Spanish-speaking ‘conservatism’

Compared to the neighbouring country to the north, I consider Latin America the continent of the blue pill. There is nothing in MSM that resembles, say, Tucker Carlson. One has to search social media to find the voice of an Argentine, Agustín Laje, and his YouTube channel: a kind of Latin American Tucker who in the Spanish-speaking MSM would be inconceivable.

Here we see him with his colleague Nicolás Marquez and their book about the new left. Laje and Márquez debunk gender ideology and in their activism they travel to Spanish-speaking countries. Gender ideology is the equivalent, in this part of the continent, to anti-racism north of the Rio Grande. (Since whites are already an extreme minority on this side of the river, the next levelling battle is to denigrate the male versus the female.)

Vox is a Spanish political party founded in late 2013. Its president is Santiago Abascal. Vox is the party of the right in Spain: a more conservative right than the caricature that the Republican Party has become in the US today.

But Vox’s folk, Laje and the new Spanish-speaking right are limited to criticising the third feminist wave. Although the Spanish and Latin American media call them ‘ultra-rightists’ and fachas (fascists), they are actually progressive. Their criticism of feminism is not radical at all. Like Andrew Anglin, we not only reject the third wave that Vox rejects, but the first and second feminist waves, as can be seen in the sidebar book on Beth’s pretty boobs.

The pendulum has swung so much to the left that liberals such as Argentina’s Laje and Márquez, and those of Spain’s Vox party, are seen as conservative. They are not. See what I recently said about Vox in La Hora Más Oscura. In the case of Laje, in minute 21 of this interview with a woman, the Argentine says that the male rapist should face life imprisonment. Note that Laje is hated by the mass of feminists because they mistakenly see him as macho. If Laje and those of Vox weren’t, to some extent, conquered by the anti-male hysteria of our days, they would say that the woman who falsely accused a man of rape would also be sentenced to life imprisonment.

But they don’t say that: our new Orwellian laws only punish males.

The so-called conservatives are liberals, and this applies not only to Vox and Laje but to Tucker and Sean Hannity (the latter interviewed a transexual man not long ago). There are no exponents of true conservatism in the media, neither in the English-speaking world nor in the Spanish-speaking world. And by the way, we are not conservatives but racists.

Published in: on October 3, 2021 at 11:49 am  Comments (5)  

Spengler was right

On Monday I quoted Oswald Spengler: ‘Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism’, words that I have seen quoted in various forums. Racialist Christians reject that quote. But these days I have been thinking about a series of magazines that my father had bound. In times when Francisco Franco still lived in Spain, the series of magazines Jesucristo (Jesus Christ) was published in Madrid.

In one of the 1974 Jesucristo magazines, in the image on the back cover (left) we see a non-Aryan but a Semitic Jesus, and inside we can read a brief interview with Alfonso Paso, a Spanish playwright. In this magazine for Spanish-speaking Catholics from Franco’s time, the interview is titled ‘He [Jesus] preached a proletarian revolution in the world’.

As we have already observed on this site, Jesus did not exist. What did exist was a literary fiction author, the evangelist Mark, who stole passages from the history of the Roman God, Romulus, to sell us to the god of the Jews.

Here’s the interview that reminded me of Oswald Spengler:

What has been the contribution of Jesus to the history of humanity?

Alfonso Paso: As a historical figure, it should be noted that Jesus Christ preached a proletarian revolution amid a world ruled by violence and, using a word that shouldn’t make us blush, by capitalism. The great success of Jesus Christ the man is to have linked the great dissatisfied and deficient mass to a congruent metaphysics. Convinced of the unhappiness of others, Jesus Christ warns them that there is another world, another dimension in which goodness has its prize. The metaphysics of Jesus Christ is not original, it is steeped in orientalism. What is original is his social revolution.
What future do you foresee for faith in Jesus Christ?

Alfonso Paso: From the point of view of historical evolution, and thinking, like Toynbee, that politics is a form of ‘religion’, many things can happen. Today faith in Jesus Christ has grown to the point that many young people have made Him a kind of Che Guevara or Lenin, without knowing exactly what they were doing. It seems to them, simply, that Jesus Christ brings the message of the protest, and it is evident that in something these young people are not wrong.

We have been holding onto faith in Jesus Christ for two thousand years. If human evolution confirms the prognoses that we professionals in History are studying, it is very true that the number of believers in Him will decrease. Personally I am sorry, but the message of the Aquarian Age is, finally, a coherent message in which a lot of things are going to become clear. It happens, however, that the keys to the thought of Jesus Christ will always be current, in the same way that the keys to the thought of Confucius or Buddha are current today. After the first streak of Marxist enthusiasm, I foresee a plummet of atheistic materialism. That, so far, seems pretty clear to me.[1]

Alfonso Paso would die four years after the interview, in 1978. Indeed, in the following decade the New Age would reject atheistic materialism. And already in our century the revolutionary message of the fictional character that Marcos created culminated in the secularist Woke age, that Paso called the Aquarian Age (‘Personally I am sorry, but the message of the Aquarian Age is, finally, a coherent message in which a lot of things are going to become clear…’).
[1] Original interview in Spanish:

¿Cuál ha sido la aportación de Jesús a la historia de la humanidad?

Alfonso Paso: Como figura histórica hay que destacar que Jesucristo predicó una revolución proletaria en medio de un mundo gobernado por la violencia y, sin que nos sonroje la palabra, por el capitalismo. El gran acierto de Jesucristo hombre es haber vinculado a la gran masa disconforme y deficitaria a una metafísica congruente. Convencido de la infelicidad de los demás, Jesucristo les advierte que hay otro mundo, otra dimensión en la que la bondad tiene su premio. La metafísica de Jesucristo no es original, está impregnada de orientalismo. Lo que es original es su revolución social.

¿Qué futuro prevé usted para la fe en Jesucristo?

Alfonso Paso: Desde el punto de vista de la evolución histórica, y pensando, como Toynbee, que la política es una forma de “religión”, pueden ocurrir muchas cosas. Ha crecido en la actualidad la fe en Jesucristo hasta el punto de que muchos jóvenes han hecho de Él una especie de Che Guevara o de Lenin, sin saber a punto fijo lo que estaban haciendo. Les parece, simplemente, que Jesucristo trae el mensaje de la protesta, y es evidente que en algo no se equivocan estos jóvenes.

Llevamos dos mil años aferrados a la fe en Jesucristo. Si la evolución humana confirma los pronósticos que estamos estudiando los profesionales de al Historia, es muy cierto que disminuirá el número de creyentes en Él. Personalmente lo siento, pero el mensaje de la Era Acuariana es, por fin, un mensaje coherente en el que se van a poner en claro muchísimas cosas. Sucede, sin embargo, que las claves del pensamiento en Jesucristo tendrán siempre actualidad, del mismo modo que tienen actualidad hoy días las claves del pensamiento de Confucio o de Buda. Pasada la primera racha de entusiasmo marxista, preveo una caída en picado del materialismo ateo. Eso, hasta ahora, me parece bien claro.

Jesucristo, publicación semanal (published by Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos & Editorial Miñon), BS 4, #7, page 30.

Published in: on October 1, 2021 at 6:17 pm  Comments (5)  


‘Baelor’ is the ninth and penultimate episode of the first season of the HBO medieval fantasy television series Game of Thrones. As I did in the last entry, I won’t be reviewing everything that happens in it but I use the episodes to express my philosophy: in this post, what I think about the psychosis suffered by the white race, including those who claim to defend it. Thus, I will focus on a single scene in Baelor.

Lady Catelyn appears before the feudal lord Walder Frey, the head of House Frey and Lord of the Crossing (a bridge) to negotiate the crossing of the troops of his son in their war against the Lannisters, who are about to execute Ned Stark. Although Lord Frey is an old man (the actor who played his role was known for playing Argus Filch in Harry Potter), he still maintains a very active role in managing his household.

After the West collapses, the white man will find himself at a crossroads. Both paths will lead to the return of patriarchy, as feminism is but an astronomical and massive psychotic breakdown that cannot be sustained for more than a century (the group that suffers from it is extinguished as their women cease to breed). The Jew Lawrence Auster was right in saying that liberalism, in the sense of the principle of non-discrimination that includes antiracism, feminism and sexual orientation is the most destructive ideology of all times.

Well then: before the crossroads of the two roads that lead to the return of patriarchy, the white man will have to decide what form of patriarchy will return: if his white women will belong to the Muslims of Europe and the blacks of America, or if the Aryan finally regains his sanity and reclaims them for himself.

In the episode Lord Walder Frey, opposite Lady Catelyn Stark, grabs his wife’s buttocks and then spanks her when he goes to negotiate privately with Lady Catelyn. After clearing a room full of his descendants, Lord Frey addresses the surprised Catelyn with these words:

‘You see that? Fifteen, she is. A little flower [licking his lips in lust]. And her honey’s all mine [chuckles]’.

In my soliloquies I call that delicious honey a Caperucita, and it is a shame that the supposed defenders of her race don’t see the naked truth of what Catelyn replied:

‘I’m sure she will give you many sons’.

A decade ago, when I still subscribed to white nationalism, I didn’t understand why some of their articles left me depressed. It didn’t take me long to realise that many nationalists had betrayed their principles by subscribing to at least some form of feminism. Ten years ago I reproduced the response of a critic of Alex Kurtagic since the latter dared to label ‘defectives’ those from the racial right who didn’t subscribe to feminism. Looking back, it seems clear to me that the only defective was Kurtagic himself, who like me was raised in Latin America. Now I can say that except for Andrew Anglin white nationalists continue to blind themselves as to how we should treat women.

If the white man chooses the right path when he reaches the crossroads, after the Day of the Rope he won’t behave like the men of Murka II in Covington’s fiction (see ‘Freedom daughters’ in my Daybreak). Since the pendulum has swung to the extreme left its inertia will carry it to the extreme right, and if whites wake up the warlords, the new Walder Freys, won’t be the exception but the rule. And even if the white man chooses the wrong path women will still be subdued, but this time like the Muslim women I saw the year I lived in Manchester.

Part of the feminisation of the white man lies in not wanting to even fix his own bedroom. Before killing the enemy he must control his women, at least through an internal transvaluation of values as the police would stop any actual transvaluation. He who doesn’t fuck won’t fight and many white nationalists don’t do it because, as good neochristians they are, they believe they should ask permission.

Sex is to be taken as the feudal lord Frey took it, at least in the most primitive stage of civilisation: what looms again after the collapse. There is already this situation with the massive rapes of Caperucitas in the UK, but the System only allows non-white wolfies to eat them.

Much of the revulsion I feel for white nationalism lies in that they tolerate this reversal of values. The critic of feminism, Roger Devlin, speaks like a conservative; not like the MGTOW people do and much less as I speak. A man who in one of the forums in which Devlin discusses would talk like Walder Frey, licking his lips while imaginarily savouring a Caperucita, would be annihilated by the thousands of Kutragics that swarm today’s racialism, and they would not answer any of the most elementary realities about the subject of feminism that I have linked so many times on this site.

That’s why I will continue to say that white nationalism is a fraud, and that to recover our lands we must first wage a great internal jihad that allows us to think as we were before, even in medieval times: as Martin’s prose about the lands of Riverrun.

‘Hypocritical scum that they are’

Editor’s Note: I republished Paul Craig Roberts’ article yesterday and what Robert Morgan wrote about it today is worth quoting:

Paul Craig Roberts: ‘… no important institution in America any longer believes in the liberties and protections guaranteed by the US Constitution or in democracy itself. Not the universities, the bar associations, the media, the courts, the political parties or the Congress’.

But, more importantly, neither do the people. If the Bill of Rights were put up for a referendum today, would it pass?

Would the American people vote to allow ‘freedom of association’, i.e., their own freedom to be as racist as they please in hiring or firing? To set up racially segregated communities, no matter how inequitable? To say or publish anything they want, even if it’s hate speech, no matter how inflammatory? Freedom to try to subvert the American empire by setting faction against faction? I can’t honestly say that I think it would. In fact, I doubt the people, being the lying, hypocritical scum that they are, have ever paid more than lip service to the Bill of Rights; and their cultural representatives, the elites, are only acting on this popular contempt.

Paul Craig Roberts: ‘How did [this anti-white Revolution] come about? It came about because decades of liberal assaults in the name of one ‘progressive cause’ or another destroyed the structure of beliefs that define the United States. Today we can see with our own eyes, if we open them, that there is no longer any such thing as academic freedom, free speech, freedom of association, privacy, due process. People are fired from their jobs and sentenced to economic peril for merely expressing their opinions or attending the wrong rally or using disapproved pronouns’.

But it must be noted that these limits are most often enforced not by the government, but by the people themselves against each other. Big Tech censorship is done by private companies. Boycotts of offending companies who employ politically incorrect people are organised by private citizens in order to get them fired. Thus the people keep themselves in line, spouting platitudes about race being only skin colour, and how racism is immoral.

These are the logical consequences of the Christian belief system upon which the country was founded, as expressed in the writings of Christian theologian John Locke. So there has been no Revolution, only a working out of these consequences. Your right to discriminate on the basis of race, or to utter ‘hate speech’, is limited because in a Christian culture, such acts can be condemned as immoral. But it would be incorrect to think that without Christianity, these rights would automatically be taken seriously. Without the moral justification Christianity provides, ‘the people’, hypocrites that they are, would merely have to find another excuse. But that’s easy enough. How about sedition?

In fact, one would have to go all the way back to at least the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to find the beginnings of the abandonment of the principles expressed in the Bill of Rights. Certainly there’s been a long tradition of disregarding these high-sounding principles whenever it became convenient.

Lincoln disregarded them during the Civil War when he suspended habeas corpus, smashed printing presses, and jailed his opponents. That the people themselves approved of this was shown by his election and then reelection. During WWI and WWII worries about sedition limited free speech, and during WWII justified the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian citizens. Similar worries about terrorism, drive similar restrictions today.

All empires must strive for power against enemies both foreign and domestic, and so all emperors, including Joe ‘Razor Wire’ Biden, must call for unity. That they will attempt to use the law to enforce it and once again disregard the Bill of Rights isn’t anything new; it’s not a Revolution. The New Boss is the same as the Old Boss. The People have built their own prison, and will defend their incarceration in it with patriotic fervour.

Published in: on January 21, 2021 at 1:50 pm  Comments Off on ‘Hypocritical scum that they are’  

Courage vs. groupthink

As I have said recently in the series ‘Veritas odium parit’, the mestizos and the Mediterraneans are easy to understand. They are simply self-conscious before the Aryans and they deceive themselves because they are incapable of dealing with their inferiority complex.

The Jews are somewhat more difficult to understand, but after reading the trilogy of Kevin MacDonald, especially the first of his books, their group surviving strategy is understandable.

It is the whites, especially their suicidal passion today, who represent a challenge for me; and the only thing I can say here is that Christianity modified whites as no religion has modified other races.

But Christianity is not the only factor we must consider in white decline. For more than a year I have been thinking about the tragedy that the groupthink has represented for the white race, and we can illustrate it with a passage of the biographer Stefan Zweig about Stendhal. In short, we are influenced by the environment as much as the air gets into our lungs:

The natural reflection of the individual is not his own opinion, but his adaptation to the opinion of the time. It requires special energies every time, a foolproof value—and how few possess it!—in order to oppose a spiritual pressure of millions of atmospheres, which signify great energies. An individual must meet very rare and very tested forces so that he can subsist in his uniqueness. He must possess an exact knowledge of the world, a sovereign contempt for all herd, an arrogant and enormous disregard toward them and above all courage, three times courage, courage so firmly grounded that it seconds his own conviction.

Much of what happens to contemporary whites is encompassed in the quote above, as it is very rare that an ordinary man is not psychically crushed by the millions of atmospheres of politically-correct propaganda that for more than seventy years has been over us.

As I said recently on this site, I rarely have contact with pure Aryans or Jews. But I know the soul of Mediterranean people and mestizos very well. Yesterday I watched some videos of the most intelligent Mexican intellectual of the 20th century. In this old video for example, Octavio Paz, of whom I have already spoken, appears with other Spanish-speaking intellectuals: Mario Vargas Llosa, Manuel Vázquez Montalbán, Juan Goytisolo, Jorge Semprún and Fernando Savater.

Something that has bothered me about all the Spanish-speaking intellectuals is that since the 19th century they have been crushed by those millions of atmospheres that Zweig talked about. There are simply no paradigm dissenters among them as yours truly, who really has a sovereign contempt for all herd and an arrogant and huge disregard for their worldviews!

All these intellectuals mentioned above, which include two Nobel prizes in literature, subscribed in the most abject way the secular, liberal, egalitarian, universalist and deranged altruist groupthink that kills whites today. Personally it mystifies me that, despite the high intelligence of Octavio Paz, he never questioned the dogmas of his time.

Since, like Zweig, I am very interested in the biographies of notable men, yesterday I watched some videos about the biography of Paz, who as I have said died very close to where I used to live.

I didn’t need many videos to realise that Paz was always an extraordinarily gregarious man; that he had many friends among the Spanish refugees of the Franco regime, and that he himself travelled to Spain as a young man in times of the Spanish Civil War. Later Paz would criticise the most rancid Left in Latin America. That caused him many hatreds in a Mexico dominated by troglodytes in the cultural sphere, who had Fidel Castro as their patron saint. But in the videos that I have been seeing about his biography, it seemed to me extraordinarily clear that an individual who is so tuned with the milieu will be unable to completely break with the Zeitgeist, per Zweig’s quote.

Only isolated individuals can break with the groupthink. The problem is that solitude at such level can involve personal annihilation: what happened to poor Nietzsche. It is, therefore, very understandable that less courageous minds subscribe the current paradigm in order to avoid being expelled to an emotional Siberia by their pals.

The Internet provides a means by which a radical break is possible and not suffer maddening loneliness like that suffered by Nietzsche. At least in the racist forums we can share our views with isolated dissidents: akin souls that may be posting even in other continents.

Groupthink is killing whites, victims of mass propaganda after the Second World War. That is why I will not cease in my courage, three times courage, courage so firmly grounded that it will second my own conviction.

Published in: on July 17, 2019 at 1:24 pm  Comments (2)  

SJW: an offshoot of Christianity

Editor’s note: Last month I mentioned that the medieval monk Fra Dolcino (1250-1307) tried to create a new egalitarian society based on mutual aid, holding property in common and respecting gender equality. Fra Dolcino used thugs against the rich and fat bishops in his social justice war. Yesterday I posted ‘Lincoln refutes monocausalism’, where I quoted Robert Morgan’s comments in the last few months on Unz Review. The following is the most recent exchange of Morgan with folks on the right who still don’t get that Social Justice Warring has medieval roots:


______ 卐 ______


“I wonder if it has to do with the declining importance of religion among white liberals? That this SJW nonsense has taken the place of religion and they are its true believers out to stamp out any heretics.”

It’s a big mistake to set up an opposition between Christianity and modern liberalism. Modern liberalism is a Jesus-less sect of Christianity; one that, as Spengler observed about Marxism, has its roots in Christian theological thought. It acts like a religion and its adherents act like religious zealots because it is, and they are. Recognize that big liberal causes in contemporary America such as women’s rights and minority rights can trace their genealogy back to the Second Great Awakening of the 1820s, which fueled the abolitionist movement and eventually led to the Civil War, the result of which was full citizenship and the vote being given to negroes. All the rest of the unfolding racial disaster white America is currently experiencing got its start there.

America was founded by Puritans, Christian religious fanatics so uncompromising in their beliefs they had to leave Europe, and has never collectively apostatized from that religion [emphasis added]. Liberals may deny being Christians, and revile other Christians and even Christ himself, but unless they reject Christian ethics, specifically, the utopian Christian vision of universal brotherhood, they should still be regarded as adherents of rabbi Jesus. Disputes between Christians about what constitutes true Christianity and what is heresy have raged for almost two thousand years, so their seeming enmity towards each other isn’t unusual; it’s more the rule than an exception.

Obscuring this connection serves the purposes of both sides though, so it’s easy to lose sight of it and become deceived. Church-going Christian “conservatives” want to distance themselves from liberals even though liberals merely call for them to live up to raceless Christian ideals. They also can use the dispute to call for a return to “real” Christianity [Editor’s note: exactly what Fra Dolcino wanted], by which they mean their particular sect; so it’s a good recruitment tool.

Liberals, on the other hand, may want to distance themselves from church-going Christians and even Christianity, but this is just a pose, like an ex-prostitute who now claims to be reformed, or an alcoholic who got on the wagon and stopped drinking. No matter what they may claim, liberals remain the spiritual descendants of abolitionist John Brown, a Christian religious fanatic referred to by his contemporaries as “the last Puritan”.

Published in: on June 8, 2019 at 9:45 am  Comments (3)  

Peterson: an exposé

by Resurrection Europa

A documentary exposing Jordan Peterson’s agenda to subvert and destroy the rising political right wing, and neutralize European nationalism. This video completely exposes Peterson’s anti-White agenda and his strategy for implementing it. Any Peterson fans who are not beyond saving will be deprogrammed by watching this video.

Jordan Peterson’s primary goal is to neutralize the political right and White identity. He does not care about the Marxist take over of our nations, in fact, he was hired by the United Nations to help usher it along. Peterson’s only reason for stepping into the limelight was because he saw a massive right-wing backlash fomenting, and realized it was going to destroy the left.

His job is to implement “plan B”, to steer the rising tide of nationalism into an impotent cul-de-sac of centrist individualism, giving our enemies just enough time to tip the demographic balance of our countries so that our destruction is sealed.

Peterson is explicitly targeting young White males for indoctrination with an insidious political ideology he calls radical individualism. He has created a pseudo-religion self-help cult; he is delivering his ideology to the disaffected youth by combining it with a self-help regimen wrapped in empty religious metaphor.

While our enemies are working tirelessly to destroy our nations in a ruthlessly calculated and organized fashion, Jordan Peterson is brainwashing a generation of young White men to be atomized individuals who perceive group cooperation based on ethnic identity and nationality as the height of evil. And in the process of doing so, Peterson and his friends are making untold millions of dollars.

Published in: on March 1, 2019 at 12:00 pm  Comments (5)  

Let’s troll American racists!

I have watched some videos by Steven Crowder where he challenges liberals to refute his conservative stance (‘I am pro-gun, change my mind’. ‘Hate speech isn’t real, change my mind’. ‘There are only two genders, change my mind’, etc.). Crowder likes to go to American campuses to challenge students (‘Male privilege is a myth, change my mind’. ‘Rape culture is a myth, change my mind’, etc.).

But as an antiracist proponent of the Alt-Lite, Crowder fails to confront normies with ultimate challenges, such as ‘Jews killed more than Nazis’, change my mind’. ‘Hitler was the best man in our history, change my mind’, ‘Murka must burn, change my mind’, and even ‘The Neanderthals must be exterminated, change my mind’.

I would not dare to do it because I would be punched by Neo-Christian Antifa. But what about trolling white nationalist meetings with challenges such as ‘American anti-Semites obey the Big Jew. Change my mind’.

I am referring to Jesus of course!

Published in: on November 15, 2018 at 10:10 pm  Comments (4)  

Heisman’s suicide note, 7

The Christian Collapse into Capitalism

If the Trojan Horse of Christianity successfully injected its moral-behavioral code into a given host, what would the aftermath look like? Theoretically, one would expect that the frequency of kin selective based behaviors would decline. Individuals would be freed or even barred from self-organization on the basis of kinship. It follows that the most thoroughly Christianized nations would be the most susceptible to the breakdown of kin selective altruism over time. In short, if a people succumbed to the holy virus of Christianity, one would expect it to look something like America.

The very survival of liberal democracy through two world wars was made possible by the involvement of an America remarkable for both its ethnic diversity, and its unusually high level of religious commitment among developed nations. America’s ethnic diversity and America’s Christianity are directly related to one another. After all, genetic miscegenation is a practical logical fulfillment of love against the law. Conventional Christianity itself represents the cultural miscegenation of Jewish and gentile moral civilizations (i.e. the gargantuan adoption project known as American immigration is partially an inheritance of Constantine’s adoption of the foreign God of the Jews). Jesus himself was spiritual miscegenation of Jewish and gentile moral civilizations as a fulfillment of love against the law.

The secular West inherited from Christianity a moral or spiritual attitude that associates goodness with the inverse of the logic of kin selection. The entire idea of modern egalitarian progress is a logical continuation of the anti-kin selective logic of Christianity in action. It is a measure of the success of the mutated Christian meme-virus that Westerners do not even need Jesus to further perpetuate the logic of his attack on kin selection.

Yet the specific mechanisms of Christian influence on kin selection require clarification. For argument’s sake, let us say that Christianity tended to attract the most altruistic members of the population. Let us say, furthermore, that the minority of superlative altruists contains, on average, a greater proportion of genes for altruistic behavior than the majority population. If the most highly altruistic inclinations originally evolved through kin selection, and learning the discipline of Christianity tends to divert such altruistic behaviors into channels that are either indifferent or detrimental to genetic adaptation for the highly altruistic minority, then Christianity, over many generations, will tend to decrease the genetic fitness of the population. While this is only one scenario among many, the seditious genius of Christianity (a.k.a. Christian goodness) is that it may attract individuals with the greatest share of genetically based altruism within a population while serving to subvert its original genetic basis.

If everyone followed the superlative example of a chaste Catholic priest, it would lead to the extinction of the human race. Catholic priests that cheat by having children and propagating their genes, however, may perpetuate any possible genetic basis for their hypocrisy. I use the superlative example of a Catholic priest only to illustrate a far more general phenomenon: Christianity can very literally breed “hypocrisy” relative to the honest Christians who restrain themselves. Through this pattern, over a period of generations, Christianity may have literally helped breed the modern bourgeoisie on a both a genetic and cultural level. Generally speaking, Christianity breeds a bourgeoisie simply by chipping away at the advantages of the stronger to the advantage of the weaker, and undoing the correlation of reproductive success and military-political success (i.e. of kings and aristocracy).

Christian memes impacted Christianized genes by making the highest the lowest, the first the last, the alpha the omega and, in general, rewriting the rules of the social game. Christianity literally helped to breed the progressive left by gradually altering the social status of certain human types. It made conventional Darwinian winners moral losers and enshackled the genetically adaptive function of pagan virtues in its moral snares.

Within the hypocrisy industry that Christianity created, those inconsistent with general ideal principles tend to be the ones that survive. To be fully consistent would be as biologically suicidal as dying on the cross. The ethically honest ones tend to be selected out of the population. The cheaters of these ethical principles tend to multiply. In short, the supremacy of Christian ideals tends to breed a bourgeoisie; egoists who follow the moral letter in a practical sense while trampling over ideal spirit. This is why Pharisees survived to become the ancestors of most Jews while Jesus got the cross. This is how Christianity helped to create the modern world.

Machiavelli could be considered the first mature philosophic representative of the twilight zone between the ancient political world and modern liberalism. Machiavelli attributed the decay of duty to fatherland to Christianity. By socializing men in faith in the higher fatherland of God’s Kingdom, his contemporaries betrayed the fatherlands of the Earth. Yet something changed that made Machiavelli’s advice something other than a return to ancient Roman ways. In Machiavelli one can discern a breakdown of a certain kind of altruism; a breakdown of a level of political duty that was taken for granted by the Romans. While Machiavelli criticized the Christian corruption of political duty, he himself exemplifies the consequences of the Christian corruption of kin selective altruism.

In a manuscript dating from 1786, Napoleon Bonaparte wrote:

It is axiomatic that Christianity, even the reformed kind, destroys the unity of the State: (1) because it is capable of weakening as well as of inspiring the trust which the people owe the representatives of the law; (2) because, such as it is constituted, Christianity contains a separate body which not only claims a share of the citizens’ loyalty but is able even to counteract the aims of the government. And, besides, is it not true that the body [the clergy] is independent of the State?… Its kingdom is not of this world. Consequently, it is never civic-minded.

Yet, in a letter to the bishop of Como in 1797, Napoleon also concluded that “[t]he morality of the Gospels is the morality of equality and, by that token, the morality best suited to the republican form of government.” On one hand, Christianity promotes a morality of equality. On the other hand, Christianity poses a permanent potential fifth column that is inherently enervating of political authority. Liberalism inherited both characteristics from the fifth column character of Christianity. (Islam, incidentally , is another variation on the Semitic way of empire that is currently exploiting the fifth column ground that Christianity prepared in Europe and is thus poised to take its place.)

Napoleon followed Rousseau in acknowledging the destructive power of modern liberal-individualism upon civic virtue. However, if the origins of modern democratic morality are Biblical, then why is it destructive of altruism? The answer is to be found in the neutralization of kin selective altruism achieved by the Christianization of pagan naturalism. Modern political equality is the cumulative neutralization of the extreme kin selective paradigm of Roman Empire. Neutralization of paganistic kin selective altruism was effected by the radical opposition party of the Christian Kingdom of God. Kinship bonds that classically culminate in the patriarchal duties of alpha altruism were neutralized by the omega altruism of Christianity and the net result is modern political equality.

The early Christians were considered antisocial. They would not make sacrifices to the Roman gods. The early Christians would not do their duty. Christianity proved a dangerously preemptive of Roman virtue because it formally addressed gentiles, not primarily as members of a group, but as individual souls.

Edward Gibbon concluded that Christianity’s valuation of private salvation over the public good contributed to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. This Christian inheritance is immediately recognizable in liberalism’s valuation of the private rights of individual as the foundation of politics. “Rights” counter duties and grant freedom from duties. Freedom has a tangible meaning only if one is as free to be wholly self-absorbed as to dedicate one’s life to others.

There is a common belief or misunderstanding that the opposite of Christian altruism is individual selfishness. This is incorrect. The diametrical opposite of Christian altruism is not individual selfishness. The opposite of Christian omega altruism is the kind of group selfishness represented by Roman alpha altruism.

After all, from the viewpoint of those conquered by Rome, what was the problem? Were the Romans too individualistic? Was that the problem? Was the problem that Romans were too likely to put their individual interests before the interests of the Roman state? No, the problem was exactly the opposite. The problem was that Romans were all too dutiful to their state. Roman virtue was what made Rome: a race of conquerors. The problem was Roman virtue itself.

Christian “virtue” was an attack on Roman virtue. The ultimate target of Christian omega altruism was not individual selfishness. Christian omega altruism targeted Roman alpha altruism. Christianity fought altruism with altruism, and the long-term result of this clash of virtues was the corruption of both forms of altruism and the rise of the middle ground of modern, Western, equal individualism.

Christianity led to capitalism by canceling out, neutralizing, and delegitimizing extreme expressions of kin selective altruism. As omega altruism broke kinship bonds down, the premise of the individual human soul began to build up. As the idea of altruism so radical that it transcended kinship became socially legitimated, the kinship social shackles encumbering individuals became illegitimated. By reversing the evolutionarily normative prioritization between kinship and altruism, Christianity corrupted the kinship foundations of altruism and stimulated the rise of capitalistic individualism.

Torn between the irreconcilable opposites of alpha altruism and omega altruism (that the Crusaders vainly attempted to unite), “the individual” became the logical social solution. In consequence, the West landed in the middle ground of the moral mediocrity of the middle class. The cumulative waste product of this process of secularization is commonly called liberalism. Alpha altruism and omega altruism cancelled one another out, and the cumulative result of this neutralization is political equality.

A classic verification of this theory can be found in a small-scale repetition of the very same process during the social revolutions of the late 1960s. Leftist social movements of that time reaffirmed the egalitarian aspirations of liberal revolution, launching attacks on the social remains of kin selective organizations and its classical, quasi-Roman, patriarchal, warmongering corollaries. The ultimate result of these social movements was another collapse of “we” into “me”. 1960s socialism collapsed into the greed of 1980s individualism. In terms of its underlying sociobiological basis, this baby boomer episode was only a repetition of the original collapse of Christianity into capitalism.

Heisman’s suicide note, 3

Rupture: How Christ hijacked
the moral compass of the West

The English word “virtue” is derived from the Roman word virtus, meaning manliness or strength. Virtus derived from vir, meaning “man”. Virilis, an ancestor of the English word “virile”, is also derived from the Roman word for man.

From this Roman conception of virtue, was Jesus less than a man or more than a man? Did the spectacle of Jesus dying on a Roman cross exemplify virtus; manliness; strength; masterliness; forcefulness? Consistent with his valuation of turning the cheek, it would seem that Jesus exemplified utterly shamelessness and a total lack of the manly honor of the Romans.

Yet the fame of his humiliation on the cross did, in a sense, exemplify a perverse variety of virtus, for Jesus’s feminine, compassionate ethics have mastered and conquered the old pagan virtues of the gentiles. Jesus’s spiritual penis has penetrated, disseminated, and impregnated the West with his “virtuous” seed. And it is from that seed that “modernity” has sprouted.

Jesus combined the highest Roman virtue of dying honorably in battle with highest Jewish virtue of martyrdom and strength in persecution. This combination formed a psychic bridge between pagan and Jew, i.e. between ideal cruelty in war and ideal compassion in peace. This is one way in which Christianity became the evolutionary missing link between the more masculine ethos of the ancient pagan West and the more feminine ethos of the modern West.

The original Enlightenment notion of revolution reflects a quasi-creationist view of change that makes the sudden rupture between the moral assumptions of the ancient and modern world almost inexplicable. However, if we take a more gradualistic view of social change wherein modern egalitarianism evolved from what preceded it, then the origins of modern political assumptions become more explicable. The final moral-political rupture from the ancients became possible, in part, because Christianity acted as an incubator of modern values.

Christian notions of “virtue” were not an outright challenge to pagan Roman virtue by accident; these values were incompatible by design. To even use the Roman term “virtue” to describe Christian morality is an assertion of its victory over Rome. The success of the Christian perversion of the manliness of Roman “virtue” is exemplified by its redefinition as the chastity of a woman.

A general difference between ancient Greco-Roman virtue and modern virtue can be glimpsed through the ancient sculpture, the Dying Gaul. The sculpture portrays a wounded “barbarian”. Whereas moderns would tend to imitate Christ in feeling compassion for the defeated man, its original pagan cultural context suggests a different interpretation: the cruel defeat and conquest of the barbarian as the true, the good, and the beautiful.

The circumstances of the sculpture’s origins confirm the correctness of this interpretation. The Dying Gaul was commissioned by Attalus I of Pergamon in the third century AD to celebrate his triumph over the Celtic Galatians of Anatolia. Attalus was a Greek ally of Rome and the sculpture was only one part of a triumphal monument built at Pergamon. These aristocratic trophies were a glorification of the famous Greco-Roman ability to make their enemies die on the battlefield.

A Christian is supposed to view Christ on the cross as an individual being, rather than as a powerless peasant of the despised Jewish people. If one has faith in Jesus, then one “knows” that to interpret Jesus as the member of a racial-religious group is wrong and we “know” that this interpretation is wrong. How do we “know” this? Because we have inherited the Christianity victory over Rome in that ancient war for interpretation.

Liberalism continues the Christian paradigm by interpreting Homo sapiens as individuals, rather than members of groups such as racial groups. If it is wrong to assume Jesus can be understood on the basis of group membership, then the evolutionary connection between Christianity and modern liberalism becomes clearer. Jesus was a paradigmatic individual exception to group rules, and his example, universalized, profoundly influenced modern liberal emphasis on individual worth in contradistinction to assumptions of group membership.

Love killed honor. The values of honor and shame are appropriate for group moralities where the group is valued over “the individual”. Crucially, such a morality is inconceivable without a sense of group identity. Jesus’s morality became liberated from a specifically Jewish group identity. Once it dominated gentile morality, it also eroded kin and ethnic identity. The Christian war against honor moralities became so successful and traditional [that] its premodern origins were nearly forgotten along with the native pagan moralities it conquered.

Jesus’s values implicated the end of the hereditary world by living the logical consequences of denying the importance of his hereditary origins. This is a central premise underlying the entire modern rupture with the ancient world: breaking the import of hereditary origins in favor of individual valuations of humans. In escaping the consequences of a birth that, in his world, was the most ignoble possible, Jesus initiated the gentile West’s rupture with the ancient world.

The rupture between the ancient and the modern is the rupture between the rule of genes and the rule of memes. The difference between ancient and modern is the difference between the moral worlds of Homer and the Bible. It is the difference between Ulysses and Leopold Bloom.

On Nero’s persecution of the Christians, Tacitus wrote, “even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.” The modern morality of compassion begins with Christianity’s moral attack on the unholy Roman Empire. Christianity demoralized the pagan virtues that upheld crucifixion as a reasonable policy for upholding the public good.

If, as Carl Schmitt concluded, the political can be defined with the distinction between friend and enemy, then Jesus’s innovation was to define the political as enemy by loving the enemy, and thus destroying the basis of the distinctly political. The anarchy of love that Christianity spread was designed to make the Roman Empire impossible. The empire of love that Paul spread was subversive by design. It was as subversive as preaching hatred of the patriarchal family that was a miniature model for worldly empire.

Crossan and Reed found that those letters of Paul that are judged historically inauthentic are also the ones that carry the most inegalitarian message. It appears that their purpose was to “insist that Christian families were not at all socially subversive.” These texts “represent a first step in collating Christian and Roman household ethics.” For these historians the issue is “whether that pseudo-Pauline history and theology is in valid continuity with Paul himself or is, as we will argue, an attempt to sanitize a social subversive, to domesticate a dissident apostle, and to make Christianity and Rome safe for one another.”

What could be more ridiculous that the idea that Jesus’s attack on Roman values would not need some “modification” before making themselves at home in Rome? Jesus and Paul were heretics of mainstream or Pharisaic Judaism and rebels against Rome. Since the purity and integrity of the internal logic of Christianity is hostile to purely kin selective values, there is no way whatsoever that Christianity could survive as a mass religion without corrupting Jesus’s pure attitude towards the family. Jesus’s values subvert the kin selective basis of family values.

That subversion was part of the mechanism that swept Christianity into power over the old paganism, but it was impossible that Christianity maintain its hold without a thorough corruption of Jesus’s scandalous attacks on the family. If not this way, then another, but the long-term practical survival of Christianity required some serious spin doctoring against the notion that Jesus’s teachings are a menace to society.

These, then, are the two options: the pure ethics of Jesus must be perverted or obscured as models for the majority of people or Christianity will be considered a menace to society. The very fact that Christianity did succeed in achieving official “legitimacy” means its original subversive message was necessarily subverted. State-sanctioned Christianity is really a joke played upon on a dead man who never resurrected to speak on his own behalf.

Official Christianity was making Jesus safe for aristocracy; falsifying Jesus; subverting Jesus. Rome subverted his subversion. Jesus attempted to subvert them—and they subverted him. (Bastards!) Yet without this partial subversion of subversion, Christianity would never have taken the deep, mass hold that is its foundational strength.

This insight, that pure Christianity must be perverted in all societies that wish to preserve their kin selective family values, is a key to understanding the process of secularization. Secularization is, in part, the unsubverting of the evidence for Jesus’s original social program from its compromised reconciliation with Rome. The first truly major step towards unsubverting Rome’s subversion of Jesus’s message was the Protestant Reformation.

The Roman Catholic hierarchy contains elements of a last stand of the old Roman pagan virtue, a reminder that it had and has not been subdued completely. The Reformation begun by Martin Luther was directed, in part, against this last stand. While Luther partially continued the containment of Jesus by checking the advance of the idea that heaven should be sought on earth, this German also continued the work of the Jewish radical he worshiped in attacking the hierarchy of Rome.

Secularization is the unsubverting of Jesus’s message subverted by Christian practice. Modern liberal moral superiority over actual Christians is produced by unsubverting the subversion of Jesus’s message subverted by institutional Christianity. There is an interior logic to Jesus’s vision based on consistency or lack of hypocrisy. Liberal arguments only draw this out from its compromises with the actual social world. In this role, Protestantism was especially influential in emphasizing individual conscience over kinship-biological imperatives based on the model of the family.

The average secular liberal rejects Biblical stories as mythology without rejecting the compassion-oriented moral inheritance of the Bible as mythology. That people, still, after Nietzsche, tout these old, juvenile enlightenment critiques of Christianity would seem to be another refutation of the belief that a free and liberal society will inevitably lead to a progress in knowledge. The primitive enlightenment critique of Christianity as a superstition used as a form of social control usually fails to account that its “social control” originated as a weapon that helped to bring down the Goliath of Rome.

Still, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, this old enlightenment era castigation of Christianity for not being Christian endures without realization that this is actually the main technical mechanism of the secularization of Christian values. When one asks, what is secularization?, the attempt to criticize Christianity for its role in “oppression”, war, or other “immoral” behaviors stands at the forefront. Liberal moral superiority over actual Christians commonly stems from contrasting Christian ideals and Christian practice. This is what gives leftism in general and liberalism in particular its moral outrage.

Secularization arises as people make sense of Christian ideals in the face of its practice and even speculate as to how it might work in the real world. Enlightenment arguments for the rationalization of ethics occurred in the context of a Christian society in which the dormant premises of the Christian creed were subjected to rational scrutiny. To secularize Christianity is to follow Jesus in accusing God’s faithful believers of a nasty hypocrisy:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. (Matt. 23:27-28)

To charge Christians with hypocrisy is to relish in the irony of Jesus’s biting charges of hypocrisy against the Pharisees. Jesus’s attempt to transcend the hypocrisies inherent in Mosaic law’s emphasis on outer behavior was one germinating mechanism that produced Christianity out of Judaism. The same general pattern generated modern liberalism out of Christianity. Just as Jesus criticized the Pharisees for worshipping the formal law rather than the spirit of the law, modern liberals criticize Christians for following religious formalities rather than the spirit of compassionate, liberal egalitarianism. It was precisely Christianity’s emphasis on the spirit that helps explain how the spirit of liberal compassion evolved out of the spirit of Christianity even if the letters of the laws are different.

To recognize hypocrisy is to recognize a contradiction between theory and action. The modern ideology of rights evolved, in part, through a critique of the contradictions of Christian theology and political action. Modern ideology evolved from Christian theology. Christian faith invented Christian hypocrites, and modern political secularism seized upon these contradictions that the Christian hypocrisy industry created. Resolving these moral contradictions through argument with Christians and political authorities is what led to the idea of a single, consistent standard for all human beings: political equality. The rational basis of the secularization process is this movement towards consistency of principle against self-contradiction (hypocrisy).

Modern ideas of political rights emerged out of a dialogue; a discourse; a dialectic in which Christianity framed the arguments of secularists, defining the domain upon which one could claim the moral high ground. The “arguments” of Christian theology circumscribed the moral parameters of acceptable public discourse, and hence, the nature of the counterarguments of “secular” ideology. Secular morality evolved by arguing rationally against the frame of reference provided by the old Christian Trojan Horse and this inevitably shaped the nature of the counter-arguments that followed. Christianity helped define the basic issues of secular humanism by accepting a belief in the moral worth of the meek of the world.

The Roman who conquered Jesus’s Jewish homeland could feel, in perfect conscience, that their conquest should confirm their greatness, not their guilt. Roman religion itself glorified Mars, the god of war. Pagan Roman religion did not automatically contradict the martial spirit—it helped confirm the martial spirit.

Chivalry, the code of honor that tempered and softened the warrior ethos of Christian Europe, is the evolutionary link between pagan virtue and modern virtue. Yet the imperial vigor of the Christian West was made, not by Christian religiosity, but by Christian hypocrisy. Christianity planted in its carriers a pregnant contradiction between Christian slave morality and Christian reality that was just waiting for the exposé of the “age of reason”. Christianity made the old European aristocracies “unjust” by dissolving the prehistoric and pagan assumptions of its existence.

Jesus himself contrasted his teachings with the ways of pagans:

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matt 24:25-28)

To reverse the high political development of kin selection represented by Rome leads towards sociobiological primitivity; to an immature stage where human ontology is closest to a more primitive phylogeny; when humans are closest to our common evolutionary ancestors; when humans are biologically most equal to one another since genes and environment have not yet exacerbated differences.

Christianity reached a state of fruition called “modernity” when a kind of justice was reaped for the ancestral betrayal of a Christian’s pagan forefathers. The pagan values that genuinely supported an ancestral chain of sacrifice for their kin kind and the patriarchal kingdoms of this world were betrayed.

A war of generations broke Christianity from Judaism, and left wing humanism from Christianity. These are only peak points that matured from the gradual kneading of cultural dough; from change guided by visions of the moral high grounds in heaven or on earth. Out of a conflict between generations that Christianity helped leaven, the modern social idea of progress rose.