web analytics
Americanism Christendom New Testament Old Testament Protestantism Tom Sunic Universalism

Bicausal formula

Now that I have been translating articles and letters of the Spanish blogger Manu Rodríguez for The West’s Darkest Hour a thought arrived to my mind today.

Couldn’t the Protestant, specifically the Puritanical version of Christianity that the Early Founding Fathers brought to this continent be the perfect operating system, complete with an in-built bug, to undermine the Aryan spirit?

Judge it by yourselves my dear readers. It was the Yankees sans Jews the ones who horribly betrayed their kinsmen during the American Civil War on behalf of the Negroes: the seeds of what would happen big time in the next century with American betrayal of Germany on behalf of the Jews.

silly evangelical

After all it was the American Puritans, as Tom Sunic demonstrated in his latest book, the ones who introduced Old Testament (OT) values in the Low Culture: something that explains the runaway Zionism in the contemporary evangelical scene. If in addition to the Holy Book of the Jews subtly introduced to the Aryan psyche after the Reformation you add the New Testament’s (NT) non-ethnic but universal message, Love your neighbor, help the poor and disadvantaged, etc., the perfect recipe for Indo-European suicide has been formulated, right?

OT + NT = White suicide

If this interpretation of Western history is correct, Christianity in general, and Murka in particular, must burn to save whites from extinction.

Any objection to this reading of Western history (before jumping to the below thread please read at least this text by Sunic and this one by Rodríguez)?

29 replies on “Bicausal formula”

Any religion that says that sex (fertility) is sin, is a bad religion.

Any religion that is used to welcome the hoards of dangerous invaders in your lands is a bad religion.

Any religion that promotes pacifism in the face of extinction is a bad religion.

“Any religion that says that sex (fertility) is sin”

Well, uncontrolled fertility and unrestricted sex certainly are bad things; you end up with the current rotating polyandry system where the attractive women and the top 5-10% of men go at it without ever being constrained to actually form a family, and women are constantly tempted to divorce in hopes of trading up (and in fact are paid money by the state to do so). That way lies societal suicide.

Admittedly Christian churches do tend to lean rather too hard in the opposing direction; something like a joint cult of Aphrodite and Hera would not be a bad thing. It should be possible to celebrate sexual attraction in the context of long-lasting pair-bonds. In current society that seems to be generally taken as unthinkable; married life is assumed to be boring.

Isn’t this basically the same line of argument that Occidental Dissent has been developing for a while?

I won’t argue against it. I think a counterargument COULD be made, but I am not the person to make it.

If you have ever read any of Mencius Moldbug’s stuff, he talks quite a lot about Quakers being the essential source of modern liberal ideology, and has a good deal of primary source evidence to support his claims. Not quite the same thing as the Puritans, but very close cousins.

But the “bicausal formula” implicates the whole Christianity, not only the Quakers.

I don’t think WDH = OD for the simplest reason that Brad Griffin is a self-proclaimed Protestant admirer of Luther whose heart lies at Dixie; whereas I am an apostate with an horribler past than any movie story of Nazi concentration camps (and I blame my father’s Catholicism for this), and, currently, a NS admirer.


“After all it was the American Puritans, as Tom Sunic demonstrated in his latest book, the ones who introduced Old Testament (OT) values in the Low Culture: something that explains the runaway Zionism in the contemporary evangelical scene…”

I respectfully disagree. Though the Puritans did have some influence in spreading egalitarianism, they were a minor sect that appeared for a time and faded into obscurity. It was Cyrus Schofield, with his revisied bible that was key in changing the Christian view of Zionism and creating a pro-Zionist sub culture within Christianity.Schofield was a useful tool for Jewish Zionists who needed to create a Christian faction loyal to Zionism (“useful idiots”). Schofield was followed later by such Christian “celebrities” as Billy Graham, Pastor John Hagee and his ilk. The object was to create a large faction of Christians loyal to Israel and resulted in such sects as rapturists, dispensationalists, and finally Christian Zionists.
The Christian poison was designed in biblical times to undermine the morals of Whites and destroy their civilizations by pandering to our weaknesses. It was Saul of Tarsus (“Paul”) of biblical fame who did the most to spread the poison through the then known world. Originally a well educated Pharisee (and Roman citizen- though it is not known how his family gained Roman citizenship), he persecuted Christians with a passion. Later he supposedly experienced a “conversion” to Christianity and traveled the then known world from Judea to Asia Minor to Macedonia to Greece and even to Rome itself.(an incredible trek). He was obviously on a mission. Paul did more to spread this “message” to the world (of Whites) than any other biblical figure. He displayed a dogged, single minded purpose and energy that only a Jew can see through to the end. The poison started there, and grew to what it is today with Jewish help through the centuries.
As for Griffith, he is stuck in his fantasy of a “new Confederacy” and takes every opportunity to blame “Yankees” for the demise of the South. We do not need his kind of factionalism for our people, We do not need more division among Whites, but unity. The Yankees that he blames for the woes of the Southern US are a tiny remnant of the original founding stock of the country. Most (white) US citizens of today cannot trace their ancestry back any further than the early 1900’s when there was much (needed) White immigration to the US. Griffith is among those Southerners who are “proud” that they can trace their families have lived here for several hundred years. His is a form of White elitism, tribalism if you will and it makes no sense for the survival of our race. We desperately need to copy one Jewish trait- which is the source of their strength- and that is their racial unity. To a Jew, Jewishness comes first, and then there is nothing else. There is no “American Jew, German Jew, or Polish Jew in their eyes- they are all Jews regardless of where they happen to live. They help one another, give generously to Jewish causes and are very politically active. They have literally hundreds of organizations dedicated to helping each other. How many such organizations do we Whites have?.

Just curious if you have read Sunic’s book or at least my excerpts of it?

He is not alone in blaming the Early Founding Fathers for the philo-Zionist mess we have today. Have you read how Michael O’Meara blames the American Low Culture for our current malaise?

But yes: focusing exclusively on the US is rather myopic. As I told Rollory above, I blame the whole Christianity (not only Puritanism) for it. Again curious: did you read Manu’s latest essay translated here in WDH?

No, I did not read Sunic’s book, but yes I did read Manu’s “The God who unleashes and liberates” and it is an excellent essay. If I gave the impression that I am a “monocausalist”, then please believe that I am most certainly not. While I do believe that Jewish influence over Whites and Western Civilization is very powerful and had much to do with our present plight, I also blame our own (White) weaknesses, especially lack of racial unity as well. Many are the Whites who will sell their own into slavery for prestige or financial gain and who have done so in the past. Our biggest enemy is not the Jews, but our lack of character and our ethnic division. By this last I mean the unwillingness to embrace all Whites regardless of what language they may speak, or what governmental borders that they reside in as our racial brothers. This is where we need to emulate the Jews, since for them a Jew is a Jew, regardless of whether that Jew speaks Russian or Spanish, or whether or not he is an atheist, agnostic or Orthodox Jew- he is still a brother.Therein lies the strength of the Jewish people and there is nothing wrong with adopting a winning tactic.

Oh no: you never gave me any impression that you were pushing the single J hypothesis at all. Only that it would be good to take a look at my excerpts of Sunic’s book linked in the entry. Cheers!

To a Jew, Jewishness comes first, and then there is nothing else. There is no “American Jew, German Jew, or Polish Jew in their eyes- they are all Jews regardless of where they happen to live.

But the point is that Frenchmen, and Germans, and Slavs, and Anglo-Saxons, and Argentines, ARE NOT the same. Not remotely. Even within Europe, Greeks and Germans are being clearly demonstrated by current experimental evidence (the ongoing euro crisis) to be irreconcilably dissimilar. This is the result of the FACT of national differentiation – which is a good thing!

That the Jewish populations have intentionally avoided (so far as possible) differentiating into identifiable populations where they would not share loyalties is not relevant to the fact that whites DID.

You can’t make whites into a single nation when they simply are not one. Even in the USA, you can not make all whites in the USA into a single uniform population when they simply are not. New England whites and Southern whites behave in notably different fashions and have measurably different values. You can’t hand-wave that out of existence.

“Ought” is less important than “is”.

” You can’t hand-wave that out of existence.” – I never said that you could.

“You can’t make whites into a single nation when they simply are not one.”

-Jews are essentially a “single nation” even though their numbers span the world. Unity is something they have worked at over centuries, it is inculcated- they are not “born” with it. That is the true purpose of the Jewish “Schuls”. If the “single people” mentality” of Jews is possible for them, then why not for us? Perhaps the difference lies in the fact that Jews have always considered the rest of the world their foe. And possibly this is what is needed to bring Whites together (to recognize that we have a common enemy) to cooperate to their mutual good. I am not saying we should all be the same, but rather to regard fellow Whites as racial brothers. If you maintain that this is impossible for Whites while being (obviously) a reality for Jews, then you are saying that Jews are superior in that regard, and that we are doomed; for if we cannot come together to support one another as they do, then their superior ethnic cohesiveness, networking and cooperation will eventually result in our dissolution as a race.
“But the point is that Frenchmen, and Germans, and Slavs, and Anglo-Saxons, and Argentines, ARE NOT the same. Not remotely. Even within Europe, Greeks and Germans are being clearly demonstrated by current experimental evidence (the ongoing euro crisis) to be irreconcilably dissimilar. This is the result of the FACT of national differentiation – which is a good thing!”
Those same Frenchmen, Germans, Slavs etc., are being inundated with unwanted coloreds from Islamic nations as well as blacks from Africa and these are most certainly “irreconcilably different” from the indigenous White populations. As a matter of fact they are dangerous to those Whites; having cultures that are vastly different and in the case of the blacks, IQ’s that hover around 80 or so and are violent by nature.The only way to combat this attempted genocide of Whites is through cooperation between Whites. So, if the “national differentiation” that you find so laudable is not overcome at least to the degree that Whites can become a political force for their own good internationally, to preserve their culture (Western Civilization), a safe environment for their children and their way of life as well as our racial identity then those various nations of Whites will cease to exist as such in the not too distant future anyway.That is the whole goal of the Zionist “one-world” vision- for the Jewish people, we Whites of every nationality are “the cancer of the world” (Susan Sonntag).
That is why “ought” is far more important than “is”. With effort, we can adapt and survive.

“The only way to combat this attempted genocide of Whites is through cooperation between Whites.”

This reads as more extreme a claim than I think can be reasonably supported. The national governments of the European nations have at their disposal all the power they need to remove or eliminate the non-European populations in their midst, without depending on anybody else. What they do not have is the will. A grand alliance of white peoples isn’t required to counter that; what is needed is a lack of invasion-supporting pressure (cultural and political) on the individual governments.

If France for example were to elect a FN government, which started interning gypsies and systematically cutting off the cités from any transportation with the outside, there would be absolutely no problem that the French government and law enforcement couldn’t handle, on condition that France’s neighbors and the USA didn’t suddenly start screaming at them and threatening all sorts of consequences. Whether France does so before or after Denmark starts forcibly expelling Arabs is not particularly important; what matters is that the various governments have the freedom to take such action in response to internal conditions without worrying about external pressure. That’s why the shakiness of the international economic situation is so important.

Of course this may not happen in time, in which case white populations will be left to fight internal wars of reconquest, where again the situations will vary based on the country. Again, once the shackles from above get taken off, I have no doubt these wars can be won – but it depends on the dissolution of the international imperium first. It’s going to be hard enough changing the general mentality of openness to the other and welcoming the stranger without somehow trying to do it at the same time everywhere at once.

Bravo, George. That is the solution; that is the spirit. The white peoples need ‘desperately’ unit. We urgently need what MacDonald calls ‘group evolutionary strategies’. But before we have to overcome our individualism, our nationalism, and our ‘religious’ differences (we are dominated, divided and faced by the Jewish-messianic sects).
We need to recover our ancestral collective identities; our ethnic and cultural origins (pre-Christian). That is, our nature arya or Indo-European. People’s aryas (Greeks, Romans, Celts, Germans, Baltic, Slavic…) we have a common origin; we are ethnic and culturally related. Once we were a people.
The white people have to learn more about our history, our origins. We are creators of great cultures in the past, some extinct (Hittite, Vedic arya…), others destroyed (Greek, Roman, Germanic, Celtic, Slavic…) –due to the Christianization of our peoples. Indo-European comparative studies concerning to our different languages and cultures proclaim our unity. White pride has to take into account the linguistic-cultural legacy, this spiritual wealth (not only the race).
Our race, our lands, and our cultures. This is what we must protect, defend, and bequeath to the future.
Best regards

Thank you, Manu. I greatly enjoy reading your essays and articles here and I am so glad that Chechar translates them for us and posts them here.

Though he (Graham) MAY have agreed with Nixon on these tapes, do not forget that those tapes were heavily edited. Even if Graham was not as sympathetic to the Jews as other evangelists and outright Christian Zionist ministers, he was no friend to his own race of people.
Though I am not fond of quoting Wikipedia, I will do so here:

“Graham had shown little concern about segregation until the civil rights movement began to receive national attention in the early 1950s. Many of his early crusades were segregated. In response to the civil rights movement, Graham began to adjust his approach but was inconsistent, refusing to speak in some segregated auditoriums, while speaking to segregated audiences at others. In 1953 he tore down the ropes that organizers had erected to separate the audience into racial sections; he recounted in his memoirs that he told two ushers to leave the barriers down “or you can go on and have the revival without me.”


“Graham’s faith prompted his maturing view of race and segregation; he told a member of the KKK that integration was necessary primarily for religious reasons: “there is no scriptural basis for segregation”, Graham argued”

If nothing else, Graham was clearly a tool of the Zionist/Jewish power base (wittingly or unwittingly).
And interestingly: According to the official Billy Graham Evangelistic Assocaiation webpage Billy Graham recieved the
“The Torch of Liberty Plaque by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, in 1969 as well as the International Brotherhood Award from the National Conference of Christians and Jews, in 1971.

The Jews loved him because Graham went so far as advising evangelicals to miscegenate and marry the non-whites. Graham represents a paradigm why I believe that both his religion and his country must die to allow the remaining Anglo-Saxons live after the dollar collapses.

Chechar, how do you feel about Varg Vikernes and his thethuleanperspective blog? He openly criticizes Christianity and Judaism. He is a pagan.

At the recent Amren conference (attended by a couple of your heroes), they had a Jewish speaker. This is why your ‘bicausal’ call can sound ridiculous. Whilst in WN circles (0.01%), the j-issue may seem tedious, in MSM (99.99%), these people are seen as angels.

Also what do you think of Counter Currents and TOO shutting down comments? I don’t know why exactly but it does seem troubling.

Ok it’s an interesting debate but it hinges on the idea that ‘the Book’ is the main Trojan Horse. Well these quotes from the 1st century BC/AD paint a different picture.

Cicero: Softly, softly I want none but the Judges to hear me. The Jews have already gotten me into a fine mess as they have many other gentleman. I have no desire to furnish further grist for their mills.

Cicero: The Jews belong to a dark and repulsive force, one knows how numerous this clique is, how they stick together and what power they exercise through their unions. They are a nation of rascals and deceivers.

Cicero: The customs of that most criminal nation have gained such strength that they have now been received in all lands. The conquered have given laws to the conquerors.

Diodorus Siculus: Observe that Jews treated other people as enemies and inferiors. Usury is a practice of lending money at excessive interest rates, this has for centuries caused great misery and poverty for Gentiles. It has brought strong condemnation of the Jew.


Taking those into account, it might seem Wagner was closer to the truth in his Ring Cycle; that the main weapon is the ‘GOLD’ and their power to generate/procure wealth.

Whether you pray to Odin, Aphrodite or mathematical equations, none will protect you unless you can avoid Jewry’s traps.

Yes: Wagner is right but in his last book Sunic says that the Old Testament strongly influenced the American mercantilist ethos. You can see that even in Calvin and the Puritanical work ethic which consider that, if you can be rich and you avoid it, it’s a Sin.

Agree, though I’m no fan of Calvanists, to be fair, anyone can be tempted. My point was that those quotes could easily be spoken by Nixon or Henry Ford in our time. Instead, they were at the height of the Roman Empire and at a point when ‘Christianity’ didn’t even exist!!

The problem of corruption/evil is equally destructive, as you allude to in ‘Isildur’s Mess’.

Which quotes? Julian’s?

Politically, Christianity started two emperors before Julian, with Constantine. Julian tried to reverse that fatal trend… but like Hitler, Julian made a military blunder and apparently was assassinated.

Hunter’s Yankee monocausalism strikes again I see. He’s not wrong, but he’s not correct either. Union men had a strong distaste for pseudo-aristocrats importing hordes of Africans. Congoid chattel slavery was a serious economic threat to free White farmers who rightfully feared being replaced. Sounds familiar, no? 90% of Yankees fought to keep a free White Man’s Republic (however culturally judaized it may have been). The other 10% were evil industrialists or abolitionists. Their narrative assumed dominance after the Civil War. Fun fact: the Union army almost dissolved once the troops learned they were being sent to free negroes.

White People are too intelligent for our own good sometimes. Whereas 3rd world savages make Jesus their tribal god we take Christianity to its logical conclusion. This explains why it works for Slavs but not for Germanics. Protestantism is the de-paganized version of Christianity. All the good that Europeans injected into the faith was excised by them. In 2013 the Church favors White Genocide and 99.999% of Christians can offer no serious theological or ideological resistance.

Furthermore, we don’t have the time or the capability to create a “Positive” Christianity. Even if we could why should we? It’s about time we reject the entire Abrahamic memeplex. Children should be free to grow up with tales of heroism unfettered by metaphysical guilt.

“Abrahamic memeplex” – I should memorize this term (precisely what Manu Rodríguez says in my translated articles with other words).

Just curious: Have you tried to discuss with Hunter on the Yankee issue?

You won’t believe it, but y’all are missing the point.

1) Dispensationalism (what is contained in the Scofield Reference Libel) is, and always has been, considered a heresy.

Therefore, it is NOT Christianity.

2) The Dispensationalists are notorious for also being ‘antinomian’ (or lawless- while preaching that they are ‘specially blessed’ for denying the Mosaic Law – the idiotic ‘we’re under grace, not under law’ mantra.

Therefore, it is NOT Christianity.

3) Yet, the talmud (the ‘Jewish’ [sic] holy book, also seeks, by an almost innumerable number of contrasting/conflicting commentaries, to escape from God’s Law (i.e., Mosaic Law). Indeed, that is its very reason for being!

Therefore, it is NOT Christianity. (Nor, may I add, Judaism, either!)

4Neo-pseudo pagans also want to be free from the very same Law- note that comment that unbridled sex is what he (she?) is in favor of, when contrasted to “…Any religion that says that sex (fertility) is sin, is a bad religion.”

Therefore, it is NOT Christianity. (Nor is it truly paganism, as the Germanic tribes practiced it- see below)

What- instead- then, is the ‘royal law of liberty’? That which the Puritans, Pilgrims, and most of the 13 colonies of the New World eventually enshrined in their law codes. Blackstone’s commentaries are replete with Biblical allusions, because English Common Law is full of the same sorts of Biblical law commentary. Law is the foundation of all Western/White society. You cannot have one without the other. As Gary North has so bluntly put it, “There is no neutrality.’ You will either have God’s Law, and be God’s men, or have Satan’s (anti)law, and be like the Blacks, Asians, or Mestizos- lawless and immoral, and destined for destruction.

You can’t escape the reality that White, Western Man is a law-creature, and I would venture to say it is because we were created to be such- predestined, even. Even the comments on the ‘pagan’ Germans noted that they were monogamistic, and didn’t indulge in the pagan (levantine) practice of polygamy. What was that about burning someone at the stake for such? Didn’t I read it on this very blog?

Funny, but the Bible agrees with the Northern European model, and NOT the ‘semitic’ (if you’ll pardon my giving a name to those who are not truly ‘sons of Shem’) idea of a ‘harem.’

St. Paul IS an Apostle. He IS a ‘converted Jew’ in all but his ethnicity- because he was a pure son of the tribe of Benjamin, but a pimp for the ‘Jews,’ for he was a rabid defender of the ‘traditions of the Elders’ (i.e., Phariseeism) and did not understand that this, too, is not Biblical Law (Mosaicism) but what Christ called it… ‘man-made.’

Therefore, it is NOT Christianity- that ‘form of righteousness’ which Saul preached, prior to the Damascus Road event.

But Saul repented, and then preached the WHOLE Law of God [Matt. 5:17ff.] in its New Testament context; divorced from those rituals that had become traps for the justifiers of their sins. (i.e., circumcision, not eating pork, etc.) While the Church was to continue as a ‘holy people’ and to ‘come out from among them’ (the world/pagans) and ‘be ye separate,’ it was the Folk of Western Europe who became the Israel of God- which is what they are [Gal. 6:16]- both covnenantally, and (I would aver) racially, as well.

So, in saying you don’t want biblical law, or biblical morality, you are not ‘returning to your roots’, but are merely acting as consistent pseudo-Jews, spurning the Law of God, and the People of God for an idol. Isn’t it odd, that in disparaging the ‘jewishness’ of Xtianity, you end up being in the Jews’ camp, ideologically speaking, anyway?

At least the Law Code Christians, have both a religion, a Faith, a Law, and a racial awareness of why they are DIFFERENT from the Jews, and can compete with the Deicides on their own terms- while you lot have nothing….?

“Europe is the [Christian] faith; the Faith, Europe.” – H. Belloc.

You can’t have one, without the other, no matter how hard you try.
– Fr. John+

Comments are closed.