Puritanical degeneration

The first minute of this speech by a rabbi is unusual, as he tells the truth about how Hitler healed a Berlin that looked like Sodom and Gomorrah. The rabbi says that the first action Hitler took to heal degenerate Weimar Germany was to ban pornography and out-the-closet homosexuality. Which editor of the main webzines of white nationalism is currently proposing to emulate the Führer with such salubrious measures, repressing everything related to LGBT?

I have often said, even personally with some relatives, that the colourful LGBT flag lacks precisely the colour that was relatively accepted in the Greco-Roman world. Since in that world neither the Greeks nor the Romans had been miscegenated to the point of becoming the creatures we see today in Greece and Italy, Federico Fellini was right to choose two English actors for the roles of Encolpius and Giton in his surreal adaptation of Petronius’ Satyricon (the Roman author of that novel lived in 27-66 of the Common Era).

As we can see in this Satyricon clip, it’s about a man in his twenties and an androgynous teenager. That was more or less the only accepted form of homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world, and seeing the clip doesn’t cause revulsion in the straight viewer as the adolescent Giton, before becoming a fully-developed man, really looks like a girl.

The LGBT Sodom movement will be able to add more colours to its flag now that the genres are surrealistically multiplying. But it will never add to it the only colour accepted in the time of Pericles, or Nero when Petronius flourished (remember that in a revised reading of history, which removes Christian propaganda, Nero was not a villain).

Why do I say that those of the LGBT, who must be swept away as the first cleansing action of the Fourth Reich, will not okay the only homo colour accepted in the ancient Aryan world? A single anecdote will illustrate my point.

A book that can be read online, Thomas Hubbard’s Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents was published in 2003 and can be downloaded for free: here. The following editorial review also appears on that site:

The most important primary texts on homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome are translated into modern, explicit English and collected together for the first time in this comprehensive sourcebook. Covering an extensive period―from the earliest Greek texts in the late seventh century b.c.e. to Greco-Roman texts of the third and fourth centuries c.e.―the volume includes well-known writings by Plato, Sappho, Aeschines, Catullus, and Juvenal, as well as less well known but highly relevant and intriguing texts such as graffiti, comic fragments, magical papyri, medical treatises, and selected artistic evidence.

These fluently translated texts, together with Thomas K. Hubbard’s valuable introductions, clearly show that there was in fact no more consensus about homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome than there is today… This unique anthology gives an essential perspective on homosexuality in classical antiquity.

Scandalised by this professor’s academic work on pederasty, half a year ago antifa vandalised his house, as can be read in this article. (You have to be very careful with this journalistic note. It was written by a Latina, and those who protested and vandalised the professor’s house were predominantly feminist women.)

Personally, I don’t think the Fourth Reich should promote pederasty, but it should promote what I quoted recently: ‘We need a regime that bans pornography and erects statues of gorgeous naked nymphs and ephebes in every public square and crossroads’.

However, it is very clear to me that what we see in the above image, and the filth that fortunately Hitler prohibited as soon as he came to power, are two things not only different but opposed from an aesthetic point of view. But regarding same-sex unions Americans are apparently unable to distinguish between the sublime and the grotesque (the Gomorrah that the Third Reich rightly annihilated).

The United States was once brilliantly described by Richard Spencer saying that it was a mix of Christian Puritanism and sexual degeneracy—both side by side and at the same time! Too bad they recently deleted his YouTube channel and I can’t link to it, but if I remember correctly, that video dates back to the times of the Kavanaugh hearing.

No wonder that a nation suffering from such schizophrenia is absolutely incapable of recreating visually the Greco-Roman world as it really was. Hollywood Rome is not Rome, and although the Jews and the decadent Americans are very good in recreating degeneracy, they’re unable to recreate the healthy pederasty of ancient times. They couldn’t even bring a movie like Death in Venice to the screen. Only an Italian was able to do it with the proper aesthetics, and without any sexual contact in the film (a truly platonic love).

What I said in my entry ‘The transvaluation explained’ can be exemplified by that American chimera between gross sexual degeneration and Puritanism. As long as the Americans don’t dare to see Hitler as the best man in history, and Constantine the worst, they will be unable to bring to the screen the ethos of Greco-Roman antiquity, the truly Aryan world. As to the visual arts on the television and cinema, they will continue to be neochristian in sexual matters.

Our roots are Greece and Rome—not Jerusalem. Keep in mind what Savitri Devi said and the Nazis she quotes in my other post today.

Salem witch puritan

In his latest comment on Unz Review Robert Morgan mocked the monocausalists:

My God! Such brilliance! It’s not white people who are the Devil, it’s the Jews! Now all we have to do is tell people this and surely they will agree with us. Why, oh why hasn’t anyone thought of this before? With such profound insights from its intellectual contingent, the salvation of the white race cannot be far off.

He is right. Every individual who worships the enemy god is validating, consciously or unconsciously, the so-called chosen people in the West. And what is worse: he is validating the standards that the Jew sold the Gentiles with the New Testament: You will allow ethnocentrism for us (Old Testament) but you will practice universal love (New Testament). In other words, I command you to commit ethnic suicide by loving the Other and you will obey.

And Christians did obey.

Cotton Mather was a New England Puritan minister, prolific author, and pamphleteer. He left a scientific legacy due to his hybridisation experiments and his promotion of inoculation for disease prevention, though he is most frequently remembered today for his involvement in the Salem witch trials.

In Mather’s The Negro Christianized: An Essay to Excite and Assist that Good Work, the Instruction of Negro-Servants in Christianity (1706) Mather’s states: ‘Man, Thy Negro is thy Neighbour… Yea, if thou dost grant, That God hath made of one Blood, all Nations of men, he is thy Brother too’.

As a regular commenter noted yesterday on this site in a piece about negrolatry’s Christian roots, the editor of the book notes that Mather’s language ‘is both particularly fresh and almost contemporary’.

Look at the time when this Mather witch lived (1663-1728)! Unless you consider Christianity to be the other side of the JQ coin, there were no Jewish influencers in America at that time who could propagandise the Negro brotherhood to White gentiles. Americans did this to themselves without direct influence from Jewry (only indirect influence through Christianism).

I have quoted this sentence by the German Giselher Wirsing so often that it could become a meme for this site: ‘The crisis of Americanism in our epoch falls short of degeneracy of the Puritan mindset. In degenerated Puritanism lies, side by side with Judaism, America’s inborn danger’.

Christianity’s Criminal History, 123

Editors’ note: Footnotes have been omitted. To contextualise this section of Vol. II of Karlheinz Deschner’s encyclopaedic history of the Church in 10 volumes, Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, see the abridged translation of Volume I (PDF: here, hard copy: here), which reproduces a syntactically corrected edition of instalments 1-100 on this site. Instalments 101-122 can also be read on this site.
 

The Vandal state

Gaiseric created the first independent Germanic state on Roman soil. This Germanic state had its richest and most fertile provinces: Mauretania Tingitana, Africa Zeugitana, Byzacena and Numidia Proconsularis. Gaiseric also became the owner of Corsica and Sardinia, whose forests were cut down by workers under forced labour to build his ships. By 455 he added the Balearic Islands, which he had already sacked in 425. He dominated the seas from Gibraltar to Constantinople and did not even give nominal recognition to the Byzantine emperor, although in pledge of peace he had to send his son Huneric to Italy. […]

The rich churches and monasteries were sacked, as they were ‘bastions of Roman domination’ (Diesner). It is understood that, in general, the Catholic civilian population offered no resistance anywhere, remaining indifferent or sympathising with the invaders. Some of them even converted to Arianism despite Gaiseric’s attacks which were particularly brutal against clerics, monks, and nuns who were often raped. […] Occasionally, as happened after the occupation of Carthage, the king appropriated all the property, furniture and real estate of the adversary clergy. He also ordered that all churches be closed, handed over to the Arian clergy and used as barracks. […]

As comprehensible as the outrage of the Catholic chroniclers against Gaiseric is, one of them at least concedes something. The Father of the Salvian Church of Marseille praises Gaiseric’s fight against ‘impurity’. Well, this blood-stained Christian was tremendously puritan: a very frequent combination, as we know. He not only fought against pederasty but also against brothels, even forcing all prostitutes to marry.

The king of the Vandals, who, if necessary, was not intimidated by any bloody action, experiences such disgust at the plague of public sexual lewdness—a plague characteristic of the big cities—, and considers it such an abomination for his compatriots, that he proposed to eradicate it from end to end. And everything indicates that he achieved it while he lived.

The history of the Vandal State has only been bequeathed to us, almost exclusively, by Catholic clerics. Even the few historical testimonies of a profane nature are strongly influenced by them. Therefore, it is more than likely to have been distorted by their biases […]. Despite all the exaggerations, even falsifications, of the history by the Catholic tradition, there can be no doubt that the proceeding of Gaiseric towards the Catholic clergy was very tough and sometimes bloodthirsty. That clergy was, of course, not only a bitter adversary of Arianism. Arianism increasingly became an enemy of the State. […]

Gaiseric died very old at the beginning of the year 477. His son and successor was Huneric (477-484), whose wife, daughter of Valentinian III to which Gaiseric abducted from Rome in 455, fled in 472 to Jerusalem: presumably by aversion to her husband’s Arian faith […]. Huneric succumbed early, in December of the year 484, victim of a disease. The Catholics welcomed the news joyfully as every time one of their adversaries dies.

SJW: an offshoot of Christianity

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

 

______ 卐 ______

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saint Augustine

Hunter Wallace has written two articles today about St. Augustine (here and here). This painting of the Roman Period (100-150 C.E.) from Egypt depicts a mudblood boy. Similarly, the African Augustine was not white. Scholars generally agree that Augustine and his family were Berbers, an ethnic group indigenous to North Africa. In his first article, Wallace chose a deceptive painting that shows the Punic theologian as if he had belonged to the white race.

The ignorance of Christians about the history not only of the Church but of the ethnic origin, and behavior, of many of the early Christians has always bothered me. For example, Wallace has Augustine as a champion of a decent life from the sexual point of view and, to contrast the Augustinian ways with the so-called ‘pagan’ ways, he uses an image of… a trannie child! But the historical Augustine could hardly be considered an example of moral decency. ‘He lived a long time in concubinage, later he took a girl as a girlfriend (she had almost two years to reach the legal age to get married: in girls twelve years) and at the same time a new darling’, as we saw in our translation of instalment 66 of Karlheinz Deschner’s Christianity’s Criminal History.

Another common issue in a number of Christians, including Wallace, is that they maintain a distorted image of the morality of the Greco-Roman world. These Christians focus a lot on an imperial Rome that had already committed the sin of miscegenation and was in full moral, ethnic and political decline. In apologetic articles rarely do they mention classical Greece before her decline, or Republican Rome before the gradual miscegenation that undermined it. My compilation The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour includes seven texts about Greece and Rome before their decline. The fact is that those pre-Christian Europeans were as puritanical in sexual matters as their Christian counterparts of subsequent centuries.

It’s about time that both white nationalists and American southerners read and assimilate the content of the history of the white race that William Pierce wrote, and those who want to delve into how Christianity undermined Aryan morality, the translation of Deschner that appears in the sidebar.

W. B. Yeats

“Puritanical anti-Europe has become exactly what it set out to become: New Zion,” wrote Sebastian Ronin a couple of years ago referring to the US. Regular visitors of this site know that from my point of view the etiology of white decline is, in order of importance: (1) materialism, (2) Christian ethics and (3) Jewish influence. These excerpts from Kerry Bolton’s essay on Yeats in his book Artists of the Right give the idea of the most harmful factor of all:

 

The rise of industrialism and capitalism during the 19th century brought with it social dislocation, the triumph of the commercial classes and interests, and the creation of an urban proletariat on the ruins of rural life. Smashed asunder were the traditional organic bonds of family and village, rootedness to the earth through generations of one’s offspring, and attunement to the cycles of nature.

With the ascendancy of materialism came the economic doctrines of Free Trade capitalism and Marxism and the new belief in rationalism and science over faith, the mysteries of the cosmos, and the traditional religions. The forces of money had defeated everything of the Spirit. As Spengler explained in his Decline of the West, Western Civilization had entered its end cycle. Such forces had been let loose as long ago as the English Revolution of Cromwell and again by the French Revolution.

There was, however, a reaction to this predicament. The old conservatives had not been up to the task. The spiritual and cultural reaction came from the artists, poets and writers who reach beyond the material and draw their inspiration from the well-springs of what C. G. Jung identified as the collective unconscious. This reaction included not only the political and the cultural but also a spiritual revival expressed in an interest in the metaphysical.

Among the artists in “revolt against the modern world” was the Irish poet William Butler Yeats (1865-1939), leader of the Irish literary renaissance and winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1923. Despite his English and Protestant background, Yeats was involved in the Young Ireland movement, much of his poetry celebrating the Irish rebellion and its heroes.

Yeats had been as a youngster introduced by his father John, himself a Pre-Raphaelite artist, to the paintings of the Pre-Raphaelites, the romantic imagery of which stood then as a rebellion against the encroachments of modernism and industrialism. Having lived in England as a child twenty years before, Yeats was now struck by how much had radically changed under the impress of “progress.” The modern era had even impacted upon the aesthetic of Yeats’ own family, writing of how his father now made his living, and also alluding to the changes being wrought by modernism in art:

It was a perpetual bewilderment that my father, who had begun life as a Pre-Raphaelite painter, now painted portraits of the first comer, children selling newspapers, or a consumptive girl with a basket of fish upon her head, and that when, moved perhaps by memory of his youth, he chose some theme from poetic tradition, he would soon weary and leave it unfinished. I had seen the change coming bit by bit and its defence elaborated by young men fresh from the Paris art-schools. ‘We must paint what is in front of us,’ or ‘A man must be of his own time,’ they would say, and if I spoke of Blake or Rossetti they would point out his bad drawing and tell me to admire Carolus Duran and Bastien-Lepage. Then, too, they were very ignorant men; they read nothing, for nothing mattered but “Knowing how to paint,” being in reaction against a generation that seemed to have wasted its time upon so many things.

For Yeats the mystical was the basis of both his poetry and his political ideas. He was particularly interested in the Irish mystical tradition and folklore. He saw the peasantry and rural values as being necessary to revive against the onslaught of materialism.

Additionally, the “occult” provided a literally hidden culture that was above and beyond the crassness of democracy, of the herd, and of material existence, hence its being termed the “Royal Art,” where again, as in traditional societies over the course of millennia, a priestly caste, at the apex of a hierarchical society, served as the nexus between the terrestrial and the divine, serving as that axis around which High Culture revolves.

Yeats’ poetry was intended as an expression of these symbols of the unconscious and the archetypal. This resurgence of these age-long memories required a “revolt of soul against intellect now beginning in the world.” What is here called “intellect” was the advance of rationalism, scientism, and Enlightenment doctrines that had destroyed man’s nexus with the divine embodied in traditions and hierarchical social orders, and which has repressed man’s spiritual nature in favor of the crassly material.

Yeats, like D. H. Lawrence, Ezra Pound, et al., was particularly concerned that commercialism would mean the pushing down of cultural values in the pursuit of profit rather than artistic excellence. Hence, he called for a revival of aristocratic values. He lamented that, “the mere multitude is everywhere with its empty photographic eyes. A declaration of war on the masses by higher men is called for. Everywhere the mediocre are coming in order to make themselves master.”

His appeal was to the artist and to the individual of taste and culture for, as Nietzsche had pointed out, culture is the faculty that distinguishes the human from other organisms. In this spirit, Yeats applauded Nietzsche’s philosophy as “a counteractive to the spread of democratic vulgarity.”

Yeats’ keen sense of historical context is reflected in “The Curse of Cromwell.” Here he identifies the English Revolution as what we can see as the inauguration of the cycle of “Money over Blood,” in Spenglerian terms: the victory of the merchant class over the traditional order, which was to be re-reenacted in the French Revolution. The Bolshevik Revolution was of the same spirit of money against blood, of the materialistic against the spirit and culture.

All three revolutions were carried out in the name of “the people” against the traditional rulers, only to create a greater tyranny in the service of money. Spengler had written in The Decline of the West: “Practical communism with its ‘class war’… is nothing but the trusty henchman of big Capital, which knows perfectly well how to make use of it… in that their object is not to overcome money-values, but to possess them.”

Cromwell’s English revolution has had lasting consequences for the entire West. The cycle of Money over culture and tradition that Cromwell inaugurated has never been overcome. America was founded on the same Puritan money ethics and continues to spread that spirit over the farthest reaches of the world.

The specter of Puritanism has haunted the entire world ever since, “far and wide.” Nobility of character, regardless of “class”—itself a vulgarization of the traditional castes—was destroyed by the inauguration in the West of the reign of money by Cromwell, and one that was not overcome, but rather adopted by its supposed “enemy,” socialism, as Spengler was to point out. Yeats, as “The Curse of Cromwell” shows, has been one of the few to realize the full depth and lasting significance of Puritanism under whatever name it might appear.

No longer are there left those of noble tradition, those who served as part of a long heritage, “the tall men”; and the old gaiety of the peasant village, the squire’s hall and aristocrat’s manor have been beaten down.

All neighborly, content and easy talk are gone,
But here’s no good complaining, for money’s rant is on.

The artists, once patronized by the aristocracy, must now prostitute their art for the sake of money on the mass market, as script writers, and “public entertainers” to sell a product. All individuals are now producers and consumers, including the artist producing for a consumer market.

And we and all the Muses are things of no account.

Yeats considered himself heir to a tradition that has been repressed by democratic vulgarity, and he lived in service to that tradition, now virtually driven to the catacombs under the dead weight of “mass culture,” which is nothing more than consumerism posturing as “art,” “literature,” and “music” manufactured according to market demands. He and a few others of the same temperament lived in the service of High Culture as contemporary troubadours “against the modern world” to uplift the spirits of the remnant who have managed to maintain their nobility in the face of the crass.

One product of democracy and capitalism that Yeats feared was the proliferation of those he regarded as inferior people. Yeats advocated planned human up-breeding and joined the Eugenics Society at a time when eugenics was a widely held belief among the intelligentsia. Yeats had “On the Boiler” published the same year, where he endorsed the psychometric studies that were showing intelligence to be inherited, and expressed concern at the proliferation of the unintelligent.

The aristocracy of old, the noble lineage of blood, of familial descent, has been replaced by the new rich, the merchants, our new rulers are those who measure all things by profit. Like Spengler, Yeats saw hope in Fascist Italy: “The Ireland that reacts from the present disorder is turning its eyes towards individualist Italy.” In particular, he admired the educational reforms and cyclic historical doctrine of Italian Fascist philosopher and Minister of Education, Giovanni Gentile, stating in 1925 before the Irish Senate, of which he was a member, that Irish teachers should study the methods that Gentile had enacted in Italian schools, “so to correlate all subjects of study.”

The following year Senator Yeats stated that the Italian educational system was “adapted to an agricultural nation” which was applicable also to Ireland, “a system of education that will not turn out clerks only, but will turn out efficient men and women, who can manage to do all the work of the nation.”

With the assumption to Government of De Valera in 1932, the following year Yeats was seeking to formulate a doctrine for Ireland that would be a form of “Fascism modified by religion.” History consisted broadly of “the rule of the many followed by the rule of the few,” again reminiscent of Spengler’s idea of a “new Caesarism” that follows on the rule of plutocracy at the end cycle of a civilization.

For Yeats, the rule of the few meant a return to some form of aristocracy.

Edward the Great

by William Pierce

In England, throughout the 13th century there were outbreaks of civil disorder, as the debt-laden citizens sporadically lashed out at their Jewish oppressors. A prominent Jewish historian, Abram Sachar, in his A History of the Jews (Knopf, 1965), tells what happened next:

At last, with the accession of Edward I, came the end. Edward was one of the most popular figures in English history. Tall, fair, amiable, an able soldier, a good administrator, he was the idol of his people. But he was filled with prejudices, and hated foreigners and foreign ways. His Statute of Judaism, in 1275, might have been modeled on the restrictive legislation of his contemporary, St. Louis of France. He forbade all usury and closed the most important means of livelihood that remained to the Jews. Farming, commerce, and handicrafts were specifically allowed, but it was exceedingly difficult to pursue those occupations.

Difficult indeed, compared to effortlessly raking in capital gains! Did Edward really expect the Jews in England to abandon their gilded countinghouses and grub about in the soil for cabbages and turnips, or engage in some other backbreaking livelihood like mere goyim? God’s Chosen People should work for a living?

Eduard_IEdward should have known better. Fifteen years later, having finally reached the conclusion that the Jews were incorrigible, he condemned them as parasites and mischief-makers and ordered them all out of the country. They were not allowed back in until Cromwell’s Puritans gained the upper hand 400 years later. Meanwhile, England enjoyed an unprecedented Golden Age of progress and prosperity without a Jew in the land.

Unfortunately, the other monarchs of Europe, who one after another found themselves compelled to follow Edward’s example, were not able to provide the same long-term benefits to their countries; in nearly every case the Jews managed to bribe their way back in within a few years.

Diaspora, 2

Food for thought from Kevin
MacDonald’s Diaspora Peoples:

 
Puritans forbade the worship of Christmas, both in England and Massachusetts, and whipped, burned, and exiled those they found to be heretics, all the while believing themselves to be the beleaguered defenders of liberty…

At that time certain religious non-conformists, especially Anabaptists and Quakers, were still prevented from settling in New England and imprisoned, tortured, and even executed if they returned there…

As in the Old Testament, God’s wrath would be leveled at entire communities, not only individuals. Each member was therefore responsible for the purity of the whole, since transgressions of others would result in God’s wrath being leveled at the entire community. Puritans were therefore highly motivated to control the behavior of others that they thought might offend God. This included, of course, the sexual behavior of other community members.

Both East Anglia and New England had the lowest relative rates of private crime (murder, theft, mayhem), but the highest rates of public violence—“the burning of rebellious servants, the maiming of political dissenters, the hanging of Quakers, the execution of witches”. This record is entirely in keeping with Calvinist tendencies in Geneva…

Puritans waged holy war on behalf of moral righteousness even against their own cousins, perhaps a form of altruistic punishment described by Fehr and Gachter and found more often among cooperative hunter-gatherer groups than among groups, such as Judaism, based on extended kinship.

Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee moral condemnation of slavery that inspired the rhetoric and rendered the massive carnage of closely related Anglo-Americans on behalf of slaves from Africa justifiable in the minds of Puritans.

Militarily, the war with the Confederacy rendered the heaviest sacrifice in lives and property ever made by Americans. Puritan moral fervor and its tendency to justify draconian punishment of evil doers can also be seen in the comments of “the Congregationalist minister at Henry Ward Beecher’s Old Plymouth Church in New York who went so far as to call for exterminating the German people, the sterilization of 10,000,000 German soldiers and the segregation of the woman.

In England, Puritanism never really developed into a group evolutionary strategy but remained a loosely bordered faction among other Protestant sects. In New England, however, it developed as a hegemonic religious and political movement in control of a particular territory. Membership in the church required a vote of the congregation. “The principal criterion, besides an upright behavior, was evidence that God had chosen the candidate for eternal salvation…”

Understanding Cuckasoids

Why are Europeans so prone to individualism? Why are they less concerned about kinship? Professor MacDonald explained last month the complex issues of population genetics. “This is the toughest intellectual problem there is; psychology, studying Jews is easy by comparison.”

Fortunately, there’s now a huge amount of research to crack the annoying cipher:

Postscript of November 19:

Population genetics is an important piece of the jigsaw puzzle but it doesn’t explain everything. Always keep in mind Frost’s response to MacDonald about the “Christian axiology” piece in the puzzle.

Toward the White Republic

I have read Michael O’Meara’s recently published Toward the White Republic. It’s an honor for me to own copy #56 with O’Meara’s personal inscription to me on the very first page.

O’Meara is absolutely right: A numinous vision always comes before galvanizing the collective unconsciousness, and the mere idea of a white ethnostate does reminds us the Latin saying “Thus I will, thus I command.”

In the 16th century, the English believed they had replaced the Jews as the chosen nation: an important factor in American history which also helped Elizabethan England in their fight against Catholic Spain. O’Meara’s powerful book demonstrates that what moves societies is not scientific fact, e.g., IQ studies of blacks versus whites, but myths. Only myths can galvanize the collective unconsciousness of a nation. Homer’s epics captivated the minds of the ancient Greeks, not the geometric discoveries of the Ionian scientists and philosophers.

For John Winthrop, the previous American colonies had failed because they were carnal and irreligious. He believed that only an enterprise founded on religion had a chance to thrive.

Even if God doesn’t exist and Christianity is ultimately false, Winthrop was right. In 1630 he led an exodus of his people to the new world. It is beyond doubt that the spirit animating these men and women was not economic but religious. A “City upon a Hill” watched by the world was the myth that galvanized the community.

In sharp contrast to present-day Americans’ aid after the 2010 Haiti earthquake, once on American soil, Winthrop was delighted by the news that North American Indians were being decimated by smallpox. It was clear to the Puritans that God had accepted their right to occupy the land.

After the Reconquista generated the sense of a religious nation, something similar happened here down the South. The Catholic myth, catalyzed by the Counter-Reformation, moved the Spaniards to conquer the Aztec and Inca empires.

Winthrop’s success resolved a mystery for me. Why were the English so reluctant to establish themselves in America even a century after Columbus’ discovery while the relatively more primitive Spanish and the Portuguese had already created vast empires? The answer is patently clear: The English lacked a truly galvanizing story that conferred upon them a definite self-image and consequent self-esteem.

Something similar could be said of the Great Awakening in America’s 1730s. An awakening is what whites desperately need today, albeit one based upon a different kind of myth.

Toward the White Republic is more than a must read. Copies of this slim yet potent book could be given to your friends and acquaintances as part of the process of starting another Great Awakening.

Published in: on September 16, 2015 at 10:50 pm  Comments Off on Toward the White Republic