1. Madison Grant (1865-1937)
2. Lothrop Stoddard (1883-1950)
3. Revilo Oliver (1908-1994)
4. Wilmot Robertson (1915-2005)
5. William Pierce (1933-2002)
6. David Irving (1938- )
7. Philippe Rushton (1943- )
8. Kevin MacDonald (1944- )
9. Michael O’Meara (1946- )
10. Guillaume Faye (1949- )
11. Tom Sunic (1953- )
12. Harold Covington (1953- )
“The United States, as the architect of the prevailing world system, is the source of all evil…”
That Whites have got a loose screw is patent even in the writing of the foremost expert on how the Jews are capitalizing on it. In an article at his webzine, The Occidental Observer, Kevin MacDonald put it in simple terms:
My view is that moral universalism and guilt are aspects of individualism as an ethnic trait of Europeans (see here, p. 23ff). These traits are profoundly maladaptive in the modern world where they have been used as swords by the historic enemies of Europeans and their civilization. European individualist culture creates morally defined ingroups rather than ingroups based on kinship, with high levels of altruistic punishment against violators. The Puritan-Yankee culture that was so influential in shaping America is a prominent example, as in the movement to abolish slavery in the 19th century and the Civil Rights movement in the 20th century. These morally defined ingroups function to prevent defection in societies not based on biological relatedness. Guilt then functions as a negative emotion motivating people to adhere to group norms. The success of the culture of the Holocaust in manufacturing guilt is testimony to the continuing success of this strategy.
The strategy of Jewish intellectual movements for destroying Europeans and their culture has been to convince the Europeans of their own moral bankruptcy. Jewish intellectual movements have presented Judaism as morally superior to European civilization and European civilization as morally bankrupt and the proper target of altruistic punishment. The consequence is that once Europeans are convinced of their own moral depravity, they will destroy their own people in a fit of altruistic punishment.
More technically, at The Occidental Quarterly (TOQ), the academic journal for white studies, Prof. MacDonald approaches the same subject in more abstract terms (e.g., “the free-rider problem,” “altruistic punishment,” etc.) that require previous knowledge from the reader about esoteric fields of inquiry such as evolutionary psychology among humans.
In an article published last year at TOQ MacDonald wrote:
It is noteworthy that the French Revolution had pronounced egalitarian, anti-aristocratic trends, often couched in the language of moral ingroups and outgroups in opposition to the aristocracy. For example, the moral condemnation of social hierarchy by the Jacobin radicals during the French Revolution is a major theme of Lothrop Stoddard’s The French Revolution in San Domingo. Thus Stoddard notes the hatred toward the White slave-owning colonists. During the height of the Reign of Terror, colonists sent home to France were greeted, in the words of one such unfortunate, with “a furious hatred… A hatred so intense that our most terrible misfortunes did not excite the slightest commiseration.” At the same time, mulatto and Black delegates from San Domingo were greeted with delirious applause.
Such sentiments recall the moral fervor of the Puritan-descended Yankee abolitionists in the period prior to the American Civil War. For example, for Orestes Brownson (1803–1876), a prominent publicist and activist, the Civil War was a moral crusade waged not only to preserve the union, but to emancipate the slaves. He argued “for the unity of races and the inherent dignity of each person, and he lambasted Southerners for trying to enlarge their political base” by adding to the number of slave states. Writing in 1840, Brownson claimed that we should “realize in our social arrangements and in the actual conditions of all men that equality of man and man” that God had established but which had been destroyed by capitalism. According to Brownson, Christians had to
bring down the high, and bring up the low; to break the fetters of the bound and set the captive free; to destroy all oppression, establish the reign of justice, which is the reign of equality, between man and man; to introduce new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, wherein all shall be as brothers, loving one another, and no one possessing what another lacketh.
It’s interesting that whereas the aristocratic-egalitarian military groups emphasized by Duchesne produced cohesion and loyalty as a result of fealty to a successful leader (rather than on the basis of kinship), the East Anglian model for cohesion was the creation of moral and ideological bases of group cohesion (rather than on the basis of kinship). These two models are thus variants on the individualist theme. The Puritans famously imposed penalties on people who departed from the moral/ideological strictures of the society. They were also willing to incur great costs to impose their moral/ideological version of truth. Puritan “ordered liberty” was the freedom to act within the confines of the moral order. This might be called the paradox of individualism: In order to form cohesive groups, individualists have at times erected strong social controls on individual behavior that result in group cohesion.
The logic connecting these tendencies to the individualist hunter-gather model is obvious: Like all humans in a dangerous and difficult world, hunter-gatherers need to develop cohesive, cooperative in-groups. But rather than base them on known kinship relations, the prototypical egalitarian-individualist groups of the West are based on reputation and trust. Egalitarian-individualists create moral-ideological communities in which those who violate public trust and other manifestations of the moral order are shunned, ostracized, and exposed to public humiliation—a fate that would have resulted in evolutionary death during the harsh ecological period of the Ice Age—, the same fate as the derelict father who refused to provision his children.
A possible evolutionary legacy of this phenomenon is a greater tendency to engage in what social scientists term “altruistic punishment,” defined as punishment of people who depart from the moral-ideological consensus that costs the punisher. A cooperative culture derived from European hunter-gathers would be expected to be characterized by high levels of altruistic punishment directed at free-riders. This is studied in a game among strangers who donate to a common pot that is increased by a set multiplier by the experimenter and then divided equally. Free riders contribute little but get all the benefits. Altruistic punishers incur costs to punish the cheaters. This punishment is motivated by moral outrage. Because it is played among strangers, the game mimics individualistic societies. Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee moral condemnation of slavery that inspired and justified the massive carnage of closely related Anglo Americans on behalf of slaves from Africa. Militarily, the war with the Confederacy was the greatest sacrifice in lives and property ever made by Americans.
The Puritans tended to pursue utopian causes framed as moral issues, not hesitating to endure high costs in order to punish those who violated the moral norms of the ingroup. They were prone to utopian appeals to a “higher law” and the belief that government’s principal purpose is moral. New England was the most fertile ground for “the perfectability of man creed,” and the “father of a dozen ‘isms’.” It goes without saying that all of the great European wars of the 20th century have been rationalized in moral terms—to secure the Enlightenment ideals of freedom, democracy, and individual rights against the state.
To conclude, my proposal is that the culture of the West as it developed in the modern era owes much more to egalitarian individualism than to aristocratic individualism. It’s interesting that all of the intellectual movements discussed in The Culture of Critique involved moral indictments of the West and its history of slavery, segregation, colonialism, anti-Semitism, exclusion of Jews from the Protestant elite. Clearly the most egregious of these moral failings stem from the cultural strand of aristocratic egalitarianism, not the egalitarian individualism that eventually won out.
Nevertheless, these movements have managed to create a moral community that taps into the hunter-gatherer ethic of egalitarian individualism. As noted above, Duchesne attributes the decline of aristocratic individualism partly to “the ethical demands of modern democratic liberalism.” However, the psychological power of the ethical demands of modern liberalism themselves require explanation. The argument here is that the roots of the creation of a moral-ideological ingroup stem from the unique egalitarian-individualist strand of the culture of the West.
The general dismantling of the culture of the West, and eventually its demise as anything resembling an ethnic entity, is occurring as a result of a moral onslaught triggering a paroxysm of altruistic punishment and based ultimately on these evolved tendencies.
MacDonald’s long piece can be read here.
At Counter-Currents a Norwegian commenter said:
There are very few Jews in Norway. And contrary to many other western nations, the Norwegian industry of banking, media, higher education, entertainment, publishing etc are not dominated by a handful of Jews. Most Norwegians grow up without ever meeting one.
Originally, the Norwegian constitution forbade Jews (and Jesuits) to enter the kingdom, but even after the ban was lifted, very few settled, and those that did were for the most part arrested and deported during WWII by the Norwegian police. After the war, some returned, some new ones immigrated, but the Jews in Norway have never achieved any kind of dominating influence, as they tend to do in gentile nations.
As for the question of why, they’re a several things to consider.
One is that Jewish ritual slaughter is verboten in Norway, so the Jews must import all their kosher meat from abroad. This requires both effort and expenses, as the native Norwegian production of food is protected by tolls and various regulations that seek to bar foreign products from entering the market. Thus any Jew wanting kosher meat need to buy it from a select few shops at very steep prices. Various Jewish lobby groups tend to press the issue now and then, calling it Anti-Semitic, as Norway was one of the few nations not to lift the ban on kosher meat after WWII, but they tend not to press too hard, as there is an agreement to keep the ban in place from the left to the right across the political spectrum. This, many Jews feel, creates an unwelcoming atmosphere.
Another explanation is that well into the 70s and the beginning of the 80s, Norway was in large a sort of “national” socialist state. One TV channel. One radio channel. Most vital industries were owned by the government—and anything else owned by a small clique of Norwegian industrialists that cooperated closely with the government. This environment was not very welcoming for “outsiders” to do business—and even today the largest Norwegian corporations are either partly state-owned or owned by a rather small “plutocracy” of ethnic Norwegians and Norwegian families that seldom open the arena for outsiders.
A third explanation is that traditionally, Norway has been quite unwelcoming towards minorities. Up until the immigrant waves and the implementation of the multiculturalist utopia policy, Norway was an ethnic homogenous and fierce nationalistic nation that tended not to tolerate any sort of minority making too much fuzz or gaining any sort of influence. Well into the 70s the Norwegian government had active eugenics laws, and these were compulsory employed not only against the mentally defect and the unredeemable criminal misfits, but also against the gypsy minority, as these were judged to be of criminally genetic stock.
So it is sad to say: the suicidal multiculturalist madness; the immigration waves that according to the state census will make Norwegians a minority in their own cities within 30 years; the cultural Marxist ideocracy reigning in the institutions of education, media and higher learning; the “Americanization” of every media and entertainment through import and distribution and replicating of the American mass media pop-culture—all these ills the Norwegians choose to implement on themselves. Or rather, some Norwegians—the political elite and idealist crackpots of the 68 and their children that sought to disseminate in society their own utopian pipedreams of cultural Marxism and ethno-masochistic poison.
Norway did not need the Jew. We did it ourselves.
And at The Occidental Observer Lars the Viking said:
Norway is the only country that stands up to the Zionists because we are rich in oil. In April 2011, Alan M. Dershowitz sharply criticized Norway for its treatment of Jews, writing that:
“All Jews are apparently the same in this country that has done everything in its power to make life in Norway nearly impossible for Jews. Norway was apparently the first modern nation to prohibit the production of Kosher meat, while at the same time permitting Halal meat and encouraging the slaughter of seals, whales and other animals that are protected by international treaties. No wonder less than 1000 Jews live in Norway.”
Dershowitz also stated, regarding efforts by Norwegian Academics to institute a boycott of Israelis that while administrations of Norwegian universities “have refused to go along with this form of collective punishment of all Israeli academics… in practice… Jewish pro-Israel speakers are subject to a de facto boycott” and cited this as a reason why the faculties of several Norwegian universities refused to invite him to speak about Israel .
In 2008, a symposium held by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, entitled Behind the Humanitarian Mask: The Nordic Countries, Israel and the Jews, accused Norway and Sweden of institutional racism against Jews. Dr Manfred Gerstenfeld, chairman of the Board of Fellows at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, said that “Norway is the most anti-Semitic country in Scandinavia.”
Oslo is a bulwark of anti-Semitism and Israel-slandering. Norway is the paradise of political correctness, multiculturalism and anti-war feelings (Frontpage mag).
Last year, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund (that administers the oil profits) divested from the Israeli company Elbit, because it has worked on the Israeli fence that blocked the suicide bombers. The author of the global literary phenomenon “Sophie’s World,” the national Norse hero Jostein Gaarder, wished for the disappearance of Israel.
Google and you will see that the Jews hate Norway more than any other country on earth. Little Norway stands alone and standing up to Zionism.
Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race, published in 1916, is a classic in race studies. Below, a few excerpts from “The Competition of Races” (no ellipsis added):
Man continuously undergoes selection through the operation of the forces of social environment. Among native Americans of the Colonial period a large family was an asset and social pressure and economic advantage counselled both early marriage and numerous children. Two hundred years of continuous political expansion and material prosperity changed these conditions and children, instead of being an asset to till the fields and guard the cattle, became an expensive liability. They now require support, education and endowment from their parents and a large family is regarded by some as a serious handicap in the social struggle.
These conditions do not obtain at first among immigrants, and large families among the newly arrived population are still the rule, precisely as they were in Colonial America and are to-day in French Canada where backwoods conditions still prevail.
The result is that one class or type in a population expands more rapidly than another and ultimately replaces it. This process of replacement of one type by another does not mean that the race changes or is transformed into another. It is a replacement pure and simple and not a transformation.
The lowering of the birth rate among the most valuable classes, while the birth rate of the lower classes remains unaffected, is a frequent phenomenon of prosperity. Such a change becomes extremely injurious to the race if unchecked, unless nature is allowed to maintain by her own cruel devices the relative numbers of the different classes in their due proportions. To attack race suicide by encouraging indiscriminate reproduction is not only futile but is dangerous if it leads to an increase in the undesirable elements. What is needed in the community most of all is an increase in the desirable classes, which are of superior type physically, intellectually and morally and not merely an increase in the absolute numbers of the population.
The value and efficiency of a population are not numbered by what the newspapers call souls, but by the proportion of men of physical and intellectual vigor. The small Colonial population of America was, on an average and man for man, far superior to the present inhabitants, although the latter are twenty-five times more numerous. The ideal in eugenics toward which statesmanship should be directed is, of course, improvement in quality rather than quantity. This, however, is at present a counsel of perfection and we must face conditions as they are.
Where altruism, philanthropy or sentimentalism intervene with the noblest purpose and forbid nature to penalize the unfortunate victims of reckless breeding, the multiplication of inferior types is encouraged and fostered. Indiscriminate efforts to preserve babies among the lower classes often result in serious injury to the race.
Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and a sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilization of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community. The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit and human life is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race.
The church assumes a serious responsibility toward the future of the race whenever it steps in and preserves a defective strain. Before eugenics were understood much could be said from a Christian and humane viewpoint in favor of indiscriminate charity for the benefit of the individual. The societies for charity, altruism or extension of rights, should have in these days, however, in their management some small modicum of brains, otherwise they may continue to do, as they have sometimes done in the past, more injury to the race than black death or smallpox.
Efforts to increase the birth rate of the genius producing classes of the community, while most desirable, encounter great difficulties. In such efforts we encounter social conditions over which we have as yet no control. It was tried two thousand years ago by Augustus and his efforts to avert race suicide and the extinction of the old Roman stock were singularly prophetic of what some far seeing men are attempting in order to preserve the race of native Americans of Colonial descent.
Under modern social conditions it would be extremely difficult in the first instance to determine which were the most desirable types, except in the most general way and even if a satisfactory selection were finally made, it would be in a democracy a virtual impossibility to limit by law the right to breed to a privileged and chosen few.
Experiments in limiting reproduction to the undesirable classes were unconsciously made in mediaeval Europe under the guidance of the church. After the fall of Rome social conditions were such that all those who loved a studious and quiet life were compelled to seek refuge from the violence of the times in monastic institutions and upon such the church imposed the obligation of celibacy and thus deprived the world of offspring from these desirable classes.
In the Middle Ages, through persecution resulting in actual death, life imprisonment and banishment, the free thinking, progressive and intellectual elements were persistently eliminated over large areas, leaving the perpetuation of the race to be carried on by the brutal, the servile and the stupid. It is now impossible to say to what extent the Roman Church by these methods has impaired the brain capacity of Europe. No better method of eliminating the genius producing strains of a nation could be devised and if such were its purpose the result was eminently satisfactory, as is demonstrated by the superstitious and unintelligent Spaniard of to-day. A similar elimination of brains and ability took place in northern Italy, in France and in the Low Countries, where hundreds of thousands of Huguenots were murdered or driven into exile.
Under existing conditions the most practical and hopeful method of race improvement is through the elimination of the least desirable elements in the nation by depriving them of the power to contribute to future generations. It is well known to stock breeders that the color of a herd of cattle can be modified by continuous destruction of worthless shades and of course this is true of other characters. Black sheep, for instance, have been practically obliterated by cutting out generation after generation all animals that show this color phase, until in carefully maintained flocks a black individual only appears as a rare sport.
Mickey Meadows said:
“I don’t know where the revolution will start, but I do feel sure that it will have to be won in America. Fights have to won where the enemy is strongest.”
Fender replied:
“The revolution will start in either central—Hungary, Romania, Austria—or southern—Greece, Italy—Europe. In my opinion, anyway.”
Below, part of Gospel Fictions’ third chapter, “Nativity legends” by Randel Helms (ellipsis omitted between unquoted passages):
Two of the four canonical Gospels—Matthew and Luke—give accounts of the conception and birth of Jesus. John tells us only of the Incarnation—that the Logos “became flesh”—while Mark says nothing at all about Jesus until his baptism as a man of perhaps thirty. Either Mark and John know nothing about Jesus’ background and birth, or they regard them as unremarkable.
Certainly Mark, the earliest Gospel, knows nothing of the Annunciation or the Virgin Birth. It is clear from 3:20-21 that in Mark’s view the conception of Jesus was accompanied by no angelic announcement to Mary that her son was to be (in Luke’s words) “Son of the Most High” and possessor of the “throne of David” (Luke 1:32 NEB [New English Bible]).
According to Mark, after Jesus had openly declared himself Son of Man (a heavenly being, according to Daniel 7:13), his family on hearing of this “set out to take charge of him. ‘He is out of his mind,’ they said.” Surely Jesus’ mother and brothers (so identified in Mark 3:31) would not have regarded Jesus’ acts as signs of insanity if Mark’s Mary, like Luke’s, had been told by the angel Gabriel that her son would be the Messiah.
But Mark’s ignorance of Jesus’ conception, birth, and background was no hindrance to the first-century imagination. Many first-century Jewish Christians did feel a need for a Davidic messiah, and at least two separate groups responded by producing Davidic genealogies for Jesus, both to a considerable extent imaginary and each largely inconsistent with the other. One of each was latter appropriated by Matthew and Luke and repeated, with minor but necessary changes, in their Gospels. Each genealogy uses Old Testament as its source of names until it stops supplying them or until the supposed messianic line diverges from the biblical. After that point the Christian imaginations supplied two different lists of ancestors of Jesus.
Why, to show that Jesus is “the son of David,” trace the ancestry of a man who is not his father? The obvious answer is that the list of names was constructed not by the author of Matthew but by earlier Jewish Christians who believed in all sincerity that Jesus had a human father. Such Jewish Christians were perhaps the forbears of the group known in the second century as the Ebionites.
The two genealogies in fact diverge after David (c. 1000 B.C.) and do not again converge until Joseph. It is obvious that another Christian group, separate from the one supplying Mathew’s list but feeling an equal need for a messiah descended from David, complied its own genealogy, as imaginary as Mathew’s in its last third. And like Mathew’s genealogy, it traces the Davidic ancestry of the man who, Luke insists, is not Jesus’ father anyway, and thus is rendered pointless.
Moreover, according to Luke’s genealogy (3:23-31) there are forty-one generations between David and Jesus; whereas according to Mathew’s, there are but twenty seven. Part of the difference stems from Mathew’s remarkably careless treatment of his appropriated list of names.
Thus we have a fascinating picture of four separate Christian communities in the first century. Two of them, Jewish-Christian, were determined to have a messiah with Davidic ancestry and constructed genealogies to prove it, never dreaming that Jesus could be thought of as having no human father.
But gentile Christians in the first century, who came into the new religion directly from paganism and were already infected with myths about licentious deities, had a much different understanding of what divine paternity meant. Plutarch speaks for the entire pagan world when he writes, in Convivial Disputations, “The fact of the intercourse of a male with mortal women is conceded by all,” though he admits that such relations might be spiritual, not carnal. Such mythology came with pagans converted to Christianity, and by the middle of the first century, Joseph’s paternity of Jesus was being replaced by God’s all over the gentile world.
“The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and he shall be called Emmanuel,” a name which means “God is with us.” (Matthew 1:20-23)
The Septuagint, from which Matthew quotes, uses, at Isaiah 7:14, parthenos (physical virgin) for the Hebrew almah (young woman) as well as the future tense, “will conceive,” though Hebrew has no future tense as such. Modern English translations are probably more accurate in reading (as does the New English Bible), “A young woman is with child.” We can scarcely blame the author of Matthew for being misguided by his translation (though Jews frequently ridiculed early Christians for their dependence on the often-inaccurate Septuagint rather than the Hebrew). We can, however, fault him for reading Isaiah 7:14 quite without reference to its context—an interpretative method used by many in his time and ours, but a foolish one nonetheless. Any sensible reading of Isaiah, chapter seven, reveals its concern with the Syrio-Israelite crisis of 734 B.C. (the history of which appears in I Kings 16:1-20).
(Jesus’ real father? According to a malicious, early Jewish story, Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Pantera. The name is so unusual that it was thought to be an invention until this first-century tombstone came to light in 1859; for the Latin inscription see below.)
It is clear, however, that though the mistranslated and misunderstood passage in Isaiah was Matthew’s biblical justification for the Virgin Birth, it was not the source of the belief (indeed Luke presents the Virgin Birth without reference to Isaiah). The doctrine originated in the widespread pagan belief in the divine conception upon various virgins of a number of mythic heroes and famous persons in the ancient world, such as Plato, Alexander, Perseus, Asclepius and the Dioscuri.
Matthew writes that Joseph, having been informed in his dream, “had no intercourse with her until her son was born” (Matt. 1:25). Luke gives us a different myth about the conception of Jesus, in which the Annunciation that the messiah is to be fathered by God, not Joseph, is made to Mary rather than to her betrothed. Embarrassed by the story’s clear implicit denial of the Virgin Birth notion, Luke or a later Christian inserted Mary’s odd question [“How can this be, since I know not a man?”], but the clumsy interpolation makes hash of Jesus’ royal ancestry.
(The inscription reads: “Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera of Sidon, aged 62, a soldier of 40 years’ service, of the 1st cohort of archers, lies here”; only “Abdes” is a Semitic name.)
In due course, Jesus was born, growing up in Nazareth of Galilee, a nationality different from the Judean inhabitants of Jerusalem and its near neighbor, Bethlehem. After Jesus’ death, those of his followers interested in finding proof of his messiahnship in the Old Testament worked a Christian reinterpretation of Micah 5:2 concerning the importance of Bethlehem as the birthplace of David and his dynasty:
You, Bethlehem in Ephrathah, small as you are to be among Judah’s clans, out of you shall come forth a governor for Israel, one whose roots are far back in the past, in days gone by.
That is, the one who restores the dynasty will have the same roots, be of the same ancestry, as David of Bethlehem. Prophesying, it would appear, during the Babylonian exile, Micah (or actually a sixth-century B.C. interpolator whose words were included in the book of the eight-century B.C. prophet) hoped for the restoration of the Judaean monarchy destroyed in 586 B.C.
But since some first-century Christians did read Micah 5:2 as a prediction of the birthplace of Jesus, it became necessary to explain why he grew up in Nazareth, in another country, rather than Bethlehem. At least two different and mutually exclusive narratives explaining this were produced: one appears in Matthew, the other in Luke.
Matthew has it that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem when Jesus was born, and continued there for about two years, fleeing then to Egypt. They returned to Palestine only after Herod’s death. For fear of Herod’s son, they did not resettle in Bethlehem. But moved rather to another country, Galilee, finding a new home in Nazareth.
Luke, on the other hand, writes that Mary and apparently Joseph lived in Nazareth, traveling to Bethlehem just before Jesus’ birth to register for a tax census. They left Bethlehem forty days later to visit the temple in Jerusalem for the required ritual of the first-born, returning then to their hometown of Nazareth.
Examination of these two irreconcilable accounts will give us a good picture of the creative imaginations of Luke, Matthew, and their Christian sources.
In most of Matthew’s Gospel, the major source of information about Jesus is the Gospel of Mark (all but fifty-five of Mark’s verses appear in Matthew, either word-for-word or with deliberate changes). But Mark says nothing about Jesus’ birth. When one favorite source fails him, Matthew inventively turns to another—this time to the Old Testament, read with a particular interpretative slant, and to oral tradition about Jesus, combining the two in a noticeably uneasy way.
We must remember that for the Christian generation that produced our Gospels, the Bible consisted only of what Christians now called the Old Testament, and a particular version thereof, the Greek Septuagint. But before they wrote the New Testament, Christians created another entirely new book, the Old Testament, turning the Septuagint into a book about Jesus by remarkably audacious and creative interpretation. Meanings it had held for generations of Jews, its historical and poetic content especially, ceased to exist; it became not a book about the past but about its own future.
Of course, other groups such as the Qumran sect also read the Bible oracularly, but Christians specialized this technique, finding oracles about Jesus of Nazareth. If a passage in the Septuagint could be read as a prediction of an event in the life of Jesus, then the event must have happened. Thus, if Micah were understood to mean that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, then Jesus must have been born there, no matter what his real hometown. But as it happens, the Bethlehem birth story, dependent upon the Christian interpretation of Micah, and the magi-and-star legend, dependent upon Hellenistic and Jewish oral tradition, fit together very uneasily. The story of the magi (“astrologers” is a more meaningful translation) says that “the star which they had seen at its rising went ahead of them until it stopped above the place where the child lay” (Matt 2:9).
In all the stories, the astrologers point to a special star, symbol of the arrival of the new force (Israel, Abraham, Jesus). Says Balaam: “A star shall rise [anatelei astron] out of Jacob, a man shall spring out of Israel, and shall crush the princes of Moab” (Num. 24:17 LXX). The astrologers in Matthew likewise point to a star: “We observed the rising of his star” (Matt. 2.2).
Now the source of the story of the king (Nimrod, Herod) who wants to kill the infant leader of Israel (Abraham, Jesus) shifts to the account of Moses in Exodus, the classic biblical legend of the wicked king (Pharaoh) who wants to slay the new leader of Israel (Moses). Indeed, the story of Moses in the Septuagint provided Matthew with a direct verbal source for his story of the flight into Egypt. As Pharaoh wants to kill Moses, who then flees the country, so Herod wants to kill Jesus, who is then carried away by his parents. After a period of hiding for the hero in both stories, the wicked king dies:
And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, “Go, depart into Egypt, for all that sought thy life are dead” (tethnekasi gar pantes hoi zetountes sou ten psychen—Ex: 4:19 LXX).
When Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel for those who sought the child’s life are dead” (tethnekasin gar hoi zetountes ten psychen tou paidiou—Matt 2:20).
Of course, Moses flies from Egypt to Midian, while the Holy Family flees to Egypt through Midian.
* * *
“This was to fulfill the words spoken through the prophets: ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’” (Matt. 2:23). There is, however, no such passage in all the Old Testament. Matthew had apparently vaguely heard that such a verse was in the “prophets,” and since he really needed to get the Holy Family from the supposed birthplace to the known hometown, he reported the fulfillment but left the biblical reference unspecified.
Like Matthew, Luke faced the same problem of reconciling known Nazarene upbringing with supposed Bethlehem birth. His solution, however, was entirely different, and even less convincing. Whereas Matthew has the Holy Family living in Bethlehem at the time of the birth and traveling to Nazareth, Luke has them living in Nazareth and traveling to Bethlehem in the very last stages of Mary’s pregnancy. Though Luke 1:5 dates the birth of Jesus in the “days of Herod, king of Judaea,” who died in 4 B.C., he wants the journey from Galilee to Bethlehem to have occurred in response to a census called when “Quirinius was governor of Syria.”
As historians know, the one and only census conducted while Quirinius was legate in Syria affected only Judaea, not Galilee, and took place in A.D. 6-7, a good ten years after the death of Herod the Great. In his anxiety to relate the Galilean upbringing with the supposed Bethlehem birth, Luke confused his facts. Indeed, Luke’s anxiety has involved him in some real absurdities, like the needless ninety-mile journey of a woman in her last days of pregnancy—for it was the Davidic Joseph who supposedly had to be registered in the ancestral village, not the Levitical Mary.
Worse yet, Luke has been forced to contrive a universal dislocation for a simple tax registration. Who could imagine the efficient Romans requiring millions in the empire to journey scores of hundreds of miles to the villages of millennium-old ancestors merely to sign a tax form!
Needless to say, no such event ever happened in the history of the Roman Empire.
Originally titled:
“Breivik: A Strange New Respect”
My initial reaction to Anders Berhing Breivik’s killing spree on July 22, 2011 was largely anger, because I feared that his actions would harm not just Norwegian ethno-nationalism but white nationalism around the world.
I was relieved to learn that Breivik was a product of the Jewish-controlled Counter-Jihadist movement, which eschews racial nationalism and builds a case against the Muslim colonization of Europe on “Judeo-Christian” religious and cultural grounds. I was quite content to let them take the heat. But of course both our enemies and our chosen audience are none too concerned about such fine distinctions.
I also, frankly, took a visceral dislike to Breivik, who struck me as a creepy, narcissistic dork.
However, since Breivik went on trial last month, I have found a strange new respect for him. He has comported himself in a dignified manner and made a forceful, intelligent, well-argued case for his views and actions. His only real gaffe has been to insist on the existence of his make-believe Knights Templar organization.
By the end of the first week, the trial was being pulled from front pages around the world, for the simple reason that Breivik was making too much sense to too many people.
Breivik admits to the killings. But he demands to be acquitted on the grounds of what is essentially ethnic self-defense. Based on news coverage, machine translations of trial transcripts posted on the internet, particularly at Tanstaafl’s Age of Treason and Attack on the Labor Party, and our own Andrew Hamilton’s translation of Breivik’s Opening Statement on the second day of his trial, the rationale for Breivik’s attack and his defense is the following.
The Norwegian Labor Party and its allies in the press are primarily responsible for imposing non-white immigration on Norway and for stigmatizing and silencing Norwegian opposition. The Labor Party has imposed multiculturalism without a popular referendum. Their policies have led to the rape, murder, brutalization, and ethnic displacement of Norwegians by non-white immigrants—crimes to which the Norwegian establishment, including the media, has responded with lies, cover-ups, and psychological warfare against Norwegians, labeling them “racist” and “xenophobic” and denigrating their culture and traditions.
Since, moreover, these non-white immigrants are far more prolific than Norwegians, who are taxed to subsidize the invaders, the long term consequence of the Labor Party’s policies is the destruction of Norwegians as a distinct people.
Although Breivik does not, to my knowledge, use the term, this is actually genocide as defined by the United Nations, which holds that genocide is not merely the outright murder of a people, but the creation of conditions that make its long term survival as a people impossible.
Thus the Norwegian Labor Party and its allies have imposed a genocidal regime on Norway. And if there are any absolutes in the world today, the moral rectitude of resisting genocide is chief among them.
Under international law, the leaders of the Norwegian Labor Party, as well as their collaborators, should be removed from power and tried and punished for genocide. But dissenting voices about multiculturalism are silenced, so rational debate and peaceful political change are impossible. As Breivik says in his Opening Statement:
More and more cultural conservatives realize that the democratic struggle is pointless. It is not possible to win when no real freedom of speech exists. As more realize this in the coming decades it is a short path to the weapon. When a peaceful revolution is impossible, a violent revolution is the only possibility.
Thus, Breivik planned and executed his attacks. The purpose of the attacks appears to be fourfold.
First, Breivik wished to punish people in the Labor Party who were responsible for instituting anti-Norwegian genocide. He failed at this, because most of his victims were innocent bystanders, low-level functionaries, and youth activists.
Second, Breivik wished to publicize his 1518 page manifesto, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, a compendium of Counter-Jihadist writings. In this, he was wildly successful.
It is unfortunate, however, that his manifesto was such a vast and indigestible data-dump. If it had been a slender, concise work, like The Communist Manifesto or the Unabomber’s Industrial Society and Its Future, it would have had a far greater impact, because it would actually have been read by far more people.
Furthermore, although Breivik did not expect to survive his attack, he has used his imprisonment and trial to refine his message and garner new publicity. At this, he has been extremely successful.
Third, Breivik hoped to inspire imitators, perhaps even someone who will actually bring into existence the fictional Knights Templar order outlined in his manifesto. To my knowledge, he has not yet succeeded in this aim. But it seems inevitable, given enough time, that others will follow Breivik’s example.
Fourth, Breivik hoped to increase political tension and polarization, perhaps even provoking a crackdown on moderate nationalists, including the various democratic nationalist parties that are actually making some progress in Europe. This, of course, is what I fear the most, and I find it especially galling that Breivik intended this outcome. His rationale is that such a crackdown will radicalize nationalists to take up arms.
But if one is going to polarize the political field in order to empty the middle ground by forcing moderates to the extremes, one needs to give them somewhere else to go—somewhere real, not a fantasy order of Knights Templar elaborated with all the detail one would expect from someone who spent countless hours in online role-playing games. Otherwise, polarizing the field will only lead right-leaning moderates to give up entirely.
Furthermore, the existence of moderate shades of political opinion in nationalist circles actually provides channels of influence bridging the gap between the mainstream and the radical fringe. Radicals can actually utilize this moderate infrastructure to influence and radicalize people who might otherwise be unavailable to them.
Finally, although nationalists today labor under huge handicaps, we still enjoy some freedom of speech and association, and we benefit far more from them than we would from the possible radicalizing effects of a real crackdown.
Even though Breivik is stridently anti-Nazi and anti-Communist, his basic political model shares much with the Old Right and the Old Left. He hoped to create an armed, conspiratorial, revolutionary party (in the form of an initiatic knightly order) as a vehicle for halting and reversing the Islamic colonization of Europe.
From a New Right perspective, Breivik’s overall strategy is counter-productive. Our race will not be saved by armed struggle, but by the transformation of consciousness and culture. The Norwegian Labor Party did not come to power by force of arms, but because the New Left laid the intellectual and cultural groundwork. For the New Right to do the same, we need to maintain freedom of speech and association and learn to use the infrastructure of the political mainstream to spread our message outward and draw people and resources in a more radical direction.
It is necessary for the New Right to draw a bold, clear line between our approach and Old Right approaches like Breivik’s, because his approach does not compliment ours but fundamentally undermines it.
As for Breivik’s rationale for violence, he claims that indigenous peoples have special rights to their homelands, which entitle them to resist invaders with violence. It is a principle of ethnic self-defense. It is true that indigenous peoples have the right to ethnic self-defense. But surely that right extends to all peoples. All peoples have the right to resist genocide by all necessary means, including violence. Morally speaking, there is simply no valid argument against political violence per se, particularly in resistance to genocide. The justification of a particular act of violence depends entirely upon whether or not it actually is necessary to serve a moral end.
The weakness of Breivik’s case is not the moral premise, but the choice of his targets: If he had killed the actual leadership of Norway’s Labor Party, or the leaders of the Norwegian press—as opposed to people as young as 14—his defense might actually hold water. It is really shocking that Breivik put so much thought and planning into his acts, but didn’t think just a bit more about his targets. He chose the wrong targets, both from the point of view of their culpability and from the point of view of publicity, of propaganda of the deed.
Breivik was not indifferent to innocent life. But some “collateral damage,” i.e., killing of the innocent, is necessary and unavoidable even in just struggles. Breivik tried to minimize such deaths. His error was in ascribing culpability to young people whose only crime may have been to believe the multicultural propaganda they were steeped in from birth.
The leaders of the Norwegian Labor Party have taken one of Europe’s most homogeneous, harmonious, and happy societies and colonized it with hostile, fast-breeding aliens. Since racially, culturally, and religiously diverse peoples inevitably end up hating and killing one another when forced to coexist within the same system, the Norwegian Labor Party has responded to these tensions by hushing up both crimes and criticism. They created a boiling cauldron of social and psychological turmoil. Then they clamped a lid down on it. Then they were shocked—shocked!—that the whole thing exploded in their faces. First and foremost, Breivik needs to be seen as the inevitable consequence of the Labor Party’s policies.
The establishment obviously wished to use the Breivik trial to stigmatize ethnonationalist sentiments. But Breivik was making too much sense, so they are drawing a veil of censorship over the proceedings. In short, they are doing the very thing that made Breivik’s rampage necessary in the first place. Will they ever learn?
I grew up around a lot of Norwegian Americans in the Pacific Northwest. They are known for being taciturn and for not expressing their feelings. I still remember the only Norwegian joke I ever heard: “Did you hear the one about the Norwegian man who loved his wife so much that he almost told her?” Nordics don’t just keep back positive emotions, either. They are notorious for suffering a long time in silence, bottling up their anger, until, eventually, there is an explosion and someone goes Viking.
There will be more Breiviks. Of course the multiculturalists will merely blame Breivik for that. But the truth is that Breivik himself was merely a product of the hatred and violence that multiculturalism predictably brings. The Norwegian Labor Party is responsible for all of the violence caused by their policies, including the inevitable violence by Norwegians who get fed up and finally fight back. That includes Breivik. Primarily he needs to be seen as a victim of an evil system. (Breivik, of course, bears some responsibility for his acts. These were not crimes of passion but the products of lengthy, meticulous premeditation.)
Yet in the end, for all of his crimes and mistakes, I cannot judge Breivik too harshly. He is an awakened white man, and those are all too rare. He was a loyal Aryan, and ultimately that matters more than anything else. Yes, he committed crimes. But he committed them out of love.
Granted, when Breivik awakened he fled one form of Jewish ideology for another, namely the Counter-Jihad movement. But the whole reason that such false opposition groups exist is to deceive, deflect, and delay awakened whites. Still, many whites eventually see through them. And, as Breivik’s Opening Statement indicates, since his arrest, his thinking has evolved in the direction of explicit ethnonationalism. Given time, he might even evolve toward a consistent New Right outlook.
Breivik is going to spend many years in prison. If I could whisper to the Norns, this is the wyrd I would have them spin. I hope he continues his intellectual evolution in a New Right trajectory, renouncing violence and emphasizing intellectual and cultural strategies of change (the only strategies that will be available to him, in any case). I hope that he comments on Norwegian and international affairs and develops a following. Surely events in the coming decades will only argue in his favor. More and more Norwegians—and Europeans around the world—will come to sympathize with his outlook.
He will become a pundit, a guru, a cult figure. People will rifle through his garbage for relics. Women will want to bear his children. His face will end up on t-shirts, just like Che Guevara. And when he gets out of prison, who knows, perhaps Breivik will follow the path of rehabilitated ex-terrorists like Nelson Mandela and Menachem Begin. Perhaps he will end up a Prime Minister or a Nobel Peace Prize winner. He would not be the first to have used dynamite along the way.
Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race, published in 1916, is a classic in race studies. Below, a few excerpts from the second chapter, “The Physical Basis of Race” (no ellipsis added):
These physical characters are to all intents and purposes immutable and they do not change during the lifetime of a language or an empire. The skull shape of the Egyptian fellaheen, in the unchanging environment of the Nile Valley, is absolutely identical in measurements, proportions and capacity with skulls found in the predynastic tombs dating back more than six thousand years.
There exists today a widespread and fatuous belief in the power of environment, as well as of education and opportunity to alter heredity, which arises from the dogma of the brotherhood of man, derived in its turn from the loose thinkers of the French Revolution and their American mimics. Such beliefs have done much damage in the past and if allowed to go uncontradicted, may do even more serious damage in the future. Thus the view that the Negro slave was an unfortunate cousin of the white man, deeply tanned by the tropic sun and denied the blessings of Christianity and civilization, played no small part with the sentimentalists of the Civil War period and it has taken us fifty years to learn that speaking English, wearing good clothes and going to church do not transform a Negro into a white man. Nor was a Syrian or Egyptian freedman transformed into a Roman by wearing a toga and applauding his favorite gladiator in the amphitheatre. Americans will have a similar experience with the Polish Jew, whose dwarf stature, peculiar mentality and ruthless concentration on self-interest are being engrafted upon the stock of the nation.
Recent attempts have been made in the interest of inferior races among our immigrants to show that the shape of the skull does change, not merely in a century, but in a single generation. In 1910, the report of the anthropological expert of the Congressional Immigration Commission gravely declared that a round skull Jew on his way across the Atlantic might and did have a round skull child; but a few years later, in response to the subtle elixir of American institutions as exemplified in an East Side tenement, might and did have a child whose skull was appreciably longer; and that a long skull south Italian, breeding freely, would have precisely the same experience in the reverse direction. In other words the Melting Pot was acting instantly under the influence of a changed environment.
What the Melting Pot actually does in practice can be seen in Mexico, where the absorption of the blood of the original Spanish conquerors by the native Indian population has produced the racial mixture which we call Mexican and which is now engaged in demonstrating its incapacity for self-government. The world has seen many such mixtures and the character of a mongrel race is only just beginning to be understood at its true value.
It must be borne in mind that the specializations which characterize the higher races are of relatively recent development, are highly unstable and when mixed with generalized or primitive characters tend to disappear. Whether we like to admit it or not, the result of the mixture of two races, in the long run, gives us a race reverting to the more ancient, generalized and lower type. The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro; the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew.
In the crossing of the blond and brunet elements of a population, the more deeply rooted and ancient dark traits are prepotent or dominant. This is matter of every-day observation and the working of this law of nature is not influenced or affected by democratic institutions or by religious beliefs. Nature cares not for the individual nor how he may be modified by environment. She is concerned only with the perpetuation of the species or type and heredity alone is the medium through which she acts.
Eye color is of very great importance in race determination because all blue, gray or green eyes in the world today came originally from the same source, namely, the Nordic race of northern Europe. This light colored eye has appeared no-where else on earth, is a specialization of this subspecies of man only and consequently is of extreme value in the classification of European races. Dark colored eyes are all but universal among wild mammals and entirely so among the primates, man’s nearest relatives. It may be taken as an absolute certainty that all the original races of man had dark eyes.
One subspecies of man and one alone specialized in light colored eyes. This same subspecies also evolved light brown or blond hair, a character far less deeply rooted than eye color, as blond children tend to grow darker with advancing years and populations partly of Nordic extraction, such as those of Lombardy, upon admixture with darker races lose their blond hair more readily than their light colored eyes. In short, light colored eyes are far more common than light colored hair. In crosses between Alpines and Nordics, the Alpine stature and the Nordic eye appear to prevail.
Blond hair also comes everywhere from the Nordic subspecies and from nowhere else. Whenever we find blondness among the darker races of the earth we may be sure some Nordic wanderer has passed that way. When individuals of perfect blond type occur, as sometimes in Greek islands, we may suspect a recent visit of sailors from a passing ship but when only single characters remain spread thinly, but widely, over considerable areas, like the blondness of the Atlas Berbers or of the Albanian mountaineers, we must search in the dim past for the origin of these blurred traits of early invaders.
The range of blond hair color in pure Nordic peoples runs from flaxen and red to shades of chestnut and brown. The darker shades may indicate crossing in some cases, but absolutely black hair certainly does mean an ancestral cross with a dark race—in England with the Mediterranean race.
It must be clearly understood that blondness of hair and of eye is not a final test of Nordic race. The Nordics include all the blonds, and also those of darker hair or eye when possessed of a preponderance of other Nordic characters. In this sense the word “blond” means those lighter shades of hair or eye color in contrast to the very dark or black shades which are termed brunet. The meaning of “blond” as now used is therefore not limited to the lighter or flaxen shades as in colloquial speech.
In England among Nordic populations there are large numbers of individuals with hazel brown eyes joined with the light brown or chestnut hair which is the typical hair shade of the English and Americans. This combination is also common in Holland and Westphalia and is frequently associated with a very fair skin. These men are all of “blond” aspect and constitution and consequently are to be classed as members of the Nordic race.
In Nordic populations the women are, in general, lighter haired than the men, a fact which points to a blond past and a darker future for those populations. Women in all human races, as the females among all mammals, tend to exhibit the older, more generalized and primitive traits of the past of the race. The male in his individual development indicates the direction in which the race is tending under the influence of variation and selection.
The color of the skin is a character of importance but one that is exceedingly hard to measure as the range of variation in Europe between skins of extreme fairness and those that are exceedingly swarthy is almost complete. The Nordic race in its purity has an absolutely fair skin and is consequently the white man par excellence.
Many members of the Nordic race otherwise apparently pure have skins, as well as hair, more or less dark, so that the determinative value of this character is uncertain.
There can be no doubt that the quality of the skin and the extreme range of its variation in color from black, brown, red, yellow to ivory-white are excellent measures of the specific or subgeneric distinctions between the larger groups of mankind but in dealing with European populations it is sometimes difficult to correlate the shades of fairness with other physical characters.
The Mediterranean race is everywhere marked by a relatively short stature, sometimes greatly depressed, as in south Italy and in Sardinia, and also by a comparatively light bony framework and feeble muscular development.
The Alpine race is taller than the Mediterranean, although shorter than the Nordic, and is characterized by a stocky and sturdy build. The Alpines rarely, if ever, show the long necks and graceful figures so often found in the other two races.
In some cases where these three European races have become mixed stature seems to be one of the first Nordic characters to vanish.
These four characters, skull shape, eye color, hair color and stature, are sufficient to enable us to differentiate clearly between the three main subspecies of Europe, but if we wish to discuss the minor variations in each race and mixtures between them, we must go much further and take up other proportions of the skull than the cephalic index, as well as the shape and position of the eyes, the proportions and shape of the jaws, the chin and other features.
The nose is an exceedingly important character. The original human nose was, of course, broad and bridgeless. This trait is shown clearly in newborn infants who recapitulate in their development the various stages of the evolution of the human genus. A bridgeless nose with wide, flaring nostrils is a very primitive character and is still retained by some of the larger divisions of mankind throughout the world. It appears occasionally in white populations of European origin but is everywhere a very ancient, generalized and low character.
The high bridge and long, narrow nose, the so-called Roman, Norman or aquiline nose, is characteristic of the most highly specialized races of mankind. While an apparently unimportant character, this feature is one of the very best clews to racial origin and in the details of its form, and especially in the lateral shape of the nostrils, is a race determinant of the greatest value.
The lips, whether thin or fleshy or whether clean-cut or everted, are race characters. Thick, protruding, everted lips are very ancient traits and are characteristic of many primitive races. A high instep also has long been esteemed an indication of patrician type while the flat foot is often the test of lowly origin.
The so-called red haired branch of the Nordic race has special characters in addition to red hair, such as a greenish cast of eye, a skin of delicate texture tending either to great clarity or to freckles and certain peculiar temperamental traits. This was probably a variety closely related to the blonds and it first appears in history in association with them.
While the three main European races are the subject of this book and while it is not the intention of the author to deal with the other human types, it is desirable in connection with the discussion of this character, hair, to state that the three European subspecies are subdivisions of one of the primary groups or species of the genus Homo which, taken together, we may call the Caucasian for lack of a better name.
Outside of the three European sub-species the greater portion of the genus Homo can be roughly divided into the Negroes and Negroids, and the Mongols and Mongoloids.
The former apparently originated in south Asia and entered Africa by way of the northeastern corner of that continent. Africa south of the Sahara is now the chief home of this race, though remnants of Negroid aborigines are found throughout south Asia from India to the Philippines, while the very distinct black Melanesians and the Australoids lie farther to the east and south.
The Mongoloids include the round skulled Mongols and their derivatives, the Amerinds or American Indians. This group is essentially Asiatic and occupies the centre and the eastern half of that continent.
A description of these Negroids and Mongoloids and their derivatives, as well as of certain aberrant species of man, lies outside the scope of this work.
