About Nick Fuentes (and more)

‘We are not the Alt Right—AR was a racialist, atheist, post-American, revolutionary, and transnational movement. America First is a traditionalist, Christian, conservative, reformist, American Nationalist movement’.

Nick Fuentes

What I translated in the other post today about the extreme puritanical behaviour among the ancient Vandals reaffirms what was said in my previous entries of the ignorance in the secular Alt-Right about some elemental history of the Aryan race.

Sexual debauchery in Greece and Rome only happened when those great civilisations were interbreeding with their racial inferiors. Before miscegenation, both Greco-Romans and ancient Germanic tribes, such as the Vandals and those mentioned by Tacitus, were extremely puritanical (sex with inferior races also doomed Ancient Egypt; see below). This is why I feel far more at home with Christians like Nick Fuentes than with those secular racialists whose sexual mores strike me as degenerate. Yesterday, for example, self-styled nihilist Jean-François Gariépy counter-signalled Fuentes about open homosexuality. JFG, of course, is tragically wrong. Aryan civilisation can only be built upon the solid rock of norms that regulate Eros, as the Nazis also understood.

But I am not a Christian. Below I quote a recent Robert Morgan comment on Unz Review about how Christianity could end; the last paragraphs of Evropa Soberana’s article on Egypt, and I offer my opinion about a Stormfront post about Wikipedia and Nick Fuentes’ Christianity. Morgan wrote:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

My view is similar to yours, that the empty pews are a sign that the West is turning away from Christianity. Unfortunately for the white race though, while belief in Christ and miracles is fading, the Christian moral vision of universal racial equality is stronger than ever. It has sunk into the culture, and is believed without questioning even by atheists.

In order to save the white race, that belief too would have to be completely extirpated, torn out by the roots. [But] Christianity and the culture it spawned is so useful to the success of empire that it’s hard to envision conditions under which that could happen.

It would be such a radical change in worldview that it would probably take (or even cause?) the collapse of civilization itself, similar to the way it happened when Rome fell. The Christian takeover resulted in the loss of about 99% percent of Latin literature, and 90% of Greek. Temples to pagan gods, some architectural wonders of the ancient world, were looted and pulled down. Priceless statuary and art was vandalized or smashed. Philosophers were tortured and executed, their writings banned and consigned to the flames.

Now imagine something similar happening to all the Christian churches; the Pope dragged out of his lair, tortured and executed; the Vatican a heap of smouldering ruins, its wealth confiscated, any art it contained smashed to pieces; banning and burning all copies of the Bible, and any Christian writings based on or referring to it; killing all the priests.

That’s what it would take to really get rid of Christianity. Then, and only then, could we say that Jesus is as dead as Zeus. Yet so long as the myth of racial equality was useful, I suspect empire would merely adopt another belief system to justify it.

[Editor’s note: ‘The myth of racial equality was useful’. So true. I also have wondered what was the primary cause of white malaise: Jewish subversion in the form of the gospel message or simply Constantine using the most effective weapon of the empire, Judeo-Christianity, to control whites? Remember how he moved the capital from white Rome to an increasing mud place, Byzantium—just what our elites are trying to do today!]

 

______ 卐 ______

 

The image below belongs to an unknown man of the V Dynasty. This racial type, neither Semitic nor Negroid, with dark hair and European features and identical to that found in Etruscan or Iberian art, was probably the predominant in the middle classes of ancient Egyptian society.

What happened to Egypt? Why did it fall after millennia of splendour? As with all the decline and falls of civilisations the answer lies in biology in general and genetics in particular.

In 1296 BCE the Egyptians conquered Nubia (Southern Negro inhabitants), building a series of forts to protect borders and control insurrections. At one point it was forbidden for any Nubian to cross the border and enter Egypt. Over time, as it is obvious in Egyptian art, black slaves were imported. As always, a low birth rate among the Egyptian nobility, a high birth rate among black slaves and Semites, and the miscegenation produced by the relaxation of the warrior, aristocratic and dominant mentality, cursed Egypt. Finally, in 200 years Egypt went from being a great civilisation to disappearing from the map of civilised nations, at the mercy of stronger foreign powers.

Until 1050 BCE, all the pharaohs had been predominantly white. With the advent of the XXV Dynasty and the ‘black pharaohs’, who had a brief and decadent reign of 75 years, during which they built stunted 20 meter high pyramids (the great pyramid of Cheops, coming from the good times of the true pharaohs, measured 146 meters), the original genetic and biological substrate that had created the civilisation was drowned forever in the dense thicket of dark blood.

In 343 BCE the last native king was deposed by the Persians. From then on, the confused and uprooted ‘Egyptian’ mass passed at the hands of Persians, then to the Greco-Macedonians (here they experienced a new boom, expressed in the emergence of Hellenic blood, the city of Alexandria and the time of Cleopatra, a Macedonian), then Roman, Arab, Turkish, English and, finally, American guardianship under Mubarak, until he was deposed by the rebellions of January 2011. Under the Islamist shadow the future of the country is more uncertain than ever.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

I capitalised the words originally written in lowercase on Stormfront:

Wikipedia is owned by a Jewish atheist called Jimmy Wales. He also owns a porn website and that is how he earned his millions yet he downplays this and the majority of public doesn’t know about it. He is a con man.

The whole of Wikipedia is liberal and owned by a liberal crew of elite editors who deny race exists. Just look at any race article to see that. Wiki bans any white nationalist, etc., and they consider any racial view as “fringe” and they heavily edit and suppress any info like that coming into Wikipedia. If you want to see an example of this, then see the white nationalism, race realism article or something like the multiregional hypothesis article where they troll any new edits and are not neutral on the subject.

This explains a lot, but not everything.

As before discovering white nationalism I edited Wikipedia a few years, I eventually realised that the real trick lies in its policy of what they call ‘reliable sources’. In plain English, ‘reliable sources’ are nothing other than what throughout Christendom was called Imprimatur and Nihil obstat: it was only possible to publish with the approval of the Catholic Church.

Exactly the same happens on Wikipedia today, with the difference that now Christianity no longer holds the monopoly of the media but Judaism. For example, you can only reference wiki-articles with publications that come from official journals and publishing houses of the System.

But what’s exactly the problem with that? See my rephrasing of Tom Sunic in my Wikipedia user page: ‘Regarding this encyclopaedia’s policy of “reliable sources”, it has become a customary procedure for the System to relegate free thinkers and would-be heretics and their literary or scientific achievements to marginal outlets, such as self-publishing, that are very similar to those used by dissidents in the ex-Soviet Union’.

Since the controlled media is at the hands of Jewry, the ‘reliable sources’ policy means that every wiki-article dealing with social issues must be, de facto, Kosher approved. That’s why no unbiased article that touches white identity can be fixed on Wikipedia.
 

Against Fuentes’ religion

Let’s go back to Nick Fuentes. The chasm that separates me from American racialists is so great that the only way to get past it would be, for at least one of them, to read the autobiographical books that I will soon begin to translate.

In short, it is a ‘psychogenic’ chasm. If we compare the life of a racialist like Fuentes with a typical Hollywood comedy, my film would be as heavily existential as what we can see in a Russian film, Andrei Rublev, located when Russia was still in the Middle Ages. If a time machine were possible so that Rublev, who existed in real life, could talk to an American today, it would be seen that my analogy of the two films is spot-on: a psychogenic chasm separates the two minds in an impassable way.

Compared to ‘Rublev’, Fuentes, who has reproduced rap music in his shows, is frivolous as he likes the movies that Hollywood has produced in recent times. He not only ignores European and Russian cinema, but even the old American cinema that I saw as a child. What’s worse, Fuentes has said that the United States ‘is a Christian nation’. In a recent interview with a black Youtuber, another Christian, who asked him if he hated Jews, Fuentes replied that he hated no one but loved everyone, including the Jews.

Like every Christian and neochristian, Fuentes ignores that love is murdering the white race. Moreover, like almost every American racialist Fuentes is ignorant about the history of Christianity: a history of genocidal hatred. Next week I will publish a translation about the complete extermination of two Aryan peoples, the Vandals and the Ostrogoths, perpetrated by a non-Aryan emperor, Justinian, in the 6th century. To my knowledge, neither Fuentes nor any racially conscious Christian knows that black page of the history of their Church. Almost nobody in the movement seems to be concerned with the historical facts, how the Aryan man betrayed their white Gods to worship the god of those who wanted to exterminate them.

Even those who ignore the history of their religion could see that there is a sort of schizophrenia on being Jew-wise and obeying, at the same time, the god of the Jews. Alas, no Christian in the movement wants to heal from such doublethink. In the livestream of the Groypers in Florida, for example, he who surreptitiously recorded that recent event rebelled against the term ‘Judeo-Christian’ expressed by Charlie Kirk. Something as absolutely obvious as that all holy New Testament characters are Jewish doesn’t seem to cause any internal conflict among them.

I don’t think people like Fuentes and company are going to heal themselves from their divided Judeo-Christian minds. Even the author of Siege, so acclaimed by would-be revolutionaries, suffers an acute stage of the disease. This Wednesday, in an interview with Invictus, James Mason’s last words were: ‘…and wait until the return of the Lord. It is very, very near’.

It doesn’t matter that Mason, who has become a Christian identist (see his latest book When We Were All Jews), was brilliant in other parts of the interview. It has to happen what Revilo Oliver said: only a catastrophe that causes suffering for many decades could move the surviving whites to really question their ethno-suicidal paradigm.

For example, despite having defended Richard Spencer last week, even he, a secular racialist, goes on to say that when whites have their empire again, the coloured should be helped outside the ethnostate! I heard that in another interview with Invictus. The interview was recorded after the Spencer scandal I mentioned last Friday. Spencer’s comments on this out-group altruism, which I label neochristian insofar as pre-Christian whites didn’t suffer it, can be listened almost at the end of the interview. Incidentally, ‘Feast’, part IV of Andrei Rublev, depicts beautifully a large group of pre-Christians conducting a lit-torch ritual for midsummer in a magical night: visual art that the likes of Fuentes will never appreciate.

Rublev comforts Boriska, breaking his vow of silence.

Let there be no doubt: American racialists need decades of continuous suffering à la Rublev to give up their little paradigm, as Robert Morgan imagined above. If out-group love is murdering the white race let us transvalue Christian values. Only out-group hatred will save us: paradoxically, the core of ‘the 4 words’ in my final books.

Hopefully, the crash of the dollar and energy devolution will do the Oliver trick…

Advice to would-be revolutionaries

In his last article against white nationalist terrorism, Greg Johnson said: ‘Yes, Crusius did something evil…’ Despite claims to the contrary, self-styled secular Johnson, who used to deliver Christian homilies in a San Francisco church, has never given up Christian ethics:

By the “Old Right,” I mean classical Fascism and National Socialism and their contemporary imitators who believe that White Nationalism can be advanced through such means as one party-politics, terrorism, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide.

This was the way forward for every triumphant movement, including the conquests of Rome, Christianity, Islam, the Iberian conquests in the Americas and communism. What is Johnson suggesting here? That conquest is possible through purely pacifist means?

Today’s Old Right scene is rife with fantasies of race war, lone-wolf attacks on non-whites, and heroic last stands that end in a hail of police bullets. Intelligent and honorable people have emerged from this milieu. But there have been more than a few spree-killers as well. This kind of violence is worse than a crime. It is a mistake. It does nothing to advance our cause and much to set us back.

Inspiring books like the novels of Pierce and Covington are important. But just as Pierce tried to dissuade Bob Mathews, I would try to dissuade would-be revolutionaries of doing something premature. Mathews could have done much more harm to the System if he stayed alive.

(1) We must be alert to the signs of mental instability and inclinations toward violence and rigorously screen out such people, (2) we need to draw clear, unambiguous intellectual lines between New Right and Old Right approaches, and (3) if anyone makes concrete threats of committing such acts in our circles, we need to be the ones to call the police.

Pierce tried to dissuade Matthews but he didn’t call the police. Obviously, the moral standards of Pierce and Johnson are different.

But Johnson has a point. In fact, I would like to add something about my recent post challenging Charles Manson fans to tell me in what way Manson’s actions are good for the 14 words.

The only major commenter who has recently tried to rationalise Manson’s behaviour is Robert Morgan on Unz Review. A visitor to this site, Adunai, has recently tried to discuss with Morgan on that site. Morgan seems to believe that Manson’s motivations were to try to create a racial war in the United States. According to two sources in the Wikipedia article about Manson, this allegation has been questioned. Since Wikipedia is anti-white, if Manson had really been an inveterate racist his racism would have been fully supported by good sources in that article.

Here is my hypothesis as to why intelligent racists like Morgan and others are attracted to such failed figures as Manson: Many of them—as Manson himself—have suffered hell like the one I suffered as a teenager. But precisely because I have written 1,600 pages in three books trying to understand what the hell happened in my life, a painful literary adventure started in 1988 that ended this year, I’m not hanging on spurious heroes. Rather, I try to help white nationalism in a very different way.

I refer to a profound diagnosis of the darkest hour in the West. The monocausal diagnosis accepted in white nationalism is, in my opinion, myopic: the Jews are responsible. I do not deny the JQ. I simply expand it into the CQ: the Judeo-Christian question. That is to say: I still believe that the theoretical basis of, say, a MacDonald on the group survival strategy of Jewry is correct. What I add to MacDonald’s myopic perspective is the meta-perspective that whites are infected with Judeo-Christian axiology. A perfect example of such axiological infection is Johnson’s use of the word ‘evil’ above (MacDonald himself has said that white nationalism is not about conquering, for instance, Mexico).

So, while I agree with Johnson that it is not time to jump into the revolution, I disagree with the Christian and Neochristian mindset that prevails in white nationalism and the alt-right.

My contribution to the movement is basically axiological. As long as they do not revalue their values, the Judeo-Christian system will continue to beat them. Johnson is right that it is not yet time for politics but for metapolitics. What he and the others fail to understand is that they have to throw away all residue of love for the Other if they want to recover the West.

This is my advice to the desperate man who wants to do revolutionary politics today instead of patient metapolitics: read The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour that appears on the sidebar. If you don’t want to buy it, read the articles on this site where all the content of that book appears. As the last line in the Hamlet play says, ‘The rest is silence’.

Morgan vs. Ryckaert

 
Franklin Ryckaert: Racism= harming people of another race because of their race. Race realism = realizing that races are inherently different and avoiding risky situations with people of other races.

Robert Morgan: Or in other words, racists do what ‘race realists’ would do if they had the courage.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: Franklin Ryckaert exemplifies what is wrong with white nationalism and the alt-right.

Per the Old Testament and the Talmud, Jews must exterminate the Gentiles.

Per the New Testament, Gentiles are commanded, instead, to love the Other including Jews and non-whites.

White nationalists and alt-righters don’t obey the Führer. They obey the Jew who wrote the New Testament: prolefeed for us Gentiles.

It is just that simple.

Whites are condemned to become extinct unless they transvalue Ryckaert’s et al values back to pre-Christian mores. But nationalists won’t do it. They’re self-righteously addicted to their (((drug)))…

Veritas odium parit, 7

According to the theologians’ interpretation, the Church is born from the open side of Christ. It is the Church that congregates next to the cross of the Saviour in this painting of a Navarrese-French teacher at the Lázaro Galdiano Museum in Madrid.

The Imperial Church of Constantine and his successors always was a catholic, i.e. universal church. It is the institution that sanctioned universalism in the West. In ‘The Saxon Savior: Converting Northern Europe’ Ash Donaldson said:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Universalism’s pyrrhic victory

It took centuries of relentless indoctrination to get the peoples of Northern Europe to extend the in-group boundaries outward to embrace, first, all those who said the words and bent the knee before the cross, and eventually all of humanity, whose encompassing by the true Faith is a Christ-given goal.

But at the moment of its greatest success, with European missionaries dispatched to the remotest corners of Africa and Asia, Christianity found itself assailed by the very universalism that had provided its appeal in the first centuries. The same weapons it had wielded to discredit the pre-Christian myths and folkways were now turned against it by the advocates of a universalism that had no need for something as quaint as deity. If, today, the notion of God seems less and less of a possibility to the rootless inhabitants of our soulless cities, it is partly because Christian universalism paved the way by making our tribal identities, ancient customs, and cherished myths ultimately irrelevant.

Today, with that thousand-year resistance behind us, we can see how the triumph of universalism, set in motion by a very different sort of savior in the fourth century BC, has gradually left us without a folk, without a polis, and without the means to even comprehend how fully life was once lived. All that remains, it seems, is to double down on Christian universalism, throw oneself instead into a substitute universalism such as Marxism, or chuck it all for an unabashed individualism.

Yet as the past century-and-a-half shows, ethnic identity has a habit of returning with a vengeance. Those who rediscover such myths, folkways, and traditions as have come down to us often find that these things strike a chord within them. They simply fit, without all the caveats and yes-but’s of syncretic universalism.

Ultimately, however, a folkish way of life must have a folk community, and not the virtual communities that exist only on social media. We must have a polis again, in all that the Greeks understood by that term: small, self-governing communities bound by common language, ethnicity, customs, and religious traditions. Such a thing, far from being utopian, would spring from our nature, life as it was lived across thousands of generations.

What is artificial is our divorce from the land, our crowding into cities to live alongside strangers for the purpose of endless consumption, and our insistence on universalism even when we ourselves—those of European descent—lose the most by it. In the long view, all this is fairly recent, and in the North, quite recent indeed. That should give us confidence, for though the line is frayed, it is far from broken.

____________

Bibliographical references appear in the original article.

Published in: on July 23, 2019 at 10:18 pm  Comments Off on Veritas odium parit, 7  

Three types of Meds

by Mauricio

Granadinos by Robert Kemm (1837-1895)
stored at Biblioteca Provincial de Granada.

______ 卐 ______

 
Meds are very polarised in terms of racial awareness. The way I see it, there’s three camps:

Camp A – “We wuz never Nordics.”

They believe “Mediterranean” to be a race on it’s own, separate from Aryans. Most will unwittingly glorify the Hollywood versions of the Greek and Roman Empires, and will refuse to admit they were spawned from nigger miscegenation.

It’s like that “sour grapes” tale of the fox, bit with Aryan genes instead of grapes.

These Meds have a crushing inferiority complex, and deep down, they envy the beauty and purity of the Aryan genes. I wouldn’t classify them as anti-White, but they are certainly anti-Nordics, which makes them borderline race-traitors. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them had Jewish ancestry—after all, blood speaks louder than words. Well, at least they hate niggers…

Camp B – “We’re mixed, and that’s fine.”

For these Meds, there’s no racial purity anymore; the world is becoming a Big Beige Village, and soon the Aryans will be mixed too. These degenerate quitters are the most common. They secretly lust for brown, easy flesh. They don’t care if they come from Aryans or niggers. They capitulate under PC atmospheric pressure, and won’t even feel an ounce of hate if their daughter is fucking a mulatto. Traitor scum. To the gallows.

Camp C – “We’re mixed, and that sucks.”

The minority. Closet racists, they care about their ancestry and descendents. These Meds are soldier material against ZOG if given the proper 14 words guidance. My guess is, they comprise the least mixed portion of the Meds, and they can see a glimmer of hope in their brown eyes when they look in the mirror.

Last year, I wrote a comment on Varg Vikernes’ YouTube channel, on a video about Racial Purity. My comment got pinned at the top and received hundreds of replies. Varg recently got shoah’d, so I can’t link the video, but my comment went something along the lines of:

The racial standard for Europeans has always been blue eyes and blonde hair. Brown hair and eyes is admixture. We Mediterraneans need to recognise this. Our European ancestors have miscegenated, and the result is us. But there’s still hope.

If we choose to stay in Europe, and brave the European climate; if we feed ourselves from European wilderness; if we breed only with our own; if we raise our children to be traditional and self-sufficient, then eventually, Nature will reward us, by re-surfacing our dormant Aryan genes in our descendants. Our children will inherit Thule.

So let’s make it happen.

The next day, I got lambasted by at least 30 comments from Med Camp A: “Meds are glorious too!” “If you like them so much, why don’t you go suck Nordic cock” and some 20 comments from Camp B: “Haha, you’re a sand-nigger, you’ll never be Aryan.”

And some Aryan commenters, in the same vein as this Kurwenal fellow, actually praised my comment: “That’s the spirit! We’re all together in this fight! Hail our Mediterranean brothers.”

It’s all fun and games until the music stops. And modern Aryans are addicted to music.
 

Editor’s note:

What matters here are the words of the Aryans collected in the penultimate paragraph. All of them around the globe suffer from a psychological problem after World War II. Before the war, the eugenicist associations assumed that the parameter of whiteness and eugenic selection in Europe was the Nordic: England, Ireland, the Scandinavian countries, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and those uncontaminated in France, Northern Italy, Russia and other countries.

All that was thrown overboard after the war against Germany, and white nationalists in the United States no longer read racialist pioneers like the American Madison Grant, a Nordicist.

After WW2, virtually all whites have accepted with extraordinary fanaticism the Christian ethics that equals men with women, the black with the white and the Nord with the Med. What these nationalists insist on not seeing is that the entire line of Aryan preservation studies before the war, from Gobineau to Günther through Chamberlain, took Nordicism for granted.

White nationalism really represents a radical departure from racial orthodoxy. Neither Mauricio nor I are inventing anything new. It is them, the nationalists who, in pursuit of political correctness, don’t want to hurt our feelings.

To put it bluntly, white nationalism is a regressive aberration towards Christianity. Even the agnostics of that movement subscribe the ethics of loving one’s neighbour as oneself. Everyone who really wants to save the race from extinction must replace this utter nonsense in the alt-right with National Socialism.

For those new visitors who don’t know the subject, I suggest you start researching it by reading this abstract.

Published in: on July 22, 2019 at 10:34 am  Comments (7)  

On Voldemort the Mudblood

Today I changed the name of one of the most used categories on this site: from ‘deranged altruism’ to ‘out-group altruism’. The latter term better denotes what happened in the Aryan psyche since it was finished being conquered by the Judeo-Christian ethic. (In the pagan world, neither the Greeks nor the Romans nor the Norseman felt obliged to altruism outside their ethnic groups.)

Lately I have been thinking about the transition from Christian ethics—thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself—to secular ethics—altruism towards non-whites—, and I realised that there is no comprehensive treatise on the subject.

For this reason, I reread ‘Egalitarianism’ which I reproduced on this site four years ago. I was so impressed by the lucidity of the author, who in the forums signed as ‘Kurwenal’ that I was about to request a printed copy of his book, Suprahumanism: European Man and the Regeneration of History by Daniel S. Forrest (London: Arktos, 2014. It is unclear if Daniel S. Forrest is just another penname of Kurwenal or his real name.)

Kurwenal had posted very intelligent comments on this site from 2012 to 2015. I have the impression that he is a German who has lived in Spain. Kurwenal is one of the few white nationalists who has read some of the content of Hojas Susurrantes and I even mention him in the second book of my autobiographical trilogy. A big admirer of Richard Wagner, he used the name of one of the characters in Wagner’s operas: Kurwenal.

However, just before clicking on the shipment from Amazon it seemed pertinent to read a review in Counter-Currents. The book-review title is ‘Daniel Forrest’s Suprahumanism’ and was authored by Ted Sallis. You can imagine my surprise to find, in the comments section, the following comment by Forrest/Kurwenal:

From a political perspective, an inclusive approach is preferable: all Europeans of good will both in the mother continent and overseas are to be considered members of the future European ‘polis’, independently of past ‘admixtures’ or present unprepossessing genetic traits.

Joseph Walsh has told me that not only whites seem to suffer from a death wish, but that even the white nationalists themselves suffer from this ailment. The first time he communicated such an idea, I’m not sure if it was in London, it seemed to me implausible and bizarre. Only over the years did I realise that it was sadly true, and Kurwenal’s quote exemplifies it.

Out-group altruists do not seem to have weighed on my scolding to the editor of Counter-Currents about the most abject confusion between some Meds and real whites. See for example these two photos that I reproduced in 2013 where the face of one of the purest whites of Scandinavia is contrasted with one of the swarthiest Italians in Sicily. Kurwenal’s non-Nordicist philosophy, orthodoxy among most alt-right folks, can only end in their extinction.

Although not as swarthy or ugly as the Sicilian referred above, what is most paradoxical is that a mudblood like me is the one who wants to save what remains of the Aryans. In contrast, pure whites, whether nationalists or not, have been, since WW2, in pursuit of their extinction—and precisely because of their eternal guilt complexes dating from the transit of pagan to Christian axiology.

In the Harry Potter saga Lord Voldemort is a mudblood obsessed with purity. Of course, J. K. Rowling used it as a metaphor for her anti-racist ideology. I kind of project myself on Voldemort because it’s precisely the fact that the dark lord himself has lost his pure pedigree what explains his concern that others could lose it too.

Published in: on July 20, 2019 at 6:39 pm  Comments (4)  

Veritas odium parit, 6

The blood of Christ, the subject of inexhaustible meditation for the believer, is visible in a detail of this Crucifixion by Fra Angelico in which a monk appears contemplating the bloodied feet of his Lord. In the detail of this painting, which is located in the Florentine Convent of St. Mark, it can also be seen how such blood flows from the cross to the truncated tree.

A guilt-tripped man at the feet of the crucified rabbi is the archetypal antithesis of the proud Aryan Berserker of other times: to whom the morbid fascination of Judeo-Christians seemed unhealthy, bizarre and even inexplicable. In ‘The Saxon Savior: Converting Northern Europe’ Ash Donaldson said:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

The Saxon savior

The author of the ninth-century Saxon gospel known as the Heliand undertook much more than a translation, as difficult as that task has proven for missionaries. In his harmonization of the four Gospels into a single narrative, he presented Christ as an Odinic wizard-chieftain, with the apostles as his war-band. Consider the episode of St. Peter cutting off the ear of the Roman soldier arresting Jesus. While it takes up only two verses in John (the other Gospels do not even mention that it was Peter), in the Heliand, Christ’s foremost “swordsman” flies into a berserker rage:

Then Simon Peter, the mighty, the noble swordsman flew into a rage; his mind was in such turmoil that he could not speak a single word. His heart became intensely bitter because they wanted to tie up his Lord there. So he strode over angrily, that very daring thane, to stand in front of his Commander, right in front of his Lord. No doubting in his mind, no fearful hesitation in his chest, he drew his blade and struck straight ahead at the first man of the enemy with all the strength in his hands, so that Malchus was cut and wounded on the right side by the sword! Blood gushed out, pouring from the wound! The cheek of the enemy’s first man had been cut open. The men stood back—they were afraid of the slash of the sword.

Similarly, the author of the Heliand knew that the episode of Joseph and the pregnant Mary searching in vain for a place to stay for the night would be incomprehensible to the Germanic peoples, whose valuation of hospitality is clear from the Hávamál. So when the parents of Jesus arrive at the “hill-fort” of their clan, they are tended to by horse-guards, not shepherds, the former being suitable representatives of the warrior class, while the infant Jesus is placed among jewels.

There is more at work here than cultural transplantation, or even such ambitious modifications as moving the Last Supper to a mead hall or having Satan don a Germanic cap of invisibility to deceive Pilate’s wife. There is little to no valorization of victimhood in the Heliand, and the Beatitudes are reworked as praises of warrior endurance.

Sin, fate, and even generosity are all revised to fit a Germanic hero such as Christ is made out to be (problems which the sympathetic Jesuit who translated it into modern English is at great pains to square with orthodoxy). The author of the Heliand even seems to imply that the twelve members of the apostolic war-band might not even be Jewish, and hail instead from a northern people.

Notably absent from the Heliand gospel, moreover, are two famous parables that would not have sat well with a Germanic audience. The events described in the story of the Prodigal Son would have been unthinkable to a society in which kinship was paramount. The absence of the Good Samaritan parable is even more suggestive, since in the original, Christ uses it to introduce a universal moral obligation to treat strangers and foreigners as one would kin. Such an idea was foreign to the free peoples of the North, and one that Aristotle rejected as well.

And here we come to the nub of the problem. The Mediterranean audience for the Gospels and missionary work of St. Paul had been subjected to a political unification across ethnic and racial lines. [emphasis by Ed.]

Long before its decline, the Roman Empire displayed ample signs of declining civic engagement and social trust, qualities Harvard Professor Robert Putnam has statistically linked to diversity. What kept everyone’s Fagin-like concern for “number one” from pulling the whole thing apart was both the iron fist of Rome and the emperors’ insistence on public worship of the state.

Political universalism was thus reinforced by religious universalism, and Christianity proved more determined and well-equipped to insist upon that universalism than any of the pagan emperors had. Thus, either individualistic hedonism, or some variety of universalism, seemed the only choices to a people who had lost all of the intermediate institutions that tribe and kin provide.

The free peoples of Northern Europe, in contrast, maintained all of the strong links Aristotle identified as natural to our condition. As a result, they rejected individualistic hedonism quite readily and had no concept of universalism or of out-group obligations.

The sagas instead teem with people who have clear obligations framed by ties of kinship and friendship. Had the author of the Heliand presented the parable of the Good Samaritan, his Saxon audience would have incredulously asked, “Where were this man’s kinfolk?” Having no notion that mere physical proximity implied extra-tribal duties—an idea originating in the ethnic melting pot of Mediterranean cities—they would have difficulties extending that concept universally, as the parable seeks to do. That would require centuries of patient indoctrination.

Through syncretism and outright omission, Christianity was presented as—and ultimately became—something less foreign and less threatening to the peoples of the North. A faith that was Semitic in origin won only by becoming partially Europeanized, as James Russell describes in The Germanization of Medieval Christianity. (The Greek language has an admirable way of expressing this phenomenon: in addition to the active and passive voices of verbs, it also has a middle voice, in which the agent is both acting and acted upon.)

Yet today, the Völkerwanderung of Third World peoples is a reminder that this syncretism has gone on throughout the world, giving us such bizarre phenomena as the wildly popular cult of Santa Muerte, reviving the worship of the Aztec queen of the underworld trussed up as a skeletal Catholic saint.

Many tradition-minded people seem to be calling for a revival of Victorian “muscular Christianity,” yet the muscles have always been provided by the pre-Christian elements in this amalgamation, which tends to downplay the very things that the Heliand left out altogether. It is as if such people are trying to work their way back to something more familiar and more intuitive without sacrificing orthodoxy. Yet beyond the trappings of old-school Europeanized Christianity lies a core message that, of necessity, consigns ethnic identity, ancestral traditions, and ultimately this life itself to irrelevance in the face of our ultimate unity with God.

Published in: on July 19, 2019 at 2:44 pm  Comments Off on Veritas odium parit, 6  

How Christianity harms the race

by Michael Masters (1997)

Christianity, which many believe to be the noblest moral system ever conceived, must now share blame for the dissolution of the West. A faith that once served as an anchor for Western civilization has become a source for the same self-flagellating guilt that typifies liberalism. Today, Christianity’s public expression differs only cosmetically from Marxism in its attitudes towards economic redistribution, equality, and racial integration.

How has Christianity sunk so low—and our people with it? The answer is that it has subverted inbred traits of altruism that help family and tribe survive, and has transmuted those traits into agents of passivity and surrender. Christianity has universalized altruism, thus stripping us of our defense against multiracialism. Today’s Christianity drives us to betray our own interests to whoever asks. At the same time, a preoccupation with eternal reward in the world to come blinds some Christians to the consequences of their actions today.
 

Christianity’s decline

Loss of racial loyalty is recent. For centuries, race consciousness posed no moral dilemma to Christians. That “old-time religion” was good enough for Charles Martel when he smashed the Muslim invasion of Europe in 732 at Tours. It was good enough for Pope Urban II when he launched the Crusades in 1095. It was good enough for Columbus and Magellan, who claimed newly-discovered lands in the name of both king and faith. It was good enough for European colonial masters who ruled millions of non-Whites, untroubled by egalitarian scruples.

Christianity’s divorce from racial consciousness was both sudden and recent. Only in the 20th century did [anti-racial “morality”] infiltrate virtually every mainline Christian organization. By the 1960s, organized Christianity was working hand in hand with organized Judaism to dismantle the South’s self-protective wall of racial hierarchy.

What transformed the church? The problem is that Christian dogma has always contained dangerous moral precepts that undermine the natural instinct for group preservation. These precepts may be summarized thus: Sacrifice yourself today for the benefit of others, buoyed by faith in an “eternal reward.”

In earlier times, this idea posed little danger to White survival because it was preached by Whites living in an almost all-White world. Today, on a crowded planet filled with envious Third World peoples, its consequences are lethal. The mentality of sacrifice has resulted in an inability to assert the imperative of survival—an imperative that puts family, tribe, and nation at the center of moral life.

Christianity must therefore share a major part of the blame for the abnormal belief that we must commit racial suicide in order to be “moral.” This is not, of course, to lay blame solely on Christianity, but neither should Christianity escape examination solely because it has long been the guardian of the moral beliefs of Western peoples.

What then, are the beliefs that characterize today’s self-destructive Christianity? They are altruism and universalism. These two beliefs so dominate public Christian discourse that they are contradicted from no more than a handful of pulpits—even in the American South, where ministers once invoked God in defense of segregation.
 

Altruism

Let us first consider altruism, the Good Samaritan reflex. The Golden Rule—which is the ideal of Christian conduct—exalts altruism, or acts beneficial to others without regard for one’s own interests. If followed by everyone, surely the Golden Rule would produce world peace and harmony.

In fact, universal altruism has unintended consequences, some of which are shocking to Christian sensibilities. Biologist and human ecologist Garrett Hardin first makes his point with respect to voluntary birth control, then generalizes it:

People vary. Confronted with appeals to limited breeding, some people will undoubtedly respond to the plea more than others. Those who have more children will produce a larger fraction of the next generation than those with more susceptible consciences … The argument here has been stated in the context of the population problem, but it applies equally well to any instance in which society appeals to an individual exploiting a commons to restrain himself for the general good—by means of his conscience. To make such an appeal is to set up a selective system that works toward the elimination of conscience from the race.

Conscience is eliminated because it is not randomly distributed in a population but is to some degree inherited from parents. Even if willingness to restrict breeding for the good of all is only slightly heritable, an appeal to conscience will steadily remove it from the population. The fact that self-sacrificing conscience, or in a broader sense, unfettered altruism, is self-eliminating is a fundamental truth with which any lasting moral order must contend.

There must be a dual code of morality—one for one’s own group and another for everyone else. Harsh as this may sound both to Christians and non-Christians, Nature will inexorably eliminate the flawed genes of any group that fails to make this distinction.

In fact, we take the dual code for granted. We devote much of our lives to rearing our own children but we ignore the children of strangers—an obvious double standard. We save the lives of our comrades in battle but we kill the enemy—another double standard. The universal altruism of the Golden Rule undercuts both forms of group loyalty. After all, we might well wish that strangers would devote themselves to our children. If we took the Golden Rule seriously we might then devote ourselves to the children of others and neglect our own. Likewise the Golden Rule might require us to betray our own side to the enemy, inasmuch as that is what we might want done for us. Clearly, groups and individuals that behaved this way would not pass on their perverted morality to many descendants.

Some will object that Professor Hardin’s prediction about the self-elimination of conscience is demonstrably false, since it still exists. No: What matters is the time scale. Conscience-obsessed Western man is declining in numbers, and his morality and behavior are declining with him.
 

Universalism

Today’s Christians have confused the Biblical injunction to be our “brother’s keeper”—a moral code based on blood kinship—with the opposite notion that every human on Earth is our brother. More than a century ago, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon observed, “If everyone is my brother, I have no brothers.” Professor Hardin adds: “Universalism is altruism practiced without discrimination of kinship, acquaintanceship, shared values, or propinquity in time or space.”

Biblical testimony on universalism is, in fact, mixed. The Old Testament praises altruism only within the community, and commands the Children of Israel to shun other peoples. For example, Deuteronomy 7:2-3 reads:

2 When the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them; 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son…

One finds national and presumably racial separatism in the New Testament as well. Acts 17:26 reads,

[He] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the Earth, and hath determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation.

Matthew 25:31-32, in which Christ speaks of his future reign, adds:

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.

But all too often the New Testament, particularly in the letters of Paul, promotes universalism. Today’s Christians love to cite passages such as Galatians 3:28-29:

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond or free, male or female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

Christianity today

It is on the basis of passages like this that Christianity has abandoned the defense of our people and has become an accomplice of those who would displace us. The National Council of Churches donated money to Marxist revolutionaries in Africa—revolutionaries who sometimes murdered White missionaries. The Southern Baptist Convention’s leadership recently bowed before its one Black member, apologizing for slavery and racism. Typically, the Black member showed little gratitude for the gesture, complaining that not nearly enough had been done to alleviate the lingering effects of slavery.

Like their atheist counterparts, Christian trend-setters preach what amounts to the dissolution of the White race. Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson supports more immigration from “south of the border” because the newcomers are nominally “Christian,” support “family values,” and are “our kind of voters.”

Mr. Robertson seems not to realize that Mestizo Christianity is often based on “revolution theology,” and its symbol is a Christ-figure with arms upraised, brandishing an AK-47 assault rifle. Revolution theology will help create “Aztlan,” the Bronze Continent, the new home of La Raza—literally, “the race.” Even a nominally Christian Aztlan would effectively decapitate Christianity as Mr. Robertson understands it, since altruistic universalist Christianity is largely a habit of Western people.
 

Too much sacrifice

Billy Graham goes one further and says that the only solution to our race problem is for us to breed with non-Whites until human differences disappear. He says we must take alien peoples into our hearts and our homes and, yes, “into our marriages.”

With ministers preaching racial suicide, Christianity may now be more of a threat to our survival than liberalism. At least with liberalism, one recognizes the enemy. But when Christian leaders take liberal positions, they leave the flock defenseless. Ralph Reed and Billy Graham are our opponents, no less than Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy.

The Wall Street Journal recently ran a front page story titled “Racial Reconciliation Becomes a Priority For the Religious Right”:

[T]he most energetic element of society [today] addressing racial divisions may also seem the most unlikely: the religious right. Across the country, conservative congregations and denominations, while sticking to other stringent principles of conservative religious thinking such as the proscription of homosexuality and abortion, are embracing a concept called “biblical racial reconciliation”—a belief that as part of their efforts to please God, they are required by Scripture to work for racial harmony.

If even “the Christian right” has become part of the rout of traditional Christianity; it is because the New Testament opens the door to universalism. Oswald Spengler wrote that “Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism,” and indeed, ministers routinely preach the “social” gospel, invoking a universalism that differs little from the agenda of the radical left.
 

A chimera

Yet ironically, the universalist goal is a chimera. Since those who displace us do not, by definition, maintain our moral standards—for if they did they would not be replacing us—our flawed moral system will vanish with us. As Professor Hardin explains in his 1982 essay, “Discriminating Altruisms,” “[universalism] cannot survive in competition with discrimination.” A group that practices universal altruism—and Whites are the only group that does—cannot compete against groups that do not.

Some Christians would say that none of this matters because believers will one day ascend to their reward in Heaven. However, the vision of Heaven can subvert the imperative of survival. If, in their fervor to enter Heaven, Christians fail to have children or to build a nation in which their children can maintain their way of life, the race will not continue. It is worth noting that Heaven is an entirely personal reward, which can be pursued at the expense of family, tribe or race. Selfishness thus joins universalism in modern Christianity, completely inverting Nature’s design of loyalty to family and tribe.

Christianity’s flaws did not threaten us until technology and ideology made their consequences felt on a world-wide scale. Now, our moral code must renounce universalism and emphasize our own survival. Unless we adopt moral beliefs in keeping with the realities of today’s demographics, we will not survive the mounting wave of Third World immigration, procreation, and miscegenation. It is in this sense that, as Jean Raspail says, “Christian charity will prove itself powerless.” Christian charity can hardly stop a demographic displacement that it helped set in motion.

Woke Christianity (excerpts)

by Robert Hampton

“I think the problem is white evangelicals don’t see Jesus in immigrants, refugees, people of color, and demeaned women,” she once tweeted. She claimed the downtrodden of today would one day lead Christianity: “The folks you’re shutting out of the church today will be leading it tomorrow. That’s the way the Spirit works. The future’s in the margins.”

Polls show that young white evangelicals are far more likely to support gay marriage and mass immigration. White evangelicals as a whole are mostly opposed to LGBT causes and America’s demographic transformation. However, white evangelicals between the ages of 18 and 29 say they are more inclined to vote for candidates who advocate for LGBT causes, more immigration, and the abolishment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The New Yorker report also said that young evangelicals are skeptical of the nation and view nationalism as un-Christian.

Progressive Christians imagine the faith, and Jesus Christ, as embodiments of modern social justice. “This dude was breaking down gender roles and taking on racial issues that made people around him hate him,” one Hispanic evangelical told Griswold about Jesus… They also say Jesus was a refugee and black in order to support arguments in favor of America’s demographic transformation.

“When I think about where most of Scripture points me, it is toward defending the poor, and the immigrant, and the stranger, and the prisoner, and the outcast, and those who are left behind by the way society works.” His Christianity is not one that defends healthy values, the national community, or even the traditional family. It is opposed to all those things. The Other is the great purpose of Buttigieg’s Christianity, and it conforms to the technocratic neo-liberalism for which he advocates.

Fellow Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker also articulates this same vision of Christianity. Religion News described Senator Booker’s Christian approach as “multifaith, LGBTQ-inclusive, liberation theology-influenced and social-justice focused.”

Maybe the European New Right had a point when it argued that liberalism is just a secularized form of Christianity.

Woke Christianity could become a major theme of the 2020 Democratic primary. It’ll certainly come out when candidates need to virtue-signal about the utter immorality of nationalism.

Conservative evangelicals may remain the majority in their community, but they still show the woke influence. The conservative Southern Baptist Convention did issue an embarrassing condemnation of the Alt Right in 2017. Apparently, nationalists are a bigger threat than secular progressives.

The globalists need every institution to support their agenda. Woke Christianity helps advance that goal by subverting the churches that lag behind “progress.” Contrary to its marketing, woke Christianity does not challenge power—it reaffirms the prevailing order.

It only challenges white America.

________

Editor’s Note: Read it all on Counter-Currents. I am using again Giotto’s painting because of what I said in ‘On empowering birds feeding on corpses’, which reminds me very strongly the first paragraph above. It debunks the white nationalist claim that the Jews ‘did this to Christianity’. The fact is that the gospel message is the problem; the JP, merely its epiphenomenon in the US.

Published in: on May 10, 2019 at 1:14 pm  Comments (3)  

Robert Morgan’s comment

This idea, pervasive on the right, that white people can’t defend themselves is a pet peeve of mine. Granted, there would be penalties for doing so, but they could be a race of Brenton Tarrants if they wanted to be. The truth is, nobody is responsible for white compliance with the culture of political correctness but white people. White people invented this culture of totalitarian control and worship of the Other. They enforce it and inflict it on themselves. The idolization of the Jew Jesus is the prototype for 2000 years of it. For what was and is Christianity but worship of the racial Other? During the Christian takeover of Western civilization almost every vestige of what preceded was intentionally destroyed by the fanatic devotees of the crucified rabbi. Temples to the gods were demolished, pagan philosophers were tortured and murdered, whole libraries consigned to flames, and—the ultimate in “de-platforming”—even the possession of pagan literature was declared a capital offense.

That these totalitarian trends again visible in the modern world continue and arguably even originate from America, a country founded by Christian religious fanatics, does not surprise me, nor should it surprise anyone. Americans have their own history of worship of the racial Other. They fought a Civil War over it, the point of which was to elevate the negro to a status equal to themselves, as shown by the subsequent passage of amendments to the Constitution granting him citizenship and the vote. A big part of this was again driven by religious mania, notably white and Christian.

So, “Whites do not enjoy these same privileges, …”? I don’t buy it. They have all the privileges they allow themselves. The only thing keeping them in check is their own unwillingness to act in their own defense. Throwing off two thousand years of religious nuttery and prostration before the racial Other isn’t going to be easy. It will take a cultural revolution, and can’t happen without lots of bloodshed and tears. But possible? Yes.