Kevin MacDonald’s apologetics

Update of September 16, 2020: This essay has been edited for inclusion in my book Daybreak. I would suggest reading the much-corrected text instead of the text below (see ‘Two essential books’, which contains a link to the Daybreak PDF).
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Kevin MacDonald’s Preface to Giles Corey’s
The Sword of Christ
(originally published: here)

Slightly edited, this entry copies and pastes the previous entries from the first to facilitate the visitor to read them in due order.
 

§ 1

In this first entry about such book-review I just want to comment on a couple of subjects: the painting that appears in MacDonald’s book-review (see above) and what a commenter said on Counter-Currents.

As we can see in the comments section, several Counter-Currents commenters are either Christians or sympathetic to Judeo-Christianity, so they liked McDonald’s pro-Christian essay-review and some of them even have requested Corey’s book. One exception was commenter Asdk:

If we were to apply Kevin Macdonald’s perspective on the culture of critique to modern ideologies, Christianity would be very easily understood. Christianity is an ideology created by Jews to benefit the Jewish people, to break the feeling of tribal union of the peoples who are rivals to Jewish hegemony…

We can already imagine how different white nationalism would be if the webzine admins of Counter-Currents and The Occidental Observer were like Asdk!

Regarding Giovanni Gasparro’s painting, The Martyrdom of St. Simon of Trento reproduced at the beginning of this entry, it was painted this very year in old baroque style. The idea to create such painting reminds me of one of my favourite paintings by Hieronymus Bosch, reproduced below. The idea is the same: the bad guys—Jews—surround the child to be sacrificed or the divine rabbi to be crucified!

Gasparro’s 2020 painting at the top of this article measures seven by five feet, and references a blood libel that led to the execution of several Jews in 1475. The scandal (some would call it moral panic) started around the disappearance and death of a Christian boy in Trento named Simonino. He was later made a saint and the day of his death, March 24, was included in the Roman martyrology—hence the cherubs in Gasparro’s painting—until its removal in 1965.

In his article MacDonald tells us ‘This [blood libel] is a topic that I have never written about… However, we should not be surprised to find that such practices occurred’.

I am not going to take issue with him because what I want is to answer his Christian apologetics, not this new approach to the JQ. I will limit myself to point out that on the subject of blood libel I had already written in 2013 commenting on a brainwashing, politically-correct and philo-Semitic Spanish TV series, Isabel (Isabella I of Castile): times when MacDonald was apparently more sceptical about libel claims.
 

§ 2

MacDonald starts his review with these words:

Giles Corey has written a book that should be read by all Christians as well as white advocates of all theoretical perspectives including especially those who are seeking a spiritual foundation that is deeply embedded in the history and culture of Europeans.

White advocates of all theoretical perspectives? What would Revilo Oliver and William Pierce, geniuses so critical of Christianity, have opined about Corey’s book? What would Alex Linder opine today? Spiritual foundation embedded in European culture? MacDonald ignores the difference between Western Christian Civilisation and European civilisation, as explained in an article so old in this site (‘The Red Giant’) that it already appeared in the previous incarnation of it (in Blogspot, in the previous decade).

MacDonald also says about Corey’s book: ‘This is excellent scholarship’. If the scholarship is excellent, blood libel had to be historical. But as I said in my previous post I don’t want to discuss the Jewish Question but the Christian Question. MacDonald wrote: ‘Corey is well aware that contemporary Christianity has been massively corrupted’.

Completely false. Christianity today is as legitimate a form of Christianity as the others. Previous Christianisms were based on St. Augustine, and in the case of the Catholic Church, also on St. Thomas Aquinas. The Christianity of Pope Francis today, like the Christianity of the medieval St. Francis of Assisi, is based more on the direct message of the gospel. There is no true Christianity and an heretic Christianity: only Christians use anathemas and excommunicate each other, always claiming that their faction is the true Christianity. For non-Christians like us, St. Francis was as authentic Christian as St. Augustine, however different they were in their politics.

On the Counter-Currents thread, commenter Asdk added the following:

It sounds ridiculous, but in the middle of the Christian era, the Pope did it with the pre-Columbian natives; today the descendants of such an aberration populate most of Latin America and soon they will be the new majority of North America.

What happened in Latin America is relevant: something that I have said so many times in the racialist forums that I gave up because nobody was listening.

And they don’t listen for the simple reason that the miscegenation on a colossal scale in this American continent, perpetrated by the Spanish and Portuguese since the 16th century, just when they persecuted the Jews and the crypto-Jews, is such a demonstration that there is a Christian problem that it doesn’t even have to be argued: only to point out the events that occurred in the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking parts of the continent.

Last month I reproduced this image of a Spaniard
marrying an Indian with the approval of the Church.

MacDonald says the corruption is recent. How does he explain the greatest genetic catastrophe that occurred in his continent, when Jewry was being persecuted by the Inquisition? The trick MacDonald and white nationalists do has been to ignore history south of the Rio Grande—and history north of the Rio Grande I should say insofar New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, California and Texas, before the 1840s war, belonged to Mexico and previously to New Spain!

For MacDonald to say that Christianity has been ‘massively corrupted’ he must be ignoring, of necessity, the history of those states that now belong to his country, since the New Spaniards never forbade interbreeding. Why doesn’t MacDonald see that more than half a billion mestizos in Latin America are the direct result of marriages between Iberian whites, Indians and blacks—marriages that both the Spanish crown and the Church approved?

The answer is clear: if he dared to see the history of New Spain his paradigm would collapse immediately, since it would be obvious that alongside a Jewish problem there has existed a huge Christian problem.

In the 1530s a Pope bull allowed the bachelor Iberians in the continent to marry Amerind women. This happened only a decade after the conquest of the Aztec Empire. As Asdk says, Christianity is blind to racial matters. And the Church did not give a damn about the biological havoc that such bull would cause. Incidentally, the Catholic Church was so powerful in New Spain that by the end of the 17th century it owned more than half of its territories. Like today’s elites, it was in the Church’s interest to rule over low-breed mestizos rather than high-IQ Aryans.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. This epigram by Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr in 1849 means ‘The more it changes, the more it’s the same thing’. Yes, there is no such a thing as ‘contemporary Christianity has been massively corrupted’ as MacDonald wrote. Only an ignorant of history in the American continent can say such a thing.
 

§ 3

Comment by Robert Morgan

C.T.: ‘I would be very interested to know what you think of that article (KMD’s review of Corey’s book)’.

The first thing that stands out is that MacDonald appears to have changed his opinion. I recall him writing at one point something to the effect of “Christianity isn’t necessarily the way forward”. Now he enthusiastically endorses a Christian revival, writing “I agree entirely with Corey’s conclusions and recommendations for a revival centered around the adaptive aspects of Christianity…”

C.T.: What strikes me as incredible is that Tom Sunic and others have told MacDonald that it is time to look at the role Christianity played in white decline. But KMD doesn’t seem to have the slightest intention of responding to these criticisms. He just ignores them’.

Yes, that’s true. His monomaniacal focus on Jews leads him astray, and he has always been loathe to examine the weakness of his philosophical underpinnings. Reading him, I get no sense that anything except what the Jews are doing is important. White people seem to exist for him only to be victims of the Jews.

I’ve already written about the inherent weakness of the Christian worldview, which is essentially a psychotic view of reality. Corpses come back to life, people aren’t really their bodies, but instead are “souls” trapped inside those bodies, demons not only exist but can somehow possess or take over those souls and bodies, things are conjured out of thin air, etc. Yet this is the worldview that MacDonald thinks is unequivocally good and “adaptive” because, after collapsing Western civilization once, and after a thousand years, it led historically to, among other things, the Enlightenment, the Age of Exploration, colonization of the New World, and science and high technology.

But these developments contained within themselves racially destructive consequences. Colonization of the New World caused race mixing, and out of control technology is causing mass extinctions of plant and animal species, perhaps irreversibly damaging the climate and ecosystem. This is supposed to be adaptive? Or again, consider the cultural consequences of scientific birth control technologies and abortion, which have done more to bring about the destruction of the nuclear family than any amount of Jewish animus. How was that adaptive?

From a philosophical point of view, MacDonald is being exceedingly naive, if not disingenuous. Whatever he approves of is adaptive. Anything he disapproves of isn’t. It’s the same approach he uses to Christianity. If Kevin MacDonald personally approves of it, it’s “good” Christianity (e.g., Luther’s disparaging comments about Jews, or Chrysostom’s), whereas if it’s a Christian ideology he doesn’t find it to his taste (e.g. the Scofield Bible, Christian Zionism, Christian churches sponsoring immigration, etc.) it’s been “corrupted”. These verdicts are absolute and eternal, too.

There’s no sense here that conditions may change, and behavior that was once adaptive may later be maladaptive; no sense that some of the “bad” things may have benefits, just as the supposedly “good” things contained racially destructive consequences. Christianity itself, notably, may be the most prominent of the things that were “bad” but had benefits; something that once was of use, but now is only an impediment. MacDonald’s view of it is static, not dynamic, and that’s a weakness.

No one can tell what is adaptive or maladaptive in advance. One can only pass judgement on that in retrospect, and even that judgement will unavoidably be from a particular point of view containing various assumptions and moral values. It’s not too surprising then that MacDonald, with his Christian moral values, praises Christianity as the way forward.
 

§ 4

MacDonald wrote:

Until the twentieth century, Christianity served the West well. One need only think of the long history of Christians battling to prevent Muslims from establishing a caliphate throughout the West—Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, the Spanish Reconquista, the defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna. The era of Western expansion was accomplished by Christian explorers and colonists. Until quite recently, the flourishing of science, technology, and art occurred entirely within a Christian context.

In recent posts I have been talking about the need to rewrite history. This paragraph was only made possible by centuries of misinformation when it comes to historical facts.

I have read the only two stories that in English have been written from the point of view of racial preservation, that of William Pierce and that of Arthur Kemp. Since Pierce died before I woke up, I was only able to visit Kemp when he lived in a beautiful little town in England.

The only two stories that have been written under the POV of white advocacy run under one premise: Western civilisations have fallen due to the imperial phase that inevitably leads to miscegenation. (Of the two stories, only Pierce recommends extermination or expulsion of non-whites after having learned the tough lessons of history.)

One of my huge surprises when reading those two stories, Who We Are and March of the Titans, is that starting with a pro-white POV inverts many values that we had taken for granted in the more academic and conventional stories.

For example, it is striking to learn that the Greeks of the Dorian period were pure Nordids who came to the peninsula from the North. And something similar could be said of the first tribes that created the Roman Republic in the other European peninsula: they also were unmiscegenated Nordids. (He who wants to learn about the Nordic component of the founders of Greece and Rome in a single article could read a piece originally published in an American Renaissance periodical that I reposted: here.)

All of this had been kept from me by conventional historians simply because most of them have been Christians. And concerning more recent secular historians, they live under the sky of the ideas that led to the French Revolution regarding the equality of men: a doctrine breathed even in the American Declaration of Independence: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…’

Only when the reader of history repudiates this egalitarian premise he is ready to understand history. Otherwise he might be a scholar but his historical knowledge will be contaminated with such a false worldview that distortion is unavoidable. And conventional books of history are so replete of distortions that after the Nazi period and the two preliminary stories referred to above we must, like them, start from scratch.

I don’t think MacDonald has read the Pierce or Kemp books. If he had read any of them, he would have realised that what he says in the paragraph above cannot be sustained from this scratching point of view.

The following is what MacDonald seems to ignore:

The Christian era began with a hostile takeover of classical culture—that is, white culture—by a sect of Levantine origin. In the 4th and 5th centuries of the common era, in a destructive outburst like the one ISIS has perpetrated in more recent times, the temples of the white gods and sculptures displaying Aryan beauty, were destroyed by Judeo-Christian fanatics along with entire libraries of ancient wisdom. Karlheinz Deschner devoted his entire life to studying the true history of Judeo-Christianity and I translated several passages from his ten-volume Christianity’s Criminal History (here). If someone does not have the time to read this translated book, let him read a single article that summarises the white apocalypse that the ancient world suffered at the hands of this Semitic cult (here).

I must say something about Charles Martel mentioned by MacDonald and the Spanish Reconquista. Given my Hispanic origins, the history of Spain as told by Pierce and Kemp powerfully caught my attention several years ago, when I read their books. Both mention something that left me cold: the Iberian Visigoths—pure whites of the Nordid type—were deceived by Christians to commit miscegenation: a little piece of information that won’t be easy to find in conventional histories.

Remember that the Goths were a Germanic people who played a major role in the fall of the Western Roman Empire. In the first centuries of our era the Iberian Goths burned at the stake their fellow whites that dared to mix their precious blood with mudbloods. But the king of Hispania Recceswinth committed the greatest blunder in Iberian history: a blunder still unrecognised by normie intellectuals and normie historians as a blunder: but a gigantic blunder nonetheless. By converting to Christianity Recceswinth abolished the long ban on miscegenation (which reminds me of the rigorous Spartan ban against miscegenation), which resulted in the immediate mongrelisation of the Visigoths. The king of Hispania’s decision allowed any person of any racial origin, as long as he professed Christianity, to intermarry with the Germanic Goths. Such rupture of the ancestral prohibition against miscegenation and worship of the enemy god (the god of the Jews) occurred just a few decades before their territories… were invaded by the Moors!

If you worship thine enemy’s god, thou art defeated;
Adopt the religion of his fathers, thou wilt be enslaved;
And if thou propagate with his daughters, thou art destroyed

This crucial page in the history of Spain would have to be studied in far greater depth than the preliminary ‘stories’ of Pierce and Kemp. But I suspect that the Visigoths would have been invincible if, with the benefit of hindsight, they had expelled or exterminated the mudbloods—mainly peoples of Hispania of Semitic origin (non-Jewish Semites had begun to invade the Iberian peninsula since the times of the Carthaginians!).

Hispania aside, if the Roman Empire had not decayed, and let us remember that Gibbon blames the Christians for it, Islam wouldn’t even have had a chance of its spectacular conquests that only the gates of Vienna stopped, that MacDonald mentions. By subscribing to the official story, MacDonald is viewing Christianity as our saviour before Islam, not as the cause of the power gap that occurred after the Christians destroyed the classical world (or tricked the Visigoths), leaving the remaining whites at the mercy of a primitive Arabic tribe.

On the Western achievements that MacDonald mentions in the quote above, he is framing them as achievements of the Christian spirit. Nothing farther from the truth!

The white man had to fight for centuries against the prohibitions of the Church to regain his right to scientific research, technology, and art uncontaminated with biblical passages or the lives of the saints. Now my history teacher comes to mind, whose brothers were blond, at Colegio Madrid. She told us that in New Spain they used the trick of putting covers of lives of saints on secular books imported from Europe so they could pass through customs. And this happened until the beginning of the 19th century! Again, MacDonald is ignorant about history down the south of Rio Grande.

Above I linked a PDF with my translations of some passages from Christianity’s Criminal History. Below I would like to quote pages 291-293 of that book to counter MacDonald’s naïve vision:

The Western world darkens more and more

Culture was highly esteemed in the 4th and 5th centuries. It was one of the legacies of antiquity and enjoyed an ‘almost religious veneration’ (Dannenbauer). Still in the year 360 a law of the emperor Constantius could declare that education was the supreme virtue. And really many noble families of that time, Gallic and Roman, were consecrated to it and particularly in the bosom of the Senatorial proceedings. But they were already simple custodians of the culture, to which they did not enrich. And everywhere there were circles and social forces of a very different kind, even in the highest positions. The Christian king Theodoric the Great was no longer able to write his own name on the documents: neither could most of the Christian princes. Theodoric wrote the four letters LEGI (‘I read it’) by means of an aureus mold expressly forged for him. The instruction of the Goth children was practically forbidden by him, since, as he seems to have said, he who trembled before the master’s blows would never know how to despise the cuts and rushes of the sword in battle.

In Gaul, apparently, where the school system had flourished from the beginning of the 2nd century until the end of the 4th century, public schools are disappearing over the course of the next century, no matter how much here and there, in Lyon, Vienne, Bordeaux and Clermont there still are schools of grammar and rhetoric in addition to, naturally, the private ones. But all the teachings, at least the literary, served exclusively for the collection of material for sermons and treatises, to deal with the Bible and for the consolidation of the faith. Scientific inquiry was already a thing of the past: it no longer counted or was appreciated. The knowledge of Greek, which for centuries was the requirement of every authentic culture, became a rarity. Even the Roman classics, such as Horace, Ovid and Catullus, were cited less and less.

Libanius, the champion of Hellenistic culture, the most famous professor of rhetoric of the century, complains about the aversion aroused by that profession. ‘They see’, he says, referring to his students, ‘that this cause is despised and thrown on the floor; that does not bring fame, power or wealth but a painful servitude under many lords, parents, mothers, pedagogues and other students, who put things upside down and believe that it is the teacher who needs them. When they see all this they avoid this depreciated profession like a boat the pitfalls’.

In the time of Augustine there are hardly any schools of philosophy in the West. Philosophy is frowned upon, it is a thing of the devil, the original father of all ‘heresy’, and it causes fear to the pious. Even in a centre of culture as important as Bordeaux philosophy is no longer taught. And even in the East, the largest and most important of the universities of the Roman Empire, that of Constantinople, has only one chair of philosophy out of a total of 31. The knowledge of something that had existed for a long time was lost in almost all areas. The spiritual horizon became increasingly narrower. Ancient culture languished from Gaul to Africa, while in Italy it practically disappeared. The interest in natural science vanished. Also jurisprudence, at least in the West, suffers ‘havoc’, an ‘astonishing demolition’ (Wieacker).

The bishop Paulinus of Nola, who died in 431, never read a historian: a typical attitude of the moment. Whole eras fall in the oblivion, for example, the time of the Roman emperors. The only renowned historian in the late 4th century is Ammianus Marcellinus, a non-Christian. Entire synods forbid the bishops to read ‘pagan’ books. In short: scientific research ceases; experimental testing stops; people think increasingly with less autonomy. A few decades later no doctor could heal Bishop Gregory de Tours, a man with a mind full of superstitions, but he could miraculously be healed through a drink of water with some dust taken from the tomb of St. Martin.

Only clerics will still read.
 

§ 5

St. John Chrysostom exhorting Aelia Eudoxia. Note how the Empress—the spouse of the Roman Emperor Arcadius—, in this painting by Jean-Paul Laurens, has people in her Byzantine entourage who are not whites.

Kevin MacDonald wrote:

Such individualism was not disastrously self-destructive. As Corey notes, “Christian universalism historically posed little to no danger to white survival because it was preached by whites living in a world ruled by whites; it was only in the multicultural Egalitarian Regime inseminated in the mid-twentieth century that Christian sacrifice was transformed into a call for racial suicide.”

Precisely because MacDonald, like most white nationalists who do not follow Pierce and Kemp, knows little of true history, he is unable to see that healthy religions promote the good of a tribe, and unhealthy religions, a phenomenon that appears in the imperial phase of a civilisation, forget what’s good for the tribe and start to speak solely and exclusively in individualistic terms, of ‘individual salvation’. Richard Carrier, whose book appears on the sidebar, has studied this phenomenon in several Mediterranean religions at the time of the decline of the Roman Empire, and MacDonald and those who believe that any form of universalism was not ‘disastrously self-destructive’ should become familiar with his work.

That religious individualism was toxic from the beginning is evident in the fact that in shifting from the good of the group to individualism (the Christian must think above all about the salvation of his soul), the foundations for miscegenation are laid. Once Constantine changed the name of the old Byzantium to Constantinople, the new capital of the Empire became a melting pot for all the races of the Mediterranean, in which the pure Nordid blood of the patrician Romans was forever lost.

MacDonald wrote:

Instead, Corey advocates a revitalization of Medieval Germanic Christianity based on, in the words of Samuel Francis, “social hierarchy, loyalty to tribe and place (blood and soil), world-acceptance rather than world-rejection, and an ethic that values heroism and military sacrifice.” This medieval Christianity preserved the aristocratic, fundamentally Indo-European culture of the Germanic tribes. This was an adaptive Christianity…

Adaptive Christianity, really? Some historians say Medieval Germanic Christianity started with Charlemagne, right? Kemp told me that he would rate Charlemagne well up in the top five most evil characters of European history. I recommend Thomas Hodgkin’s The Life of Charlemagne to those who have swallowed the Christian version of this evil man. If we keep in mind Deschner’s Christianity’s Criminal History 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 Nordids to worship the enemy god: a historical milestone related to that tardive metastasis, the philo-Semitic stage that the US is currently suffering.

MacDonald wrote:

My view, developed in Chapter 3 of Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism is that traditional Christian theology was fundamentally anti-Jewish and was developed as a weapon which was used to lessen Jewish economic and political power in the Roman Empire. Here Corey describes the writings of the fourth-century figure, St. John Chrysostom [see painting at the top of this § 5], who has a chapel dedicated to him inside St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome as well as a statue outside the building. His writings on Jews are nothing less than scathing and reflect long-term tensions between Jews and Greeks in Antioch. And Chrysostom was far from alone in his hatred… The traditional Church was certainly far from friendly toward Jews.

Despite the fact that the Muslim Jihadists are anti-Jewish, many contemporary Jews promote the Islamisation of Europe for the simple fact that the best goyim (whites) must be destroyed according to them. Jews are willing to have some of their own fall in order to win their ultimate battle against the Aryans.

Something similar happened with the hostile takeover of the classical world by Judeo-Christians, many of whom had Semitic blood. Their anger was directed against the white world. They didn’t care that those fanatics MacDonald talks about committed anti-Jewish acts. What mattered was to overthrow the classical world at all costs.

MacDonald ignores that what was ultimately at stake, as explained in the climax of ‘Rome against Judea; Judea against Rome’ in The Fair Race, was this: ‘435 CE: In this year occurs the most significant action on the part of Emperor Theodosius II: He openly proclaims that the only legal religion in Rome apart from Christianity is Judaism! Through a bizarre, subterranean and astonishing struggle, Judaism has not only persecuted the old culture, and Rome, its mortal archenemy, adopts a Jewish creed—but the Jewish religion itself, so despised and insulted by the old Romans, is now elevated as the only official religion of Rome along with Christianity!’ That diabolical political game of different kinds of Semites is what MacDonald has failed to see.

MacDonald speaks highly of St. John Chrysostom, as if this ‘anti-Semite’ was a champion for the Aryan cause. What did this saint, so revered among clueless white nationalists do? Do nationalists know what happened to the immense Temple of Artemis, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World?

It was built near Ephesus in the 6th century BCE over an area considered sacred since, at least, the Bronze Age. Its construction took 120 years and it could be said that it was comparable to a cathedral.

St. John Chrysostom and his henchmen flattened it in 401 following a Christian emperor’s edict—the year after Chrysostom had instigated the massacre of 7,000 blond Goths in Constantinople! The stones were used for a tomb and a bath-house and a cross was raised on the spot where Diana’s statue had stood. What remains today of the temple can be seen: here.

It was the religion of the pure white that had to be flattened at all costs, not the Judaism that survived the Aryan apocalypse of the ancient world.

It is clear that history must be rewritten from the POV of the priest of the 14 words, and that stupid books like Corey’s must be vehemently repudiated if we want to save the race from extinction. Not only books of this type are bad history: they are as toxic reading of history as that which we could read from a Jew. But Christians are artificial Jews, right?
 

§ 6

MacDonald wrote:

And although Protestantism was generally far more amenable to Jewish interests even before its current malaise, there certainly are exceptions. Here Corey emphasizes Martin Luther’s writings on Jews. Luther emphasizes Jewish hatred toward Christianity and their sense of superiority vis-à-vis Christians, seeing the latter as “not human; in fact, we hardly deserve to be considered poor worms by them.”

I’ve been saying that people like MacDonald don’t know the stories of the white race written not by charlatans like Giles Corey, but by genuine racialists. Let’s read what William Pierce says in Who We Are about Luther:

The Reformation. Another factor which undoubtedly made the West more susceptible to the Jews was the Reformation, the lasting effects of which were confined largely to Europe’s northwestern regions, in fact, to the Germanic-speaking regions: Germany, Scandinavia, England and Scotland, Switzerland. The Church of Rome and its Eastern Orthodox offshoot had always been ambivalent in their attitudes toward the Jews. On the one hand, they fully acknowledged the Jewish roots of Christianity, and Jesus’ Jewishness was taken for granted. On the other hand, the Jews had rejected Jesus’ doctrine and killed him, saying, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:25), and the medieval Church was inclined to take them at their word. In addition to the stigma of deicide the Jews also bore the suspicion which naturally fell on heretics of any sort. During the Middle Ages people took Christianity quite seriously, and anyone professing an unorthodox religious belief, whether he actively sought converts or not, was considered a danger to the good order of the community and to the immortal soul of any Christian exposed to him.

What the Protestant reformers did for the Jews was give the Hebrew Scriptures a much more important role in the life of the peoples of Europe than they had enjoyed previously. Among Catholics it was not the Bible but the Church which was important. The clergy read the Bible; the people did not. The people looked to the clergy for spiritual guidance, not to the Bible. Among Protestants that order was reversed. The Bible became an authority unto itself, which could be consulted by any man. Its Jewish characters—Abraham, Moses, Solomon, David, and the rest—became heroic figures, suffused with an aura of sanctity. Their doings and sayings became household bywords. It is ironic that the father of the Reformation, Martin Luther, who inadvertently helped the Jews fasten their grip on the West, detested them and vigorously warned his Christian followers against them. His book Von den Jueden und ihren Luegen (On the Jews and their Lies), published in 1543, is a masterpiece. Luther’s antipathy to the Jews came after he learned Hebrew and began reading the Talmud. He was shocked and horrified to find that the Hebrew religious writings were dripping with hatred and contempt for all non-Jews…

Alas, Luther could not have it both ways. He had already sanctified the Jews by elevating the status of their history, their legends, and their religion to that of Holy Writ. His translation of the Old Testament into German and his dissemination of the Jewish scriptures among his followers vitiated all his later warnings against the Jews. Today the church he founded studiously ignores those warnings…

The great tragedy of Luther is that he failed to… recognize that no religion of Jewish origin is a proper religion for men and women of European race. When he cut himself and the majority of the Germanic peoples off from Rome, he failed at the same time to cut away all the baggage of Jewish mythology which had been imposed on Europe by Rome. Instead he made of that baggage a greater spiritual burden for his people than it already was. The consequence was that within a century of Luther’s death much of Northern Europe was firmly in the grip of a new superstition as malignant as the old one, and it was one in which the Jews played a much more explicit role. Before, the emphasis had been on the New Testament: that is, on Christianity as a breakaway sect from Judaism, in which the differences between the two religions were stressed. The role models held up to the peoples of Europe were the Church’s saints and martyrs, most of whom were non-Jewish. The parables taught to children were often of European origin. Among the Protestants the Old Testament gained a new importance, and with it so did the Hebrew patriarchs as role models, while Israel’s folklore became the new source of moral inspiration for Europe. Perhaps nothing so clearly demonstrates the change, and the damage to the European sense of identity which accompanied it, as the sudden enthusiasm for bestowing Hebrew names on Christian children.

The Reformation did more for the Jews than merely sanctifying the Old Testament. It shattered the established order of things and brought chaos in political as well as spiritual affairs—chaos eagerly welcomed by the Jews. Germany was so devastated by a series of bloody religious wars that it took her a century and a half to recover. In some German principalities two-thirds of the population was annihilated during the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in the period 1618-1648, commonly known as the “Thirty Years War.” Everywhere during the 17th century the Jews took advantage of the turmoil, moving back into countries from which they had been banned (such as England), moving to take over professions from which they had been excluded, insinuating themselves into confidential relationships with influential leaders in literary and political circles, profiting from the sufferings of their hosts and strengthening their hold, burrowing deep into the rubble and wreckage of medieval society so that they could more easily undermine whatever rose in its stead. / End of Pierce’s quote

Pierce fell short. Nietzsche saw beyond what Pierce saw: Luther revitalised Christianity when it had begun to die in Rome itself! Had Cesare Borgia reached the papacy in a world without Luther, the transvaluation of values—the salvation of whites!—could’ve started from the Renaissance in Rome. But exactly the opposite happened: the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation vindicated Christianity. One thing is clear: MacDonald is not a reader of Nietzsche. If there is a quote that I have quoted more than once, it is what Nietzsche says about Luther (skip until you see § 61: here).

MacDonald wrote:

Mainstream Christianity from traditional Catholicism to mainstream Protestantism was fundamentally adaptive in terms of creating a healthy family life.

Here MacDonald is not only ignoring the subject mentioned in §2: that a cohesive family is useless to our cause if marriages in Catholic Latin America have been, for half a millennia, between white and non-white. And regarding Europe MacDonald is also ignoring the catastrophe that occurred in Portugal. After their forays into Africa the Portuguese not only imported blacks to the Iberian Peninsula, but unlike the Anglo-Germans in North America who originally did not marry them, the Portuguese immediately proceeded to stain their blood forever, courtesy of an Iberian, Recceswinth-like Christianity that didn’t care about racial preservation.

MacDonald writes about the traditional family in Christendom ignoring what happened in immense territories where Catholicism had a grip on the white psyche. And even in the US where miscegenation was not perpetrated for quite some time, the havoc that Puritans caused for their infatuation with the sacred book of the Jews can be seen in the names they gave their white children. Pierce is worth quoting again. He wrote:

Even before the Reformation a few Jewish names had been adopted by Europeans, but they were in most cases variations of the names of Christian saints of Jewish race: John (Heb. Johanan), Matthew (Heb. Mattathiah), Mary (Heb. Miriam), Ann (Heb. Hannah, supposedly the name of the maternal grandmother of Jesus). In addition, a few other purely Hebrew names had come into fairly common usage in parts of Christian Europe prior to Luther’s time: Adam, Daniel, David, Michael, Elizabeth, and Sarah are examples. During the l7th century, however, practically every name from the Old Testament came into general use. The madness reached its height among the Puritans, who scorned the names of their own ancestors and christened their offspring with such atrociously alien appellations as Israel, Amos, Ezekiel, Lemuel, Deborah, Reuben, Esther, Abner, Samuel, Nathan, Noah, Ephraim, Gideon, Jesse, Rachel, Susannah, Leah, Elihu, Abigail, Benjamin, and Abraham. The Puritans brought this pernicious habit with them to America, and Hebrew names were more common in the New World than European names during the Colonial period. / End of William Pierce’s quote

Don’t be surprised, professor MacDonald, that the US became the #1 philo-Semitic country of the world! So what’s the primary cause of white decline, Judaism or Christianity? What’s worse: the external enemy—the Jew—or the traitor—the Christian?
 

§ 7

Comment by Vig

Reading the comments here it shows how quickly attention steers away from the core topic and gets into the distraction of details.

As I have understood the issue here is that a reputed academic scholar has made significant statements as a result of a serious psychological research into the causes of the downfall of the culture and influence of the white Europeans. All this clearly under the banner of a conservative and right wing oriented view, which led him to the conclusion that Jewdom is the ultimate culprit of the (our) downfall.

Then the question arises, as Cesar has put forward on many occasions, that a man of such academic reputation as KMD has not dared to make the next logical step in his research and expose the phenomenal similarity between Judaism and Christianity?

Lack of courage, unwillingness or just lack of depth? Respectable as he may be he did not have the guts to be like a Nietzsche and dig till rock bottom, and criticize his own paradigms.

If you ask me the whole thing of academic debate especially in the field of the “alpha sciences” like psychology, is very often sheer sophistry. To see what the words really stand for you have to meet the author in person. Then why is this Christianity again and again creeping around the corner?

Because it is so deeply ingrained in our value system that it has become sub conscious. Then the question arises how much suffering will be needed to bring this festering wound to the surface?

If the more representative figures of the white nationalist movement fail to open up to the issue of the corrupting influence of Christianity, that means they did not have the existential experience that allowed you and me to understand the human psyche on a deeper level than the level that they are mentally operating on.

On that basis indeed white nationalism is a flawed initiative.

What I mean here is that traumatic experiences can initiate an emotional maturity that is beyond the retarded state that western humanity is in at the moment.

I think it is not negation but simple incapacity from their side.

The fact that there will come no answer from that side is because their whole social life has been narrowed down to the verbal, intellectual Hegelian discourse and exchange of ideas, while the answer to our crisis cannot be addressed on this level at all.

It is an ego problem. The ego blocks the expression of certain inner states that, if expressed, would indicate that one is emotionally and instinctively degenerated if at all recognized as such.

To have an authentic knowledge of one’s emotional and instinctive nature that makes the use of intellectual projections absolutely unnecessary, has become very rare for western man. Eine Kulturkrankheit.
 

§ 8

Kevin MacDonald wrote:

As I write this in the summer of 2020, we are experiencing what feels like the end game in the Jewish conquest of white America.

End game of the Jewish conquest or of the Christian conquest of the Aryan soul? Has MacDonald read the words of Joseph Walsh on the sidebar?: The deep-seated death-wish that seems to have taken hold of the collective subconscious psyche of the Aryan race after Hitler’s death is I believe a consequence of centuries of Jewish brainwashing via Christianity and its secular offshoots.

Once the majority of Aryans had rejected Hitler they embraced what remained of Christianity, Christian ethics, with a vengeance. Aryans are aware of what our race is capable of becoming from the photos and films of NS Germany and many of them hate and fear their own race’s potential for greatness due to attachment to an irrational morality and so our race is in a sort of self-destruct mode.

If the National Socialists had won the Second World War our race would not have entered into this intense struggle to overcome the oldest and most effective weapon of the Jews, Christianity. So this post-1945 struggle with the mental disease of Christianity does serve a purpose in that it will either destroy us for good or make us even stronger.

Before Aryans can annihilate the biological Jew on the physical level they must destroy the alien Jewish mind virus on the mental level by overcoming Christian morality. /End of Walsh’s quote

But MacDonald wrote:

I agree entirely with Corey’s conclusions and recommendations for a revival centered around the adaptive aspects of Christianity…

And what are Giles Corey’s conclusions and recommendations? Corey wrote, as quoted by MacDonald:

We must not tolerate subversion. Liberalism must go; we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the Enlightenment. We cannot afford to countenance any further anti-American, anti-family, anti-white speech, and this should be reflected in a new Constitution. Just as conservatism was not enough, the United States Constitution was not enough, with gaps that left it gaping wide for judicial “interpretation.” For another thing, we must circle the wagons and inculcate the Männerbund, restraining our individualism at least for the time being. For another, we must return to (((our Lord and Savior))).

I have added the triple parentheses to MacDonald’s quote of Corey. What these guys don’t know is that, as a commenter put it, thinking you can aid in saving the white race while, at the same time, bending the knee to Jewish deities—Yahweh and Yeshua—is some kind of combination of insane, dishonest, cowardly, naive, or very stupid. To bottom line it, it won’t and can’t work (see Ferdinand Bardamu’s complete essay that MacDonald rejected for his webzine: here).

This demolition that I have made of such a respected figure in white nationalism moves me to leave this site with these last entries for a period of time without adding new entries, although I will be answering the comments that don’t get off the subject of MacDonald and the Christian question.

Finally, even though I left the essay by a Spaniard, ‘Rome against Judea; Judea against Rome’ linked in a sticky post for a long time, it doesn’t seem that many visitors have noticed that that essay appears in Part I of The Fair Race, the PDF of which can be accessed on the sidebar. So I have no choice but to publish it in PDF separately and put it back in a sticky post. It is a shame that people like MacDonald have not read an essay that I consider central to understanding this site.

Especially the ‘Judea against Rome’ section of that essay explains the Jewish question better than any article MacDonald has published on The Occidental Observer, as the Spanish writer goes to the historical roots of the darkest hour in the West.

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.

Christianity’s Criminal History, 117

Editor’s note: Still more retrocognitive visions from the cave of the three-eyed raven that white nationalists, so addicted to their Semitic cult, simply don’t want to see:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
At the end of 405 a new group of Germans broke out, more violent, formed mostly by ‘pagan’ Ostrogoths, led by King Radagaisus, from Pannonia, and in early 406 invaded Italy: some two hundred thousand people according to Orosius and even four hundred thousand in opinion of Zosimus, which is nonsense. Be that as it may, panic spread throughout Italy. The Goths besieged Florence, but in the presence of Flavius Stilicho they had to retire to the mountains (Fiesole). There Stilicho surrounded them with a routine strategy, ‘thanks to Divine Providence’ (Orosius), and he rendered them out of hunger; according to Augustine, who attributes it to ‘the mercy of God’, ‘over a hundred thousand men died, without killing a single Roman or even injuring anyone!’

On August 23, 406, when trying to cross the Roman lines, Radagaisus was taken prisoner and shortly after beheaded. His troops capitulated. The number of prisoners turned into slaves was so great that it affected market prices. One by one they were sold for a few gold coins. God has helped, Augustine celebrates, ‘wonderful and merciful’.

Meanwhile, a few years ahead of the events, Alaric threatened a new invasion of Italy. Stilicho was in difficulties. He advised to give in, but the Catholics were opposed. They hated the descendant of a vandal; they hated a man who in spite of all his struggles against the ‘heretics’ had suspended the destruction of the temples, and who had even restored the statue of Victory to the place it occupied in the Senate session room, although not as a cult image but as an ornament. In short, the anti-Germanism of the East was penetrating more and more into the West.

On the occasion of the incursion of the ‘barbarians’ into Italy, the father Church of the Jerome attacked the policy of Stilicho. He saw in the Germans the foreshadowing of the Antichrist, and even considered the Antichrist personified in them.

According to Jerome, the culprit was not the pious Catholic ruler, but Stilicho, to whom the inscription of his statue in the Roman forum immortalized as a participant in all the wars and victories of the emperor (the name Stilicho was now stripped from it). A semi-barbarous traitor had brought the Romans against the Empire with Roman money. In any case, the Roman ‘pagans’, all the anti-Germanic opponents of Stilicho, ‘of the administration and of the Catholic Church’ (Elbern) believed the same thing.

But it was the Catholic Olympius, the leader of the enemy faction of Stilicho in Italy, who most incited the emperor against him. And when, on August 13, 408, Honorius presided over a military parade in Ticinum (Pavia), Olympius, a fervent Catholic ‘of the strictest observance’ (Clauss) who owed much to Stilicho, had Stilicho’s friends’ throat cut off in the imperial entourage.

After having eliminated his supporters and having attacked and killed while sleeping his personal guard, formed by faithful Huns, Stilicho was dismissed. On the morning of August 22, 408, the soldiers removed Stilicho from the church by deception. They swore and solemnly affirmed in the presence of the bishop that the emperor—Stilicho’s son-in-law—had not charged them to go kill him, but to escort him. A letter from his Catholic Majesty gave him more security. However, he had barely left the church, when he was read a second imperial letter, which communicated his death sentence for high treason; the next day his head fell.

Olympius became the strongman. He tortured Stilicho’s friends to death and confiscated all the property of his companions. The anti-Germanic party achieved supremacy with Olympius. Throughout the Western Empire the followers of Stilicho and all the Germans were persecuted. Likewise, by order of the Senate, the widow of Stilicho, Serena, niece of Emperor Theodosius, was killed in Rome. They also killed the husband of Stilicho’s sister, the comes africae Batanarius, and his position was taken over by Heraclianus, who was later killed. At the same time, in all the cities of the country, Italian troops murdered numerous women and children of German mercenaries.

With the fall of Stilicho, not only his son and his brother-in-law were executed, but also his wife… As Augustine writes, the promotion has taken place ‘for his services’. He immediately urged Olympius to make the enforcement of anti-‘pagan’ laws a reality. It was time to show the enemies of the Church what the laws mean! On the side of the Catholics it was believed that a victory over the ‘barbarians’ required as a precondition the annihilation of paganism.

___________

To contextualise the above excerpts of a 6-page section of Vol. II, ‘Radagaisus, Stilicho’s death and new massacres of Goths’ in Karlheinz Deschner’s encyclopaedic history of the Church in 10-volumes, Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, read the abridged translation of Volume I.

Christianity’s Criminal History, 116

The non-white Honorius:
one of the children-emperors.

Editors’ note: To contextualise this translation of a 5-page section, ‘Honorius, Stilicho, Alaric and the first incursions of Germanic Christians’ taken from Karlheinz Deschner’s encyclopaedic history of the Church in 10-volumes, Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, read the abridged translation of Volume I.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
At first, in the name of the western emperor Honorius (395-423), crowned when his father Theodosius was already on his deathbed, and who was only eleven years old when he died, the half-vandal and general of the imperial army (magister militum), Flavius Stilicho, ruled.

Son of a Vandal officer, who led a cavalry regiment with Valens, Stilicho was Catholic. He ordered that the golden ornaments to be removed from the doors of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. He also ordered the burning of the very ancient Sibylline books, and prosecuted the ‘heretics’, especially the Donatists, thanks to the intervention of Augustine, and restored the privileges of the Church. […]

In Stilicho’s time the irruption in Italy of the Visigoths occurred, a Germanic tribe that had embraced Christianity prematurely. The Goths became the main missionaries among the Germanic peoples. Soon most of the ‘barbarians’ that had settled since the middle of the 4th century in the Danubian provinces, especially in Pannonia and Messia (where in other times there were already ‘bishoprics’), were no longer ‘pagans’ but Arians. According to the historian of the Church Socrates, impressed by their defeat before Constantine, that is, forced by the sword, the Goths ‘believed in the religion of Christianity’.

These despots eager of power constantly fought against the Romans—in 315, 323, 328—who defeated them, with an especially serious defeat in 332, in which their dead, which apparently included women and children, were estimated at one hundred thousand. The most recent investigations also admit that Constantine’s warlike successes and the political relationship of the Goths with the Roman Empire gave ‘impulse’ to the Christianisation of the latter. Already bishop Theodoret, the father of the Church, said that such policy proved its effectiveness in a curious saying: ‘The historical facts show that war gives us greater benefits than peace.’ […]

According to Eunapius of Sardis (around 345-420), a fervent enemy of the Christians, the betrayal of the monks also allowed the attack of Alaric in the Thermopylae. Be that as it may, Greece had never been so devastated before: Macedonia, Thessaly, Boeotia, Attica. The Thebans were saved by their thick walls. Athens (which was protected by Athena and Achilles, a tendentious pre-Christian tale) was terribly plundered. The rest of the country, its villages, temples and works of art, suffered harsh punishments; Corinth was set on fire, and Boeotia was desolate for decades. […]

Honorius, mounted on the victory cart and with Stilicho at his side, hurried to Rome, for the Milvian Bridge, with the glorious spoils of victory in the escort of Christ, as Prudentius sings.

Christianity’s Criminal History, 114

St. John Chrysostom exhorting Aelia Eudoxia. Note how the Empress—the spouse of the Roman Emperor Arcadius—, in this painting by Jean-Paul Laurens, has people in her Byzantine entourage who are not whites.

Editor’s note: In a nationalist forum last month a commenter said:

A BS narrative that makes no sense. The idea that Jews created Christianity to subjugate the world is absurd and has no basis in historical fact. Anyone with a basic knowledge of history knows that anti-Jewish Rome and Byzantium spread Christianity—to the Jews disfavour.

It is true that some Jews suffered with the Christian emperors from the times of Constantine, but it cannot be said that the spread of Christianity was unfavourable to them. Quite the contrary: by the time of the reign of Theodosius II only two religions were legal in the Roman Empire: Judaism and Christianity! Not gratuitously I called ‘Apocalypse for Whites’ my translations of Evropa Soberana’s book on Judea vs. Rome.

The mentioned commenter does not seem to understand the double-edged strategy of the Semitic Christians of the Ancient World. Contemporary Jews are capable to withstand the open anti-Semitism of millions of Muslim migrants. Why they do that? Because they want to dilute the blood of the Aryan Man within his own land. In the same way, in the Ancient World they tolerated some repression since Constantine and his successors in order to annihilate the Greco-Roman culture of the Hellenes (i.e., the White culture), their true enemy.

Byzantium took over after the Western Roman Empire collapse. Byzantium had far more riches than Rome and its rule lasted 1,000 years. The Jews were greatly restricted under Byzantium rule. Again, you demonstrate your historical ignorance.

Does the commenter ignore that in the times of Byzantium (Constantinople) a war was fought—a war of ethnic cleansing of pure Whites instigated by St. John Chrysostom? When Karlheinz Deschner writes below about a mood, ‘typical of the anti-Germanism that prevailed in Constantinople’, one must keep in mind that the xenophobic muds of the old Byzantium disliked the blond Nordics and massacred 7,000 of them, women and children included.

Christian readers of the history of Constantinople, even those who comment in Alt-Right forums, usually don’t care about the ethnicity of the residents of the Mud City that Constantine had founded. Not even Richard Spencer has cared about it when he mentions Byzantium in glowing terms. New visitors of this site who have not read Evropa Soberana’s essay should read it now (see sticky post), together with the only histories about the White race, by William Pierce and Arthur Kemp, that have been written.

Karlheinz Deschner wrote:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

The massacre of Goths in Constantinople

Arcadius, who was still a boy, was named Augustus in 383 and in 384 became independent sovereign of the East. He was educated first by his mother Aelia Flaccilla, a strict Catholic, and then by the deacon Arsenius, who came from Rome. Although not without training—even a pagan, Themistius, prefect of Constantinople, had been his teacher—, the monarch always depended on his advisors and also his wife Aelia Eudoxia (mother of St. Pulcheria and Theodosius II): a determined anti-German, that pushed Arcadius against the ‘heretics’ and the followers of the old faith, and who largely directed his internal policy. On August 7, 395, the emperor, who was then seventeen years old, censured the negligence of the authorities in the persecution of idolatrous cults.

General Gainas, an Arian Goth, who rose rapidly in the Roman army, had succeeded in the meantime. He was in 394 in the war against Eugenius; in 395, in the campaign of Stilicho against Alaric. Gainas participated next in the murder of Rufinus, and from 396 to 399, under the command of Eutropius, became et magister utrius que militiae. One day they sent Gainas to the leaders of the party opposed to the Germans, their greatest adversary: the consul Aurelian, the consular Saturninus and the clerk John. However, the Goth only touched them with the sword, manifestly implying that they would have deserved death, and sent them into exile.

Now, after an unfortunate operation in the year 399 against the Goth Tribigild, who had risen in arms, Gainas fell into suspicion. Also in Constantinople, as a reaction to the pillages of the Goths, the tributes of war and all kinds of demagogues, a rigorous national orientation had developed, a remarkable anti-Germanism ‘represented mainly by Orthodox Christians’ (Heinzberger). The people, incited with rumours, hated the Germans, the ‘barbarians’ and the Arian ‘heretics’, who even aspired to have their own church in the capital. For this reason, Gainas maintained a lively polemic with patriarch John Chrysostom, who tried vehemently to ‘convert’ the Goths and who had assigned to the Catholic Goths a temple of their own, the church of Saint Paul, thus becoming ‘the founder of a German national church in Constantinople’ (Baur, Catholic).

However, the bishop strictly banned Arian religious services. He protested before the emperor against the requests of Gainas of a church of his own. Expletives against the Arians and the remaining ‘heretics’ were unleashed. He prayed insistently to the sovereign, dominated by Eudoxia, the anti-German fanatic—since the year 400 she was considered ‘August’—who did not allow the dogs to be thrown at the saint. It is better to lose the throne than to betray the house of God. Compare this to the similar advice given by Chrysostom’s colleague, Ambrose. The intervention of the bishop encouraged the citizens, with whom conflicts had already taken place. They rebelled in the so-called ‘hot summer of the year 400’, probably due to xenophobia, the differences between the two peoples. ‘However, what was decisive was the confessional antagonism; the shedding of blood begins, curiously, when Gainas demands for its Argive Goths the concession of a church’ (Aland).

The national party, which had armed the citizens, attacked along with the Roman garrison and the palace guard, the Goth minority. Gainas was saved with a part of his troops on the night of July 12, 400, when the assault took place at the city gate. However, many of their soldiers, along with their wives and children, were killed or burned inside the ‘church of the Goths’, where they had sought refuge; in total, apparently, more than seven thousand people. It occurred ‘at the instigation of Bishop Chrysostom’ (Ludwig), though perhaps to a greater extent at the behest of the later Bishop Synesius. His manifestations as an emissary are typical of the anti-Germanism that prevailed in Constantinople.

The prestige of St. John Chrysostom ‘was reinforced by these disturbances’. Nevertheless, it was not, as the Catholic Stockmeier thinks, because he was ‘above the parties’ but because he was on the side of the victors. The Catholics, who avoided the open struggle, removed the roof of the church and massacred the ‘barbarians’ with a shower of burning stones and beams, killing every last one of them (thirty-four years before, the procedure had already given good results in Rome in the fight between two popes). After the battle, they sang a thanksgiving to heaven and Chrysostom once again praised the man who directed human destinies in his sermon.

The fugitive Gainas, now officially an enemy of the State, went to Thrace to join his people on the other side of the lower Danube. However, after the annihilation of his army, on crossing the Hellespont on 23 December of the year 400, he was killed and his head sent to Constantinople at the beginning of the following year.

______ 卐 ______

To contextualise these translations of Karlheinz Deschner’s history of the Church in 10-volumes, Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, read the abridged translation of Volume I.

Kriminalgeschichte, 60

Below, an abridged translation from the first volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity). For a comprehensive text that explains the absolute need to destroy Judeo-Christianity, see here. In a nutshell, any white person who worships the god of the Jews is, ultimately, ethnosuicidal.

 
The Emperor Theodosius ‘the Great’

Theodosius I (reign 379-395) found in the father of the Church, Ambrose, an energetic travelling companion. ‘There is hardly a year of his reign’, says the Protestant theologian Von Campenhausen, ‘that he does not proclaim a new law or other measures to fight against paganism [Note of the translator: Hellenism] and to suppress heresy and to favour the Catholic Church’. ‘The annihilation of those who thought differently was, from the beginning, the goal of his government, and the ecclesiastical tradition, which describes Theodosius as an indefatigable protector of Catholicism and an enemy of all heresies and paganism [Hellenism], has portrayed him with complete fidelity’.

(Above, a Nummus of Theodosius.) However, the special merit of the Catholic sovereign consisted in a new policy towards the Germans. In his reorganization of the army, seriously severed, he incorporated ‘barbarians’ (they followed a trend that existed since Constantine) even in the leadership: Franks, Alemanni, Saxons and especially Goths, and with this ‘Gothfied’ army he cleansed the Balkans of Goths, that although officially they belonged to the Empire were not citizens but servants. In his first year of reign, he thus won victories over the Goths, the Alans, and the Huns.

Theodosius, as they always say full of ‘magnanimity towards the vanquished’ (Thiess), ‘the last great protector of the Germans on the Roman imperial throne’ (von Stauffenberg), never fought battles following every rule. Following Valens’ hunting of Gothic heads, he carried out a kind of guerrilla warfare, for which he sacrificed ‘unscrupulously or intentionally’ also the Gothic troops themselves (Aubin). The same as Gratian, he sought to annihilate one after another the various groups of ‘barbarians’.

Thus, he attacked isolated Goth contingents where he thought fit, as for example in 386 a troop of Ostrogoths led by Prince Odotheus. In autumn, they had requested permission to cross the river at the mouth of the Danube, although at first Promotus, the Magister militum that ruled Thrace, denied it. However, a dark night drew them to the river to fall into the hands of the Roman army. They set out to cross it with three thousand boats—the river was full of corpses—and were immediately defeated, while the women and children were left in captivity. However, surely the emperor’s Goth policy would have been different if he had had enough strength.

Theodosius hurried to celebrate the feat and on October 12, with his chariot drawn by elephants (a gift of the Persian king), entered triumphantly in Constantinople, where he had a commemorative column of 40 meters high in memory of this and other massacres of ‘barbarians’. Some years later, his general Stilicho caused a serious setback to another group of Goths. Bishop Theodoret informs with joy about ‘killings’ with ‘many thousands’ of ‘barbarians’ massacred. On the other hand, the prisoners of such operations flooded the slave markets throughout the East.

And from then on, thanks to the ‘merits’ of Theodosius, in all the battles of the invasion of the barbarians there are Germans fighting on both sides.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support The West’s Darkest Hour.

Kriminalgeschichte, 59

Editors’ Note: Keep in mind the fact that Ambrose was non-white, and that many of the Goths—pure Aryans—were converts from Germanic paganism to Arian Christianity.

 

Saint Ambrose drives the annihilation of the Goths, 2

The holy bishop constantly incites against the Goths, conjures the world not to let down the guard, and for him ‘practically any means is not only justified but also necessary’ (K.P. Schneider).

Ambrose had sent the holy emperor his pastoral work De fide, written during the conflict with the Goths, to the battlefield of Illyria, knowing that a victory should provide ‘more faith in the emperor of the courage of the soldiers’ (fide magis imperatoris quam virtute militum), with which he again incites against the Arians, who in reality are only human beings in their outward appearance, because in their interior they are ferocious animals. Although he prophesies the triumph, he is sure of victory ‘as a testimony of the true faith’.

The Arians, who ‘arrogated to themselves the name of Christians’ and yet ‘tried to wound with deadly weapons’ the Catholics, seemed, according to Ambrose, like the Jews, although they were worse, and also like the pagans, although in fact they were even worse: more like the antichrist and the devil himself. They had ‘gathered the poison of all heresies’,’ they were human beings only in their external aspect, but inside they were full of the rage of animals’.

Kriminalgeschichte, 58

Editors’ Note: Always keep in mind the fact
that Ambrose was non-white.

Saint Ambrose drives the annihilation of the Goths, 1

The Goths saw in their bishop Ulfilas, born about 311 of Gothic parents of Cappadocian descent, a ‘sacrosanct man’. He would write on his deathbed: ‘I, Ulfilas, bishop and confessor’, an honorary title that is related to the persecution of the Christian Goths, probably in 348. However, like him, only in Arianism did he see the una sancta; in all others, Christians antichrists, in their churches he saw ‘synagogues of the devil’ and especially in Catholicism a ‘lost theory of evil spirits’. Bishop Ambrose, for his part, believed that the fact that they did not accept salvation by the cross but only in imitation of Christ, whatever they understood by it, constituted ‘The most outstanding characteristic of Gothic Arianism’ (Giesecke). [1]

Even when commenting on the Gospel, Ambrose could quote praisefully the words of Paul, an even greater abominator: ‘Love is patient, it is kind, it does not show zeal, it does not boast’. He could let the imagination run: ‘But would not it be wonderful to offer the other cheek to the one who hits you?’ However, in reality Ambrose did not offer one cheek or the other, as he incited with especially Christian (and Pauline) consideration: ‘Is it not achieved with patience to return the blows twice [!] to the one who hits, in the form of the pain of the repentance?’ [2]

About our saint it is significant that he often speaks of the love of his neighbour and that he even approaches the subject as a whole in his monograph, De officiis ministrorum, but apparently only alludes to the love of enemies. For him—the same for Augustine and the whole Church—it was not useful, but only a sign of the greater perfection of the New Testament against the Old. However, this does not imply any binding requirement for Ambrose. What he rather does is ‘curiously not to reject anywhere war, categorically, as illicit’ (K.P. Schneider). On the contrary! The idea of a ‘justified war’ is constantly and ‘indirectly’ sketched by him. [3]

And not only indirectly, because while in the East the philosopher and educator of Princes, Themistius, who stood by several emperors and never adhered to Christianity, tried to mediate between the ecclesiastical parties and also between pagans and Christians (and, at the same time, vigorously supported the policy of a peaceful compromise between the Goths and Valens), St. Ambrose did just the opposite. As soon as he could, he sent his 19-year-old protégé Gratian in the name of Jesus against the Goths, the pagans, the ‘heretics’, the ‘barbarians’. [4]

The bishop did not cease to show passion. ‘There is no certainty from where they will attack the faith’, he exclaimed, angered before the emperor.

Raise up, O Lord, and unfold your standard! This time it is not the military eagles that lead the army and it is not the flight of the birds that directs it; it is your name. Jesus is the one who is cheered and it is your cross that goes before them… You have always defended it against the barbarian enemy; now take revenge!

Although he should not take revenge precisely in the name of Jesus! However, Ambrose took as a reference—as the clergy have done in all wars to date—the Old Testament: where Abraham, with a few men, annihilated numerous enemies; where Joshua triumphed over Jericho.

The Goths are for the saint the Gog people (‘Gog iste Gothus est’), whose annihilation predicts the prophet, de quo promittitur nobis futura victoria: a people that Yahweh, in his lapidary style, wants to ‘give to devour’ to raptors and other animals, and also to their own: ‘And you must eat the fat until you are fed up and drink blood until you get drunk of the victim I sacrifice for you’. According to Ambrose, for whom ‘Germanic’ and ‘Arian’ (or ‘Roman’ and ‘Catholic’) were almost equivalent terms, to defeat the Goths one thing is needed: true faith! This, in spite of the fact that the emperor of the East, Valens, was Arian! But the bishop conveniently ignored these facts. Faith in God could not be separated from fidelity to the Empire. ‘Where fidelity to God is lost, the Roman State is also broken’. Where the ‘heretics’ appeared, they were followed by the ‘barbarians.’ [5]

Of course, the military aspect was accompanied by an aspect of ecclesiastical politics. However, in occupied Illyria, that is, near northern Italy and Milan, in addition to the war with the outside adversary, the internal enemy—the disputes with the Arians—also wreaked havoc. Secundianus resided in Singidunum as bishop, Palladio in Ratiaria, Julian Valens in Poetovium, Auxentius in Durostorum, but Ulfilas also lived there, who displayed his activity mainly in the eastern provinces of the Danube. Ambrose incited the emperor against these influential Christians, especially when the Illyrian Arians made propaganda also in Milan and other cities in northern Italy, and the entry of Goths gave new impulses to the ‘heresy’. Thus, this Catholic did not cease to invoke the religious situation and the performance of the Arians as a danger to the Empire and to military security, which would provide the ‘heretical’ subjects with a protection against the Goths, their fellow believers, much smaller than the Orthodox. [6]

Nevertheless, it is evident that the military aspect was now more important for Ambrose than the religious one that he highlights, insofar as his diocese was not far from the Goths and in Roman Christianity, according to an ancient tradition, the same distinction was done among Romans and ‘barbarians’ as between human beings and animals. The danger arose from the enemies of the country. Thus, the religious zeal of the bishop is now anticipated by the national zeal. Ambrose especially emphasised the propensity to a vice of the ‘barbarians’, their depravity ‘worse than death’.

For him, the unquestioning patriot, the enemy is also any ‘stranger’, an ‘alien’ almost equivalent to infidel. To the Goths and the like (Gothi et diversarum nationum viri) he calls ‘people who once dwelt in wagons’, beings more fearsome than the gentiles (gentes). Thus, he does not fight the infidel Romans; what he does rather is to place the army of the pagans on his side and incite it against the ‘barbarians’, and to win over the emperor with pretexts of religious motives, while seeking the predominance of ‘Roman culture’, which he himself provides protection and a very prestigious life. [7]
 
________________

Note of the translator: The footnotes still lack the general bibliography, which will be ready as I finish the abridgement of this first volume.

[1] Jord. of orig. act Get 25. Soz. e.h. 2.6. Philostorg. e.h. 2.5. Basil ep. 164.2. Lex dtv Antike, Religion 1176. Seeck, Untergang V 90. K.-D. Schmidt, Die Bekehrung 216 f, 231 f, 236 f, 257 (here citation). Giesecke, Die Ostgermanen 6 f, 16 f, 44, 69. Thompson, Christianity 69 f. K. K. Klein, Gotenprimas Wulfila 84 f, especially 98 f. Previté-orton, The shorter 56. Claude, Die Westgoten 11 f, 26 f. Aland, Glaubenswechsel 58. Klein, Constantius II, 253 f.

[2] Ambros. Lukaskommentar 5,73 f.

[3] Schneider, Liebesgebot 27 f, 56.

[4] Pauly V 677 f. Straub, Regeneratio 203 f. Wolfram, Gotische Studien 13.

[5] Ambr. of fide ad Grat. 2,16,130; 2.16, 139 f; 3,16,138 f. Ez. 38 f, especially 38.4; 39.4; 39.19. Ambr. ep. 10.9; 25 f. of off. 1.35175 f. from Tob. 15.51. On the concept of ‘barbarians’, cf. for example Wemer, Barbarus 401 f. Jüthner 103 f. V. Campenhausen, Ambrosius 37 f, 46 f. The same, Lateinische Kirchenväter 88 f. Beumann, Zur Entwickiung 219 f. Stratmann III 72. Christ, Römer 273 f. Homus 169. Pavan, Gothic Politics 70 f, especially 76 f. Schneider, Liebesgebot 49 f. Chadwick, Die Kirche 174. Haendier, Von Tertullian 102.

[6] Ambros. of fide 2.16, 139 f. Sulp. Sev. Vit. Mart. 6.4. V. Campenhausen, Ambrosius 9 f, 18 f, 37 f. Schneider, Liebesgebot 45 f. Gottiieb, Ambrosius 21 f, 83 f.

[7] Ambros. ep. 19.7 f; 20.12; 20.20. of off. 2,136; 3.84. de fide 2,16. Prudent. c. Symm. 2,816 f. V. Campenhausen, Ambrosius 48 f. Schneider, Liebesgebot 49 f. Straub, Regeneratio 251. Haendier, Von Tertullian 102.

Kriminalgeschichte, 57

Below, an abridged translation from the first volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity). For a comprehensive text that explains the absolute need to destroy Judeo-Christianity, see here. In a nutshell, any white person who worships the god of the Jews is, ultimately, ethnosuicidal.

 
The Goths—Gutans or Gut-þiuda in their language—were the main people of the East Germans. Coming from Sweden, Gotland, Östergötland or Västergötland, they settled on the lower Vistula in the ‘transition period’, about the year 150 on the Black Sea. In the middle of the 1st century they split into Eastern and Western Goths (Ostrogoths, of austro, ‘bright’, and Visigoths, from wisi, ‘Good’), although they continued to be considered as a single people and usually called themselves only Goths. The Ostrogoths settled between the Don and the Dnieper (in present-day Ukraine), and the Visigoths between it and the Danube, from where they spread to the Balkans and Asia Minor, historians citing here generally the year 264. Dacia and Moesia (approximately the current Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia) were constantly under their pressure. In the year 269 Emperor Claudius II defeated them, Constantine often fought against them, and in 375 both towns (except the Catholic Crimean Goths, who remained there until the sixteenth century) were expelled by the Huns, who were advancing towards West. This tribe of nomads from the interior of Asia, were defeated and expelled in turn by the Chinese and only lived on horseback—’animals of two legs’ as Ammianus wrote—, advancing irresistibly from the northern shore of the Caspian Sea, extending the Russian plain and conquering a gigantic empire. Around 360 they had crossed the Don and reached Hungary by 430. However, allied with the Visigoths, the imperial general Flavius Aetius—who had sought and found protection among the Huns in the past—, defeated them in 451 in Gaul, in the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains. A few years later their king died, and more quickly than they had arrived, they largely withdrew towards Asia, in the Pontic steppes, the North Caucasus and the Sea of Azov. They were disbanded into several tribes and were henceforth known under the new name of Bulgarians.[1]

The Goths of the Balkans, the Lower Danube and the shores of the Black Sea were soon ‘converted’, the first among the Germans. This began in the 3rd century through contacts with the Romans and with captives. In the 4th century there was a notable increase of Christians among the Visigoths. In the year 325 the bishopric of Gomia already exists, under the orthodox bishop Theophilus; one of the participants in the Council of Nicaea. In 348 there is a persecution of Christians and in 369 a second one, which lasts three years. However, soon after most of the Visigoths are Christians. The Ostrogoths, on the other hand, if we give credence to Augustine, when penetrating Italy in 405 under King Radagaisus were still pagans; while in 488, when they invaded Italy with Theodoric, they were already Christians.[2]

The persecution of 348, led by a ‘judge of the Goths, without religion and profaner of God’, that is, a pagan, led to the expulsion of Ulfilas, the author of the Gothic Bible, consecrated around 341 by Eusebius of Nicomedia as ‘bishop of Christians in the land of the Goths’. With him a group of his followers fled, to whom Emperor Constantius II settled south of the Danube, in the province of the Lower Moesia, where their descendants lived for two centuries.[3]

The second persecution against the Christians under the Visigoths (in 369-372) was led by the prince Athanaric. It is perfectly understandable that already the ancient authors were fascinated with a man who, for example, refused to address Emperor Valens with the treatment of Basileus, arguing that he preferred the title of judge, which embodies wisdom, while the king only the power. The second persecution was not solely due to questions of faith. It was mainly an anti-Roman reaction and was closely related to the war between Goths and Romans between 367 and 369, although evidently also with the struggle for power between the princes Athanaric and Fritigern, the latter representing a policy favourable to the Romans and the Christians.[4]

After a meticulous preparation, Valens crossed the Danube in the year 367 and resumed a fight against the Goths that Constantine had already initiated, ending it in 332 by means of a formal treaty of peace with the Visigoths. Valens, without the warrior carving of the ‘great emperor’, ravaged the country, went hunting the heads of an enemy in disarray, but failed to reach the bulk of their opponents, as Athanaric always managed with great skill to flee to the Carpathians. And although in 369 he stopped with a part of his people and was defeated, it was so undecided that Valens had to accept his refusal to step on the Roman ground and had to spend a whole September day negotiating in a boat anchored in the river. Finally, the Gothic prince had free hands to dominate the adversaries in his own town, which led to three years of persecution.[5]

The reign of Athanaric did not tremble until the Huns overwhelmed the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths, at which time Athanaric and Fritigern, in spite of their enmity, fought side by side against the powerful invaders, and apparently the Ostrogothic king Ermanaric committed suicide in desperation. One part of his people were subjugated while the other crossed the Dnieper and fled towards the Visigoths. However, the defence sank before the hurricane of the Huns. With Athanaric they fled again to the impassable Carpathians. (In 1857 the workers who built a road there found, near a ruined fortress in Pietroasele, the Visigoth ‘treasure of the crown’. In a choker the following runic inscription appeared: utani othal ik im hailag: that is, a treasure of the Goths, I am invulnerable.) Defeated again, between forty and seventy thousand Visigoths fled to the south and asked in 376 Emperor Valens to admit them into the Roman Empire.[6]

While Athanaric left Gut-þiuda, the country of the Goths, and settled in the territories that would later be Transylvania, Valens authorised the immigration of the great mass of the Goths ruled by Fritigern as foederati; that is, colonists with the obligation to go to the army when they were needed: an ancient method of obtaining peasants, but above all soldiers. In the autumn of 376 they crossed the river, an event of great historical significance, probably by Durostorum (Silistra): a long row of chariots, often carrying the ancient pagan idols but also with some bishop among them, a Christian priest. And Fritigern, who with many of his own had become Arian in 369, promised Valens the ‘conversion’ of the part of his people that was still pagan, something that pleased the ears of the fanatical ‘heretic’, but that for the Goths was more a question of opportunism: misery and the Huns on the one hand and the attractive Roman Empire on the other. However, their exploiters and their officials, the monopolists of food and hunger caused that not a few Goths, even some bosses, sell as slaves their own wives and children, even in exchange for dog meat, a business quite common on the Danube. The thrust of the new ‘barbarians’, Visigoths, Taifals, Alans, and Huns on the open border pushed the newcomers, who occupied all of Thrace, to rebel and march on Constantinople, joining them bands of Huns, Alans and also slaves, peasants and workers of the mines of the country.[7]
 
_______________

Note of the translator: The footnotes still lack the general bibliography, which will be ready as I finish the abridgement of this first volume.

[1] Plin. nat hist 37, 35; 4.28. Tac. Germ. c 44. Socr. 6.34. Ammian 31.2.1 f; 31.3 f. Philostorg. 9.17. Stein, Vom römischen 289 f. Hauptmann 115 f. Schmidt, Ostgermanen 195, 201, 243. K.-D. Schmidt, Die Bekehrung 205 f, 215, 316 f. Capelle 185 f. Historically, Weibull (Die Auswanderung der Goten aus Schweden, 1958) is of special importance. Ferdinandy 186 f. Vemadsky 258 f. Dannenbauer, Entstehung 110 f, 193 f. Conrad, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte 77. Maier, Die Verwandiung 109 f, 130. A. v. Müller, Geschichte unter useren Füssen 114 f. Rice 149. Schwartz, Goten 13 f, 142 f. Bullough, Italien 167. Wagner, getica 214. Claude, Westgoten 7. Stockmeier, Bemerkungen zur Christianisierung 316 f.

[2] Mansi Collect. Consil. II 214. Schmidt, Die Niedergang Roms 427 f. Aland, Glaubenwechsel 58 f. Stockmeier, Bemerkungen zur Christianisierung 315 f. Apparently, the first missionary of the Visigoths was one Eutyches, ibid.

[3] Jord. Get 267 (MG Auct., Ant. V 1,127). Lex dtv Antike, Religion H 311 f. Thompson, The Visigoths 94 f. Fridh, 130 f. Wolfram, Gotische Studien lis. Schäferdiek, Wulfila 107 f, especially 117.

[4] Ammian. 27.5.9. The sources in Jones, Prosography 120 f. Lex dtv Antike, Geschichte 1155. K. K. Klein Frithigem 34 f. Aland, Glaubenswechsel 59. Wolfram, Gotische Studien 2 f, 13. Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte II / l, 235.

[5] Ammian. 31,4,13. K. K. Klein Frithigem 38 f. Wolfram, Gotische Studien 4.9 f.

[6] Ammian. 31.3,4. Socr. e.h. 4.33 f. Soz. 6.37. According to Dudden 1165 they were ‘nearly a million persons of both sexes’. Giesecke, Die Ostgermanen 62 f. Schmidt, Die Bekehrung 223 f. Capelle 185 f. Thompson, Attila 23. Ensslin, Einbruch 101. Aland, Glaubenswechsel 60. Altheim, Hunnen I 351. Dannenbauer, Entstehung I 195. A. v. Müller, Geschichte unter unseren Füssen 115. Maier, Verwandiung 110.

[7] Eunap. fr. 42 f; 55. Ammian. 26, 10, 3; 27.4; 31.3 f. Zos. 4.10 f. Socr. e.h. 4.33 f. Soz. 6.37 f. Orog 7.32 f. Seeck, Untergang V 93 f, 101 f. Schwartz, Zur Geschichte des Athanasius 370. Delbrück, Kriegskunst II 280. Stein, Vom römischen 286 f. V. Campenhausen, Ambrosius 37 f. Schmidt, Die Bekehrung 242 f. The same, Die Ostgermanen 233. Giesecke, Die Ostgermanen 69 f. Capelle 172 f. Baetke, Die Aumahme17. Komemann, Weltgeschichte II, 352. The same, Römische Geschichte II 418 f. Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates 43. Ensslin, Einbruch 100 f. Vogt, Der Niedergang Roms 310 f, 428. Dannenbauer, Entstehung 1195. Maier, Verwandiung 110. Claude, Westgoten 14 f, 26 f. Nehisen 161. Aland, Glaubenswechsel, 59 f. Wolfram, Gotische Studien 10.

Kriminalgeschichte, 56

Below, an abridged translation from the first volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity). For a comprehensive text that explains the absolute need to destroy Judeo-Christianity, see here. In a nutshell, any white person who worships the god of the Jews is, ultimately, ethnosuicidal.

 
The Ambrosian policy: archetype for the Church to the present

The same as Athanasius, Ambrose (in his post of 374-397)—according to Augustine’s testimony, ‘the best and most renowned bishop of Milan’—was not so much a theologian as a politician of the Church: equally inflexible and intolerant, although not so direct; more versed and ductile and acquainted with power since birth. His methods, more than those of Athanasius, remain to date an example for ecclesiastical politics.[1]

The agents of the saint are among the highest officials of the Empire. He acts skilfully from the background and prefers to let be that the ‘community’ does things, which he fanaticised with so much virtuosity that even the military proclamations directed against it fail.

Son of the prefect of Gaul, Ambrose was born about 333 or 339 in Trier. Orphaned at an early age he grew up, with two brothers, under the tutelage of Roman aristocrats. Having studied rhetoric and law he was appointed, around 370, administrator (consularis Liguriae et Aemiliae) in Milan. On December 7, 374 he would be consecrated bishop, barely eight days after his baptism and without even having the Christian knowledge of an educated layman.

Milan (Mediolanum), founded by the Gauls and a remarkable knot of communications, especially with important roads that lead to the alpine passes, was in the 4th century the capital of Italy and increasingly the imperial residence. Valentinian II sought to stay there as long as possible; Gratian still more, and Theodosius I remained there from 388 to 391, and also after his victory over Eugene (394).

Roman columns in front of basilica di San Lorenzo
in what remains of Mediolanum, the ancient Milan.

Sometimes Bishop Ambrose saw the sovereigns daily. Since when Valentinian II was proclaimed Augustus (375) he was barely five years old, his tutor and half-brother Gratian had just turned sixteen and the Spanish Theodosius was at least a very determined Catholic, the illustrious disciple of Jesus could handle perfectly their majesties. Valentinian I died a few years after Ambrose’s inauguration. His son Gratian (375-383), of just sixteen years of age, succeeded him on the throne.

The emperor, blond, beautiful and athletic had no interest in politics. ‘I have never learned what it means to govern and be governed’ (Eunapius). He was a passionate runner, javelin thrower, fighter, rider, but what he liked most was killing animals. Neglecting the affairs of state, every day he killed countless of them, with an almost ‘supernatural’ ability, even lions, with a single arrow. In any case, he also prayed every day and was ‘pious and clean of hearing’, as Ambrose affirmed so that he would soon deliver biting hints: ‘His virtues would have been complete had he also learned the art of politics’ (Epit. de Caesaribus).[2]

However, this art was practiced by Ambrose for him. Not only did he personally guide the young sovereign, effectively since 378: he also influenced his government measures. At that time the sovereign had promulgated, by an edict, precisely tolerance towards all confessions, except a few extremist sects. However, Ambrose, who four years before was still unbaptized, hastened to write a statement, De fide ad Gratianum Augustum, which he quickly understood.

And as soon as Gratian himself arrived at the end of July 379 in Milan, neutral as he was from the point of view of religious policy, he annulled on August 3, after an interview with Ambrose, the edict of tolerance promulgated the year before. He decided then that only would be considered ‘Catholic’ what his father and he in numerous decrees had ordered eternal, but that ‘all heresies’ should ‘be muted for eternity’. He thus prohibited the religious services of the other confessions. Year after year, except for 380, he issued anti-heretic decrees, ordering the confiscation of meeting places, houses and churches; he dictated exiles and, as a fairly new means of religious oppression, repealed the right to make wills. He was also the first of the Christian emperors who got rid of the title of Pontifex Maximus (that the Roman monarchs used since Augustus), or rather, he refused to accept it, although the year is still the subject of discussions. The military under Sapor was ordered to ‘expel from religious facilities the Arian blasphemy as if they were wild animals and return them to the true shepherds and flocks of God’ (Theodoret). Tolerance towards paganism, which was common among his predecessors, also soon disappeared. In fact, his father still allowed the reparation of damaged temples, making the government pay the expenses. In 381, Gratian moved to northern Italy. In 382 he attacked the pagan cult of Rome, most probably advised by Ambrose; although sanitation of the State coffers may also have played an important role. He also persecuted the Marcionists and, like his father, the Manichaeans and the Donatists: whose communities in Rome had been dissolved without further ado, at the request of Pope Siricius (383-399), with state aid.[3]

Valentinian II (375-392), much younger still, had a remarkable influence on the saint. He habitually used him against the Senate of Rome, mostly pagan, and against the entire Council of the Crown. And the last Westerner on the throne of the East, the independent Theodosius (379-395), dictated in almost every year of his government laws against pagans or ‘heretics’. However, according to Father Stratmann, he was more tolerant than the bishop of the court, who encouraged him to take stricter measures on all sides against the pagans, the ‘heretics’, the Jews, and the extreme enemies of the Empire. The reason: ‘It is no longer our old life that we continue to live but the life of Christ, the life of maximum innocence, the life of divine simplicity, the life of all virtues’ (Ambrose).[4]

The way in which Ambrose lived the life of Christ, the life of maximum innocence, of divine simplicity and of all the virtues, manifests itself in multiple ways—for example, in his behaviour against the Goths. We will deal with them because the Goths played a very important role in the history of Europe, especially between the 5th and 6th centuries. The sources are better in this case than in the other tribes of eastern Germans, and richer is the historiography on them.[5]
 
_______________

Note of the translator: The footnotes still lack the general bibliography, which will be ready as I finish the abridgement of this first volume.

[1] August. conf. 5,13.

[2] Eunap. Excerpt. de Sent. 48. Auson. Grat. Act 64 f. Ammian. 27,6,15; 31,10,18 f. Soz. 7,25,11. Vict. Epit. de Caesaribus 47,5 f. Seeck, Untergang V 165. Dudden I 217 f.

[3] Ammian 30,9,5. Theodor. e.h. 4.24.2 f; 5.2; 5.21.3 f. Socr. 5.2; Cod. Theod. 13,1,11; 16.5.4 f. Cod. Just. 1,5,2. Soz. 7,1,3. Ambros. ep. 1 f; 7 f. Auson. Grat. Act. 14.63. Epistula Gratiani imperat. (CSEL 79.3 f). Zos. 4,36,5. Rauschen 47.49 f. RAC II 1228 f. Kraft, Kirchenväter Lexikon 27. Seeck, Regesten 252. The same, Untergang V 104 f, 137. Sesan 60 f. Stein, Vom römischen 304 f. Heering I 60 f. Dudden I 191 f. V. Campenhausen, Ambrosius 15, 36, 40 f. Alföldi, A Festival. According to this author, Gratian abandoned the title of Pontifex Maximus at the beginning of 379, p. 36. Kornemann, Römische Geschichte II 420. Ensslin, Die Religionspolitik 8 f. Lorenz 38. Diesner, Kirche und Staat 23. Maier, Verwandlung 53. Hornus 168 f. Widmann 59. Grasmück 131 f, 151 f. Lippold, Theodosius 16, 34 f. Kupisch I 91. Schneider, Liebesgebot 46. Aland, Von Jesus bis Justinian 224. Heinzberger 12, 227 Notes 37; here the corresponding bibliography. Thraede 95. Grant, Christen 177. – Chronology, as so often happens, is still subject to controversy. G. Gottlieb, who is not followed here, in his work of opposition to chair in Heidelberg fixed for the writing of the first part of ‘de fide’ not the 378 (or 379), that is, not as was done until the date immediately before (or shortly after) the battle of Adrianople, but a year later. Cf. G. Gottlieb, Ambrosius von Mailand und Kaiser Gratian, Zusammenfassung 83 f. G. discusses even any influence of Ambrose on Gratian’s legislation on matters of the Church and faith, 51 f, or at least explains that such influence ‘cannot be seen anywhere’ (87). Cf. in this regard also Gottlieb, Gratianus RAC VII 718 f, especially 723 f.

[4] Ambros. Über die Flucht vor der Welt 44. Heilmann, Texte II 396. Stein, Vom römischen 296 F. Stratmann III 76. V. Campenhausen, Ambrosius 166. Bloch 197. Aland, Von Jesus bis Justinian 225. Rubin I 27 speaks precisely of the ‘submission’ of Theodosius to Ambrose.

[5] Cf. recently Strzelczyck 1 f.