Reflections of an Aryan woman, 15

Kant and friends on table

Is there such a thing as objectivity in the field of values? [Editor’s note: formally known as ‘axiology’]. To this question I answer yes. There is something independent of the ‘taste’ of each art critic, which makes a masterpiece of painting, sculpture or poetry a masterpiece for all time. Behind every perfect creation—and not only in the field of art proper—there are secret correspondences, a whole network of ‘proportions’ which themselves ‘recall’ unknown but prescient cosmic equivalences. It is these elements that link the work to the eternal—in other words, that give it its objective value.

On the other hand, there is no universal scale of preferences. Even if one could penetrate the mystery of the structure of eternal creations, which are human only in name because the author has effaced himself before the Force (the ancients would have said: ‘the God’), who for a moment possessed him, and acted through it and by it—if one could, say, explain in clear sentences like those of mathematicians, why such creations are eternal, one could never force everyone to prefer the eternal to the temporary; to find a work which reflects something of the harmony of the cosmos, more pleasant, more satisfying than another, which reflects anything.

There is good and bad taste. And there are moral consciences that are more or less similar to those of a man with an objective scale of values. But there is no more universal consciousness than there is universal taste. There is no such thing, and there can be no such thing, for the simple reason that the aspirations of men are different, once they have passed the level of the most elementary needs. (And even these needs are more or less pressing, depending on the individual. Some people find life bearable, even beautiful, without comforts, pleasures or affections, the lack of which would make other people frankly unhappy.)

Different aspirations mean different preferences. Different preferences mean different reactions to the same events, different decisions in the face of the same dilemmas, and therefore different ways of organising lives that might otherwise have been similar. Never forget the diversity of human beings, even within the same race, let alone from one race to another. How can people who are so different from each other have ‘the same rights and the same duties’?

There is no more universal duty than there is universal consciousness. Or, if we absolutely want to find a formula that is true for all, we must say that the duty of every man—indeed, of every living being—is to be to the end, in his visible or secret manifestations, what he is in his deepest nature; to never betray himself.

But deep natures differ. Hence, despite everything, the diversity of duties, as well as of rights, and the inevitable conflict, on the level of facts, between those who have opposite duties. The Bhagawad-Gîta says: ‘Focus on fulfilling your duty (svadharma). The duty of another involves (for you) many dangers’.

And what, in practice, will decide the outcome of the conflict between people with opposing duties? Force. I can only think of it. If I don’t have it, I have to put up with the presence in the world of institutions that I consider criminal, given my own scale of values. I can hate them. I cannot remove them with the stroke of a pen, as I would if I had the power. And even those who have power can not—insofar as they need the collaboration of some men, if not of a majority, precisely to maintain the position they have conquered. But I shall speak to you later about force, the condition of any visible and sudden change, that is to say of any victorious revolution, on the material plane.

I will first tell you a few words about the fathers of ‘universal consciousness’ and the idea that derives from it: the idea of a ‘duty’ that would be the same for all. I will recall the names of only a few of them who, in fields other than morality, are distinguished by some preeminence: by the firmness of their thought or the beauty of their prose.

First, there is Immanuel Kant, to whom we must be infinitely grateful for having drawn the line between scientific knowledge and metaphysical speculation; between what we know, or what we can know, and what we can only speak about arbitrarily, knowing nothing about it, or not at all, the direct vision we have of it is incommunicable. The whole part of Kant’s work that deals with the subordination of thought to the categories of space and time, and with the impossibility of going beyond the sphere of ‘phenomena’ with our conceptual intelligence, is of exemplary solidity.

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Infinitely grateful? Exemplary solidity? Lol! As we saw in my previous post, ‘On Shelob’s lair’, on this issue Savitri errs. But she continues:

______ 卐 ______

 
The recipes given by the thinker to help every man discover ‘the duty’, which he believes to be the same for all, are less worthy of credence, precisely because they do not fall within the scope of what, according to Kant’s deductions, makes up the essence of the scientific mind.

We are here in the realm of values—not of ‘facts’, not of ‘phenomena’. The only ‘fact’ that could be noted in this connection is the diversity of value scales. And Kant takes no account of this. He believes he bases his notion of ‘duty’ on that of ‘reason’. And since reason is ‘universal’, the laws of discursive thought being so—two and two make four for the last of the Negroes, as well as for one of us—it seems that duty must be too.

Kant does not realise, as his values seem indisputable to him, that it is not ‘reason’ at all, but his austere Christian upbringing—pietistic, to be more precise—which dictated them to him; that he owes them, not to his ability to draw conclusions from given premises—an ability which he shares with all sane men, and perhaps with the higher animals—but to his spontaneous submission to the influence of the moral environment in which he was brought up. He forgets—and how many have forgotten before and after him, and still do!—that reason is powerless to set ends; to establish orders of preference; that, in the domain of values, its role is limited to highlighting the logical—or practical—link between a given end and the means that lead to its realisation.

Reason can tell an individual what his ‘duty’ will be in a specific circumstance if, for example, he loves all men, or better still, all living beings. Reason cannot force him to love them, if he doesn’t feel attracted to them. It can suggest to him what to do, or not do, if he wants to contribute to ‘world peace’. It cannot force him to want peace. And if he does not want it, if he finds it demoralising or simply boring, it will suggest to him, with equal logic, an entirely different course of action—just as it will direct the intelligent misanthrope to an entirely different course of action from that which it would command the philanthropist. It will always command each of those who think, the action that corresponds to the promotion of what he really loves, and deeply wants. How could it inspire duties, identical in content, to individuals who love different, even incompatible ideals, and who each want the revolution that their ideal implies? Or to individuals who love only people, and to others who love only ideas?

‘Always act’, says Kant, ‘as if the principle of your action could be set up as a universal law’.

How can this ‘rule’ be applied both to the conduct of one who, loving only his family and friends, far from sacrificing them to any idea whatsoever, will feel that it is ‘his duty’ to protect them at all costs, and that of the militant who, loving only a cause which goes beyond him, considers that it would be ‘his duty’, if necessary, to sacrifice him and his recent collaborators (as soon as he feels them weakening in terms of orthodoxy and becoming dangerous), and a fortiori his family, alien to the holy ideology, as soon as he sees one of its members, whoever he may be, making a pact with the hostile forces?

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Remember Savitri’s words in my Friday’s post: ‘During the war, my mother—although 75 years old in 1940, 80 in 1945—joined the resistance movement in France. I did not know it naturally. There was no communication between Calcutta and Europe. She told me in 1946, when I visited her, and said also that if I had been present in France in 1944 and had actively worked against the resistance (as I then surely would have), she would have handed me over to the resistance’.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
And what about the rule: ‘Always act in such a way that you take the human person as an end, never as a means’? In other words: ‘Never use a man’. And why not?—especially if, by using him, I am working in the interest of a Cause that is much greater than him, for example, the cause of Life, or the human elite (the elite of every living species) or simply that of a particular people, if this one has a more than human historical mission?

Man unscrupulously exploits the animal and the tree in favour of what he believes to be his own interest. And Kant apparently finds no fault with this. Why should we not exploit man—the ‘human person’ whose so-called ‘value’ we have been hearing about more than ever for the past quarter-century—in the interest of Life itself? What prevents us from doing so, if we do not have—like Immanuel Kant and so many others; like most people born and raised in a Christian (or Islamic, or Jewish, or simply ‘secular’) civilisation—a scale of values centred around the sacrosanct two-legged mammal?

Of myself, if I love ‘all men’, I won’t use any of them; I won’t take any of them ‘as a means’, for an end which is not him. You don’t exploit what you really love. This is a psychological law.

But no ‘reason’ can force me to ‘love all men’—any more than it can force most men to love all animals. Kant’s ‘reason’ ordered him not to exploit any human being, not because this is a universal commandment, but because he loved all men, like the good Christian he was. I, who do not love them all, do not feel that this ‘duty’ concerns me. It is not my duty. I refuse to submit to it. And if a man who finds the exploitation of animals and trees—and what exploitation!—quite natural, dares to come and preach me about ‘respect for the human person’, I would brutally send him to mind his own business.

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: This is more than fundamental. If there is something that my work From Jesus to Hitler teaches, it is that we must stop loving the vast majority of humans to save the nymphs of the sidebar and the animals under the human yoke.

Published in: on September 23, 2021 at 12:58 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 15  

Taylor debates a Catholic

Watch the video in Bitchute: here. American anti-Semites love E. Michael Jones, who has written on Jewish issues, notably in the 2008 book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History. It is pitiful to see Jones read his pseudo-responses to Taylor, previously typed on his computer before the debate, instead of trying to answer Jared’s superb class on race realism. However, I disagree with Taylor that some Jews could be accepted as part of the tissue of the West.

After a tough question by the moderator, after 1:31 Jones said that by ‘preaching to all nations’ the Gospel meant ‘ethnic groups’.

He is right! There’s an irreconcilable conflict between Christian doctrine and racism, as Savitri wisely said in our latest posts.

After 1:39 the Christian Jones showed his true colours. The moderator asked him: If the millions of non-white Muslims and blacks in France suddenly became Catholics should they be expelled? Emphatically Jones answered ‘No!… They could become Frenchmen, without any problem!’ He even added that an African who migrated to Poland could become Polish as well…

It is interesting to know that Jared read Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy, as he says in this debate (I read it too). His argument that not all Jews are subversive is easily answered with Pierce’s article ‘Seeing the Forest’:

Perhaps only 10 per cent of the trees in this Jewish forest have roots deep enough to inject their poison into us, and the other 90 per cent play only supporting roles of one sort or another. It is still the whole forest which is our problem. If the forest were not here we would not have had to endure the curse of Bolshevism. If the forest were not here America would not be growing darker and more degenerate by the year. It is the whole forest, not just a few of the most poisonous trees in it, which must be uprooted and removed from our soil if we are to become healthy again.

There is much truth in this statement despite the fact that, even with the Jews fairly controlled by the Inquisition, the Iberians miscegenated both in the peninsula and in the Americas. As we have been saying, this was due to Christian ethics that do not distinguish between races. In fact, Jones’s stance on race has been universal among Catholics and traditional Protestants. Among the former it was universal even before Constantine handed over the empire to his bishops.

On balance, for the health of the fourteen words I find Jones’ racial universalism more toxic than Jared’s relatively benign view of Jews.

Veritas odium parit, 7

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

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

______ 卐 ______

 

Universalism’s pyrrhic victory

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________

Bibliographical references appear in the original article.

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

Veritas odium parit, 6

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

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

 

______ 卐 ______

 

The Saxon savior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Christianity harms the race

by Michael Masters (1997)

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

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

Christianity’s decline

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

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

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

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

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

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

Altruism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Universalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Christianity today

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

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

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

Too much sacrifice

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

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

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

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

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

A chimera

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

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

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

Published in: on July 13, 2019 at 5:54 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags:

Heisman’s suicide note, 1

Editors’ note: To understand why I am reproducing excerpts from the book by Mitchell Heisman✡ see the previous entry. I won’t quote from Heisman’s previous chapter, where he accepts the claim of a 2nd-century Greek philosopher, Celsus, that Jesus’ father was a Roman soldier. (For a short blog article explaining such claim see for example: here.)

The following is taken from Heisman’s chapter on ‘How Christianity’s Subversion of Kin Selective Altruism Evolved into the Modern Idea of Social Progress’.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Christian Altruism: The Selfish Meme

What is it like to take part in the Kingdom of Heaven?

Birth castrates some.
Owners castrate others.
There are those who castrate themselves for the Kingdom of Heaven.
(Matt. 19:10-12)

Christian love is a radical passive-aggression of the spirit. Whereas genetic insemination requires penetration of biological borders, memeic insemination requires penetration of mental or spiritual borders. Because Jesus’s mind-spirit was the penetration of the mental-spiritual borders that separated Jew and Roman, his spiritual ideas could penetrate and inseminate hitherto “natural” borders.

Editors’ note: What follows is very important, as most white nationalists are so brainwashed by Judeo-Xtian ethics that they are under the impression that hate is something evil, when only genocidal hatred will save the race from extinction.

Heisman continues:

What is hate? Why are so many people prejudiced against hate?

My subject here is not all varieties of hate, but rather, the kind of hate associated with racism or xenophobia. The roots of this form of hate can be discerned in its original evolutionary function as a genetic adaptation. Racism, xenophobia, and other hate feelings may be the product of an immunological response of a kin selective social body. From this sociobiological perspective, the love mechanism of Christianity functions as an inhibitor of the sociobiological-body immune response of hate towards strangers.

If xenophobic hate is like a sociobiological immune response to foreign bodies such as strangers, Christian memes dismantle the capacity for resistance to foreign social bodies by dismantling the capacity for hate. Christianity meme-viruses are comparable to the HIV virus that causes AIDS in that the religion, like HIV, specifically attacks the immune system. In attacking the immune system of a kin selective body, Christian meme-viruses spread as a “religion” with effects that are comparable to AIDS. What kills the AIDS victim in the end is usually not the HIV virus itself, but rather, opportunistic diseases that exploit the reduced capacity for immunological resistance by the victim.

If the greatest virtue of a Roman is embodied in duty to Rome, and the greatest realization of duty is self-sacrifice, then on the level of abstract thought, self-sacrifice is the highest virtue. Yet Roman duty is inherently unable to compete with Jesus’s idealization of altruism in itself.

Taking the self of altruism; the self-seeking selfishness of altruism-in-itself to its logical extreme necessarily sabotages its original biological evolutionary raison d’être. Total altruistic negation of the logic of the selfish gene leads to total bodily selflessness, total powerlessness, and an ethic of genetic self-destruction. The most universalistic altruism would be the genetic suicide of all humanity. Christian altruism can be looked upon as the survival strategy of Christian memes that are waging an evolutionary war against the genes of the believing Christian.

Christianity possesses an inherent memetic genius at spreading itself across the earth because it is strategically designed to simultaneously exploit and subvert kin selective altruism. It exploits altruism by seducing many of those with the most highly developed valuation of altruism evolved through genetic adaptation. It subverts this kin selective altruism by uprooting its behavioral expressions against its original basis in genetic adaptation. The notion of God the father, for example, leeches parasitically upon a classical model of patriarchy while deracinating its genetically adaptive origins.

The conflict here is natural kin selection versus Christian stranger selection; a more pagan discriminate love versus Christian indiscriminate love. The secret of the “universalism” of Christianity, then, is this countering of kin selection that promotes the reversal of the social mechanisms of inclusive genetic fitness. More specifically, Christianity works by reversing the normative kin selective prioritization between kinship and altruism. If kin selective behaviors are those that effectively subordinate altruism to kinship, then Jesus’s anti-kin selective behaviors are those that subordinate kinship to altruism.

If normative kin selection depends on altruism as a means of genes, then the ethics of Jesus reverse this relationship, demanding that genes become the means and servants of altruistic ends. There is an unmistakable conflict of interests between genes and memes here, and in this conflict, Jesus is unmistakable on the side of the God memes.

According to Mark 3:31-35, Jesus asked:

‘Who are my mothers and brothers?’ And looking at those who sat around him, he said, ‘Here are my mothers and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.’

To follow Jesus is to obey God over one’s genes; to obey these Jesus memes over one’s mother and father. The patriarchal family is correlated with kin selection since it represents a hierarchical division of labor that evolved through its conduciveness to gene propagation, i.e. the woman is subordinate to her role as gene propagator. Christianity taught gentiles a lesson integral to the original innovation of Judaism: jump out of the sociobiological system so as to approach a God’s eye view of things. If the sociobiological system begins with the family and culminates in Caesar, Jesus took the jump out of this system one step further from Judaism by attacking and overriding the roots of the system found in the bonds of the family.

Jesus effectually hacked the sociobiological system by propagating memes that, like a Trojan horse, infiltrate and change the rules of the system from the inside out. This is one way of looking at how Christianity gradually spread like an epidemic and overtook the Roman Empire.

The two kinds of predators, carnivores and parasites, correspond to the differential predatory survival strategies of Rome and Christianity. Between them is a struggle between genes and memes; power and influence; body and “spirit”. While carnivores rely on their superior strength and size, parasites must balance predation on their host with the minimal level of health requisite for the host’s existence. Viruses, for example, are classic parasites. They can reproduce themselves only by penetrating a host cell and injecting their genetic material so that the host constructs new viruses from the injected genetic code. New copies of the original virus then extrude or bud from the host.

The units of cultural information called memes have been called viruses because they also display this pattern of parasitism upon their primary hosts: human minds. All of the theologies, texts, and cultural inheritances that constitute Christian memes depend on the minds of their human hosts for their reproduction. Early Christianity displayed this same viral pattern from penetration to dissemination as it spread bottom up through the Roman Empire. Like a virus, early Christianity penetrated the minds of its hosts and injected its laws or codes of behavior. Christian moral codes call for behavior very different from the pagan naturalism that was usually more compatible with the unadorned genetic code of its host. Also like a virus, the Christian law of love contained evangelical instructions for its replication and further dissemination.

Christian ethics, so depraved from the standpoint of genetic fitness, live parasitically off genetic inclinations towards altruism evolved primarily through kin selection. Kin selection is by nature and definition exclusive, and Jesus generally stood for including the excluded. A part-outsider with Judaism, Jesus was also part-outsider as a Roman. In expanding the scope of Judaism for the excluded, he expanded appeal of Judaic tradition for the gentiles. By opening a place for the foreign within the context of Judaism, Jesus opened a place for the Judaic within the context of the Roman world. Jesus’s emphasis on treating outsiders as insiders among Jews ultimately brought gentile outsiders of Judaism into the Biblical world.

In this way, the Christian meme virus exploded the sociobiological walls of the late Roman Empire. The gospels portray Jesus as deliberately commanding his followers to spread his message, and his ultimate intentions may be gleaned from the parable of mustard seed. This is the only parable attributed to Jesus that has three independent attestations. The following version is from Mark 4:30-32:

With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.

Roman author Pliny the Elder (23-79 C.E.) noted in his encyclopedic Natural History that mustard “grows entirely wild, though it is improved by being transplanted: but on the other hand when it has once been sown it is scarcely possible to get the place free of it, as the seed when it falls germinates at once.”

So while mustard “with its pungent taste and fiery effect is extremely beneficial for the health”, even the domesticated variety breeds rapidly and can overrun the garden. If this strain is dangerous, then the wild one can wreak an agricultural epidemic. It not only gets out of control like a weed, but also can attract the further danger of nesting birds to the point of destroying the garden. The way of this aggressively multiplying weed, in Jesus’s parable, was the way of the Kingdom of God: a dangerous, pungent shrub with fiery effect that takes over where it is not wanted.

Love was not only beneficial, but also necessary, to the health of the Roman patriarchal-imperial order. However, too much of a good thing can become absolutely deadly if not controlled within proscribed bounds. Roman altruism and the Roman sense of duty was part of what made their empire one of the most effective political forces the world has ever known. But an altruism that is not disciplined, altruism that does not know its place, and altruism that does not conform to the order of the carefully cultivated Roman garden has the power to engender its very opposite.

The “mustard seeds” of Christian memes helped bring down the greatest power of its time. Paul, the most eminent Jesus freak of his generation, seems to have appointed himself Minister of Propaganda within the Kingdom of God. With his replacement of circumcision with baptism, the doing away with exclusionary dietary laws, the bestowing of elect status onto gentiles, and other innovations, he allowed the mustard seeds to plant deep roots.

Why Europeans must reject Christianity, 20

by Ferdinand Bardamu

 
The Christian apologetics of Prof. Kevin MacDonald

Sociobiological accounts of Western pathological altruism are based on inferences not supported by the available empirical evidence. For example, if the individualism of European societies is the result of evolutionary adaptation under ecologically adverse conditions, a similar tendency would be found among other ethno-racial groups that evolved in the same environment. However, Eastern Europeans and Northeast Asians evolved in the same North Eurasian and Circumpolar region but remain strongly ethnocentric and collectivist.

Those arguing in favor of a European genetic basis for pathological altruism face another serious problem: for thousands of years of recorded history, there isn’t a single instance of collectively suicidal behavior among Europeans until the Christianization of Rome in the 4th century. Why this is the case requires the following explanation.

Ancient ethical norms diverged considerably from modern ones. Pity was condemned as a vice; mercy was despised as a character flaw. Mercy was viewed as the antithesis of justice because no one deserved help that had not been earned. The rational man was typically expected to be callous towards the sufferings of the less fortunate. His philosophical training in the academies had shown him that mercy was an irrational and impulsive behavior whose proper antidote was self-restraint and stoic calm in the face of adversity. In the Roman world, clementia was reserved exclusively for the vanquished in battle or the guilty defendant at trial. Weaklings and the economically disadvantaged were beneath contempt.

Life in the ancient world was quite brutal by modern Western standards. The punishments meted out to criminals—blinding, burning with coals, branding with hot irons and mutilation—were exceedingly cruel and unusual. Public entertainment was noted for its brutality. Scratching, biting, eye gouging and mauling an opponent’s genitals were accepted as legitimate tactical maneuvers for boxers and wrestlers alike. In the naumachia, armies of convicts and POW’s were forced to fight each other to the death in naval vessels on man-made lakes. Gladiatorial combat remained immensely popular for centuries, until the monk Telemachus tried to separate two gladiators during a match in the Roman coliseum. He was promptly stoned to death by the mob for his efforts. Slavery was considered a non-issue in the ancient world. Aristotle rationalized the institution by dividing men into two classes: those by nature free, and therefore capable of assuming the responsibilities of citizenship, and those who were by nature slaves. A slave was defined as chattel property bereft of the capacity to reason. This meant that he could be sexually exploited, whipped, tortured and killed by his master without fear of legal reprisal.

Racism or, more accurately, “proto-racism” was more widespread and more accepted in the ancient world than in our politically correct modern Western “democracies.” As revealed by in-depth examination of classical literary sources, the Greeks were typically ethnocentric and xenophobic. They were given to frequent generalization, often negative, about rival ethnicities. The Greeks casually and openly discriminated against foreigners based on deeply ingrained proto-racial prejudices. Ethno-racial intermarriage, even among closely related Greek ethnic and tribal groups, was universally despised. It was even regarded as a root cause of physical and mental degeneration. The absence of terms like “racism,” “discrimination” and “prejudice” in the ancient world reveals that proto-racist attitudes were not generally condemned or seen as pathological.

Greek intellectual and biological superiority was determined by their intermediate geographical position between lazy, stupid northern Europeans and effeminate, pleasure-loving Asians. The Greeks were the best of men because they had been exposed to the right climate and occupied the right soil. The Greeks looked down upon foreigners, pejoratively referring to them as “barbarians.” This was an onomatopoeia derived from Hellenic mockery of unintelligible foreign speech. Barbarians were viewed as the natural inferiors of the civilized peoples of the Mediterranean basin. Prejudice was not only directed at foreigners. Significant interethnic rivalry also existed among fellow Greeks, as demonstrated by the history of the Peloponnesian Wars. Greek patriots despised their Roman conquerors, even referring to them contemptuously as barbarians. After the conquest of Macedonia, the Romans embraced the prejudices of their Greek subjects as their own.

How do contemporary sociobiological accounts of Western pathological altruism explain this?

It has been alleged that pathological altruism was always a deeply ingrained European character flaw. The Pythagorean communism of the 5th century BC is frequently mentioned as corroborating evidence, but these practices were reserved for the intellectual elite. Much the same could be said for Stoic cosmopolitanism, which bears no similarity to the deracinated cosmopolitanism of the modern West. In the Greek variant, the intellectual gains world citizenship by living in accord with the cosmic law of universal reason; in the Roman variant, the cosmopolis is identified with the Roman patria.

The Hellenistic empire of Alexander the Great is believed by some to have been established on a morally universalist foundation. These accusations have their basis in the rhetorical amplifications and literary embellishments of chroniclers who wrote long after the exploits of Alexander. The expansion of the Greek sphere of influence in Asia was romanticized by some as implying a new world order based on an imagined brotherhood of man. This is contradicted by the historical record. In actuality, Alexander and his generals promoted a policy of residential segregation along ethno-racial lines in the conquered territories, with Greek colonists on one side and natives on the other. In the Greek view, Hellenized Egyptians, Israelites, Syrians and Babylonians were racial foreigners who had successfully assimilated Greek culture; clearly then, cultural and linguistic Hellenization was not enough to make one “Greek.”

Ancestral lineage was an important component of ancient Greek identity. Herodotus observed that the Greeks saw themselves as a community “of one blood and of one tongue.” Caracalla’s extension of the franchise to Roman provincials in 212 AD was not an act of universalism per se, but occurred after centuries of Romanization. It was done for purposes of taxation and military recruitment. This imperial legislation, known as the Antonine Constitution, did not abolish ethnic distinction among Roman citizens.

The conventional sociobiological explanation of Prof. MacDonald and others is contradicted by the pervasive brutality and ethno-racial collectivism of ancient societies. Given Christianity’s role as an agent of Western decline, no explanation will be fully adequate until this is finally acknowledged and taken into consideration. Prof. MacDonald, in an essay for The Occidental Observer, “Christianity and the Ethnic Suicide of the West”, ignores this major obstacle to his own detriment, arguing that from a Western historical perspective, Christianity was a relatively benign influence. Despite MacDonald’s eminence as an authority on 20th century Jewish intellectual and political movements, his defense of Christianity reveals a superficial understanding of history, contemporary political theory and Christian theology.

Prof. MacDonald whitewashes Christianity throughout, denying that the religion has ever been “a root cause of Western decline.” He observes that Christianity was the religion of the West during the age of European exploration and colonization, but not once does he mention that Christianity was a spent force by the late Middle Ages, having undergone a serious and irreversible decline in power and influence. Prof. MacDonald does not mention that after 1400, Christendom was no longer unified because the legitimacy of medieval ecclesiastical authority had been shattered; first, by the rediscovery of classical science and philosophy, which shook the Christian worldview to its very foundations, and second, by the Protestant Reformation, which reduced the pope to the status of a mere figurehead.

This set the stage for the large-scale dissemination of atheism and agnosticism in the 20th century. Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press, combined with the spread of mass literacy, virtually ensured that the Christian church would never again control European intellectual life. If the late medieval church had retained the same ecclesiastical and political authority it had under Pope Innocent III, European colonization and exploration of the globe would have been virtually inconceivable. For these reasons, it is more historically accurate to situate European territorial expansion within the context of resurgent pagan epistemic values, i.e. empirical rationality, intellectual curiosity and the pursuit of scientific progress for its own sake, during the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution.

It is argued that the decline of the West has co-occurred with the decline of Christianity as an established faith, but this is incorrect. The Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution, as well as exploration and colonization that occurred along with it, were only possible because of the collapse of ecclesiastical authority in the late medieval period. This eroded the Christian stranglehold on the spread of knowledge, replacing blind faith with the pagan epistemic values of classical antiquity. The recent decline of the modern West beginning in the 1960s has co-occurred with the growing influence of a neo-Christian ethic in the public sphere, just as the decline of the ancient world co-occurred with the triumph of Christianity over the forces of paganism.

Prof. MacDonald observes that Christians have not always been consistent moral universalists in practice, but this is a non-sequitur. Marxists have not always been consistently anti-racist or multiculturalist, given Stalin’s rabid anti-Semitism, aggressive policy of national Russification, and deportation of entire ethnic populations to Siberia, but this does not change the fact that anti-racism and multiculturalism are characteristic features of Marxist orthodoxy. Since when have the inconsistent practices of a few individuals ever mitigated or excused the destructive nature of an ideology completely at odds with the biological reality of human nature? Likewise, MacDonald’s non-sequitur does not affect the central importance of spiritual equality in the Christian belief-system. Historically, Christians were divided on whether spiritual equality entailed certain real-world implications or was of purely eschatological significance.

This hopelessly muddled line of argument revolves around a nebulous definition of “traditional” Christianity, a term either alluded to or directly mentioned throughout. If traditional Christianity is supposedly good for Europeans, how can it be universalist and ethnocentric at the same time, as in the case of American abolitionists and slave-owners? Or is traditional Christianity whatever form of Christianity MacDonald finds acceptable? If this is the case, what is the point he is trying to make here? Prof. MacDonald mentions that the patristic writers frequently criticized Jewry for being obsessed with biological descent. This placed them at odds with the multicultural and multiethnic ideology of the Christian religion. But how can the patristic writers, who systematically formulated the official dogmatic orthodoxy of the church, not be representative of “traditional” Christianity? Paradoxically, MacDonald acknowledges the ancient origin of the church’s race-mixing proclivities. If he believes that the patristic writers were corrupted by egalitarian principles at a very early date, he should at least provide evidence of theological subversion.

According to Prof. MacDonald, the secular left, which initiated the cultural revolution of the 1960s, is not Christian in inspiration. This statement is egregiously wrong, revealing a profound ignorance of the philosophies of liberalism and Marxism, especially in terms of their historical development. These belief-systems originated in a Christian theological context. The core ideas of liberalism, human rights and equality, have their genesis in the careful biblical exegesis of 17th and 18th century Christian political theorists. Marxism is deeply rooted in the fertile soil of the Christian tradition, especially in the speculative Protestant rationalism of Hegel. It also draws additional inspiration from the Reformed theological principles of Luther and the communist socio-economic practices of the primitive Christian church.

The hostility between the secular left and “traditional” Christianity is emphasized to further demonstrate the non-Christian origins of Western pathological altruism. However, his observation is completely irrelevant, as both traditional and secular Christianity are essentially rival denominations within the same Christian religious tradition. The mutual hostility that exists between the two is to be expected. Furthermore, it is foolhardy to maintain that traditional or mainline Christianity has been corrupted by the secular left; given the origins of liberalism and Marxism in Christian theology and biblical exegesis, it is more accurate to say that traditional Christianity has allowed itself to be corrupted by its own moral paradigms after taking them to their logical conclusion. The Christian theological basis of social and biological egalitarianism is merely the rediscovery and application of the original ethical teachings of Jesus and the primitive church.

Prof. MacDonald says the “contemporary zeitgeist of the left is not fundamentally Christian.” He fails to realize that the liberal-leftist ideas behind Third World immigration and state-sanctioned multiculturalism have deep roots in the Christian tradition. There is a common misunderstanding, no doubt propagated by Christian apologists, that one must embrace the supernatural claims of Christian religious dogma to be considered a Christian. This contention is not supported by contemporary scholarship. For example, Unitarians reject traditional Christian orthodoxy but remain well within the Christian fold. Neo-Christianity, like Unitarianism, is a thoroughly demythologized religion, properly defined as the application of New Testament-derived ethical injunctions to the management of contemporary social and economic relations. By this definition, Liberals and Marxists are no less Christian than your typical bible-thumping “holy roller.”

If Christianity is ultimately responsible for the destruction of Western civilization, asks MacDonald, why aren’t Middle Eastern Christians destroying their own societies by aggressively pushing the same universalist and ethno-masochistic agenda? In this case, the comparison is historically flawed. The medieval Islamic conquest of Byzantine North Africa and the Near East virtually guaranteed that Middle Eastern Christianity would follow a socio-historical trajectory differing significantly from the one followed by Latin Christianity. Up until quite recently, Middle Eastern Christians inhabited a medieval world no different from the one Europeans had lived in for centuries before the dawn of the Renaissance. Middle Eastern Christians never experienced any Reformation that allowed them to shake off the tyranny of ecclesiastical authority and wrestle with the real-world implications of spiritual equality.

Furthermore, none of the conditions for a Reformation ever existed in what remained of Middle Eastern Christendom. There was no humanist movement, which meant no dramatic increase in literacy or availability of printed material. There was no rediscovery of the patristic writers or of the ancient biblical manuscripts in the original languages. Access to the original source material would have made it easier for religious dissidents to challenge ecclesiastical authority and refute long-established medieval Christian dogma. In fact, Middle Eastern Christians were dhimmis, a persecuted jizya-paying religious minority in a larger Moslem world hostile to their very survival. Given the precariousness of their legal situation in the Ottoman empire, they had no time for the finer points of biblical exegesis or theological analysis.

Prof. MacDonald states, erroneously, that in Judaism there is no “tradition of universalist ethics or for empathy with suffering non-Jews.” He is obviously not familiar with the teachings of the Old Testament: “The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:34) Christianity is simply the radical universalization of Hebrew ethical concern for the plight of hapless foreigners living among them; as such, it is firmly embedded within the soil of 1st century Palestinian Judaism. Although Christianity has absorbed Greek philosophical ideas because of its wide dissemination in Europe, it is obviously not a European invention.

At this point, Prof. MacDonald asks: If the “moral universalism / idealism” that is destroying Sweden is due to Christianity, how does one explain “how people can lose every aspect of Christian ideology except the ethics”? To answer this question, let us inquire into the historical genesis of the Christian religion and the identity of its earliest followers.

Christianity originated in the yearning of Palestinian Jewry for social justice while having to patiently endure the tyranny of foreign rulers. Under these harsh conditions, Jewish beliefs in a messiah acquired an unprecedented sense of urgency, eventually assuming militant and apocalyptic overtones. This sense of urgency reached a crescendo in 1st century Palestine; self-proclaimed messiahs amassed armed bands of followers poised and ready to establish the son of David on the throne of Caesar, by force if necessary. This is the environment in which the Jesus myth originated, woven together from different strands of Jewish tradition in an atmosphere of deep-seated yearning for the coming advent of a messiah. This advent symbolized the end of Roman tyranny and the establishment of the kingdom of god on earth.

Christianity’s earliest followers were drawn from the refuse of the empire. Why? Because Christianity was the first mass movement in history to give concrete expression to the inner yearning of the people for freedom from oppression and hunger. What man has not sought to escape the oppression of his masters or the poverty of his surroundings? With the rise of Christianity, like the rise of Jewish Messianic belief, the inchoate yearnings of the mob for deliverance from oppression were replaced with a vision of a new social order that would inaugurate an age of universal justice and freedom. This new vision would lead to the establishment of a worldwide communist economic system that would forever solve world poverty and hunger. In the New Testament was found a blueprint for an ideal society that would inspire generations of social reformers and leftist revolutionaries.

For centuries, it was the only widely accessible document that demanded social justice for the poor and downtrodden and the only document to propose a practical solution to the problem of social inequality: the establishment of a socially egalitarian or communist society on earth. The religion of Christianity tapped into this deep-seated, age-old psychological yearning of the masses and, for the first time in history, gave it a coherent voice. This ensured the survival of ethical Christianity long after the decline of ecclesiastical orthodoxy in the late Middle Ages, allowing it to flourish, virtually unchallenged, in the ostensibly secular milieu of the modern 21st century Western “democracies.”

As a control mechanism, ethical Christianity was remarkably flexible. It could be used to justify any social arrangement, no matter how unjust or brutal. Its promise of “pie in the sky” had a remarkably pacifying effect on the illiterate serfs, who were expected to toil on the lord’s manor for their daily bread. Feudal landowners encouraged Christian religious instruction because it produced an easily controlled and manipulated peasantry. Vassals had it drummed into their heads from the moment of birth that servants must obey their masters. The church promised them life everlasting in paradise if they faithfully observed this requirement until death.

The great rarity of the peasant revolt against serfdom reveals the shrewd pragmatism of those who used religion as a means of safeguarding the public order. Punishment for original sin and the Pauline dualism between body and spirit, among other things, provided European rulers with additional convenient rationalization for the institution of serfdom. In the right hands, the ethical pronouncements of the New Testament could be used as an agent of revolutionary change, capable of stirring up mass revolt and potentially unleashing forces that could tear apart the “vast fabric of feudal subordination.” This was demonstrated by the Peasant Revolt of 1381, ignited by the fanatical communist-inspired sermons of the renegade priest John Ball.

The concept of human rights—Christian ethical injunctions in secularized form—illustrate in concrete fashion why the morality of the New Testament managed to survive long after the decline of Christian dogmatic orthodoxy. Rights dominate the field of political discourse because they are considered by egalitarian ideologues the most effective mechanism available for ensuring (a) the equal treatment of all persons and; (b) equal access to the basic goods deemed necessary for maximal human flourishing.

This practicality and effectiveness must be attributed to the ability of rights to fulfill the secret yearning of the common people, which is to ameliorate, as much as possible, the baneful effects of oppression and want. It achieves this by demolishing the traditional social and political distinctions once maintained between aristocracy and peasantry, placing all individuals on the same level playing field. The concept of rights has allowed the masses to closely realize their age-old utopian aspirations within a liberal egalitarian or socialist context. The concept’s great flexibility means that it can be interpreted to justify almost any entitlement. Even those who openly rejected the notion of rights, such as utilitarian philosopher Bentham, were unable to devise a more satisfactory mechanism that ensured equal treatment of all.

The Marxist tradition, emerging from under different historical circumstances, never fully decoupled Christian ethical teaching from traditional orthodoxy; instead, Marxist philosophical method necessitated an “inverted” Judeo-Christian eschatological and soteriological framework, largely because dialectical materialism is primarily an inversion of Hegel’s speculative Protestant rationalism.

In Hegelian Christianity, knowledge is substituted for faith. This eliminated the “mysteries” of Christian orthodoxy by making rational self-knowledge of god a possibility for all believers. The trinity as absolute mind, and therefore reason incarnate, means that Jesus of Nazareth was a teacher of rational morality, although his ethical system had been corrupted by patristic and medieval expositors. If “the rational is real and the real is rational,” as Hegel said, history is not only the progressive incarnation of god, but god is the historical process itself. The triadic structure of the natural world, including human self-consciousness, proves that the structure of objective reality is determined by the triune godhead of Christianity.

Hegel’s interpretation of Christianity gave Marx the raw material he needed to extract the “rational kernel” of scientific observation from “within the mystical shell” of Hegelian speculative rationalism. This liberated dialectical analysis from Hegel’s idealist mystification, allowing Marx to do what Hegel should have done, before succumbing to Christian theological reflection: construct a normative science, a Realwissenschaft, analyzing the socio-economic developments within capitalism that would unleash the forces of worldwide proletarian revolution.

The secularization of Christianity preserved the religion’s ethical component, while discarding all supernatural elements. This gave us modern liberalism. In contrast, Marx turned Hegel’s Protestant theological system upside down, a process of extraction resulting in the demystification of Hegelian Christianity. In Marxist philosophy, the inversion of dialectic removes the analytical tool—the “rational kernel”—from within its Christian idealist “shell.” This is then applied to the analysis of real-world phenomena within a thorough-going materialist framework, like the internal contradictions of capital accumulation in Marxist crisis theory.

Prof. MacDonald argues for a genetic basis for moral universalism in European populations, a difficult argument to make given the historical evidence indicating a total absence of pathological altruism in the ancient world before Christianization of the Roman empire. He mentions the systematic brainwashing of Europeans and the major role of Jewish political, academic and financial influence in the ethnocide of the West, but again forgets to mention that all these cultural forces rationalize European dispossession using political ideas like universal human rights and equality, the two fundamental pillars of secularized Christianity.

Prof. MacDonald’s attempt to exculpate Christianity of being “a root cause of Western decline” is easily refuted. In the final analysis, Christianity, at least in its organized form, is the single greatest enemy of Western civilization to have ever existed.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support The West’s Darkest Hour.

Acts 17:26, Ellicott’s commentary

And has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

‘And hath made of one blood all nations of men’. —Literally, every nation. The previous verses had given what we may venture to call St. Paul’s Philosophy of Religion. This gives his Philosophy of History. And the position was one which no Greek, above all, no Athenian, was likely to accept. For him the distinction between the Greek and the barbarian was radical and essential. The one was by nature meant to be the slave of the other. (Aristotle, Pol. i. 2, 6.)

In rising above his own prejudices of fancied superiority of race, the Apostle felt that he could attack, as from a vantage-ground, the prejudices of others.

He naturally accepted the truth as it was presented to him in the Mosaic history of the Creation; but the truth itself, stated in its fullest form, would remain, even if we were to accept other theories of the origin of species and the history of man.

There is a oneness of physical structure, of conditions and modes of life, of possible or actual development, which forbids any one race or nation, Hebrew, Hellenic, Latin, or Teutonic, to assume for itself that it is the cream and flower of humanity.

Published in: on March 24, 2018 at 12:38 am  Comments (4)  
Tags:

Apocalypse for whites • XXIV

by Evropa Soberana

 
Some conclusions

The Greeks and the Romans, from their Olympic naïveté (and I say this because only naïve men could think of forbidding the Torah, the Shabbat or the Brit Milah without realising that the whole of Jewry would prefer to die rather than renouncing their traditions) were too myopic in their approach to the Jewish problem. The Greco-Romans ignored the particularities that differentiated the Jews from the rest of the Semitic peoples of the Near East, and thought that they could place their temples and statues there as if the Jews were nothing more than another Arab or Syrian province, either Hellenised or Persianised. The persistent identity that Jewry had shown did not motivate the carefree Romans to sufficiently wrap their heads around the problem.

The conviction that the Greco-Romans had of being carriers of a superior culture made them fall into a fateful error: to think that a culture can be valid for all humanity and exported to peoples of different ethnicity. The Hellenisation and Romanisation of the East and North Africa had only one effect: the ethnic chaos, the balkanization of Rome itself, ethnic struggles and, finally, the appearance of Christianity.

Even using the brute force of her legions Rome was slow to realize that the Jews, in their resentment and their desire for revenge, did not care to sacrifice waves upon waves of individuals if they managed to annihilate a single Roman detachment. This fundamentalist fanaticism, which went beyond the rational, must have left the Romans speechless, who were not accustomed to seeing an ill-equipped military people immolate themselves in that convinced manner, with a mind full of blind faith coming from a jealous, vengeful, abstract and tyrannical god. What the Jews call Yahweh and in Europe became known as Jehovah is, without a doubt, an extremely real will, and also a force clearly opposed to the Olympian and solar gods of the European peoples, whose height was the Greco-Roman Zeus-Jupiter.

The revolutionary and stirring vocation of Jewry was born here. The Jews realised the primitive and overwhelming power that a resentful, fanatized and ignorant crowd contained, and they used it skilfully in Christianity and later in Bolshevism. The same blind will to sacrifice waves upon waves was seen in the Red Army during the Second World War, with the Germans being the reincarnation of the Roman spirit at that historical moment while the Soviet commissariat, which was more than 90 percent Jewish, undoubtedly represented Israel’s will.

Jews in general faced extinction and ethnic cleansing. The Greeks, who had more power and influence than they in Rome, in the long run would have ended up gradually eradicating them in Asia Minor; while Rome, under Germanic influence, could have lasted forever: the city would simply have become part of the Germanic world thanks to the increasing political influence of the Germans in the legions and to the progressive colonisation of the Empire by the German foederati.

Both Judaism and Christianity are the product of cultural chaos. It is no coincidence that the Jewish quarter was born in the area of greatest ethnic confusion on the planet: no man’s land among Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Akkadians, Chaldeans, Persians, Hittites, Medes, Parthians, Macedonians and Romans; not to mention the tangled mess of peoples like the Amorites, the Philistines, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Edomites and the twelve tribes of Israel who inhabited the same area that concerns us and that, together, annihilated the identity of entire peoples in a genetic maremàgnum.

The direct and martial character of the Romans, who, despite not having grasped the Jewish essence, grasped fairly well their desire for power and their problematic character, forced the Jews to act and exercise their willpower as a people, to rave their brains to elaborate the Christian invention, and also gave the Jews the perfect excuse to spend the next two millennia making themselves the victims and mourning at the only remaining wall of the Temple in Jerusalem. Without the existence of Rome Jewry probably would have ended up falling asleep on its laurels and forgetting its interests.

The Diaspora and the eradication of Judea as a Jewish centre did not lead at all to the dissolution of the Jewish identity. Rabbinic Judaism, after wandering through Egypt and Babylon, was more than accustomed to nomadism; and the Diaspora really came from much earlier, although the wars in Judea did increase it with avalanches of refugees. Jewry, showing an enormous intelligence, realised that it could not defeat Rome in a conventional war and that rebellions, fights and open wars failed because the Romans were stronger, braver, more powerful and better soldiers by nature, despite being less in number.

However, the underground and secret rebellion that the Jews had quietly breathed into Rome was going to prosper, as if it was the seed of discord, ‘by the secret and cowardly means’ that Hadrian foresaw that Jewry would use to finally triumph over Rome. This clandestine anti-European rebellion in general, and anti-Roman in particular, also had a name: it was called Christianity or, in the words of Tacitus, that ‘conflictive superstition’ that ‘not only broke out in Judea, the first source of evil, but even in Rome: where all the horrendous and shameful things from any part of the world find their centre and become popular’.

In the long run, the effect of clashes between Jews and Greco-Romans was the consolidation of Christianity as the only option of Semitic conquest of Rome, which, in turn, had the effect of ethnic cleansing of the European minority in the Eastern Mediterranean—especially the hated Greek community, which had its centre in Alexandria—mainly from the 4th century. It seems obvious to me that, after the invention of Christianity, there was a highly developed intellect, with a great psychological and geo-social capacity throughout the Empire, designed to destroy the Roman Empire: snatching from Europe, especially from the Germanic Europe, the legacy of the classical world.

The importation of oriental cults was nothing but the ritual adaptation of the genetic changes in Rome itself, as well as the slow rise of the ethnic substratum that existed in the lowest part of the original Rome.

Although the racial platform of the Roman ruling caste was Red-Nordid, there are several busts of specimens with strong Armenid influence, in addition to Cato. These three busts are patricians of
the Republic with patent armenisation.[1]

Judea was a special province and the Romans would have needed an equally special policy, consisting of shielding Rome against Jewish influence—and, in fact, against all Oriental influence, including its plebs—; leave the Jews in Judea and not give them Roman citizenship under any circumstances; not desecrate their traditions and, of course, never civilise them: because it was precisely the Hellenisation of certain Jewish social sectors what led to the emergence of Christianity. This was a sinister Jewish and Greco-decadent schizophrenia that is evident in the very name of Jesus Christ: Yeshua, a Jewish name, and Christos, ‘the anointed one’ in Greek.

To give examples of the insane Romanisation of Judea that echo the hybrid Yeshua-Christos: Herod tried to Romanise the province by building cities that would cause discord (like Caesarea); fortresses that would be used by the Jews against the same Romans (like the Antonia and Masada fortresses); and also he enlarged the Second Temple at which the Jews now cry, in spite of the fact that they hate the constructor.

If Rome had wanted to triumph in a more resounding way over Judea, she should not have allowed its Romanisation, and should have kept Hellenisation to a minimum. Imposing a culture on a people does not mean that you have to share it. Because of his genetic and cultural heritage, a Jew who knew how to speak Greek would never really share or understand Hellenic culture—culture is the result of the gene pool, and Jewish genetics was radically different from Hellenic. To force or impose one culture over another that comes from a different genetic well only leads to one thing: miscegenation, which will end up manifesting through the total corruption of the original culture.

All hell rained down upon the Jews, who little by little have become like that typical figure in fiction who has received many blows and becomes, over time, a misanthropic super-villain and resentful against the world. Taking the Jews into Rome, however much they were enslaved, was suicidal.

Forced Romanisation, forced Hellenisation, slavery, deportation and anything that tends to increase the ethnic jumble, are extremely negative elements in the history of any nation. And the first drawback of any Empire is precisely that: that it is cosmopolitan by definition.
 
_______________

[1] Editor’s Note: To understand this passage the reader should become familiar with the new racial classification of the author.

‘You look rather white to me’

I have been thinking about the implications of the facts that Deschner tells in his criminal history of Christianity: things that have barely been discussed in the movement of white nationalism. First of all, let’s remember what an SS pamphlet says in an article that should be known by all the racists in the world:

The Roman Empire experienced considerable racial mixing, which encouraged the rapid spread of the doctrine of racial equality. Anyone could become a Christian, whether Roman, Greek, Jew, Negro, etc. As Christians they were all the same, for the important thing was that they belonged to the Church and accepted its teachings.

Recall now what was said in ‘Kriminalgeschichte 25’. Shortly before Constantine won his first battle, at the time when Maxentius was still in charge of Rome, ‘there were more Christians in Italy and in Africa than in Gaul’.

Demography is destiny, and if we connect the dots we should not be surprised about what happened after Maxentius lost the battle: the demolition of the statues of the Greco-Roman world—just what we now begin to witness in the United States even before non-whites reach majority!

What worries me is that these issues are not addressed well in white nationalism. It is not only taboo to talk about the history of Christianity. It is also taboo to speak, as was spoken in the times of the 20th century eugenicists, of the need to consider the Nordic type as the standard of the white race.

I will illustrate this with an example. On YouTube I see a recent video of Spencer, a video translated into Spanish, like ranked up if I look for ‘Richard Spencer’ on YouTube. Well: in that interview Spencer tells a Puerto Rican, clearly a mudblood, the following: ‘You actually look rather white to me’.

If we look at the image above, a recreation of the miscegenation in imperial Rome—miscegenation that eventually led the empire to its downfall—, we cannot remove from our minds the fact that Spencer thinks today as the imperial Romans thought: who practiced mass amnesty to the ‘Puerto Ricans’ of their time, granting Roman citizenship to non-Aryans.

In other words: the racial ideology that led to the fall of the Roman Empire and the racial ideology of a large part of the white nationalists is similar: they are not protecting their race properly.

As a side note, Hadding Scott has said on Carolyn’s site that Kevin MacDonald now has two Jews as contributors for The Occidental Observer. Is that true?