Prostrated anti-Semites


Sometimes it is important to focus on a detail of a masterpiece of Christian art; for example, close-ups of Jesus’ feet and hands nailed to the cross. Here we see the contorted feet of Grünewald: a painter of the badly named ‘German Renaissance’. Grünewald ignored the Greco-Roman world of the Italian Renaissance to continue the style of late Central European medieval art.

In the Gates of Vienna discussion forum, ten years ago a Swede commented that all Westerners are now either Christians or liberals. I would paraphrase that statement by saying that every white is either Christian or neo-Christian. This includes the alt-right atheists, unable to let Christian ethics go. Even most anti-Semites remain prostrated before the contorted feet of the crucified Jew.

For that reason I do not even comment on The Occidental Observer anymore. But I am very amused that a few who have broken away with such ethics try to argue with Christians and neo-Christians on The Occidental Observer and Unz Review. In this site I have collected many comments from Robert Morgan, but I have also expressed my differences with him regarding technology.

Well: a regular visitor to The West’s Darkest Hour has been discussing technology with Morgan (here). Morgan is anti-Christian. Adunai, another anti-Christian, has also discussed with others in that webzine. What Adunai replied to one of these Christians reminds me of something that caught my attention from the first time I read Nietzsche, more than forty years ago.

Nietzsche said that while he rejected the universal love ethic that the New Testament preached, he loved the Old Testament because, unlike the gospel, the ancient Hebrews fulfilled Darwinian laws.

Obviously I’m rephrasing Nietzsche, but in essence he said that. What now has piqued my attention is that white nationalists who have not broken with the religion of their parents see things the other way around: they accept the New Testament and reject the Old. They do not realise that, with this, they have fallen into the trap that the Semitic authors of the New Testament set up for them: to use the fairness of the fair race to invert the values of that race. I refer to the transit from a culture when handsome Greco-Roman statues were so much admired to Grünewald’s feet.

Next, Adunai’s responses to Morgan and others on Unz Review:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Robert Morgan said: Civilization too is a revolt against Nature.

Adunai responded: How so? The very definition of humans is a bit anti-Nature, but nothing’s wrong with that. Man invented fire and scorched woods with it—like any other form of life, he wants to kill everything around himself. Humans destroy species in Amazonia, they breed out pathetic mutants such as dogs, cows and wheat—all to consume and to enslave, in order to ensure their own survival.

The problem only arises when their super-animal intelligence bugs out and accepts the anti-Nature inside themselves, the anti-human suicide—see Christianity. No other animal would fall for the schizophrenia of a virgin mother of a resurrected corpse, and for a god that gives ‘life’ as a reward for death. But no other animal has invented a space rocket either.

It’s just hard for humans to accept a science-inspired atheist Darwinian worldview. But I believe it to be possible—see the DPR of Korea.

P.S. It’s a shame Laurent Guyénot is a 9/11 truther. How can one see through the madness of Christianity, and yet swallow the lies of truthers?
 

A commenter said: It is obvious that the OT is just Jew mystical garbage filled with tribal hate.

Adunai responded: You are so Christian, you see the good part of the Bible as the bad one. That tribal hate you speak of is precisely what we need! What we must admire and put into myth! What every single healthy nation has lived with.

Currently, you hate Jews for being racist. That’s insane. No wonder Jews despise Christians—just like a scientist ‘despises’ the poison he has created, he will not drink it himself. Think War—Harm Your Enemies—Produce Children.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘Technological innovation tore those barriers down. With the barriers down and races mingling freely, discrete human races and discrete cultures are doomed’.

Adunai responded: I never understood this position. Hadn’t it be for the Christian axiology, the White race would have cleansed all of Africa, Asia and America of the non-White nations as early as in the 1890s. Or for sure in the 1950s, with the advent of atomic weapons.

Why do you focus so firmly on the technologies failing to see it as a tool Whites have used as they have seen fit? The problem is not the technology, it is purely the axiology. Technology only allowed the HIV to transition into the AIDS.

But for all I care, it’s only for the better. Better to deal with this menace sooner than later. Europe had little hope in 317, even less in 732 and 800 (when the Franks failed to kill the Church). The French, industrial and green revolutions do not change that.

In short, I disagree with your pessimism concerning technology.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘Further, you seem to be very much in the “free will” / man is a special creation camp (basically a Biblical point of view), and as I said above, I’m a determinist, so I believe free will is an illusion’.

Adunai responded: So, you believe the Whites’ conversion to Christianity to have been unavoidable? That is pessimistic.

Of course, there is something in the Aryan’s psyche that has failed him—see Buddhism in India. There is also the deep contradiction that I see between man as an animal and his newfound intelligence and introspection, his ability to commit suicide, his ability to hate all life. It is in our Nature to destroy Nature, and that is healthy, but can inspire Christianity as a side-effect.

But I am an optimist and I disagree that the White man was born irredeemably defective, that the Jew is our perfect parasite. Because if it is so, or at least cannot be fought against, then all hope is lost, or worse yet, never existed to begin with.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘Therefore, when you say something like “whites could have” done this, that, or the other thing, it makes no sense to me. They had what they thought were very good reasons for not doing it, or in effect had no choice’.

Adunai responded: Whites could have made a party that tried to curtail the destruction by technology. Oh wait, they did—namely, the NSDAP. Even the last anti-Christian emperor was born after 317.

What I’m saying is that Whites could have denied Christianity in the 4th, 8th, 16th or 20th century, but chose not to. They could have mastered technology, for with the right axiology, it would have spelled certain doom for all non-White nations on Earth, and not at all led to any race-mixing—but under Christianity, it did provoke suicide. You can only see technology under Christianity, and you think it’s the only way [red emphasis by Ed.].

When you see a car, you see a Negro arriving in Finland. When I see a car, I see Whites arriving in Egypt in 1910 and genociding all the locals. We had the first shot.
 

A commenter said: ‘Given the US Constitution, Eisenhower’s desegregation orders made sense’.

Adunai responded: Yes… Then why won’t you tear down that stupid White-hating Christian document? Why are you trying to rationalize it?

Desegregation is diametrically opposite of the genocide of blacks. Desegregation = death of Whites. Desegregation makes sense due to the Constitution and its idealist Christian egalitarianism… To hell with the Constitution!
 

A comemnter said: ‘Congo Rats are rated as repugnant in reliable tests of racial attractiveness’.

Adunai responded: Who cares how attractive Negroes are? Are you a faggot? Because only faggot feminists think in this way.

The real culprit is White men, and White men alone. It is the White men that allow their daughters marry non-Whites. Not women. Not the attractiveness of said non-Whites. It’s the Christian malware in your head.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘In the context of your example, what I’ve said is that if the negroes had had no way to get to Finland, they wouldn’t be there, and this seems to me inarguable’.

Adunai responded: It is not. Because a non-Christian technological civilization would not have given Negroes access to their technology to begin with. And would have exterminated them in a short while, as predicted by Darwin.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘I agree that in your imaginary world…’

Adunai responded: The world without Christianity. It happened in a localized version in Germany.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘The struggle for survival and human nature determine how it will be employed’.

Adunai responded: No, they don’t. The White race does not struggle for survival. The reason is still unclear, but I blame Christianity first and foremost. You don’t have an issue with doing likewise when it’s about the 1860s America, but when it’s about more recent times, it’s suddenly technology. I fail to see the connection.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘…and almost never have they been killed off completely, even in non-Christian societies. They have usually been assimilated into the conquering race’.

Adunai responded: There were different kinds of conquest in history. The conquest of Europe by Aryans, by Rome, by Mongols. Some were genocidal, others not. Some were empires, others loose confederations of savages.

What is different now? Science. Knowledge of the world. Materialist philosophy that clearly states the supremacy of genetics in the genesis of culture. The issue is not technology—it would only have helped the extermination. The issue is that the idealist poison of Christianity seeped so deep into the Aryan soul that any hope for the materialist worldview was vanquished in 1945 under the double sign of Christianity and Bolshevism.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘The struggle for survival will force this outcome, because if you don’t use slaves in this way, then your enemies that do will become wealthier than you, more powerful, and eventually overwhelm you. This is how, in the real world, human nature and the struggle for survival determine outcomes’.

Adunai responded: I don’t deny it. But how does the industrial civilization relate to it? I say that its advances in sciences would have made race-mixing the highest taboo and race war the noblest goal in any non-Christian society. Industry would only have amplified the desire to healthy life in a population. But in our case, technology has amplified the death wish.

You want to remove industry—then what? A return to pre-industrial society will not bar crude empires from spawning that can and will race-mix anyway. Too rotten to keep healthy values, yet not bright enough to develop racial science and fission weapons. Where’s a good future in that?

Do you put all your hope on the hypothetical barbarians that will burn Rome time and time again? Our pre-industrial Rome ate a good chunk of Europe, mind you—and even all of central Germany might have been romanized and judaized. Mongols and Turks demolished all Aryan culture in Kazakhstan. Vikings interbred with Eskimos in Iceland. What would stop Aryans from perishing in a non-technological world? I posit that only the power of chemical and atomic bonds can assure the existence of the European race once and for all.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Morgan is obviously violating Occam’s razor by multiplying entities (technology) when the Xtian inversion of values alone explains the West’s darkest hour beautifully.

Promethean fire

‘The Stars are not for man’
—a quote from Karellen
Childhood’s End (novel).

The following is a response to a comment in another thread about Robert Morgan.

My take on technology is different. I believe that the human race, whites included, are not ready for the Promethean fire—technology. It’s like empowering the Neanderthals with such fire: they would only destroy the world with it. Google how tons of nuclear waste are stored throughout the world and you get a Chernobyl-like picture for the future of planet Earth!

As a mortal enemy of Christian ethics, unlike ‘universal love’ I propose the opposite: ‘the extermination of the Neanderthals’. I would summarise it by paraphrasing Jesus: ‘Many genes will be called but few will be chosen’ in the day of wrath.

Morgan has failed to answer properly what would have happened in a world where Hitler had won the war. I very much doubt that that world would be as racially destructive as our world, in which Sauron won the war. Morgan assumes that, sooner or later, a triumphant Third Reich would misuse technology as much as the triumphant Allies (Sauron).

It would be fun if you discussed with Morgan at Unz Review. He is completely anti-tech. This is how the Anti-tech article on Wikipedia starts: ‘Neo-Luddism or new Luddism is a philosophy opposing many forms of modern technology. The word Luddite is generally used as a derogatory term applied to people showing technophobic leanings. The name is based on the historical legacy of the English Luddites, who were active between 1811 and 1816’. Morgan goes further. He endorses Ted Kaczynski, a.k.a., the Unabomber, and even Charles Manson for reasons still unclear to me.

Differences aside, Morgan has a point. As Kenneth Clark observed in his 1969 television series, ‘The only people who saw through industrialism in those early days were the poets. Blake, as everybody knows, thought that mills were the work of Satan. “Oh Satan, my youngest born… thy work is Eternal death with Mills and Ovens and Cauldrons”.’

Tolkien also saw it. His Lord of the Rings was a metaphor against how industrialisation in England murdered the beloved Shire of his childhood. As a protector of the forests, I’m as outraged as Ents at the widespread felling of trees by Saruman’s Orcs.

Evropa Soberana has also complained about how technological civilisation degrades the white man and Nature itself.

And, as I have stated many times on this site, ‘The Course of Empire is a five-part series of paintings created by Thomas Cole in 1833-1836. It reflected popular American sentiments of the times when many saw pastoralism as the ideal phase of human civilisation, fearing that empire would lead to gluttony and inevitable decay’ (see the five paintings by Cole: here).

Morgan seems to be saying that only after the fifth painting the surviving whites may regain their sanity again, always provided they never, ever try to surpass the pastoralist stage. Like Overlord Karellen, an extraterrestrial visitor of planet Earth, Morgan has made it very clear that humans will never be ready for the Promethean fire.

In my second book of the trilogy I propose something different: a mutated Aryan in an Earth populated exclusively by whites could finally be allowed to reach the stars. But from the psychogenic point of view, certainly He would be an altogether different White Man compared to those we see now. I refer to the development of the soul and, particularly, empathy: including empathy towards the animals, our Führer’s dream.

Unlike the Overman, present-day humans still have the soul of a Neanderthal (‘You have evolved from worm to man, but much within you is still worm’—Thus Spake Zarathustra).

In a blog entry it is difficult to convey the idea of what do I mean by surpassing the psychoclass that most humans belong to. But you can read the first novella by Arthur Clarke to get a rough idea: Against the Fall of Night and pay special attention to the city of Lys.

Morgan on the JQ

Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen, an important artist working in Amsterdam at a time when it was a flourishing town, has made all the protagonists of the Passion go up to Mount Calvary: the ‘Veronica’, the ‘Magdalene’, Mary and the disciples—all whites!—while blond angels collect the drops of Jesus’ blood. It is striking that a few centuries ago the European mentality imagined the ancient Jews that way, especially because in Amsterdam they really knew how Jews looked like.

Below, yesterday’s comment by Robert Morgan about the Jewish question and technology. I do recommend visitors to watch the recent miniseries Chernobyl, of only five episodes, to see why Man is not ready for the Promethean fire.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
In my view, whites have been primarily victims not of the Jews, or any other group, but of their own collective technological ingenuity. Jews are a problem, but in the final analysis, they only have as much power as whites allow them to have. Christian morality is also a problem, but here again we are dealing with something that is within white control. It too only has the power whites give it. On the other hand, I see technological development as inherently hostile to race preservation, and touch on it here, in a comment on another thread.

I think if the technological system survives, the white race is doomed. The system has great resilience, but if it crashes or is made to crash, there is hope. However, in order to be effective at saving the white race, any crash would have to be worldwide and permanent, or the parts of the system that were still functioning would simply regenerate, re-establish control, and the problem would continue.

Published in: on July 5, 2019 at 12:02 am  Comments (3)  

Vig’s epistle

Hi Cesar,

I wanted to write a comment relating to your post of “MacDonald the lapsed Catholic”, but as usual the text became too long so I decided like last time to mail it to you first. You have my permission to use it for WDH under the name Vig if you want.

Yes, as I said before your site is as far as I know the only site where the core question as to what causes the decline and the looming extinction of the white race or Aryans if you want, is being discussed in a consequent way. Again, this is beyond praise because there is no other way to initiate awareness about it.

Personally I have reached a saturation with the format of blogging and want to move to more practical ways to live up to my insights. What I see as a disadvantage of blogging is that one does not see the face of contributors and that most of them have a short breath as far as tackling the depth of a presented issue. Posting a comment as I saw on other blogs soon descends into a tit for tat of arguments that is more like a mental combat to show tactical superiority instead of slowly carving ones way to the depth of an issue.

Anyway reminding commentators not to digress, is very important.

Inspired by all the posts that I read on WDH the last year I have spiralled my way into an understanding of things that I want to share here. It relates especially to the MacDonald posts and might be interesting for commentators.

I saw two long interviews that Kyle Hunt had with Dr. MacDonald and I have to say that I was not impressed. I am sure that the answer for us will not come through the academic approaches of Dr. MacDonald because he has not wholeheartedly delved into the roots of Christianity.

I demand from every text in this situation that it must be obvious that it comes from a genuine life experience which includes experiences of suffering and does not purely arise out of a speculative philosophising.

My study on the core question has led me to see the connection between a few things.

Inspired by Nietzsche’s remarkable analysis of Socrates I concluded that the fall from grace for the European culture started already around 400 B.C. with the verbal firework of Socrates and Plato, and that these thinkers themselves are just the symptoms of a degeneration of instinctive health of the Greeks of that time. Their culture fell apart and lost its vital centre.

In a psychological sense the dominance that the spoken word had acquired by the values that Socrates and Plato had created, was not compensated by a cultural mechanism that could have kept the balance of the right and the left brain halves, which, as I understand it, is absolutely needed for real creativity to happen.

It is a historical fact that Greek society shortly after this development started to become instable and that its brilliant culture stifled up into Hellenism which was characterized by mannerism and the lack of true innovation.

What the influence of Socrates and Plato indicated was the need for an analytical and rational use of the mind of which the tactical use of speech and the ability of calculation was just an extension. The whole culture of debate in the Greek agora (a public place for “mental duelling”), as was sophistry, was rooted in this.

My insight is that it was not like Socrates and Plato inventing this and the Greeks following them. Especially Plato was just expressing the collective Greek mind because that collective mind needed that aggressive faculty of speech to be able to organise their growing technology, which they needed to win the war against the Persians. Think of the technology you need to build warships and weapons fortifications and temples in a relatively short time. This is really underestimated by all historians because they are academicians who never worked with their hands. This is shown by the fundamental changes these days in the understanding of the pyramid builders. Historians have usually not the slightest understanding of technology and its requirements and therefore a great deal of history has to be rewritten.

The essence of my view is that the very quick development of this faculty (on the level of the collective mind) threw the Greeks off balance and so they lost their creative power.

In the time of Socrates started already the weakening of the instinctive intelligence in favour of an aggressive and philosophising intellect.

Actually it was a neurological instead of a cultural issue. In this process of lateralisation of mental faculties the integration of the soul got lost. The Greeks one could say got stuck in one dimension of their expressive abilities because of the tremendous success of that ability. A contemporary German brain specialist Professor Manfred Spitzer confirms this by saying that the brain reinforces every nervous track every time that one uses it till it becomes a nervous “highway” so to say. The only way to escape out of this is conscious adventurism, but that I am sure is prevented by human laziness.

That white Europeans in the last two thousand years have been so creative in spite of Christ-insanity is only thanks to an inborn and Aryan (genetic as they prefer it these days) devotion to the higher states of mind, which one could define as the essence of aesthetic awareness. But now bleeding themselves hollow in this process of serving Mammon emotional schizophrenia is the result.

They have finally lost this costly thin thread (Das Goldene Band by Miguel Serrano) that connects them to their spiritual dimension as is demonstrated by the degeneration of European contemporary art after WWII, and the absolute collapse of real creativity we can witness in European art.

I don’t equate real creativity with technological smartness here.

The white European as the inventor of science, got “lobotomised” so to say, not being able to express and live his emotional dimension because of his inner distortion that the victory of his beloved science has cost him. Since the end of the 19th century and the ascent of technology the costly thin thread (Das Goldene Band) has been cut off and the desire to live and to reproduce are vanishing as we witness.

Is it not so that white Europeans have lost completely the dimension of celebration and the ability to have festivities of a joyous and emotional nature without the help of alcohol or designer drugs?

What one can measure in PET and MRI scans is that Chinese and Japanese have a much more efficient use of their brain than westerners when they calculate and think. There must be a connection with them using pictograms instead of ideograms as we do in Indo Germanic language.

I have a suspicion that exactly because of this weakening of instinctual health, that means the ability to defend your own interests, in Roman times already, the white Europeans could not resist the mental pestilence that was being spread by Christians and through the backdoor also by Jews. No historian has realised the immense weight that the keeping up of an imperium lays on the rational faculties of a ruling class like the Romans.

Miscegenation of the Romans was an indication of a weakened awareness of one’s own interest, an extreme rational mentality interfering with an autonomous vital biological process which was basically derailed by this aggressive rationality. The Roman pantheon notwithstanding its pagan nature was not really an authentic happening, their real thing was building aquaducts, temples and roads and have standing armies.

As I see it European man did not create a mechanism that would bring back the balance in his mind by keeping conscious connection to emotional and instinctive expressions. This is the basic mechanism that stifles all cultures that don’t renew themselves consciously but keep hanging on to old traumata or mechanisms that were once successful but now fill up their minds and prevent them from experiencing reality.

Our “Institutions” have to go.

Remains to clarify the connection between Christians and Jews and the degeneration as such.

To put it in the simplest and crudest form of explanation: The Aryan, sacrificing his integrity by creating and then by hanging on too long to a frenetic use of science and technology, finally has reached a state of being that is cut of from his spiritual dimension, being emotionally “lobotomised”, that means he does not know what his feelings are and when he knows them he cannot express them authentically.

This makes him depraved, spiritually incapacitated so to say, but he is still longing for the higher states of being. If one listens carefully to the great European thinkers like all the great German philosophers all they are after is the kick of attaining a higher state of mind. One could say that it is a masturbatory activity.

Philosophy is a complete waste of time because it is an illusion that actually separates one from reality. The only one not falling in this category is Nietzsche.

In short the white man has become needy and insecure.

The Jew has because of his circumcision trip landed up in the same boat. Since a few thousand years he has an unnatural mind and his costly thin thread (Das Goldene Band) is also cut off. His depravity is essentially on the instinctive and the heart level but therefore the more potent. At least he has power and money and is emotionally more integrated than the Christian.

His addiction is not philosophy as with the Germans and is therefore also not so serious as the Germans, but his addiction is status and power. That is why his mind is urging him to do business by delivering seductive illusions to the unhappy Christians like Paul of Tarsus was doing. He has created communism, psycho-analysis, all kinds of suddho religions that seems to relieve suffering.

The interaction between Jews and Christians is an involuntary one indeed, and it is not strange that since a few thousand years they have become intertwined in a sort of parasitic symbiosis, rooted in a mutually dependant spiritual depravity. In a very blunt way one could say that this symbiosis is of the nature of the relation between a prostitute and a pimp.

Published in: on June 21, 2019 at 7:45 am  Comments (13)  

Society or our inner ‘daimon’?

Just today I was thinking about some words of Octavio Paz, who lived very close to where I used to live when he died, about a writer whose name I don’t remember.

Paz said that the archetype of that writer was Satan: as he preferred himself to society. The poet obviously referred to what the Greeks called the daimon, in the sense of the voice of conscience with which one internally dialogues; not the diabolized ‘Satan’ of Christians.

Today Robert Morgan commented something that reminded me of my soliloquy this morning:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

In my experience, people who find excessive pleasure in associating with others tend to be shallow sorts. They always seemed to me to be suffering from a kind of pathology, though perhaps, since shallow people are many times more numerous than those who take readily to solitude, the reverse is true. Schopenhauer shared my view though:

“And, as a rule, it will be found that a man is sociable just in the degree in which he is intellectually poor and generally vulgar. For one’s choice in this world does not go much beyond solitude on one side and vulgarity on the other. It is said that the most sociable of all people are the negroes; and they are at the bottom of the scale in intellect. I remember reading once in a French paper that the blacks in North America, whether free or enslaved, are fond of shutting themselves up in large numbers in the smallest space, because they cannot have too much of one another’s snub-nosed company.” – The Wisdom of Life

Above the opinion is also ventured by Mr. Dinh and a few commenters that the advance of technology has had a hand in destroying human sociality, and perhaps this is true to an extent. But being preoccupied with gazing into a screen on a device so you can keep up with social media and communicate with others isn’t really being alone, is it? The paradox is that in many ways such technology pulls people closer together and leads to an even greater mental conformity, as is currently being demonstrated by the wave of deplatformings and social justice warrior doxings of dissidents.

Published in: on June 16, 2019 at 12:01 pm  Comments (10)  

Introduction to eugenics

by Evropa Soberana

‘All people can be Gods people now through the New Covenant… all peoples have a right to exist and continue to exist, but no race is superior in the sight of God. Each people has been given specific attributes and responsibilities but to God every soul is valuable’ —Matt Heimbach.

Editor’s Note: Is race a social construct? This is what liberals believe—and apparently Christian white nationalists like Heimbach believe that, for God, race is a mere human construct. (No wonder why people say that liberalism is the bastard son of Christianity…)

Below, my abbreviated translation of ‘Intro a la eugenesia’, published six years ago by the Spaniard blogger Evropa Soberana:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

It is undeniable that in the species and in any human group there are diversity of qualities.

Some individuals are intelligent and others are stupid; even there are morons. Some individuals have health of steel and others are sickly. Some individuals are tall, others are short. Some individuals are strong, others are weak. Some individuals are brave, others are cowards. Some individuals are disciplined and hardworking, others are lazy and slothful. Some individuals are honest, noble, righteous and loyal, others have a clear inclination towards lying, falsehood, disloyalty and betrayal.

It is also undeniable that almost all these qualities are hereditary and depend on genetics to a greater or lesser extent (usually more greater than lesser).

The question that arises is: what qualities, from those listed above, seem more desirable to us and which ones would we like they end up prevailing in the future world if we want the Earth to be a better place?

If you are a logical person I address the following question: in the path that, as a species, we have been going through the last millennia, what qualities, of those listed above, tend to be selected?

The current mentality, produced by a civilisation isolated in its technological bubble, ignores a hundred percent the laws of Nature, of blood, of selection and of the inequality of men; laws that, necessarily, place the best ones above and the worst ones below. The modern world is, then, the perfect example of a diabolical selection in reverse, or dysgenics. Many people of inferior genetics have been perpetuated, and many people of superior genetics have not done so (for example, in medieval times because of fratricidal wars, witch hunts and celibacy of very large social sectors at the hands of the Church). That hurts the race. When the number of biological waste increases and that of bodily monuments to the gods decreases, we can be sure without any doubt that we are moving towards a future of biological trash.

Today, the individual is sacred and untouchable, while concepts such as ‘race’ and ‘homeland’ are considered abstractions, when the only abstraction is the individual who is born and dies fleetingly and while only human groups are solid and lasting realities.

In harder and more authentic times, the birth rate was vigorous, but the harshness of environmental conditions cut off the lives of the weakest. Thus, in a family of ten children, it was possible that they reached reproductive age only five. Each of these five would have, in turn, ten children, of which five would survive, the fittest. The result was that, in several generations, the defectives were virtually eradicated and the only ones left standing were the fittest. Thus, fighting against the elements, in wars, epidemics and catastrophes, the population of the planet remained stable but, nevertheless, as a species, we tended to improve generation after generation. Each ‘litter’ tended to be better than the previous one.

Humanity was not spiritually prepared for the advent of the modern industrial revolution, technology and health services. Obviously, the technology turned out to be in many ways salvation for Man, but he forgot to foresee that the immense population growth that would inevitably take place would have to be compensated in other ways. Instead of foreseeing measures that would continue to maintain a selection of the best ones to regulate the population, the uncontrolled proliferation of human beings was allowed, at the expense of Nature and of the biological quality of the population.

Ever since health services, technology, social services and Judeo-Christian morality have spread freely, a whole legion of sick, decrepit, retarded and handicapped people invade the horizon of the species that in a world dominated by Nature would never have seen the light, or they would have lasted a short time. We, who have the technique and the means to quickly and painlessly do what Nature usually does slowly and painfully, are propagating and perpetuating the inferior seeds.

It is argued that technology in itself is not good or bad, but depends on the use that is given. Today, it is being used diabolically, oriented to make us sick, to weaken us and to get away from the Earth and our own nature. In the future, when the imbecility of this civilisation has been overcome, the application of technology must take a 180-degree turn.
 

But then there would be a selection: we would choose the types to prevail, we would discriminate, and that is unfair (for me, of course: because I want to perpetuate my genes, and with them, the associated declines)!

It will be unfair to you, but it is fair to the race, which is more important than you. On the other hand, it is unfair for the species that your hereditary rubbish spread like the plague, no matter how much that offends you.

And yes: it sounds to me like selection. It’s like in the exams. He who gets more than a 5, approves, and he who gets 5 or less stays out… a ‘selection’ in full rule. How monstrously unfair! What ominous discrimination towards those who did not pass! How politically incorrect!

Just like those places where they do not let you pass if you do not wear shoes, or if you wear piggy pints, or if you don’t go with female company, or if you dislike the Romanian gatekeeper.

Or those expensive restaurants where you cannot go if you’re not with tie and well dressed. Or those clubs where they only accept Latin bitches. Or those 5-star hotels where if you lack dosh to pay for a suite they don’t accommodate you. Or those bars where they would crush you if you say, ‘Long Live Spain!’

This is discrimination and pure and hard selection, which surrounds us 24 hours a day, and always in much more unjust and unnatural ways than genetic discrimination.
 

But then a caste system would be formed and the equality would be destroyed!

Yes, but don’t we have a ‘caste system’ today? Is not that capitalist caste system based on money? Doesn’t that destroy the sacrosanct ‘equality’? Is such an economic criterion of social stratification not infinitely lower, unnatural, unjust and petty than the genetic one? Don’t it tend to enthrone mediocre, vile and malicious individuals?

Nowadays, one can be clown, brat, son of a bitch, depraved, pervert, false, traitor, snake, unfriendly, repellent, drug addict and stupid: but they will open the doors wherever he goes and will bow if he is rotten with money and makes ostentation of it visible.

Likewise, one can be an intelligent, good, healthy, brave, strong and friendly chap that the System will overlook if he is poor.

Today, a chick is ‘good’ if she has a neckline, thong, miniskirt and shows off her body, even if mediocre, while a beautiful gal is not stunning if she goes in tracksuit and shirt. Is not that tremendously unfair?

So what are you afraid of when you suggest the possibility of wiping out all that and selecting the best individuals or genes for higher breeding?
 

But then we would operate modifications on the individual and force changes in the whole society!

So good! You have a son. Don’t you teach him to behave so that he is more presentable? Don’t you wash him and comb him so he looks better? Won’t you give him a better education to make him wiser? Isn’t that ‘operating modifications’?

Don’t we have a ridiculous and pathetic educational system, as well as a monstrous subliminal propaganda apparatus that ‘forces change’ throughout society, even in public opinion? Are not those changes, by the way, worse?

So what are you afraid of when you suggest the possibility of operating modifications for the better?
 

But then we would all end up being tall, handsome, blond, strong, gifted, indestructible, immortal, perfect and blue-eyed!

And what’s wrong with that?

Let’s see… taking the genetic range of yours and your partner, they give you to choose how you want your future child to be. How would you ‘ask’ him?

Short, maybe? Dummy? Black, no doubt? Something ugly, perhaps…?

Wouldn’t you ‘ask’ for the best range within your gene pool and that of your partner?
 

Oh, I don’t care how he looks like, and I’ll love him anyway.

I’m proud of you. Look, I’m going to shed a little tear with so much solidarity, so much progressivism, so much equality, so much tolerance and so many rainbows. But tell me: If the look doesn’t matter, then why the hell do you dye your hair or blow it?

Why do you brush or shave? Being a man, wouldn’t you ignore an ugly gal, fat and with a goatee? Why do you buy clothes designed to enhance your virtues and hide your shortcomings? Why do you make up? Why do you wear heels? Silicone? Implants? Operation of breast augmentation? Rhinoplasty? Lifting? Skin creams? Several liposuctions? Insulin for diabetes? Extirpation of the appendix? Gadgets for asthma? Barbiturates? Sleeping pills? Glasses or contact lenses? Anabolics?

Why, in short, do you try to pretend? Isn’t it because you are aware that this is a treasure? And isn’t all that a thousand times more unnatural than being born with privileged genes?

The problem is that people work on the phenotype, disguising their defects with money, paints, patches, amendments, accessories and harmful chemicals (and expensive, which is a lucrative and convenient business for the System). Perhaps, O hypocrites, wouldn’t you kill for good genetics, for health of steel, for beauty of birth and for not needing all those ridiculous complements to disguise your superficial miseries?

Don’t you spend (you and the State) bunch of monies in such patches and globs to hide your defects and your diseases, cash that could be saved if such defects were eradicated by tuning up certain genes harmlessly? Doesn’t all the waste of keeping the retarded, terminally ill, be cut off in a single generation with a little common sense, for God’s sake?
 

Oh, I wouldn’t choose the looks of my son, I’d just let him be born without messing with his genes.

Once again I’m shedding a tear. Sniff.

But when you see that all your little friends go through life begetting beautiful super-babes, healthy, responsible, intelligent, strong, loving, I have the vague feeling that you don’t want to stay behind, be the less coolest mother and condemn you to have to listen to your asthmatic, diabetic or simply mediocre child, without asking yourself how you were such a scumbag as not to give him a better birth having the means to do so.
 

But then babies born through genetic engineering will be unnatural beings!

Those babies wouldn’t be any more unnatural than a bourgeois obese with toad face; drinker, sedentary, dressed up to the neck and spending five hours a day on TV, or taking his BMW even to go shit.

Nor would it be more unnatural than a 50-year-old fat woman, unlookable, ramshackled, wrinkled, materialistic, smoker, varicosed, sterile, without children—but yes: a progressive, activist, sponsor of children of alien races in foreign countries, with her hair dyed blond, with lots of make up, with a purse, talking on her cell phone and stuffed with gelatinous muffin tops and flabs that none wants to see.

And, of course, they won’t be more unnatural than the troop of the sick, deviant, criminals, whores, parasites, inverted and degenerates who parade through our civilisation and to whom, on the other hand, no one deprived of their right to be born.

You yourself, don’t you take the bus or go by car? Don’t you get into noisy bars to get drunk and distract your will? Don’t you have sex with a condom or with an anti-baby device? Don’t you watch TV? Isn’t all that also ‘unnatural’? So what are you telling me, fucking piece of plastic with legs? I will accept the word ‘unnatural’ as valid only and exclusively if they come from the mouth of someone like Tarzan or Mowgli.

Why, then, almost perfect children, born out of the cross-breeding of the best of the species, should be unnatural and abominable beings? Couldn’t they be ordinary people, and have the same privileges as, for example, a homosexual mestizo, obese, diabetic, squatter and carrier of various venereal diseases?
 

Well, that seems discrimination to me. Who decides who is perfect? Isn’t that playing to be God?

Maybe it is playing God, but since no one is going to come down from heaven to give us instructions, and since we are not going to sit and watch the species degenerate until we become sickly Tinkiwinkies fused with TV, the bag and the car at the same time, someone with judgment has to fill that void.

Bearing in mind, moreover, that the species is on the verge of catastrophe we must favour an exacerbately high birth rate among the best specimens, and prevent the worst from multiplying. Modern Western civilisation is the only civilisation in the history of humanity that does not conceive of sex, marriage, family and birth-rate as biological weapons destined to propitiate ‘the victory of the cradles’—without which ‘the victory of the soldier’ is incomplete.

It will be necessary to cross-breed keeping in mind the selection of qualities such as Nordic blood, good constitution, intelligence, strength, stature, courage, leadership ability, health, resistance, discipline and a very long etcetera, which are the qualities selected by Nature itself when the suicidal and insane Judeo-Christian morality does not interpose between Her and man. It would not be necessary to ‘force’ things in this sense (‘you two are good specimens, let’s mate’), but to encourage their desire to emerge naturally and spontaneously.

If this type of policy was supported by the techniques and means that exist today, we would have, in a matter of generations, an almost perfect race, and all the defects—together with the expenses and miseries they cause—eradicated forever.

‘Good’ is everything that improves the race; ‘bad’ is everything that makes the race worse.

From this point of view, it could be necessary to resort to artificial methods (genetic engineering, state intervention, selective crossings) to correct the indescribable nonsense caused by 2000 years of artificial dementia.

Your urban brothel lifestyle, contaminated, uprooted, unhealthy, asphalted, greasy, degenerated, drunk and immoral harm the species and that is unnatural.

Your compassion and diligence towards junkies, the defective, retarded, homosexual, dirty, delinquent, sickly, parasites and judicially sentenced is something that harms the species and that is unnatural.

Your social-economic selection is something that harms the species, that makes it worse and tends to form a type of inferior man, in addition to being a thousand times more immoral than natural-genetic selection.

Your castration of the instinct of aggressiveness is something that worsens the species and leaves us unarmed before more brutal humanities.

Genetic selection, good birth and the selective matching of the best individuals are things that benefit the race and tend to form a type of superior man. Therefore they are good and desirable in themselves.

Conclusion: as long as an intervention in human reproduction is not a reality, mate only with individuals of similar genetic and racial quality of you. Guide yourself through the traits of the body, the soul, health and the tone of skin, eyes and hair.

On the One Ring (1 of 2)

by Evropa Soberana

It is not gold all that shines.

The ‘indefinite progress’ is an idea of illuminist origin, which was born in the Near East with the same civilisation and theoretical-rational legitimacy as it was sought during the French enlightenment of the 18th century. It is based on the notion that human beings come from a sick, dirty, ignorant and primitive past, and that little by little they move towards a healthy, clean, cultured and ‘advanced’ future. Archaeology suggests rather the opposite, namely: that civilisation has caused the fall of the human being from the state of grace, making him sick. The idea of religious traditions was similar: there was an Edenic ‘golden age’ (Satya or Kritta Yuga for the Hindus) in which the human being was more perfect, and after which a trauma caused human degeneration and the appearance of misery and disease, culminating in the Iron Age (Kali Yuga for Hindus). Despite this, the industrial spiral in which we are immersed continues to propagate that infinite economic growth is viable, that the Tower of Babel can rise indefinitely, that things are going better and, in short, that the human being ‘has improved’.

Throughout its evolutionary history, man ascended the food pyramid from the archaic frugivorous apes, becoming an increasingly effective predator and crowning the peak when, after the carnivorous revolution, he ceased to be the victim of other predators. However, with the end of the ice age and the advent of the Neolithic Revolution, man and the planet fell under a new form of predation: technology and parasitism of the Earth—two new factors that violated a hitherto harmonious holistic equation, and that forever upset the ecological balance of the planet and the biodiversity and genetic quality of the species.

The human being, or rather, a type of uprooted human, alienated, mixed and confused, believed that the reason for his discomfort and his fear was that the natural order was poorly designed. The glacial cold penetrates to the marrow, oppresses the heart, demoralises the timorous and does not allow thinking about anything else. The elements and vegetation whip and scratch the skin. The ground abuses the feet. The daily sustenance is only gained with atrocious sacrifice and bloodshed. Women, monopolised by the best hunters and warriors, are hard to come by. Every minute of life is a minute torn from death by struggling against the environment and against oneself. And to top it off, in every corner lurk the jaws of a predator or the sharp flint tips of an enemy tribe that has no qualms about cheerfully devouring whatever miserable falls into their hands. As for the tribe itself, it is a forceful, ruthless, cold and severe organism. It is not a mother in whose tender lap we cry for consolation and charity, but a strict father who imposes obedience, who rejoices with sacrifice and who does not forgive error. As military commanders, the wise elders marginalise the weak of the reproductive life, reward only good hunters and fighters, demand absolute loyalty and devotion and do not hesitate to let the less valuable elements of the community die for the good of the clan. Like it or not, these are the factors that made us rise above the ape-man and who wrote our genome as a novel with letters of ice, stone, blood, semen, flesh and sweat.

‘Evolve or die’, said the world at that time. But that law can be very hard for the victims of the voracious evolutionary machinery: to live like cannon fodder of natural selection is not life. Therefore, it is necessary to question this horrible state of affairs, redesign everything from scratch, reorganise the work of the gods—since they have not been able to organise it to the taste of man—flee from suffering and erect a messianic ‘new order’. The moral of the slave is born. A system (civilisation) must be built within the System (Nature), in which the daily sustenance does not involve so much effort and in which the search for pleasure and comfort prevails over the alchemical virtues of asceticism, sacrifice and willpower. The competitiveness must be attenuated and the ferocity of the predator must be softened to make it fit into the new pseudo-matriarchal social mould. To achieve such a goal, people of diverse backgrounds must be recruited, willing to work for a new common good—by persuasion or by force—and abolish their baggage of ancestral traditions and identity. Where previously there were only the professions of mother, hunter, warrior, fisherman, harvester and shaman, now there will be completely new occupations (potter, farmer, shepherd, merchant, prostitute, priest, miner, servant, slave) that will hierarchise society based to criteria that have nothing to do with the quality of genes. A weak and cowardly man can now be valuable if he is dedicated to moving objects along commercial routes. A promiscuous woman, once cursed by the tribe, can now sell her body. The nascent society must be a mass entity in which the strong pull the car, towing the weak with the sweat of his forehead. The brave ones die in the war while the cowards multiply in the rear. They do not need to hunt anymore; bread replaces meat and wine the blood. There is only one universal god: that of civilisation. All other gods are abominations. Those who belong to this kind of sect are the chosen ones. Those who do not belong to it are the pagans, the barbarians, the profane, the violent: the blind, savage and impure human mass that lives in darkness and that must be enslaved and integrated into the system so that the elect can live without working. This linear, rational and logical thought must grow monstrous until annulling the symbolic and instinctive thought. Civilisation will eventually dominate Nature, deciphering all its secrets, dissecting it and finally subduing it, phagocytizing and domesticating it completely, so that nothing escapes human control and for the system to be predictable, mechanical and mathematical.

This philosophy had to take root very early in the Near East and affected many peoples, among them the Jew—who is currently the human group that has lived the longest under civilised conditions. The Old Testament is dotted with testimonies about the dawn of civilisation, collected throughout the Fertile Crescent, from the Sumerian city of Ur to the Egyptian of Memphis.

It is much studied by eugenics that civilised social environments that preserve the lives of weak and stupid will be unable to perpetuate their ancestry. By throwing the strong and intelligent into fratricidal struggles or aberrant occupations that undermine their fertility rate, this irreparably causes the degradation of the genetic code of the human being. Nature has very twisted ways of taking revenge on those who turn their backs on it or pretend to dominate it. The fossil record shows that once man stopped hunting and embraced agriculture, he paid for it with a tremendous decline in his health and biological quality, as we saw in the article on the Neolithic Revolution.

Currently, the increasing proliferation of degenerative diseases, allergies and mental disorders (‘The investigation of diseases has advanced so much that it is increasingly difficult to find someone who is completely healthy’, said Huxley) is a clear signal that we have not been dominating Nature, but it continues to dominate us as always, only this time it attacks us, because we are not obeying it. Disease and degeneration are Nature’s ways of protesting and making us see that we are not exercising our human functions, that we ignore reproductive wisdom and that we are breathing, drinking and eating things we should not. If civilisation is like a snake that bites its tail, it is because it is the result of genetic quality and depends on it, but like a curse, it turns against the same substance that feeds it, closing the circle of its own perdition. This biological boomerang effect is the true reason why all civilisations collapse sooner or later, and raises a logical and disturbing question: if the next human civilisation will be global, what will come next?

Civilised man has not experienced the hardness of the real world in his flesh nor has he ever adapted to Nature. On the contrary: his actions are aimed at adapting Nature to him, even if by hammering. Therefore, he tends to have a big ego and a small spirit, and considers that he is the peak of evolution. This new artificial creature, this new domestic animal that is the modern human, for its isolation in the bubble of ‘well-being’, ignores the humility before the Creation, and is therefore the only way of life on the planet capable of deviating from natural laws, reverse the correct order and incur in the sin of rising against the work of the gods. To this sacrilegious and self-destructive pride, the Greeks called hubris or hybris. [1] It is the reason why, despite the fact that civilisation has been totally, absolutely and indisputably catastrophic from a strictly evolutionary, biological, spiritual and environmental point of view, man has become a ‘satisfied gentleman’ of his work.

Is civilisation a war to the death against biology and, therefore, a revolt against life, by the sickly, malignant and antithetical forces of the world, those who are resentful of suffering? Is man running the risk of becoming a slave to his own creation, in a simple productive factor, a number, a statistic? Have we created a system with a life of its own that has subordinated our good to yours? Is technology dehumanising and mechanising the species, exterminating its biodiversity, causing its involution and taking its domestication to chilling levels? Is modern society an immense concentration camp, a mass zoo in whose cages languish, domesticated and castrated, the degenerate mutant descendants of the free man and hunter? What kind of natural selection are we promoting? What human type is most favoured by ‘progress’? What will man become the day he has definitively lost his adaptation to Nature and instead is fully adapted to the industrial, commercial and technological world? Has the human species arrived at senility? Do we suffer from Alzheimer’s? Is the modern world in general and Western Civilisation in particular self-destructing? Is civilisation still that jealous Eastern sect that demands the submission of life and that to achieve that, like every sect, it removes the individual from its ancestral framework, annihilating its identity and dynamiting the loyalties it may have outside the sect (nation, people, race, class, sex, family, religion, guild, etc.)? This is the kind of questions that could be asked by the authors that we shall see in this article.

Civilisation has meant the overwhelming advance of inert matter (technology, commerce, consumerism, comfort), and the absolute regression of living matter (health, body, genetic code, mind, sacrifice), not to mention the fall of spirituality. Until the human power systems do not adopt a biocentric perspective in general and anthropocentric in particular, and while the top of the pyramid of world power remains occupied by the international financial elite (the shepherds who are domesticating us, castrating and poisoning us), the species will continue to degenerate itself, and the planet as well. Cutting down entire forests to print millions of copies of the magazine Telva make people sick so that they have to buy medicines from the pharmaceutical industry, charging maternity and births so that women work in order to earn money to buy completely useless things, or pulling millions of people from the Third World to feed the machinery of multinationals, are things that only in a wrong economic and rotten system could be beneficial—for a few, and only in the short term. As long as the states do not rebel against the free market economy and the stateless international trade, and as long as they do not resolutely and decisively intervene in human reproduction to stop the involution of the species and improve its genetic code, the human being is on the way to becoming an increasingly ridiculous being, uprooted in his lifestyle. The modern world desperately needs a series of popular revolts that overthrow the financial, global and consumer economy, and establish a multipolar, austere and simple economy based on self-sufficiency, the autarchy of each State, local goods that are strictly necessary and in which the State, identified with the working people, controls the merchants, the parasites and the usurious lenders.

The current lifestyle has nothing to do with the needs of the species, but with the demands of an economic system, which is in total contradiction with human nature, its innate instincts and the real role of the free man in the concert of life and the world.

The collection of quotations of the next post should not be understood as an argument against civilisation or against technology, but against a misunderstood civilisation, against misused technology, against the usurious, free-market, parasitic, consumerist and indefinitely growing economy, and in favour of a radically different kind of civilisation, as for example Sparta was in its day: a State, perhaps the only one in history, that with an unprecedented clairvoyance, realised that gold corrupts and that the Civilisation is a distinctly dangerous product that you have to approach with the whip in your hand. For centuries, Sparta was able to keep the nature and tradition of its citizens alive, but it was also able to defend the most vulnerable geopolitical environment in Europe against enemies infinitely more advanced, economically and materially.

Note:

[1] From hubris comes the Latin hybrida, from which comes the word ‘hybridize’, that is, the crossing of two varieties.

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

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.

Published in: on June 19, 2018 at 2:51 pm  Comments (2)  

Technology

by Jack Frost

gran metafisico

A worldview is not a mere passive view, an act of looking at something, which might be suggested from the word, but actually a game plan for shaping it.

Christianity is the religion of whites and Christianity promotes an anti-racist worldview, which means that, with rare exceptions that were vigorously suppressed, the historical game plan of whites has been to deny the importance of biological race.

As their technological culture has now expanded to include all the races of the world, it’s quite obvious that the result has been and will continue to be to increase race mixing, and accelerate their own destruction as a race. As part of the game plan, it was easy to see this coming; but the problem was, with such a worldview, nobody really cared. In fact, they still don’t.

Whites value their technological culture more than their race, and because of this worldview, can’t see that the two are interconnected. This Faustian hubris is one of their defining characteristics and could well lead to their undoing. It’s possible that technological civilization may be able survive the demise of its founding race, but it seems at least equally likely that a permanent collapse may result. It’s the gamble of the ages!

Published in: on September 18, 2015 at 11:08 pm  Comments (3)  

Latest Frost exchange

on Christian apologetics

“…the French Enlightenment. If John Adams is correct and Helvetius was the first person to really believe in human equality, then the idea arose, not in Christendom, but in secularism. Worldviews can and do change. There is no reason to think that the ideas of the modern world are related to Christianity.”

So you’re saying these ideas were autochthonous developments that bore no relation to Christianity whatsoever. You claim they sprang up out of the native earth of Christendom and had nothing to do with what preceded them? Frankly, given the powerful role played by religion and the church at that time, I think that’s more than a little ridiculous.

>The new Gutenberg battleThe greatest help that the ideas of egalitarianism and universal brotherhood ever received was when Gutenberg invented the printing press and translations of the Bible became widely available. People could then read it for themselves and make their own decisions as to the meaning. As with so many other aspects of white culture, traditional Christianity was, in that way, another casualty of technology; it was steamrollered by Progress.

“If egalitarianism is taken in its modern sense then that’s impossible [that there are many gospel passages that extol universal brotherhood and egalitarianism], because the modern idea didn’t exist in the ancient or Medieval world.”

Human equality isn’t a difficult concept, and it hasn’t changed at all in two thousand years. All are one in Christ (Galatians 3:28), and according to Christian creation myths, all are of the same blood. Apparent divisions such as race and gender therefore are all illusions. God values all equally, with the implication that so should we, since life should be lived in imitation of Christ.

“Christianity has ceased to play a role in the modern world.”

Someone should tell the Pope this, and the Christian Zionists who keep sending money to Israel, and also the 70% of Americans who still call themselves Christians.

________________

Editor’s note: I have relocated, to this day, the above entry (originally posted a couple of days ago) because Frost has added still another reply in his discussion with the commenter Denvilda at The Occidental Observer, added as my 1st comment in the comments section, below.