Superficial thumbs up

During the fourth century as divisions and sects grew, the schisms and the heresies developed with increasing boldness. The anti-heretic shouting also became more strident, more aggressive. At the same time, the struggle against non-Catholics sought judicial support. It was time of agitation and almost pathological actions: a true ‘spiritual disease’ [my emphasis].

This quotation from my last excerpts of Deschner’s book gives an idea why I reproduce chapters of the Julian novel on Sundays. Also, if we reread the italicised sentence it is impossible not to see the analogies with our times.

As I see it, the West has suffered two great psychotic breakdowns in history: the first in the 3rd and 4th centuries that resulted in the conquest of the Roman Empire by a cult of Levantine extraction (as we shall see in Deschner’s chapters on Constantine), and what has been happening in the West in the 20th and 21st centuries.

For white nationalists it is easy to see the descending spiral of a spiritual disease that destroys their race today. (Just take a look at Tucker at Fox News: not every interviewee is a kike: there are ethnosuicidal whites as well.) But few have notion of the first psychotic breakdown that suffered the fair race in the centuries in which Christianity was born. And this, despite that much earlier than Deschner, Edward Gibbon also blamed Christianity in his magnum opus.

Recall these passages from the introduction to Criminal History of Christianity, quoted in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour:

The magnificent temples of worship of antiquity were destroyed almost everywhere: irreplaceable value buildings burned or demolished, especially in Rome itself, where the ruins of the temples served as quarries. In the tenth century they still engaged in breaking down statues, architraves, burning paintings, and the most beautiful sarcophagi served as bathtubs or feeders for pigs.

But the most tremendous destruction, barely imaginable, was caused in the field of education. Gregory I, the Great, the only doctor Pope of the Church in addition to Leo I, according to tradition burned a large library that existed on the Palatine. The flourishing book trade of antiquity disappeared; the activity of the monasteries was purely receptive. Three hundred years after the death of Alcuin and Rabanus Maurus, the disciples were still studying with manuals written by them. Even St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church’s official philosopher, writes that ‘the desire for knowledge is a sin when it does not serve the knowledge of God.’

In universities, the Aristotelian hypertrophy aborted any possibility of independent research. To the dictation of theology were subject philosophy and literature. History, as a science, was completely unknown. The experimentation and inductive research was condemned; experimental sciences were drowned by the Bible and dogma; scientists thrown into the dungeons, or sent to the stake. In 1163, Pope Alexander III (remember in passing that at that time there were four anti-popes) forbade all clerics studying physics. In 1380 a decision of the French parliament forbade the study of chemistry, referring to a decree of Pope John XXII.

And while in the Arab world (obedient to Muhammad’s slogan: ‘The ink of scholars is more sacred than the blood of martyrs’) the sciences flourished, especially medicine, in the Catholic world the bases of scientific knowledge remained unchanged for more than a millennium, well into the sixteenth century. The sick were supposed to seek comfort in prayer instead of medical attention. The Church forbade the dissection of corpses, and sometimes even rejected the use of natural medicines for considering it unlawful intervention with the divine. In the Middle Ages not even the abbeys had doctors, not even the largest. In 1564 the Inquisition condemned to death the physician Andreas Vesalius, the founder of modern anatomy, for opening a corpse and for saying that man is not short of a rib that was created for Eve.

Consistent with the guidance of teaching, we find another institution, ecclesiastical censure, very often (at least since the time of St. Paul in Ephesus) dedicated to the burning of the books of pagans and the destruction (or prohibition) of rival Christian literature, from the books of the Arians and Nestorians until those of Luther. But let us not forget that Protestants sometimes also introduced censorship, even for funeral sermons and also for non-theological works, provided they touched on ecclesiastical matters or religious customs.

However self-destructive it may have been for whites to empower a Levantine cult in Imperial Rome, at least Christianity had not a focused agenda to exterminate whites. The second psychotic breakdown, which we see developing in our days, is more vicious. Unless a racial revolution takes over it would no longer be possible to recover—as in the Renaissance—because the purpose now is to destroy Aryan DNA through miscegenation. Alas, there’s no revolution on the horizon, so we need to delve deeper into history to understand the West’s darkest hour.

Those thumbs up that I receive on my Facebook page for Siege links I don’t receive on Kriminalgeschichte—they’re superficial thumbs up. I wonder if their authors are able to see that, after a life dedicated to National Socialism, Christianity corrupted the mind of the author of Siege into going astray mystically. We can only imagine the revolutionary movement that Mason could have inspired in the US had he remained focused on racial matters.

Diaspora, 3

Food for thought from Kevin
MacDonald’s Diaspora Peoples:

 
Powerful and competitive middleman minority groups in developing countries suppress nascent middle class traders, entrepreneurs, and artisans. We have seen that the development of these classes was suppressed in Thailand and Indonesia by the Overseas Chinese.

Similarly, in Poland when Jews won the economic competition in early modern Poland, the result was that the vast majority of Poles had been reduced to the status of agricultural laborer supervised by Jewish estate managers in an economy where virtually all of the trade, manufacturing, and artisanry were controlled by Jews (see chapter 5).

On the other hand, in most of Western Europe Jews were expelled in the Middle Ages. As a result, when modernization occurred, it was accomplished with an indigenous middle class. Indeed, the Puritans are a prototypical middle class group. I have noted that the Puritans derived mainly from tradesmen and craftsmen, and they were intelligent and very concerned with education.

If, as in Poland, Jews had won the economic competition in most of these professions, there would have not have been a non-Jewish middle class in England. Whatever one might suppose would have been the fortunes and character of England with predominantly Jewish artisans, merchants, and manufacturers, it seems reasonable to suppose that the Christian taxpayers of England made a good investment in their own future when they agreed to pay King Edward I a massive tax of £116,346 in return for expelling 2000 Jews in 1290.

This suggests that an important contrast between Eastern and Western Europe was that exploitative economic systems involving the collaboration between Jews and non-Jewish elites continued far longer in Eastern Europe. In Western Europe popular hostility toward money lending was an important factor in the expulsion of Jews, and eventually the rulers acquiesced to popular and ecclesiastical pressure to end this practice.

In England, Spain, France, Germany, Austria, and Bohemia there was a pattern: Jews were expelled because of the ruinous effects of money lending but then allowed to return because the nobility’s desire to increase revenue. Although in some cases the proximate cause of the expulsion involved other issues, in all cases expulsion was accompanied by seething popular discontent.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 46

the-real-hitler

 

11nth November 1941, evening

Friendship of the Church costs too much—The Church is the enemy of the State—The monuments of Christian civilisation.
 
 
I’ve always defended the point of view that the Party should hold itself aloof from religion. We never organised religious services for our supporters. I preferred to run the risk of being put under the ban of the Church or excommunicated. The Church’s friendship costs too dear. In case of success, I can hear myself being told that it’s thanks to her. I’d rather she had nothing to do with it, and that I shouldn’t be presented with the bill!

Russia used to be the most bigoted State of all. Nothing happened there without the participation of the Orthodox priests. That didn’t prevent the Russians from getting beaten.

It seems that the prayers of a hundred and forty million Russians were less convincing, before God, than those of a smaller number of Japanese. It was the same thing in the First World War. Russian prayers had less weight than ours. Even on the home front, the cowls proved incapable of ensuring the maintenance of the established order. They permitted the triumph of Bolshevism.

The clergy takes a sly pleasure in rallying the enemies of the established order, and thus shares the responsibility for the disorders that arise. Think of the difficulties the Popes continually caused the German emperors!

In the Latin countries, we’ve often been within a hair’s breadth of seeing Bolshevism triumph, and thus administer the death-blow to a society that was always on the point of collapse.

When, in ancient Rome, the plebs were mobilised by Christianity, the intelligentsia had lost contact with the ancient forms of worship. The man of to-day, who is formed by the disciplines of science, has likewise ceased taking the teaching of religion very seriously. What is in opposition to the laws of nature cannot come from God. Moreover, thunderbolts do not spare churches. A system of metaphysics that is drawn from Christianity and founded on outmoded notions does not correspond to the level of modern knowledge. In Italy and in Spain, that will all end badly. They’ll cut each other’s throats.

I don’t want anything of that sort amongst us.

We can be glad that the Parthenon is still standing upright, the Roman Pantheon and the other temples. It matters little that the forms of worship that were practised there no longer mean anything to us. It is truly regrettable that so little is left of these temples. The result is, we are in no risk of worshipping Zeus.

Cathedral_Hereford

Amongst us, the only witnesses of our greatness in the Middle Ages are the cathedrals. It would be enough to permit a movement of religious persecution to cause the disappearance of all the monuments that our country built from the fifth to the seventeenth century. What a void, and how greatly the world would be impoverished!

What we must do, then, is to extract from religions the poison they contain. In this respect, great progress has been made during recent centuries.

The Church must be made to understand that her kingdom is not of this world. What an example Frederick the Great set when he reacted against the Church’s claim to be allowed to interfere in matters of State!

The religions have passed the climacteric; they’re now decadent. They can remain like that for a few centuries yet. What revolutions won’t do, will be done by evolution. One may regret living at a period when it’s impossible to form an idea of the shape the world of the future will assume.

But there’s one thing I can predict to eaters of meat, that the world of the future will be vegetarian!

On Spain and literature – I

Annoyed at the infamous TV series Toledo I tried to find some consolation in the epic film El Cid, “a romanticized story of the life of the Christian Castilian knight Don Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, called ‘El Cid’, who in the 11th century fought the North African Almoravides and ultimately contributed to the unification of Spain.” But even that movie released in 1961 starts with a politically-correct scene. El Cid, interpreted by Charlton Heston, spares the live of a Moorish king in the hope that the Moor will behave in the future after an anti-Christian raid (and in fact he behaves like a gentleman in the rest of the film). Then in the royal palace El Cid has a private conversation with the woman he loved, acted by Sophia Loren, and makes a speech about his pacifist intentions when he is accused of treason for having spared the life of the Muslim king.

Well, well… What about forgetting old and new movies altogether and focus instead in the Spanish literature of the Middle Ages? What will we find there? Big surprise: the historical “Cid” found some work fighting for the Muslim rulers of Taifa of Zaragoza! This happened after his falling out of favor of Alfonso VI, king of León and Castile, who in 1081 ordered Rodrigo Díaz’s exile.

But what else can the literature of the age say about the ethno-nationalist mores, values, moral grammar and zeitgeist of medieval Spain? Let’s take a look…

retrato de soledad anaya

This is a photograph of Soledad Anaya Solórzano (1895-1978), who graduated in Spanish letters at Guadalajara in Mexico. From 1920 to 1923 she served as Director of Primary and Higher Education in the Mexican government. She also taught Spanish literature, a field that she mostly loved, and was the Principal of the Secundaria Héroes de la Libertad until her death (the Middle School in Mexico City where I studied). Of course, when Miss Anaya taught me she was in her late seventies and looked a little older than in the photo, but she still was in command of her intellectual capacities. Anaya never married and was the single author of Literatura Española (1941), a textbook of more than thirty editions that we used in her classroom and I will use below and in the coming entries on the subject of Spain. I must say that in the first chapters of Anaya’s textbook, first published during the Second World War, she unabashedly uses the word “arios” (Aryan) when referring to the first conquerors of the Iberian Peninsula.

However, about the first ancient text that Anaya analyzes, the 8th century legend of King Rodrigo and the Loss of Spain (pages 28-31), the jew-wise reader is shocked to see that no accusation is made of Jews inviting any Muslim into the peninsula. The old legend tells instead that Florinda, a Visigothic maid (a purely Aryan young woman) was seduced by King Rodrigo, another Iberian white, in Rodrigo’s castle. As revenge the Count Julián, Florinda’s father, “opened Spain to Muslim expansion” Anaya wrote: an expansion that had been previously contained by the Count himself. The Moors then invaded the peninsula “and easily destroyed the Visigothic power that already was much debilitated.” Anaya adds that “it is not known what happened to King Rodrigo, who caused so much harm” and that the “historical happenings related to this legend occurred in 711 A.D.” Note that King Rodrigo, not Count Julián (or the Moors, or a purported Jew who opened the gates) is blamed. Presumably, the accent of the legend rested on the sense of honor among the Iberians of those remote times.

Later, on pages 40-47 of the textbook I used in my middle teens, Anaya mentions the case of the legend of The Seven Infants of Lara, which recounts other Iberian whites using other Moors to take revenge about other cases of Aryan offences! This very famous medieval tale has Gonzalo Gustios, the crying father of the seven decapitated white boys in Córdova, marrying Aixa, the daughter of Almanzor (Almanzor, who had imprisoned Gonzalo Gustios, was one of the most powerful characters in the Caliphate). Mudarra González, the mongrel son of the Christian Gonzalo Gustios and the Muslim Aixa, is The One destined to avenge the father. The victim of course is not Almanzor, the Moor that ordered the decapitation of the boys on behalf of the valiant knight Ruy Vásquez. The victim is Ruy Vásquez himself that the mongrel dispatches at the end of the story.

Once more, for the medieval Spaniard race did not seem to be the central issue at all: but a knightly sense of honor, especially during in-group vendettas.

In the next chapter Anaya approaches the ancient texts about El Cid. His life inspired the most important epic poem of Spanish literature: the Cantar de mio Cid. Now that I reread her book after forty years of reading it for the first time I was shocked to see Anaya’s sentence that El Cid was “the terror of Moors and Christians” (my emphasis). When I finished the chapter I was surprised to learn that El Cid’s fame was not entirely based on the feat of expelling some Moors from the peninsula, but mainly on the chivalrous character of this historical (and legendary) figure of the Reconquista.

This, and similar cases I’ll be recounting in these brief series about the classics of Spanish literature, moves me to expand the category of this blog previously known as “White suicide” as the “Aryan problem.”

Civilisation’s “Romance and Reality”

For an introduction to these series, see here.

Below, some indented excerpts of “Romance and Reality,” the third chapter of Civilisation by Kenneth Clark, after which I offer my comments.

Originally I posted this entry on April 15 of the last year, but now that I posted another entry about Spain’s Teresa of Ávila I would like to see some feedback in the comments section about my thoughts on St. Francis from those interested in child abuse as a subject.

Ellipsis omitted between unquoted passages:

I am in the Gothic world, the world of chivalry, courtesy and romance; a world in which serious things were done with a sense of play—where even war and theology could become a sort of game; and when architecture reached a point of extravagance unequalled in history. After all the great unifying convictions of the twelfth century, High Gothic art can look fantastic and luxurious—what Marxists call conspicuous waste. And yet these centuries produced some of the greatest spirits in the human history of man, amongst them St Francis and Dante.

A couple of pages later, Clark says:

Several of the stories depicted in the [Chartres Cathedral] arches concern Old Testament heroines; and at the corner of the portico is one of the first consciously graceful women in western art. Only a very few years before, women were thought of as the squat, bad-tempered viragos that we see on the front of Winchester Cathedral: these were the women who accompanied the Norsemen to Iceland.

Now look at this embodiment of chastity, lifting her mantle, raising her hand, turning her head with a movement of self-conscious refinement that was to become mannered but here is genuinely modest. She might be Dante’s Beatrice.

There, for almost the first time in visual art, one gets a sense of human rapport between man and woman.

About the sentiment of courtly love, on the next page Clark adds that it was entirely unknown to antiquity, and that to the Romans and the Vikings it would have seemed not only absurd but unbelievable.

A ‘love match’ is almost an invention of the late eighteenth century. Medieval marriages were entirely a matter of property, and, as everybody knows, marriage without love means love without marriage.

Then I suppose one must admit that the cult of the Virgin had something to do with it. In this context it sounds rather blasphemous, but the fact remains that one often hardly knows if a medieval love lyric is addresses to the poet’s mistress or to the Virgin Mary.

For all these reasons I think it is permissible to associate the cult of ideal love with the ravishing beauty and delicacy that one finds in the madonnas of the thirteenth century. Were there ever more delicate creatures than the ladies on Gothic ivories? How gross, compared to them, are the great beauties of other woman-worshiping epochs.

When I read these pages for the first time I was surprised to discover that my tastes of women have always been, literally, medieval; especially when I studied closely the face of the woman at the right in the tapestry known as The Lady with the Unicorn, reproduced on a whole page in Clark’s book with more detail than the illustration I’ve just downloaded. I have never fancied the aggressive, Hollywood females whose images are bombarded everywhere through our degenerate media. In fact, what moves me to write are precisely David Lane’s 14 words to preserve the beauty and delicacy of the most spiritual females of the white race.

Alas, it seems that the parents did not treat their delicate daughters well enough during the Middle Ages. Clark said:

So it is all the more surprising to learn that these exquisite creatures got terribly knocked about. It must be true, because there is a manual of how to treat women—actually how to bring up daughters—by a character called the Knight of the Tower of Landry, written in 1370 and so successful that it went on being read as a sort of textbook right up to the sixteenth century—in fact and edition was published with illustrations by Dürer. In it the knight, who is known to have been an exceptionally kind man, describes how disobedient women must be beaten and starved and dragged around by the hair of the head.

And six pages later Clark speaks about the most famous Saint in the High Middle Ages, whose live I would also consider the result of parental abuse:

In the years when the portal of Chartres was being built, a rich young man named Francesco Bernadone suffered a change of heart.

One day when he had fitted himself up in his best clothes in preparation for some chivalrous campaign, he met a poor gentleman whose need seemed to be greater than his own, and gave him his cloak. That night he dreamed that he should rebuild the Celestial City. Later he gave away his possessions so liberally that his father, who was a rich businessman in the Italian town of Assisi, was moved to disown him; whereupon Francesco took off his remaining clothes and said he would possess nothing, absolutely nothing. The Bishop of Assisi hid his nakedness, and afterwards gave him a cloak; and Francesco went off the woods, singing a French song.

The next three years he spent in abject poverty, looking after lepers, who were very much in evidence in the Middle Ages, and rebuilding with his own hands (for he had taken his dream literally) abandoned churches.

He threw away his staff and his sandals and went out bare-foot onto the hills. He said that he had taken poverty for his Lady, partly because he felt that it was discourteous to be in company of anyone poorer than oneself.

From the first everyone recognised that St Francis (as we may now call him) was a religious genius—the greatest, I believe, that Europe has ever produced.

Francis died in 1226 at the age of forty-three worn out by his austerities. On his deathbed he asked forgiveness of ‘poor brother donkey, my body’ for the hardships he had made it suffer.

Those of Francis’s disciples, called Fraticelli, who clung to his doctrine of poverty were denounced as heretics and burnt at the stake. And for seven hundred years capitalism has continued to grow to its present monstrous proportions. It may seem that St Francis has had no influence at all, because even the humane reformers of the nineteenth century who sometimes invoked him did not wish to exalt or sanctify poverty but to abolish it.

St Francis is a figure of the pure Gothic time—the time of crusades and castles and of the great cathedrals. But already during the lifetime of St Francis another world was growing up, which, for better or worse, is the ancestor of our own, the world of trade and of banking, of cities full of hard-headed men whose aim in life was to grow rich without ceasing to appear respectable.

Of course, Clark could not say that Francesco’s life was a classic case of battered child. Profound studies about child abuse would only start years after the Civilisation series. Today I would say that, since Francesco never wrote a vindictive text—something unthinkable in the Middle Ages that would not appear until Kafka’s letter to his father—, he internalized the parental abuse with such violence that his asceticism took his life prematurely.

What is missing in Clark’s account is that Francesco’s father whipped him in front of all the town people after Francesco stole from his shop several rolls of cloth. After the scourging inflicted by his father, with his own hands, and public humiliation, a citizen of Assisi reminded him that the town statutes allowed the father to incarcerate the rebellious son at home. Pedro shut Francesco in a sweltering, dark warehouse where “Francesco languished without seeing the light except when his father opened the door for Pica [the mother] taking a bowl of soup and a piece of bread.” After several weeks of being locked Francesco escaped and, always fearful of his father, hid in a cave. The earliest texts add that in the cave he often wept with great fear.

Francesco then embarked on a spectacular acting out of his emotional issues with his father. He made a big scene by returning to Assisi, undressing in the town’s square in front of Bishop Guido and addressing the crowd: “Hear all ye, and understand. Until now have I called Pedro Bernadone ‘my father’. But I now give back unto him the money, over which he was vexed, and all the clothes that I have had of him, desiring to say only, ‘Our Father, which art in Heaven,’ instead of ‘My father, Pedro Bernadone.’”

To everyone’s surprise Francesco broke with his wealthy parents forever, thus renouncing any possible reconciliation. So resolute was his parental repudiation, writes a Catholic biographer, that from that day on Pedro and Pica disappear from all the biographies of their son. There is no historical evidence of reconciliation, and no information about his parents or the circumstances of their death.

But I don’t want to diminish the figure of St Francis. Quite the contrary: in my middle teens I wanted to emulate him—and precisely as a result of the abuse inflicted by my father on me. And nowadays our world that has Mammon as its real God—trade, banking and dehumanized cities that are rapidly destroying the white race—, this will always remind me what Clark said about St Francis.

Nevertheless, despite my teenage infatuation with the saintly young man of Assisi, I doubt that poor Francesco’s defence mechanism to protect his mind against his father’s betrayal could be of any help now…

March of the Titans

The following sentences of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:

The isle of influence – England, Scotland, Wales
and the United Kingdom

• Æthelred II ordered the killing of all Danish men in England on St Brice’s Day, November 13, 1002.

• In 1189, the first anti-Jewish riot took place in London, which soon spread to York, where 150 Jews were killed by a mob after they took refuge in a local building, Clifford’s Tower, the ruins of which still stand to the present day.

1 Manuscript from The Chronicles of Offa that depicts Jews

• In 1290, all the Jews of England were expelled from the country, accused of exploitative financial practices related to their dominance of the banking business.

• Mary I restored the Roman Catholic church in England, violently suppressing the Anglicans, ordering 300 leading members of that church burned at the stake. [Her] bloodthirsty revenge upon the Anglicans earned her the title of Bloody Mary.

• In 1655, Cromwell also ruled that Jews could be allowed back into England in 1656, the first time since their expulsion in 1290.

• Elizabeth I, Queen of England, ordered the deportation of all Blacks from London in 1601, after objecting to the presence of approximately 20,000 Black slaves in the capital city. This single act ensured that Britain had no large scale Black presence until the late 20th Century.

• The occupation of India however led to a significant amount of racial mixing between British officers stationed in that country and Indian women—and many of these Indian wives were taken back to Britain (and Ireland, as Irishmen served in the British army at that time, the latter country also being controlled by Britain). The product of these mixed unions can still be detected amongst the modern day British and Irish populations.

• Politics in Victorian Britain became dominated by the liberal party under William Gladstone and the Conservative Party under Benjamin Disraeli, who traded places as prime minister and opposition leader twice during their long careers. Disraeli was a Christianized Jew whose writings on race were profound: they are however ignored by modern historians. In his book Tancred, published by Frederick Warne, London, in 1868, Disraeli wrote: “All is race—there is no other truth” (page 106). And in his book Endymion, published by Longmans, London, he wrote:

No man will treat with indifference the principle of race. It is the key to history and why history is so often confused is that it has been written by men who were ignorant of this principle and all the knowledge it involves… Language and religion do not make a race—there is only one thing which makes a race, and that is blood. [pages 249-250]

• The most important feature of post World War Two Britain has been the large immigration into that country from the Third World, a process which showed no signs of slowing down during the last quarter of the 20th Century. This process and its implications are discussed in another chapter.

Has Christianity…

been good for the White race?

by AAB


1) No it hasn’t. It has been far from good for the white race.

Internal warfare and external threats to the White Race in Europe were not abated by Christianity. Some of Europe was converted by 5th century by the Roman Empire, which saw the enslavement and death of 3 million White Gauls, and then their slow spiritual degradation.

The rest of Europe was converted to Christianity circa 11th century (by the point of the sword I might add). Over the next millennium there was much internal warfare which led to the destruction of people, property and ideas. What’s more is that Christianity did a poor job of defending White Christendom from invaders. So not only did it cause internal warfare, but it failed to defend the Christians from external threats, thus it was a double-edged sword of evil against the white race.

Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg

Muslim Expansions in 7th & 8th Centuries

Auburn – Muhammad’s conquests, 622–632
Atomic tangerine – Rashidun Caliphate, 632–661
Amber – Umayyad Caliphate, 661–750


Remember that it was nationalists who defended White Europe from invaders. Not Christians but nationalists. Christians had no desire to help one another despite the pleas that were sent by Kings from the Balkans when the Muslim Turks were invading. Europe was defended by Stephen cel Mare of Moldavia, Vlad Tepes of Wallachia, Ivan the IV of Muscovy, Ferdinand of Spain, amongst others. These men were nationalist champions first and foremost. They fought for their kin, for their family. Nationalists were the ones who fended off the invaders, not Christians. Christianity has done nothing to give internal security, nor external security. It’s crap as a police force, and worse as a military force. It causes destruction of all those who believe it. Other races would be wise to give Christianity a wide birth also, as it would likely have the same effect on them.

2) Christianity left the White Race genetically impoverished (as it does to “all races” who believe it). The most intelligent men and women were sent off to monasteries and nunneries to study instead of raising families and being innovators (like Farnsworth, Darwin, who had families and children) which means that the race didn’t benefit from their excellent genes. Obviously a race that degrades is only going to get worse. Is that what God intended when he created the universe: That we all end up thick, and physically unfit? I doubt it.

3) Christianity has achieved next to nothing in technological terms. Compare the Christian Civilisation / Empires that sprouted circa 1500, to the Pagan Empires of the Middle-East. The Christian Empires were obsessed with “making money,” hence the phrase “the Protestant Work Ethic” which is about being nothing more than a money grubber. Here are some of the achievements of the Pagans: the library at Alexandria, the Pyramids, Agriculture, Metal working—from the R1b Hittites, and astronomy. Now what have the Christians added to that in the millennia that they’ve had cultural dominance? Where are the pyramids, where is the great library? There are none of these things. As Arthur Schopenhauer pointed out the achievements of Europe during the Enlightenment era were made “in spite” of the faith known as Christianity.

Your life and happiness will be better served by believing that which is true, and that which begets good works. You’ll get neither of these things from Christianity, but both from truth. Whether that truth lays solely in spiritual-paganism or hard-headed science I don’t know. Uppsala Online is an intelligent website that straddles both worlds: the world of science and the world of spirit, and shows that you don’t have to fudge words or babble in order to defend your position like so many Christians seem to do. The truth serves you well and is simple and crystal-clear.

Anonymous said…

Under Christianity Europe gave us modern firearms, Gothic Cathedrals, modern medicine (to be fair the Romans were far ahead of Medieval Europeans) and the printing press. Unless you’re referring to a time when Europe was 100 percent theocratic. In that case, Christianity achieved very little. The good in Christianity was put there by White men, as was the good in Paganism. Paganism, by being intrinsically ours, is the healthier/better fit.

AAB said…

Though all races adhere to similar laws (logical, physical, biological etc., we’ve all got to eat and sleep!), there are differences between the races, and those differences are best satisfied by a belief system that is unique to them. A belief system along the lines of the Proto-Indo-European religion will probably be best for the White race. hyperborearising.wordpress.com seems to have a good grasp on such matters.

Finally, here’s the quote from Schopenhauer on “Christianity and Civilization”:

The reason civilization is at its highest point among Christian peoples is not that Christianity is favourable to it but that Christianity is dead and no longer exercises much influence: as long as it did exercise influence, civilisation was at a very low point among Christian peoples. All “religion” is antagonistic towards culture.

(Essays and Aphorisms, Hollingdale translation.)

Solzhenitsyn

In his 1978 Harvard Address Solzhenitsyn let academics know that the West and their America are, to put it succinctly, full of shit. More recently, the blogger Iranian for Aryans has gone further. He has pointed out that even pro-white advocates “are extreme individualists who don’t practice what they preach. Moreover, they are breathing the same cultural miasma as their ‘unenlightened’ coevals.”

Below, my abridgement of Solzhenitsyn’s address:

Solyenitsin

Harvard’s motto is “VERITAS.” Many of you have already found out and others will find out in the course of their lives that truth eludes us as soon as our concentration begins to flag, all the while leaving the illusion that we are continuing to pursue it. This is the source of much discord. Also, truth seldom is sweet; it is almost invariably bitter. A measure of truth is included in my speech today, but I offer it as a friend, not as an adversary.

How short a time ago, relatively, the small world of modern Europe was easily seizing colonies all over the globe, not only without anticipating any real resistance, but usually with contempt for any possible values in the conquered people’s approach to life. It all seemed an overwhelming success, with no geographic limits. Western society expanded in a triumph of human independence and power. And all of a sudden the twentieth century brought the clear realization of this society’s fragility.

We now see that the conquests proved to be short lived and precarious (and this, in turn, points to defects in the Western view of the world which led to these conquests). Relations with the former colonial world now have switched to the opposite extreme and the Western world often exhibits an excess of obsequiousness, but it is difficult yet to estimate the size of the bill which former colonial countries will present to the West and it is difficult to predict whether the surrender not only of its last colonies, but of everything it owns, will be sufficient for the West to clear this account.

A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, in each government, in each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society. There are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life.

Must one point out that from ancient times a decline in courage has been considered the first symptom of the end?

When the modern Western states were being formed, it was proclaimed as a principle that governments are meant to serve man and that man lives in order to be free and pursue happiness. (See, for example, the American Declaration of Independence.) Now at last during past decades technical and social progress has permitted the realization of such aspirations: the welfare state.

Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and in such quality as to guarantee in theory the achievement of happiness, in the debased sense of the word which has come into being during those same decades.

The individual’s independence from many types of state pressure has been guaranteed; the majority of the people have been granted well-being to an extent their fathers and grandfathers could not even dream about; it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, preparing them for and summoning them toward physical bloom, happiness, and leisure, the possession of material goods, money, and leisure, toward an almost unlimited freedom in the choice of pleasures. So who should now renounce all this, why and for the sake of what should one risk one’s precious life in defense of the common good and particularly in the nebulous case when the security of one’s nation must be defended in an as yet distant land?

Even biology tells us that a high degree of habitual well-being is not advantageous to a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of Western society has begun to take off its pernicious mask.

The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.

On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.

This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man—the master of the world—does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected. Yet strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still remains a great deal of crime; there even is considerably more of it than in the destitute and lawless Soviet society. (There is a multitude of prisoners in our camps who are termed criminals, but most of them never committed any crime; they merely tried to defend themselves against a lawless state by resorting to means outside the legal framework.)

The press can act the role of public opinion or miseducate it. Thus we may see terrorists heroized, or secret matters pertaining to the nation’s defense publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion into the privacy of well-known people according to the slogan “Everyone is entitled to know everything.” But this is a false slogan of a false era; far greater in value is the forfeited right of people not to know, not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip, nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life has no need for this excessive and burdening flow of information.

Your scholars are free in the legal sense, but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad. There is no open violence, as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to accommodate mass standards frequently prevents the most independent-minded persons from contributing to public life and gives rise to dangerous herd instincts that block dangerous herd development.

In America, I have received letters from highly intelligent persons—maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but the country cannot hear him because the media will not provide him with a forum. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to a blindness which is perilous in our dynamic era. An example is the self-deluding interpretation of the state of affairs in the contemporary world that functions as a sort of petrified armor around people’s minds, to such a degree that human voices from seventeen countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will be broken only by the inexorable crowbar of events…

But should I be asked, instead, whether I would propose the West, such as it is today, as a model to my country, I would frankly have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through deep suffering, people in our own country have now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive. Even those characteristics of your life which I have just enumerated are extremely saddening.

A fact which cannot be disputed is the weakening of human personality in the West while in the East it has become firmer and stronger. Six decades for our people and three decades for the people of Eastern Europe; during that time we have been through a spiritual training far in advance of Western experience. The complex and deadly crush of life has produced stronger, deeper, and more interesting personalities than those generated by standardized Western well-being.

After the suffering of decades of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer, and purer than those offered by today’s mass living habits, introduced as by a calling card by the revolting invasion of commercial advertising, by TV stupor, and by intolerable music.

There are telltale symptoms by which history gives warning to a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, a decline of the arts or a lack of great statesmen. Indeed, sometimes the warnings are quite explicit and concrete. The center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc. The smooth surface film must be very thin, then, the social system quite unstable and unhealthy.

But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started. The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive. You can feel their pressure, yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?

How has this unfavorable relation of forces come about? How did the West decline from its triumphal march to its present debility?

This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very foundation of thought in modern times. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world in modern times. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was born in the Renaissance and has found political expression since the Age of Enlightenment. It became the basis for political and social doctrine and could be called rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the pro-claimed and practiced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of all.

The turn introduced by the Renaissance was probably inevitable historically: the Middle Ages had come to a natural end by exhaustion, having become an intolerable despotic repression of man’s physical nature in favor of the spiritual one. But then we recoiled from the spirit and embraced all that is material, excessively and incommensurately. The humanistic way of thinking, which had proclaimed itself our guide, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man, nor did it see any task higher than the attainment of happiness on earth. It started modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend of worshiping man and his material needs.

Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual be granted boundless freedom with no purpose, simply for the satisfaction of his whims.

Subsequently, however, all such limitations were eroded everywhere in the West; a total emancipation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming ever more materialistic. The West has finally achieved the rights of man, and even excess, but man’s sense of responsibility to God and society has grown dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistic selfishness of the Western approach to the world has reached its peak and the world has found itself in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the celebrated technological achievements of progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the twentieth century’s moral poverty, which no one could have imagined even as late as the nineteenth century.

As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that “communism is naturalized humanism.”

This statement has proved to be not entirely unreasonable. One does not see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism’s rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today’s West and today’s East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth—imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

Is it right that man’s life and society’s activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but—upward.

Why whites cannot reassert themselves?

In a recent discussion thread I said:

The Imperial Church started to destroy entire libraries and invaluable monuments of the classical world that represented the very soul of our Indo-European heritage and ancient wisdom.

Mister Deutsch, a commenter, responded:

Amen. And that’s why whites cannot reassert themselves; their foundations were destroyed and replaced with a Semitic god.

The core problem is a confused spiritual identity; all of the other issues, be it miscegenation, liberalism, capitalism, Marxism, scientism, the cult of the bourgeois consumer, etc., are all the by-product of de-Aryanization via Christianity.

See the posts of Manu Rodríguez that I have translated from Spanish to delve deeper into this subject.

Below, the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina: a partial ruin that was turned into a church, but you can still make out the impressive front steps and portico today. At one time, it looked like the model below. It was built in 141 by the Emperor Antoninus and dedicated to his wife Faustina, who had died.

Temple of Antoninus and Faustina

In the Middle Ages the temple ruin was converted to the Church of San Lorenzo. Today, it is one of the strangest churches anywhere. On the forum side, the steps and columns are still visible, as is the inscription to Antoninus and Faustina, with a church roof and entry on the opposite side. During the Middle Ages the forum was all under 10-20 feet of earth, so today with the ground excavated you can see the church and what remains of the original structure.

A response to Parrott

Or:

The self-defeating notion
of a “Christian” white nationalism

by John Martínez

So you can see that my position goes far beyond both Christian reductionism and Jewish reductionism. I believe that individualism, universalism, weak ethnocentrism (“hardwired” characteristics in the White psyche since prehistoric times) + egalitarianism, liberalism, capitalism (cultural “software” after the Revolution which ironically strengthened Christian axiology) + the Jewish culture of critique in the 20th century = a truly lethal brew for the White peoples.

Chechar, you pretty much summarized the “White Question” (so to say) in this single paragraph.

I have the utmost respect for Parrott—the guy is brilliant, and he is a real fighter for the White cause.

However, what he and other White nationalists regrettably fail to see is that a “Racialist Christianity” is an oxymoron.

Here’s Saint Paul to give the final word on the question (Galatians 3:28): “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

In passages like this (not to mention many others throughout the New Testament, specially the several ones where Jesus violently attacks the rich in a way that would have made Karl Marx sound like an elitist) you have the real seeds of the French Revolution, Communism and modern Liberalism. For God’s sake, this is avant-garde Egalitarianism writ large!

I wonder what part our “Christian race realist” friends don’t understand in the sentence “There is neither Jew nor Gentile… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” After all, if we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, how can someone in his own mind argue against racial intermixing, for example?

Matt seems to claim that Medieval Christianity was not afflicted by the modern mainstream Christian attitude towards the racial question. That’s true, but the point is: was it so due to Christianity or in spite of it?

The fact of the matter is that the Christian ethos is so out of touch with reality, so fundamentally impractical that a number of compromises had to be made by the European peoples on which it was imposed over time so it could be rendered minimally functional.

judeocristianismoAny society that wished to take suicidal teachings like “Turn the other cheek” or “Resist not Evil” seriously would be enslaved overnight; a society that wished to take at face value teachings preaching that the rich will almost certainly be sentenced to Hell and that one should not worry about tomorrow but rather one should give everything away to the poor—a society that had gone insane enough to implement such ideas would implode almost immediately.

Therefore, it is obvious that a number of Christian tenets had to be simply ignored or rationalized into oblivion so that it could become a mainstream doctrine. Being the Europeans who they were and being surrounded by an ocean of hostile populations on all sides as it was the case, it is obvious that Christianity also had to be sort of “aryanized”—in other words, the notion of all humankind being one big family in Christ did not translate into Arabs, Blacks and Central Asians being invited to move en masse to Europe and being offered White maidens as brides.

The problem is that time passes and over time and with the help of improving life conditions, all of the radically liberal/egalitarian tenets of Christianity that could not be immediately put into practice by its adherents in the past eventually blossomed into reality.

[Chechar’s interpolated note: This is precisely what Conservative Swede argues in an entry I called “The Red Giant”. See my always-growing collection of similar articles: here.]

As I have pointed out in another thread, a number of philosophers and thinkers (e.g. Eric Voegelin) have established beyond the shadow of a doubt that the deep historical and ideological roots of the Left are to be found in certain Catholic heresies of the High Middle Ages. And it should come as no surprise if one seriously thinks about it for a minute. The leftist egalitarianism that has plagued the West ever since the French Revolution and that has gone into overdrive since the WW2 neither appeared nor has taken root anywhere outside of the realm of the Christian World. To their credit, it wasn’t the Muslim, the Chinese nor the Indian civilizations that invented this crap and in spite of the nominally Communist regime they have in China today, those folks couldn’t care less about any so-called “universal human rights” that have been the epicenter of all forms of Leftism since Rousseau.

Let’s face the fact, my race realist Christian friends: the pseudo-historical figure of Jesus was a typical liberal Jew. The egalitarian cancer that is at the base of the destruction of the White race is just the natural development of a number of elements that are part and parcel of the Christian ideology.

Please tell me how can you guys tell a Black man that although he is your brother in Christ you don’t want to him to live in the same society as you? Or rather, how can you say that with a straight face? And don’t get me wrong, I’m all for racial separation, but mind you, I am not a Christian. I don’t buy for a second the childish notion that we all belong to a big human family in Christ.

Like I have pointed out before on this blog, it puzzles me to see intelligent, well-informed White Nationalists, the overwhelming majority of whom are quite aware of the Jewish question… worshiping an avant la letter revolutionary Jew who owes nothing in terms of radicalism to a liberal Jew like the abominable talk-show host Alan Colmes!

Christian race realists should ponder on Tom Sunic’s brilliant articles on the paradox of a so-called “Christian White Nationalism” that are available both at The Occidental Observer and at The West Darkest Hour. This passage summarizes his view on the subject quite well:

How can a White nationalist, a racialist, or a traditionalist, or whatever he may call himself, and regardless of whether he lives in Europe or America, successfully combat hostile and alien worldviews and adopt different methods of conceptualisation, while at the same time revering these same alien referents and the same paradigms which are, ironically, part and parcel of the same non-European mindset he wishes to reject?

The matrix of the West, as [author] Krebs argues, is no longer territorial or political. It lies in the White man’s experiment with Christianity, which began as merely an obscure Oriental cult—a cult which has absolutely nothing in common with the spiritual homeland of the White man: ancient Greece.

The answer Krebs offers to intelligent White readers in America and Europe who are seeking an exit from the modern multicultural straitjacket and the conceptual mendacity of liberalism is simple, although it will require a great deal of courage: the return to our lost pre-Christian European roots. Novus rerum nascitur ordo.

[Source: here]

A Christian White Nationalism is a self-defeating ideology. You can’t fight the Jewish mental and material onslaught against the White race while you borrow their mythology at the same time. In fact, the situation is even worse than that: Judaism proper is a sadistic cult, whereas Christianity (the fake doctrine the kikes heaped upon you) is a masochistic one. Put gasoline and matches together and you have the picture of our current situation.

____________________

Chechar’s two cents:

Thanks, John.

In the previous post I said that I would read Parrott’s article. I have, and I find that this new sort of reductionism, although intriguing, is unconvincing.

A commenter in Parrott’s article just said, “Now that you have given us the definitive etiology, others don’t have excuses to keep them from devoting their energy towards treatment.” But if that reductionism was true, how would it explain the most extreme cases of self-hatred among whites? I have in mind, for instance, those gentile politicians who strenuously advocate non-white, mass immigration in their countries when such immigration is clearly counter-productive from a strictly economic, “plate tectonics” or “occult war” standpoint (Parrott’s imagery).

Parrott’s model just cannot explain individual pathology. For instance, I recently heard my father talking to my uncle, both in their eighties, in the highest terms about José María Morelos (1765-1815), the insurgent leader who led the Mexican War of Independence.

JOSE MARIA MORELOS Y PAVON

Well, Morelos had black ancestors, like his deputy, Vicente Guerrero. It is said that as a mulatto, to avoid being called names in certain circles, Morelos covered his black curly-hair—obvious black heritage—with the legendary bandana that adorns his head in every picture that represents him. How would Parrott explain my family’s pathology, taking into account that my father and my uncle have zero negro blood in their veins? (You would have to listen my father’s ecstatic panegyric of Morelos a couple of days ago…!)

He can’t. (Just as it is impossible to explain from Parrott’s model why so many whites in the US and in Europe are saying that the white race must disappear in the melting pot.) Instead of an “occult war” I would rather trace my family’s pathologies to their staunch Catholicism and their deranged Christian altruism.

To me, it’s obvious that all mono-reductionist models have holes, and that the best way to approach the subject of the West’s darkest hour is through the metaphor of a witches’ brew (the first quote in this very entry).