web analytics
Christendom Hojas Susurrantes (Whispering Leaves - book) Kenneth Clark Matthias Grünewald Theology

On Erasmus

When I was a boy I heard of Erasmus and imagined that his famous book was about something like praising so-called “mad” people in a world gone mad. Later, still before reading him, I imagined Erasmus was a great humanist who saw the madness of the religious wars of his time.

I was not prepared in the slightest to find out that Erasmus himself was pretty much part of civilizational madness. When in 1996 I hit Kenneth Clark’s page 146 of his illustrated book Civilisation I was moved to purchase the excellent 1993 Penguin edition of Praise of Folly totally unsuspecting of what the contents really were. A few days after I wrote on the book’s inside cover that Erasmus disappointed me; that, contrary to what I had expected, he did not see the folly of his age but was a fool himself.

A.H.T. Levi’s Penguin introduction to Praise of Folly is worth reading, and precisely on page xlii of the long introduction I was shocked to learn that no one in the whole Middle Ages had questioned Christian “truths.” Instead of challenging the accepted wisdom, I found in the introduction to Erasmus’ other works scholastic discussions about whether or not the ancient Greeks and Romans would be saved—from eternal damnation!

Erasmus is truly an alien for the people of our time. The problems he struggled with in his soul—he never considered his Praise of Folly his most important book—are infinitely distant from the problems that overwhelm us today. His worldview is dead except for those who, like me, were tormented by our parents with doctrines of eternal punishment.

Erasmus was the most famous humanist of the so-called “Northern Renaissance,” a man in touch with all leading princes and scholars of the time. Many consider him the central figure of the intellectual world of what, to my mind, was a pseudo-Renaissance (the real intellectual Renaissance would only begin with Montaigne). How could the “Northern Renaissance” be compared to the Italian Renaissance when its most emblematic intellectual, like Thomas à Kempis, was an Augustinian canon that took Pauline folly as a panegyric to Christian piety? Erasmus, who was deeply shocked before the pagan atmosphere of Julius II’s Rome, probably decided to publish Praise of Folly precisely to support the growing opposition to Julius in France. When the art of Michelangelo and Raphael were conquering the soul of Rome, Erasmus went as far as recommending a return to scripture and the so-called “Fathers”: Origen, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine, and Erasmus’ Greek New Testament was in fact more feared by the Church than his Praise of Folly.

Now that I am talking of Clark’s Civilisation, let us remember the image that Clark chose to depict St Francis: Jacquemart de Hesdin’s The Fool. In Erasmus’ most famous book, women, “admittedly stupid and foolish creatures,” are Folly’s pride. Erasmus takes a surprisingly modern, “liberal” position about the role of women in society. Since Folly praises ignorance and lunacy, Erasmus reasons, women must be instrumental for the Christian cause. In his book Folly is only interested in following the example of Jesus, the exemplar of charitable simplicity against the budding intellectualism of the sixteenth century. The fact that Erasmus took St Paul’s “praise of folly” against the best minds St Paul encountered in Athens speaks for itself and needs no further comment.

It doesn’t take a great intellectual effort to recognize that the so-called Northern Renaissance was set against the real Renaissance of Italy, which had fallen in love with our genuine, Greco-Roman roots. Erasmus et al’s “optimist” discussions around the subject of the predestination of both the elect and the damned represent the medieval mind. How could Erasmus’ work that discusses whether or not a personal God “predestined” some of us to an eternity of torture be called “Renaissance” by any stretch of imagination? It is true that, in Erasmus’ century, the current theology was Pelagian rather than Augustinian, in the sense that we were supposed to be allowed to earn salvation by our own efforts. But this is altogether medieval, not modern, thinking.

To understand Erasmus one must remember the bestsellers of his time. The Pseudo- Gregorian Dialogues, composed in 680 C.E. and translated to all known vernaculars, reinforced in the faithful what priests used to call “a salutary fear of hell.” The book clearly implied that hell was eternal and that the soul, though spiritual, suffered physically from burning. Dante himself drew heavily from the Dialogues “and its influence on popular piety was greater that that of any other single work of piety in the history of western Christendom.”

(Detail of a Grüenwald painting. Grüenwald’s Isenheim Altarpiece painting in the times when Erasmus published his book depicts the spirit of those still dark ages far better than any scholastic treatise.)

Visualize yourself one moment living under the sky of Erasmus’ age. Visualize yourself trapped in the Church dogma and struggling with the terrible discussion about whether the ancient Greeks could possibly be “justified”—a nasty Lutheran word inspired in Augustine—and thus saved from the eternal flames.

For the so-called humanists of Erasmus’ time this dilemma was all too serious theological business, and they rationalized their wishes to save the “pagans” after the recent discoveries of Indian “souls” in America, who had no opportunity to receive the gospel through no fault of their own. That such doctrines represented a slight advance from Augustine’s “pessimism” (cf. Erasmus’ treatise against Luther, On Free Will and Luther’s reply, On Unfree Will) will never refute the fact that Erasmus and his ilk were chained in the trappings of medieval thought.

I was moved to write this article because all westerners, including white nationalists, have forgotten what living under Christendom was like. With the exception of the final section of my Hojas Susurrantes, no contemporary writer that I know—no one—has said something real about the horrors of the infinitely evil doctrine of eternal damnation, and how that fear was so central in Christendom. On the contrary, modern westerners seem to retroproject their own healthy psychoclass and never wonder about the subjective horrors that millions upon millions of whites endured during the Dark Ages as a result of such doctrine.

14 replies on “On Erasmus”

A most excellent and relatable post, Chechar.

It’s genuinely perplexing as to why any WN can seriously advocate a return to Christian dogma as a remedy for our plight. If salvation requires faith in a slain Galilean, why bother trying to save the White race? Abrahamic-religion’s internal logic only permits Judaic nationalism as an intrinsically holy quest for peoplehood. Why accept a mythos that relegates Europeans to background?

Hell is a psychological weapon and a cruel one at that. Being raised in a “liberal” Protestant family I can attest to this. Sermons at my former church were always filled with stories of charity and compassion. Brimstone just wasnt a polite topic (how Wasp-ish, eh?). Yet, Hell loomed in the background lest a parishioner’s spirit become free. Looking back, it was as if the preachers feared their own faith.

I was an Evangelical Christian, of the Five Points of Calvinism persuasion, for more than a decade. I completed two years of full-time, residential, missionary training. I have preached in Church buildings and the open-air. I have gone door-to-door to share the message of Christianity. I have handed out thousands of Christian leaflets. I was serious about Christianity!

I rejected Christianity several years ago, and embraced White Nationalism. I am now on my eighth reading of MIGHT IS RIGHT (my holy book), and I call myself a Redbeardian. I am committed to seeing every non-White driven out of all White homelands, using WHATEVER means are necessary. I favor total extermination of the enemy, as this guarantees that they cannot come back to fight another day.

Christianity is THE obstacle that the White Race must overcome if it is to secure its existence.

They hate it. It is foolish for White Nationalists to try to win the Christians to their side, as the Christians (if they are true Christians) are always going to put Christ before a White homeland. The non-White invasion has happened with the help of the Christian churches. The best thing to do with Christians, is to present them with reasonable arguments against their religion, and then, if they still insist in putting Christ before the survival of the White Race, class them as enemy combatants. There can be no neutrality in this race war.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. That’s why I reproduced these excerpts of books debunking the gospel myth. Unfortunately, I didn’t get much feedback in the comments section. Looks like the subject is unimportant for most of my visitors…

Some White Christians have incorporated race into their teachings, and may be allies of White Nationalists. Although there may be other examples, Kinists and Christian Identitarians come to mind. However, most Christians, as standard-bearers of the Jewish one-world mentality, certainly need to be regarded as enemies. However, given that Himmler proclaimed Jesus to be the god of the Europeans, it seems silly to proclaim all Christians enemies of White Nationalists. See here.

A postscriptum:

Unfortunately, the vast preponderance of anti-Western Christians includes most Russian Orthodox, whose ethnic kinsmen have been responsible for the formulation of anti-Western European ideologies including Russian Marxism (this second ideology having been a brainchild of George Plekhanov, who was, like many of his hereditary fellow Russian noblemen, of partial Tatar descent) and Eurasianism (originally a White emigre ideology, now the state ideology of Russia), and who have no problem with seeking out alliances with Arabs, blacks, and mestizos, despite the common misperception of the Russians as potential allies on the part of some naive and/or ignorant nationalists, which may be due to the gross exaggeration of Russian anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism by the usual suspects.

Nowadays, Russia seeks benefits to herself by supporting both Zionism and jihad in the Middle East, so that the yids and the musloids will contain each other. Similarly, Russia is on excellent terms with her black-Marxist proteges in South Africa, who are carrying out the genocide of Afrikaners, which is, in turn, being concealed — with deafening silence — by the jewsmedia. Similarly, Russia has reinstalled her nuclear missiles in Cuba, and has armed Hugo Chavez and FARC to the teeth. Thus, Russians — whether Communist or Christian — are no friends of Western Whites.

Aside from my stylistic error of using “however” to begin two consecutive sentences in the first paragraph of my comment (instead of using “nevertheless” at the beginning of the second sentence), I see now that my reference to “this second ideology” was made in error: I had originally included Narodism as an anti-Western ideology, but I then saw that it was in fact invented by the supposedly pro-Western socialist Alexander Herzen. Thus, Russian Marxism was the second ideology in what was originally a list of three supposedly anti-Western ideologies (Narodism, Russian Marxism, Eurasianism), and I neglected to remove the word “second”. In addition, I referred to Plekhanov’s “hereditary fellow Russian noblemen”, instead of to his “fellow hereditary Russian noblemen”. Sorry!

With respect to Orthodox Christianity as a possible solution to the problems of Whites (as has been suggested by some nationalists), I can say only that I have attended Bible study at two Orthodox churches — one Russian, one Greek. At the “Russian” church, the priest turned out to be a half-Jewish Zionist Obamite who advocated socialism openly. At the Greek Orthodox Bible study, the priest took the line that Zionism is bad for the Jews, and that Zionists control the media, so that people don’t get to hear from all the wonderful Zionist rabbis. While it is undoubtedly true that Zionists control the media, and that anti-Zionist rabbis do not usually receive as much publicity as Zionist rabbis (although the ones who met with Ahmadinejad received plenty — all negative), the larger problem is that both Orthodox priests evinced a “What’s good for the Jews?” mentality. While this tendency may be less in more traditional churches or in less Jew-dominated areas, the problem remains that in Christianity, Jews are God’s chosen people, and it is the job of the goyim to be martyred in the process of uniting the world under the martyred (spiritual) King of the Jews.

I believe, by the way, that some Poles can be reliable allies of Westerners, since — perhaps due to their Catholic heritage — Poles have traditionally regarded themselves as an Eastern outpost of the West. I regard it as a sign of savage ingratitude on Hitler’s part that he allowed Himmler to designate the Poles as untermenschen, despite their having rescued his native Austria from the Ottomans. (Of course, Hitler wished Germany had been converted to Islam, so he may have been resentful rather than grateful.) In my estimation, Western Ukrainians, too, can be allies of Westerners.

where did you read that himmler treated the polish as ‘untermenschen’, please give your sources other than one secret speech in posen in the midst of a terrible war that does not reflect the poles but the mess the wehrmacht and the ss was in, a mess of uncountable partisans and barbaric reds on the east front the waffenss struggled against without hope . I on the other hand can give you sources of himmler demanding immigration to germany of the finest polish women quote to give the best of the european races to its progeniture

Here is a representative source:


If its claims with respect to the treatment of Poles — which I have also heard described similarly, in person, both by Poles, including those who dislike jews and think the Final Solution is the correct one, and by jews — are inaccurate, then I am glad to stand corrected. I am very interested in this source you mention that states Poles were a superior race.

Sorry untermensch I don’t read wikipedia, I’m not losing my time with such a pile of lies. So actualy you don’ t have a clue but your avatar is untermensch. Hitler only once used untermensch to describe the jews in MK, once (So are you a NY Jew?). He also once stated in a speech about the russians that they were swamp people, but that’s about it and put back into context it was ajust a joke in a year where the german army was into their neck in the mud and swamp on the russian front, as there were no roads. There are 1000 more quotes from jews really meaning to exterminate the germanic people than there are similar quotes by germans and that over a period of 15 years and not out of official NSDAP programm. For compliments on the slaves just seek after the NS propaganda of how they saw the futur of Europe, a harmony of Volks, or the SS propapanda on the east front where they wish to save the russians from the judeobolshevists. For Himmler you need to read the book with his collection of private letters (not one remark on the holocaust 🙂 on the contrary ) where he asks for Polish women to be sent to germany. Ukranians, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Finns all were with the Wehrmacht and welcomed them as liberators and some still cherish the SS. Your slavic-german problem is a polish-german problem. The Poles screwed germany by stealing 1/3 of their land, so they got payback. The territorial disputes between Poland and Germany make up for 90% of the dispute IMO, it was not a race problem.

Very interesting; thank you! 🙂

Yes, I am a New York jew, and I consider my race to be subhuman. I had the impression that the National Socialists had heroically set out to destroy the yids, which I would certainly love to do. I am well aware that many Slavs greeted the SS as freedom fighters, which, for many Eastern Europeans (particularly in Finland and the Baltic), they were.

According to a memoir by “Nina Markovna”, a Russian German, this included non-Communist jews, who assumed Communist tales of Nazis exterminating jews were simply typical Communist propaganda. However, the Ostarbeiter program, despite the German propaganda to the effect that the workers were volunteers who would be well-treated, is difficult to deny: [link]

Ukrainian nationalists ended up fighting both the Commies and the National Socialists: [link]

I know the Finns fought bravely for the Axis, as did their jews, and in Finland, even today, Hitler is regarded, at least by some, as the father of the welfare state. To my knowledge, Ukrainians did not have a territorial dispute with Germany, and Western Ukraine had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Considering that Ukrainians initially greeted the Germans with open arms, this lends credence to the notion that Germans viewed Ukrainians as trash. But, of course, it may all be a lie! 🙂

As far as I can tell by clicking on the source links at the bottom of this Metapedia article, it seems that “untermensch” was indeed a standard National Socialist term, and that I am therefore correct to use it to describe myself:


Please don’t get me wrong: I believe Hitler should be regarded as a hero by the German people, and that the United States should have supported him. It’s just that I am something of a Slavophile, and while I wish Russia had been liberated by the Germans, with American support, I also wish the Third Reich had seen Slavs as partners, rather than simply seeking to forcibly assimilate and/or enslave them.

NY, the word Untermensch did never refer to Slavs. If you say that it was a standard term you ignore that it was a term not for Slavs but for degenerated people, criminals and mongrels. There has never been such a concept as slavic untermensch. Of course since it was the Russian nation already in a state of high degeneration, miscenegation that finally adoptet Communism the Russians were not in high esteem in the eyes of the Germans. Additionally the Baltoc Germans played an important part in the National Socialist movement and this group had deep resentments against Slavs and Eastern European people. As a matter of fact, Russians as much as most other Slavic peoples have never been able to achieve a higher culture or state organization without German(ic) leadership. This is particulary true for Russia and is obvious nowadays. Just compare Sibiria to Canada.

Do not forget that several slavic peoples (by the way I do not really believe that there are REAL Slavs; it is just an invented term for peoples who are not related but really are Skyths, Sarmatians and Eastern germanic tribes who were decimated during the dark ages and were resisting Christianization) fought on the German side, for example the Slovaks.

Ukrainian nationalist militia did not turn against the Germans. Most of them on the contrary took the German side later in the war. Minister of Propaganda Goebbels by the way explicitly stated at the beginning of the war against the soviet Union that this war aimed at liberating the peoples incarcerated in the USSR. Additionally, apart from the Red army never have slavs fought in greater numbers than in the German army. It was hundreds of thousands of them, including Poles, the traditional german enemies.

Concerning the race question I remember that the plan was to include and assimilate the racially pure Poles and to contain those who were degenerated and deracinated due to the Mongol invasion. In Russia there still exist two distinct words, one meaning roughly “Russian” and one “Russia-lander” to distinguish between true Russians and obvious mongrels. The surname syllable -ov / -ow often hints at tartaric ancestry such as in the case ofVladimir Uljanow (part German and Jewish also).

Finally, Hitler never considered himself to be an Austrian. He hated the Austrian state and particulary the house of Habsburg which had become traitors of the Germans. His crticism on christianity and praise fo Islam can only be understood in context. He praised the warrior aspect of Islam and compared it to traditional Germanic values small and big Jihad) and he stayed Roman catholic all his life, even if only formal and I have no doubt that he was foreseeing a reform of Christianity not unlike the concept Chechar wrote about in his “Gitone” article. A transformation from within, keeping the immortal and powerful central topic but redirecting the energy towards a nationalist end.

The cowardly Habsburgians fled Vienna during the siege of teh city by the way. And it was not the Poles who liberated Vienna but the Imperial army and the couragous men under Count Starhemberg a true Leonidas, that defended the city against an overwhelming army. The Poles did help, their help was important, but it was only due to diplomatic rules that Jan Sobeski was put in the role as leader of the army and liberator. The Poles took enormous amount of money from the Pope and from the loot to have their efforts paid. So no need to be thankful to a mercenary army.

If the vermin that was the French sun-king would have paid just a little more, the Poles would have sided with them as the usually do against Europe.


Many thanks for this fascinating response! 🙂

Perhaps some Ukrainians in the West have taken to falsely claiming that their nationalists fought against the Germans, in order to avoid being stigmatized as “Nazis” (i.e., as though that were a bad thing). I am well aware that many Cossacks who fought the Reds during the Russian Civil War fought them again during WWII, only to be sent to the GULag by the USA/USSR axis.

I was completely unaware of “-ов/-ев” indicating Tatar ancestry; I thought it was simply a genitive plural. As for the differing words for “Russians”, I am familiar only with “русские” and “россияне”. I am aware that the latter is more inclusive, and is favored by the current anti-White regime in Moscow, as it is supposed to mean one is “culturally Russian”, but not necessarily ethnically so; are these the words you have in mind?

Again, many thanks.

NY Untermensch

Comments are closed.