by Ferdinand Bardamu
What has Christianity done for Europe?
Christianity is a violent, destructive, murderous cult. It is dangerous for the following reasons: 1.) the religion promotes the survival of the sick, the weak and the stupid at the expense of good racial hygiene. This drastically lowers population IQ and capacity for civilizational attainment, and; 2.) the cult relies on blind faith instead of rational persuasion, which has resulted in long periods of widespread chaos and bloodshed, especially during the Christianization of Europe. These dangers were even noticed by contemporary pagan writers, who immediately recognized the threat a triumphant Christianity would pose to the survival of Western culture.
Christianity never “civilized” or “domesticated” Europeans. On the contrary, Europeans were forced to endure a Neolithic existence when Christians were at the apogee of their power and influence. The church sent men of genius to monasteries or had them consecrated to the priesthood. This prevented them from passing on their genes, a significant dysgenic effect that lowered the collective European IQ. Only the pagan science and reason of classical antiquity could re-domesticate Europeans after 500 years of total intellectual darkness.
The church successfully defended Europe from invasion, argue some apologists, but nothing could be further from the truth. Charles Martel’s confiscation of church property to defend Europe from Moslem intruders was met with significant ecclesiastical opposition. If the church had succeeded in withholding the necessary funds, all Europe would have been reduced to a province of the Umayyad caliphate. Nevertheless, Martel was unable to pursue the Saracens across the Pyrenees and dislodge them from their Andalusian stronghold. The Moslems would continue their occupation of the Iberian Peninsula for 800 years, until their final expulsion by Ferdinand and Isabella in the late 15th century.
Southwestern France and Italy were periodically raided and sometimes controlled by Moslem invaders. The emirate of Sicily endured for over two centuries. Even after Norman conquest, a significant Moslem presence remained on the island. The Moslems of Sicily were finally expelled by the middle of the 13th century. The crusades to retake the Holy Land from the Saracens (1095-1291), a series of large-scale military operations under the joint leadership of papacy and feudal aristocracy, failed to achieve its primary objective. In 1204, Christian crusaders sacked Constantinople in an orgy of rape, pillage and murder. The crusaders caused so much damage that the Byzantines were unable to resist their Ottoman conquerors in 1453.
Christianity provided no adequate defense of Europe. The church only did enough to maintain herself as a viable institution. In the process, the church weakened Europe, making her ripe for conquest by the Umayyad and Ottoman caliphates.
Apologists tentatively acknowledge that although Christianity hindered scientific and technological progress, it still made “contributions” to fields as diverse as architecture and philosophy. On closer examination, these “contributions” are neither “Christian” nor worthy of being considered “contributions.” The great churches of the Middle Ages are frequently trotted out, but these have their origin in Roman building methods. The dome, the arch and the vault, the typical features of the medieval Romanesque style of architecture are all borrowed from the imperial Roman architecture of pre-Christian times. The basic architectural plan of most medieval churches is the Roman basilica, a public building reserved for official purposes. Even the Gothic style that supplanted Romanesque still employed architectural features of Roman origin. The ribbed vaulting that was typical of Gothic architecture was originally used in Vespasian’s Roman colosseum and by Hadrian in the construction of his Tibertine villa.
While acknowledging Romanesque as an “accomplishment,” the Christian religionist will conveniently ignore the almost total disappearance of Roman building methods from western Europe for almost 300 years. This was a direct result of the church’s active suppression of Western scientific and technical knowledge. From the completion of Theodoric’s mausoleum in Ravenna to the consecration of Aachen in 805, nothing of monumental significance was built in western Europe. During the intervening period, Europeans, like their Neolithic ancestors, had returned to the use of perishable materials for use in building.
Apologists for Christianity will mention Aquinas and scholasticism as the highpoints of not only medieval, but European intellectual development, even though Aquinas set European scientific and technological progress back by hundreds of years. Scholasticism was an object of ridicule and mockery during the Renaissance. Religionists mention the Christian “contribution” of the university, oblivious to the many institutions of higher learning that existed and even flourished in the ancient world. The first universities taught scholasticism, so they were the frontline in the Christian war against the pagan values of intellectual curiosity, love of progress for its own sake and empirical rationality.
In the Christian religious mind, science and technology are of Christian origin because the men doing the discovering and inventing during the Scientific Revolution were nominal Christians, like Galileo and Newton. This argument is just as absurd as arguing that the Greek invention of logic, rhetoric and mathematics were the result of Greek pagan theological beliefs because Aristotle and other ancient scientists and philosophers were pagans. No, these men were “Christians” because public avowals of atheism were dangerous in an age where even the most innocuous theological speculation could smear reputations and destroy careers. It is a glowing tribute to the courage and honesty of these men that they were able to abandon Christianity’s reliance on blind faith, often in the face of public censure, and consciously re-embrace the pagan epistemic values that produced the “Greek miracle” 2000 years before the Scientific Revolution.
Christian religionists claim that the New Testament, a collection of childish scribblings penned by semi-literate barbarians, is a great contribution to Western civilization. As has been pointed out for generations, even by other Christian religionists, the work is notorious for its use of bad grammar and unrefined literary style. Much of it was composed by Jews who were not even fluent in koine Greek. Overall, the New Testament is an inferior production compared to the meanest writers of Attic prose. Even St. Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, expressed contempt for the crude, unsophisticated literary style of the Bible. He preferred the elegant Latin of Cicero instead.
What has Christianity contributed to Europe? The answer is nothing! No art, culture, architectural monuments, science or technology. Christianity was a massive waste of European intellectual and physical potential. Furthermore, Christianity almost destroyed Europe.
The church discarded over 99% of ancient literature, including works on science, mathematics, philosophy, engineering and architecture. This was the largest campaign of literary censorship and suppression in history, an act of cultural and physical genocide that nearly severed medieval Europe from the great achievements of classical antiquity.
This was cultural genocide because the church nearly wiped out an entire civilization and culture; this was physical genocide because the church’s deliberate eradication of secular knowledge placed millions of lives in danger, unnecessarily subjecting them to the ravages of disease, war, famine and poverty.
Far from being largely benign, the Christian church is a power-mad religious mafia. It bears sole responsibility for perpetrating the greatest crimes in history against Europeans. How long shall the Christian church escape punishment for this criminal wrongdoing? No other religion has caused as much suffering and as much damage to Europe as this spiritual syphilis known as Christianity.
______ 卐 ______
Liked it? Take a second to support The West’s Darkest Hour.
6 replies on “Why Europeans must reject Christianity, 15”
Dear Cesar, dear readers,
it is helpful in our quest for truth to consider other viewpoints, especially if they come from sincere people.
Please be patient and listen twice to the following message from a man who has overcome Christianity.
Even though I strongly disagree with that man on some major issues, he proposes proven solutions for the survival of our race:
I wish you the best.
This is not the best video to show his proposal of solutions. Basically, Aryans should be living a simpler life away from the cities. However, this video has so much wrong with it.
First of all, he neglects to mention that it is precisely the Black Metal music which he sells that is sending young people on a downward path.
Second of all, not everybody is capable of living a simpler life. He is in this position because, as he states, his wife is rich. Many Whites do not have the resources to live like he does, no matter how much they would love to.
Third of all, he spits upon NS Germany, and it isn’t the first time he has done so: watch his video, “On National Socialist Germany”.
He calls them “losers” yet neglects to mention that the very per-Christian religion which he endorses soon became practised and abandoned by “losers” after the triumph of Christianity.
Fourth, he needs to stop acting like the Left Wing are his friends. They don’t talk about him because they don’t care about him.
Fifth, if he wanted to propose long-term solutions, he would be endorsing David Lane. He doesn’t do this because it goes against his and embarrassingly conflicted views on women. He would also stop spitting upon “Nazi” Germany. He would then stop saying ridiculous and easily debunkable things such as “Autistic Whites are genetically superior to non-Autistic Whites” and “Leftists are better than the Right Wing because Leftists are better educated and have higher IQs” and “National Socialism was an indirect cause for all that is wrong with Germany today” and (my personal favourite) “White women who have Black boyfriends were genetically predisposed to do that, they are bad genetic seed, it is nature at work”.
Maybe he would also stop acting like “Odinism” is important in our current struggle. Of what use is this religion to us now? Him saying “it is tradition” just shows that he lives in the past.
He is correct on both Christianity and “living a simple life”, and that is about it. I used to be an avid watcher of his, but I realised that most of his videos are bunk. One should only watch his survivalism videos.
“The first universities taught scholasticism, so they were the frontline in the Christian war against the pagan values of intellectual curiosity, love of progress for its own sake and empirical rationality.”
I have to differ with the learned Mr. Bardamu here. The ancients had no love of “progress for its own sake” and would not have understood that concept at all. As I’ve previously stated in another comment, our own modern idea of progress dates from only the Industrial Revolution, and is derived from the Christian notion of all human activity being a progression of events that will culminate in Jesus’ return to earth for a thousand year reign of paradise on earth. In the secular version, Jesus is dispensed with, and it’s science in its applied form as technology that will make the earth into a paradise.
The ancients in fact had the idea that the Golden Age lay in the past. The timeline was reversed, so that their contemporary age was thought more barbaric, a degradation of what had preceded it.
As for their love of science and technology, it’s true that Archimedes verged on the invention of calculus almost two thousand years before Newton and Leibniz. It’s also true that Heron of Alexandria invented a steam-powered turbine (aeolipile) in the first century, but it never became more than a curiosity. It appears the ancients could have developed a much higher level of technology, but drew back. Nobody really knows why technological civilization developed when it did, and why it didn’t develop earlier. Historian Michael Grant suggests that they didn’t make more technological progress than they did because they thought it would be impious, which Socrates’ fate, having been executed for his atheistic impieties, perhaps confirms. Of course, this same objection impeded the development of science in Christian times too, as Bruno and Galileo found out. Generally, the superstitious beliefs and practices of religion have been at best indifferent to science and technology, and at worst an impediment. Science and religion have mostly occupied completely separate realms.
Read “Industrial Society and its future”, faggot.
Is it necessary to cast aspersions (‘faggot’)?
Funny you should mention that, you ridiculous bag of shit (and believe me I say that with all due respect). Take a look at this. It’s from ISAIF.
210. …The enthusiasm for “progress” is a phenomenon particular to the modern form of society, and it seems not to have existed prior to the 17th century or thereabouts.
211. In the late Middle Ages there were four main civilizations that were about equally “advanced”: Europe, the Islamic world, India, and the Far East (China, Japan, Korea). Three of those civilizations remained more or less stable, and only Europe became dynamic. No one knows why Europe became dynamic at that time; historians have their theories but these are only speculation. At any rate, it is clear that rapid development toward a technological form of society occurs only under special conditions. So there is no reason to assume that long-lasting technological regression cannot be brought about.
[Don’t worry C.T. The name calling is just our way of having some fun.]