web analytics
Christendom Deranged altruism Judeo-reductionism Liberalism

The roots of ethno-masochism

By this time the single Jewish causers ought to have taken note that even well-known pro-white bloggers, who are either Christians or married to Christians, are openly saying that the root causes of our predicament are to be found in our most cherished traditions: religion and the ideals of secular liberalism.

The following are a couple of passages from “Death to Modernity—American Perspectives.” Alex Kurtagic responds to what some angry Christian commenters had said (in italics):


Saying that Christianity started liberalism is like saying the existence of truth is to blame for the distortion thereof.

Tracing the roots of an ideology to a religion’s metaphysics is not the same as blaming the ideology on the religion, or saying that the religion ‘started’ the ideology. The American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (Introduction and Preamble) also have roots in Christianity, yet no one would reasonably ‘blame’ the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence on Christianity or claim that Christianity ‘started’ them. Though known for their pagan outlook and critiques of Christianity, in the Manifesto the ENR merely points out the irony of Christian metaphysics’ having supplied—without that having been the intention—liberal theorists with the means to ‘liberate’ the individual from Christianity (along with anything transcendent or external to the individual).


What a crock!—blaming the evils of liberalism and the Leftist destruction of the U.S.A. on true Christianity. Liberalism sprang from secularism and both are ‘Jewish’ in origin.

Prior to emancipation, Jews were confined to ghettos and lived under civic and legal restrictions in Europe. By the time Jewish emancipation began in the 1790s, the Enlightenment (associated with secularism) was already in decline and giving way to Romanticism and the Counter-Enlightenment. In most places of Europe, Jews were not emancipated until the mid-1800s. On the other hand, Liberalism, like the Enlightenment, dates back to the 1600s. John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government was published in 1689, over a century before the first Jewish emancipation. Of the thinkers we associate with classical liberalism or the Enlightenment—John Locke, René Descartes, Isaac Newton, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, David Hume, Jeremy Bentham, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, and Baruch Spinoza—only Ricardo and Spinoza were Jews, but both were disowned. The rest were Christians.

What we can say is that many Jews since emancipation have seen the obvious benefit to Jews generally of their host societies being as secular as possible, and have accordingly campaigned in various ways to accelerate and maximise a process of secularisation that had already been begun by lapsed, indifferent, or apostate Christians. The idea of separation of Church and state is not Jewish, but, as Henry Ford describes in The International Jew, Jewish activists—who, obviously, were either preoccupied with real or perceived anti-Semitism or who wished to advance the interests of their ethnic group—used this idea to further their aim of removing Christianity from the public square.

Liberalism does not reject Christianity or religion tout court; indeed, the Founding Fathers of the United States, though liberals to a man, were Christians—not anti-Christian atheists, like the Marxists who subsequently critiqued liberalism—and conceived the United States as a Christian country intended for Christians. What liberalism attempts to do is to ‘liberate’ the individual from anything transcendent or outside of the individual. The existence and the will of God is then ascertained by rational means, and the process of ascertaining is left to the individual, who becomes the measure of all things. Dogmatic belief and subservience to tradition and authority are abandoned.

One must not conflate anti-Western Jewish intellectual movements with liberalism just because the former marshalled liberal ideas to serve Jewish ethnic aims. The abovementioned Jewish movements were of a liberal character because they originated in a liberal context. Had they originated in a non-liberal context, we would have seen Jewish movements of a very different kind. That these movements remain influential highlights the dominance of liberalism and the need to dismantle it, for, once dismantled, these movements will become unthinkable. And depending on what replaces liberalism, ethnic subversion, Jewish or otherwise, may or may not become more difficult. Ultimately, it depends on how we reshape the intellectual landscape—nothing is predetermined or guaranteed.

And this is Hunter Wallace’s latest entry at
Occidental Dissent, Derb on Ethnomasochism”:

Derb is trying to understand the roots of White ethnomasochism at VDARE and Takimag.

Seeing as how this is a historical inquiry and intersects our particular fixation on the American South, we can unequivocally say that evangelical Christianity and Enlightenment ideology are the roots of this phenomena, and that the anti-slavery movement was its first major flowering.

It doesn’t take much time wandering through what Europeans were doing in the Caribbean in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to figure out that they were operating in another moral universe.

By the late eighteenth century/early nineteenth century, you have your Abbé Raynals and John Browns who are fine specimens of this deranged type.

If I had artistic skills, I would draw a cartoon of a tree labeled “anti-slavery” with fruit hanging from its branches labeled “anti-racism” and “civil rights” and “feminism” and “free love” and “white guilt” and “communism” and “decolonization” and “white genocide.”

7 replies on “The roots of ethno-masochism”

I commented on that article, just alluding to my general disillusion with Christianity.

In my first response I was called a Jew and an atheist, due to calling Jesus a Semitic carpenter. TOO can be somewhat of a crowded, difficult place for useful comment discussion.

Its been a while since I was a youngin in sunday school, so maybe the carpenter thing was is a bit outdated.

And calling Jesus a semite I was merely pointing to a general middle-eastern descent. If I’m correct, Semite can be used in that regard and not particularly when speaking of Jews.

I could be mistaken though.

The Christians always take things very, very personally however. Such emotional ardor in their faith makes them very easy to be oriented against their best interests.

Your comment at TOO merits reposting here:

I simply do not understand how any White Nationalists can consider Christianity as an asset heading into the future.

I’ve never understood it; I’ve never been able to fathom why this archaic-eastern religion has this vice-grip on the consciousness of our racially aware and properly conservative whites.

I do not disown the lifestyles of many of those who follow the Christian path: I find their ethics to be a healthy example in this world of Jewish secular morality.

But going forward, towards our salvation? It will play no part.

The entirety of the modern world, down to the very fabric of its ideologies and economy, to its technology, to its very natural course of events has proven time and time again literally anathema to White racial survival.

Christianity was part of this from the start, slowly tearing European man’s mind from his blood and soil into the ethereal world of God. Even when he stopped believing in God literally, his mind never left the divine halls of religious thought, and today we merely ponder with secular abstractions over heavenly ones. A mind believing in a non-physical world greater than this one would only logically indifferent to the destruction of its physical host body.

This globalized and unnatural world, balanced by the necessities of the markets, flavored by the morals of old colonial Christianity, is our Frankenstein that we must destroy.

Christians, how do you even feel comfortable with this religion? In my bones, to my very core, it feels just so alien to our people. All those Europeans who were driven to bloodlust and intraracial murder: all for what, the interpretations of some Semitic prophets in the middle-east?


It feels like some cruel joke of fate upon our people, cruelly making the geographic nexus of this “European” religion in the lands of Jerusalem: so close to the equatorial people’s we so despise, so far from the homelands in which we were truly genetically born. An authentic European religion would have gods and prophets of our own blood and character, our holy places in the deep forests of Germany, or the frozen peaks of Norway.

Be imaginative; be free from the mythology and stories that hold no relevance to our people. Without the ability to imagine a new world beyond hang-ups of our modern world, I do not see hope in the creation of real myth. That is, the kind of myth that builds Nations and motivates men.

A Semitic carpenter who died on a cross for the sins of man will not motivate the White man to save his race. If anything, it will merely comfort him during its passing.

“Of the thinkers we associate with classical liberalism or the Enlightenment…”

Among the philosophers listed we note a conspicuous absence of Thomas Hobbes. Generally, Hobbes can be understood as the first systematic liberal political thinker, inasmuch as his thought was a conscious turning away from both Classical (Aristotelian) politics, and Scholastic metaphysics. Hobbes wholly embraced the “new science” that preceded the general Enlightenment, and to overlook his groundwork is to miss an important piece of the puzzle.

Certainly Hobbes wrote within a Christian context, but his thinking was hardly Christian in the sense that Scholasticism held forth. His notion of the social contract, a turning away from the “right of nature,” presumed autonomous individuals possessing not only equality of right, but an even more basic fundamental metaphysical equality.

Obviously Hobbes was not a liberal in the sense that we now enjoy the term, yet it cannot be denied that this Englishman was the philosophical progenitor of modern-day political liberalism (along with even earlier, as some have argued, Machiavelli).

Anyone who adopts Jesus’ philosophy as a practical guide for living is a moron. The whole point of Christianity is that it CAN’T be practically applied on this earth for, as the Church says, “Satan is the lord of this world”. Thus all human life partakes in ‘sin’. Jesus, recognizing this, taught his followers to look away from Life. If they see an incident of murder for example, they should “turn the other cheek”. Rather than condemning the murderer, they should “not judge”. In the meantime, they should “love their enemies”. Nature, with its inequality (evident in the structure of galaxies, the food chain, human society etc.), struggle, war, cruelty, is seen as Evil by the Church. As Nietzsche saw, Christianity in effect condemns Life.

Since Nature/Life is Evil and “Satan is the lord of this world”, Evil will always prevail. Any attempt to beat evil by doing ‘good’ can only result in more evil. An example of this is white Europeans trying to reverse evolution by helping less evolved Africans. The result of this has been more starvation in Africa, AIDS and massive crime in all White nations that blacks reside in. On top of it all, through attempting to practically apply Jesus teachings, the White race, the most gifted and productive race, is on the verge of extinction, meaning this world will soon become more barbaric and primitive. Evil, being Life, will always prevail in this Universe. As Jesus said “My Kingdom is not of this earth”. A Christian who is trying to interfere with this world by ‘doing good’ is either a naive fool or deliberate deciever, and the Church trying to be the vanguard of the Kingdom of God on earth is a conscious swindle.

A true Christian has repudiated this earth. They care not for ‘the ways of the world’. A Christian who cares about earthly things like his racial survial is not an honest Christian. Which brings me to my point. Since this desert hobos teachings are impossible to practically apply in this Universe because the Christian ‘good’ can remain a concept in the mind only as all our thoughts, words and actions are mired in ‘sin’, why are people even bothering to take this philosophy seriously as a guideline for living? It is only suited to small communities of other-wordly monks, not as a guideline for people, nations and races to live by. The Catholic Church has always known this but says nothing, that is why it is a power-grabbing swindle.

In a future all-White nation we should remove Christians from all seats of power and influence. I’m sure they won’t mind as they care not for ‘the ways of this world’. But in fact, I think the best thing to do with these Christians who condemn Life so much is to simply put them out their misery by removing from this earth thus sending them straight to their jew-God in ‘heaven’ where they can repent of this world and live a blissful Life in equality with their fellow Christians.

For the rest of us, we should recognize the giganitc jewish hoax known as Christianity for what it is and instead embrace the ‘evil’ earth and its pagan world of racial struggle, will to power and unending conflict, never again letting Jesus’ view on Life get in the way of anything we undertake.

In the words of Heinrich Himmler:

“We must settle accounts with this Christianity, this greatest of plagues that could have happened to us in our history, which has weakened us in every conflict. If our generation does not do it then it would I think drag on for a long time. We must overcome it within ourselves.”

Splendid Himmler quote.

But as Hitler said in his table talks, Christianity must die of natural death. There’s no need of persecution. Presently Christianity is in its red giant stage. I predict it will become a white dwarf by the next century, at least among the white peoples.

It is one of my favoured Himmler quotes. He says more about Christianity that can be found elsewhere.

Another quote I enjoy is from the National Reich Church’s journal Sigrune (1937):

“Jesus was a cowardly Jewish lout who had certain adventures during his years of indiscretion. He uprooted his disciples from blood and soil, and, at the wedding at Cana, loutishly flared up at his own mother. At the very end he insulted the majesty of death in an obscene manner.”

Ha. If only the National Socialist’s won the Second World War. We can continue their struggle today. The triumph of the White race, as well as sounding the death-knell for the Jews, should also sound the death-knell for Christianity among our race.

A natural death of Christianity would be the most effective, and our race can do without another brother’s conflict among non-christian whites and christian whites I guess. I just look forward to the end of that creed almost as much as I look forward to the demise of Jewry. Let’s hope the whole Christian/liberal/marxist judeo-thought for goyim’s consumption doesn’t take us out before we get the chance to phase it out.

The objectives of liberal theorists and philosophers have differed across various times, cultures, and continents. The diversity of liberalism can be gleaned from the numerous adjectives that liberal thinkers and movements have attached to the very term liberalism, including classical , egalitarian , economic, social , welfare-state, ethical, humanist , deontological, perfectionist, democratic, and institutional, to name a few.

Comments are closed.