Have people woken up?

I cannot believe it. Last month I briefly discussed Stefan Molyneux’s dishonest video on the synagogue massacre but had not looked at the comment section of that video. This morning I’ve taken a look at it and am very surprised to see that so many people have woken up on the Jewish question. The fact is that Molyneux, a gatekeeper from our side of the psychological Rubicon, a steppingstone from the side of the normies, got completely crucified in the comment section of that video. These are only a few comments. Keep in mind that the subject matter was precisely the JQ:

• His most dishonest video yet.

• You’re intellectually dishonest. This is not how a good philosopher acts. The JQ shall set you free.

• This was a disgusting display Stefan. I write this as Jean-Francois Gariépy wraps up his response stream. I dare you to debate someone on this topic. JFG wouldn’t be a bad choice. Others have naturally suggested Kevin MacDonald as well.

• This video exemplifies what many of us have been saying for ages. Stefan is a fool, and anyone who believes his C rate acting is also a fool. It is painfully clear why he refuses to debate anyone of real intellect, and sticks to the safety of YouTube.

• This was just embarrassing. Stefan, Mr. “Not An Argument” delivers non-argument after non-argument here. He must have thrown out his back bending over backwards to misrepresent the JQ. For someone who likens himself to the philosophers of old, he sure does seem to know who to not criticize.

• Stefan has put himself in the corner here. It’ll be interesting to see if he addresses this comment section in his next video or if he’ll try to pretend it never happened.

• He won’t even bother with damage control. What can he do, lie about his heritage once more and avoid the JQ again?

• How stupid will he look though if his next video is just “let’s talk about why atheism is so smart again” or “let’s talk about how great capitalism is again”. Edit: looks like he already put up another video [unrelated to the challenges presented in the thread], typical kosher cowardice.

• The goyim know Stefan, it’s too late to shut it down. Address the JQ or lose your integrity forever.

• Reconsidering my donation subscription after this video.

• I never thought I’d see the day when so many people are aware of the Jewish question. Holy shit.

• Great video Stefan, give me more of those blue pills baby. They’re delicious! Yum yum yum yumyum. No more JQ hallucinations, yay, I’m cured!

• Ugh, you just gave up and showed your soft underbelly Stefan. I used to recommend you, now… I’m un-subbing, you are simply cringe worthy now.

This is only the tip of the iceberg in that comments section. How hilarious! I didn’t expect that within my lifetime so many people, apparently outside the hardcore of white nationalist forums, were red-pilled on the JQ.

If this awakening continues there’s still hope…!

Julian, 46

Editor’s note: I am relocating the below post, already published last Sunday, to this Sunday to make a point.

Gregory of Nazianzus was a ‘saint’ that has been mentioned several times in this site, especially in Karlheinz Deschner’s historical series. But scholarly writing lacks the vitality of a literary recreation of an epoch. That is why historical novels are important as a literary genre.

The next step would be to recreate the epoch in movies and TV series (something that we would have today hadn’t the American and the British betrayed their own race in the Second World War). Gregory’s father ‘was part Jew and part Greek’ wrote Vidal, and he added about this Gregory:

He tapped the painting. A flake of paint zigzagged to the ground. “One day the whole thing will disappear and then who will know what Marathon was like, when this picture’s gone?”

Had the Third Reich been allowed to thrive, you can imagine the power that film scenes describing the Semitic takeover of our civilisation in the 4th century would have been causing in a Jew-wise, Aryan audience.

In his novel Julian, Vidal wrote:

 
As I stood there looking up at the tarry shields, a youth approached me. He was bearded; his clothes were dirty; he wore a student’s cloak and he looked a typical New Cynic of the sort I deplore. I have recently written at considerable length about these vagabonds. In the last few years the philosophy of Crates and Zeno has been taken over by idlers who, though they have no interest in philosophy, deliberately imitate the Cynics in such externals as not cutting their hair or beards, carrying sticks and wallets, and begging. But where the original Cynics despised wealth, sought virtue, questioned all things in order to find what was true, these imitators mock all things, including the true, using the mask of philosophy to disguise licence and irresponsibility. Nowadays, any young man who does not choose to study or to work grows a beard, insults the gods, and calls himself Cynic. No wonder philosophy has earned the contempt of so many in this unhappy age.

Without ceremony, the New Cynic pointed at the wall. “That is Aeschylus,” he said. I looked politely at the painting of a bearded soldier, no different from the others except for the famous name written above his head. The playwright is shown engaged in combat with a Persian. But though he is fighting for his life, his sombre face is turned towards us, as though to say: I know that I am immortal!

“The painter was self-conscious,” I said neutrally, fully expecting to be asked for money and ready not to give it.

The Cynic grinned at me. Apparently he chose to regard neutrality as friendship. He tapped the painting. A flake of paint zigzagged to the ground. “One day the whole thing will disappear and then who will know what Marathon was like, when this picture’s gone?” As he spoke, something stirred in my memory. I recognized the voice. Yet the face was completely strange to me. Confident now that we were friends, he turned from the painting to me. Had I just arrived in Athens? Yes. Was I a student? Yes. Was I a Cynic? No. Well, there was no cause to be so emphatic (smiling). He himself dressed as a Cynic only because he was poor. By the time this startling news had been revealed to me, we had climbed the steps to the temple of Hephaestos. Here the view of the agora is wide and elegant. In the clear noon light one could see beyond the city to the dark small windows of those houses which cluster at the foot of Hymettos.

“Beautiful,” said my companion, making even that simple word sound ambiguous. “Though beauty…”

“Is absolute,” I said firmly. Then to forestall Cynic chatter, I turned abruptly into the desolate garden of the temple. The place was overrun with weeds, while the temple itself was shabby and sad. But at least the Galileans have not turned it into a charnel house. Far better that a temple fall in ruins than be so desecrated. Better of course that it be restored.

My companion asked if I was hungry. I said no, which he took as yes (he tended not to listen to answers). He suggested we visit a tavern in the quarter just back of the temple. It was, he assured me, a place much frequented by students of the “better” sort. He was sure that I would enjoy it. Amused by his effrontery (and still intrigued by that voice which haunted me), I accompanied him through the narrow hot streets of the near by quarter of the smiths, whose shops glowed blue as they hammered out metal in a blaring racket: metal struck metal in a swarm of sparks, like comets’ tails.

The tavern was a low building with a sagging roof from which too many tiles had been removed by time and weather. I bent low to enter the main door. I was also forced to stoop inside, for the ceiling was too low for me and the beams were haphazard, even dangerous in the dim light. My companion had no difficulty standing straight. I winced at the heavy odour of rancid oil burning in pots on the stove.

Two trestle tables with benches filled the room. A dozen youths sat together close to the back door, which opened on to a dismal courtyard containing a dead olive tree which looked as though it had been sketched in silver on the whitewashed wall behind it.

My companion knew most of the other students. All were New Cynics, bearded, loud, disdainful, unread. They greeted us with cheerful obscenities. I felt uncomfortable but was determined to go through with my adventure. After all, this was what I had dreamed of. To be just one among many, even among New Cynics. The moment was unique, or so I thought. When asked who I was, they were told “Not a Cynic.” They laughed good-humouredly. But then when they heard I was new to Athens, each made an effort to get me to attend lectures with his teacher. My companion rescued me. “He is already taken. He studies with Prohaeresius.” I was surprised, for I had said nothing to my guide about Prohaeresius, and yet Prohaeresius was indeed the teacher of my choice. How did he know?

“I know all about you,” he said mysteriously. “I read minds, tell fortunes.” He was interrupted by one of the youths, who suggested that I shave my beard since otherwise I might be mistaken for a New Cynic and give them a bad name by my good behaviour. This was considered witty in that room. Others debated whether or not I should be carried off to the baths to be scrubbed, the traditional hazing for new students, and one which I had every intention of avoiding. If necessary, I would invoke lèse majesté!

But my guardian shoved the students away and sat me down at the opposite table close to the courtyard door, for which I was grateful. I am not particularly sensitive to odours, but on a blazing hot day the odour of unwashed students combined with thick smoke from old burning oil was almost too much for me. The tavern-keeper, making sure I had money (apparently my companion was deep in his debt), brought us cheese, bitter olives, old bread, sour wine. To my surprise, I was hungry. I ate quickly, without tasting. Suddenly I paused, aware that I was being stared at. I looked across the table at my companion. Yes?

“You have forgotten me, haven’t you, Julian?”

Then I identified the familiar voice. I recognized Gregory of Nazianzus. We had been together at Pergamon. I burst out laughing and shook his hand. “How did such a dedicated Christian become a New Cynic?”

“Poverty, plain poverty.” Gregory indicated the torn and dirty cloak, the unkempt beard. “And protection.” He lowered his voice, indicating the students at the other table. “Christians are outnumbered in Athens. It’s a detestable city. There is no faith, only argument and atheism.”

“Then why are you here?”

He sighed. “The best teachers are here, the best instructors in rhetoric. Also, it is good to know the enemy, to be able to fight him with his own weapons.”

I nodded and pretended agreement. I was not very brave in those days. But even though I could never be candid with Gregory, he was an amusing companion. He was as devoted to the Galilian nonsense as I was to the truth. I attributed this to his unfortunate childhood. His family are Cappadocian. They live in a small town some fifty miles south-west of Caesarea, the provincial capital. His mother was a most strong-willed woman named… I cannot recall her name but I did meet her once a few years ago, and a most formidable creature she was. Passionate and proud and perfectly intolerant of everything not Galilean.

Gregory’s father was part Jew and part Greek. As a result of his wife’s relentless admonitions, he succumbed finally to the Galilean religion. According to Gregory, when his father was splashed with water by the bishop of Nazianzus, a great nimbus shone all round the convert. The bishop was so moved that he declared, “Here is my successor!” A most generous-minded man, that bishop! Most of us prefer not to name our successor. In due course, Gregory’s father became bishop of Nazianzus. So his predecessor had the gift of prophecy, if nothing else.

All in a rush Gregory was telling me of himself. “… a terrible trip, by sea. Just before we got to Aegina, the storm struck us. I was sure the ship would sink. I was terrified. I’d never been (I still am not) baptized. So if I died like that at sea… Well, you must know yourself what I went through.” He looked at me sharply. “Are you baptized?”

I said that I had been baptized as a child. I looked as reverent as possible when I said this.

“I prayed and prayed. Finally I fell asleep, exhausted. We all did. I dreamed that something loathsome, some sort of Fury, had come to take me to hell. Meanwhile, one of the cabin boys, a boy from Nazianzus, was dreaming that he saw—now this is really a miracle—Mother walking upon the water.”

“His mother or your mother or the mother of Jesus?” I am afraid that I asked this out of mischief. I couldn’t help myself.

But Gregory took the question straight. “My mother,” he said. “The boy knew her, and there she was walking across that raging sea. Then she took the ship by its prow and drew it after her to a safe harbour. Which is exactly what happened. That very night the storm stopped. A Phoenician ship found us and towed us into the harbour of Rhodes.” He sat back in triumph. “What do you think of that?”

“Your mother is a remarkable woman,” I said accurately. Gregory agreed and talked at enthusiastic length about that stern virago. Then he told me of his adventures in Athens, of his poverty (this was a hint which I took: I gave him a good deal of money during the course of my stay), of our friend Basil who was also in Athens and was, I suspect, the reason for Gregory’s attendance at the University. Wherever Basil went, Gregory followed. At Athens they were nicknamed “the Twins”.

“I am expecting Basil now. We’re both due at Prohaeresius’s house this afternoon. We’ll take you. You know we live together here. We study together. We argue almost as a team against the local Sophists. And we usually win.”

This was true. Both he and Basil were—are—eloquent. I deplore of course the uses to which their eloquence is put. Today they are most active as Galilean apologists, and I often wonder what they think of their old companion who governs the state. Nothing good, I fear. When I became emperor I asked them both to visit me at Constantinople. Gregory agreed to come, but never did. Basil refused. Of the two, I prefer Basil. He is plain, like me. He is misguided in his beliefs but honest. I suspect Gregory of self-seeking.

Check, Stefan – your move

A JFG review of contradictory statements made
by Stefan Molyneux about his Jewish heritage:

David Duke’s impassioned speech yesterday

In my yesterday’s post I embedded this YouTube clip featuring notable pro-whites discussing the Midterms. I watched most of it and it was fun, especially when James Edwards proposed that Richard Spencer ran for president with him, and Spencer agreed.

Those who have not heard about the Jewish Question should listen to David Duke’s impassioned speech during the show (it is a 6-hour show so you can skip the rest).

Unlike the others, Duke is right that we must constantly name the enemy (toxic Jewish influence in the West). He said ‘This is the fundamental issue why we are in this position’. He also said ‘I am Christian’. But as a Christian, he completely omits a fact that non-Christians like Tom Sunic can see: that the sort of Puritanical Christianity that conquered the northeastern part of the American continent, together with their Mammon worship, was sympathetic to Jewish takeover.

Duke also said, ‘Only when (((they))) are defeated are we able to make the gains that we have to save our people’. But perhaps having in mind the recent Pittsburgh massacre he added that this sort of action ‘is evil or wrong’. As a good Christian, he also said on this topic, ‘…hurt all Jews—I don’t believe we have to hurt anybody’. Later he said, ‘All [races and cultures] have the rights to create their own society’ and by the end of the show Duke recommended pro-whites to do something inside the Republican Party.

Although I liked Duke’s interventions the most compared with the other voices on yesterday’s show, the difference between he and Hitler cannot be more conspicuous. I recommend those who want to see how should a real white advocate think to become familiar with Hitler’s table talk on Christianity.

Published in: on November 7, 2018 at 11:11 am  Comments (5)  

Jean-François Gariépy destroys Stefan Molyneux

Although I find offensive the American flag that shows up sometimes in the studio’s background and disagree with Gariépy that Molyneux is honest, with a diametrically opposed character to mine (I’m a creature of boiling hate) Gariépy pulverised Molyneux in his most recent show. Gariépy has demonstrated that Molyneux’s most recent video on the Jewish question, that I briefly discussed yesterday, is full of strawmen.

After 1:10 to 1:18 it is very interesting to learn how Gariépy became interested in the JQ. Those who don’t have the time to see the whole show must at least watch those few minutes.

Unfortunately, at 1:24 atheist Gariépy reveals himself as a secular neo-Christian. If he already woke up in the JQ, he still has to go a long way to wake up in the CQ. (Later he says that he has people to ban hate speech in the comments section.)

After 2:31, almost at the end of the show, Gariépy believes Molyneux that the latter has no Jewish blood: a claim Molyneux made precisely in the video Gariépy is taking issue with. Well, I’m not so sure…

Extremely dishonest Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux has reacted on the massacre of Jews by Robert Bowers.

By the sixth minute, he mentioned Hitler shaking his head in disapproval. From the 7:20 minute on, he gave many statistics about the Jewish community in the diaspora and in Israel (the statistics are irrelevant to those who understand the Jewish problem). From minute 20 he began to talk about anti-Semitism and confessed ‘I had a Jewish step-grandmother’.

At no time did he address the Jewish problem, which on this site I have defined in a nutshell (Jews are never over-represented in organisations or movements that represent the interests of the white majority, only in those that weaken that majority).

Molyneux’s extreme dishonesty is obvious. He has uploaded thousands of videos and invited many intellectuals… but cleverly eludes every intellectual conscious of the Jewish problem. Not only does he fail to invite a Jew-wise blogger. He does not even debate with the most elemental writing of, say, Kevin MacDonald. Molyneux could, without inviting the professor, answer what MacDonald says only in the preface of his best-known book: an essay that summarizes his life’s work. But the dishonest Molyneux fails to do it…

Nor does he mention, even in passing, the webzine that best explains the Jewish problem, The Occidental Observer. At minute 28:47 Molyneux exclaimed: ‘Blaming Jews I do not see it! In fact I see the opposite’ in the sense that he sees the Jews as a positive influence for the West. He says that the Dark Ages had more to do with Islam than with Judaism, which makes him an ignorant (cf. the masthead of this site, ‘Rome vs. Judea; Judea vs. Rome’).

From minute 34 Molyneux launched such a passionate speech against gentile hatred of Jews that it makes me think he has Jewish blood; he almost cries. He ends by saying ‘We must reason with each other. Reason. Evidence’—but he violates exactly these words because of what I’ve said above!

Molyneux ends his clip with teary eyes. He reminded me that at some time in his life he represented works by Shakespeare. His YouTube show is more theatre than substantial ‘philosophy’.

He’s obviously trying to do a psyop trick on us.

Pittsburgh shooting

No comments from me here (remember that last month this site was suspended for more than a day). But you are welcome to comment below or see the updates at The Daily Stormer.

Postscript of 5:50 pm:

One thing is certain, those who make peaceful revolution impossible are making violent revolution inevitable. As an
anti-libertarian I may disagree with YouTube vlogger Styxhexenhammer666, but today he hits the nail.

Joyce on Jewish psyops

Fans of this blog may be familiar with my favourite article that explains the Jewish problem, one published in 1999 by the late William Pierce, ‘Seeing the Forest’. But to refute intellectuals like Nathan Cofnas and others, who claim that the Jewish problem is a hallucination of white supremacists, it is necessary to continue to write erudite articles that ratify what Pierce said almost twenty years ago.

Andrew Joyce is a heavyweight on the Jewish question. He recently wrote ‘Modify the Standards of the In-group: On Jews and Mass Communications’: an article published in two parts (here and here) on The Occidental Observer. It is an impressive piece of work that every sceptic of the Jewish problem should read. One of the commenters said: ‘This is the most important article by Dr. Joyce that I have read. I had no clue about this vital information’.

There is no excuse for continuing to be blind about the Jewish problem. Once one understands the Psy-ops that Jews have been doing to whites for millennia, it is easier to appreciate the starting point of this blog: the Psy-op that represented Christianity in the fall of the Greco-Roman world.

Christianity’s Criminal History, 95

Below, an abridged translation from the third volume of
Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums.

 
Most of the written statements about the martyrs are false, but all of them were considered as totally valid historical documents (2 of 7)

The tolerance of the Romans in religious matters was generally great. They had it before the Jews, guaranteeing their freedom of worship, and even after the wars fought against the Jews, they were not forced to worship the gods of the state and released from the obligatory offerings to the emperors.

Until the beginning of the 3rd century, the hatred against Christians—who considered themselves exclusive; who, with all humility (!) thought of themselves as special, like the ‘God of Israel’, ‘chosen people’, ‘holy people’ who felt themselves as the ‘golden part’—came mostly from the common peoples. For a long time the emperors imagined themselves too strong before this dark sect to intervene seriously. ‘They avoided whenever possible’ the trials against Christians (Eduard Schwartz).

For two hundred years they were not subjected to any ‘persecution’. Emperor Commodus had a Christian favourite. In Nicomedia, the main Christian church was in front of Diocletian’s residence. Also his preceptor of rhetoric, the Father of the Church Lactantius, remained safe in the vicinity of the sovereign during the toughest persecutions against the Christians. Lactantius never appeared before the courts or went to jail.

Almost everyone knew Christians, but they did not like to get their hands dirty by persecuting them. When it was necessary because the adepts of the Greco-Roman culture were furious, the officials did everything possible to release the imprisoned. The Christians only had to renounce their faith—and they did it massively, it was the general rule—and nobody bothered them again.

During the most intense persecution, that of Diocletian, the state only demanded the fulfilment of the offering of sacrifices that the law imposed on all citizens. Non-compliance was punished, but in no case the practice of the Christian religion. Even during the persecution of Diocletian, the churches were able to dispose of their property.

Even with Emperor Decius, in the year 250, we cannot speak of a general and planned persecution of Christians. At that time the first Roman bishop is killed in a persecution. Fabian died in prison; there was no death sentence on him. But up to that date, the ancient Church already considered as ‘martyrs’ eleven of the seventeen Roman bishops, although none of them had been martyrs! For two hundred years Christianity had lived side by side with the emperors. And in spite of that, on the Catholic side they still lie—with ecclesiastical imprimatur (and dedication: ‘To the beloved mother of God’)—in the mid-20th century: ‘Most of the popes of that time died as martyrs’ (Rüger).

(Cornelius by Master of Meßkirch.) The ‘pope’ Cornelius, who died peacefully in 253 in Civitavecchia, appears as beheaded in the acts of the martyrs. Also falsified are those that make the Roman bishop Stephen I (254-257) victim of the persecutions of Valerian. Pope St. Eutychian (275-283) even buried ‘with his own hands’ 342 martyrs, before following them himself.

The Church tried to cover up the apostasy of several popes at the beginning of the 4th century by falsifying the documents. The Liber Pontificalis, the official list of the papacy, points out that the Roman bishop Marcellinus (296-304), who had made sacrifices to the gods and had delivered the ‘sacred’ books, soon repented and died martyred: a complete forgery.

In the Roman martyrology, one pope after another gain the crown of martyrdom—almost everything is pure deception. (Interestingly, until the end of the 3rd century the cult of the martyrs had not begun in Rome.)

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

Blip on the radar

Finally, one white nationalist site, the webzine Counter Currents, has published a book review of the subject we consider most important, the destruction of the Greco-Roman world by early Christians.

I refer to A. Graham’s review of the 2018 American edition of Catherine Nixey’s The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt).

However, the commentariat of Counter Currents seems ignorant of Evropa Soberana’s eureka essay that I have been advertising in the masthead of this site (see especially these paragraphs). Perhaps a visitor of The West’s Darkest Hour may wish to link Soberana’s essay, that I translated from Spanish to English, in that thread of Counter Currents (for example: here)?

This is probably the most important topic of the whole white nationalist blogosphere. If Aryans remain ignorant of the very roots of Judaic infection they won’t be able to find a cure, as an incomplete diagnosis translates into an incomplete or imperfect medicine.