The land of the winning Aryan

‘Only Orga [humans] believe what cannot be seen or measured…’

—Gigolo Robot to David in the film A.I.

Years ago, when I blogged here without counter-signalling what white nationalists said in other forums, I sometimes had as many as two thousand daily visitors. Together with the donations, these statistics collapsed when I started criticising them. I am not going to blog as I did before as, after crossing the psychological Rubicon, there is no going back.

In ‘How Awake Are You?’ Mauricio is right that the leap from a naïve white nationalism to a mature one is as dizzying as crossing a suspension bridge. The transit is, in fact, much more spatially extensive than what it may seem at first glance with mere blog texts.

For example, secular pro-whites maintain atavisms of the previous paradigm, as the belief in the hereafter.

If one revises the texts in The Fair Race about the healthiest moments of the Aryan—Sparta (as unlike the Athenians the Spartans did not have sex with the native Mediterraneans), the Early Rome, the Germans who conquered the decadent Rome, the Vikings and the men of the Third Reich—we won’t see an obsession with the hereafter. Decadent whites became obsessed with death only in the mongrelized Imperial Rome, the dark Middle Ages and more recently with the flowering of the New Age. Even in the most lucid moments of Christendom, let’s say Elizabethan England that flourished thanks to the expulsion of the Jews, we don’t see this obsession with the hereafter. Shakespeare for example seems far more akin to secular Montaigne than the ‘spiritual’ madness of the New Age. (By the way, there isn’t anything genuinely ‘spiritual’ in the New Agers’ beliefs and I hate that they still use that term referring to crazy metaphysical systems.)

The white nationalists who argue that, since prehistory, man believed in life after death are ignorant in one respect. Those same men practiced, at the same time, horrific infanticide rituals—by billions!

I confess that most of my life I believed in life after life. These beliefs began to diminish more or less at the stage when I realised that my belief in psychokinesis was unfounded. But the spiritual odyssey of one does not say anything to the other, unless they intend to cross the psychological Rubicon.

Perhaps the best way to overcome this afterlife obsession is to study the Jews, starting with Kevin MacDonald’s first book: my favourite of his trilogy. In that book it is striking that, unlike Christians, Jews base their Judaism not on the hereafter but on the here and now and in a tribal way: not in an individualistic manner like the Christian (‘Save your soul!’, ‘Get to heaven!’). If we take into account that the healthiest moments of Greece and Rome were also focused on the here and now, it is obvious what we have to do.

But I don’t get my hopes up. I know that very few white nationalists will cross the suspension bridge, ‘the leap from 5 to 6’ in Mauricio’s list. They are much closer to Normieland than to the other side: the land of the winning Aryan. That shows not only in that secular nationalists share Christian ethics but other Christian cultural waste, such as the unhealthy obsession with an imaginary life after death.

Unobsessed with the afterlife, the Jew will continue to beat the Aryan unless the latter repudiates the last vestige of the Christian infection (see the video I embedded in my first comment in the comments section).

MacDonald the lapsed Catholic?

(Robert Morgan’s most recent comments)

 
Johnny Rottenborough: “[MacDonald] considers Christianity’s role as a major source of Jewish hatred [for whites].”

Sadly, erroneous and ridiculous as it is, what you say is true. MacDonald the lapsed (?) Catholic does consider Christianity a source of white racial solidarity. Christianity, a doctrine created and spread among whites by Jews, which has convinced whites that one Jew in particular is God and that Jews are a special race “chosen” by God, and further teaches that all men are equally creations of God and equal before him; Christianity, whose doctrines and adherents vandalized and collapsed white civilization once before already—this is what MacDonald thinks defended whites, and can continue to defend them!

One would think that his scientific pretensions would require him to explain how this symbiosis came about, and when and how it ended, if it ended. Weren’t Jews in competition with whites then the same as they are today? Doesn’t early Christianity fit the prototype of what, in The Culture of Critique he identifies as a Jewish movements designed to subvert whites? It has all the features: a charismatic, authoritarian Jewish leader, some white figureheads, a “moral, intellectual, and social vision”, etc. How did this wonderful gift received from Jews end up collapsing white civilization in the ancient world, and should it really surprise anyone that its doctrinal features may collapse white civilization again? Not a word from MacDonald on any of this. And his followers are too stupid to notice the omission!

Johnny Rottenborough: “Whites offer Jews a home …”

Why do they do that? And doesn’t choosing to do that make whites responsible for the consequences? After all, if I invite a known arsonist to stay in my house, and he burns it down, it’s at least as much my fault as his.

At this point in the exchange, I suspect there is likely to be some babble about “pathological altruism”, “white guilt”, etc. But really, those aren’t very good excuses, both sickeningly self-laudatory and ad hoc, seemingly tailor-made to exonerate whites and paint them as helpless victims. If they do describe real phenomena though, and are not just figments of MacDonald’s imagination, it should be noted they are things that only developed post-Christianity. MacDonald however not only passes over in silence this connection to the Christian religion, but has been unable to point to even a single instance of white guilt or pathological altruism in white civilization before Christianity. So much for them being part of whites’ “evolutionary psychology!”

Anon: “He doesn’t talk about technology beyond dancing around it since like other ‘White Nationalist’ spokesman he has a narrative of ‘Whites’ as both masters of the world and also hapless victims of the Jews. He won’t talk about the disaster technology and other feats Whitey have wrought since he doesn’t want to consider that just maybe Whitey’s state is at least a bit self-inflicted.”

Yes, you’ve put it succinctly. As I see it, there are two fundamental problems with MacDonald’s attempts to apply evolutionary theory in the context of whites’ interactions with Jews.

  1. By failing to consider unintended consequences of technological development as a cause of white cultural and racial decline, and focusing exclusively on Jews and their alleged “group evolutionary strategy” to manipulate whites, MacDonald presents a worldview that leaves whites with no responsibility for their own actions; they become just “hapless victims” of Jewish machinations. On the other hand, when it comes to things of which he approves, such as whites building world empires or technological “progress” generally, then in his view whites suddenly become responsible for their own actions again. This applies to technological development of all kinds, so long as we are talking only about its “good” effects.
  1. The second problem is allied to the first. MacDonald simply doesn’t go back far enough in history and carry his theory to its logical conclusion. For example, his big book The Culture of Critique focuses only on the twentieth century. But if whites and Jews are in Darwinian competition with each other, then haven’t they always been so? And if so, what does that say about Christianity, whites’ adoption of it, and the liberal ideologies that later arose from it? Were whites’ responsible for their actions then, or were they just as much helpless victims of Jewish manipulation then as he claims they are now? Like the role unanticipated side effects of technological development have played in the white decline, MacDonald doesn’t really want to talk about Christianity’s role either. Nietzsche, Revilo Oliver, and others have put forward the theory that Christianity, a cult which arose from Hellenized Judaism, was developed with the specific intent to undermine white civilization. MacDonald has never addressed this issue as far as I know, and it’s fairly easy to see why. Adopting the pose of an impartial scientist, he claims that Christianity can’t be to blame for the white decline, since it was the religion of whites at what he sees as their peak. If he posits that Jews are responsible for “manipulating” whites into becoming Christian, his theory breaks down into incoherence. Having agreed that in the singular case of Christianity Jews and whites formed a symbiosis that was, in his view, to the great benefit of whites, would commit him to having to explain how that symbiosis broke down, or indeed, if it ever has broken down, and doesn’t still continue; and that, apparently, is something he has no wish to try to do.

Editor’s note: I omitted this comment. My only difference with Morgan is that, as I see it, Asians imitate westerners in everything decadent (technology, capitalism, etc.) but not in suicidal mass immigration. Obviously, the Asians are not infected with Christian and neo-Christian (i.e. secular) altruism, nor they have a Jewish problem. That’s why I focus more on axiology than on technology.

Published in: on June 18, 2019 at 10:24 am  Comments (23)  

Is Kevin MacDonald a charlatan?

by Robert Morgan

Kevin MacDonald is more or less a charlatan who, by exclusively focusing on Jews, is unable to explain a great deal of self-destructive white racial behavior. For example, in his magnum opus The Culture of Critique, he confines his analysis to the twentieth century without considering what went before, so naturally a distorted picture results. He neglects to even note in passing that in the nineteenth century, an America nearly 100% white and Christian, in the grip of a religious mania, tore itself in two in order to free their negro slaves and grant them full citizenship and the vote.

All the rest of the racial disaster that has unfolded since then has only been a matter of living up to commitments written in the ocean of white blood shed in that conflict.

It would seem that almost the only way to explain this behavior in the absence of a “hostile elite” (trade mark) is to say that Christianity itself from the beginning has been a Jewish plot to undermine the white race; and indeed, some (Nietzsche, Revilo Oliver, and others) have taken this tack. For MacDonald, this isn’t a satisfactory alternative though, since that would entail giving credit to Jews for white civilizational accomplishments (or at least, what MacDonald considers accomplishments) during the period of Christendom’s expansion. It would amount to admitting that there’s been a symbiosis between whites and Jews that has been at times beneficial to whites.

Because he tries to view everything through this distorting lens of cultural conflict between Jews and whites, and to scrupulously avoid indicting Christianity, he has to come up with absurdities like “pathological altruism”, and white “guilt”, which supposedly the Jews are able to manipulate and direct outside of white control. He sees these psychological mechanisms as rooted in genetic difference between the races, yet is unable to explain why pre-Christian or non-Christian societies never suffered from such problems. Ancient Rome even had plenty of powerful Jews and didn’t; nor, at least until after the Christian takeover, did it have a “hostile elite”.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note:

I placed a quotation mark after the title only because I believe that MacDonald is still useful when trying to debunk the lunatic fringe in white nationalism. (See, for example, what I responded here to a regular visitor who literally considers Jews as non-human, demonic entities.)

Published in: on June 6, 2019 at 2:35 pm  Comments (6)  

Second thoughts on SAID

In 2012 I wrote an article saying that the second book of Kevin MacDonald, Separation and its Discontents (SAID), was my favourite of his trilogy. I am afraid to say that, since then, I have changed my mind.

Definitely, the texts of the Spanish blogger Evropa Soberana changed my vision of the world. For example, in my 2012 review of SAID I quoted MacDonald: ‘Western societies, unlike prototypical Jewish cultures, do not have a primitive concern with racial purity’ (SAID, page 196).

As we can see in an essay by Soberana that I recently translated about Nordicism, racial pride dates from the Greeks. In The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour I translated other Soberana essays where it is noted that the Spartans, and Romans of the Old Republic, were as zealous of their race as the Jews: a story that MacDonald and others who publish in his webzine are unaware. We should also investigate more what William Pierce and Arthur Kemp wrote about the incredible zeal with which the Iberian Visigoths defended the purity of their blood (until the Christians convinced them to mix their blood with Mediterraneans in the 7th century).

Another pillar of MacDonald’s study that has now collapsed in my mind is his thesis expressed in a few words: ‘I propose that the Christian church in late antiquity was in its very essence the embodiment of a powerful anti-Semitic movement…’ (page 112). Here too the reading of Soberana’s essay on how the Judeo-Christians subverted Rome, especially in the 4th and 5th centuries—which I adapted as the masthead of this site—provides a perspective virtually opposite to what MacDonald says in this paragraph.

Although he is not a Christian, it is obvious that Professor MacDonald writes for a conservative audience with many Christians. The way Soberana and I see the world, on the other hand, is more in line with German National Socialism.

The link in my post on Wednesday about a discussion with Matt Heimbach is crucial to see why I believe that trying to mix American Christianity with the fourteen words produces a grotesque chimera. So grotesque, in fact, that I must link once again that discussion of the Orthodox Christian Heimbach with a commenter who believes in the religious movement known as Christian Identity (here).

For those who ignore what the acronyms of the subtitle of this site mean (‘WN is a farce, NS is the real thing’), let me say that I refer to Christian White Nationalism and non-Christian National Socialism.

MacDonald’s failure

by Robert Morgan

“The Catholic Church and other Christians were bamboozled into accepting the integration of the races…”

This idea that whites don’t know what they’re doing is malicious. Once you assume that whites have no responsibility for their own actions, the battle is lost.

Cultural pressure is intimidating, but no external force compels whites to act as they do, or have the culture that they do. It wasn’t Jews who launched and fought the American Civil War, or who freed the negro slaves and made them citizens, the legal equals of whites. Nor was Jewish control of mass media necessary to achieve that result. America was virtually 100% white and Christian at the time.

They weren’t bamboozled into anything. Denial of the importance of race flows very naturally from the basic tenets of Christianity.

“Christianity was cucked in recent times, and prior to the cucking it was the single and only cohesive group strategy that we had, as Kevin Macdonald has observed in his brilliant work.”

It can be argued that whites (i.e. Europeans) cucked when they accepted Christianity from Jews (i.e. non-whites), as Kevin MacDonald has failed to observe in his rather stupid books. MacDonald tries to pass his theories off as science, yet if Jews and whites are competitors locked in Darwinian struggle as he claims, haven’t they always been so? And if so, what does it say about Christianity? Letting the enemy draw up your game plan isn’t a wise decision.

Nietzsche and others drew the obvious conclusion that Christianity itself was the original subversion. MacDonald’s failure to address this issue of Christianity-as-subversion is a fatal flaw in his so-called scholarship.

Published in: on April 13, 2019 at 12:02 am  Comments (10)  

Robert Morgan’s comment

Jerry Attrick: To anyone curious—you cannot go wrong with The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald if you want to know more.

Robert Morgan: Actually, you can. By focusing exclusively on Jews, MacDonald suggests that other causes of cultural developments are unimportant.

Yet American whites advanced the negro to citizenship and legal equality with themselves even before mass Jewish immigration began, and when the country was virtually 100% white and Christian.

Given such a history, subsequent developments in the 20th century would likely have followed sooner or later even without Jewish agitation.

Published in: on April 7, 2019 at 12:11 pm  Comments (1)  

Sunic responds to MacDonald

I am relocating my previous post today, ‘On pathological altruism’, with a new title because it seems that Tom Sunic read my mind in his reply to Kevin MacDonald:

Kevin: I am looking forward to the book. This is a subject of utmost importance for our survival. Now, I do hope you also delve in your manuscript into the origins of the Levantine- Christian inspired Original Sin that led to this secular self-flagellating self-hatred among Whites now. It needs to be covered.

The following is what I had posted ten hours ago:

I still receive email notifications of the latest articles of The Occidental Observer. Yesterday Kevin MacDonald published ‘The Role of Empathy in Moral Communities: Altruism—and Pathological Altruism’. MacDonald’s abstract says: ‘This is an excerpt from a book to be titled Western Individualism and the Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future. It is completed apart from proof-reading and deciding how to publish it now that Amazon has become part of the thought police’.

I don’t claim having read the manuscript of the book, but at least in yesterday’s excerpts the retired professor does not mention the role of Christian ethics in the aetiology of Western pathological altruism.

I wish that the forthcoming book mentions Christian ethics, as the subject has been missing in MacDonald’s previous work. For a critique of such omission see what Ferdinand Bardamu says (here) or what a commenter said on the Observer four years ago (here).

Published in: on March 19, 2019 at 6:38 pm  Comments (2)  

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.

Published in: on October 29, 2018 at 12:18 am  Comments (25)  

The Cofnas debate

See Counter-Currents’ fair summary of the Nathan Cofnas debate with Kevin MacDonald. Why has this been such a boring debate to follow?

Very simple: The Jewish problem (JP) is best addressed starting with a recount of Greco-Roman history, as Evropa Soberana does in what I have been calling the masthead that guides The West’s Darkest Hour in the open sea. MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique lacks such a broad scope. It navigates in a closed channel, as his whole trilogy ignores the Christian problem (CP) that in essence is an offshoot of the JP.

Researching the JP historically, since the beginning as I do also in my comments of the Kriminalgeschichte series, and how it metamorphosed into the CP, is far more entertaining: a sort of unified field theory that only the priests of the 14 words are starting to glimpse.

To provide a single example. Compared to the kikes that MacDonald analyses in The Culture of Critique, a single Christian such as Augustine has been more influential in the deconstruction of the West. No doubt I’ll continue to translate Deschner’s chapter about this Father of the Church.

Published in: on May 16, 2018 at 8:21 am  Comments Off on The Cofnas debate  

Time to troll the Observer

Apparently, someone has been trying to discuss with MacDonald by email about this devastating critique of his naïve views on Christianity, to no avail. Instead, the retired professor has published an article by a Christian pundit that advances exactly the opposite point of view of this site.

In the first instalment of that piece, the author wrote: ‘Men of the Alt Right can and should recast themselves in the role of Christian cultural (maybe even holy) warriors fighting to regenerate once-Christian nations’. In the last sentence of the second instalment, he concluded: ‘The mission of the Alt Right, should it choose to accept it, is to spark the resurrection of the Church from the dead, not in a Rapture event next year, or in the far-distant future, but rather in the here and now’.

When whites become extinct by the middle of the 22nd century, bewildered Chinese intellectuals will be trying to figure out why these valiant defenders of the white race remained addicted to their Jewish opium. And believe me, this Judeo-Christian cult (‘ethnocentrism for me but universalism for thee’) is opium for the Aryan mind.

Visitors from The Occidental Observer who doubt the accuracy of this diagnosis should read (1) Evropa Soberana’s Rome vs. Judea, (2) Jack Frost’s PDF, (3) the recently published Why Europeans Must Reject Christianity by Ferdinand Bardamu, and tomorrow I shall resume the translations from the Kriminal-geschichte series.

Keep tuned!