web analytics
Christendom Destruction of Greco-Roman world Kevin MacDonald Miscegenation Philosophy of history

Why Europeans must reject Christianity, 21

by Ferdinand Bardamu

A Europe without Christianity?
The world of classical antiquity shone as a lamp in the dark, filled with a youthful vigor that ensured its institutions and ideas would endure long after Greece and Rome ceased to exist as viable political entities. Science and reason were then snuffed out by the darkness and imbecility that followed in the wake of Christianity. Libraries were destroyed; art treasures were smashed; building in non-perishable materials almost vanished from memory; personal hygiene disappeared; ignorance was considered a virtue; chaos ensued. This was the triumph of Christianity, a syphilis of the mind that nearly wiped out Western civilization. Although Christian power and influence were shattered long ago by the rediscovery of science and reason, a resurgent Christianity now dominates the West in the form of liberal egalitarianism and cultural Marxism. These philosophies serve as the ideological basis of endless mass Third World immigration and other multiculturalist policies. This neo-Christianity has been imposed on the West by totalitarian liberal-leftist governments.
Understanding Christianity through the prism of group evolutionary strategy can shed light on the significant threat the religion poses to Europeans. As a seminal concept originally formulated by Prof. Kevin MacDonald, it was used with devastating effect in his analysis of 20th century Jewish intellectual and political movements. In a world characterized by in-group ethno-racial preference, absence of a group evolutionary strategy allowing populations at the species and sub-species level to survive and replicate is highly maladaptive.
A group evolutionary strategy is defined as an “experiment in living.” This refers to the establishment of culturally mediated processes or ideological structures that allow humans to exercise control over natural selection at the group level. The basic characteristics of Jewish evolutionary group strategy are:
1.) the rejection of both genetic and cultural assimilation into neighboring populations. Jews in Europe and the Middle East segregated themselves from gentiles by fashioning a distinct identity for themselves. This was accomplished through enforcement of strict endogamy and residential segregation. The genetic relatedness between Jewish groups, such as the Sephardi and Ashkenazi, is higher than between Jews and European populations because of this age-old resistance to assimilation; 2.) successful economic and reproductive competition that has driven Europeans from certain sectors of their own societies (such as finance); 3.) high ethnocentrism; 4.) within-group altruism favoring Jews at the expense of outgroup members, and; 5.) the institutionalization of eugenic practices that selected for high intelligence and conscientiousness in Jewish populations.
In contrast, Christianity undermines group survival by suppressing natural ethnocentric tendencies and maximizing the spread of dysgenic traits. Christianity provides no effective barrier to the cultural and genetic assimilation of Europeans by surrounding non-white populations; for example, during the Spanish and Portuguese colonization of the Americas in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church aggressively promoted miscegenation among the conquistadores. Ecclesiastical officials encouraged the European colonists to marry and interbreed with their native Indian and African concubines. This resulted in large-scale demographic genocide, which replaced European genetic homogeneity with mestizaje.
That Christianity is a non-ethnocentric ideology based on moral universalism is another serious problem with the religion. Europeans will always champion the interests of hostile out-groups at the expense of fellow Europeans in the name of Christian love and brotherhood. Christianity also opposes the high aggressiveness directed towards outgroup members; instead, believers are expected to practice nonviolence and compassion in the face of demographic replacement. High aggressiveness is a defining feature of Jewish group evolutionary strategy. It has allowed Jews to outcompete Europeans in their own societies.
Lastly, Christianity is militantly anti-eugenic, which is why it allows weaklings to survive and reproduce. This has decreased average IQ and the prevalence of other beneficial traits in European societies. In contrast, Jewish group evolutionary strategy institutionalizes eugenic practices that positively select for these traits, especially high intelligence. These eugenic practices have allowed Jews to exercise a degree of influence over Western societies vastly disproportionate to their actual numbers. Unlike Judaism for Jews, Christianity does not function as a group evolutionary strategy for Europeans, but as a recipe for racial and cultural suicide on a massive scale.
All aggressively pro-active measures against Christianity are certainly ethically justifiable in the face of Western decline and European racial extinction. In this essay, a more scientific approach is recommended. The European intellectual, before he devises any plan of action, must first acknowledge that no other biological process is as important for humans as evolution through natural selection. If he is to have any belief-system, it must be the civil religion of eugenics. Incorporating eugenics into the fabric of civic life would obviate coercion, making racial hygiene a matter of voluntary acquiescence. He would also do well to embrace the trifunctional worldview of the ancient Indo-Europeans.
For many thousands of years, trifunctional ideology served as an effective deterrent to the pathology of moral universalism. By envisaging the tripartite caste system as the fundamental pillar of a new order, the iron law of inequality is exalted as the highest law, the one most conducive to the achievement of social harmony. In this vision, the highest caste, equivalent to the brahman of Aryan-occupied India or the guardians of Plato’s Republic, would be absorbed in scientific and technological pursuits for their own sake. They would be entrusted with the material advancement of civilization. Their moral system, informed by the principles of evolutionary biology and eugenics, would be derived from the following axiom:

What is morally right is eugenic, i.e. improves the race biologically;
what is morally wrong is dysgenic, i.e. degrades the race biologically.

The second class of individuals will be bred for war and the third will consist of industrial and agricultural producers. These correspond to the Aryan kshatriyas and vaishyas or the “silver” and “bronze” castes of Plato’s Republic. Since these individuals do not possess the cognitive ability to participate in the highly abstract civil religion of the brahmans, they will worship their distant ancestors as the racial gods of a new religion founded on eugenic principles.
Christianity is an irrational superstition, which means that its influence will not be mitigated through logical argument. The child-like simplicity of Christian dogma is “a feature, not a bug.” Without an ability to appeal to the lowest common denominator, Christianity would not have spread as rapidly as it did during the 4th century. An enlightened European humanity, educated in the principles of Darwinian evolution and eugenics, cannot co-exist side by side with this ancient Semitic plague. The negative correlation that exists between Christian religiosity and intelligence simply reinforces this conclusion. Christianity is a seemingly intractable problem for primarily eugenic and biological reasons. Although a eugenic approach is clearly needed, other things must be done. If Christianity is to be abolished, all state-sanctioned programs of multicultural indoctrination must be completely eliminated along with it.
Through a program of rigorous eugenic breeding and media control, Europeans will be weaned from the neo-Christian ethical system they have imbibed since childhood. They will come to see eugenics as a necessary form of spiritual transcendence instead. Through a process of evolutionary development that is both culturally and technologically mediated, the lowest castes will embrace the brahman civil religion and see themselves as gods; the more evolved brahmans will move on to a more intensive contemplation of increasingly sophisticated mathematical and scientific abstractions. This progressive development of European racial consciousness will ensure the adoption of a successful group evolutionary strategy among Europeans.
The gradual phasing out of individuals with IQs below 100 will be carried out as an act of religious devotion among the lower castes. Aryan kshatriyas, the “knights of faith” of the new Aryan race religion, will impose a eugenic regime over the entire globe, repopulating the Third World with highly evolved super-organisms that will turn these former hellholes into terrestrial paradises. Wasting precious material resources caring for less evolved members of the human species will be a thing of the past. Humanity, whose scientific and technological progress stagnated during the late 20th century, will once again resume its upward journey toward the stars.

Eugenic breeding will force Europeans to realize the truth of Nietzsche’s core insight: Christianity, a transvaluation of all values driven by ressentiment, is a slave morality. It is the revolt of the underman against the aristocratic Indo-European virtues of strength and magnanimity, pride and nobility. By repudiating the syphilitic poison of Christianity, Europeans will become a race of value-creators, once again in charge of their own destinies as they affirm the beauty of life in all its fullness.

– End of Bardamu’s essay –

18 replies on “Why Europeans must reject Christianity, 21”

Aryan kshatriyas, the “knights of faith” of the new Aryan race religion, will impose a eugenic regime over the entire globe…

Amen! This is what I call a priest of the 14 words.

…repopulating the Third World with highly evolved super-organisms that will turn these former hellholes into terrestrial paradises.

And this sounds like the last pages of my last book, ¿Me Ayudarás?

The European intellectual, before he devises any plan of action, must first acknowledge that no other biological process is as important for humans as evolution through natural selection. If he is to have any belief-system, it must be the civil religion of eugenics. … He would also do well to embrace the trifunctional worldview of the ancient Indo-Europeans.

Mr. Bardamu here is confused. Natural selection is the opposite of eugenics, which is artificial selection.
More importantly, Mr. Bardamu also seems to be badly out of date in his knowledge of the current state of the art in the latter, and of technological “progress” generally. He’s stuck in the past, advocating a eugenics paradigm that has been made obsolete. In the foreseeable future, wars will be fought by robots, so there won’t be any need for a “warrior caste”. Likewise with most menial tasks such as agriculture and industry. Farming won’t require much human labor at all; factories will be automated and run by AI, so the “producer caste” will be eliminated too. The question of improving IQ via eugenics is also rapidly becoming irrelevant. Advances in AI and in merging minds and computers will make it so, since no matter how natively intelligent, no race of men will ever be able to compete with computer speed, memory, and accuracy. This is just a limitation of human biology, the wetware of the brain.
Mr. Bardamu’s vision of the future is very similar to what Aldous Huxley set forward in his epic Brave New World. But a lot has happened in science since the 1930s when Huxley wrote it. Much more likely than the world Huxley depicted is one in which human beings have themselves become unnecessary and obsolete. He should read Bill Joy’s essay “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us”. He should also read Kaczynski’s essay “Industrial Society and Its Future”, along with the book that provided most of the inspiration for that essay, Jacques Ellul’s The Technological Society. Making human labor unnecessary is, after all, the whole point of “labor-saving devices”, isn’t it? It follows that the logical conclusion of “Progress” occurs when man has made himself completely useless.

Humanity, whose scientific and technological progress stagnated during the late 20th century, will once again resume its upward journey toward the stars.

This makes me wonder what planet Mr. Bardamu lives on. Progress stagnated? I hardly think so. Since the last half of the 20th century, the human genome was both discovered (1953) and fully sequenced (2012). Men landed on the moon, robot spacecraft were sent to other planets, and even out of the solar system. The internet was invented, and computers became commonplace. Starting in the 1960s, widespread availability and use of scientific birth control gave women for the first time in history the ability to reliably control their own fertility, resulting in a white population crash, massive destruction of the nuclear family, and in feminism. I could continue this litany of post-1950 “progress” for pages and not run out of examples.

I cannot speak for the author but certainly, when I watched 2001 in 1968 I never expected that the West would take a giant step backward to neanderthalism in our century.
As to those sci-fi scenarios, it is not even clear that men in the 22nd century will have easy energy after the oil is depleted. (I bet we will go back to farming, at least for a while.)
Creating a HAL 9000 would be stupid. And anyway, presently no computer has the feelings even of an insect. It is not even clear how to do that in computing. Philosophers of the mind disagree on this issue. I hate most of those philosophers, but what Nicholas Humphrey says in History of the Mind and Popper and Eccles in The Self and Its Brain is interesting.
There are lots of pedants among the more popular philosophers of the mind, especially now that the silly subject of A.I. is in vogue.

I like what Edsger Dijkstra said about the subject. “Asking whether a computer can think is like asking whether a submarine can swim.” It doesn’t matter whether human consciousness is reproduced in computer mentation. What matters is the result; for example, robot drones are already being extensively used in warfare, and it’s easy to see that the use of similar robot technologies will only expand. Whether we consider it silly or not, AI is now getting results, and if unchecked, will continue to get better in the future. LIkewise with mind/computer interfaces. Nor will it take that long. I suspect human-level AI will probably happen within this century, maybe even within a couple of decades. Certainly, that’s only a microsecond in an evolutionary time-frame. Kurzweil is right, the technological singularity is rapidly approaching. Stephen Hawking’s fears about autonomous killer robots were justified.

And I don’t buy these sci-fi speculations for a second. No computer has the ability of “Self” for the moment, not even remotely: No feelings, no “I”, nothing. Zippo. Zilch. I’ll believe that AI is possible until I see it. I have St Thomas as my patron saint: no holes in Jesus’ hands and chest, no belief at all in resurrections or artificial intelligence.
We should focus on reality itself (civil war when possible). White pathology is believing in fantasies, whether materialist or spiritualist fantasies.

Just as, in 1945, or even 1960, most would have considered men walking on the moon a fantasy, and the internet would have been inconceivable. If you are the one targeted for termination by an autonomous robot drone using a facial recognition algorithm, what difference does it make if that drone has a “self” or not? AI is not speculation; it’s already here.

This discussion reminds me the discussion on what I believe will be the crash of the dollar: the end of US hegemony. Most WNsts are sceptical of it. Instead of discussing with them, time will tell who’s right and who’s wrong.
Exactly the same could be said about AI.
My hunch is that we won’t see HAL 9000-like computers within our lifetimes. Let the future dictate who’s right and who’s wrong in both subjects: dollar collapse and AI…

Spahn Ranch
ISAIF was a warning for why we should not be indulging in technological advancements. The only reason we should be using robots in warfare is if the other side is using robots. If economies collapse in catastrophic ways any time soon, then there won’t be much need for robots, especially when people are eating each other (metaphorically and literally) and there is no social cohesion.
I had dream just last night that I was in the midst of a nuclear holocaust, and was in a wasteland fending for myself. I had to hide inside of this bunker from these “clockwork” robots who hunt for human survivors so they can dissect them and use their parts and wear their skin or something. Also Charles Manson popped up and was on the run for stabbing to death a pregnant Natalie Portman…
But I digress: If we haven’t invented robots by the time the dollar collapses then robots wont be very necessary. Eugenics can only be considered obsolete in the face of technological advancements. For example, in The Turner Diaries, the New Era Government would have no need for robots if there are no non-Whites and no Whites who would engage in war with them (a world Government). Therefore eugenics could not be considered obsolete.

“If we haven’t invented robots by the time the dollar collapses then robots wont be very necessary. ”
But we already have invented them. See here and here
With continued “progress”, they will only get more efficient.
“For example, in The Turner Diaries, the New Era Government would have no need for robots if there are no non-Whites and no Whites who would engage in war with them (a world Government). ”
That seems to me an unlikely scenario. If it came true though, and there were never any enemies, you wouldn’t need a warrior caste at all.
“Therefore eugenics could not be considered obsolete.”
I was making two points about eugenics. The first was that Mr. Bardamu’s conception of eugenics is obsolete, since a lot has happened in science since that idea was discussed in the 1930s a la Brave New World, or later in the Nazi Lebensborn program. For example, the genome can be altered directly now via CRISPR or other techniques that don’t rely upon breeding at all. So practicing eugenics by selective breeding is a bit outmoded.
Second, and more seriously, eugenics is an internally contradictory idea from the perspective of preserving race, since it aims primarlily not at preserving, but improving. It’s like “Progress” itself in that it’s an open-ended project that continues without end. For the eugenicist, the white race is of no value in itself; it’s just a good starting point. He doesn’t intend or even want to preserve what it is today. The caste examples above can illustrate this.
For instance, wouldn’t our warrior caste be even better if the warriors could shoot deadly laser beams from their eyes, or have hands that could instantly change into swords, like the liquid metal guy in Terminator 2? Or perhaps their DNA could be combined with insect DNA to give them a super-hard exoskeleton. It would be very cool, wouldn’t it? Certainly that would make them deadlier, and better warriors than they could be without such “improvements”. And what about the highest caste, the philosopher kings? There is some evidence that IQ correlates with brain size, so shouldn’t we alter their genetics to make them bigger-brained? Whales have big brains. Perhaps we could adapt some whale DNA and merge it with human DNA. Also, since they are to be knowledge specialists, wouldn’t they be improved by merging with computers, perhaps at first using implanted chips? (Chips are already being implanted in the brain for certain applications right now.) Later, the wetware of the brain might be dispensed with entirely once more efficient methods are found.
The point is that, left to run unchecked, eugenic “improvements” eventually produce something not even human, much less white. Someone would probably respond, “Oh, but we would never go that far. We just want to get rid of a few hereditary diseases, improve IQ, and improve strength.” But why stop there? If the means exist to go farther, it will happen.

Today I was reading Wikipedia’s article on A.I. and, even there, philosophers of the mind are mentioned that argue that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine. But again, time will tell within our lifespans who’s right.

But why stop there? If the means exist to go farther, it will happen.

Only in a transhumanist, nightmarish society. Why a healthy society would like to create Frankensteins? Of course: our extremely sick and deranged society is heading toward that direction, but you are assuming that (1) no financial / energy devolution crisis will happen, and that (2) whites will never get their sanity back.
I am an optimist. I believe that, after getting rid of Xtian ethics, whites should go Turner Diaries to produce an Arcadia, like Lys in Arthur Clarke’s The City and the Stars: a ‘return to the Shire’ after having destroyed the Ring of gold, greed and anti-humanist industry.

“the knights of faith”
A bit off-topic, but these words themselves signify an alien concept. In fact, the best “knights of faith” of Mediaeval Germany had no children. Those military order men were totally celibate!
Christianity is so disgusting in everything it touches, I’m surprised the SS so commonly invoked the degenerate images of old.
Umwertung aller Werte!
P.S. I’ve finally started watching Game of Thrones, and it’s so weird to see a mediaevalesque culture without Jews and without the church… And yet they still venerate celibacy!
@Spahn Ranch
You remind me of Turd Flinging Monkey and even one guy I know IRL, both of whom talk about artificial vaginas. Guess what, the technology won’t save the weak and the dumb. Americans, for example, could not even defeat Iraqis – because they were burdened with Christian ethics.

I believe that civilization is the white race’s “dharmic path;” what we are put here to do.
The Freemasons are correct: knowledge is dangerous to the unfit. Only the Brahman class; the priests of the 14 words should be taught science, as they will not abuse this knowledge. Scientific knowledge was restricted to the priest class until Christianity prevailed. It is a Pauline instinct to disperse knowledge as broadly as possible.
Had science been kept in the temples, and taught only to those who proved themselves worthy, then it would never have been abused so as to breed non-whites. Knowledge is an amoral force that can cause great damage – as all can now plainly see – if confided in the non fit.

You nailed it.
Pythagoras was right that knowledge should be restricted to the initiate. Where did modern whites have their heads when allowing Asians to study the secret of their science in their universities in the 19th century (minds overwhelmed by Xtian ethics of course)? So Saruman misused science to breed humans with orcs…
The criminal of criminals is he who subscribes Xtian ethics.

China as well. It was the Semitic bourgeois mentality: earn shekels through international trade, that turned a nation of stupid subsistence rice farmers into a Nuclear Power; an existential threat.
Aryans plan in centuries. Aryans plant oak trees that their great grandchildren – whom they will never see – might have shade. The nihilism and extreme individualism – I only have one soul to save – of Christianity only thinks “muh shekels” – in the moment. They sold out their ethnic posterity for individual enrichment. When a Christian dies, in his mentality, the universe dies with him. He is taught to view his death as his own “end of the world” as Catholic devotional books put it.
Yeah, (((Kissinger))) was behind this… however the thought of a Jewish secretary of State would have been unthinkable, had Nixon not been a Quaker. Nixon’s Quaker ancestors smuggled Blacks into the North. Christianity is always messing things up for the White racial cause.

Spahn Ranch
Both our arguments seem to be based on a sort of “if this happens, then these series of events will follow.”
Like Cesar says, if Hominids continue with these perversions of Nature, then your description of the future will come into play. However, if there is a cataclysm (nuclear war on a Global scale or a destructive currency collapse) then this future you envision cannot really happen.
PS When I said “robots” I was referring to Arnold Schwarzenegger-tier inventions or the Cyber men (Doctor Who: Cheap sci-fi). I never meant the pathetic little dolls that exist today.
@Cesar 8:19
Excuse me, but I think you’ll find the term is “Frankenstein’s Monster”

‘Frankenstein’ may refer to:
1) A novel by Mary Shelley about a science student who creates a grotesque but sentient creature in an unorthodox scientific experiment.
2) The creator of Frankenstein’s monster in Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus.
3) Frankenstein’s monster itself.

It was just a silly attempt at humour. You can call that character what you want so long as we know what you mean, but I do find it rattling when so many call him Frankenstein. I wont cause such a fuss in the future.

Just curious: what do you think about Arch Staton’s long-winded comments on the other thread (‘On myopia and perspectivism’)?
A couple of minutes later:
P.S. Ops! I see you just replied there…

Comments are closed.