastern mentality. Its focus of attention and cultural relations went from Denmark, northern Germany and Scandinavia, to France and the Vatican, and in this sense there is no doubt that even a Viking triumph would have been better.

The Normans imported, in addition, a feudal serfdom of Christian type (that had sense in places where the Germans constituted a minority aristocracy, but not in England, where most of the population was of Germanic origin), sweeping the old Saxon law, so hated by the Church, and that only remained in the county of Kent, which had been the place where the first Anglo-Saxons landed (specifically the Jutes, from Denmark) in the 5th century, and where the Anglo-Saxon Germanic tradition was perhaps stronger and more rooted. However, the Normans undoubtedly brought beneficial innovations: large stone castles with moats and the spirit of the new cavalry.

The Anglo-Saxons, in any case, were not going to resign themselves to that situation, and many of their aristocrats, leading their people, took part in a hidden resistance against the ‘Norman invasion’, which was nothing but a French invasion. The very legend of Robin Hood refers to the struggle between Anglo-Saxons and Normans, in which an Anglo-Saxon männerbund, headed by a Saxon nobleman, retires to the forest and carries out ‘guerrilla warfare’ against the occupation.

The Viking expansion was so immense that they have even found Buddha statuettes in Scandinavian tombs. Not without well-founded reasons, some authors, such as the Frenchman Jacques de Mahieu, have placed the Vikings at the base of aristocracies in places as distant as Peru and Mexico, and hence strange cases such as Quetzalcoatl, Kukulkan, Ullman or Viracocha, pre-Columbian gods with European features (such as the beard, white skin, light hair or blue eyes).

Of the Scandinavian nationalities, the Norwegians tended to explore Iceland, Greenland and America; the Danes were concentrated in England, Scotland, Germany, France and Ireland, and the Swedes devoted themselves above all to their adventures in the East, including Finland, Russia, wars against Khazars and Tartars and their exploits in the Islamic and Byzantine world.

Non-Vikings considered the berserkers as the ultimate expression of the northern rage that spread like wildfire across Europe.

The same archetypal image of the bloodthirsty Viking that fights half-naked and kills indiscriminately, corresponds more to the berserker than to the ordinary Viking warrior. The fame and prestige of the berserkers in the North were enormous. They were bodyguards in many royal courts, including that of King Harald ‘Beautiful Hair’ of Norway. King Hrolf Kaki of Denmark sent his twelve berserkers to Adils of Sweden to help him in his war against Norway. After the Viking military campaigns, when casualties were counted, the military captains did not even bother to count the berserkers, since they assumed they were invincible after uttering spells that made them invulnerable to iron and fire, or that they were capable to disable the enemy’s weapons with their eyes.

Such fame came to the East, in such a way that the Emperor Constantine of Byzantium—a powerful man with many means, and who wanted the best—hired a select personal guard that was composed exclusively of Swedish berserkers. They were known as the ‘Varangian Guard’. (Over time, the guard would be so full of Anglo-Saxon warriors that it would become known as ‘English guard’.) As Constantine wrote, these men sometimes performed the ‘Gothic dance’, dressed in animal skins and totemic masks.

(Left, the Varangian Guard, known as pelekiphoroi phrouroi, ‘guardians armed with axes’, stood out gloriously in Constantinople or Miklagard for the Scandinavians.) Scandinavian paganism had preserved a healthy shamanism, deeply related to Nature and Asgard, the heaven of the gods. According to Germanic mythology, fallen berserkers formed in the Valhala Odin’s honour guard, so in their earthly life they tried to reflect and ‘train’ that vocation by protecting numerous kings whose power figure was associated with Odin.

The Varangian Guard became famous in a series of campaigns against the Muslims, in one of which the Varangians destroyed nothing more and nothing less than eighty cities. In each Viking army, the berserkers formed a group of twelve men. The other warriors had great respect and fear, and tried to stay well away from them, because they saw them as dangerous, unstable and unpredictable. The berserkers themselves were kept separate from the rest of the corresponding army, cultivating the ‘pathos of distance’.

Published in: on June 29, 2019 at 11:54 am  Comments Off on Holy wrath, 8