Nietzsche

by Tom Sunic

Note of the Editor: Of the intellectuals of contemporary white nationalism, I only have respect for Tom Sunic, who like me is aware of the Christian problem and how capitalism is poison for the fourteen words. The difference is that he speaks in a very polite manner and I in a very rude manner.

For example, I am delighted these days because Murka, which has been the greatest promoter of both capitalism and Judeo-Christianity, is going to die thanks to the crisis unleashed by the coronavirus (the pin) and the Fed (the bubble), as can be seen in my most recent posts.

On the other hand, in an article published today on The Occidental Observer the Croatian Sunic focuses on Europe:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

To each his own Nietzsche. With this sentence one could start yet another discussion on this famous and famed thinker. Given the staggering number of works about him it is essential to raise the question: which Nietzsche should one read first? Should one read Nietzsche’s own prose first, or should one first read works by other authors who have written about him? And which work and by which author? The problem is all the more serious as there are no two works, no two authors among tens of thousands that are in agreement on the same interpretation of Nietzsche’s ideas. Of course, the same remark could be leveled against my own interpretations of Nietzsche. My understanding, interpretation and choice of words regarding Nietzsche’s thoughts may be different from those of other authors who claim to be his best interpreters. Consequently, I may be accused of using interpretations that may not be shared by Nietzsche or his countless interpreters.

What needs to be highlighted, however, is the link established by Nietzsche between Christian values and their secular offshoots used now by the ruling class in the West as a legal and psychological basis for the arrival of non-European migrants into Europe. The System, through its sermons about human rights, whose ideological origins go back to early Christianity, is quite successful in destroying European peoples and cultures.

Aside from being an influential philosopher Nietzsche was also a philologist who understood well the subtleties of political language. Therefore, one should first single out some of his words and find out their conceptual equivalents in the French and in the English languages today, especially in the realm of higher education and high-level political rhetoric. One must keep in mind that his denunciations of Christian morality are contrasted with his praise of combative virtues of the old Greco-Roman “virtù” stripped of any modern moralinfreie Tugend. Nietzsche invented the word “moraline” in order to combat the excessive moralizing of the Church and the ruling class of this time. Strangely enough the word “moraline” is never used today in the modern German language, having also no adequate substitute in the English language. The great German-American connoisseur and translator of Nietzsche, H.L. Mencken translated moralinfreie Tugend as “free of moral acid.” By contrast, modern French nationalists, when deriding the fake news of the modern System, often resort to the original German “moraline.” In the USA, however, this word could be substituted by its conceptual equivalent of “virtue-signalling.”

When transposed into our own language Nietzsche’s words read like a harsh condemnation of the modern System with its invocations of words such as “humanity,” “peace” and “tolerance.” The goal of the System is to force citizens of European extraction to become prey to perpetual feelings of guilt. This is how Nietzsche predicted the modern unfolding of the System hundred and thirty years ago:

Almost everywhere in Europe today, there is a morbid over-sensitivity and susceptibility to pain, as well as an excessive amount of complaining and an increased tenderness that wants to dress itself up as something higher, using religion as well as bits and pieces of philosophy—there is a real cult of suffering.

In addition to his denunciation of Christian morality Nietzsche levels harsh criticism against Christian providentialism which manifests itself today in the gregarious spirit of mass democracy. Of course, the System needs to sugarcoat modern, secularized versions of Christian teachings in the mystique of human rights, in the myth of multiculturalism, in the decrees on race-mixing, and in the usage of politically correct verbiage. Pity for those who failed, for lowlifes, for criminals, including illegal Third World migrants in search of a better life in Europe, has become a mandatory vogue in political and media outlets. Professor Pierre Chassard, who could be ranked as first among French “New Right” interpreters of Nietzsche, defines Nietzsche’s criticism of Christian providentialism: “The wretched of the Earth, who are nailed to the cross, may be the only fortune tellers. Life misfits may be the elect of heaven. Only they are the good guys and others are the bad guys.” The list of self-engineered misfits could grow longer if one were to add numerous White politicians and academics burdened by self-hate and choosing therefore to become purveyors of the dogma of interchangeability of peoples, races, and genders. Such a self-hating behavior, of which Nietzsche was the first critic, is today the trademark of the System.

One could start with the expression “the great replacement.” This wording, coined by the writer Renaud Camus, is deemed unworthy by the System. Nonetheless, although Camus’ book is very useful, its title may be subject to misunderstanding. Instead of the expression “the great replacement,” one is tempted to use a more specific expression: “the great invasion.” However, even the term “invasion” harks back to the notion of the political of the previous centuries when its use was generally accompanied by an armed conflict—which is not the case for the time being with the floods of non-Europeans who are being adorned by the Western media with the sentimental title “refugees.” Understandably, the System and its scribes must avoid the usage of the terms “invasion” or “replacement,” preferring instead the romantic expressions such as “cultural enrichment” or “diversity”—terms which went global after having first appeared in the American language in the 80s of the previous century. Moreover, even if one were to agree on the label “invasion” when describing Afro-Asian migrants on their way to Europe, the choice of this word would take us far off into the field of polemology, a subject that can be tackled only in passing.

According to Nietzsche the moralization of politics leads to chaos which he labels with the word “democracy.” It is incumbent therefore upon his readers to study the effects of democracy peddled globally by the System if one was to grasp the incoming tide of chaos. To that effect it suffices to listen to the hypermoralistic language of the ruling class in order to realize that the true goal of their political experiments—dubbed “democracy” and “diversity”—is nothing else but a gigantic hoax. The outpouring of hypermoralistic narratives among Euro-American leaders, other than serving as a legal smokescreen for humanitarian actions on behalf of non-European migrants, also functions as a grand cover up for the repression against independent thinkers.

In Bismarck’s Germany at the end of the nineteenth century, Nietzsche did not need to confront mass migratory inflows of non-Europeans. Much earlier, however, he had grasped the origins and the global dynamics of the hypermoralistic mindset that had already taken root among politicians and intellectuals of his time—either in its liberal version or in its crypto-communist form. That early bourgeoning hypermoralistic endeavor, whose goal was the creation of the best of all worlds, or the shining communist futures, was bound to lead, a hundred years after Nietzsche’s death, to multicultural chaos observed today.

It is pointless to scorn migrants, the majority of whom are Muslim non-Europeans, without however deciphering moralistic, globalist, altruistic and ecumenical ideas that have been peddled around by the Church over the last two thousand years. It was Nietzsche’s merit to be the first to grasp that all our current political concepts, all abnormalities in the liberal system are just secular derivatives of Christian thought, “whereby this morality is increasingly apparent in every political and social institution; the democratic movement is the heir to Christianity.”

In the System today, which claims to be the best, any criticism of parliamentary democracy, or multiculturalism, let alone of miscegenation, is bound to enter the framework of the penal code or the demonology of its mainstream media executioners. While on the one hand the System prides itself on being tolerant, claiming to extend unrestricted voice even to its critics, while hiding behind the words of tolerance, diversity and humanism, on the other, it exerts total control of its population—a phenomenon hitherto unseen in the entire history of the West. From the point of view of modern languages, from the point of view of the notion of the political, the System is succeeding in reversing real European values and replacing them with surreal ones. Within the framework of these new moralizing and ecumenical values, described by Nietzsche and transposed now into the modern System, it can be expected that non-European masses entering Europe, will describe themselves as “poor refugees.” Incidentally, the term “refugees” is not of their choice; it is being bestowed on them by the System and its sycophant media.

This is how professor Alfred Baeumler, one of Nietzsche’s disciples in the first part of the twentieth century and later to become a high-ranking academic in National Socialist Germany, depicts the nihilistic message inherent in the language of liberal democracy in Europe between the two wars.

Nihilism, chaos, is the inevitable consequence of the belief in harmony without struggle, a belief in indiscriminate (gegensatzlos) order. True order only arises from the power relationship spawned by the will to power… Only chaos is inhumane. The rule of tolerance and moral ideas, of reason and of compassion, in short of “humanity,” always leads to inhumanity.

 
Doubling down on his exotic doppelganger

As a follow-up to such hypermoralistic endeavors conducted by the System one can observe its politicians being more and more inclined toward splitting their own selves—a process which they subsequently project on non-European migrants who are cherished now as the beacon of progress and innocence. Such a process of White self-denial is especially visible in Germany, a country which in 1945 was forced to remake its identity. As an illustration of German split-mindedness or dopplengaegertum, one could mention several authors of fantastic tales at the beginning of the nineteenth century who, by indirection, best predicted the fractured identity of Europeans and especially the German people two hundred years later. A good example is the famous horror story writer E. T. A. Hoffmann and his novella The Sand Man. The main character of his tale falls in love with a machine which resembles an attractive woman he had previously fabricated in his self-delusional mind. Toward the end of the tale the imaginary woman-automaton pushes the unfortunate hero to suicide. Today, we are witnessing a similar mechanical and suicidal fixation by great many German and European politicians, who, as a rule, must pretend to be enamored with fictitious and exotic Third World migrant imagery, and who are overjoyed at the thought of demolishing their own identity and replacing it with the newly borrowed make-believe Afro-Asian identity. This time around, however, men of the System are not only being themselves physically replaced by real Afro-Asian migrants; they themselves yearn to replace their original White identity by non-White surreal supra-identity.

One can provide some crass examples of such a mimetic Double while studying European politicians and their penitential pilgrimages to the holy places of world politics, namely Washington, Brussels and Tel Aviv. The Germans, however, must perform an additional station of the cross by paying a penitential visit to Israel and recite a diplomatic chorus of mea culpa sermons. Two years ago, when German Chancellor Merkel visited Israel, she declared that “being aware of this responsibility (the Nazi crimes against the Jews, N.A.) is part of our national identity.” Without its Double, that is, without the forceful embrace of the Other, who was once either denied or colonized, the System and its do-gooders could not survive.

In the same vein, European politicians and intellectuals imagine themselves to be morally obliged to double down on their moralizing fervor on behalf of non-Europeans, assuming that they will thus better eliminate any external suspicion of their alleged neo-fascist or right-wing feelings, or better shed the label of their post-colonial crypto-nostalgia. Naturally, one could argue a lot about the benefits of this new doppelgangertum of European politicians, which has resulted in increased self-hatred, self-censorship and hypertrophy of false morals toward exotic strangers. Nietzsche grasped well this self-castrating mindset which has become today the main guideline of the System.

With respect to this entire kind of priestly medication, the “guilty” kind, any word of criticism is too much… One should at least be clear about the expression “be of use.” If by this one intends to express that such a system of treatment has improved man, then I will not contradict: I only add what “improve” means for me—the same as tamed, weakened, discouraged, sophisticated, pampered, emasculated (hence always the same as injured).

The search for the mimicked Double, observed among Western rulers, has reached by now pathological proportions. EU politicians must double down on their benevolence towards Afro-Asian migrants in order to better rid themselves of possible charges of would-be anti-Semitism or of being guilt-free for their colonialist and racialist past. In the majority of cases, however, such mimetic behavior is the natural consequence of the Allied re-education since 1945, the aim of which was and still is the creation of new European species.

In this essay on Nietzsche one cannot dispense with the name of the German anthropologist Arnold Gehlen who wrote that “the hypertrophy of morality occurs when we accept each human being in his humaneness only, and provide him in this capacity with the highest rank of existence.” Gehlen was perhaps the best connoisseur of Nietzsche during the cold war era, despite the fact that his analyses of the pathology of self-induced hypermoralism of German politicians had earned him lots of enemies on the Left and a great deal of ire among Frankfurt School reeducators. The moral hypertrophy of the early postwar System he describes is now being duplicated by European and US rulers and their “fake news” servicemen, both attempting to silence any voice of White dissent.

Neither is the Catholic Church and the papists the world over lagging behind. The most recent in the line of the moraline combat is Pope Francis with his sermons on the rights of immigrants and with his homilies that “migrants are the symbol of all those excluded from the globalized society.” When listening to Pope’s urbi and orbi, it is worth studying the reaction of would-be Afro-Asian migrants. Despite their modest IQ, they are not stupid. They know that they have powerful allies, not only in anti-fascist circles but also among the high Catholic clergy, both in the United States and in Europe.

Surely, George Soros and a host of left-leaning NGOs can be criticized for facilitating the flooding of the West by African and Asian migrants. However, the fact remains that African and Asian migrants follow only the unilateral welcoming calls from European politicians whose words had the prior blessing of the Pope and the high Catholic clergy. The latter is always diligent when mobilizing for migrants shelters or “sanctuary cities”—a gesture which only redoubles migrants’ appetite. In fact, the Church operates today as a sort of a counter-power vis-à-vis the actual legal power in place, which in any case is very lax with regard to migrants’ arrivals.

Beyond the moralizing phrases about the benefits of multiculturalism and miscegenation propagated by the System and the Church, the iron laws of biology and heredity cannot be ignored. In the years to come the states of the European Union will be exposed to multireligious and multiracial conflicts among and between new non-European migrants, conflicts of great magnitude and long duration. By their obsessive politics of self-denial, European countries, with Germany at the helm, will hardly be able to cope not just with the great replacement, but also with internal conflicts between diverse ingroups of non-European migrants themselves. Contrary to a wide misconception among EU leaders and many academics, racial intolerance and xenophobia is by no means the privilege of White nationalists. Racial pride and racial exclusiveness are by no means the monopoly of the White European stock. Low-level conflicts between and among nationals of Asian origin and nationals of sub-Saharan origin now residing in the West, will have a bright future. Worse, side by side with various moralizing social justice warriors and anti-fascist squads, the System won’t be able to persuade migrants to embrace the same liberal ukases, the same legal standards, the same scholastic tests, nor the same Western political concepts. Liberal rules and regulations, when forced upon non-White migrants, will always remain unacceptable to them. Thus, in the name of “diversity” the System keeps destroying not only the identity of European peoples, but also the identity of non-European newcomers.

Sooner or later multicultural states break up and terminate their trajectory in civil wars. Also, within the great replacement overhaul underway now, interracial wars among non-European migrants will be aggravated by large demographic changes. In addition, these hybrid civil wars looming large in the West now, will be accompanied by an increase in victimhood narratives by different tribes and ethnicities residing in Europe, each claiming, of course, the first place on the victimhood list. Mutual distrust, followed by the decline in civic solidarity and the dissolution of political order will become the order of the day. The hypermoralizing and masochistic antics of White politicians, among whom the German politicians are doing the surplus overbidding, are the logical outcome of the culture of guilt inherited from the fascist, colonial, Ustasha or National Socialist past. Following the incessant incantations by the System of mea culpa, mea maxima culpa—what would Nietzsche now say about our fatality? Long ago his answer was clear enough: “There will come a day when my name will recall the memory of something formidable—a crisis the like of which has never been known on earth.”

__________

To see the endnotes click: here.

On serving two masters

The problem with white nationalists is their damn Christian ethics: a set of moral values shared by even those atheists who live under the illusion of having abandoned our parents’ religion.

Christianity not only has a dogmatic facet but an axiological one as we have said so many times.

Last week Ramzpaul said in one of his videos that ‘they literally take a bat, I think he is alive, and they throw it in the fryers, seems really cruel’. But a minute later he added that he didn’t condemn the Chinese but that he admired them. Typical Christian ethics: compulsory universal love by obeying what the son of Yahweh commands us in the New Testament.

Compare Ramzpaul’s words with the novel that I most recommend to every visitor to this site, The Turner Diaries, which culminates when the Aryan ethnostate exterminates the Chinese through a combination of nuclear, chemical and biological attacks on their continent.

It is impossible to serve two masters because one will always end up loving one and abhorring the other. It is impossible to love your neighbour and at the same time the 14 words. What white nationalists have chosen is to love their neighbour as themselves, even those bastards who torture animals. In other words, these apprentices of racists have barely taken a few steps to cross the psychological Rubicon and imagine they already crossed it.

Loving those who torment animals is what in my soliloquies I call ‘un quebranto psicótico marca diablo’ (literally, a psychotic breakdown of the devil brand): a huge voluntary surrender to evil, self-deceivingly believing that that by subscribing universal love you’re doing good.

Since the times of Greece and Rome the moral compass of the White Man has been shifted from North to South by the religion of our parents, and these poor devils who believe they defend the white race haven’t even noticed it.

Christianity and the West

by Robert Griffin

Editor’s note: Below, part of ‘William Gayley Simpson on Christianity and the West’ by Robert S. Griffin, an article published last year on The Occidental Observer.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
We are a physical organism, a part of nature, at a particular point in the evolutionary process, argues Simpson. Church dogma and practice obscure those realities, and that does us a disservice. Christianity does not concern itself enough with strength, vitality, distinctions based on blood and breeding, and aristocratic excellence, which support the qualitative advancement of the race.

Claims Simpson, Christianity has had a weakening, emasculating effect on Western civilization, as it has enslaved us to ideals and ways that vitiate our vigor as a people. Christianity is characterized by “soft” values: unselfishness, charitableness, forgiveness, patience, humility, and pity. The church has focused too much, Simpson holds, on “the poor, the sick, the defeated, the lowly, and sinners and outcasts” and not enough on “the well-constituted, and healthy, and beautiful, and capable, and strong, and proud.”

Simpson believes that people will become what they most value and what they most attend to, and Christianity points us in precisely the wrong direction. Christianity places too great an emphasis on one’s subordination to an external deity and the transference of responsibility and power to this higher authority. Simpson points out that prior to the dominance of Christianity, Europeans stretching back for three thousand years of their history believed most in the individuals who were noble and excellent. They expected people to stand on their own two feet and make something of themselves and looked to leadership from those who proved themselves to be truly superior.

Christianity’s sentimentality and otherworldliness has undercut man’s belief in his innermost self. It has taken away his struggle, without which there is no growth, no fulfillment. It has not encouraged man to get his roots deep down in the soil, to food and drink, and to force his tender shoots up to the sky, to sun and air. To the contrary, it has told man that all this costly and painful labor has been done for him by another, and to accept this fact and rest in it, and eventually he will be transplanted to another garden (heaven) and be miraculously transformed into a full-grown and perfect flower. There simply isn’t any other garden, says Simpson, and to live as if there is will result in this garden on earth, our garden, the only one there is, remaining—or becoming—barren.

Simpson looks upon Christianity as a Semitic religion and foreign to the European spirit. […] He envisions a bible that holds up our own ideals and traditions, that is the record of our supreme achievements and triumphs, that tells the story of our saints and heroes, and that contains the admonitions of our great wise men and guides and the vision of our own hopes and dreams and purposes pushed deep into a distant future.

Why, Simpson asks, cannot Aristotle be our Moses, Homer or some of the Icelandic sagas our Exodus and Judges? Why cannot […] Goethe take the place of Job? Why cannot Blake supplant the Revelation of St. John and Shakespeare replace Ecclesiastes? Why cannot the Psalms be superseded by the record of some ones of us, in the past or now or yet to come, whose lives and teachings are most inspiring to our collective soul?
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Most articles published on The Occidental Observer are more sympathetic to Christianity, as can be seen in the site’s articles dealing with Christianity. In the comments section of TOO’s Wednesday article, ‘Jews, White Guilt, and the Death of the Church of England’ by Andrew Joyce, a Vespasian said (I’ll take the liberty to correct the spelling of the commenter):

“Jewish aggression against Christianity is, of course, nothing new” [a phrase in Joyce’s piece].

I would not only dispute your assertion but argue to the contrary, as Christianity has atomized its populations to the point of powerlessness in the face of Jewish collectivism.

I didn’t get a chance to comment on Dr. MacDonald’s last article, but the individualism inherent in Christianity has had the effect of individualizing populations (the personal savior concept is a psychological divide and conquer strategy), created a false worldview (militarism is the correct worldview), and misdirecting focus into the absurd idea of an afterworld (Jews don’t believe in an afterlife).

The fact of the matter is Christianity is, and has been the reason for Jewish domination over our societies for centuries and if Christianity didn’t exist, the Jews would invent it because it has been such a disorientating, confusing, disarraying and atomizing effect on western man.

You’re too wrapped up in it to see it. It’s not whether something is true or not, only the effect it has on behavior, and that behavior has been extremely destructive.

An idiot responded to Vespasian with wishful thinking: ‘…a new Counter-Reformation which would include a Tridentine revolution against contemporary Rome. I would call that progress’. In that same thread, another idiot commented: ‘A true Christian understands that Christianity was never a Jewish religion, that Jesus was not a Jew, and that the Israelites were not Jews’.

Sometimes I wonder how long it will take American racialists to shake off the monkey of Christianity from their backs…

The uniqueness of this site

‘Christian anti-semites, evidently too stupid to know that the man they are worshiping is a Jew, have got to be some of the stupidest people ever to contaminate the face of the Earth’.

—Robert Morgan

In my last posts I have been mentioning Level 6 of a metric. But as I dislike the Matrix metaphor that I used as an image in that post, as the creators of that movie are a couple of Jews, I prefer an Aryan metaphor: what we have been calling ‘the psychological Rubicon’.

Starting from the Aryan metaphor, we have said that white nationalists are stuck in the middle of the river. It is true that on the other side of the Rubicon is the land of National Socialism. But even Hitler didn’t know some things, as evidenced in his after-dinner talks in which he believed in the existence of a non-divine but merely human Jesus. What makes this site unique is a point of view that results from the amalgam of three fundamental premises:

• Jesus of Nazareth never existed. He is a character of pure literary fiction, out of the pen of the evangelist Mark (see the entries about Carrier’s work);

• Catholicism was imposed on the white race not through the peaceful message of the fictional Jesus, but through anti-white holocausts (see the previous entry of this day) and all the barbarism that we have been translating from the books of Deschner;

• Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the inversion of Aryan values into Semitic values for white consumption—Christian ethics—has been the primary cause of the white man’s ethno-suicidal behaviour. (See the text I recently put on the sidebar: ‘The deep-seated death-wish that seems to have taken hold of the collective subconscious psyche of the Aryan race after Hitler’s death…’)

Although on the other side of the river is German National Socialism, it flourished at a time when the scholarly current called Jesus ahistoricity theory had not yet matured at the level of the treatise On the Historicity of Jesus. But even white nationalists who doubt the existence of Jesus cling to the dragon’s tail, as they are unable to abandon Christian ethics (see, e.g., what I say about Greg Johnson in ‘Dies irae’, before the pic of Hitler contemplating a bust of Nietzsche).

Since neither the Nazis of the last century nor the Alt-Right folks have integrated into their minds an amalgam of the three bulleted paragraphs in red above, we can say that this site is the first of its kind. It presents a guide, for those stagnated at the middle of the river, on how to finish crossing the Rubicon (cf. the sticky post).

Published in: on November 19, 2019 at 2:43 pm  Comments (5)  

Siding the Christians

Groypers, Spencer and Allied rapists

About the arrest and deportation of Greg Johnson from Norway for pre-crime of a possible thought-crime, isn’t it ironic that Johnson is the one who has written the most against the lone wolves? Will he learn the lesson? It is not enough to comply with the laws of a country: the anti-white System will still get you.

As axiologically I consider Johnson a pseudoapostate of Christianity (see my previous entry to understand the concept of pseudoapostasy), I prefer an openly Christian activist like Nick Fuentes (sample videos here, here and here).

Fuentes is the leader of the Groyper War that is currently exposing the American cuckservatives. Though I would much prefer something closer to what Hitler did in the 1920s, after Charlottesville the System made it clear that it will not tolerate such events, even if no laws were actually broken. So what we have in regards to tolerated activism is a movement led by Fuentes and three other Catholics: Vincent James, E. Michael Jones and Patrick Casey.

In The Fair Race I said: ‘I’m looking forward to Richard Spencer and James Edwards running for president and vice president in 2024 to let white nationalists know that, legally, they’re not going anywhere (cf. Charlottesville). The time has come to speak about a revolution within the limits allowed by the law of the United States’. But now that Spencer has gotten into trouble we should consider the Groyper movement which has deeper roots in America’s superficial culture than Spencer’s more profound Kultur. As a Counter-Currents columnist recently said, ‘The groyper movement is far more than a Nick Fuentes fan club. It is the primal scream of Deep America, of an American nation which intends to make itself known and rise on the world stage. Fuentes is riding this wave—how far, I cannot tell’.

Before the Spencer scandal (more on it below), the McSpencer Group recently assembled ‘to discuss the recent storming of Charlie Kirk’s “Culture War” tour by members of Groyper Nation. Speaking of the Culture War, the group also takes a deep dive into the history of the “paleoconservatives” and the politics of nostalgia—their triumphs, their limitations, and whether their movement and moniker make any sense in the 21st century’, according to the video’s abstract in YouTube. A commenter replied: ‘Got to give Nick credit. This is the type of IRL [in real life] activity we should be doing rather than street battles with Antifa’. But the Groyper movement has its problems for secularists who comment in Greg Johnson’s webzine, as Hector Quinn said a couple of days ago:

The only problem with this groyper uprising is its attachment to extreme right-wing Christianity. Not only does this alienate it from most people, but it’s also not particularly revolutionary. Their questions about gays and “Christian morality” are really just a throwback to the George W era. It’s not interesting and already has a place within mainstream conservatism. The pressing and truly vanguard issues that they should be focused on are those of race and Israel.

I disagree. It doesn’t matter that Groypers are stagnated in levels 3 and 4 in Mauricio’s metric. Compared to those racialists who use the Newspeak term ‘gay’ I am on their side, as can be deduced from what I said about sex in my article on pseudoapostates. Groypers are absolutely right that what the white man needs is a return to morals. Secular nationalists, on the other hand, seem to ignore the information from The Fair Race and other sources: the Spartans, the men in Republican Rome and even German invaders during Christian takeover of Imperial Rome were Puritans: the rock upon which a culture can be built.
 

Let’s go berserk!

Richard Spencer for one is a non-Christian. Regarding the audio about Spencer’s visceral reaction, immediately after the Charlottesville event, I remember seeing and hearing, if not that same audio (with an accompanying video), a very similar one in which Spencer, inside a moving car in the streets of Charlottesville, ranted against the vile ambush by the System.

When I saw that video in August 2017, I felt vindicated: finally someone speaks as violently I speak! But two years later, when the audio became public, Alt-Lighters see things exactly the other way. They talk about a ‘temper tantrum’ or a ‘meltdown’ of Spencer as if his super-healthy, super-cathartic explosion was something negative. How is it possible for normies to see things in photographic negative: white is seen as black and black is white; dark gray is seen as light gray and vice versa? If something ought to be considered positive it is precisely Spencer’s slurs about Jews and blacks in expletive-laden rants, even though for normies’ ears it sounds like the most poisonous kind of white supremacism! Only in a world where Aryan values have been 180° inverted, courtesy of Xtian ethics, could Spencer’s fury be considered mad.

One thing is clear: due to my apparently ugly self (‘ugly’ only for neochristian eyes) I find talking to myself on this site, where I now only post once a week. If this site were popular, many racially aware whites would already know the history of the Berserkers, included in one of the PDF chapters of the sticky post that appears above this article. The Berserkers story is fundamental: it shows that the blond beast must suffer, occasionally, outbursts of holy rage as the Vikings did during their war cries.

But for the castrated white after WW2, and this includes every notable figure in racialism except exterminationists like Linder, that is considered insane. When we talk about transvaluing Christian values to pre-Christian times we mean precisely to recover our warrior manhood, including the ultra-violent cries of war, as part of the psychogenic price we must pay to re-conquer the West. Alas, the average Alt-Lighter is closer to the ultra-pacifist Johnson than to the Viking of yesteryear…
 

Christian apologetics

A piece of older news is that Weev of The Daily Stormer was finally discredited in the movement. Good news, as a Jew would never have been accepted as a contributor in the Nazi tabloid Der Stürmer, times when whites had not castrated themselves.

Originally some people thought that The Daily Stormer would be the webzine for adolescent Berserkers but they could not be more wrong. If that were the case, once the legal age was reached, DS readers would graduate from websites like The West’s Darkest Hour or from those that guard William Pierce’s old essays and speeches. But they stay at the Anglin playground. As far as Andrew Anglin is concerned, more serious than the fact that he had collaborated with a Jew is the POV from which he starts: ‘We cannot let anyone influence our agenda, which must remain what it always was: Pro-White, Pro-Christian… Pro-American’.

Not let anyone influence you? This is also the problem among Groypers and American conservatives in general. What about the historical facts about the origins of Christianity, for the first time systematically exposed on a racist site (this one)? Pro American? Apparently, it doesn’t occur to American conservatives that their Philo-Semitic, Mammon-worshiper country is a major factor in white decline. The only way to fix the problem is to understand the fact that your race is your nation, which means accepting all Aryan history as the story of your true nation (once more, cf. Pierce’s historical essay in The Fair Race).

Recently, like Anglin and the Groypers, Hunter Wallace has been writing apologetics (‘It is a mistake to conflate our particular lifetimes with Christianity. Before the Second World War and the television era, there was no such thing as a social stigma on racism’). Wallace and the southern nationalists of his webzine do not seem to have listened recently to Alex Linder, or the argument which compares Christianity to cancer. Cancer, too, doesn’t necessarily kill immediately. You can have cancer for years until it suddenly metastasises and kills you (cf. Part II of The Fair Race).

These days, for example, I have been watching some of my favourite scenes from the 1959 Ben-Hur movie, based on a novel that was a tremendous bestseller at a time when there was still no television. I am surprised how, even in those times, the Yankees (the novel was written by a Yankee) idealised the Jewish quarter at the expense of Aryan Rome. When the movie was released I was one year old. With a few more decades, the comparatively small cancer that represented the values of that novel and film—the values of the American culture!—would metastasise at runaway philo-Semitic levels, and the anti-Roman values so to speak, of today (cf. the essay of Judea against Rome, also referred to in the sticky post).

Objections aside, I am glad that some American nationalists seem to be awakening on a substantial scale. But something infinitely more challenging that Groypers could be asking to cuckservatives are questions about the lies about the Second World War (‘You call me a holocaust denier but the real Holocaust deniers are you: Why hasn’t the Republican Party said a peep about the genocide of millions of Germans from 1945 to 1947?’).

In stark contrast to the above American news, I would like to change the mood to my usual gravitas and cite some pages of Tom Goodrich’s book on the Americans’ rape of European women:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Meanwhile, to the west, the Americans were engaged in their own version of sexual conquest. Soon after they stormed ashore on D-Day, June, 1944, the worst elements in the US Army were allowed virtual free reign to rob, rape and kill.

“Reports that disciplinary conditions in the army are becoming bad,” General Eisenhower’s personal driver and mistress, Kay Summersby, candidly recorded. “Many cases of rape, murder, and pillage are causing complaints by the French, Dutch, etc.”

Expecting an army of heroic liberators, the Europeans were naturally surprised and shocked at the lack of discipline among the Allied forces, especially that of the Americans. Drunkenness, theft, wanton destruction of public and private property, casual sex on streets and in parks, but above all, violent sexual assault—many French soon referred to the American occupation as a “regime of terror… imposed by bandits in uniform.”

Historian, Mary Louise Roberts, poignantly recounts one such incident:

The handsome American soldier was Elisabeth’s tenth client that evening. Working her trade on the top floor of a dingy apartment block in Paris, she felt that she had seen them all.

For the past four years, the men had been Germans, and now, since the city had been liberated in August, 1944, they were Americans. It made little difference.

Elisabeth held out three fingers of her hand to indicate the price of her body—three hundred francs.

“Too much,” said the soldier.

Elisabeth sighted. She had seen that before as well. Wearily, she kept the three fingers held up, almost as an insult.

There was no negotiation—three hundred was little enough as it was.

“Two hundred,” the soldier insisted.

“Non,” said Elisabeth. “Three hundred or nothing.”

The soldier approached her, hate in his eyes. Elisabeth glowered back, starting to feel scared.

“In that case,” said the soldier, “it will be nothing.”

The soldier then placed his huge hands around Elisabeth’s neck and started to squeeze. She struggled as hard as she could, lashing out, but it was in vain.

After a minute or so she slumped down, her lifeless body falling on to the stained sheets. The soldier then calmly removed his trousers and had sex with her. For nothing.

Afterwards, he went through Elisabeth’s belongings and stole her cash and jewelry. He then went round the block, found another prostitute and took her to dinner and the movies.

For the GI, it had been a swell evening. Paris was just as they said it was.

“The French now grumble that the Americans are a more drunken and disorderly lot than the Germans and hope to see the day when they are liberated from the Americans,” admitted one US general in disgust. “I am informed the Germans did not loot either residences, stores, or museums. In fact the people claimed that they were meticulously treated by the Army of Occupation.”

After raping and robbing their way across France and Belgium, the US Army reacted much like the Soviets once they crossed into Nazi Germany in early 1945. Imagining the Americans to be much like the disciplined and well-behaved Wehrmacht, many German women, young and old, actually greeted the invaders euphorically as the long­sought symbol that the war was finally over and peace was at hand. Unfortunately, most found out too late, just as the boys at Dachau discovered, that these were not the Americans of their imaginations.

“We were crazy with happiness when the Americans came…,” lamented one woman, “[but] what [they] did here was quite a disappointment that hit our family pretty hard.”

“After the fighting moved on to German soil, there was a good deal of rape by combat troops and those immediately following them,” offered Australian journalist, Osmar White, a war correspondent traveling with the Americans. Soon after entering towns and villages the rapes began. Indoors or out, night or day, on park benches, against walls, on shop floors, the sexual attacks continued as the American conquerors laid claim to the conquered. Often going house to house in search of victims, some rapists initially claimed that they were looking for weapons, or food, or German soldiers in hiding. All too quickly their true purpose was made clear. In one German town, a group of six GIs found an attractive mother and her teenage daughter home alone. In the struggle to drag the victims upstairs, the females escaped out the door and hid in a neighbor’s closet. Finding their hiding place, the soldiers immediately threw the mother and daughter onto beds and one after another took turns raping the females, even as the daughter cried out, “Mama, Mama.”

At the Bavarian village of Ramsau, revealed one priest, “eight girls and women [were] raped, some of them in front of their parents.” In other villages, “heavily drunken” US soldiers helped themselves to the females. After raping one woman, a GI bragged that he had “liberated” her. In an apparent attempt to make the job easier for their men, some US officers required all homes to state the names and ages of their inhabitants and then nail the lists to their doors.

“The results of this decree are not difficult to imagine…,” a priest from one town answered. “Seventeen girls or women… were brought to the hospital, having been sexually abused once or several times.”

Rather than use their authority to punish the criminals and thereby stop most of the sexual attacks, American officers, much like their Soviet counterparts, seemed utterly indifferent to the crime, preferring instead to either ignore it entirely or blame the victims. Instead of arresting black soldiers for a massive number of rapes, the victims themselves were blamed because they “smiled” at the negroes while begging food. US Lieutenant General Edwin Lee Clarke went even further. “German women are creating a feeling of great insecurity among our soldiers by untrue charges of rape…,” announced Clarke. “These tactics might be part of a German plan.”

As with the Soviets, the Americans seemed to have no age limit and an elderly woman of 65, or older, could expect to be raped just as could a child of seven, or younger. There were other similarities. Revealed an Allied official:

German women were more frequently injured, beaten unconscious, abused more frequently in front of husbands or relatives and more frequently penetrated orally or anally by Gls than by the British or French.

“Americans look on the German women as loot, just like cameras and Lugers,” confessed a reporter for a New York newspaper.

“[W]e too are considered an army of rapists,” admitted a US sergeant matter-of-factly.

Added a writer for Time magazine succinctly: “Many a sane American family would recoil in horror if they knew how “Our Boys” conduct themselves… over here.

And the duty of concealing from the American public these crimes their husbands and sons were committing in Europe—and later, in Japan—was the job of the Office of War Information. Issuing its unequivocal marching orders to a small army of journalists following along with American troops, the OWI simply perfected a Soviet style censorship on all news and information destined for the US. “The rules for correspondents [were both]… imposed and self-imposed,” explained the American writer, John Steinbeck, about how he and other reporters hid the truth:

There were no cowards [or rapists or murderers] in the American Army, and of all the brave men the private in the infantry was the bravest and noblest… A second convention held that we had no cruel or ambitious or ignorant commanders… We were all a part of the War Effort. We went along with it, and not only that, we abetted it. Gradually it became a part of all of us that the truth about anything was automatically secret and that to trifle with it was to interfere with the War Effort. By this I don’t mean that the correspondents were liars… [but] it is in the things not mentioned that the untruth lies. We felt responsible to what was called the home front. There was a general feeling that unless the home front was carefully protected from the whole account of what war was like, it might panic. Also, we felt we had to protect the armed services from criticism, or they might retire to their tents to sulk like Achilles.

Thus, in effect, each “reporter” was expected to ignore or deny the looting, rape and murder committed by the Americans and exaggerate or invent the war crimes committed by the Germans; to dutifully deify their friends in the one breath and viciously vilify their enemy in the next. In essence, a corp of conscientious, diligent newsmen during times of peace had been transformed into an obedient herd of propagandists during times of war.

While some upright American officers, like their Russian counterparts, tried manfully to control the scourge of rape in their units, most did not. For German women, the baffling contradictions in each army was itself a source of nonstop terror and stress. Near Berlin, when a family encountered their first Soviets at war’s end they were naturally paralyzed with fear, fully expecting a riot of robbery and rape to envelop them. Surprisingly, the Russians were very polite and left without harming anything or anyone, including the family’s females. When the Americans later arrived, however, one of the daughters was raped so brutally that years later she still had not recovered.

Although sexual assaults by French troops in Germany were fewer than other allies, perhaps only because there were fewer French troops to begin with, not so the African colonials under their command—Moroccans, Senegalese and others who raped on a massive scale. Just as with their American and Soviet allies, the French commanders seemed indifferent to the fate of German civilians, especially women. Indeed, many French officers seemed to gloat in their power and allowed their black troops to run wild, robbing, raping, and murdering. “In the next few nights,” boasted one French sergeant, “no woman will go untouched.” When Senegalese troops reached Stuttgart in southwest Germany, they herded thousands of women, and a number of men, into the subway then raped and sodomized them all at their leisure.

While the British were far and away the most disciplined and correct of all Allied forces, that army too had its criminal element. “I didn’t go out and chase my chaps away from the women,” laughed one junior officer. “I didn’t have time. I was doing it myself!”

And thus, in the east, in the west, in their thousands, in their tens of thousands, in their hundreds of thousands, perhaps in their millions, the sexual assaults and spiritual slaughter of German females continued long after the war was declared over.

“I was panic-stricken. I was always afraid that everybody could see it in me. I was insecure in myself. I felt so empty,” confessed one young victim expressing the emotional chaos and confusion of countless others. “I wanted to do away with myself and kept crying. My mother would not let me go anywhere alone, not even to the toilet.”

“Is this the peace we yearned for so long?” cried Elsbeth Losch from a town near Dresden. “When will all this have an end?”

_____________

Editor’s note: Pages 42-47 of Summer 1945. The footnotes have been omitted. Summer 1945 is a book that exposes the atrocities committed by the United States in Japan and Germany. If the reader is interested in a book by the same author that focuses on the holocaust perpetrated by the Allies solely in Germany, obtain a copy of Hellstorm, The Death of Nazi Germany: 1944-1947 (sample chapter: here).

Unhistorical Jesus, 7

Or:

How (((Luke))) transvalued an Aryan value

But even if we accede to that hypothesis, it then only confirms the same point: that Luke is not writing history, but myth. He or his sources are simply making everything up. His tales are told for their meaning and rhetorical effect, not because they were researched or came from witnesses. I’ll close with one more example of this, the Emmaus narrative of Luke 24, a resurrection-appearance tale found in no other Gospel and thus distinctive of Luke’s style of invention.

Here Luke tells the story of a man named Cleopas (along with an unnamed friend) who journeys by road from Jerusalem to nearby Emmaus, after they learn the corpse of Jesus has vanished. On the way, the resurrected Jesus appears to them (albeit in disguise) and explains the secrets of the kingdom (which happens to be a spiritual kingdom, not a physical one), then vanishes, and Cleopas recognizes who he was and goes on to proclaim what he was told. Conveniently, the name Cleopas means ‘tell all’, in other words, ‘proclaim’. The story thus has several telltale markers of myth: a name invented or selected for its meaning to the tale rather than any historical truth; an absurdly ahistorical narrative (never heard of from any earlier source [Mark or Matthew – Ed.]) of a disguised divine visitor; an unrealistic conversation with a complete stranger; a miraculous vanishing; and an all-too-convenient rhetorical purpose for all of it. This is the Vanishing Hitchhiker legend—ancient Roman style.

As it happens, the founding myth of Rome, then famously known everywhere and celebrated in annual passion plays, is almost the exact same story: a man named Proculus (archaic Latin for ‘Proclaimer’ or ‘He Who Proclaims’, thus not only again a fictional name designed for the story but essentially the same name as Cleopas) journeys by road from nearby Alba Longa to Rome, after the Roman people learn the corpse of Romulus has vanished; and on the way, the resurrected Romulus appears to him (not in disguise but this time in glorious form) and explains the secrets of the kingdom (literally: how to conquer and rule the world), then ascends into heaven (as Luke eventually has Jesus do as well), and Proculus recognizes who he was and goes on to proclaim what he was told. I’ve already demonstrated the extent to which the Gospels have borrowed this Romulan resurrection tale for Jesus (see Chapter 4, §1, and Element 47). Mark had already fashioned his passion account in light of it, and Matthew embellished it even more in accord. So it is not unexpected that Luke would take the same model further.

And indeed he has. Not only in the ways I have already pointed out in previous chapters but also here, in the tale of Cleopas on the road to Emmaus. lf we accept the identification of Luke’s intended Emmaus as the Ammaus mentioned by Josephus as a town nearby Jerusalem, then in both Luke’s narrative and the Romulan tale the Proclaimers are journeying from a city on a mountain to a city in a valley, roughly the same direction (east to west, like the sun), and roughly the same distance (seven to twelve miles).

But the changes are the point. While Proculus receives his gospel on the road to Rome, Cleopas receives his gospel on the road from Jerusalem: so while the old story suggests ‘all roads lead to Rome’, the new story suggests all roads lead from Jerusalem. While Romulus appears in awesome glory, befitting the awesome glory of Rome’s dominion and the very visible empire he promises, Jesus appears in disguise, hidden, just as the kingdom he promises is hidden, and which, like Jesus, becomes visible (and thus knowable) only in the communion of believers. Luke has thus transvalued the Romans’ founding myth: unlike the Romans, their resurrected hero promises a hidden spiritual kingdom originating from Jerusalem on high. And just as the glorious visage of Romulus is what confirmed to Proculus that what he said was true, so it is the powerful word of the gospel that confirms to Cleopas that what Jesus said was true. Luke thus rewrites the story to communicate how Christian values differ from mainstream Roman values. This is a classic hallmark of mythmaking. [1]

______________

[1] Pages 480-482 of Carrier’s book. Italics in the original but bold-type added by Ed. For more on the Romulus parallels and reversals in the Emmaus narrative see Arnold Ehrhardt, ‘The Disciples of Emmaus’, New Testament Studies 10 (January 1964), pp. 182-201, and Francis Gerald Downing, ‘A Rival to Romulus’, in Doing Things with Words, pp. 133-51.

Suppers at Emmaus

In the previous thread on Christian art Berk said: ‘How and why the Italian Renaissance began to use Nordic faces in their paintings is not something I know, but it is a revolutionary act perhaps in resistance to the Christianity they faced’. I answered that maybe Nietzsche can help:

Is it understood at last, will it ever be understood, what the Renaissance was? The transvaluation of Christian values: an attempt with all available means, all instincts and all the resources of genius to bring about a triumph of the opposite values, the more noble values…

Supper at Emmaus (1606, above) is a painting by the Italian master Caravaggio, housed in the Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan, Italy. Caravaggio’s work had a formative influence on Baroque painting. I told my father a long time ago that the Baroque ‘was a betrayal of the Renaissance’. He got angry and didn’t seem to understand what I was saying.

Fra Angelico began painting 200 years before the above Supper in Emmaus was completed. If we compare the blond angels and even the blond Jesus and redhead Magdalene of Fra Angelico in my previous posts with the painting by Caravaggio, we clearly see the regression towards non-Aryan characters.

Non-Aryan characters are even more obvious in this other Supper in Emmaus of 1601, also of Caravaggio, which is not located in Italy but in the National Gallery of London. Notice how the face of Jesus in this picture is wider (that is, less Nordid) than the face of Jesus in the picture above.

Published in: on September 15, 2019 at 11:20 am  Comments Off on Suppers at Emmaus  

Great personalities defend eugenics, 10

by Evropa Soberana

The Nazis organised the SS, a military and biological elite that was destined to be the aristocracy of the New Order. In the picture, a formation of the SS Division Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, the most elite division of the SS. To enter the Leibstandarte it was necessary to measure 1.84 meters, be between seventeen and twenty-two years old, be Nordic and have a health of steel. For many years, no one who had the slightest physical defect, such as glasses or a dental filling, was allowed to enter the Leibstandarte.

 
The SS Doctrine

As an elite, the Nazis organised, within the NSDAP: the SS, guardians of the National Socialist idea, firmly indoctrinated and severely disciplined. The SS began to incorporate the flower and cream of all Germany (it was common for athletes or prominent scientists to be made SS), and they were laying the foundations of a social order based on the biology, genetics and will of the human spirit.

The SS in general attached great importance to good physical and mental condition and to the cleanliness of the lineage of extra-European influences. The conditions of entry remained very strict until the Second World War. In 1937, Hitler was proud that ‘we continue to admit only fifteen percent of the candidates who present themselves to the SS’. The discipline of these men was extremely severe and rigid, and the punishments even for minor infractions, brutal.

Each SS promised to marry (their wives automatically became SS women with the marriage, and enjoyed the relevant help) a woman of pure blood and have, if possible, four healthy children. Both this and the entire Lebensborn project were framed in the Nazi policies of positive eugenics, while the famous sterilisation of the defective ones was the negative eugenics.

However, the SS were not just a pack of stallions. They proved to be the toughest, trained, fanatic, brave, bold and faithful shock force of the entire World War II, starring true military feats unparalleled in the Eastern Front, and reaching the limits of human resistance in arctic temperatures and in hostile territory, against an enemy that represented an Asian, slave and oriental idea (Bolshevism), and that far exceeded them in number.

Due to its oath of fidelity and its sense of duty the SS was, along with the Luftwaffe and the submarines, the German military body that suffered the most casualties.

At the base of the SS ideological training we can see anti-Christian beliefs. One of the most radical SS commanders in this regard was undoubtedly Theodor Eicke, head of the Totenkopfverbände who initiated an aggressive anti-Christian campaign, during which many SS who clung to Jesus were expelled from the body.

Our Germanic ancestors followed the laws of selection as all healthy peoples whose intelligence and sensitivity had not yet been contaminated by false doctrines of piety. The false conception that the Church had of God denied the divine laws of Nature. The ecclesiastical teaching deliberately opposed the will of Nature.

Once it was preached to the peoples that God had died crucified for mercy of the weak and the sick, sinners and the poor, the unnatural teaching of piety and a false humanitarianism could promote the conservation of the congenital sick. It was considered a moral duty to care and favour mainly the sick, the overwhelmed unfortunates and the poor in spirit…

On the other hand, several hundreds of courageous young Germans fall every year victims of sport or competition, in the fight against ice, in the snow, in automobile races or by plane. No matter how large the number of these victims, no people on Earth have died from war, from bad harvests or as a result of a period of political recession. The peoples have only disappeared when the living substance that ensures their historical life, their blood, their race, have been exhausted. They only die, then, in the following cases:

  1. When the number of births falls due to the regression of the popular force, thus offering the possibility of being crushed by a qualitatively and quantitatively stronger neighbour.
  1. Through racial crossings that have taken away the inner harmony of an originally healthy people.
  1. By disregard of the laws of selection, which causes a decrease in the genetic heritage of value and leads to a reduction of the capacities and qualities in the population.

The death of a people is based, then, on an erroneous conception of life, and is due to the non-observance of the eternal laws of the Earth. Man has learned to despise the laws of life because he has lost the bond with Nature and life. (Notebook SS No. 3, 1939, ‘Why do Peoples Die Of?’ cited in The SS Order by Edwige Thibaut.)

 
The more a human group manages to dominate and transform the conditions of their area of life by establishing a culture faithful to the law of life, the more easily the individual manages to preserve and avoid elimination. The laws of selection and elimination, severe in origin, gradually disappear and are attenuated. The older a culture ages and reaches the state of late civilised times, the more it loses its vigour. She even produces the reverse process. Weak and sick individuals can thus survive and reproduce; different racial types are mixed. The creative law of the species no longer seems to act…

The most favourable case of the cultural relationship with the original biological natural selection appears when the objective of the second is continued with the first. Thanks to a keen perception of the law that governed the origin of their species, peoples like the Spartans resorted in their selections to the same principles of inflexible severity originally prescribed by Nature, even after having reached more hospitable territories. Other Nordic peoples, such as our Germanic ancestors, naturally obeyed the biological laws that governed the creation of their species…

The intrusion of Christianity in the culture of our Germanic ancestors has given birth to a form of selection that, from the beginning, was revealed hostile to our race and its laws of evolution. The elite of Christian priests chose appropriate and usable men for their purposes, but prohibited them from perpetuating and conserving the best racial heritage by forcing them into celibacy. (Notebook SS No. 7, 1942, ‘The Biological Sense of Selection’ cited in The SS Order by Edwige Thibaut.)

Published in: on August 17, 2019 at 8:48 pm  Comments Off on Great personalities defend eugenics, 10  

Western Christian Civilisation – terminal stage

Destruction by Thomas Cole ~ 1835-1836

I have said that white nationalism has developed a myopic diagnosis of white decline: the Jewish question. I have also complained that American white nationalists have not published Who We Are by Pierce, and sell it as a bestseller, to expand such myopic diagnosis into a more accurate worldview. He who introduces the history of the white race encounters patterns that cannot be seen in most nationalist websites.

One of the most conspicuous elements of this pattern is the history of Christianity. And I do not mean only the destruction of the classical world by Christian fanatics in the 4th and 5th centuries. I refer to the Zeitgeist born in the West after such destruction.

In today’s world of florid psychosis, it seems that the fashion to empower transgender people has nothing to do with the Christian Zeitgeist. But this is precisely where the nationalist perspective appears to me as myopic. A few months ago I wrote ‘On Empowering Birds Feeding on Corpses’, where I try to explain that the most psychotic aspects of today’s egalitarianism can be traced back to a 14th-century Franciscan movement that wanted to carry the message of Jesus, in all its purity, to medieval Italy.

The Church of Rome was not tolerant with the egalitarian faction that took the gospel to the letter, and ended up chasing the Fraticelli as heretics. (For an entertaining narrative of that historical drama read The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco: a novel as didactic about the 14th century as Julian by Gore Vidal depicts the 4th century.)

Nobody could have predicted in the Middle Ages that the latent Fraticelli ideals were going to have their historical opportunity once the power of the Church was removed. But that was exactly what happened, centuries later, with the French Revolution.

As the readers of this site already know, the egalitarian ideals of the Enlightenment, implemented by force during and after the French Revolution, were inspired precisely by the gospel message. It may seem incredible to say, but even the most anti-clerical Jacobins subscribed the commandments preached by the fictional character called ‘Jesus’, created by the Jewish and Judaizing Hellenic authors of the New Testament. (*)

If we compare what the West is currently suffering with cancer, we can say that the first cancer cells arose since, in the 2nd century, a faction of Judaism, which Julian would call ‘the Galileans’, began to infiltrate the Gentile world in the outer provinces of the Roman Empire. The infection came to power with Constantine and the Roman emperors who followed him, despite Julian’s best efforts in his brief reign.

The noble spirit of the Aryan managed to tame, in the Middle Ages, the most ethno-suicidal aspects of this Levantine cult that was even imposed on the northern barbarians by force. But it was not until the Reformation and Counter-Reformation when they murdered, again, the revived pagan spirit of the Renaissance when the holy book of the Jews began to be taken seriously, especially in the Protestant world.

Nothing could be more suicidal than worshiping the sacred book of the Jews, insofar as both the Old Testament and the Talmud are sworn enemies of the Gentiles, especially the white man because He represents the best of the Gentile world. But worst of all happened when this virus mutated from its religious phase to its secular phase.

The Western world of today is nothing but an ideological heir to the ideals of the Enlightenment. The so-called enlightened philosophers did not greet Reason, to use the language of the time, and much less the French revolutionaries. Those who truly began to greet Reason since the twilight of the Greco-Roman world were the eugenicists that we have been advertising in my most recent translations of Evropa Soberana. Only they broke away from the Christian dogma that ‘All men are equal before the eyes of God’, or the neo-Christian or secular version of the gospel, that ‘All men are equal before the law’.

The crux is that ‘All men are equal before the law’ has mutated, since the 1960s, as All men and women are ontologically equal: the final or end-stage cancer that currently kills the West.

As the Cassandra named Alexis de Tocqueville foresaw, the virus of equality always demands more equality. It is like a meme that multiplies itself to the absurd. And the absurd has come today not only with the demand that we must consider transgender people our equals, but trans children as well. But per Tocqueville’s observation this last metastasis won’t end with trans children! There are already Western countries that have legalised zoophilia and, in some of them, there are proposals to legalise pedophilia and even necrophilia…

Through this final metastasis, this runaway egalitarianism, the West is already sentenced and it will die. There’s no question about it. Or to say it more precisely, Western Christian Civilisation, which is in its terminal stage, will die soon as a conservative Swede predicted.

But the point is that everything had its origin in the radical message of Jesus: a message that seemed sublime to me at sixteen but that, at sixty, I see it as Semitic poison for the white man. As I said in ‘On Empowering Birds Feeding on Corpses’, the season of the horse of Troy of which Pierce wrote, that is to say the complete inversion of Aryan values into Gospel-inspired values, has finally arrived.

____________

(*) Whoever believes that Jesus was not a literary creation, but a man of flesh and blood, would do well to familiarise himself with the work of Richard Carrier.

Great personalities defend eugenics, 3

by Evropa Soberana

 
Christian domination

In the Middle Ages, through persecution resulting in actual death, life imprisonment and banishment, the free thinking, progressive and intellectual elements were persistently eliminated over large areas, leaving the perpetuation of the race to be carried on by the brutal, the servile and the stupid. It is now impossible to say to what extent the Roman Church by these methods has impaired the brain capacity of Europe. (Madison Grant, The Passing of the Great Race).

The coming of Christianity plunged classical philosophy into centuries of near-oblivion and clashed with the established and ancient European belief in the inequality of men. Spreading first among the slaves and lowest classes of the Roman empire, Christianity came to teach that all men were equal in the eyes of a universal Creator God, an idea that was totally alien to older European thought which had recognized a hierarchy of competence among men and even among the gods.

Opposing the traditions of classical philosophy and scientific enquiry, Christianity introduced the concept of a single, omnipotent “God of History” who controlled all the phenomena of the universe with men and women being creations of that God. Since all men and women were the ‘children of God’, all were equal before their Divine Maker! Faith in the church’s interpretation of supposedly prophetic revelations became more important than scientific or philosophical enquiry; and to question the church’s view of reality came to be perceived as sinful. (Eugenicist Roger Pearson, ‘The Concept of Heredity in the History of Western Culture’, Part I).

Primitive Christianity represented an atrocious trauma for the West and the European collective unconscious. It swept away the teachings of the classics and only very slowly could Europe recover, step by step, re-conquering and gathering the scattered pieces of wisdom that had been hers and that suffered destruction at the hands of fanatic parasites, poisoned by the desert dogma virus.

The Church had a foreign and anti-European concept of God, taken directly from the Bible. When the early Judeo-Christians taught that God had incarnated in a Jew who died at the hands of the strong (the Romans) for the ‘salvation’ of the weak and sinful—the slaves, the sick, the criminals, the prostitutes, the excrement of the Roman streets and throughout the Empire—, they were laying the groundwork for an atrocious trauma from which European man has never recovered.

In fact, under more modern forms (‘solidarity’, ‘humanitarianism’, ‘equality’, cowardice, sedentary lifestyle, herd mentality, servility, pacifism, conformism) almost all modern Westerners drag variations of such Christian ballast. In the above image, the crucified Christ by Velázquez, the talent of a great Spanish painter was wasted with a strange anorexic, passive and masochistic Jewish idol, instead of some triumphant pagan god.

European populations, especially Celts, Germans, Balts and Slavs—who had always been instinctively governed by eugenic principles—were suddenly engulfed in a misunderstood humanism, which had fermented in the crowded and dirty cities of the Eastern Mediterranean. Christianity frustrated any eugenic, biological and pro-natural possibility for centuries and centuries, so we should not be surprised at the shortage of eugenic testimonies in that era.

In Christendom heretical groups such as the Cathars, the Templars, the alchemists, the old Masons, the Rosicrucians, certain religious orders (orders that accumulated knowledge, such as the Franciscans, Benedictines, Cistercians) and, of course, the Renaissance, could have meant a great change for Europe and a flip-flop for the Church had it not been thwarted by Protestantism, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation and the Thirty Years War (1618-1638).

This war meant the end of the paganising alternative, the fall of the Holy Empire and the death of a third of the total German population, inaugurating a repulsive period of plagues, famines, religious hysteria, internal wars and witch hunts that devastated the Germanic European layers of better biological quality (Huguenots, Quakers) until Christian authority started to lose strength and credibility in favour of even more dangerous dogmas: the ‘Enlightened’ dogmas.

Therefore, if there is anything salvageable from the Middle Ages it is, undoubtedly, the ‘other’ Middle Ages of castles, knights, troubadours, crusaders and princesses. Three institutions deserve mention: the cavalry, the nobility and the Holy Empire.

When the descriptions of the great characters of the time are read or someone examines the skeleton of a prominent king, there is nothing but awe: Emperor Charlemagne (742-814) measured more than two metres; Roland, his paladin, was also described as a giant; the Norwegian king Harald Hardrada (1015-1066) measured seven feet, that is, approximately 2.10 metres; the redhead Sancho VII the Strong (1194-1234), king of Navarra, measured even more; Jaime I the Conqueror (1208-1276), king of Aragon, was described as a giant, and the same goes for the first Crusade kings of Jerusalem.

All these men were, in addition to heroes of their time, giants of genetics belonging to a practically extinct lineage—but likely to be resurrected by an appropriate selective bio-politics. As the Spanish author Enrique Aynat wrote, ‘The Nobility, like it or not, has natural causes. It was born from the primitive inequality of talents and characters. It has remained a sought and conscious selection, set by an institution. The Indo-European had naturally accepted ,without coercion, the superiority of the Nobility knowing that it had left families that, both physically and morally, represented the summum of the selection’ (Eugenesia, Editor’s translation).

Roger Bacon (1214-1294) and Francis Bacon (1561-1626).

Roger Bacon was an English Franciscan friar greatly ahead of his time. A compulsive scholar, in his work he wrote treatises on grammar, physics, optics, mathematics and philosophy. He was even interested in the manufacture of gunpowder and the situation and size of celestial bodies.

Long before Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo and the Renaissance, Roger Bacon foresaw the invention of flying devices and steamboats, and in his detailed optical studies he anticipated the possibility of designing artefacts such as microscopes, telescopes and glasses. Along with his revolutionary alchemical experiences, all this was considered suspicious of heresy in his time and he became imprisoned. Roger Bacon died forgotten and fell out of favour.

Three centuries later, natural philosophers like Bruno and Francis Bacon rehabilitated Bacon’s reputation and portrayed him as a scientific pioneer.

Although it seems innocuous, the phrase by Francis Bacon I quote below is inconceivably heretical. It suggests that man is subordinate to Nature and the same principles can be applied to animals.

Naturam non vinces nisi parendo (‘You will not master nature unless you obey it’).
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Note of the Editor: I have redacted the above passages because in the original text there is confusion between Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon. Even today, with their anti-Nordicism and Christian ethics, white nationalists are not obeying Nature. (As to his Christian ethics, see what I said about Greg Johnson this Monday.)
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Sir Thomas More (1478-1535) was a lawyer, statesman, a friend of Erasmus and an English writer known for his Utopia where he disguised his ideas of state leadership under the science-fiction genre.

In Utopia there is a eugenic policy very similar to the Spartan, where the couple should, first of all, look naked to find out what kind of person they married in terms of genetic qualities. Thomas More criticised such an idea to escape the possible religious repression, but what he does is expose it to the public eyes. He would be beheaded for refusing to recognise King Henry VIII as head of the Church in England. For that reason alone the Catholic Church canonised him.

In choosing their wives they use a method that would appear to us very absurd and ridiculous, but it is constantly observed among them, and is accounted perfectly consistent with wisdom. Before marriage some grave matron presents the bride, naked, whether she is a virgin or a widow, to the bridegroom, and after that some grave man presents the bridegroom, naked, to the bride.

We, indeed, both laughed at this, and condemned it as very indecent. But they, on the other hand, wondered at the folly of the men of all other nations, who, if they are but to buy a horse of a small value, are so cautious that they will see every part of him, and take off both his saddle and all his other tackle, that there may be no secret ulcer hid under any of them, and that yet in the choice of a wife, on which depends the happiness or unhappiness of the rest of his life, a man should venture upon trust, and only see about a handsbreadth of the face, all the rest of the body being covered, under which may lie hid what may be contagious as well as loathsome. (Utopia, published in 1516).

William Penn (1644-1718). A member of the Puritan religious society of the Quakers, he emigrated to America for religious persecution in Britain and founded the province, now a state, of Pennsylvania. Many of the political principles he adopted there laid the foundations for the subsequent American Constitution. Penn represented the old Puritan English race, considered as foundational for the United States. He was held in high regard by the later American eugenicists that we will see later.

Men are generally more careful of the breed of their horses and dogs, than of their children (Reflections and Maxims, 1693).

Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), an English economist and demographer, was the first to point out that the world’s population grew faster than resources grew; that overpopulation was a danger, that natural resources were limited and that man was bound to hunger, conflict and epidemics if he did not behave responsibly as to his reproduction, hence the expression ‘Malthusian catastrophe’.

It does not, however, by any means seem impossible that by an attention to breed, a certain degree of improvement, similar to that among animals, might take place among men. Whether intellect could be communicated may be a matter of doubt: but size, strength, beauty, complexion, and perhaps even longevity are in a degree transmissible…

As the human race, however, could not be improved in this way, without condemning all the bad specimens to celibacy, it is not probable that an attention to breed should ever become general; indeed, I know of no well-directed attempts of this kind, except in the ancient family of the Bickerstaffs, who are said to have been very successful in whitening the skins and increasing the height of their race by prudent marriages, particularly by that very judicious cross with Maud, the milk-maid, by which some capital defects in the constitutions of the family were corrected. (‘An Essay on the Principle of Population’, 1798).

Frederick the Great (1712-1786), King of Prussia, an example of strategic-tactical genius, top-notch politician and one of the most brilliant military commanders of all time, colonised the East with German peasants and pushed Prussia into the category of a European superpower. At his death he had laid the foundations of what in the 19th century would become the Second Reich.

It is unpleasant to see the work that is taken under our harsh climate to grow pineapples, bananas and other exotic fruits, while dealing little with human prosperity. At any event, man is more important than all bananas together. He is the plant to cultivate, which deserves all our attention because he represents the pride and glory of our country.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), politician, inventor, scientist and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. His ideas about freedom, finance, banking and independence opposed him to the great powers of his time. In a letter to a doctor, Franklin observed:

Half the lives you save are not worth saving, as being useless, and almost all the other half ought not to be saved, as being mischievous. Does your conscience never hint to you the impiety of being in constant warfare against the plans of Providence?

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), a German philosopher who was influenced by Plato, Hinduism, Buddhism, Goethe and who in turn influenced Wagner, Nietzsche and Hitler himself. Schopenhauer attached great importance to the will as a universal force, restored dignity to Nature, spoke about the importance of the species, denied the validity of Christianity and made important criticisms of the faulty tenets of Western civilisation; criticisms that led him to defend eugenic policies.

If we now connect the conviction we have gained here of the inheritance of the character from the father and the intellect from the mother with our earlier investigation… we shall be led to the view that a real and thorough improvement of the human race might be attained to not so much from without as from within, thus not so much by instruction and culture as rather upon the path of generation.

Plato had already something of the kind in his mind when in the fifth book of his Republic he set forth his wonderful plan for increasing and improving his class of warriors. If we could castrate all scoundrels, and shut up all stupid geese in monasteries, and give persons of noble character a whole harem, and provide men, and indeed complete men, for all maidens of mind and understanding, a generation would soon arise which would produce a better age than that of Pericles. (The World as Will and Representation, Vol. II).

The English imperial aristocracy. The British ruling class that took England to very high levels of glory during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries is considered of Germanic heritage, owing its blood mainly to Anglo-Saxons and Normans. Its system of upbringing and selection, as its militaristic orientation, was admired even by Nazis such as Günther, Darré, Hitler, Rosenberg and Savitri Devi who saw in the Anglo-Saxon countryside the repetition of Germanic ideas that continued alive in North America and Australia. Their mentality is summed up in the maxim ‘To breed, to bleed, to lead’.

As examples of the nation that gave birth to eugenics, we see here two members of the British ruling class, so reminiscent of the Roman patricians. Left, Charles George Gordon (1833-1885), famous for victorious campaigns in China and Egypt, and for being killed as governor of Sudan during the Mahdi rebellion. Right, Reginald Dyer (1864-1927), a veteran of endless campaigns in India, Pakistan, Burma and Afghanistan. In his time he was criticised by some (‘bloodthirsty madman who murdered hundreds of innocents’) and praised by others (‘he avoided the killing of whites throughout India’).