Heisman’s suicide note, 12

Editor’s note: This is the hatnote of the blogger Eximius, presenting eight pages of still another Heisman chapter on how ‘Normanity’, the historic English belief in the superiority of those descended from the Norman conquerors, affected the Anglo-Saxon psyche, including the US:

This is an excerpt from an online eBook by Mitchell Heisman called Suicide Note. It is taken from pages 1601-1609. The title of this subchapter heading is counter-intuitive, along with perhaps the title of his whole book, as the Suicide Note could be taken to represent the Suicide not just on an individual, but of an entire biologically determined nature (of which white European suicide and consequent genocide by opportunistic aliens is a subset). His predictions may be strange but his analysis of the evolutionary history of liberal democracy are fantastic. I implore people to have a good look through his eBook for the merit that it deserves, as it operates at a very broad spectrum that cross pollinates between otherwise irreconcilable world views.

Read it all: here.

Published in: on June 20, 2018 at 11:23 pm  Comments (1)  

Heisman’s suicide note, 11

Or:

A key to understanding the ethnosuicidal United States

I had said in the previous post that I would not read beyond page 500. But a friend on Facebook suggested that I read what Heisman says about the Norman Conquest and I have found oil. I wonder if those white nationalist scholars in the history of Britain and the United States know this thesis? Although Heisman was a Jew, in good hands his thesis could be a vital piece to put together the puzzle of the whys of white suicide, which leads the United States of America. Heisman wrote:

 

Remarkably, the Anglo-Saxons and Germans are very closely related in their cultural-ethnic origins. Yet during the Nazi period, the Germans continued a cultural-political path that lead to an idealization of the Jews as their greatest mortal enemies, the destruction of Western cultural values inherited from Christianity, and the systematic genocide of the alleged propagators of those values. The Americans ventured towards the total opposite historical trajectory becoming perhaps the most Christian nation of the developed world, the most culturally compatible nation with the Jews, and the greatest ally of the state of Israel. At the root of this historical divergence between the Anglo-Saxons and the Germans lay the Norman Conquest. […]

An essential inheritance of America’s Anglo-Protestant values is an inclination to forget ethnic origins, national rivalries, and presumptions of hereditary status that were characteristic of the Old World. The Anglo-Saxons planted the model of this morality of turning a blind eye to national origins for all other Americans to follow and this implicated the erasure of everyone else’s ethnic origins as well. The freedom to forget the past appears to be the obverse side of America’s traditionally optimistic vision of the future. But why is this past problematic? Why were hereditary origins an issue in the first place?

The “race problem” should not matter in America, yet somehow it is the most American issue, the most relevant innovation of the entire American experiment. The old answers, moreover, that attempted to account for the entire “race” issue simply do not add up. There is a lack of coherent answer to the question of why race matters.

American historian Gordon Wood observed that

the white American colonists were not an oppressed people; they had no crushing imperial chains to throw off. In fact, the colonists knew they were freer, more equal, more prosperous, and less burdened with cumbersome feudal and monarchical restraints than any other part of mankind in the eighteenth century.

What exactly were the colonists rebelling against, then? What was this world-historical commotion called “revolution” really about?

 

Conquering the Conquest, or, Enlightened Saxon-centrism

The unanswered questions about race and revolution can be concentrated into a single historical question: When did the Anglo-Saxon nation stop being conquered by the Normans? For the sake of empirical accuracy, let us refuse to indulge in vague abstractions or undemonstrated traditional assumptions of assimilation. If we demand a specific, empirical date or period that marks a distinct end to the Conquest, what can the study of history offer?

Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, a descendant of an old aristocratic family from Normandy, wrote in his famous treatise on American democracy, “[g]eneral ideas do not attest to the strength of human intelligence, but rather to its insufficiency.” The holy abstraction of “freedom” has effectually pulled wool over the eyes of those who have mindlessly submitted to the authority of the metaphysics of freedom. Freedom, in this way, seems to grant freedom from rational reflection upon the authority of “freedom.” Instead of being misled by fuzzy, mystical, metaphysical abstractions such as “freedom”, let us ask, specifically and empirically, freedom from what? In its distinctive historical context, what exactly was it about the British political order that radicals such as Thomas Paine sought freedom from?

The very title of Paine’s book, The Rights of Man, might suggest a tendency to abstract or grossly generalize his particular anathema to “hereditary government” in England and France in universal terms. Yet this appearance does not fully stand up to scrutiny. In the case of England, he inquired specifically and empirically into the identity of its hereditary government and followed its very own hereditary logic back to its hereditary origins to discover:

that origin is the Norman Conquest. They are evidently of the vassalage class of manners, and emphatically mark the prostrate distance that exists in no other condition of men than between the conqueror and the conquered.

This means that the “prostrate distance” between the conqueror “class” and the conquered “class” was also a hereditary distance. This kinship discontinuity between rulers and ruled suggests possible grounds for ethnic hostility between the descendants of the aristocracy and the majority population.

In The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation, and Identity, historian Hugh Thomas documented the ethnic hostility that existed between the native English and Normans following the Conquest. Justifying a common tendency to conflate ‘Anglo-Saxon’ with ‘English’, he maintained that English identity ultimately triumphed over both Norman identity and ethnic hostility. His thesis implies a kind of democratic cultural revolution and a belief in Anglo-Saxon conquest through cultural identity imperialism. If Thomas was right, then we should really date the first “modern” step towards democratic cultural revolution around the beginning of the thirteenth century. But was the Conquest really conquered so easily?

If the Norman Conquest, Norman identity, and ethnic hostility were conquered so easily, then how does Hugh Thomas explain these words of Thomas Paine in The Rights of Man?

The hatred which the Norman invasion and tyranny begat, must have been deeply rooted in the nation, to have outlived the contrivance to obliterate it. Though not a courtier will talk of the curfew-bell, not a village in England has forgotten it.

This is a direct refutation of the Hugh Thomas’s thesis, in The English and the Normans, that ethnic hostility ended by the beginning of the thirteenth century. Paine provided a powerful refutation, not simply as an observer, but as a highly influential embodiment of ethnic hostility against the Norman conquerors and their legacy. So who is right, Hugh Thomas or Thomas Paine?

The historian noted, “[l]ong-standing ethnic hostility would have completely altered the course of English political, social, and cultural history.” This unverified assertion that ethnic hostility did not continue significantly past the period covered by his study (1066-c.1220) was also contradicted by Michael Wood’s recollection of his childhood encounter with Montgomery in the 1960s:

Monty, of course, still bore his name and still carried his flag. And that explained his take on the Conquest. For though he was as English as I was, he saw himself as a Norman—and that’s what counts when it comes to matters of identity… as far as I was concerned, Monty would always be a Norman.

Still, in the twentieth century, the old ethnic identities mattered.

Did “Englishness” mean more than a quirk of geography, and more than “class”, to a hereditary Norman dominion eventually engulfed Ireland and Scotland as well? The label of Englishness certainly triumphed and the very core of the English language re-emerged. Yet England ultimately became something different, neither Norman nor English, but neither and both. Even if we ignore actual hereditary descent, the famous, and distinctively English “class system” dates from the Conquest and can itself be considered a long-term cultural triumph of Norman identity.

Genealogist L. G. Pine attested to the fact that the prestige of a Norman pedigree, associated with the identity of the “best people” or upper class, triumphed to the extent that many ambitious native English wanted to be Normans throughout post-Conquest English history. Ultimately, it was not so much that Normans became English so much that the English became British. The permanent occupation of the conqueror “class” formed the hereditary basis of the “British” Empire. While Thomas is fundamentally wrong, it is fortunate that he has clarified the issue by rightly raising the point that the reality of early post-Conquest ethnic hostility should wake people out of the complacent assumption that Normans and English should ultimately merge into one people.

Cultural assimilation is one thing; genetic assimilation, however, is quite another. Here the deficiency of historical studies that fail to account for biological factors and a general evolutionary perspective becomes most apparent. While Thomas’s scholarship offers many contributions to the debate, especially his balanced judgment on many topics, conclusions about the ultimate effects of the Conquest will remain fundamentally unbalanced if genetic factors are left out of the final equations.

Thomas writes history as if Charles Darwin never lived. Even if the Normans had completely assimilated culturally yet maintained a hereditary monopoly of leading positions within the country, that cannot be called full assimilation. The notion of special political-hereditary rights and privileges passed on from generation to generation that the American revolutionaries fought against in theory are the exact opposite of genetic assimilation.

Thomas’s thesis makes sense only if it can be demonstrated that the Anglo-Saxons are an ethnicity indifferent as to whether their government is or is not representative of “the people.” Thomas’s thesis could be saved only if the evidence verified that Anglo-Saxons are an ethnicity with no sense of the value of liberty, their fawning natural servility allowing them to live together with their new Norman aristocracy happily ever after. In summary, the real question of assimilation is whether the Anglo-Saxons assimilated to the notion that the Normans had a right to conquer them.

As L. G. Pine wrote, “The historian whose unthinking conscience allows them to justify the Norman Conquest, could as easily justify the Nazi subjugation of Europe.” Thomas’s perilous, conciliatory suppression of any negative attitudes towards Normans that could be construed as ethnic hostility led him to acquiesce in a neutral or sometimes even positive attitude of appeasement towards those exemplary Normanitas virtues expressed in ruthless military domination, genocide, and the crushing of all native ethnic resistance (a.k.a. conquest; the antithesis of the rights of man; the negation of the every principle that the most egalitarian of the American founders sought to bring to light in opposition to the founding of the British Empire in 1066).

Michael Mann’s The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing proposed two versions of “We, the people.” He proposed that the liberal version, exemplified by American Constitutionalism, is characterized by individual rights, class, and special interest groups. In the organic version of democracy ethnicity rivals other forms of interest and identity and in some circumstances can express itself in ethnic cleansing. This is the “dark side of democracy.”

In Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union, Mann observed, “democratization struggles increasingly pitted a local ethnicity against a foreign imperial ruler.” The demos was confused with the ethnos. Was America any different? If the Normans conquerors achieved some degree of success in perpetuating their hereditary government over the centuries, and the original ethnic conflict that Thomas documented was not perpetuated with it, then how does one explain that? What would make the impetus of organic and liberal democracy so different from one another?

For the sake of argument, let us entertain this peculiar idea of hereditary separatism, just as John Locke does in his Second Treatise of Government (and try in earnest to assume this has nothing to do whatsoever with the Norman Conquest):

But supposing, which seldom happens, that the conquerors and conquered never incorporate into one people, under the same laws and freedom; let us see next what power a lawful conqueror has over the subdued: and that I say is purely despotical… the government of a conqueror, imposed by force on the subdued… has no obligation on them.

The Declaration of Independence proclaims, “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This assertion implies that the Norman Conquest was illegitimate. The Norman takeover was achieved despite the lack of consent of the governed. That government was instituted with strategic violence against any significant resistance from the governed. From the view of its author, Thomas Jefferson, the Norman Conquest was the institution of an unjust power against the rights of the people. It is thus not a coincidence that the hereditary “English” political tradition was founded in utter violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

In The Rights of Man, Paine explained, “by the Conquest all the rights of the people or the nation were absorbed into the hands of the Conqueror, who added the title of King to that of Conqueror.” Paine posited a remarkable ambiguity between the “rights of the people” and “the nation.” King was equated with Conqueror. In 1066 there existed a right of conquest, but no “rights of the people.” The modern invention of the latter justified, at long last, the reclamation of Anglo-Saxon “rights” from the “hands of the Conqueror.”

The Declaration of Independence further asserts, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” America provided an opportunity to do just that.

Taking full advantage of this opportunity meant that America would truly be different from the old world. As The Rights of Man explained, “In England, the person who exercises this prerogative [as king] is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country.” A lack of “natural” connection between the political elite and the people was significant for Paine. The contrast with America was clear: “The presidency of America… is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded; and in England, it is the only one to which he is admitted.” The new world would be different.

America, for Paine, was the place where foreigners were excluded from that high office. Democracy meant that “commoners” could finally be admitted. Revolution had turned the old order upside down: the rule of the people meant the triumph of Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism over the legacy of the Norman-centric aristocracy.

It is unfortunate for believers in the distinct superiority of the liberal form of democracy that the organic and liberal varieties are more equal than they think. Faith in the categorical distinction between the liberal and organic expressions of democracy is only a display of naiveté towards the cunning of ethnocentrism. Democratic Saxon-centrism has prevented an appreciation of the ethnic diversity at the very heart of the American founding.

Are the Anglo-Saxon ethnically superior to ethnocentrism and thus superior to all other peoples on Earth in this respect or has something been overlooked? Is it true that Anglo-Saxons are always superior and never inferior to the power and influence of the Norman Conquest or is it at least possible that this unspoken assumption might have something to do with Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism? It is as if a conquest of the Conquest has been attempted through an enlightened ethnic cleansing of the Norman impact on world history. The Norman conquerors of history, however, were not conquered so easily.

 

The Peculiar Revolution

For the title of original, permanent English colony in the New World, the Pilgrims of the Mayflower take second place. It was the English settlers of Jamestown, Virginia, who were the first permanent English colonists, thirteen years before the Mayflower. Jamestown was birthplace of the United States, and, it just so happens, the birthplace of American slavery of Africans. In 1619, a year before the landing of the Mayflower, the first black slaves were brought to Virginia.

America was born a land of slavery.

In the Old World, it had been “the Norman” who so often represented tyranny, aristocracy, and inequality. But surely things must have been different in America. In the land of freedom, democracy, and equality, perhaps only Southern slavery posed a truly fundamental challenge to these modern values.

The question nonetheless remains, who were these Southern slave masters?

It is as if recent historians have confidently assumed that, in all of human history, there could not be a case where the issue of race was more irrelevant. Never in human history was the issue of race more irrelevant than in regard to the racial identity of the American South’s essential “master race.” This is a truly fantastic contradiction: the South apparently fought a war in the name of the primacy of race, yet the distinctive racial identity of the South primary ruling race is apparently a matter of total indifference.

Virtually every other people in history, from the Italians, to the Chinese, to the Mayans, to the Albanians, possessed some form of ethnic identity. The French, the Germans, and the Russians did not and do not simply consider themselves to be merely “white.” The original English settlers of the North, moreover, are considered, not simply white, but Anglo-Saxon. Why, then, was the South’s “master race” nearly alone in its absence of a distinctive ethnic identity? Is this state of affairs only a consummation of the Northern victory?

Of course, that blacks possessed a distinctive African ancestry is admissible, but the ancestry of the South’s ruling race is apparently inadmissible. This must be a state of affairs almost more peculiar than slavery itself. Everyone else across the world is permitted a distinctive ethnic or racial identity except the great Southern slave masters. For some peculiar reason, the original Southern slave masters are not allowed to have a distinct ethnic or racial identity. This means that the only people in American history who apparently have no distinct ethnic or racial origins beyond being white are precisely the same people who thought other people could and should be enslaved on the basis of their ethnic or racial origins.

These aristocratic planters must have been the most raceless, bloodless, deracinated, rootless, cosmopolitan universalists ever known to history. We must conclude that of all white people, these aristocrats must have valued heredity or genealogy the very least. The Virginia planters were most peculiar, not for being owners of black slaves, but for being the least ethnically self-conscious white people in world history. Is this an accurate reflection of reality?

This is really one of the great, peculiar paradoxes of world history: the elite Southern planters, one of the most extreme, unapologetic, and explicitly racist groups in history, are precisely those who may have the most obscure racial identity in history. Their claim to fame has been tied to identifying blacks as a race of natural slaves and in identifying themselves as race of natural masters—a “master race” without a racial identity. Perhaps the time has come to recognize that they have also merited a claim to fame simply for the obscurity of their racial identity.

Who were they?

The Englishmen who first settled the North identified themselves as Anglo-Saxons. But what about the “First Families of Virginia”? Virginia’s Tidewater elite largely originated from the geographic entity of England. But did these racists consider themselves specifically Anglo-Saxon? This question must be posed as carefully as possible: did they or did they not specifically identify themselves as members of the Anglo-Saxon race?

Who were these American slave masters?

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the North possessed “the qualities and defects that characterize the middle class”, while the South “has the tastes, prejudices, weaknesses, and greatness of all aristocracies.” There could probably be no greater confirmation that South possessed a genuine aristocracy in the traditional sense. Yet this prescient antebellum observation begs the question: how did young America acquire an old aristocracy?

It is as if, in America, of all places, no explanation is required for this profound cultural difference between North and South. America was supposedly a country defined by “the qualities and defects that characterize the middle class.” But the idea of a slave race assumes the existence of a master race, not a bourgeois or middle-class race. The Union was not threatened by the leadership of poor Southern whites; it was threatened by the leadership of a subgroup of whites with an aristocratic philosophy that mastered the entire cultural order of the South.

If the Civil War was fought against slavery, and to fight slavery was to fight the slave-masters, then the Civil War was fought against the slave-masters. Since the slaves were not guilty of enslaving themselves, the argument that the Civil War was about slavery is practically identical to the argument that the Civil War was about the slave-masters. No matter which way one looks at it, all roads of inquiry into slavery leads to an inquiry into these peculiar Southern slave-masters.

Who were they?

“These slaves”, said Abraham Lincoln, “constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war.” Did Lincoln state here that slavery was the cause of the war? No, Lincoln stated that slaves, as property, constituted an interest, and this interest was, somehow, the cause of war. The question then becomes, whose interest did these slaves serve?

To speak of aristocracy is to speak, by definition, of a minority of the population. The original aristocratic settlers of Virginia were called Cavaliers. “[T]he legend of the Virginia cavalier was no mere romantic myth”, concluded David Hackett Fischer in Albion’s Seed. “In all of its major parts, it rested upon a solid foundation of historical fact.”

But who were the Cavaliers?

One year before the outbreak of the American Civil War, in June of 1860, the Southern Literary Messenger declared:

the Southern people come of that race recognized as cavaliers… directly descended from the Norman barons of William the Conqueror, a race distinguished in its early history for its warlike and fearless character, a race in all times since renowned for its gallantry, chivalry, honor, gentleness and intellect.

Normans and Saxons: Southern Race Mythology and the Intellectual History of the American Civil War documented the thesis of Norman/Saxon conflict from a literary perspective. Its author, Ritchie Devon Watson, Jr., interpreted this thesis of Norman-Cavalier identity as “race mythology”, just as historian James McPherson has called this peculiar notion the “central myth of southern ethnic nationalism.” Yet how can this thesis be dismissed as myth without a thorough, scientific, genealogical investigation into the matter? Is it a myth, rather, that the Norman Conquest, the most pivotal event in English history, had no affect whatsoever on America? Is it true that representatives of virtually every ethnicity and race have come to America—with one peculiar Norman exception? Were the descendents of the Norman-Viking conquerors of England the only people in the world who were not enterprising or adventurous enough to try their fortunes in a new land?

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union,” Lincoln explained, “and is not either to save or destroy slavery.” Yet it has become commonplace to disagree with Lincoln and to propagate the myth that the Civil War was first and foremost about the slavery of black people. The repeated claim that the Civil War was about slavery can be deceptive because it serves as a means of avoiding focus upon the slave-masters, which further avoids facing the centrality of the identity of the Norman-Cavaliers. The American Civil War was fought primarily, not over black slavery, but over Norman mastery.

There is a sense, however, in which the Civil War was provoked by the slavery of a race of people. Norman-American George Fitzhugh, the South’s most extreme and comprehensive pro-slavery theorist, clarified the relationship between race, slavery, and the Civil War amidst that violent clash of two Americas:

It is a gross mistake to suppose that ‘abolition’ is the cause of dissolution between the north and south. The Cavaliers, Jacobites, and Huguenots of the south naturally hate, condemn, and despise the Puritans who settled the north. The former are master races, the latter a slave race, the descendants of the Saxon serfs.

This is a key piece of the racial puzzle of America. Fitzhugh implied that the North sided with a black slave race because the Anglo-Saxons themselves are a slave race. Fitzhugh depicted Anglo-Saxons as the niggers of post-Conquest England.

With these words, Fitzhugh verified that the Norman Conquest, in its origins, was a form of slavery of the Anglo-Saxon race. The foundational irreconcilability between North and South is incomprehensible without recognizing that North’s peculiar obsession with “freedom” evolved precisely from the fierce denial that they or their ancestors were, in fact, a Saxon “slave race” born to serve a Norman “master race.”

“True,” Horace Greeley admitted in an issue of his New York Daily Tribune in 1854, “we believe the tendency of the slaveholding system is to make those trained under and mentally conforming to it, overbearing, imperious, and regardless of the rights of others.” Would he have believed, too, that the tendency of the Saxon-holding system in England after 1066 was to make those trained under and mentally conforming to it, overbearing, imperious, and regardless of the rights of others? Could there be any connection between these two very peculiar tendencies?

Could revulsion against the very notion of a slavish Saxon-holding system be the root and source of the inordinately strong Anglo-Saxon tendency toward freedom? The key to understanding the modern fame of the Anglo-Saxons as a free race is to understand the medieval fame of the Anglo-Saxons as a conquered and enslaved race. The Norman-Cavaliers’ belief in the rectitude of slavery was a direct descendant of belief in the rectitude of the peculiar institution of the right of conquest.

Yet, as Fitzhugh made clear, he and other Cavaliers were not the only whites of the South, even if they were as decisive in forming the culture of South as the Anglo-Saxons were in forming the culture of the North. The Jacobites refer to the Scotch-Irish who became the majority of the Southern white population. A smaller population of French Huguenots followed the original Cavaliers and concentrated in South Carolina.

According to the late American political scientist Samuel Huntington, “American identity as a multiethnic society dates from, and in some measure, was a product of World War II.” Huntington believed that America has a Puritan essence. He implied that American identity is rooted in a single ethnic identity and that ethnic identity is Puritan and Anglo-Saxon. If this is true, then it goes without saying that ultimate patriarch among the “founding fathers”, George Washington, must have been a pureblooded Anglo-Saxon. Is this genealogically accurate?

According to one source, the very first Washington in England was originally named William fitzPatric (Norman French for son of Patric). He changed his name to William de Wessyngton when he adopted the name of the parish in which he lived circa 1180 A.D. Another source, the late English specialist in Norman genealogy L. G. Pine, related that George Washington and his family “has plenty of Norman ancestry.” He confirmed that this family was on record as owners of Washington Manor in Durhamshire in the twelfth century and of knightly rank. Since George Washington was the possessor of “a carefully traced decent from Edward I,” this implies that the first president of the United States was also a descendant of William the Conqueror. None other than the twenty-eighth president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, affirmed in his biography of Washington that his Cavalier ancestors “hated the Puritans” and that the first Washingtons in Virginia were born of a “stock whose loyalty was as old as the Conquest… They came of a Norman family.”

George Washington was a Norman-American and a classic representative of the aristocratic, slave-owning, Cavalier culture of Virginia. Unfortunately for Mr. Washington, Samuel Huntington has no room for the kind of diversity represented by America’s first president and his Puritan hating, Cavalier ancestors. Everyone must conform to the Anglo-Saxon, Puritan cultural model if they want to be counted as real Americans—even George Washington. Wasn’t that what the Civil War was about?

How is it even conceivable that Norman conquerors who developed into Southern slave masters could also have played a decisive role in the architecture of American liberty? Huntington, so keen to stress the English roots of American liberty, neglected to point out that Magna Carta was a product of Norman aristocratic civilization. It was the Normans who first invented the formal tradition of constitutional liberty that eventually conquered the world.

So while Washington was an heir to Norman aristocratic tradition, Magna Carta was a part of that tradition. Southern resistance to King George III in 1776 could trace its struggle for liberty to the resistance of Norman barons to King John in 1215 (and this also preserved their special privileges or “liberties” against the tide of assimilation with Anglo-Saxons). It was only in the seventeenth century that Anglo-Saxons exploited and selectively reinterpreted Magna Carta for their own purposes.

The ultimate foil of Hugh M. Thomas’s thesis that ethnic hostility between Normans and Anglo-Saxon went extinct by about 1220 is to be found in the endurance and persistence of Samuel Huntington’s question: Who are we? The “universalism” of the American founding actually emerged out of the attempt to preserve a rather peculiar form of multiculturalism that balanced the democracy-leaning North against an aristocracy-leaning, slaving owning South. The American Civil War resulted in the Northern conquest of the multicultural America that formed the character of the American founding. The Anglo-Saxon conquest of 1865 was the real founding of Samuel Huntington’s presumption of a single Puritan-based American culture.

What Hugh Thomas actually did was to dig up the root of the Anglo-Saxon cultural identity imperialism that late twentieth century multiculturalism began to expose. Thomas’s conclusion that the Anglo-Saxons culturally conquered the Normans in thirteenth century was made seemingly plausible only by nineteenth century conquests of the Normans. Thomas only uncovered the origin of this Anglo-Saxon way of cultural conquest through a struggle against the multicultural England of medieval times.

Multiculturalists who have promoted the contributions of women and minorities at the expense of the usual dead white males of history are following directly in the footsteps of Anglo-Saxon historians who downplayed the Norman impact on their history. The underdog biases of multiculturalism is not an aberration, but only a continuation of the majoritarian bias of democracy itself against a fair assessment of the contributions of Norman aristocracy to world history. William the Conqueror is the ultimate dead white European male in the history of the English-speaking world.

Hugh Thomas’s unspoken assumption is that Anglo-Saxons culturally conquered the Norman Conquest. They, the Anglo-Saxons, were ultimately history’s great conquerors. But is this true? Let this point resound around the entire world with utmost clarity: the issue here is who conquered whom? Did the Normans become victims of conquest by the Anglo-Saxons in modern times through characteristically modern methods?

Is it all possible that Anglo-Saxons might possibly be biased on the subject of the people who once defeated, conquered, and subjugated them? Most humans have submitted to the yoke of a “modern” Anglo-Saxon-leaning interpretation of long-term effects of the Norman Conquest. The repression of the impact of 1066 upon modern times has stifled a rational, evolutionary understanding of liberal democracy in the English-speaking world. The time has come for America and the rest of the English-speaking world to overcome this ancient bloodfeud and reclaim its Norman heritage, a heritage to goes to the very heart of the American founding.

In modern times, the Anglo-Saxon culturally conquered the Normans by Saxoning away their multicultural difference into presumptions of Anglo-Saxon “universalism.” To call America “Anglo-Saxon” is thus tantamount to ethnically cleansing George Washington of his Norman or Cavalier ancestral identity. Was George Washington the victim of a cultural form of ethnic cleansing by the Anglo-Saxon people?

[pages 654-675]

On Heisman’s (((book)))

I will not read beyond page 500 of Heisman’s book. Although what I reproduced in my extracts is very interesting, it is irritating that, throughout his book, Heisman hides the obvious: that all this universalism and love of the neighbour of other tribes he writes about is not practiced by his own tribe!

Throughout what I’ve read of his book, Heisman does not even mention that the Bible reduced to a nutshell means ‘ethnocentrism for me’ (OT) ‘but universalism for thee’ (NT).

The omission is not innocent, as the thesis of Suicide Note is that Judaism will lead technological humanity to the creation of Artificial Intelligence. After detecting its main omission—that Judaism does not impose miscegenation on the Jews—it is easy to see that all the sci-fi theodicy of his book is a big smokescreen.

That the philosophy of Heisman is self-serving from the Jewish point of view is also noted in the fact that he puts monotheism as high as if it were the forerunner of A.I., thanks to capitalism. It is so false that analogy that it is enough to remember a sci-fi film that I saw as a teenager: in which two countries separately created their own A.I. If something resembles the artificial intelligences that supposedly capitalism will create, it is polytheism, not monotheism.

Heisman is not only a sophist. There is poison for the Aryans in his book, even though we can use his Suicide Note here and there, which I have been quoting this month. Consider his words:

Auschwitz and the Singularity [his futuristic Golem-A.I.] are two diametrically opposite final solutions to the paradox at the core of Judaism. [page 99]

When I read it in due context, it suggested to me that his philosophy is a prophylactic trick to prevent a second Auschwitz. And by the way, from what little he says about racists, it is clear that Heisman had not read the most substantial white nationalism that could be seen on the Internet before his suicide in 2010.

Heisman was not an honest author. All his book looks like a psyop. The advantage of printing a text, as I did with the first 500 pages (which I did not read all of), instead of reading online, is that at the bottom of the pages one can fill the paper with critical notes: what I did. I could easily write a five-thousand-word book-review but will not; I prefer to say only the essentials.

On page 322 Heisman confesses: ‘Speaking as a Jew, I believe that…’ It is significant that in his book of almost two thousand pages, he does not mention the Golem except in a non-Jewish context when referring, on page 1278, to the restoration of 1660 by William the Conqueror. (A golem is, in Jewish mythology, an animate being made from inanimate matter.) My chosen extracts do not denote the poison hidden in Suicide Note. In my opinion, Heisman was a champion of evil. Like the medieval folkloric tale, he wants to create a sort of Yahweh in the real world: a Golem with the technology of our century.

The funny thing is that from the first pages of his book, Heisman explained very well the meaning of the star of Israel. He says that the normal triangle represents the Egyptian pyramid; the inverted triangle, the Jewish subversion in that society, and that if we interpose the two triangles, we have:

The Star of David, the symbol of Judaism:

▲ + ▼ = ✡

This conceptual inversion of Egyptian social order is at the very heart of Judaism’s monotheistic revolution.

The objective of the priests of the 14 words is to put the pyramid back on its solid base, instead of putting the niggers up, which is what the Judeo-Christian inversion of values did.

Heisman’s suicide note, 10

Friedrich Nietzsche claimed that modern morality and modern democratic, egalitarian ideas are superficial secularizations of Christian values. His masterful philosophical and psychological analysis of Jesus and his movement is the starting point of any significant discussion about Christianity’s relationship to modern values. Christianity, he claimed, was a slave morality, and modern egalitarianism rests upon the underlying victory of value revolution Christianity initiated.

Yet the secularization thesis is not an exclusively elitist insight. As popular historian Thomas Cahill put it in The Gift of the Jews, “There is no way that it could ever have been ‘self-evident that all men are created equal’ without the intervention of the Jews.” No matter which way one looks at it, whether elitist or populist, Jews, including Jesus, have been decisive in molding the evolution of civilization in the West through the inordinate influence of Christianity.

Contra Nietzsche, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, takes the diametrically opposite view that “modern” morality does not come from the Bible. One of the greatest failures of Dawkins’ book is that he fails to even mention Nietzsche; he fails to mention the most relevant and potent challenge to his belief that the morality of modernity has nothing to do with the Bible. Among the reasons that Dawkins did not confront Nietzsche, perhaps this is the most obvious: if Nietzsche is right, Dawkins is wrong…

Dawkins believes in an ever-moving Zeitgeist. This spirit of the times is a spirit of progress that moves away from prejudices such as racism, sexism, and homophobia, and towards some form of political equality. This politically leftwards shift, he claims, has no connection with religion; it even marches on despite religion. But if modern egalitarianism does not come from the Bible, then where does it come from? Dawkins explained:

The onus is not on me to answer. For my purpose it is sufficient that they certainly have not come from religion.

That is an explanation? How can religion be ruled out if he has no substantial alternative explanation? While his atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods, he is unable to offer a positive scientific explanation for the modern Western values he has faith in. Dawkins accepted the premise that morality is ‘not necessarily constructed by reason’. But if reason cannot determine fundamental values, then liberalism and the mysterious modern Zeitgeist of progress rest on fundamentally irrational foundations.

Dawkins apparently believes in a spontaneous generation or special creation theory of modern values. In the special creation theory of modern political equality, Christianity has nothing to do with its quick and sudden evolution. “Progress” thus progresses from a spontaneous generation of modern egalitarian values. Dawkins writes almost as if modernity did not evolve out of the Christian world that preceded it…

Jesus turned the ancient world upside down. Either Roman/Jewish war would tear him apart, or Jesus would tear Roman/Jewish war apart by attacking the kin selective nepotism that polarized both Roman and Jew in opposition to Jesus himself. Jesus reversed kin selective values through hatred of the family. Dawkins apparently prefers the Old Testament on this point, and criticized Jesus for his “dodgy family values.” But if Dawkins is going to criticize Jesus’s anti-kin selective values, he should really criticize the values of modernity. What “modern moralist”, Dawkins asked, would follow Abraham? Yet Abraham’s willingness to kill his own son in the name of God is a theological root of Jesus’s hatred of the family. God was not to be confused with pure family values…

To reverse kin selection is to destroy the human family. This is how Jesus attempted to bring the world-rule of the selfish gene to an end. In standing as an individual against kin selective, Jesus acted as the supreme monkeywrench in the gene machine that undergirded modern individualism.

Dawkins hypothesized that indiscriminate altruism in the modern context, along with sex with contraception, are misfirings of former genetic adaptations. Since Dawkins subscribes to some form of the liberal egalitarian Zeitgeist, this means that Dawkins values this misfiring of ancient genetic adaptations. Dawkins thus believes that these forms of genetically maladaptive behavior are good. Why does Dawkins value genetically maladaptive behavior?

Jesus represented a social problem and his innovative ethics represent, in a sense, a kind of solution. Jesus’s ethics are fundamentally selfish in the sense that, in attacking kin selective altruism with an incompatible standard of anti-kin selective altruism, he opened a place for the half-breeds… Christianity, an antidote to genetically adaptive hatred, is probably the deepest source of the implicit modern valuation that the nepotism of kin selection (i.e. Christ killing Nazi racism) is evil.

Jesus was a mutt, but not just any kind of mutt. Jews and Romans were considered political opposite—and often spiritual opposites. Romans considered themselves the alphas of their world, and the Jews the omegas of their world. Jews considered themselves alphas in the eyes of God, and the Romans as the moral omegas of their world. Jesus combined these incompatible alpha/omega conflicts within himself. Jesus could be conceived as both the alpha and the omega his social order. All previous “social” boundaries were broken in his individual being. His very existence implicated the breaking of all social boundaries. All the seeds of modernity, as a break with the ancient world, are latent within the existence of Jesus…

Being a bridge of the gulf between gentile and Jew in life, Jesus was a bridge of the gulf between gentile and Jew in death. Gentile assimilation of Christianity over a thousand medieval years gradually engendered the modern idea of humanity. The assimilation of Jew and gentile in Jesus is what opened assimilation of Jew and gentile in the modern West.

If reason, in itself, cannot determine fundamental values, it becomes clearer that Christianity provided the ethical ends, while modernity bridged the chasm between the real and ideal by providing the technological means to realize those ethical ends. Modernity was bred out of a struggle between the real and the ideal in the form of a struggle for moral superiority…

The path towards self-destruction through moral superiority can be discerned in Matthew 5:38-39:

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

When Jesus say “But I tell you”, he is upping the ante above Judaism’s upping the ante above paganism.

Non-violent resistance is not a modern invention; it was practiced by first-century Jews against Rome. Jesus’s political powerlessness, however, became the limitation that grounded his theological innovations. Jesus’s innovations with Judaism mirrored the origins of Judaism itself in paradigmatic Egyptian slaves. The less powerful one is, the higher one’s ethic may be—at least in principle. Christianity is more evolved than Judaism in that it has even lower or more forgiving standards of what a good human being is than Judaism…

Jesus’s death as a gene propagator, and resurrection as a meme propagator, can be understood as a supernatural defiance of the “natural law” of natural selection. Bodily death was not the final word.

The sanctification of human life in opposition to natural selection was Biblically expressed through the notion of the human soul, and especially mind/body dualism…

Modern liberalism has not been inclined to acknowledge its historical debt to Christianity anymore than Christianity has been historically inclined to acknowledge its Jewish parentage. Yet one cannot fully understand the secularization of Christianity except as a development with roots in the preceding paradigm of Christianity’s separation from Judaism.

When rootless West moderns trace their roots to Christianity, they are led to Christianity’s roots in Judaism (this is surely a formula for rootlessness).

[pages 488-500]

Christianity is pure evil

– and white nationalists are evil too –

I had changed the status to ‘private’ of the Friday post for fear that my relatives who see my Facebook page would find out what I wrote about the family tragedy (after a Mass, yesterday was the burial of my cousin in a cemetery). But today something happened that I cannot ignore.

Murder and suicide in the family have devastated many. I even had to come for a few days to the house of my octogenarian mother, who still lives. This day my brother talked on the phone with her and I did something I never do: listen to a conversation from the other speaker.

In another recent post I said that, for the medieval mind, demons were a very living and very real psychological reality. I also said that, nowadays, demonological paranoia can only be observed in the most traditional Christian families.

Well: in the conversation I just heard my mother said regarding the acts of my cousin (my translation from Spanish into English): ‘There the Evil One intervened’. My brother replied: ‘Sure!’

But the worst was not that.

Then the subject of the salvation of the soul of my late cousin came up. My mother burst into anguished tears because she fears that he will go to eternal fire. My very Catholic brother, who goes to Mass every day, consoled her with reasons within Catholic theology: saying that if at the last minute my cousin would have thought this or that thing, he could be saved.

Yesterday my mother expressed with me the same fear for the soul of my cousin: her very dear first nephew. But when I heard about her fears I got angry and with a quick ‘It does not exist!’ referring to hell I turned around, away from her.

It is not clear what will happen to my mother or the surviving siblings of my cousin. Here I only came to say that an ideology of Semitic origin that has deceived the white man for millennia, with its doctrine of eternal torture, is infinitely perverse. And this includes white nationalists who, like schizophrenic imbeciles, cling to their Jewish drug.

It is not possible to save the white race by surrendering your will to evil. It is not possible to save the white race by swallowing the infinite lies of the Jews and the Judaised gentiles who invented Christianity; the torture by eternal fire being the most conspicuous doctrine of all. When the Aryan race finishes extinguishing, I hope that this bottle thrown into the sea—this humble blog that very few read—serves so that the coloured may explain the inexplicable: that not even in the darkest hour for the fair race did whites give up their Semitic drug.

This month I have gone so far as to quote an ethnic enemy in the previous entries, Heisman, to see if that would provoke more visitors to debate the central claim of this site, that indiscriminate love is killing the West: the new subtitle of The West’s Darkest Hour. But very few read this site to the extent of using, or merely linking, these arguments publicly in the Christian and neo-Christian forums of white nationalism.

My cousin was very emotionally attached to my mother. Today I heard her howling in pain, in the homely chapel that keeps the image of the Virgin of Lourdes; praying to her god, and with enormous anguish asking for answers to explain what happened. The fear of the eternal torment for his soul that she now suffers is an agony caused solely and exclusively by the wickedness of whites’ having accepted a worldview of clearly Jewish origin. Although the Jew Heisman was our ideological enemy, and I am glad he committed suicide eight years ago, his book shows that the current liberalism that inverted Roman values clearly was nourished by the very fertile soil that Christian ethics provided.

When will white nationalists give up their evil ways? When will they stop having Jews as saints or overmen (Jesus, Paul, etc.)? When will they stop taking seriously Church Fathers who were not even white (Ambrose, Augustine)? When will they face the history we have been collecting recently about the destruction of the classical (white) world by Christians (mostly non-whites)? Can’t they even face what a woman (!) says in a book published this year in the United States?

Keep committing suicide, white nationalists. I only hope that the coloured historian of the future, the one who writes the epitaph of your race, one day finds the texts of this blog-bottle thrown into the sea…

Heisman’s suicide note, 9

Judaism for the Gentiles?

When Christian social conservatives reach for their cultural roots, they embrace the uprooting force of Christianity. Christianity began a long process of uprooting gentiles from their pagan past. Monotheism substituted an alternate past and an alternate view of themselves as heirs of Hebrew ancestors. In some sense, Christianity brought non-Jews to serve in what was originally a Jewish mission. Has Christianity molded Christians in a Jewish moral image?

In The Anti-Christ, Nietzsche declared:

Jews are the most catastrophic people of world history: by their aftereffect they have made mankind so thoroughly false that even today the Christian can feel anti-Jewish without realizing that he himself is the ultimate Jewish consequence.

Christian antisemitism is a kind of Jewish self-hatred. In worshipping a Jew named Jesus as their God, and dedicating themselves to essential Jewish values, Christians have dedicated themselves to a form of Judaism.

Because Jesus’s preaching of hatred for the family must be subverted in order for Christianity to function as a normative, societal religion, there must be cases where the ambiguity between the alpha altruism and omega altruism becomes so obscured and perverted that Christianity becomes a vehicle of racism.

Take, for example, white American Christian racists. They hate blacks. They hate Mexicans. They hate Jews. And, incidentally, they worship a Jew as the son of God. It is only natural that such Christian racists should pray to Jesus to save them from the Jews.

The fact that modern Christians tend to be associated with the conservative values of the family is a product of Christianity as a societal tradition, not Christianity as an implementation of the words of Jesus. What would happen if a Christian took Jesus’s message seriously? The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, in Attack Upon “Christendom”, wrote:

And this in my opinion is the falsification of which official Christianity is guilty: it does not frankly and unreservedly make known the Christian requirement—perhaps because it is afraid people would shudder to see at what a distance from it we are living… when Christ requires us to save our life eternally (and that surely is what we propose to attain as Christians) and to hate our own life in this world, is there then a single one among us whose life in the remotest degree could be called even the weakest effort in this direction?… let us not wish to gloss over the Christian requirement, so that by suppression or by falsification we may bring about an appearance of decorum which is in the very highest degree demoralizing and is a sly death-blow to Christianity.

American politician Patrick Buchanan, by contrast, has attempted to resurrect Jesus just enough to achieve his racist, politically Darwinistic goals. It would appear that the conventional Christian virtue Buchanan admires most is hypocrisy. He laments the loss of the good old-fashioned Christian hypocrisy in which a thinly veiled pagan morality edified the slaughter of a Christian’s fellow men under the banner of Christian love.

If Buchanan were to examine himself with Kierkegaard’s eye, it might dawn upon him that he is attacking the Christian churches for being Christian: “We were wrong to accompany the old conquistadors, wrong to impose our faith on native peoples, wrong to be handmaidens of empire. We confess, we beg forgiveness from those against whom we and our fathers have sinned.” He then points out, “Now this may be the way to heaven, but it can lead to hell on earth.” Buchanan and other likeminded Christian racists made it their mission to ensure that the meek do not inherit the earth.

Much of what Christian conservatives are trying to conserve is actually pagan, not Christian. Christianity did not invent the family. Christianity became guilty by association with that kind of social conservatism.

An authentic Christian conservatism would amount to the conservation of the subversion of family patriarchy. Christianity fundamentally redefined the horizons of what became “conservatism”, closing the extreme horizons of the gentile political right represented by Rome, and thus pushing normative Christian ethical horizons towards Jewish norms. A real conservative can be witnessed in the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate (c. 331-363 AD), the enemy of Christianity who converted to the paganism of his ancestors in 361.

Every single accusation of the defamation and dethroning of gods and heroes that Buchanan hurls at secular leftists can be slinged with more profound justice at Christianity. Buchanan himself portends what he calls the “death of the West” precisely because the solution he posits is Christian. His solution to the “problem” is the cause of the “problem”. What Buchanan criticizes is ultimately rooted in Christianity’s spiritual revolution over Rome.

Christianity inspired gentiles to deracinate themselves from their original pagan gods, naturalistic values, and ancestral traditions. Liberalism continues this deracination. The political left casts out those final surviving remains of politically pagan sentiment in the name of radicalism almost akin to Jesus’s attack on normative Pharisaic Judaism.

Christianity decontextualized and recontextualized patriarchy and altruism, subverting the pre-Christian assumptions and social conditions they evolved and originated in. Jesus’s influence effected a softening of the kinship core of patriarchy. From this softened core, liberal social dismantling took administrative control over the hypocrisy industry that Christianity launched. Pat Buchanan himself demonstrates the great reaping of what Christianity has sown: neutralization. Buchanan’s racist cause was effectively neutralized by the victory of Christianity’s melting of racism’s kinship core.

Christianity disempowers and disenfranchises kinship relations. It does this by radicalizing the logic of altruism beyond its sociobiological foundation in kinship, subversively making kinship appear inferior in comparison with its higher, more “universalistic” concerns. In secularized terms, this makes kin selective values, which can include racist values, appear inferior in value.

The Christian moral attack against hereditary social relations is at the root of the modern Western social project of systematic kin selective insanity, i.e. the modern idea of leftward social progress. It was liberalism’s Christian inheritance that made a virtue of kin selective insanity. Genetic self-preservation is immorality when genetic suicide is morality. To literally follow Jesus’s example is to follow the example of celibate priests and implement the extinction of the biological human race.

Mixed marriages between Christianity and racism persist nonetheless. Perhaps the most famous product of the union of Christianity and racism is the bastard child known as the Ku Klux Klan. Caught between white supremacism and Christ supremacism, the Ku Klux Klan has solved the problem of incompatible ethical commitments through a hybrid creed that offers the worst of both worlds. Their greatest feat of all has been to corrupt both the Christianity that they profess to believe in and their own racist cause in one stumbling stroke.

Heisman’s suicide note, 8

Americanism is really a form of Judaism

Years after the death of his comrade, Karl Marx, and only about a year before his own death in 1895, Frederick Engels, co-founder of the communist movement, published an essay called “On the History of Early Christianity”. It began:

The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement.

Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the workers’ socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society.

Both are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and made the objects of exclusive laws, the former as enemies of the human race, the latter as enemies of the state, enemies of religion, the family, social order. And in spite of all persecution, nay, even spurred on by it, they forge victoriously, irresistibly ahead. Three hundred years after its appearance Christianity was the recognized state religion in the Roman World Empire, and in barely sixty years socialism has won itself a position which makes its victory absolutely certain.

Engels thus believed that a form of socialism “did in fact, as far as it was possible at the time, exist and even became dominant—in Christianity.” Christianity had a “class” appeal comparable to monotheism’s earlier storybook appeal to a “class” of Pharaoh’s Hebrew slaves.

Of all the attempts that have been made to link Christianity and communism, this is among the most significant. Written soon before his own death, it was like Engels’ final confession. Yet one point that Engels avoided, a point that would have been impossible for him not to take mental note of, was the Judaic origins of both Jesus and Marx. This unspoken theme was handled by downplaying the significance of the Judaic background of Jesus, and thus seemingly implying that the same held for Marx…

Whereas Roman values synthesized the good with the virtues of the soldier, Biblical monotheism disassociated the good from the virtues of the soldier… While Caesar presumed god-status as the highest among humans, Jesus on his crucifix attempts to demonstrate a way in which the lowest can be highest… Christian values turned the political arena from the arena of highest human virtue to the arena of the lowest human virtue…

Jesus, like Marx, takes aim at an entire system of perceived injustice. The Kingdom of God represents Jesus’s “system”. The Kingdom of God is Jesus’s equivalent of Marx’s imagined successor to the capitalist system. Just as Jesus claimed that he came, not to abolish, but to fulfill the laws of Moses (Matt. 5:17), Marx saw communism, not as the absolute negation of capitalism, but as the fulfillment of the logic of history. In both Christianity and communism, taking the most leftward logic to the extreme led to the production of something new and ultimately opposite.

In his papers on the Jewish Question, Marx wrote:

Christianity sprang from Judaism; it has now dissolved itself back into Judaism. The Christian was from the start the theorizing Jew; the Jew therefore the practical Christian, and the practical Christian has once more become Jew.

The classic “practical Christian” is the American. Americanism, then, is really a form of Judaism, not a form of Christianity. This implies that the capitalist age is a Jewish age, and that Karl Marx was a theorizing Jew who prophesized a new Christianity called communism.

Christianity collapsed into capitalism, in part, because Christianity attacked the patriarchal virtues of duty and family that override selfish individualism. Above all, it was the Christian valuation of a form of altruism that subverts kin selective altruism that helped pave the way towards capitalist individualism. In a sense, Christianity led the modern West to a state more like Jews. This means that Christianity inadvertently helped produce the capitalist world criticized by Marx.

Marx’s relatively superficial conception of “class” warfare has deeper roots in a more fundamental form of internal warfare—Jesus’s attack on the family:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Jesus’s sword was poised to divide kin, to divide the family, and to divide generations against themselves. This is a historical root of the Marxist “class” warfare that divides society on a higher level…

Jesus’s attacks on the Pharisees may have influenced Marx’s anti-Jewish tracts. Although Marx himself was born a German Jew, he was converted to Christianity at an early age. Just as Jesus was formally a Jew in an anti-Roman culture, Marx was formally a Christian in an anti-Jewish culture. But was Jesus treated as a full Jew? Was Marx treated as a full Christian? Just as Jesus became, in a theoretical sense, more Jewish than the Jews, Marx became, in a theoretical sense, more Christian than the Christians. For both Marx and Jesus, then, the issue of assimilation by law, but discrimination in fact, may have been a common impetus for world shattering prescriptions.

As Walter Kaufmann put it, Marx’s “impassioned interest in the salvation of wretched humanity made him the second Jew in history to be accepted by almost half of humanity as a messiah”…

Modern leftist causes would not have taken deep root without the fecund soil prepared by Christianity. The “Good News” of secular leftist revolutionary liberation was, in part, a reaping what Christianity had sown.

Hitler showed what can happen when the assumption of Christian influence is profoundly questioned. The difference between Roman altruism and Christian altruism is like the difference between National Socialism and Marxist socialism. The Nazis brought back the ancient pagan way that preceded Christianity as a corollary of bringing back the primacy of biological evolution.

[pages 463-470]

Heisman’s suicide note, 7

The Christian Collapse into Capitalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a manuscript dating from 1786, Napoleon Bonaparte wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heisman’s suicide note, 6

Darwin helped clarify the ethics underlying pagan worship of the warrior. The social Darwinian notion that death itself is a vehicle of goodness means the more death of the weak and the unfit, the more natural selection. The more natural selection, the more goodness and progress towards biological aristocracy. The natural justice of natural selection is progress through death. From this point of view, the soldier represents the human with the greatest virtue because the soldier is a killer.

This was the Nazi way of progress, the Nazi way of virtue.

From this point of view, it is easier to see what liberalism and traditional Judaism have in common. When liberals and traditional Jews give charity to help the poor, they are working against the natural justice of natural selection. Instead of leaving the poor to die in accordance with natural justice, they advocate a supernatural justice of preserving all life. While modern liberals and leftists tend to be more consistent than traditional Jews, both have taken the decisive step towards progress through life. [pages 153-154]
 
Success is Disaster

However, to follow this logic to its extreme, to consistently choose and value the weaker, is to value weakness itself. To overthrow the strong, in principle, ultimately leads one to overthrow what is strong within one’s self. In this way, radical moral integrity through rational moral self-consistency leads to rational self- destruction…

For the Zionist state to consistently empower the disempowered Palestinians at their own expense would be political suicide. Being Goliath is a problem when the moral of the story is that David ultimately wins.

The internationalism of Christianity laid the common ground for a world that has a place for the nationalism of the Jews. Just as Roman conquerors penetrated the territorial-sociobiological boundaries of the ancient Jewish state, the Jewish-based God memes of Christianity penetrated the ancient Roman world.

Christianity began a process of blunting and mollifying the deepest ethical-cultural gulfs between Jew and gentile. The penetration of Jewish genes into the modern gentile West is only a continuation of the anti-kin selective logic that began with Christianity. In other words, Jewish assimilation as individuals in the modernistic West is only a continuation of gentile assimilation to the sociobiological impact of Christianity. Both as individuals and as a Zionist state, Western assimilation of Jewish bodies was founded upon Western assimilation of a Jewish “spirit”. [pages 165-166]
 
The Elimination of Selection

People are material things, too, according to Darwin. To place the principle of equality at the top of a hierarchy of values is a formula for rational biological deconstruction.

The death march to the land of no egalitarian hypocrisy leads to a general trajectory of evolutionary “regression” because it leads to equality with the most simple and “primitive” evolutionary forms. It is almost like “descending” from Homo sapiens to apes, to primates, to mammals, to amniotes, to tetrapods, to vertebrates, to animals, to eukaryotes, etc., until we are lead to the very origins of life itself out of nonbiological, physical matter…

Modern equality began by dismissing the importance of biology. Ultimately, it leads to the removal of all biological factors from the equation of life until the achievement of death. [pages 184-186]

Equality would seem to implicate an ultimate trajectory of evolutionary “regression” because equal rights imply the beginning of the end of Darwinian selection. A genuine, progressive implementation of universal equal rights implies the artificial end of natural selection; the systematic unraveling of the mechanism that made the evolution of life possible in the first place. The principle of equality can thus be look at as the principle of the elimination of selection.

The opposite of the modern idea of individual rights is the right of the stronger. Individual rights tend to defend the weaker, while natural selection tends to eliminate the weaker. From some points of view, then, equal rights can be looked upon as the “progress” of genetic maladaptation.

Kin selection, for example, leads to discrimination against kinship outsiders and altruism towards kinship insiders. The moral logic of egalitarian universalism works in precisely the opposite direction, with moral preference given to outsiders over insiders. Western institutionalization of the elimination of discrimination ultimately means the systematic elimination of selection. Eliminating selection ultimately leads to internationalism and trans-species universalism. It also implies the elimination of the political as an active means of evolutionary, eugenic, biological self-control.

Insofar as Jews have contributed disproportionately to Western egalitarianism, and the end of discrimination on biological grounds, Jews have contributed to the elimination of biological selection…

Are Jews leading the entire human race towards an evolutionary dead end? Are Jews, for the sake of their own biological survival, leading the human race as a whole towards rational evolutionary self-destruction? [pages 189-190]

Heisman’s suicide note, 5

People of the Media

Jews prominent in the media industry tend to have a leftist bias that implies that race is not important. Goebbels and other Nazis that took direct control over Germany’s media propagated the message that race is more important than environmental conditioning. Yet if environmental conditioning were not important, then it would make no difference who controls the media or what its message is, since media memes would be powerless to overcome the power of the genes. After all, Jewish media influence provided empirical verification that control over the cultural environment can overpower the influence of genes…

The very obsession with Jewish media influence demonstrates that Nazis and other extreme racialists have somehow been the most radical believers in the power of media and memes to overpower the influence of genes…

The inordinate concentration of Jews in highly influential media positions does require an evolutionary explanation. Jews may have an inclination to control human behavior with words and other media forms because Jews owe their very existence to their ancestor’s ability to control Jewish behavior with the media technology commonly known as the Bible. Modern Jewish media control is only an extension of ancient Jewish media self-control. Jews may have a genetic ability to influence human behavior with “nurture” because first, foremost, and fundamentally, Judaism was founded through the nurturist ability to overpower their own genetically maladaptive tendencies. Jews exist because they embody this paradox of a genetic inclination to correct genetic inclination with “nurture”, i.e. the laws of Moses.

Consider the significance of Deuteronomy 20:17-18, a passage now considered one of the most morally problematic sections of the Bible for its sanction of genocide. Even this action was justified on the basis of corrupting cultural behaviors: “…you shall utterly destroy them…so that they will not teach you to act according to all their abominations that they performed for their gods, so that you will sin to Hashem, your God.” Genocide was justified with memocide.

While the Jewish religion began with the correction of Jewish behavior, its ultimate implication is social change; the correction of the entire world. While it is not conventional to describe “social engineering” as a form of technology, it is really the most powerful way in which non-biological evolution has mastered biological evolution. [pages 140-144]

Published in: on June 14, 2018 at 6:57 pm  Comments Off on Heisman’s suicide note, 5  
Tags: