Morgan on Jared Taylor


Editor’s note: My most recent comment on this site has inspired me to reproduce the latest exchange of Robert Morgan with silly racialists on Unz Review:

Jared Taylor: “Whites were never asked if [becoming a minority] was what they wanted.”

Robert Morgan: They show they wanted it by their past and continued support of actions that inevitably lead to it. They support the churches who bring in non-whites to dwell among them; they elect and re-elect the politicians who put into place anti-white policies.

The argument that the racial eclipse of white America is somehow illegitimate because there was never a referendum on it is transparently false, unworthy of a man like Taylor, or at least his public persona, since he likes to present himself as the intellectual face of white nationalism. If he really doesn’t know this, he’s not as smart as he likes to pretend; if he does know his argument is false but uses it anyway, he’s dishonest and just another grifter making his living from “white nationalism”.

Rosie: “Nonsense. The two-party system is a two-headed monster, and no real choice has been offered for decades.”

Robert Morgan: Yet white people keep participating in it, voting mostly for the two parties. They have always had the option of starting their own, racially-oriented white peoples’ party, but recoil in horror from such a prospect. They could have demanded a referendum on immigration such as Taylor pines for, but haven’t and won’t, because they don’t want to be “haters”.

In short, the people have the politicians they deserve.

As an aside, I will add that I’ve just been reviewing night two of the Democratic debate. Eight of the ten candidates appear to be white, and yet all were trying to outdo each other to see who could be the most anti-white. This has also been the case “for decades”, as you put it. The vast majority of politicians who put anti-white policies into place were white themselves, as were the people that voted them into office.

This should tell us the problem is primarily cultural, not political. Two thousand years of Christian thinking has softened the white man’s brains. Politicians must go with the cultural flow, and despite a nominal secularization, that flow is still guided by Christian morality. So long as that morality prevails, even if there were a referendum, whites would probably vote to become a minority. They’d do it “for the children”, just as their Bible tells them to do, or to “welcome the stranger”, as it also tells them to do.

Bardon Kaldian: “Especially your crusade against Christianity is both comic and primitive…”

Robert Morgan: I get a laugh out of you, Kaldian. You could be a poster boy for the brain-softening effect of Christianity. Too bad you can’t answer my arguments, and instead are reduced to invective. Rabbi Jesus was counting on you…

AaronB: “While whites were Christian, they were self-respecting.”

Robert Morgan: It’s precisely because they are still Christian that they are not self-respecting. Whites are so indelibly imbued with Christianity that even white atheists accept the Christian “brotherhood of man” nonsense. Christianity was the Bolshevism of the ancient world, and as Spengler observed, Christian theology is its source in the modern world too. (“All Communist systems in the West are in fact derived from Christian theological thought… Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.” – Oswald Spengler, in The Hour of Decision.)

Robert Dolan: “Just a few decades ago whites were a confident race, proud of their achievements, convinced of their fitness to dominate the globe.”

Robert Morgan: Just a few decades ago meaning say, in 1945, when they had just finished defeating white supremacism in Europe, at the cost of millions of white lives?

Or did you mean by “a few decades ago” to go all the way back to 1865, when American whites had just concluded their first big war against white supremacy, and were in haste to make negroes citizens of their country fully equal to themselves, and grant them voting rights?

The idea that the white race as a whole has ever been explicitly united in a belief in its own racial superiority is just an hallucination; a lie. If they had been, neither of the above wars would ever have been fought, let alone won by the anti-white-supremacy side.

Robert Dolan: “Christianity is universal, while Judaism is particularist.”

Robert Morgan: That’s right. To a Christian, it’s more important that a man is a Christian than that he is any particular race. A Christian would rather his daughter marry another Christian who is non-white than marry a white who isn’t Christian. Not so with a Jew. They stick with their own, and stick together.

AaronB: “And yes, God is greater than race or biological family, and must be your ultimate loyalty.”

Robert Morgan: God is an adult version of a child’s imaginary friend, perfectly explainable in psychological terms as a coping mechanism, something weak people need to avoid the existential terror that would otherwise overwhelm them at their fate of being utterly alone in a hostile universe. The allied Christian project of trying to figure out what the probably fictional character called Jesus “really” meant is a vain one, exactly like trying to decide what your imaginary friend “really” meant or wants you to do.

Published in: on June 30, 2019 at 10:31 am  Comments (5)  

The Antichrist § 19

Padua’s version of the Sistine Chapel, the Scrovegni Chapel, houses one of Italy’s great Gothic/Proto-Renaissance masterpieces: a cycle of Giotto frescoes. This specific fresco shows Jesus before Caiaphas. In his book The Antichrist, Nietzsche said:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The fact that the stronger races of northern Europe failed to reject the Christian God does not say very much for their skill in religion, not to mention their taste. They really should have been able to cope with this sort of diseased and decrepit monster of decadence. But they were damned for their failure: they brought sickness, age, and contradiction into all of their instincts, – they have not created any more gods since then.

Almost two thousand years and not one new god! And all the while, this pathetic God of Christian monotono-theism (*) instead, acting as if it had any right to exist, like an ultimatum and maximum of god­ creating energy, of the human creator spiritus!, this hybrid creature of ruin, made from nullity, concept, and contradiction, who sanctions all the instincts of decadence, all the cowardices and exhaustions of the soul! – –

__________

(*) The verbal mockery of monotonous-theism had already been used by Nietzsche in Twilight of the Idols.

Published in: on June 29, 2019 at 12:01 am  Comments Off on The Antichrist § 19  

The Antichrist § 16

Of course: when a people is destroyed, when it feels that its belief in the future, its hope for freedom, is irretrievably fading away […], then its God will necessarily change as well.

He will become modest and full of fear, he will cringe in corners and recommend ‘peace of soul’, forbearance, an end to hatred, and ‘love’ of friends and enemies.

He will constantly moralize, he will creep into the crevices of every private virtue, he will be a God for one and all, a private and cosmopolitan God…

He used to represent a people, the strength of a people, all the aggression and thirst for power in the soul of a people: now he is just the good God…

In the end, Gods have no other choice: either they are the will to power – in which case they will still be the Gods of a people – or they are powerless in the face of power – and then they will necessarily become good

Published in: on April 24, 2019 at 12:01 am  Comments Off on The Antichrist § 16  

Darkening Age, 22

Editor’s note: Yesterday I saw a clip of Kevin MacDonald and Richard Spencer, in which both talk about the Jewish question. It might be very strange to say what I’m about to say: but he who, unlike MacDonald and Spencer and their purple pills, is fully aware of the Judeo-Christian question, has taken the red one.

Below, Catherine Nixey talks about the great metamorphosis in the Aryan psyche that occurred when they not only destroyed the white religion (white gods-statues, temples, Greco-Roman texts, laws and culture), but when all whites had to submit to the psyop of the god of the Jews—a programming to the very core of their beings.

Those who have not rejected monotheism with my vehemence are not fully awakened.

______ 卐 ______

 
As the world’s first century of Christian rule drew to a close and the fifth century opened, the effects of this conquest were everywhere to be seen. In Italy, Gaul, Greece, Spain, Syria and Egypt, temples that had stood for centuries were falling, shutting, crumbling. Brambles began to grow across disused ruins, as the mutilated faces of gods looked on silently.

An entire way of life was dying. Writers in the ancient world who had held out against the Christian religion struggled to put their feelings into words. In a bleak epigram Palladas asked, ‘Is it not true that we are dead and only seem to live, we Greeks… Or are we alive and is life dead?’ Their old society was being swept away. The banner of the cross, in Gibbon’s resonant phrase, was being erected on the ruins of the Capitol in Rome.

But, according to some of the most famous preachers of the time, even this was not enough to satisfy the Christian God… He wanted—He demanded—the hearts and minds of every single person within the empire.

And, these clerics threatened, He would know if He didn’t get them. As preachers in the fourth century started to warn their congregations, God’s all-seeing gaze followed you everywhere. He didn’t only see you in church; you were also watched by Him as you went out through the church doors; as you went out into the streets and as you walked round the marketplace or sat in the hippodrome or the theatre. His gaze also followed you into your home and even into your bedroom—and you should be in no doubt that He watched what you did there, too.

That was not the least of it. This new god saw into your very soul. ‘Man looketh on the face, but God on the heart,’ thundered Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage. ‘Nothing that is done is hidden from God.’ There was, congregations across the empire were warned, no escape: ‘Nothing, whether actually done or only intended, can escape the knowledge of God’—or His ‘everlasting punishment of fire’.

Many Roman and Greek-intellectuals had shown profound distaste for such an involved deity. The idea that a divine being was watching every move of every human being was, to these observers, not a sign of great love but a ‘monstrous’ absurdity…

No, declared the Christian clerics. His attention was a sign of His great love for man. As too was His punishment. For make no mistake, God was not merely a disinterested observer of men’s souls. He would judge them—and He would punish them.

All Christians are Cucks, 3

Let us notice here also, that for example Satan in Sanskrit means Truth. Meanwhile, in Hebrew and the Bible, it means Enemy. Since the Jews are the manifestation of Lies—we can easily conclude that the enemy of Lies is Truth…

Alas, it would seem that when Christians were killing their Pagan brethren, burning their women, torturing and beheading people that the idea of loving your Enemy—wasn’t really that popular. Perhaps none of the Jewish priests ever read those passages. We shall never truly know. The entire concept of going around and destroying everything non-Jewish is found in the Old Testament though, so it boggles the Mind when modern day Christians somehow seem to disassociate themselves from the OT, claiming that Christianity is NT only—as if the idea of Christ would have any meaning at all without the OT…

This whole idea of God and the Jews is utter bullshit. What we see here is Jews pretending to be peaceful cockroaches, whereas their God is the supposed guy who wants to murder stuff…

Do you Christians actually comprehend that this is your God? This Voice that was talking to Moses and the Jews out of a Fire?…

This is God telling his fellow Jews how to work around non-Jewish nations. This is still the same scripture, Deuteronomy, the same Jewish bullshit Old Testament story. And if this is how the Jews are supposed to handle Nations which their God has destined for them to conquer—then you might begin to realize why all our European Faith, defined as Pagan by Jews, had to be destroyed…

When force didn’t work, the New Testament with selling your possessions and all that other Communist nonsense, did…

Could it be that the Nature of the Jew did not change for the last several thousand years? You just got to ask yourself this—what makes you so sure that what was written in the Bible by the Jews is the Truth? You know how the Jews operate. What makes you believe that they changed their habits? Jews are supposed to get our Lands as well and you know what that means—genocide our entire people during that process…

Ironically, European converted idiots were killing their European brethren just and only because they didn’t believe in the Jewish God. Let that sink in for a moment. These are all Jewish Tribal Laws and Commandments here. And to this day, Christians lunatics are willing to kill the true European people who follow the Blood and Soil faith of Europeso called Paganism.

Absolutely amazing…

Can’t you see the same Jewish ABC happening in all Abrahamic faiths? Can’t you realize that these Jewish religions are a fake, artificial identity that is trying to win over your Natural blood identity?…

And the mission of them is to annihilate, kill and murder everything that is not going to Submit to this Jewish God. Since the definition of the White Race is Freedom and Truth—we are the eternal enemy of the Jewish religions: all three of them. They tried to tame us with Christianity, but it didn’t work—now they will exterminate us…

Texas textbooks will teach public school students that the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on the Bible, and the American system of democracy was inspired by Moses. And you wonder how and why the Jews managed to then implant the Noahide Laws into America as well?

________

Read it all: here.

Published in: on July 8, 2018 at 12:01 am  Comments (2)  

Darkening Age, 4

Or

Combating the ultimate meme: God

 

In the chapter ‘The Battleground of Demons’ Nixey wrote:

But however alarming the demons of fornication may have been, the most fearsome demons of all were to be found, teeming like flies on a corpse, around the traditional gods of the empire. Jupiter, Aphrodite, Bacchus and Isis; all of them, in the eyes of these Christian writers, were demonic.

In sermon after sermon, tract after tract, Christian preachers and writers reminded the faithful in violently disapproving language that the ‘error’ of the pagan religions was demonically inspired. It was demons who first put the ‘delusion’ of other religions into the minds of humans, these writers explained.

It was demons who had foisted the gods upon ‘the seduced and ensnared minds of human beings’. Everything about the old religions was demonic. As Augustine thundered: ‘All the pagans were under the power of demons. Temples were built to demons, altars were set up to demons, priests ordained for the service of demons, sacrifices offered to demons, and ecstatic ravers were brought in as prophets for demons.’

Let’s return the favour.

The worst mistake that the white race has made is to have drunk the hemlock of the Bible. The Torah may be good for the Jews insofar as it teaches them ethnocentrism for the Hebrews and the genocide of the gentiles. But the Gospel is fatal to whites insofar as it teaches them to indiscriminately love the Other. The Torah added to the Gospel results in the Biblical United States and in Neochristian Europe. The suicidal standards of values of the philo-Semitic US and the secular EU are exactly the same.

In order to break the spell of the axiological hypnosis of the West, we must comply with the sixth article of the ‘Law against Christianity’ by Nietzsche:

§ 6 — The ‘holy’ history should be called by the name it deserves, the cursed history; the words ‘God’, ‘saviour’, ‘redeemer’, ‘saint’ should be used as terms of abuse, to signify criminals.

This initiative of mine, taking Nietzsche’s law seriously as payback for what the Xtians did (cf. Nixey’s quote above), reminds me of something I read in Siege. James Mason said there was a quantum leap from what Rockwell preached—the well-meaning but mistaken commander who placed the Nazi flag side by side the American flag—and the revolutionary proposal. But while Mason realised that the American government must be overthrown through armed revolution, he did not depart from the religion of those who precisely form the American government.

The real breakthrough in my opinion lies in rebelling against the ultimate meme: the idea of God. And that can only be done with a counter-meme: using the word ‘God’ as an insult, as it is obvious that for the Western mentality ‘God’ means nothing else than the god of the Jews.

I came to these conclusions after reading the recent transcript of the first podcast of this site, ‘Christianity is White Genocide’. More than what Linder said I liked what Walsh said. But even in what he said, that it was unclear if God existed, there is a residue of the brainwashing, as it is obvious that the god of the Jews doesn’t exist.

That same residue persisted in the philosophes of the Enlightenment. Not being Jew-wise, d’Alembert, Diderot, Hume, Kant, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Condorcet, Voltaire, Benjamin Franklin and others did not understand the psyop that monotheism represented for Europe. Some of them even transformed the god of the Jews into the nebulous god of the deists but never dared to insult the very idea of ‘God’.

Had the so-called Enlightenment understood the ultimate meme, which reminds me of what Heisman✡ said in some of the twelve entries I recently devoted to his book, they would have developed the sixth article of Nietzsche’s law ever since:

§ 6 — The ‘holy’ history should be called by the name it deserves, the cursed history; the words ‘God’, ‘saviour’, ‘redeemer’, ‘saint’ should be used as terms of abuse, to signify criminals.

Anti-Christian German Nazis and William Pierce are dead. It seems sad to me that no one has taken Pierce’s torch in North America at the moment. Or maybe I’m wrong. From the strictly geographical point of view I am in North America. But it is still sad that no native English speaker has realised that they have to fight the ultimate meme of the Jews, the haughty idea of ‘God’, monotheism: that the god of the Jews is the only god that exists.

God – postscript

It has been two months since I reproduced the entry ‘God’ in which Jung analyses the god of Judeo-Christians. It is so important that I will include it in the 2018 edition of Day of Wrath (the present edition of the book is from December 31, 2017).

I would like to say something about what is being discussed in one of my recent entries about the Shroud of Turin, especially what the Catholic Gaedhal says.

It is good to follow Jack’s advice in that thread of discussion: get acquainted with what I have translated for this site authored by Manu Rodríguez. I’m not sure why: but freethinkers who have roots in Spain are somewhat more aware of the calamity that Christianity represented than the English-speaking freethinkers. I have translated a lot of the other Spaniard, Evropa Soberana; but I should translate a little more of Rodríguez; and it is amazing how three Spanish speakers if I count among them, have maintained very similar views about Christianity.

The crucial thing is that the very idea of ‘God’ is toxic and deadly for the Aryan. Nietzsche saw it very well in the final words of his best book:

Sixth article.—The ‘holy’ history should be called by the name it deserves, the cursed history; the words ‘God’, ‘saviour’, ‘redeemer’, ‘saint’ should be used as terms of abuse, to signify criminals.

Seventh article.—The rest follows from this.

The point is that, as Constantine and the other Christian emperors dedicated themselves to erase all traces of the Aryan gods, and in their place implanted in the white psyche the god of the Jews with incandescent neon letters, every time someone revolts against the implant a ‘bug’ arises, so to speak, in those who unconsciously continue to defend Western Christian Civilisation instead of salivating for its collapse.

It was Nietzsche who saw ‘God as a spider’—his words—which is what Yahweh really is for the Aryan mosquitoes that fall into his net. If we are to win the chess game to the Jews, the first thing we must do is checkmate their god. It’s amazing that white nationalists fail to see something so obvious. The Covingtonistas that on Twitter are puzzled why the Aryan does not defend himself should begin to think that the cause is that he has a major bug in his mind, the god of the Jews.

If one visits the blogs of a typical white nationalist it is apparent that none promotes an internal Jihad. They want to save the race by means of slight changes, such as deleting and adding programs instead of the radical change of the Operating System itself (changing from PC to Linux in their spirit, so to speak). It is precisely for this reason that, although many believe that they have left Christianity and the Jewish god behind, they continue to say neo-Christian things, just as I mention in my last quotation from Linder, instead of hating the enemy more ferociously than loving one’s life.

If only hatred for the enemy can save the Aryans, God is a Spider: but a spider for whites only (ethnocentrism for me—Old Testament—, universalism for thee—New Testament). What Gaedhal proposes is, basically, to continue to honour the Spider and put on it a cosmetic Aryan garment without killing the monster behind it.

That, as have seen the two Spaniards mentioned above, is impossible.

I have complained that what is killing whites is what I call ‘partial apostasy’ when what we need is a ‘total apostasy’. The only way to transvalue all values, as Nietzsche says, is to start weaponizing the sacred words of Judeo-Christianity as insults to the unredeemed Aryan, which includes quite a few white nationalists. Wanting to save the Aryan race from extinction without purging the alien—the very idea of God—is similar to Ridley Scott’s Alien in that they didn’t remove the arachnid-like parasite stuck in Kane’s face.

On Christian nationalists

Because Amazon is already printing my books, and in another account The Fair Race will even be available, I removed the ads from my books that I had on the addendum to this site. I had titled it Daybreak Press but recently I modified it to, in my mother tongue, criticise Eschatology: a cult derived from Christian Science in which I was alienated throughout my twenties.

The founder of that sect, one William Walter, had crossed by a great agony in his youth to expurgate from his mind the idea of a personal god. Even during my perdition in Walter’s sect, I had already abandoned theism, as the idea of ‘God’ for the eschatologists is similar to that of the New Age in which each individual, not only Jesus, is Vere homo, vere Deus.

Although on the Addenda I now criticise Walter’s cult, his new vision of divinity is a clear advance compared to the idea of the volcanic demon worshiped by the ancient Hebrews: an idea that whites internalized with extraordinary ferocity since Constantine and his successors, except Julian, destroyed the classical world. Thus, the beautiful gods of the Hellenes were replaced by an exceedingly proud and primitive god, in whose Talmud it is said that the best among the Goyim must be exterminated.

But the idea of the providence of the ignorant Walter was not really new. It resembles, in a way, the new understanding of God of German philosophers such as Schelling and Hegel. Thanks to their philosophers, when Hitler created National Socialism, some Germans already had not only an idea of the divinity much more mature than the tribal god of the Hebrews (and of traditionalist Americans). The Germans also had a long history of exegetes who had subjected the New Testament to the highest possible scrutiny that one could imagine.

(Reimarus, who restarted the criticism on the historicity in the gospel narratives since the subject had been suppressed when the Christians burned Porphyry’s books.)

On this site I have criticized Albert Schweitzer for having migrated, as a good neo-Christian, to Africa to help blacks after abandoning traditional Christianity. However, his book, in which he reviews the long history of German exegetes who studied the gospels, is a classic. Many, like Schweitzer himself, had no choice but to abandon traditional dogma after such an undertaking.

Culturally but not geographically, I am closer to Europe and National Socialism than to the United States. For the same reason, every time I approach the new posts of pro-white sites in America, I am astonished to see how backward they are compared, say, to Hitler’s anti-Christian table talks (whose excerpts I find myself moving to Ex Libris). Hunter Wallace of Alabama, for example, concludes his entry today with these words ‘The solution to all this is found in Jesus the Christ’.

Compare his words with what I recently said in Pilate or Jesus?: ‘You do not realise that, with that admiration [of Jesus], you, like so many white nationalists who are still clinging to their parents’ religion, are doing something harmful to the white race’. It was in that same post where I added: ‘It is this kind of thing that produces a tectonic earthquake, it opens a grand canyon so to speak, between me and the [American] nationalists’.

Years ago, it seems to me that on Radio Free Mississippi, Wallace discussed with Alex Linder the theme of Christianity throughout the podcast. But Linder is monolingual: he did not know, at least when he argued with Wallace, the Spanish texts of Evropa Soberana and Karlheinz Deschner in German that we have been translating for this site. As I have said elsewhere, the masthead of this site is Soberana’s essay; what the ten volumes of Deschner provide is a huge bibliography that validates Soberana’s claims.

I do not harbour any illusions. I know that pro-white Americans will die addicted to the Judeo-Christian drug until their race finishes dying. But perhaps my work may be of some use to those who, as Walter and I suffered while repudiating the volcanic demon, are in the process of apostasy.

God

This text appears in Day of Wrath

______ 卐 ______

 
As I said in Hojas Susurrantes, in California I suffered an internal persecutor: a Christian fear of damnation caused by my father’s miserable introjects. On May 24, 1988, a few months after returning from California still carrying in my soul a legion of dementors, I dined with my parents in a restaurant [I wasn’t living with them]. From the street, three days before I had seen the dry branches of my tree and I believed that the tree would die so, in penance, I shaved my beard the next day after having let them grow for a few months; the only time in life I let them grow.
 

Saint Augustine

Before telling what happened in the restaurant I must mention that throughout my childhood I lived under the shadow of the figure of St. Augustine; as I recall, the favorite saint of my father when we lived in San Lorenzo (as we know, Augustine’s ideas had been one of my greatest dementors in California). At dinner with my parents, barely convalescing from the idea that tormented me, I jumped when (my mother?) mentioned the aforementioned saint. I exclaimed that Augustine had rationalized the eternal fire for unbaptized infants… More than convalescing, the psychic wounds of my family’s religion were still open, though not as maddeningly as the suffering in California. My parents felt the vehemence of my words, but not my agony behind them. What my father answered deserves to leave a record and it is worth saying that I wrote it down not in my diary, but in a single sheet. (When planning this volume I had to order my correspondence, documents and loose sheets in dozens of labeled envelopes.) According to my notes, my father answered me:

—Those [Augustine’s views] are people’s mistakes; human failures. I go to what Jesus says.

When I answered that the Gospel of Matthew put Jesus talking about the gnashing of teeth of the damned, he said:

—I do not see [emphasis in his voice] the anathemas of Jesus. I prefer to see the lilies and the birds; come and they will be given food, dressing be added.

On my single sheet, the following day I addressed myself: “Where is the Augustinian father of San Lorenzo? I am reacting—my Epistle [first book of Hojas Susurrantes] and anti-Christianity—against a father and a mother who no longer exist!”

I wrote that, as I said, in 1988. Today, twenty-seven years later, the dementors still persecute me somehow, although in a very much attenuated way compared to my youth. What I want to get is that, if the perpetrator does not recognize his fault, the mental virus transferred to the adult child goes out of control. If my father had been like, say, my very Catholic friend Paulina (who almost daily goes to church), another would be my story. It is not enough to point out the beautiful verses of Matthew to counterbalance the threats of Jesus about Gehenna in that same gospel. It is necessary to recognize that one committed an outrage when “educating” the son in the Christian doctrine of damnation. In one of her letters that she sent me to England by the end of the century, Paulina wrote to me: “Also, since you are not a believer, and you feel that religion was the first reason for your father to crucify you [my emphasis], you must hate religion. And I understand you. And for you it does not make sense to go to church, to say things you do not believe. And that also caused you harm (hell, torture, sadism).”

My father is not like my humble friend. In a dream I had my unconscious caricaturing him, putting in his mouth these words: “I am very Catholic because I only think of my salvation.” To understand the parental egotism that affected me so much, the religious mechanism with which he defended himself from his early sufferings must be analyzed.
 

God for Miller fans

When I returned from California in my twenty-ninth year, I was not only an extremely damaged young man but also extremely naive. I left in the television room [of my parents’ house] a number of books in English that I had brought in such a way that their covers wore the face of Jesus so that my father could see them. At that time I still believed that it was possible to negotiate my father’s faith with solid arguments.

Let us take into account that with the words of Jesus it “sufficed him,” and what he would tell me during the confrontation of the crucifix [recounted in a previous chapter]: that the fact that the miracles were interwoven with the teachings of Jesus implied that the story was true. I arrived in Mexico in February 1988. By the end of 1989 I began to familiarize myself with the skeptical criticism of the allegations of the paranormal by writers whose magazine I subscribed to, The Skeptical Inquirer. It was thanks to these skeptics that I saw clearly that reasoning like those of my father was fallacious. For example, that the (supposed) goodness of the teachings of Jesus demonstrates the historicity of his miracles cannot be sustained. “Logical systems get in trouble,” I paraphrase now from one of the articles in The Skeptical Inquirer, “when they are forced to show their own logic to demonstrate its claims self-referentially.”

When on another occasion I confronted my father with what I had read in those books whose covers he saw, I argued that the killing of the innocents could not be historical, as the historian Josephus, who belonged to the Hebrew priestly caste, does not mention it. (This historian of the 1st century did not silence any of Herod’s authentically historical cruelties.) My father got angry, but he did not answer my argument. While it is more reasonable to assume that the verses of Matthew and Luke about the killing of the innocents are literary fiction, by pure reason I would never get to communicate with him. However, the writers of the CSICOP (acronym of Committee for the Skeptical Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), as this group was then called, had a great limitation. Those who helped me overcome my belief in the miraculous narrative did not reach the core of the problem: the defense mechanism. If my grandfather and the elementary school [in the early 1930s] had not tormented the child César [my father], the adult César would not have clung to the idea of a dad God with the impregnable faith that he did. For Alice Miller, a child whose childhood was lived in an atmosphere of respect is perfectly capable of developing his self without needing the idea of a personal God; preferring, instead, human models. The child destined to be my father could not develop his psyche with worldly models. He had to project the parental luminous side onto the deity of the same religion that his parents taught him.

About five years before I wrote the Epistle [ca. 1983], my father had confessed something important that I picked up right there in the old epistle. He was in his youth completely devastated by something terrible that had happened to him, that he did not specify. He opened the gospels and, according to his words, saw the passage “Come blessed of my father…!” If, for theists like my father, a kind Father has replaced the failed human father, we should not be surprised if they experience great fear upon discovering that this substitute Father also has a dark side. My father does not know English and he did not read what I brought from the United States, but from my Spanish books he borrowed without me knowing Respuesta a Job (Answer to Job) published in 1952 by Carl Jung, of which he told me “I read everything.”

At his late seventy-six years, the Swiss psychologist had dared to uncover the dark side of the God of Hebrews and Christians. The same year that I wrote the Epistle I wrote down in Answer to Job that my father had exclaimed: “A terrible book!” with great emphasis on his voice when pronouncing “terrible.” Jung’s essay had disturbed him so much that he had to read a pious text about Job to console himself. What Jung said about the Judeo-Christian deity is valuable to those who have entered the underworld whose door Miller opened. In May of 1991, three years after the anecdote recounted above, I noted down on the back cover of Answer to Job: “This is the only book I know of that does not criticize religion or Christians or the church: it criticizes God itself.” I could not say it better today, almost a quarter of a century later. Later that year I noted down that Jung had tried to psychoanalyze God. Much later, in my rereading of 2005, I wrote down:

It is amazing how Miller-like this book can be if we only know the ABC of the mind that Jung did not know. Just replace “Yahweh” with “father” and “God” with “mother” and see what you find.

Read for example pages 25f (“Who is this that darkens counsel by words without wisdom?”). They remind me of the conversation I had with my sister in 2000, the day of the cut tree, about dad: “And who are you to…?” he said to my sister. And page 28 (“Yahweh shows Job his omnipotence with so many thunder and lightning”) seems to portray how he treated me in my last confrontation, in 2004 [recounted in my book’s previous chapter]. On page 31 Jung says what for a long time I have said: pride is the other side of infantilism.

Pride is the other side of infantilism. How many times have I told myself this when diagnosing my father! Almost at the beginning of his essay, Jung observes something that could be applied to my initiative to confront my father for what he did, citing the Bible: “Job ‘wanted to reason with God’ (Job, 13:3). Job says ‘I will defend my ways before him’ (13, 15).” Nice phrase, which could summarize what I have written in hundreds of pages: defend my ways before my parents and their witch doctors. Precisely as it was extremely naive of me to hope that whoever destroyed me could, at the same time, listen to my complaint, that same ingenuity had been committed by Job on another level. (Actually, on the same level if we consider that the theistic narrative is nothing but the internal struggle with the parental introjects.) In the context of the supposed goodness of Yahweh, observes Jung: “From a man who does us evil we can not wait that helps us at the same time,” and already openly psychoanalyzing God he adds something that we could impute to either of my parents: “The dependence of the object is absolute when the subject does not possess self-reflection, and, consequently, does not have any vision of oneself.” Like any toxic parent—I would say—, about our parental deities Jung writes: “But Yahweh is too unconscious to be ‘moral’. Morality presupposes conscience.”

What better indication that the idea of God is nothing but the projection of our unresolved, attachment system with our parents! (keep in mind Colin Ross’ class). From this angle, the idea of providence is a parental shadow insofar as it is so full of the dark side that we see ourselves in the need to project it outwards: something that Jung himself was afraid to say. Nevertheless, the Swiss dared to write: “It was natural that humanity, superior to God in certain aspects, should remain unconscious”—unaware of the ultimate nature of the deity. The dissident disciple of Freud wrote the following in the text that scared dad: “Yahweh does not show signs of doubt, repentance or compassion, but only of cruelty and disregard. Yahweh cannot come here with the excuse of unconsciousness, for he flagrantly violates at least three of the commandments that he himself had promulgated at Sinai.”

This brings back to me the fact that my moral was founded on the moralistic tablets of my father. Recall the [1960s] anecdote of Hojas Susurrantes about the “instantaneous introject” when a swarthy boy threw a stone at a helpless crab on the beach. Unfortunately, and parallel to how my father did not regret what he was doing to us, on the next page Jung writes: “Yahweh does not think… of giving Job at least some moral compensation.” And two pages ahead what he says seems to be a reflection of the mentioned speech to Germancito [my nephew], when my father blamed me for my sister’s behavior: “Yahweh puts things backwards, so to speak, and blames Job for what he himself does: man must not be allowed to have any opinion about God.”

Shadow projected to the deity: “Parents should never be judged,” my mother has told me several times. And it is that “Yahweh pays so little attention to the person of Job… that it is not difficult to see that he is totally occupied with himself,” which brings back the penetrating observation of Pedro Martín Moreno and Scott Peck about evil. Later Jung speaks of the “fear of Yahweh to become conscious,” which also brings back the fear of parents like mine to see their behavior.

Yahweh can project, without frowning, his face shadows on man, and remain unconscious at the expense of him…

Job knew Yahweh only of “hearsay.” But now he has experienced the reality of Yahweh even more than David himself. This is an important lesson, which should not be forgotten. Job was once a simpleton; he had come to dream of a “good” God… he believed that God was truthful and faithful…

But to his horror, Job has seen that Yahweh is not a man, but that, in a certain way, he is less than a man, and that he is the same thing that Yahweh says of the Leviathan: “He is king over all the proud” (Job, 41:34).

The mistreated son by his father must not expect moral satisfaction from an intrinsically unconscious being. “I am an amoral natural power, a purely phenomenal force, that does not see its own back.” Job, the son at the complete mercy of the Father whose voice of thunder crushes him when he dared to confront him, becomes, secretly, judge of the divinity.

The author of Answer to Job closes the book’s chapter with these words: “The drama has been consummated for all eternity: the double nature of Yahweh has been revealed, and someone or something has seen and recorded it.”

Johmann’s brief analysis

My correspondent Kurt Johmann asked me to say something about ‘A Brief Analysis of Christianity’, a section within his book A Soliton and its owned Bions (Awareness and Mind) which subtitle reads ‘These Intelligent Particles are how we Survive Death’.

As to the origins of Christianity, Johmann relies heavily on Joseph Atwill’s 2006 Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. I don’t claim to have read Caesar’s Messiah, but the book has become so popular that Wikipedia has an article about it. In the last couple of years I’ve seen mentions to Atwill’s book in white nationalist forums as if it was a great discovery on the origins of Christianity.

As can be gathered from the book reviewers, Atwill tries to persuade the reader that the New Testament was written under the direction of 1st-century Roman whites. Those who know the new masthead of this site, Evropa Soberana’s essay on Rome and Judea, will find it strange that Atwill would not blame the Jews for creating Christianity. He blames an emperor of the Flavian dynasty.

A Roman fraud written by a Jewish traitor in the emperor’s pay? Really? Are we to believe that the Aryan Romans really cared about the primitive literature of distant Semites enough to go through the trouble of using the Septuagint to elaborate the New Testament, with fake Pauline and non-Pauline epistles, numinous gospel narratives and even a book of revelation that craves for a New Jerusalem right after the emperors destroyed Old Jerusalem? Is this credible taking into account that this John of Patmos was so anti-pagan that in the final book of the Bible he introduced the idea of eternal torment for non-Judeo-Christians in a lake of fire?

As can be seen in the recent entries of this site, our working hypothesis is that the authors of the New Testament were either non-Aryan Judaized gentiles or, like this John of Patmos, Hellenised Jews whose hatred for white Rome was infinite.

Also, Atwill’s assertion that Jesus was a totally a fictional character is only a possibility. I am open to such possibility, as can be seen in this article by Joseph Hoffmann. However, another possibility is that a historical Yeshua existed and a lot of literary fiction was later added onto an original, bare, all too human story that is now lost forever (e.g., what Soberana speculates about the historical Jesus in his essay).

Johmann writes: ‘Although Christianity was originally contrived and constructed [by Romans] to domesticate the recently conquered population of Judea…’ According to our recent quotations of Nietzsche in this blog it looks the other way: Christianity was originally contrived and constructed by Jews to domesticate those who recently had conquered their population of Judea.

In his brief analysis of Christianity’ Johmann also wrote:

Instead of having to accept the reality model of Christianity or of any other religion to have a good afterlife, the reality model presented in this book says that what one consciously believes about the afterlife during one’s physically embodied life has no substantial effect on what one’s afterlife experiences will be, during what will be an afterlife measured in years or many years (not Christianity’s eternity) before one reincarnates, most likely reincarnating as a human again.

Regarding Christianity’s position on sexual matters, Christianity has a long history of being hostile to sex for any purpose other than the production of children. Thus, given this emphasis on having children, Christianity, in general, has a history of being against birth control, abortion, infanticide, and homosexuality. The reason Christianity has these attitudes is because Christianity wants its current believers to have many children…

The first paragraph postulates the existence of reincarnation.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s I was heavily involved in the field of parapsychology and even published my stuff in the journal of the Society for Psychical Research. I am pretty familiar with the literature arguing for evidence of reincarnation, for example the work of Ian Stevenson. With time, after meeting in person the main intellectuals of a sceptic organization, subscribing their journal, and purchasing many books published by Prometheus Books, I became sceptical of such claims, including reincarnation.

In a blog post I cannot narrate the spiritual odyssey from my credulity in such phenomena to my apostasy: I would need a whole autobiographical book recounting my inner experiences from December 1978 to May 1995. Suffice it to say that I am familiar with the work of Sue Blackmore. Sue has written a lot about out-of-body experiences, that Johmann mentions elsewhere in his book. She says such experiences may have a more prosaic, parsimonious explanation than the paranormal one (incidentally, in a Seattle café I sat with Sue and other attendees during one of the sceptical conferences that we all attended).

As to the second paragraph by Johmann cited above, not only Christianity has been hostile to sex for any purpose other than the production of children. Other cultures and religions, even the Nazis, had a history against Aryan birth control, abortion, infanticide, and homosexuality.

This said, I basically agree with the last paragraph against Christianity in Johmann’s text: that prayer is silly because, as Johmann put it, ‘is only “heard” by one’s own unconscious’, and that trying to solve our problems with prayer, begging the god of the Jews to help us, only forfeits our duty of hard, Aryan work in the real world.