Totalitarian Anglosphere

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn published two non-fictional books: The Gulag Archipelago and Two Hundred Years Together: a historical study of Jewry in Russia. Why has his second non-fictional book been de facto censored in English-speaking countries?

Because it would redpill those nations which share common roots in British culture and history.

Judge it by yourself. Not only was the early Soviet Union dominated by Jewish terrorists: it was actually set up and for the most part constituted by Jewry:

The Council of The Commissaries of The People, 22 members, 17 Jews, 77.2% Jewish.

Commissariat of War, 43 members, 33 Jews, 76.7% Jewish

Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, 16 members, 13 Jews, 81.2% Jewish

Commissariat of Finance, 30 members, 24 Jews, 80.0% Jewish

Commissariat of Justice, 21 members, 20 Jews, 95.2% Jewish

Commissariat of Public Instruction, 53 members, 42 Jews, 79.2% Jewish

Commissariat of Social Assistance, 6 members, 6 Jews, 100% Jewish

Commissariat of Work, 8 members, 7 Jews, 87.5% Jewish

Delegates of The Bolshevik Red Cross to Berlin, Vienna, Warsaw, Bucharest and Copenhagen, 8 members, 8 Jews, 100% Jewish

Commissariat of The Provinces, 23 members, 21 Jews, 91.3% Jewish

Commissariat of Journalists, 41 members, 41 Jews, 100% Jewish.

Source: Henry Ford, The International Jew, pages 176-185 of Book 1, Article 19: ‘The All Jewish Mark on Red Russia’, in The Dearborn Independent, September 25th 1920.

Jewish makeup of The Central Committee of the Communist Party of The Soviet Union in 1918-1919:

Trotsky (Bronstein), Jew
Zinoviev, Jew
Larine, Jew
Juritsky, Jew
Volodarsky, Jew
Kamenev, Jew
Smidovitj, Jew
Jankel, Jew
Steklov, Jew
Lenin, married to a Jewess
Krylenko, Jew
Lunacharsky, Russian.

Jewish makeup of The Council of People’s Commissars in 1918-1919:

Lenin, married to a Jewess
Commissar of Foreign Affairs, Chichherin, Russian
Commissar of Nationalities, Stalin, Georgian
Commissar of Agriculture, Protian, Armenian
Commissar of Public Education, Lunacharsky, Russian
Council Financial Adviser, Larine, Jew
Commissar of Food, Schlichter, Jew
Commissar of Army & Navy, Trotsky (Bronstein), Jew
Commissar of State Control, Lander, Jew
Commissar of Public Land, Kauffman, Jew
Commissar of Work, Schmidt, Jew
Commissar of Social Aid, Lelina, Jew
Commissar of Religion, Spitzberg, Jew
Commissar of Interior Affairs, Zinoviev, Jew
Commissar of Hygiene, Anvelt, Jew
Commissar of Finance Goukovsky, Jew
Commissar of Press, Volodrasky, Jew
Commissar of Elections, Uritsky, Jew
Commissar of Justice, Steinberg, Jew
Commissar of Refugees, Fenigstein, Jew
Assistant in The Regugees Commissariate, Savitj, Jew
Assistant in The Regugees Commissariate, Zaslovsky, Jew.

Jewish makeup of the leadership of The Extraordinary Commission (‘The Checka’) in 1918/1919:

Members: 36

Non-Jewish 12, (1 Pole, 2 Russians, 1 German, 1 Armenian, 7 Lithuanian).

Jewish 24.

Source: Behind Communism, Frank Britton, Chapter 18: ‘The London Times Correspondence List of Jews Behind Communism’, page 86; Robert Wilton, distinguished correspondent of The London Times (The Last Days of The Romanovs 1920).

Since the number of people practicing as Jews in the Russian Empire prior to the revolution was 4.15%, had the Jews been proportionately represented in the Cheka’s leadership for 1918/1919 there would have been only 1-2 Jews out of 36, not 24.

Therefore, Bolshevism was Jewish.

Note of the Ed.: I owe the above stats to a recent email of Chris White.

Day of Wrath, 17

A critique of Lloyd deMause

Henry Ebel said that in psychohistory Lloyd deMause stands out among his epigones as a locomotive single-handedly tugging those who publish in his journal: all of them moving only thanks to a motor that is not theirs. Ebel had left the congresses of psychohistory even before I knew of their existence. However, no sooner I initiated my study of deMause’s texts I realized that both Ebel and deMause were human. All too human…
 

A string of nonsensical claims

One of the most cockeyed theories of deMause is that the warfare fantasies of political leaders and the media in times of war reflect childbirth traumas. Even Alice Miller has criticized this specific theory.

Glenn Davis was one of the first disciples of deMause: a young man that committed suicide. When Davis was doing his oral examination for his doctoral thesis, Stanley Renshon, a member of the committee, fired a question at Davis about something he had written following deMause’s theories: “It says in your book, ‘Groups go to war in order to overcome the helplessness and terror of being trapped in a birth canal’.” People laughed all around the table. What I find it fascinating is that, decades after Davis’ suicide, deMause still does not perceive the bad reputation that this sort of theories that he originated cause in his most serious readers.

In the issue of Spring of 2007 the Journal of Psychohistory published “The Conquistador and the Virgin Mary” by Madeleine Gómez. The article is an authentic string of nonsensical claims. According to this psychohistorian, in the Spanish conquest of the empires Mexica and Inca “the birth trauma was reenacted with few variations,” and on the next page she adds that the endeavor to conquer the seas in each exploration voyage is but “attempts to surmount the birth trauma.” After putting Cortés and the rest of the Spaniards as the villains of the story, Madeleine informs us that in the war for Tenochtitlan “the drumbeats in the air” can “easily be associated to the fetal heartbeat.” And writing on the denunciation by Francisco de Aguilar about the Indian sacrifices, she interprets that “it was easier to project upon the other…” That is, if the chronicler is shocked of the sacrifices, that only conceals the projections of his own European wickedness. Summarizing her interpretation of the Conquest, Madeleine writes: “There was arduous time spent in a womb-like mothership, with subsequent rebirth upon reaching shore.” These analytic interpretations remind me the worst nonsense of Freud recounted in my second book. The psychohistorian concludes that the Spaniards were “abusive, devaluing of women and children” without mentioning in the slightest the sacrifices of women and children in Mesoamerica.

Something similar can be said of deMause’s own views about the human placenta, a theory that he calls “The fetal origins of history.” Such importance he gives to this theory that he devoted the cover illustration of his book Foundations of Psychohistory to it. In an email I asked deMause what did he mean with the eight-headed dragon that appears on the cover. DeMause informed me that there were seven heads (the drawing is ambiguous), “a placental beast” that he relates with terrifying unconscious motivations.
 
Satanic Ritual Abuse

The confusion of my feelings about deMause—lucubration such as those are psychobabble but deMause’s discoveries potentially could be a great lighthouse for the humanities—moved me to annotate each cognitive error I encountered in his legacy.

In 1994 deMause devoted more than a whole issue of his journal to one of the scandals originated in his country that destroyed the reputation of many innocent adults: claims of multiple victims, multiple perpetrators during occult rites in daycare centers for children, known as “Satanic Ritual Abuse” or SRA. I was so intrigued by the subject that, when I read deMause’s article “Why Cults Terrorize and Kill Children” I devoted a few months of my life to research the subject by reading, printing and discussing in the internet (texts that would fill up the thickest ring-binder that I possess). I also purchased a copy of a book on SRA published by Princeton University. My objective was to ascertain whether the man whom I had been taking as a sort of mentor had gone astray. My suspicions turned out to be justified, and even worse: by inviting the foremost believers of SRA to publish in his journal, deMause directly contributed to the creation of an urban myth.

The collective hysteria known as SRA originated with the publication of a 1980 sensationalist book, Michelle Remembers. Michelle claimed that Satan himself appeared to her and wounded her body, but that an archangel healed it. In the mentioned article deMause wrote credulous passages about other fantastic claims by Michelle, and added that the people who ran certain daycare centers in the 1980s put the children in boxes and cages “as symbolic wombs.” DeMause then speculated that “they hang them upside down, the position of fetuses” and that “they drink victim’s blood as fetuses ‘drink’ placental blood,” in addition to force children to “drink urine” and “eat feces as some do during birth.” DeMause also referred to secret tunnels that, he wrote, existed beneath the daycare centers: “They often hold their rituals in actual tunnels.” In fact, those tunnels never existed. In Evil Incarnate: Rumors of Demonic Conspiracy and Ritual Abuse in History, published in 2006, professor David Frankfurter wrote about deMause’s article: “In this way a contemporary writer can assemble a theory of ritual power to explain rituals that have no forensic evidence.”

This is the sort of thing that, in Wikipedia’s talk page about psychohistory, culminates with rants like the one that I rescued before another editor deleted it: “Don’t ever listen to this lunatic!” (deMause). It is true that Colin Ross is another gullible believer of SRA, as seen in a book that includes an afterword where Elizabeth Loftus disagrees with him. But since the mid-1990s the SRA phenomenon was discredited to such degree that sociologists, criminologists and police officials recognized what it was: a witch-hunt that led to prison and ruined the lives of many innocent adults. The movie Indictment: The McMartin Trial, sponsored by Oliver Stone and based on the most notorious of these hunts, sums up what I mean. Using invasive techniques for adults in the interrogation of little kids, the therapists of the McMartin case and other kindergartens obtained confessions full of fantasies: that the children had been abducted and taken through a network of tunnels to a hidden cave under the school; that they flew in the air and saw giraffes, lions and the killing of a rabbit to be returned to their unsuspecting parents in the daycare center. Kyle Zirpolo was one of the McMartin children. At twenty-nine in 2005, several years after the trial, Zirpolo confessed to reporters that as a child he had been pressured to lie:

Anytime I would give them an answer that they didn’t like, they would ask again and encourage me to give them the answer they were looking for. It was really obvious what they wanted… I felt uncomfortable and a little ashamed that I was being dishonest. But at the same time, being the type of person I was, whatever my parents wanted me to do, I would do.

In its heyday in the 1980s and early 90s, and in some ways similar to the Salem witch trials of 1692, SRA allegations reached grotesque levels. Proponents argued that an intergenerational group of families raised and kidnapped babies and children in an international conspiracy that had infiltrated the police and the professions of lawyers and doctors. Conspiracy theorists claimed that the FBI and the CIA were involved to discredit the veracity of the phenomenon. The allegations ranged from brainwashing and necrophilia, kidnapping, sexual abuse and child pornography, to black masses and ritual killings of animals and thousands of people every year. In the McMartin case they talked about children washed away when the perpetrator pulled the toilet chain taking them to hidden rooms where they would be molested; orgies in carwash business, and even flying witches. Needless to say, no forensic evidence was found to support such claims.

After the legal catastrophe that McMartin and several other cases represented, small children have not been questioned with the aggressive techniques that led them to fantasize so wildly. Nowadays there is no witch-hunting going on in the US, Britain or Australia caused by coercive techniques of fanatics that induce either false memories or outright lies (like Zirpolo’s) to please therapist and parent. However, despite the consensus in sociology and criminology of the new century—that the SRA was a case of moral panic from which there is no forensic evidence—deMause did not change his mind. The work that describes his thinking more broadly, The Emotional Life of Nations, published in 2002 and translated to German, contains a brief passage where he still regards SRA as something real.
 

Revisiting Zweig

I do not regret having compared deMause with Newton in a previous chapter. In the days when deMause disappointed me I watched the film The New World starring Colin Farrell and Christopher Plummer. It bothered me greatly the myth of the noble savage when Farrell’s voice in off says the following about an idyllic village of American Indians:

They are gentle, loving, faithful, lacking in all guile and trickery. The words denoting lying, deceit, greed, envy, slander, and forgiveness have never been heard. They have no jealousy, no sense of possession. Real, what I thought a dream.

At that moment Farrell plays with a few naked, happy Indian children outdoors. Of course, the historic reality was not so bucolic. Remember the photo of the little Indian boy swaddled by their parents in this book? This was a very common practice among those tribes. I felt Hollywood’s falsifying of reality so insulting that I left the theatre. Psychohistory also made me reconcile with Spain after almost a lifetime of hating her because of the conservative culture of my family which had hurt me so much as a boy. I owe much to deMause for having awakened me to the fact that the earlier Amerindian culture was incomparably more brutal, both for children and for adults.

Isaac Newton is the paradigm par excellence of scientific genius. He invented calculus, discovered the law of gravity, enumerated the laws of motion and showed that light is a mixture of colors. His findings not only revolutionized physics but also finally cracked down the pedestal on which Europe had Aristotle. Europe discovered her genius in Newton: a psychoclass comparable to that of the best Greek minds began to evolve in the 17th century.

The self-esteem that the European scientific mind recovered after Newton is difficult to overestimate. But very few know that after his third year of life Isaac’s mother abandoned him to the house of the grandmother: something that borders on what deMause calls the “abandoning mode” of childrearing. Newton’s biographers know that the child suffered this betrayal greatly. In order to burn his agony, in his early twenties he turned his mind into science. At twenty-six Newton had already discovered all of the mentioned above and even more. However, since at that time there were no survivor forums to vent the anger he felt for his mother and stepfather, Newton suffered a severe depression.

When he recovered he lost his mind: he dedicated the rest of his life to alchemy and fundamentalist theology. His manuscripts on these topics sum millions of words: incomparably more than the Principia Mathematica that Newton had written in his youth. He collected a hundred and fifty books on alchemy and tried to turn metal into gold. Newton “always believed in a personal God—nothing like the God of Spinoza—; in the literal narrative of Adam and Eve, the existence of the devil and in hell.” From this fundamentalist point of view Newton estimated the age of the world in some 3,500 years before his age and invested a huge amount of time to interpret the books of Daniel and the Revelation of John. He thought he had cracked the cipher of both books just as he had deciphered the laws of planetary motion. “It is sad,” writes Martin Gardner, “to envision the discoveries in mathematics and physics Newton might have made if his great intellect had not been diverted by such bizarre speculations.” When Newton died, it was found in his body large amounts of mercury: a poisoning resulting from his alchemical experiments.

However, the difference between Newton and deMause is considerable. Unlike Newton, deMause blended his brilliant Principia to his lunatic Alchimia under the same covers. DeMause’s major works where he did not collaborate with other authors, Foundations of Psychohistory, The Emotional Life of Nations and The Origins of War in Child Abuse are a mixture of historical science with pseudoscience; unprecedented discoveries about the history of the human soul with gross lunacies. Like Newton, deMause was terribly abused as a child. On page 136 of his journal, in the Fall 2007 issue he confesses that when his father beat him with a razor strap, as a way to escape he hallucinated that he floated to the ceiling. And on the first page of Foundations deMause writes: “I, like Hitler, have been a beaten, frightened child and a resentful youth. I recognize him in myself, and with some courage can feel in my own guts the terrors he felt…” The key phrase in this passage is “some courage,” not the full courage that I now discharge across my books. After that line of Foundations deMause’s soul disappears and his theories à la Newton appear: his brilliant insights eye to eye with his string of nonsensical claims.

From the point of view of the psychogenesis that he himself discovered, deMause’s main error is the error of psychoanalysts. Losing his mind was due to the fact that he failed to delve deeper into the wounds of his inner self. DeMause’s work, inspired by political sociology and analytical treatises, worships the intellect at the expense of autobiographical insight. One objective of this work [Hojas Susurrantes] is to break away from this intellectual limitation and unconfessional, academic literature.

Half a century before the publication of Julian Jayne’s book, Stefan Zweig wrote in Adepts in Self-Portraiture that when Western literature began with Hesiod and Heraclitus it was still poetry, and of the inevitability of a decline in the mythopoetic talent of Greece when a more Aristotelian thought evolved. As compensation for this loss, says Zweig, modern man obtained with the novel an approach to a science of the mind. But the novel genre does not represent the ultimate degree of self-knowledge:

Autobiography is the hardest of all forms of literary art. Why, then, do new aspirants, generation after generation, try to solve this almost insoluble problem?

[For a] honest autobiography […] he must have a combination of qualities which will hardly be found once in a million instances. To expect perfect sincerity in self-portraiture would be as absurd as to expect absolute justice, freedom, and perfection here on earth. No doubt the pseudo-confession, as Goethe called it, confession under the rose, in the diaphanous veil of novel or poem, is much easier, and is often far more convincing from the artistic point of view, than an account with no assumption of reserve. Autobiography, precisely because it requires, not truth alone, but naked truth, demands from the artist an act of peculiar heroism; for the autobiographer must play the traitor to himself.

Only a ripe artist, one thoroughly acquainted with the workings of the mind, can be successful here. This is why psychological self-portraiture has appeared so late among the arts, belonging exclusively to our own days and those yet to come. Man had to discover continents, to fathom his seas, to learn his language, before he could turn his gaze inward to explore the universe of his soul. Classical antiquity had as yet no inkling of these mysterious paths. Caesar and Plutarch, the ancients who describe themselves, are content to deal with facts, with circumstantial happenings, and never dream of showing more than the surface of their hearts.[…]

Many centuries were to pass before Rousseau (that remarkable man who was a pioneer in so many fields) was to draw a self-portrait for its own sake, and was to be amazed and startled at the novelty of his enterprise. Stendhal, Hebbel, Kierkegaard, Tolstoy, Amiel, the intrepid Hans Jaeger, have disclosed unsuspected realms of self-knowledge by self-portraiture. Their successors, provided with more delicate implements of research, will be able to penetrate stratum by stratum, room by room, farther and yet farther into our new universe, into the depths of the human mind.

This long quote explains why I decided to devise a hybrid genre between the self-portraiture that betrays the author and penetrates beyond the strata pondered by Romantic autobiographers, while, at the same time, presents a unified field for the findings of Alice Miller and Lloyd deMause.
 

Playing the fool

So far I have focused my criticism on the crank aspects of Lloyd’s legacy. In the remainder of the chapter I will discuss, in addition to the psychohistorians’ crackpot ideas, their moral faults.

It is not apparent that Lloyd has read Tom Szasz or other very well known critics of Sigmund Freud. This is fundamental for a true psychohistory. As we saw in the discussion of Ark, there are two camps in depth psychology: the deniers of the after-effects of psychological trauma who can be traced back to Freud, and those who recognize it, led by Alice Miller.

Unlike Ark, deMause never broke completely away from his psychoanalytic roots. The logo of his website has the symbol of a globe on an analyst’s couch, and the written presentation of the International Psychohistorical Association mentions the pioneering work of Freud, Reich and Fromm, informing us that psychohistorians come from many fields, including psychoanalysis and psychiatry. It is true that deMause is anything but an orthodox psychoanalyst, but it is extremely annoying that he mentions Freud while ignoring the amount of criticism that has been written about him. As we have seen [I refer to a chapter in Hojas Susurrantes], Freud took sides with the parents against their children, while deMause presents himself to his readers as a defender of children.

The lack of the most basic knowledge about the critics of Freudism makes deMause write about claims that have been abandoned. For example, Freud’s vision of Leonardo da Vinci has been refuted decades ago. On page 173 of Foundations of Psychohistory deMause candidly mentions the Freudian study of da Vinci as if the ongoing refutations had never been published. It is important to mention that when deMause was going to graduate, in his youthful infatuation with psychoanalysis he wanted to insert Freudian ideas in his doctorate of political science. It is understandable that his tutors at Columbia University prevented it. DeMause never obtained his doctorate. Many years later, in the article “The Universality of Incest” deMause even sided Freud against Alice Miller and the most articulate critic of Freud, Jeffrey Masson. Since after 1897 Freud dismissed his original discovery, that some parents sexually abused their daughters, deMause’s position is contradictory.

DeMause’s moral errors are even more worrying when we see his stance on contemporary child psychiatry. How appropriate to quote the key passages of my correspondence with him. In one of my e-mails of March 2006, I wrote:

In your country the psychiatrists hired by the parents are abusing millions of children and teenagers. Even before the advent of drugs in the 20th-century psychiatry had routinely tortured children on behalf of their parents. My quest for your back issues [of the Journal of Psychohistory] has to do with something that very much puzzles me. Have you or the journal contributors exposed this kind of traumatogenic mode of childrearing [i.e., child psychiatry]?

DeMause, who over the years has answered almost all of my e-mails, did not answer this one. Three days later I wrote him again:

I don’t want to press you on a point that you seem reluctant to discuss. I just want to thank you for your work, which I believe will prove to be the most significant in the study of history.

Playing the fool, deMause replied:

I just don’t know anything about what psychiatrists do to patients. I’m not a psychiatrist. Sorry.

“Patients” is Newspeak for sane children in conflict with their parents. I gathered from deMause’s response that no article about the crimes committed by psychiatry with children and adolescents had been published in his journal [the sort of crimes reported in my second book of Hojas Susurrantes].

The funny thing is that we could easily use deMause’s statements against him. He wrote: “Every childrearing practice in traditional societies around the globe betrays a profound lack of empathy toward one’s children,” and a couple of pages later he gives an example: “The use of opium on infants goes back to ancient Egypt, where the Ebers papyrus tells parents: ‘It acts at once’.” But this is precisely what psychotropic drugs like Ritalin do to children not in the distant and exotic Egypt, but in the city where deMause lives!

When I realized that deMause was not going to read the literature on the psychiatric abuse of children that I recommended in another of my e-mails, I knew that sooner or later I would have to publish a critique. And incidentally: the page 166 of The Emotional Life deMause swallows the pseudoscientific propaganda that depression is due to a lack of serotonin. Similarly, the psychohistorian Robert Godwin wrote in one of his articles that some people need to ingest psychoactive drugs; and Henry Ebel commended Melanie Klein, the notorious analyst who blamed infants for projections from their parents, as Jeffrey Masson and Alice Miller have so cogently argued.
 

At the left of Chomsky

In Foundations of Psychohistory deMause wrote:

Our conclusion is that Jimmy Carter—for reasons rooted both in his own personality and in the powerful emotional demands of American fantasy—is very likely to lead us into a new war by 1979.

This is a pretty crazy statement. Foundations was published in 1982. Having had the opportunity to mature the lesson given to him by history, deMause did not retract when his prophecy about Carter, who left the White House in 1981 behaving like a dove before the Iranian crisis, was not fulfilled. What is this: publishing in all seriousness a prophecy refuted by history? It exposes a man completely trapped in his own theory. Also, in The Emotional Life of Nations deMause blinded himself before the threat that Cuba and the Soviet Union represented during the missile crisis. Without taking seriously the threat of nuclear annihilation that these missiles posed to his own country, deMause psychoanalyzed Kennedy’s actions as a case that he unraveled: a psychological reductionism as kooky as what his disciple Madeleine wrote about Cortés.

DeMause went back to his old ways in his latest book, The Origins of War in Child Abuse, first published in his journal, where he psychoanalyzes the 1835-1836 war that his country waged against Mexico to annex the territory of Texas. He also interprets with his bizarre theories the US intervention in the two world wars and continues to speculate on those lines about the wars in Korea and Vietnam. But his followers surpass him. But his followers surpass him. The Fall 2007 issue of the Journal of Psychohistory published an article by Robert McFarland in which the author endorses the most lunatic theories that the US government orchestrated the attacks of September 11, and in the Spring 2008 issue Matt Everett uses quite a few pages of the journal to continue to promote the conspiratorial paranoia. This continued in the Journal of Psychohistory of Spring 2009 and in a book review of the Fall issue of that year. His journal is located at the left of Noam Chomsky, who at least has had enough sanity to dismiss conspiracy theories such as 9/11. In short, deMause reduces all international politics to fantastic speculations. No wonder that after the initial success of the one of his books free of nonsense—The History of Childhood, published in 1974, that sold thousands of copies in several languages—, the wrong turn deMause and his followers took has disappointed the vast majority of his readers, so much so that in a 2010 audio interview deMause acknowledges: “I dropped from 6,000 to 800 subscribers of my journal.” But of deMause’s colleagues among whom, I suppose, many are Jews, there is something much more sinister than all that.

 
The psychohistorians and the hatred of the West

It is striking that, except the articles by deMause himself, many articles in the Journal of Psychohistory have little if anything to do with the original psychohistory. As I said, the original psychohistory tells us that non-Western cultures are more barbarous than ours. Conversely, the Journal of Psychohistory of Winter of 2009 contains an article by Arno Gruen praising the Pawnee Indians without mentioning how they treat children (Gruen even talks of “the white invasion”). The Summer 2009 issue of the journal published a much worse article, “The European-American psychosis” by Frederick Hickling: a diatribe against the West and the white people. From the perspective called transcultural psychiatry, Hickling calls the war of Cortés in Mexico as “delusion of genocidal eradication” ignoring that extermination was never the intention of the Spanish, proof that pure whites are now a tiny minority in Mexico. (Hickling misspells the name of the conqueror, a very common error in those ignorant of the topic, as “Cortez.”) But he does quote Bartolomé de Las Casas accepting the blackest interpretation of the Black Legend: that the Spanish murdered millions of Indians on purpose. Hickling thus minimizes the real cause of the diminution of the native population in the 16th century: the epidemics upon which the natives had no antibodies. The Europe of that century was called “the racist European formation,” and using inflammatory rhetoric Hickling writes of “the European ruthless viciousness to indigenous people in the Americas and in Polynesia,” and calls the European wars in the New World in the 17th century “the delusion of White Supremacy.” And he says something similar about the wars of the 18th and 19th centuries, with expressions like “colossal theft of Africa by Europe.” Writing about contemporary Islamic terrorists, Hickling puts quotation marks to the word “terrorists,” and he quotes Marxist revolutionary Frantz Fanon as he writes of “freedom fighters.” Hickling, a professor of psychiatry in Jamaica, goes so far as to suggest that it is possible to apply the concept of delusion “to a race or civilization” as a whole, referring to the white race and Western civilization.

Hickling is not alone. The same 2009 issue of Journal of Psychohistory contains the article “Some Thoughts on Psychoclasses and Zeitgeist.” Christian Lackner, one of the two authors of the article, translated into German deMause’s The Emotional Life of Nations. Following the most progressive political trends the article by Lackner and Juha Siltala welcome the European Union and praise the profile of the new European psychoclass of males as “androgynes” (sic) for whom war is old history. The gem of the article is that it ends by conceding that “the demographic picture” with such androgynous males must result in that “the population of Europe will eventually die out” without having it for something bad, or a demographic suicide against which we must fight.

DeMause and his little journal have reached their nadir with this issue: pure evil. These pair of articles are not the only of their kind. Other issues of the Journal of Psychohistory idealize the black Obama, and what is worse, the journal does not say a word about the dangers that the growing Islamization of Europe represent for what they themselves, the psychohistorians, call the “helping mode of childrearing.” Alarmed, when I was living in Europe, I sent deMause an e-mail asking what he thought of the Islamization of Scandinavia. He answered me once more by playing the imbecile, saying that Nordics “are helping their children.”
 

The sin against the holy ghost

The migration of Muslims into Europe in recent decades illustrates what is an encounter of psychoclasses. Instead of the chosen example—the encounter between Europeans and Amerindians—, the ongoing clash of psychoclasses with the millions of immigrants could have been the paradigm of this book.

But the Islamization of Europe in the 21st century is only the most conspicuous tip of the iceberg. The current group fantasy among westerners is genocidal self-hatred. Demography is destiny. But the West has lost its appetite for life, as seen in the ever-shrinking birthrates of whites. At this rate there will be no replacement for the white people in the coming generations. Westerners do not believe anymore in they ethnicity; in heterosexual marriage, or in their civilization as they still believed when my parents were young. An overreaction against the two great wars appears to have metamorphosed them into pods, as in the movie of the 1950s Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Their most unforgivable sin has been their handing over their lands to millions of non-Caucasian immigrants.

Massive Third World migration into the United States, Europe and Australia, promoted by Western governments, is the highest betrayal to one’s own people ever perpetrated in history. While the scenario might remind us the hostile takeover of Rome by a Levantine cult, it is infinitely worse. Constantine may have surrendered the empire to the bishops, dragging it straight into the Middle Ages, but no explicit anti-white exterminationist program was implemented by him and his successors; the program was implicit. In contrast, in the West of today massive numbers of non-whites are being imported at the same time with the demographic decline of the native population: an explicit, anti-white exterminationist program.

This is the most important issue of anything we can imagine: even more important than the child advocacy understood in terms of all races, the theme of this book. If Hyperboreans disappeared, my thirst to fight in the resulting mongrelized culture would die out. It would be a Neanderthalesque regression from my most cherished ideals. Think of the most beautiful female specimens of the Aryan race, for example the painting Lady Violet on the cover of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. What whites are doing to themselves is the real sin against the holy spirit of life: placing the very crown of evolution on the path to extinction.

Just as in the past the infanticidal psychoclass sacrificed their children in times of great prosperity, a phenomenon that deMause has called “growth panic,” a mad generation—including deMause’s—, indoctrinated in anti-white racism, sacrifices the future of their children; their grandchildren, and their great-grandchildren… Large numbers of abortions and intercourse with condoms or pills—and mixing their blood with non-whites!—can only mean that an ethnic group is committing suicide. Westerners have decided to erase their history, culture, identity and what is most valuable: their genetic capital.

Such self-destruct ethos reminds me the determined campaign of destruction that, in my family, my mother led when she fell sized with panic before her thriving teenager. Like my parents with me in our beloved home of Palenque [the subject of my other books], reaching the height of its prosperity the West succumbs to unconscious forces turned into a monster which etiology nobody seems to know, not even the readers of Alice Miller, let alone the psychohistorians.
 
___________

The objective of Day of Wrath is to present to the racialist community my philosophy of The Four Words on how to eliminate all unnecessary suffering. If life allows, next month I will reproduce another chapter. Day of Wrath is available: here.

Syria – Trump: a puppet president

Yes: it is not out of the realm of possibilities that the Russians could retaliate for Trump’s incredibly ZOGish attack, but perhaps WW3 is exactly what we need. After all, business as usual means continuing on the road of white extinction. If James Mason is right that ‘The enemy today is the U.S. Government itself and it is, by every standard of measure, the most evil thing that has ever existed on earth’, then we must welcome a total war even if we may perish in the process.

I’ll remove my previous post on philosophy and will only re-post it if things cool down tomorrow. Meanwhile, you can follow recent Alt-Right articles on this unbelievable stupid attack on Syria through Shitlord Hub.

Apocalypse for whites • XXXVII

by Evropa Soberana

Judaea, victorious

416 CE: A famous Christian leader known as ‘Sword of God’ exterminates the last ‘pagans’ of Bithynia, Asia Minor. That year, in Constantinople all public officials, army commanders and judges who are not Christians are fired.

423 CE: The emperor decrees that ‘paganism’ is ‘a cult of the devil’ and orders that all those who continue to practice it be imprisoned and tortured.

429 CE: The Athenians are persecuted, and the temple of the goddess Athena—the famous Parthenon of the Acropolis—is looted.

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!

We must recognise the conspiratorial astuteness and the implacable permanence of objectives of the original Judeo-Christian nucleus! What they did was literally turn the tables on their favour: turn Rome into anti-Rome; put at the service of Jewry everything that the Jews so hated; take advantage of the strength of Rome and its state apparatus, to put Rome against Rome itself in a sinister political- spiritual jiu-jitsu—from spitted slaves, trampled, insulted, despised and looked down, to absolute spiritual masters of the Roman Empire!

In a nutshell, Christianity was a subversive movement of agitation against Rome, against Greece and, ultimately, against the European world.

As already stated, we have to assume that what has come down to us from the Greco-Roman world is only a tiny part of what was really there and that it was taken away by the Judeo-Christian destruction. Christianity, as a slave rebellion devised and led by Jews with the aim of destroying Roman power—and, ultimately, all European power—was and is a doctrine aimed at converting vigorous peoples into a domesticated flock of sheep. Nietzsche understood it perfectly, but when will we be able to fully assimilate what this meant and what it still means today?
 

Laocoön and His Sons.
The sculpture that once was in the palace of Emperor Titus represents the tragic agony of the Ancient World: Classic, athletic, wise, beautiful, courageous and close to the gods, at the hands of the Eastern serpent.

Apocalypse for whites • XXXVI

by Evropa Soberana

 
The martyrdom of Hypatia as an example of Christian terrorism

Alexandria, Egypt, year 415. The protagonist is Hypatia (370-415), philosopher and mathematician instructed by her father, the also famous philosopher and mathematician Theon of Alexandria. Hypatia’s biographers say that in the morning she spent several hours in physical exercise, and that afterwards she took relaxing baths that helped her concentrate her mind to devote the rest of the day to the study of philosophy, music and mathematics.

Hypatia was virgin and chaste; that is, she was at the level of a priestess. She was, in short, a wise woman, ‘a perfect human being’, just as her father had wanted. Hypatia also ran a philosophical school from which women were excluded. (This is to give thought to the feminists who have tried to ‘feminize’ the figure of Hypatia in recent times.)

Hypatia, by Charles William Mitchell.

The bigwig of Alexandria during that time was Archbishop Cyril (370-444), nephew of the aforementioned Theophilus. He had the title of patriarch, an ecclesiastical honour that amounted almost to that of the pope, and which was held only by the archbishops of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Constantinople: that is, the most Jewish and Christian cities of the Roman Empire. During this time there was another mass rebellion; once again, street fights, tensions and settling of scores between Christians and Hellenists followed each other.

Archbishop Cyril had started a persecution of Alexandria scholars, twenty-four years after the library fire. This time, more radicalized, the Christians murdered anyone who refused to convert to the new religion. Hypatia, at that time director of the museum, where she dedicated herself to the philosophy of Plato, was one of those people, for which she was accused of conspiring against the archbishop.

Days after the accusation, friars called parabalani, fanatical monks in charge of the ‘dirty work’ of the archbishop and coming from the church of Jerusalem of St. Cyril,[1] kidnapped her from her carriage, beat her, stripped her and dragged her throughout the city, until they reached the church of Caesarea. There, at the orders of a lector named Peter, they raped her several times and then skinned her and ripped the flesh with sharp oyster shells.

Hypatia died raped, skinned and bleeding in atrocious pains. After this, they dismembered her corpse, took her pieces through Alexandria as trophies and then to a place called Cinarion, where they were burned. The archbishop who ordered his martyrdom is remembered by the Church as St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Only a crowd sick with resentment and hatred, and enraged by commissaries expert in the art of raising slaves, could carry out this act, which disgusts any person with a minimum of decency. Hypatia was the perfect victim for a ritual sacrifice: European, beautiful, healthy, wise, Hellenistic and virgin. And that is what excites slaves the most when sacrificing the innocence and kindness of the victim.

The cruelty shown, even in regard to the destruction of her corpse, indicates that the Christians greatly feared Hypatia and all that she represented. The death of the scientist, in addition to being perfectly illustrative of the atrocities committed by Christians at this time, inaugurated an era of persecution of Hellenistic priests in North Africa, especially directed against the Egyptian priesthood. Most of them were crucified or burned alive.

Hypatia’s atrocity is described here because it is well known; and it is shocking that it happened to an unarmed, defenceless and harmless woman, but let us not think of it as an isolated case. Many simple Hellenists who did not look for trouble were sacrificed in a similar or worse way, and would continue to be so for many centuries.

_______________

[1] Note from the Ed.: Probably ethnic Semites.

Apocalypse for whites • XXIV

by Evropa Soberana

 
Some conclusions

The Greeks and the Romans, from their Olympic naïveté (and I say this because only naïve men could think of forbidding the Torah, the Shabbat or the Brit Milah without realising that the whole of Jewry would prefer to die rather than renouncing their traditions) were too myopic in their approach to the Jewish problem. The Greco-Romans ignored the particularities that differentiated the Jews from the rest of the Semitic peoples of the Near East, and thought that they could place their temples and statues there as if the Jews were nothing more than another Arab or Syrian province, either Hellenised or Persianised. The persistent identity that Jewry had shown did not motivate the carefree Romans to sufficiently wrap their heads around the problem.

The conviction that the Greco-Romans had of being carriers of a superior culture made them fall into a fateful error: to think that a culture can be valid for all humanity and exported to peoples of different ethnicity. The Hellenisation and Romanisation of the East and North Africa had only one effect: the ethnic chaos, the balkanization of Rome itself, ethnic struggles and, finally, the appearance of Christianity.

Even using the brute force of her legions Rome was slow to realize that the Jews, in their resentment and their desire for revenge, did not care to sacrifice waves upon waves of individuals if they managed to annihilate a single Roman detachment. This fundamentalist fanaticism, which went beyond the rational, must have left the Romans speechless, who were not accustomed to seeing an ill-equipped military people immolate themselves in that convinced manner, with a mind full of blind faith coming from a jealous, vengeful, abstract and tyrannical god. What the Jews call Yahweh and in Europe became known as Jehovah is, without a doubt, an extremely real will, and also a force clearly opposed to the Olympian and solar gods of the European peoples, whose height was the Greco-Roman Zeus-Jupiter.

The revolutionary and stirring vocation of Jewry was born here. The Jews realised the primitive and overwhelming power that a resentful, fanatized and ignorant crowd contained, and they used it skilfully in Christianity and later in Bolshevism. The same blind will to sacrifice waves upon waves was seen in the Red Army during the Second World War, with the Germans being the reincarnation of the Roman spirit at that historical moment while the Soviet commissariat, which was more than 90 percent Jewish, undoubtedly represented Israel’s will.

Jews in general faced extinction and ethnic cleansing. The Greeks, who had more power and influence than they in Rome, in the long run would have ended up gradually eradicating them in Asia Minor; while Rome, under Germanic influence, could have lasted forever: the city would simply have become part of the Germanic world thanks to the increasing political influence of the Germans in the legions and to the progressive colonisation of the Empire by the German foederati.

Both Judaism and Christianity are the product of cultural chaos. It is no coincidence that the Jewish quarter was born in the area of greatest ethnic confusion on the planet: no man’s land among Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Akkadians, Chaldeans, Persians, Hittites, Medes, Parthians, Macedonians and Romans; not to mention the tangled mess of peoples like the Amorites, the Philistines, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Edomites and the twelve tribes of Israel who inhabited the same area that concerns us and that, together, annihilated the identity of entire peoples in a genetic maremàgnum.

The direct and martial character of the Romans, who, despite not having grasped the Jewish essence, grasped fairly well their desire for power and their problematic character, forced the Jews to act and exercise their willpower as a people, to rave their brains to elaborate the Christian invention, and also gave the Jews the perfect excuse to spend the next two millennia making themselves the victims and mourning at the only remaining wall of the Temple in Jerusalem. Without the existence of Rome Jewry probably would have ended up falling asleep on its laurels and forgetting its interests.

The Diaspora and the eradication of Judea as a Jewish centre did not lead at all to the dissolution of the Jewish identity. Rabbinic Judaism, after wandering through Egypt and Babylon, was more than accustomed to nomadism; and the Diaspora really came from much earlier, although the wars in Judea did increase it with avalanches of refugees. Jewry, showing an enormous intelligence, realised that it could not defeat Rome in a conventional war and that rebellions, fights and open wars failed because the Romans were stronger, braver, more powerful and better soldiers by nature, despite being less in number.

However, the underground and secret rebellion that the Jews had quietly breathed into Rome was going to prosper, as if it was the seed of discord, ‘by the secret and cowardly means’ that Hadrian foresaw that Jewry would use to finally triumph over Rome. This clandestine anti-European rebellion in general, and anti-Roman in particular, also had a name: it was called Christianity or, in the words of Tacitus, that ‘conflictive superstition’ that ‘not only broke out in Judea, the first source of evil, but even in Rome: where all the horrendous and shameful things from any part of the world find their centre and become popular’.

In the long run, the effect of clashes between Jews and Greco-Romans was the consolidation of Christianity as the only option of Semitic conquest of Rome, which, in turn, had the effect of ethnic cleansing of the European minority in the Eastern Mediterranean—especially the hated Greek community, which had its centre in Alexandria—mainly from the 4th century. It seems obvious to me that, after the invention of Christianity, there was a highly developed intellect, with a great psychological and geo-social capacity throughout the Empire, designed to destroy the Roman Empire: snatching from Europe, especially from the Germanic Europe, the legacy of the classical world.

The importation of oriental cults was nothing but the ritual adaptation of the genetic changes in Rome itself, as well as the slow rise of the ethnic substratum that existed in the lowest part of the original Rome.

Although the racial platform of the Roman ruling caste was Red-Nordid, there are several busts of specimens with strong Armenid influence, in addition to Cato. These three busts are patricians of
the Republic with patent armenisation.[1]

Judea was a special province and the Romans would have needed an equally special policy, consisting of shielding Rome against Jewish influence—and, in fact, against all Oriental influence, including its plebs—; leave the Jews in Judea and not give them Roman citizenship under any circumstances; not desecrate their traditions and, of course, never civilise them: because it was precisely the Hellenisation of certain Jewish social sectors what led to the emergence of Christianity. This was a sinister Jewish and Greco-decadent schizophrenia that is evident in the very name of Jesus Christ: Yeshua, a Jewish name, and Christos, ‘the anointed one’ in Greek.

To give examples of the insane Romanisation of Judea that echo the hybrid Yeshua-Christos: Herod tried to Romanise the province by building cities that would cause discord (like Caesarea); fortresses that would be used by the Jews against the same Romans (like the Antonia and Masada fortresses); and also he enlarged the Second Temple at which the Jews now cry, in spite of the fact that they hate the constructor.

If Rome had wanted to triumph in a more resounding way over Judea, she should not have allowed its Romanisation, and should have kept Hellenisation to a minimum. Imposing a culture on a people does not mean that you have to share it. Because of his genetic and cultural heritage, a Jew who knew how to speak Greek would never really share or understand Hellenic culture—culture is the result of the gene pool, and Jewish genetics was radically different from Hellenic. To force or impose one culture over another that comes from a different genetic well only leads to one thing: miscegenation, which will end up manifesting through the total corruption of the original culture.

All hell rained down upon the Jews, who little by little have become like that typical figure in fiction who has received many blows and becomes, over time, a misanthropic super-villain and resentful against the world. Taking the Jews into Rome, however much they were enslaved, was suicidal.

Forced Romanisation, forced Hellenisation, slavery, deportation and anything that tends to increase the ethnic jumble, are extremely negative elements in the history of any nation. And the first drawback of any Empire is precisely that: that it is cosmopolitan by definition.
 
_______________

[1] Editor’s Note: To understand this passage the reader should become familiar with the new racial classification of the author.

Apocalypse for whites • XXII

by Evropa Soberana

 

Third Jewish-Roman War:
The Palestinian Revolt or
Rebellion of Bar Kokhba (132-135)

Hadrian at first had been minimally conciliatory with the province of Judea. He allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem, began rebuilding the city as a gift from Rome and even gave them permission to rebuild the Temple. However, after a visit to the ‘Holy Land’, he had a sudden change of mind and began again to make Roman authority felt in the troubled province.

While the Jewish quarter was preparing the construction of the Temple, Hadrian ordered it to be built in a different place from the original, and then began deporting Jews to North Africa. Planning the complete transfiguration of Judea, its de-Judaization, its repopulation with Roman legionaries and its impregnation of Greco-Roman culture, he ordered the foundation, on Jerusalem, of a new Roman city, called Aelia Capitolina.

This implied the massive irruption of the classic art, extremely hated by the Jews, besides the construction of numerous Roman buildings—and the construction of a Roman building necessarily went through a ceremony of consecration of religious character that, according to the Talmudic mentality, polluted the Holy Land for being a pagan ritual. Jerusalem, before the nervous eyes of Jewry, was going to become the scene of a highly ‘profane’, ‘impure’ and ‘pagan’ place for their mentality, such as streets decorated with naked statues with a prepuce!

The Jews, again indignant, prepared for a rebellion, but Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah calmed them down, so they were content to prepare themselves clandestinely in case they had to rebel in the future, which seemed every time most likely. They built caches in caves and began to accumulate weapons and supplies. Although they did not carry out an open rebellion, in 123 terrorist actions began to take place against the Roman forces of occupation.

The Hellenistic education of Hadrian is evident in his beard. The Romans, a people of soldiers, like the Macedonians, had the deep-rooted habit of facial shaving. Although Nero brought partial beard at some moments of his life, it was Hadrian the first emperor to leave it permanently. Such a man would naturally be more inclined to take a stand for the ethnically Greek populations of the Eastern Mediterranean against his main rivals: the Jews, especially Alexandrians.

Hadrian, who was increasingly regretting his previous indulgence for the Jewish quarter, brought the Legio VI Ferrata to act as a police force. To make matters worse, the emperor was a man of Hellenistic education. In addition to the anti-Judaism traditionally associated with it, the Greek formation considered circumcision as a barbaric act of mutilation.

Although they admired the nakedness of a beautiful human body, the Greeks, who in Judea formed the most influential social sector after the Romans, considered it an act of extreme bad education to show the glans in public (for which those who had too short a foreskin from birth, had to cover the glans with some accessory). Instead, according to Jewish tradition, Adam and Moses were born without foreskin, and the Messiah will also be born circumcised. The Jews were not the only people to practice circumcision: it was also practiced by other Semitic peoples such as the Syrians and the Arabs. But in the case of the Jews it was a religious matter: a sign of covenant between them and Jehovah. To make matters worse, Hadrian also decided to prohibit the observance of the Sabbath, which forced the Jews not to work and practically do nothing on Saturdays.

The year 131, after an inauguration ceremony by the governor Quintus Tineius Rufus, began the works of Aelia Capitolina, and the following year coinage was minted with the new name of the city and works were begun on a Temple dedicated to Jupiter in the location of the ancient Temple of Jerusalem. Rabbi Akiva ben Yosef convinced the Sanhedrin to proclaim as Messiah and commander of the coming rebellion Simon Bar Kokhba (‘Son of a star’): a cunning, bloodthirsty and shrewd leader. Bar Kokhba must have planned carefully, noting the issues where previous rebellions had failed.

Instantly, as soon as Hadrian left Judea, that same year of 132, the Jewish quarter rose, attacked the Roman detachments and annihilated the Legio X (Legio VI was encamped watching the passage of Megiddo). The Jews from all the provinces of the Empire and beyond began to attend, and also obtained the support of many Syrian and Arab tribes.

With their fundamentalist Semitic hordes—supposedly 400,000 men, of whom it was said to have been started by cutting off a finger or plucking a cedar from the roots—they stormed 50 fortified plazas and 985 defenceless towns (including Jerusalem), exterminating the Greek communities, the Roman detachments and all the opponents they encountered; atrocities being common. Later, they dedicated themselves to the construction of walls and underground passages; in short, to entrench themselves in each square.

After these fleeting victories, the Jewish state in the area was reorganized. In Betar, a mighty fortress in the mountains, Bar Kokhba was crowned Messiah in a solemn ceremony. During the years of the revolt, Ben Yosef and Bar Kokhba reigned together, one as a dictator and the other as a religious ‘pontiff’ who proclaimed the ‘era of the redemption of Israel’ and even minted their own coins.

General Publicius Marcellus, governor of Syria, was sent to support Quintus Tineius Rufus; but both Romans were defeated by forces vastly superior in number, which also invaded the coastal areas, forcing the Romans to fight with them in naval battles. At this moment so worrying for Rome, Hadrian called Sextus Julius Severus, who at that time was governor of the province of Britain. He also required a former governor of Germania, Quintus Lollius Urbicus. With them, he gathered an army even greater than the one that Titus had gathered last century, a total of perhaps twelve legions: from one third to half of all the military troops of the Empire.

In view of the vast number of enemies and the desperation with which they acted, the Romans avoided open battles; limited themselves to attacking scattered groups and destroying the populations where they could find sustenance: the tactics of anti-partisan warfare. The Jews had fairly well entrenched themselves in some 50 fortified cities, many of them truly impregnable complexes in the mountains, so the Romans advanced slowly by besieging the squares, cutting off supplies and entering when the defenders were weak.

This painful tactic, which also required long journeys through hostile areas, cost the Romans innumerable deaths—in fact, it seems that the Jews annihilated, or at least caused very heavy losses, to the Legio XXII Deiotariana which had come from Egypt. To confirm the hardships passed by the legions, Hadrian eliminated from his military reports to the Senate and the people of Rome the traditional opening formula ‘I and the legions are fine’ for the simple reason that the legions… were not fine.

After enormous sacrifices and waste of discipline and feeling of duty, the Romans were triumphing little by little. In the year 134 the Betar fortress remained, where Bar Kokhba had become strong with the Sanhedrin; his most loyal followers, and thousands of Jews who had come as refugees. The same day of the anniversary of the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem, the fortress fell into the hands of the Roman soldiers, who put the entire population to the sword and did not allow the dead to be buried for six days.

‘Even if they swear to become good Roman citizens and worship Jupiter and our other gods, kill them, if you do not want them to destroy Rome or conquer it by the secret and cowardly means that they usually do’.

—Emperor Hadrian to his legions

Apocalypse for whites • XXI

by Evropa Soberana

 

Second Jewish-Roman War:
The Rebellion of the Diaspora or Kitos War

‘The Jews, overwhelmed by a spirit of rebellion, rise up against their Greek fellow citizens’.

— Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History

 
This section will deal with the Jewish revenge on the Greeks and Romans for the destruction of the Second Temple. While Judea is still exhausted and under a heavy military occupation, we will see an attempt to establish ‘communes’ or Jewish states abroad, starting with secession in Cyprus, Egypt, Mesopotamia and Cyrenaica. The constitution of these Jewish territories happened to exterminate the local Greek communities.

The First Jewish-Roman War made it very clear that the Jewry, under the ‘coexistence’ with the Greeks and the authority of the Romans, had absolutely no chance of prospering or reaching levels of power as they did in the past in Egypt, Babylon and Persia.

The ‘ghettoized’ situation of the Jews submitted to Rome contrasted radically with that of the Jews who, in Mesopotamia, were subjects of the Parthian Empire. There existed many ancient Jewish communities, especially in Babylon and Susa, who saw themselves as prosperous, rich, powerful and with a long tradition. They had enjoyed ample freedom for six centuries, and they were horrified by the situation of their coreligionists within the Roman Empire.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the ‘international Jewry’ unconditionally supported the Parthian Empire during this time, partly because it treated them much better and partly because it was the only really serious enemy that lurked the borders of the Roman Empire in the East, therefore they were the only power capable of liberating Jerusalem. After all, the Parthians were the ones who killed the hated looter Crassus during the Battle of Carrhae, and if the Romans were anti-Jewish and the Parthians were enemies of the Romans, the opportunist strategy of the moment considered the Parthian Empire as a pro-Jewish regime. At this time, nothing would have pleased the Jewry more than a military campaign that conquered Judea, Syria, Asia Minor in general and, if possible, Egypt, as the Persians had done before.

In 113, Trajan, who admired Alexander the Great, was about to start a series of campaigns against the Parthian Empire, with the aim of conquering Mesopotamia. To carry out such an action, he concentrated troops on the eastern borders, at the expense of leaving many more western places unguarded. Knowing the conflict in the province of Judea, Trajan forbade the Jews to study the Torah and observe the Shabbat, which, in practice, did nothing but irritate the Jewry.

Bust of Trajan in 108 CE, in the Museum of Art History in Vienna, Austria. Trajan, the first emperor of Hispanic origin, had the honour of having ruled the Roman Empire when its borders were most extensive. Under his reign, Mesopotamia was annexed, but soon it was to be clear that every step taken by Rome towards the East would encounter as a reaction an uprising of the Jewish quarter.

In 115, the Roman army conquered all of Mesopotamia, including towns that were important Jewish centres. Throughout Mesopotamia the Jews, horrified to see themselves falling into the hands of their mortal enemies, aligned themselves with the Parthians and fought the Romans with ferocity. This open hostility, which was soon heard throughout the Empire, caused a wave of indignation and provided the perfect excuse for the Greek ethnic communities of the provinces of Cyrenaica (current coast of Libya) and Cyprus, with strong anti-Jewish tradition, to start riots against the ghettos, taking advantage of the absence of the Roman legions, which could have appeased the situation.

Several Jewish extremist leaders again preached agitation against Rome, proclaiming the end of the Empire, travelling through all the Roman provinces of Asia Minor and North Africa and exhorting local Jewries to rise up and fight against European occupation. The Jews, already angered by the disturbances with the Greek population, took advantage of the absence of Roman soldiers to begin, that same year, a bloody insurrection.

The rebellion began in Cyrenaica, led by Lukuas, self-proclaimed messiah. The Jews, in a swift stroke of hand reminiscent of their rebellion in Jerusalem half a century earlier, attacked Greek neighbourhoods and villages, destroyed Greek statues and temples dedicated to Jupiter, Artemis, Isis and Apollo, and also numerous Roman official buildings. (These actions were a mere foreshadowing of what Christians would later do on a massive scale and throughout the Empire.) The famous Roman historian Cassius Dio, in his Roman History, describes the terrible massacre that was unleashed, referring to Lukuas as ‘Andreas’, probably his Greco-Roman name.

At that time, the Jews who lived in Cyrenaica, having as captain one Andreas, killed all the Greeks and Romans. They ate their flesh and entrails, bathed in their blood and dressed in their skins. They killed many of them with extreme cruelty, tearing them from above head down the middle of their bodies; they threw some to the beasts while others forced them to fight among themselves, to such an extent that they took 220,000 to death. Cassius Dio also tells us how from their intestines they made belts, and anointed themselves with their blood. These testimonies, although perhaps should not be taken literally, are certainly interesting to see the negative image that the Jewry had in Europe, as an odious and misanthropic people.

Also noteworthy is the character of ethnic cleansing implicit in Jewish actions in Cyrenaica: let us think that, at that time when it was much less populated than now, 200,000 dead (although it may be an exaggerated number) was a monstrous figure; to such an extent that, according to Eusebius, Libya was totally depopulated and Rome had to found new colonies there to recover the population.

After the genocide in Cyrenaica, the Lukuas masses went to an unguarded city that had long been the world centre of wisdom and also of anti-Judaism: Alexandria. There they set fire to numerous Greek neighbourhoods, destroyed pagan temples and desecrated Pompey’s tomb. But this Rebellion of the Diaspora was not limited only to North Africa. Jewish terrorism in Cyrenaica and Alexandria had emboldened Jews throughout the Mediterranean, who, seeing the absence of Roman soldiers, felt the call of the uprising against Rome.

While Trajan was already in the Persian Gulf struggling against the Parthians, crowds of Jews, fanatized by the rabbis, rose up in Rhodes, Sicily, Syria, Judea, Mesopotamia and the rest of North Africa to carry out the ethnic cleansing against European populations. In Cyprus, the worst massacre of the entire rebellion took place: 240,000 Europeans were massacred and the capital of the island, Salamis, was completely razed, according to Cassius Dio. A similar cruelty was shown in Egypt and on the island of Cyprus under one Artemion, the chief of barbarism. In Cyprus they massacred another two hundred and forty thousand people, so they could no longer set foot on the island.

To quell the rebellion in Cyprus, Syria and the newly conquered territories of Mesopotamia, Trajan sent the Legio VII Claudia under the orders of a Berber prince, General Lusius Quietus. The repression of Lusius Quietus in Mesopotamia was so ruthless that the rabbis in that place forbade the study of Greek literature and eliminated the custom of brides adorning themselves with garlands on their wedding day.

In Cyprus, Lusius Quietus exterminated the entire Jewish population of the island and prohibited, under penalty of death, that no Jew step on Cyprus. Even if he was a castaway who appeared on a beach, the Jew should be executed on the spot. These actions left a deep trace in the memory of the Europeans of those places. As a reward for the services rendered, Lusius Quietus was made governor of Judea.

For the pacification of Alexandria, Trajan took troops from Mesopotamia under the command of Marcius Turbo, who in 117 had already quelled the rebellion. To rebuild the damage caused there by the revolt, the Romans expropriated and confiscated all of the Jews’ goods and wealth. Marcius Turbo remained as governor of Egypt during a period of reconstitution of Roman authority. Lukuas, who was at that time in Alexandria, probably fled to Judea.

Throughout the Rebellion of the Diaspora, well over half a million Europeans were massacred, mainly those belonging to the noblest social strata of Cyrenaica, Cyprus, Egypt and Babylon: that is, the European people of these places, men, women and children who were at that time the aristocracy of the Eastern Mediterranean. Although thousands of Jews were put to the sword and the rebellion was ruthlessly crushed by Trajan, Lusius Quietus and Marcius Turbo, many Europeans were killed after suffering atrocious tortures.

Apocalypse for whites • XVIII

by Evropa Soberana

 
Siege and fall of Jerusalem: the destruction of the Second Temple

That same year, 68, Nero was killed in Rome and a civil war broke out. The whole Roman Empire was in check. On the one hand, the numerous Jewish masses, in full boiling mode, challenged the Roman power in Judea and on the other, they did it in the bosom of Rome itself. If the Roman power in the East faltered, the Parthians would have been able to take advantage quickly to conquer Asia Minor and fortify themselves in the area, which would have been a huge catastrophe for Rome.

The government was staggering gently, but Vespasian returned to Rome and fought against Vitellius, who claimed to be Nero’s successor. After defeating the fat Vitellius, Vespasian was named emperor and entrusted his 26-year-old son Titus with the military operations of repression and the siege of the Jewish capital.

Titus surrounded Jerusalem with the four legions, cutting off supplies of water and food. Also, he increased the pressures on the needs of the city by allowing the pilgrims to enter to celebrate the Passover and then preventing them from leaving.

Statue of Titus modelled after the Doryphoros of Polykleitos, 79-81 CE, Vatican Museum. As can be seen, an anti-Hellenist Pope ordered
this and many other Greco-Roman statues to be ‘castrated’
centuries after they were sculpted.

In besieged Jerusalem with famine and epidemics, thousands and thousands of lives were claimed. The Jews who constituted the hard core of the rebellion—the Zealots and the Sicarii—threw down the wall the pacifists or the ‘counter-revolutionaries’ suspected of not communing with the Zionist cause, or of seeking an understanding with Rome to obtain favourable conditions for their people. According to some passages of the very Talmud, the Sicarii and Zealots (leaders such as Menahem ben Ya’ir, Eleazar ben Ya’ir, and Simon Bar Giora) came to commit atrocities against the Jewish civilian population, even preventing them from receiving food, to force them to be obedient and commit to the cause.

The defenders that constituted the active element of the resistance must have been about 60,000 men. They were divided into: the Zealots under the command of Eleazar ben Simon who occupied the Antonia Fortress and the Temple; the Sicarii under the command of Bar Giora, centered in the high city; and the Idumeans and others under John of Giscala. There was an obvious rivalry between the combatant factions, which erupted from time to time in open fighting. The population of the fortified Jerusalem exceeded three million people, of whom most were willing to fight, hoping that their god would lend a hand against the infidels.

While the Romans attacked again and again the fortifications with immense casualties on their part, the Zealots occasionally left the ramparts to make raids in which they managed to assassinate unsuspecting Roman soldiers.

After one of these actions, Titus, using very clear tactics of intimidation, made deploy at the foot of the city his entire army with the aim of intimidating the besieged, and appealed to Josephus, who yelled at the beleaguered a quite reasonable speech. Apparently, for the ears of the Jews dominated by their superstitions and surely awaiting any moment for an intervention of Yahweh, Josephus only managed to get them angrier and was shot with an arrow that wounded his arm.

Josephus descended from a long Sadduceean priestly line related to the Hasmonean dynasty of pre-Roman times. During the Great Jewish Revolt, the Sanhedrin made him governor of Galilee. After defending the Yodfat fortress for three weeks, he surrendered to the Romans who killed almost all of his men. Josephus, who was hid in a cistern with another Jew, was saved by demonstrating his great training and intelligence, and predicting to the general his future appointment as emperor of Rome. Later, he would accompany Titus and the Romans who used him to try to negotiate with the Sanhedrin.

After this, the Jews launched another sudden raid in which they almost succeeded in capturing Titus himself. The Romans were trained for frontal clashes with enemy armies; they were unaccustomed to the dirty fight of guerrilla warfare, in which the chivalry of combat is totally nullified. In May of 70 the Romans opened with their battering rams a breach in the third wall of Jerusalem, after which they also broke the second wall and penetrated like a swarm of wasps into the city.

Titus’s intention was to go to the Antonia Fortress, which was next to the Temple: a vital strategic point of the Jewish defence. But as soon as the Roman troops surpassed the second wall, they were engaged in violent street fighting against the Zealots and the civil population mobilized by them, and despite losing thousands of men to the superiority of legionary training in body to body combat they continued to attack, until they were ordered to retreat to the Temple to avoid useless casualties.

Josephus tried, once again unsuccessfully, to negotiate with the besieged authorities to prevent the bloodbath from continuing to grow. The Antonia Fortress had been built by Herod in honour of Mark Antony, who had supported him. The legions of Titus, faced with a building built with Roman efficiency, had to overcome a thousand calamities to take it.

Several times the Romans tried to break or climb the walls of the fortress without success. Finally, they managed to take it in an undercover assault, during which a small Roman party silently assassinated the Zealot guards who were sleeping. The fortress was then filled with legionaries. Although Titus planned to use the fortress as a base to breach the walls of the Temple and take it, a Roman soldier (according to Josephus, the Romans were enraged against the Jews for their treacherous attacks) threw a torch that set the wall on fire.

The Second Temple was levelled, and to top it all for the Jewish quarter, the flames quickly spread to other residential areas of Jerusalem. When they saw their Temple being burned many Jews committed suicide, thinking that Yahweh had become angry with them, had abandoned them and was sending them to a kind of apocalypse.

At this time the legions quickly crushed the resistance, while some Jews escaped through underground tunnels, and others, the more fanatical ones, barricaded themselves in the high city and Herod’s citadel. After building siege towers, what remained of the combative element was massacred by Roman pilum and gladius, and the city came under effective Roman control on September 8.
 
_________

Editor’s note: Once again, if white nationalists were historically self-conscious (as Jews are), every year they would celebrate this date.

Apocalypse for whites • XVI

by Evropa Soberana

‘The East wants to rebel and Judas
wants to take over world dominion’.

—Tacitus

 
First Judeo-Roman war: The Great Jewish revolt (66-73 CE)

In the year 66, Florus arrived in Jerusalem, where he demanded a tribute of seventeen talents from the temple treasury. Eleazar ben Hanania, the son of the high priest, reacted by stopping the prayers and sacrifices in honour of the emperor of Rome, and ordered to attack the Roman garrison. The garrison responded by killing around 3,600 Jews, looting the market, entering homes, arresting many of the Jewish leaders, whipping them in public and make them crucified. The next day, however, the concentration of rebellious Jews had increased. A civil war was about to explode.

On August 8, 66 CE the Zealots and Sicarii struck a quick blow in Jerusalem: they murdered the Roman detachment and put all the Greeks to the sword. In a synchronized way, the Jews from all provinces and Roman colonies rose up. In Jerusalem a council was formed that sent sixty emissaries throughout the Empire with the goal to trigger the various Jewish quarters. Each one of these emissaries declared himself the Messiah and proclaimed the beginning of a sort of ‘new order’. Herod Agrippa, the ethnarch of Judea, in view of the fact that the popular masses were in full boiling, chose to take his suitcases and leave the province for a good season.

The outcome was the return of Jewish uprisings and, in reaction, more anti-Jewish pogroms in Caesarea, Damascus and Alexandria, not counting the intervention of the Roman legions, which harshly repressed the Jewish quarters of the aforementioned cities and also in Ashkelon, Hippos, Tire and Ptolemaida. The more moderate and sensible Jewish sectors advised to immediately reach an agreement with Rome, but the criterion that was going to prevail among Jewry was that of the Sicarii and Zealots who, fanatically, vowed to fight to the death, entrenching themselves in the impregnable fortresses of Jerusalem, fortifying the walls of the city and mobilizing the entire population.

Under the command of Nero, Cestius Gallus, the Roman legate in Syria, concentrated troops in Acre (a square that would be many centuries later an important strategic centre of the European Crusaders) with the aim of marching to Jerusalem, devastate the Jewish populations found on his way and crush the revolt. Gallus took the city of Jaffa, killing 8,400 Jews. Later the refugees would regroup in the city and devote themselves to banditry and piracy, attracting a second Roman intervention, in which the city would be definitely razed and another 2,400 Jews killed.

After encountering the solid fortifications of Jerusalem, Gallus’ forces withdrew, and were intercepted by the Jewish fanatics in an ambush directed by elements from the Zealots and the Sicarii, who massacred 6,000 Romans in the same place in which the Maccabees had defeated the Macedonians centuries before. The Jews, excited by the symbolic repetition of the event, formed a government led by the most fundamentalist elements, and minted coins with the inscription ‘Zion’s freedom’.

This tragic disaster undoubtedly moved the Roman authorities to take more seriously the rebellion’s operations. Nero put General Vespasian in charge of the repression. With four legions—the Legio V Macedonica, the Legio X Fretensis , the Legio XII Fulminata and the Legio XV Apollinaris, a total of 70,000 soldiers, that is to say, a formidable force, although it faced an enemy far superior in number—Vespasian quelled the Jewish revolt in the north of the province, re-conquering Galilee in the year 67, capturing there Josephus, the famous historian and Samaria and Idumea in 68.

The Jewish leaders John of Giscala (Zealot) and Simon bar Giora (Sicarii) fled to the fortified Jerusalem.