We demand…

arrest and criminal prosecution
of western leaders responsible for
genocidal Third World immigration

by Ferdinand Bardamu

 

I: The Massacre at Christchurch

The massacre of 50 Moslem worshipers, in Christchurch, New Zealand on Friday, March 15th, has been energetically denounced as a “terrible tragedy” the world over. If the attack had been carried out by a Moslem against Christians or Shi’ite sectarians, the media would have excused the perpetrator as not representative of the general Moslem population, despite the common occurrence of such massacres in the Middle East; however, because 28 year-old Australian national Brent Tarrant is the alleged gunman, whites are collectively to blame for a “system of state-sanctioned white supremacy that manifests itself daily.” Whatever the Christchurch massacre was, we must not join hands with the forces of political correctness in denouncing it as a “terrible tragedy”; we must not agree with VDARE columnist Patrick Buchanan that the massacre was “[a]n atrocity and act of pure evil by a man with a dead soul.” Moslems kill fellow Moslems, Christians and other religionists on an industrial scale, but the Western lugenpresse pays scant attention to these “terrible tragedies,” nor have any of them ever received the same amount of press coverage as the rare massacre perpetrated by the lone race-conscious white, in defense of his civilization from non-white invasion and conquest. Either we denounce all such occurrences as “terrible tragedies” whenever they occur or we pass over them in silence.

Christchurch is one of a growing number of incidents in a larger racial and ideological struggle, one that will have far-reaching political ramifications for the entire Western world. Today, whites find themselves in the midst of a demographic war being waged against them by their own “post-national” governments. Since the post-national state itself is an ideological pipe-dream, the main determinant of national belonging within the state is ethno-racial identity. In fact, because of mass migration, Samuel P. Huntington’s 9 major civilizations, and the inevitable conflicts they will engender being in such close quarters, are already present, in embryonic form, within the larger post-national states of the Western world. The internal dynamics of the new post-national world order are best described as “anarcho-tyrannical.” Non-whites take whatever they want from the white man in a Darwinian free-for-all, but the white man must be tyrannized over and compelled by an impersonal managerial bureaucracy to surrender everything he has. The post-national state’s multiparty dictatorship imposes its will upon whites through physical, but not moral force, which means that the conflict of interest between the hostile elite and indigenous whites cannot be resolved by appeal to some higher or independent authority.

Christchurch is an act of war within the chaotic multicultural environment of the post-national state. If Tarrant’s actions are the catalyst of a much larger conflict, they must be analyzed with the dispassionate objectivity of the military historian, from the vantage-point of strategy and logistics. The elites imported Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations into our own backyards and neighborhoods, but disingenuously excused this unprecedented act of belligerence as innocent “cultural enrichment.” Although white nationalists should eschew violence whenever possible, more radical fringe elements may believe that when white racial survival is at stake, no logical or ethical limit can be imposed on the force needed for the complete destruction of those who would threaten whites with racial extinction; in the most objectively desperate situations, it remains a truism that survival always necessitates war. Nevertheless, for white nationalists in formerly white countries, violence is generally counterproductive; if leftists were able to infiltrate the main institutions of Western civilization over the course of decades, white nationalists should be able to do the same. Ethical considerations are indeed peripheral to the white nationalist struggle against multicultural hegemony, but this is only because there is a political goal that must be achieved at all costs (which means that violence cannot be completely ruled out if the situation demands it). For us, this goal is twofold: the repatriation of all non-whites in the Western Hemisphere and the criminal prosecution of hostile elites.

We must not dismiss Tarrant as, to quote various sensationalistic media accounts, a “lunatic right-wing extremist,” a “working class madman,” or a “crazed gunman.” Such tactics are reminiscent of Soviet psychiatry, used to publicly humiliate dissidents and marginalize legitimate criticism of government policy. In the former USSR, dissidents who publicly challenged official Marxist-Leninist dogma were diagnosed as schizophrenic, locked away in mental hospitals and force-fed anti-psychotic pills until they were reduced to mindless, drooling zombies barely able to dress and feed themselves. Communist regimes around the world embraced political psychiatry as a means of enforcing conformity to state policies and the orthodox ideological interpretation of Marxism-Leninism favored by communist officials. Using the scientific-sounding jargon of psychiatry to associate political dissidence with mental illness was a highly effective tactic; if anti-communism was a sign of serious mental illness, the public would pay no attention to it.

Labeling dissidents and their theories “insane” or “crazy” isn’t only confined to communist nations. In 1989, the Ontario attorney-general famously denounced the late J. Philippe Rushton’s research on race and intelligence as “loony.” To this day, anti-racist academics continue to respond viscerally to Rushton’s r/K selection theory and life history approach to human differences, summarily dismissing both as “weird” and “bizarre,” without seriously engaging his body of work on an academic or intellectual level. By attributing Brent Tarrant’s actions and message to some simplistic individual-level mental pathology, critics want to dismiss whites who complain about being ethnically dispossessed in their own homelands as mentally ill. Smearing someone with the mental illness label because you disagree with what they say or do is a common left-wing tactic.
 

II: The Reality Behind “The Great Replacement”

Tarrant’s manifesto, entitled “The Great Replacement,” is the work of a rational and lucid mind. He makes a great deal of the fact that hostile elites all around the Western world are flooding formerly white nations with millions upon millions of culturally and racially unassimilable non-white foreigners; in consequence, whites will become minorities in their own countries before 2100.

No one, except the most indoctrinated multiculturalists, can deny the reality of the “Great Replacement,” the demographic transformation of the West into Los Estados Unidos de América, Eurafrica and Eurabia. This is an act of self-immolation that has lowered Western standards of living. Only our mostly dim-witted elites would see this as cause for celebration, while hiding behind armed bodyguards in heavily fortified compounds; better to be insulated from the corrosive effects of imported diversity than engage the electorate in serious debate as to its merits.

Whether the elite wishes to acknowledge it or not, exposure to diversity opens eyes, sometimes giving sight to the most hardened liberals and cultural Marxists. Tarrant, originally a communist, then an anarchist, was “radicalized” by Moslem terrorism in Western Europe. This lead to the realization of certain factual and statistical realities; unlike other racial or religious groups, Moslems came close to invading the cradle of the Occident and exterminating its indigenous white civilization and culture. By 732, the Moslems had conquered the entire Iberian peninsula and would have subjugated all Europe, but for Charles Martel, who defeated them at the Battle of Tours; in 1683, they invaded Europe again, only to be defeated by John III Sobieski and his Christian coalition at Vienna.

The Koran, which calls for the indiscriminate killing of infidels, is best described as a blueprint for world domination. Because violent jihad is a religious obligation, Moslems are far more likely to commit acts of terrorism than any other ethno-racial or religious group; in the United States alone. Moslems are 1% of the population, but have been responsible for 27% of all violent extremist incidents from 2001 to 2016; this means that they are 27 times more likely to commit terrorist offenses than the general population. Moslem animus towards the West has forced some whites to resort to violence to drive out the Islamist plague, which is understandable; Moslems are hostile invaders who wish to kill all unbelievers or force them to pay the jizya tax and submit to dhimmitude under a Moslem Caliphate based on Shariah law.

The hostile elites have granted the West’s historic enemies a free hand in Western Europe and North America to rape, murder, pillage, colonize and enforce Shariah law in a land that neither belongs to them nor wants them. This is a depraved and vicious act that cries out for some kind of judicial punishment.
 

III: Your Fundamental Right to Freedom of Association

In the language of natural law, which has unfortunately been distorted beyond recognition by liberal demagogues, marrying one’s own race and living among one’s own kind are the most fundamental negative rights. Freedom of association lies at the heart of any truly free and democratic society; only the vigorous preservation of this freedom can maintain the racial homogeneity necessary for the flourishing of free institutions. With freedom of association comes the freedom to discriminate. Individual liberty and moral autonomy historically necessitated anti-miscegenation laws, the Supreme Court’s “separate, but equal” doctrine, racial restrictions on citizenship and immigration, literacy tests for voting and rejection of women’s suffrage; paradoxically, the repeal of this legislation was an attack on individual liberty in the name of leftist mob tyranny.

If all non-whites have the right to freedom of association in their own countries, which they freely exercise because they have not unilaterally disarmed themselves by extinguishing their own racial consciousness, then whites must also have the same right. It should come as no surprise that the liberal totalitarian has long ago discarded negative rights; this is because they constitute a significant impediment to the implementation of multicultural policies. Liberal managerialism and Lockean natural rights are mutually incompatible.

To the race-conscious white man, the loss of freedom of association is a fate worse than death. Can you imagine not being able to voice your own opinions on the matter because of elite totalitarian control of the mass media? Can you imagine being shouted down and harassed at every moment as a racist and a bigot, for demanding something taken for granted by non-whites? The non-white invaders are not nearly as empathetic or compassionate as whites; they cannot even begin to fathom white suffering in the face of genocidal Third World immigration. Tarrant’s hatred is the Saxon’s hatred in its purest and holiest form, the kind of hatred that Rudyard Kipling spoke so highly of in his own poetry, although misplaced and channeled towards counterproductive ends (in other words, he should have targeted members of the globalist ruling class instead). In a world where all non-whites have a right to live in their own nations, with members of their own race, language, culture and religion, why shouldn’t Tarrant, as a member of the white race, not have these same rights to the kind of things non-whites take for granted?
 

IV: Senator Anning’s Common Sense on Third World Immigration

On March 15, in the aftermath of the Christchurch massacre, Queensland senator Fraser Anning said in the following statement to the press: “The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.”

This was one of the few times that a Western politician had dissented from elite consensus. Moslems have been allowed to emigrate to Europe since the 1960s. For decades, their colonization of the cradle of Western civilization has been an orgy of murder, pillage, widespread rioting, brutal acts of terror and gang rape. So far, our mostly dim-witted, but hostile elites have callously turned a blind eye to this terrible rampage instigated by their own inept multicultural policies. Instead, they call for more immigration from the Third World. The belief that immigrant social pathologies exist because, to quote Barbara Lerner Spectre, “Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural” is accepted as an article of faith by members of the hostile elite.

How was Senator Anning rewarded for speaking truth to power?

The following day, during a press conference in Melbourne, he was egged by a 17-year-old named William Connolly. This was a vicious act of assault with a potentially dangerous weapon. Anning retaliated by punching Connolly in the head. The boy was subsequently arrested, but later released from police custody without charges. Despite video evidence of the assault, Victoria police chose to hypocritically stand by and do nothing. Prime Minister Scott Morrison inexplicably demanded that criminal charges be filed against Anning. Connolly was lionized as a hero; in just four days, “Egg Boy” was able to raise $57,000 in donations. This was a shocking miscarriage of justice, in a world where lives are routinely destroyed and reputations ruined for much, much less by intrusive, tyrannical governments and brutal, low-IQ Neanderthals masquerading as police officers.

The message sent was clear:

If you publicly speak out against Third World immigration, but are violently assaulted or otherwise criminally victimized as a result, you deserve it and no one will come to your defense, not even the police.

On March 18th, a petition calling for Anning’s expulsion from the Australian parliament was being circulated, with 1.2 million signatures, although no laws exist that would allow the Senate to expel one of its own members.

On March 27th, Anning scathingly rebuked the Australian government’s immigration policies in an open letter to the Prime Minister:

It is a matter of fact that in recent times, these kinds of deadly attacks have proliferated in Western countries. Initially, these attacks were mostly committed by Muslims but more recently, have been committed against them.

It is a matter of causation, not moral blame, that until recently we were largely immune to this problem because until the 1970s Western populations were, for the most part, ethnically, culturally and religiously homogenous.

I believe that these changes were initiated by governments, not requested by the people, who generally wished to retain their way of life, as did others around the world.

This is one of the few times on record that an MP has publicly rebuked the national government—of any globalist-occupied Western country—for its incredibly stupid multiculturalist policies.

On April 2nd, Australian lawmakers unanimously voted on a bipartisan motion to officially censure Anning for his remarks on Christchurch. Fellow senators denounced Anning as an “absolute disgrace,” as “pathetic” and “shameful”; his comments were derided as “inflammatory and divisive.” Senator Anning rightly dismissed the bipartisan motion as an attack on freedom of speech and “an exercise in left-wing virtue signaling of the worst kind.”
 

V: Why Our Hostile Elites Deserve Criminal Punishment

Senator Anning should be applauded for standing up to the leftist totalitarians of the Australian parliament, who remain intent on using non-white invasion as a battering ram against the white working class. Morrison, the Australian parliament, and most Western government officials certainly deserve blame for their reckless and utterly stupid multiculturalist policies. However, Anning does not go far enough. He calls for the criminalization of multiculturalist policies, but stops short of calling for the arrest and criminal prosecution of those Western government officials who are busily reducing whites to minorities in their own countries.

If a dog fatally mauls a child or a woman, the owner is charged with murder. This is especially true in cases involving negligence and reckless disregard for public safety. Of course, the dog is not responsible for mauling the child; millions of years of canine evolution have genetically predisposed the animal to aggression directed at unfamiliar humans and dogs. The same goes for Moslem immigrants who gang rape, murder or commit acts of terrorism in Western Europe and the Anglosphere. These foreigners do not deserve most of the blame for gang-raping or terrorizing whites, or even dispossessing them of their schools, hospitals and cities; their low IQ, high rate of inbreeding, strong ethnocentric tendencies and penchant for testosterone-fueled aggression mean that they, like animals, are largely under the control of instinct. The Moslem invaders have less autonomy than whites, which significantly diminishes their capacity to accept responsibility for their actions. The proper course of action is to look at who let the non-whites into the country, just as the proper course of action in the case of the killer dog is to find out who the owner is.

We must ask ourselves:

Who gave this foreigner affirmative action or welfare payments so he could dispossess whites in their own neighborhoods and cities?

Who naturalized this foreigner as a “new citizen” of our country?

Who approved this foreigner’s application for residency?

Why did this foreigner decide to get on a plane and fly to our country? Did someone tell this foreigner to come to our country? If so, who?

We must keep asking ourselves these questions until we come to the real culprits behind genocidal Third World immigration: the “democratically elected” politicians of the various multi-party dictatorships in the West that supposedly represent the will of the common people.

When immigrants gang rape or terrorize whites, the real gang rapists and terrorists are not the unwanted non-whites, but the politicians of Western Europe and the Anglosphere. In France, if a group of non-whites gang rape and then murder a white woman or girl, it is not the non-whites who are primarily responsible; on the contrary, the real gang rapists and murderers are Emmanuel Macron, his Council of Ministers and the French parliament. In Germany, if a group of non-whites carry out a terrorist attack that maims or kills dozens of innocent civilians, it is Angela Merkel and the entire Bundestag who are the real terrorists and murderers. They let those non-white foreigners in and forced whites to live around them, well aware of the many dangers Third World immigration poses to unwary or unsuspecting whites.

For every immigrant who is charged with gang rape, murder or terrorism, the politicians, immigration officials and others responsible for allowing non-whites into the country, should also face charges of rape, murder or terrorism. As custodians of the state, the hostile elite should be intelligent enough to know that ceaseless, massive and indiscriminate importation of racially incompatible and unassimilable foreigners will cause significant problems for the host society. Indeed, Western leaders and immigration officials would think twice before importing Africans, Moslems and other scum into their own countries if they were held accountable for their actions by the criminal courts. If such had always been the case, the demographic transformation of the West would not have proceeded with such rapidity and it would have remained overwhelmingly white. Even in cases where the foreigners neither rape, murder or commit acts of terrorism, Western leaders are still not absolved of their actions; for every historic white community that has been ethnically cleansed by mass immigration, those leaders and immigration officials behind it should be hunted down and prosecuted for crimes against humanity, namely genocide.

If a race-conscious white patriot opens fire on non-white invaders imported by the nation’s hostile elite, such as what Tarrant did at Christchurch, the elite must not only be held fully responsible for the massacre, they must also be arrested and prosecuted for it. The laws of evolutionary biology dictate that two subspecies of the same species do not occupy the same geographical area without risking passive genocide through miscegenation, domination of one subspecies by the other and, eventually, the physical extermination of the weaker of the two subspecies. As Senator Anning has pointed out, if the non-white foreigners gunned down at Christchurch had stayed in their own countries where they belong and had not ventured where they were not wanted, they would still be alive today.
 

VI: Nuremberg-Style Justice for Globalist War Criminals

After WWII, the leading Nazi war criminals were rounded up and tried at the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg. The city was chosen by the victorious allies for its symbolic significance; the birth of the Third Reich was accompanied by the pomp and pageantry of the massive propaganda rallies that had been annually staged in the city; if Nuremberg witnessed the birth of Nazism, the city would also witness its death throes. Just as Nuremberg was selected to be the final act in the Wagnerian tragedy of Nazism, the Götterdämmerung of the Nazi leadership, so the main airports in all globalist-occupied Western nations should be reserved for the trial of the globalist elite. These airports imported the great mass of non-whites into the West, so they were of instrumental significance in the establishment of official multicultural policy in all globalist-occupied Western countries. Special prisons and courthouses near all of the main airports, surrounded by moats, walls, pillboxes and military checkpoints, would have to be constructed to feed, house and medicate the globalist leaders as they await trial for treason and crimes against humanity.

The globalist traitors merit Nuremberg-style justice far more than the Nazis, whose crimes were comparatively innocuous; at least they didn’t ethnically cleanse their own people and destroy their own nations through mass invasion, miscegenation and race war. Since 1948, when the hostile elites inaugurated their program of genocidal mass non-white immigration, there have been a seemingly endless series of gang rapes, murders, riots and terrorist attacks across Western Europe and the Anglosphere; in addition, the mass invasion of non-whites has been used by elites to ethnically cleanse whites from their own schools, colleges and universities, hospitals, neighborhoods, towns and cities. As long as the white man remains asleep, this process of destruction will continue until there is nothing left to demolish.

But what should happen if there is a resurgence of white racial consciousness before the multiculturalist destruction of all Western societies has been completed? This is why the elites have now embraced a policy of “multicultural accelerationism”; they must do everything in their power to speed up the pace of mass non-white immigration by making it as indiscriminate and as massive as possible; in Canada, for example, mass immigration has increased from 150,000 annually in the early 1990s to over 300,000 in 2018; this will increase to over 400,000 in the near future.

Like all governments throughout history, the globalist elite will not be in power forever. Because their time is limited, Western Europe and the Anglosphere must be destroyed as quickly as possible before anyone is able to stop them and reverse their destructive mass immigration policies.
 

Additional Resource:

The full text of Senator Anning’s open letter to PM Morrison is available: here.

Blue-pill continent

Last year I sent an email to Prof. Kevin MacDonald complaining about an influential Mexican Jew and he asked me if I’d okay publishing it in his webzine, with a little editing. Of course I accepted and it can be read: here. But I knew that if I had written a lengthier piece I’d have mentioned something even more alarming. In Latin America, Jew and gentile intellectuals are on the same page. A single example will illustrate my point.

Every Monday the Mexican viewers of Foro TV can watch a roundtable with two Jews and two gentiles. Leo Zuckermann presides the program Es la Hora de Opinar. On Mondays he usually invites another Jew, Jorge Castañeda (second from left) and two non-Jews, the mestizo Héctor Aguilar Camín and the criollo Javier Tello Díaz.

Earlier this year I heard Castañeda pronouncing these lovely words in that program (my translation): ‘…the fact that Angela Merkel has allowed almost two million refugees to enter—and how good she did it! How good—I mean: we should congratulate ourselves, and congratulate her for having done so’. [1]

Not surprisingly, the two gentiles, Tello and Aguilar, not only agreed with such outrageous statement but even expanded Castañeda’s premise, concerned about the recent surge of nationalist sentiments in Germany in face of the so-called refugee crisis.

This has been my experience with intellectual gentiles in Latin America: the way they see the world is the same as the Jews do. This is why I have so many difficulties with the single-cause hypothesis of Western malaise. Not even those gentiles who phenotypically are indistinguishable from the Spaniards, like Javier Tello and many others, think different. In fact, there’s no single notable intellectual in the whole of Latin America that I am aware of who defends the white race from the ongoing exterminationist campaign.

That’s why I call it the blue-pill continent. That’s why I have almost zero contact with the intelligentsia in the country where I happen to be living. That’s why I have been forced to blog in a second language.

________________

[1] ‘…el que Angela Merkel haya dejado entrar a casi dos millones de refugiados—¡y qué bueno que lo hizo! Que bueno, o sea: hay que felicitarse, y felicitarla, por haberlo hecho’.

Why Europeans must reject Christianity, 15

by Ferdinand Bardamu

 
What has Christianity done for Europe?

Christianity is a violent, destructive, murderous cult. It is dangerous for the following reasons: 1.) the religion promotes the survival of the sick, the weak and the stupid at the expense of good racial hygiene. This drastically lowers population IQ and capacity for civilizational attainment, and; 2.) the cult relies on blind faith instead of rational persuasion, which has resulted in long periods of widespread chaos and bloodshed, especially during the Christianization of Europe. These dangers were even noticed by contemporary pagan writers, who immediately recognized the threat a triumphant Christianity would pose to the survival of Western culture.

Christianity never “civilized” or “domesticated” Europeans. On the contrary, Europeans were forced to endure a Neolithic existence when Christians were at the apogee of their power and influence. The church sent men of genius to monasteries or had them consecrated to the priesthood. This prevented them from passing on their genes, a significant dysgenic effect that lowered the collective European IQ. Only the pagan science and reason of classical antiquity could re-domesticate Europeans after 500 years of total intellectual darkness.

The church successfully defended Europe from invasion, argue some apologists, but nothing could be further from the truth. Charles Martel’s confiscation of church property to defend Europe from Moslem intruders was met with significant ecclesiastical opposition. If the church had succeeded in withholding the necessary funds, all Europe would have been reduced to a province of the Umayyad caliphate. Nevertheless, Martel was unable to pursue the Saracens across the Pyrenees and dislodge them from their Andalusian stronghold. The Moslems would continue their occupation of the Iberian Peninsula for 800 years, until their final expulsion by Ferdinand and Isabella in the late 15th century.

Southwestern France and Italy were periodically raided and sometimes controlled by Moslem invaders. The emirate of Sicily endured for over two centuries. Even after Norman conquest, a significant Moslem presence remained on the island. The Moslems of Sicily were finally expelled by the middle of the 13th century. The crusades to retake the Holy Land from the Saracens (1095-1291), a series of large-scale military operations under the joint leadership of papacy and feudal aristocracy, failed to achieve its primary objective. In 1204, Christian crusaders sacked Constantinople in an orgy of rape, pillage and murder. The crusaders caused so much damage that the Byzantines were unable to resist their Ottoman conquerors in 1453.

Christianity provided no adequate defense of Europe. The church only did enough to maintain herself as a viable institution. In the process, the church weakened Europe, making her ripe for conquest by the Umayyad and Ottoman caliphates.

Apologists tentatively acknowledge that although Christianity hindered scientific and technological progress, it still made “contributions” to fields as diverse as architecture and philosophy. On closer examination, these “contributions” are neither “Christian” nor worthy of being considered “contributions.” The great churches of the Middle Ages are frequently trotted out, but these have their origin in Roman building methods. The dome, the arch and the vault, the typical features of the medieval Romanesque style of architecture are all borrowed from the imperial Roman architecture of pre-Christian times. The basic architectural plan of most medieval churches is the Roman basilica, a public building reserved for official purposes. Even the Gothic style that supplanted Romanesque still employed architectural features of Roman origin. The ribbed vaulting that was typical of Gothic architecture was originally used in Vespasian’s Roman colosseum and by Hadrian in the construction of his Tibertine villa.

While acknowledging Romanesque as an “accomplishment,” the Christian religionist will conveniently ignore the almost total disappearance of Roman building methods from western Europe for almost 300 years. This was a direct result of the church’s active suppression of Western scientific and technical knowledge. From the completion of Theodoric’s mausoleum in Ravenna to the consecration of Aachen in 805, nothing of monumental significance was built in western Europe. During the intervening period, Europeans, like their Neolithic ancestors, had returned to the use of perishable materials for use in building.

Apologists for Christianity will mention Aquinas and scholasticism as the highpoints of not only medieval, but European intellectual development, even though Aquinas set European scientific and technological progress back by hundreds of years. Scholasticism was an object of ridicule and mockery during the Renaissance. Religionists mention the Christian “contribution” of the university, oblivious to the many institutions of higher learning that existed and even flourished in the ancient world. The first universities taught scholasticism, so they were the frontline in the Christian war against the pagan values of intellectual curiosity, love of progress for its own sake and empirical rationality.

In the Christian religious mind, science and technology are of Christian origin because the men doing the discovering and inventing during the Scientific Revolution were nominal Christians, like Galileo and Newton. This argument is just as absurd as arguing that the Greek invention of logic, rhetoric and mathematics were the result of Greek pagan theological beliefs because Aristotle and other ancient scientists and philosophers were pagans. No, these men were “Christians” because public avowals of atheism were dangerous in an age where even the most innocuous theological speculation could smear reputations and destroy careers. It is a glowing tribute to the courage and honesty of these men that they were able to abandon Christianity’s reliance on blind faith, often in the face of public censure, and consciously re-embrace the pagan epistemic values that produced the “Greek miracle” 2000 years before the Scientific Revolution.

Christian religionists claim that the New Testament, a collection of childish scribblings penned by semi-literate barbarians, is a great contribution to Western civilization. As has been pointed out for generations, even by other Christian religionists, the work is notorious for its use of bad grammar and unrefined literary style. Much of it was composed by Jews who were not even fluent in koine Greek. Overall, the New Testament is an inferior production compared to the meanest writers of Attic prose. Even St. Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, expressed contempt for the crude, unsophisticated literary style of the Bible. He preferred the elegant Latin of Cicero instead.

What has Christianity contributed to Europe? The answer is nothing! No art, culture, architectural monuments, science or technology. Christianity was a massive waste of European intellectual and physical potential. Furthermore, Christianity almost destroyed Europe.

The church discarded over 99% of ancient literature, including works on science, mathematics, philosophy, engineering and architecture. This was the largest campaign of literary censorship and suppression in history, an act of cultural and physical genocide that nearly severed medieval Europe from the great achievements of classical antiquity.

This was cultural genocide because the church nearly wiped out an entire civilization and culture; this was physical genocide because the church’s deliberate eradication of secular knowledge placed millions of lives in danger, unnecessarily subjecting them to the ravages of disease, war, famine and poverty.

Far from being largely benign, the Christian church is a power-mad religious mafia. It bears sole responsibility for perpetrating the greatest crimes in history against Europeans. How long shall the Christian church escape punishment for this criminal wrongdoing? No other religion has caused as much suffering and as much damage to Europe as this spiritual syphilis known as Christianity.

______ 卐 ______

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

War of the sexes, 21

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______

 

The biological origins of patriarchy and feminism

 
turd-flinging-monkeyIn many sexually reproducing species, says the blogger, for males their reproductive success is limited by the access to females, while females are limited by the access to resources. Resources usually include nest sites, food and protection. In some cases, the males provide all of them. The females dwell in their chosen males’ territories through male competition. (If you want to argue that these animal behaviors are human social constructs you are an idiot.)

In his video “The biological origins of patriarchy and feminism” the blogger introduces the paradigm of our closest simian cousins to illustrate his point: the bonobos and the chimpanzees.

The chimpanzees make wars and are violent with the females. The blogger inserts clips of Sean Connery playing a James Bond slapping women in several films. The bonobos on the other hand are pacifists. Like the hippies they make love, not war. Studying the species closest to us humans will prove to be illuminating.

chimpanzeesThe liberal Briton Richard Wraugham, who studies the chimps in situ, says: “Chimpanzee society is horridly patriarchal, horridly brutal in many ways from the females’ point of view.” In order that an adolescent chimp is promoted to the adult category he has to subdue all the females. “They get beaten up in horrid ways.”

In another geographical place that we can watch in the blogger’s video, a blonde zoologist observes the bonobo behavior. She says that it is almost a paradise of sex. They do it in every conceivable way, even among the males and even pedophilia. The blonde asks what happened to produce such a pacific relationship between the sexes. She argues that the solidarity among female bonobos makes them capable to dominate the males. Then the liberal Wraugham says in the blogger’s video: “It was impossible for early humans to travel in groups around together as bonobos do, and therefore for females to form alliances and dominate the males in the way that happened in bonobos. A little bit of difference in climate history, a little bit of difference in food history and we might have evolved to be a totally different, less violent, more sexual species.”

In “Guide to human society and egalitarianism” the blogger reproduces the pic of a huge male gorilla and says that they fight among themselves to see who among them will conquer access to all the females (tournament mating). In this social system the females are practically the property of the males. “In patriarchal society women are expected to be obedient and submissive at all times.” The blogger makes a point with the hyenas: the polar opposite of the chimpanzee. Even the lowest ranked female hyena dominates the highest ranked male!

Between those extremes of matriarchy and patriarchy there is a third group of animals with almost no sexual dimorphism: the extremely elegant swans for example. “Humans,” says the blogger, are somewhere in-between a tournament and a pair-bonding species.”

The chimps have a more pronounced physical dimorphism than the bonobos, even though both have a common ancestor. The key to understand the bonobos is abundant resources and the lack of environmental threats. The blogger says that there is little sexual dimorphism in birds because they can easily escape the predators. Being able to fly means, additionally, that it is relatively easier to obtain fruits or insects while the other animals have to work harder to obtain them. The chimpanzees, unlike the bonobos, share the forest with the gorillas. The latter control all food on the ground, forcing the chimps to gather on the trees. The chimps avoid the gorillas as far as they can. This competence for limited resources in a hostile environment has moved chimp society towards patriarchy.

bonobos_whcalvinIn bonobo society such competence does not exist. Bonobos are egalitarian and gynocentric. It is untrue what the blonde zoologist said above because among the bonobo violence comes from the females. They join forces and attack a male by biting his fingers and penis. The chimps may beat and rape the females, but don’t dismember them. In the supposedly egalitarian bonobo society bonobo males are dismembered if they get out of line.

In the bonobo society the females even mate with the weakest males because it is easier to control them, and bite the penises of those who resist their Diktat. Due to this sexual selection, with time the male bonobos shrank anatomically in generations. The blogger says that if chimps faced male bonobos the former would kill them all, and the females’ trick of trying to bite off the penises wouldn’t work. (The blogger adds a drawing clearly showing how the male chimp is anatomically more robust than the male bonobo.) Having the bonobo paradigm in mind, the blogger tells us: “That my friends is the central flaw in egalitarianism and gynocentrism. It literally and consciously breeds weakness.” In other words, if the chimps failed to behave the way they do they would die.

Egalitarianism is essentially gynocentric. Women are the limiting factor in reproduction. If a man wants to reproduce, he has to acquire women one way or another. He can beat and rape a woman into submission… or engage in courtship like bonobos do. The inequality of sexual reproduction makes true gender equality impossible.

Speaking of feminist laws in the US, William Pierce said that pursuing the equality dream is destructive for the white peoples. The blogger again:

Whether you call it feminism, egalitarianism or gynocentrism, it is unsustainable and will eventually destroy society.

To understand the West’s darkest hour we must keep in mind that to reach a gynocentric society two things are required: abundance of resources and absence of external threats. Both will be inverted in the aftermaths of the crashed dollar, and the subsequent black chimp-out in America’s big cities.

The flaw of the anti-white system is that the welfare state has produced a milieu of false abundance. After the end of the World Wars and the Cold War, “with all the threats neutralized the West could safely purge itself from masculinity” said the blogger, just as in the bonobo society. The flaw with the social engineering of bonobo-izing humans is that this “solution” drives the West toward weakness: gynocentrism undermines a society’s defenses which will guarantee its collapse sooner or later. To boot, unlike the bonobo Congo paradise Western economy is founded on a bubble that soon will pop, according to Austrian economics.

When you purge and attack masculinity from a culture you may eliminate the rappers and the violent murderers but you also eliminate the leaders, the inventors, the geniuses.

Chimps can create new tools, but not the bonobos. The blogger also says that gynocentric societies are more primitive than the patriarchal: there is no invention. There are only a hundred thousand bonobos in the world and, in a natural state, only in a specific area of the Congo. There are 300 percent more chimps than bonobos, and they live in five African countries. They evolved to the able to do it because they can triumph in hostile environments. In their garden of Eden the bonobos have survived by sheer luck.

Back to the white race. There are two ways that a gynocentric society can collapse. The good one is by entering again a patriarchal state. The bad one is being conquered by a more masculine culture. I have already quoted Will Durant in other article but it merits re-quoting:

The third biological lesson of history is that life must breed. Nature has no use of organisms, variations, or groups that cannot reproduce abundantly. She has a passion for quantity as prerequisite to selection of quality. She does not care that a high rate has usually accompanied a culturally low civilization, and a low birth rate a civilization culturally high [emphasis added] and she sees that a nation with low birth rate shall be periodically chastened by some more virile and fertile group.

Writing about Muslims vs. Europeans Durant then said that there is no humorist like history. Presently the Muslims are gradually outbreeding whites in a Europe that will soon become Eurabia. In order that the human bonobos of today go back to their chimp ways of yore we must be expelled from the false Eden that presently we inhabit. The good news is that Winter is coming…

Coming with the wind

“Patriarchy is coming back. It’s just a question of whether it will be a White Patriarchy or an Islamic one.”

Brothermattiex

 
Watching the hypocritical Fox News these months I’ve seen many times Sean Hannity criticizing what he calls “radical Islam.” He has been saying that the clash of our civilizations consists that Muslims under Sharia don’t allow women to go outside their homes without a male companion. He has also been saying that, unlike us, Sharia Muslims don’t castigate marital rape or the “denigration” of women as second-class citizens; and that in Saudi Arabia women must cover themselves as their husbands want, etcetera.

I am about the age of Hannity and use the word “hypocrite” because the guy is concealing the fact that, in the last decades, sexual mores have shifted almost a hundred and eighty degrees in this continent.

Gone-With-The-Wind-PosterIn a couple of those opera-like theatres, I saw Gone with the Wind as a child and then in my teens. Many scenes of Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) with Scarlett O’Hara (Vivien Leigh) made a deep impression in my juvenile mind:

• Throughout the film, since the opening scenes in Georgia, the costumes of women of society always hid the sexual appeal of their bodies, especially the southern belle dresses; and I am talking not only about Scarlett and the female elements in her family but of Ashley’s fiancée and the other society women (Melanie Hamilton, who eventually married Ashley, is the perfect model of how women should behave in the West)

• At the Twelve Oaks party, before the barbecue is disrupted by the declaration of war all women are taking their mandatory nap (except Scarlett who escapes the upstairs bedroom) while men discuss serious matters. It was unthinkable that a woman had a voice in such matters

• Even after Scarlett is widowed she is called “Mrs. Charles Hamilton” in the sense that her reputation still belonged to the shadow of a man who died in uniform

• Similarly, after the Entr’acte Frank (Scarlett’s second husband), Ashley, Rhett and several other accomplices make a night raid on a shanty town after Scarlett is attacked while driving through it alone, resulting in Frank’s death. It goes without saying that in that night the women of these brave men stayed at home sewing and reading decent literature: what women were expected to do

• Once married with Rhett Butler, “Captain Butler” was always greeted first by street pedestrians while walking with Scarlett. She, faithfully beside her husband in those street walks, was only mentioned after the pedestrians greeted Rhett

• Never forget the marital rape of Scarlett when Rhett carried her up in his arms telling her, “This is one night you’re not turning me out.”

In those fancy theatres of yore when I was young, the film depicted very healthy Occidental mores—before values got corrupted and completely inverted in this darkest hour of ours.

Have Hannity et al lost memory of history by implying that our culture has always subscribed feminism? What is going on in their “conservative” minds? I tell you: they are liberals, phony traditionalists. Racists should treasure Gone with the Wind instead of a thousand movies of this century as every film today, and TV program without exception, contains ethnosuicidal messages. Mention any movie filmed after the 1960s and, if I’ve seen it, in the comments section I’ll tell you the ethnosuicidal message. But of course: this is something that phony traditionalists, like every Fox News host, will never acknowledge.

Pace conservatives and even quite a few white nationalists, patriarchy is coming back throughout the West with or without a great awakening in the white race. Demography is destiny and, with dozens of millions of Muslims in Europe, the wind has already started to change. The only question is if the coming patriarchs will behave like Clark Gable or, more probably, like towelhead decapitators.

CUCKASOIDS: new neologism!

paris attack 2015

“I’m going to march arm and arm down the street with sandniggers and talk about how open minded I am about this great religion of peace, Islam.” —direct quote from faggot Frenchy right before his head was lopped off by a kebab.

I stole this hilarious satire from The Daily Stormer, but some of the 1500+ comments in that site and elsewhere may be confusing.

The facts are simple: the jihad attack was ultimately caused by “altruist” policies of open borders throughout the West after the fair race lost the Second World War. Christian / Neochristian axiology is the poisoned arrow behind the masses of immigrants into the West, including Muslim invasion in France by the millions.

Cuckasians / cuckasoids!

Another thread on The Daily Stormer is the best I’ve seen as to date regarding the cuckasian Frenchmen and Frenchwomen who have allowed this.

Published in: on November 16, 2015 at 4:00 pm  Comments (34)  

Europe’s awakening

Michael_O'Meara

by Michael O’Meara

Excerpted from his book-review “The Shock of History”
originally published in 2011 at the old Alternative Right:

Dominique Venner’s thesis is that: Europeans, after having been militarily, politically, and morally crushed by events largely of their own making, have been lost in sleep (“in dormition”) for the last half-century and are now—however slowly—beginning to experience a “shock of history” that promises to wake them, as they are forced to defend an identity of which they had previously been almost unconscious.

Like cascading catastrophes (the accelerating decomposition of America’s world empire, Europe’s Islamic colonization, the chaos-creating nihilism of global capitalism, etc.), the shock of history today is becoming more violent and destructive, making it harder for Europeans to stay lulled in the deep, oblivious sleep that follows a grievous wound to the soul itself—the deep curative sleep prescribed by their horrendous civil wars (1914-1918 and 1939-1945), by the ensuing impositions of the Soviet / American occupation and of the occupation’s collaborationist regimes, and, finally, today, by a demographic tsunami promising to sweep away their kind.

The Sleep

The Second European Civil War of 1939-1945, however it is interpreted, resulted in a cataclysmic defeat not just for Hitler’s Germany, but for Europe, much of which, quite literally, was reduced to mounds of smoldering rumble. Then, at Yalta, adding insult to injury, the two extra-European super-powers partitioned the Continent, deprived her states of sovereignty, and proceeded to Americanize or Sovietize the “systems” organizing and managing the new postwar European order.

As Europe’s lands and institutions were assumed by alien interests, her ancient roots severed, and her destiny forgotten, Europeans fell into dormition, losing consciousness of who they were as a people and a civilization—believing, as they were encouraged, that they were simply one people among the world’s many peoples—nothing special—except in their evil.

Worse, for their unpardonable sins—for what Europeans did to Jews in the war, to Blacks in the slave trade, to non-White peoples in general over the course of the last 500 years—for all the terrible sins Europeans have committed, they are henceforth denied the “right” to be a “people.” In the Messianic spirit of Communism and Americanism, the Orwellian occupiers and collaborators have since refused them a common origin (roots), a shared history, a tradition, a destiny. This reduces them to a faceless economic-administrative collectivity, which is expected, in the end, to negate the organic basis of its own existence.

The postwar assault on European identity entailed, however, more than a zombifying campaign of guilt-inducement—though this campaign was massive in scale. Europe after Jahre Null was re-organized according to extra-European models and then overwhelmed with imported forms of mass consumerism and entertainment. At the same time and with perhaps greater severity, she was subject to an unprecedented “brain-washing” (in schools, media, the so-called arts, public institutions, and private corporations)—as all Europe’s family of nations, not just the defeated Germans, were collectively made to bear a crushing guilt—under the pretext of the Shoah or the legacy of colonialism / imperialism / slavery—their sins requiring the most extreme penance. Thus tainted, her memory and identity are now verboten…

In one sense, Venner’s Europe is the opposite of the America that has distorted Europe’s fate for the last half-century. But he is no knee-jerk anti-American (though the French, in my view, have good cause to be anti-US). He’s also written several books on the US War of Secession, in which much of America’s Cavalier heritage is admired. Knowing something of the opposed tendencies shaping American “national” life, he’s well aware of the moral abyss separating, say, Jesse James from Jay Gould—and what makes one an exemplar of the European spirit and the other its opposite.

Modeled on the Old Testament, not the Old World, Venner claims America’s New World (both as a prolongation and rejection of Europe) was born of New England Calvinism and secularized in John O’Sullivan’s “Manifest Destiny.”

Emboldened by the vast, virgin land of their wilderness enterprise and the absence of traditional authority, America’s Seventeenth-century Anglo-Puritan settlers set out, in the spirit of their radical-democratic Low Church crusade, to disown the colony’s Anglo-European parents—which meant disowning the idea (old as Herodotus) that Europe is “the home of liberty and true government.”

Believing herself God’s favorite, this New Zion aspired—as a Promised Land of liberty, equality, fraternity—to jettison Europe’s aesthetic and aristocratic standards for the sake of its religiously-inspired materialism. Hence, the bustling, wealth-accumulating, tradition-opposing character of the American project, which offends every former conception of the Cosmos.

New England, to be sure, is not the whole of America, for the South, among another sections, has a quite different narrative, but it was the Yankee version of the “American epic” that became dominant, and it is thus the Yankee version that everywhere wars on Americans of European descent.

Citing Huntington’s Who Are We?, Venner says US elites (“cosmocrats,” he calls them) pursue a transnational / universalist vision (privileging global markets and human rights) that opposes every “nativist” sense of nation and culture—a transnational / universalist vision the cosmocrats hope to impose on the whole world. For like Russian Bolsheviks and “the Bolsheviks of the Seventeenth century,” these money-worshipping liberal elites hate the Old World and seek a new man, Homo oeconomicus—unencumbered by roots, nature, or culture—and motivated solely by a quantitative sense of purpose.

As a union whose “connections” are horizontal, contractual, self-serving, and self-centered, America’s cosmocratic system comes, as such, to oppose all resistant forms of historic or organic identity—for the sake of a totalitarian agenda intent on running roughshod over everything that might obstruct the scorch-earth economic logic of its Protestant Ethic and Capitalist Spirit. In this sense, Europe’s resurgence implies America’s demise.

The Shock

What will awaken Europeans from their sleep? Venner says it will be the shock of history—the shock evoking the tradition that made them (and makes them) who they are.

Such shocks have long shaped their history. Think of the Greeks in their Persian Wars; of Charles Martel’s outnumbered knights against the Caliphate’s vanguard; or of the Christian forces under Starhemberg and Sobieski before the gates of Vienna. Whenever Europe approaches Hölderlin’s “midnight of the world,” such shocks, it seems, serve historically to mobilize the redeeming memory and will to power inscribed in her tradition.

More than a half-century after the trauma of 1945—and the ensuing Americanization, financialization, and third-worldization of continental life—Europeans are once again experiencing another great life-changing, history-altering shock promising to shake them from their dormition.

The present economic crisis and its attending catastrophes combined with the unrelenting, disconcerting Islamization of European life (integral to US strategic interests) are—together—forcing Europeans to re-evaluate a system that destroys the national economy, eliminates borders, ravages the culture, makes community impossible, and programs their extinction as a people. The illusions of prosperity and progress, along with the system’s fun, sex, and money (justifying the prevailing de-Europeanization) are becoming increasingly difficult to entertain. Glimmers of a changing consciousness have, indeed, already been glimpsed on the horizon.

The various nationalist-populist parties stirring everywhere—parties which are preparing the counter-hegemony that one day will replace Europe’s present American-centric leadership—represent one conspicuous sign of this awakening. A mounting number of identitarian, Christian, secular, and political forces resisting Islam’s, America’s, and the EU’s totalitarian impositions at the local level are another sign.

Europeans, as a consequence, are increasingly posing the question: “Who are we?,” as they become conscious—especially in the face of the dietary, vestimentary, familial, sexual, religious, and other differences separating them from Muslims—of what is distinct to their civilization and their people, and why such distinctions are worth defending. Historical revivals, Venner notes, are slow in the making, but once awakened there is usually no going back. This is the point, Venner believes, that Europe is approaching today.

The Unexpected

History is the realm of the unexpected. Venner does not subscribe to notions of historical determinism or necessity. In contrast to Marxists and economic determinists, anti-Semites and Spenglerians, he believes there are no monocausal explanations in history, and unlike liberals such as Fukuyama, he believes there’s no escape from (no “end” to) history.

The future of history is always unknown. Who would have thought in 1980 that Soviet Russia, which seemed to be overtaking the United States in the 70s, would collapse within a decade? Historical fatalities are the fatalities of men’s minds, not those of history.

History, moreover, is the confluence of the given, the circumstantial, and the willful. This makes it always open and hence potentially always a realm of the unexpected. And the unexpected (that instance when great possibilities are momentarily posed) is mastered, Venner counsels, only in terms of who we are, which means in terms of the tradition and identity defining our project and informing our encounter with the world.

Hence, the significance now of husbanding our roots, our memory, our tradition, for from them will come our will to power and any possibility of transcendence. It’s not for nothing, Dominique Venner concludes, that we are the sons and daughters of Homer, Ulysses, and Penelope.

On fighting the Semites

by Jack Frost

The Christian fight with Muslims was never based on race, but religion. Had the Turks or Arabs agreed to convert to Christianity, history would have taken quite a different course.

expulsion judasAs if to demonstrate the preceding point, the Spanish monarchs did indeed expel some of their Jews, but only after trying to force them to convert. Only Jews who refused to convert to Christianity were expelled by the Alhambra decree of 1492. But the grounds were never racial, only religious.

Published in: on August 4, 2015 at 10:33 am  Comments (7)  

Psychiatry

Or:

Woe to you French hypocrites!

 
According to Robert Chardon, the mayor of a French town, “anyone that practises Islam must be immediately returned to the border”. Chardon posted his statements on May 14 in the internet. Psychiatric hospitalization of the mayor was announced the next day.

The mayor has cancer. A man with nothing to lose is certainly dangerous to the status quo. We must regard him a hero of free speech. But the French are hypocrites: they outrageously lie to themselves when thy claim they believe in free speech.

Apropos the 2015 Ile-de-France attacks I wrote this January that “together with niggers and sand niggers, Frenchmen and Frenchwomen, as a massive reaction against the killed, far-leftist journalists, have been waving the flags of every nation on the streets, chanting the ethno-suicidal slogans Liberté, égalité, fraternité! and Pour la démocratie, l’égalité, les libertés. Combattons tous les fascismes! that mark the modern West. These shocking TV images of the current Zeitgeist that afflicts not only Paris and France but the Western world certainly count for a million words…”

I call the French hypocrites because in those days of street manifestations supposedly championing free speech Brigitte Bardot was fined for “Islamophobic” statements, and who defended her on the streets?

As some of you know, before becoming racialist I spent my time researching child abuse (see e.g., the first long chapter of my Day of Wrath, linked on the sidebar). And since it’s very common that—believe it or not—psychiatry sides the abusive parents, I spent many years of my life researching psychiatry, and published my findings in Spanish (here). My point is that a psychiatry that sides abusive parents is the same psychiatry that recently committed Chardon for political incorrectness.

Daniel_Defoe

Daniel Defoe, the author of Robinson Crusoe, was the first major writer to expose institutional psychiatry in an article where he complained that some husbands committed their sane wives. For those unfamiliar with the critique of psychiatry this is our definition of this fraudulent profession:

From viewpoint of science, and specifically on the basis of the litmus test to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, psychiatry, a supposed medical specialty, is not a science. The central concept in psychiatry, the entity called “mental illness” is not defined in biomedical but in political terms, and biological psychiatry has not presented its theories in a refutable way: a sure sign of pseudoscience.

From the viewpoint of politics and law, psychiatry is an organ of society that regulates human behaviour. It is a paralegal system of penalties of the System that uses psychoactive drugs for social control, including dissident individuals who have not broken the law (like Robert Chardon).

Je ne suis pas Charlie

I’m relocating and altering this entry, originally posted a week ago, because, on second thought, whites have a better chance to survive under Sharia than under the current Judeo-liberal system imposed on the West.

No more fantasizing about nuking Mecca. Go after the real enemy instead. Listen here to what Commander Rockwell, the greatest American ever, had to say a couple of months before they killed him.

Published in: on January 15, 2015 at 5:40 pm  Comments (31)