web analytics
Christendom Deranged altruism Jesus New Testament

Heisman's suicide note, 4

Editor’s note: To better understand Mitchell Heisman✡ yesterday I printed the first five hundred pages of Suicide Note, and I have been reading it carefully. Although he shot himself after finishing his book, committing suicide does not mean he was aware of the Jewish Problem.
Suicide Note is a labyrinth full of traps for the unsuspecting reader. Even before I printed the first 500 pages, I told Spahn Ranch that getting into that book reminded me of Bacon’s criticism:

Francis Bacon said that philosophers love to spin webs. You can imagine the care one must have with this large web [Heisman’s book]. I feel like Frodo crossing Shelob’s tunnel with no more help than the Phial of Galadriel!
But this light is enough for me to orient myself in such a tunnel. In fact, in about fifteen minutes you will see, as my first entry about this new Otto Weininger, my excerpts from his extremely long-winded book. [comment link: here]

More than long-winded, Heisman reminds me of ‘Sartre’s verbosity diarrhea’: what an American visitor observed when visiting Sartre in Paris. Just compare this with the laconic way in which the Spartan spake (see the series on Sparta that these days publishes The Occidental Observer, for example: here).
Although I’m not going to read all of Heisman’s Suicide Note, in the comments section I also told Joseph Walsh the following:

If I understand the kike correctly, he’s saying that through Xtianity the Jewish memes have won the battle over Aryan genes; and that the creation of ‘God’ thru A.I. will even take that victory further, obliterating race altogether and even the human species. [comment link: here]

The triumph of the Aryan would be the triumph of white genes over Jewish memes. Recall in Evropa Soberana’s essay that, when the Jews realised that they could not defeat the Romans through conventional wars—genes—they resorted to the subterfuge of confusing them by means of an ethnosuicidal theology—memes. Heisman✡ is good to see this theology. He wrote:

______ 卐 ______

Jesus radicalized a form of altruism. But here one must be very careful about precisely what kind of altruism Jesus radicalized. At first glance, it would appear that Jesus radicalized “love your neighbor”. Jesus did praise loving your neighbor, but “neighbor” can be ambiguous; somewhere between family and enemy. Insofar as “loving your neighbor”, in practical terms, amounts to loving your kin or your tribe (as opposed to enemies of your kin or tribe), radicalizing the love of kin or tribe would amount to advocating radical Jewish nationalism. Was this Jesus’s defining innovation, a morality of exclusive Jewish nationalism?

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. (Matt. 5:43- 44)

Jesus’s reversal implied not only loving your enemies, but hating your neighbor—insofar, that is, as “neighbor” is connected with family in opposition to enemy. Jesus did not radicalize the corrective of the Jewish kinship paradox; Jesus radicalized the Jewish kinship paradox itself. This is one reason why Jesus’s innovations contradicted Jewish law at its traditional root. Instead of preaching “love thy neighbor” as a correction of “causeless hatred”, Jesus radicalized causeless hatred itself: Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. (Matt. 10:21-23)
In place of the Old Testament commandment, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart”, Jesus preached, in effect, you shall hate your brother in your heart. This necessarily broke Jewish law. And this is why the kind of “love” Jesus advocated worked against Jewish “nationalism” and towards human internationalism. This extreme compelled the genesis of Christianity out of Judaim. Unqualified radical altruism leads to the negation of family values…
The core innovation at the heart of the Five Books of Moses is the Exodus paradigm; the inversion of the Egyptian pyramid-hierarchy; the first revolution. From Judaism to Christianity to the neo-Judaism of liberal democracy to neo-Christianity of Marxism, all of these revolutions share in common the fire started by Moses: the decisive triumph of nurture over sociobiological nature. Like waves that ripple from a singular stone plunged in water, all share reverberations of the first revolution. Like a miracle, the ripples are gathering back to their singularitarian source, humanity’s last revolution. [pages 126-128]

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s note:
‘And this is why the kind of “love” Jesus advocated worked against Jewish “nationalism” and towards human internationalism’ wrote Heisman✡ above. This is one of the dozens of traps I have found in Heisman’s book. What this guy astutely omits is that Jesus’ message is not really directed at the already ethnocentric Jews but at Romans.
At this point I differ radically from both commenter Arch Stanton and Heisman✡. The trick of the Jewish psyop is to make us believe that a wise individual said such and such, that eventually the evangelists recorded and now good Christians try to use as a new golden rule.
There is no historical evidence of this, as Joseph Hoffmann saw in the primal essay of this site to understand the so-called historical Jesus. What can be verified with certainty is that the authors of the New Testament were either Jews or Judaised gentiles. That is what concerns us.
The trap of Heisman✡ and of every Christian or neo-Christian is that they continue to sell us the idea of a historical Jesus who fought for such and such ideal, when ultimately the only thing that matters is the so-called New Testament itself: its message to the Romans; who wrote it, and the motivation of the authors.
When one reads the passages quoted above by Heisman✡ the motivation is obvious.


Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

18 replies on “Heisman's suicide note, 4”

It is funny that when you say that Christianity is pacifist (in the sense that it pacifies the Nation insofar as it wants to conquer it), they always resort to this:
“I came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword”. This is apparently proof of the fact that Jesus was a warlike individual. James Mason has done this many times.
They never show you the rest:

“For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.”

Quote mining Christ is a favorite of Christians who want to subvert the true message of Jesus -if he existed.
I would say Christian identity represents a very good example of this subversion of Christianity which Heisman speaks of. This subversion is certainly not traditional but it is interesting to study through this lens nonetheless.
One can only imagine how deeply rooted Christianity is in the Aryan psyche if someone as radical as James Mason still falls victim to its theological trappings.

I remember a certain Anglo named “Sven Longshanks” constantly doing this. I told him to show me actual Bible verses condemning Race-mixing. He left a pissy comment saying that I am “cursed to be stupid”, then a verse which doesn’t even mention Race-mixing is presented. I can’t remember what it is called, but I looked it up, and it actually refers specifically to adultery, but he didn’t put that part in.
When I informed him of this, he called me stupid again and said that it was not about adultery.
I wonder what mind-set someone has to be in to ignore what they see right in front of their eyes.

The gist of Heisman’s analysis is that Jewish memes have already conquered Aryan genes, and if you see how even WNsts behave, you have to concede that he’s right.
IMO the white psyche is so plagued with J-memes that you need to run not one, but several equivalents of Antivirus software in your mind. Otherwise, there’s always a viral residue.
In the other thread, I tried to explain to a commenter that secular Richard Spencer sells his ethnostate while speaking of Israel and that Christian David Duke wishes the best for other races in their own countries.
Just compare them with ancient Romans, before the axiological infection of Xtianity.
Xtian ethnosuicidal values permeate even those neo-Nazis like Mason and Covington; the latter, a feminist that fails to see, as Heisman put it, that ‘Love killed honor’ and that ‘The empire of love that Paul spread was subversive by design. It was as subversive as preaching hatred of the patriarchal family that was a miniature model for worldly empire’.

I wrote about this yesterday: Christ placed the fictive kin group – I.e. the Church – above the natural family.
The secular mutation of this is fictive families like homosexual “parents”.

An argument could be made that the Roman Empire, and after it, the Church, was the original “proposition nation”.
Historian Michael Grant estimates that by the end of the first century AD, after centuries of conquest in Gaul and Germany, 90 percent of the population of Rome were non-Italians of slave origin, including a large part of the equites and patrician class. Tacitus writes of that time: “Most knights, many senators are descended from former slaves. Segregate the freed – and you will simply show how few free-born there are.” (The World of Rome, p. 120.)
In fact, by 212 AD, with the Edict of Caracalla, the entire free population of the Empire was made Roman citizens. Unless the people incorporated by conquest were of roughly the same race and capabilities as the original Romans, that wouldn’t have been possible. The Empire would have collapsed long before then.
Thus, the destruction of kin selection in modernity didn’t depend on any subversive invention of the Jews, as Heisman would like you to think. It’s built into the technology of empire, just as anti-racism is built into capitalism. To the extent that Christianity can be exploited for the purpose of empire, it has become the ideology of the West. It’s emphasis on universal brotherhood is tailor made for organization on a global scale, and its message of non-violence is perfect for a technological civilization that needs above all to avoid the disruptions of crime and war. All Heisman’s verbiage about Jesus’ “spiritual penis” penetrating the Romans by design is only a smutty hucksterism, a rewrite ofPortnoy’s Complaint by a less talented writer with an historical bent. Are we really expected to believe that some dirty Jew peasants sat around a campfire scheming to destroy their conquerors using memes and similar anachronistic concepts such as genes and AI, which it’s ridiculous to think they ever would have dreamed of? The whole thing is just preening ego from a typically narcissistic Jew. He presents his tribe as the fulcrum of history and made a desperate try to exaggerate his own personal importance with this overblown thesis and his suicide. He’s right about a few things, such as that technological progress will eventually make race irrelevant, but mainly he’s got things backwards. Christianity was voluntarily adopted by whites not because they were conned into it by some clever Jews who were orders of magnitude more intelligent than they were, and who somehow conspired to invent a religion that would generate kin selection destroying liberalism centuries later, but because it served their purposes at the time. The Roman government collapsed in the West by the fifth century, but it continued on culturally as the Church. From that point of view, the Roman Empire never fell at all, but just changed form.

Arthur Kemp would agree with you: the main cause of the decline and fall of Rome was imperialistic greed; Jews, only mosquitoes that thrive on such swamps of sins.

“Christianity was voluntarily adopted by whites not because they were conned into it by some clever Jews…”
Not sure. Certainly not in Europe centuries later, and when did it entrench itself in the Roman Empire with old Romans? Was it all that popular with Whites before Constantine and Theodosius legalised it then made it the state religion in the 4th Century?
Revolutions are engineered from the top. Josephus, Philo were wealthy, influential jews with access to elite Roman circles. Other cryptos had infiltrated for sure. Does anything change with the Tribe? This model goes back to Joseph in Egypt. The above two were maybe adepts of the mystery schools dotted around the Mediterranean where mind control of the masses no doubt was studied with keen interest. The average street level jew is as clueless as the average Goy. There is a plausible argument that Paul was based on Josephus.
“It’s built into the technology of empire, just as anti-racism is built into capitalism. To the extent that Christianity can be exploited for the purpose of empire, it has become the ideology of the West. Its emphasis on universal brotherhood is tailor made for organization on a global scale…” Good points.

The mass of whites voluntarily adopted Christianity in the sense that many chose to die rather than adopt it. While that’s an unpleasant choice, it’s still a choice. Others chose it eagerly. And of course, Christians could have gone back to their old pagan ways any time they chose, though the penalties might be severe. So remaining Christian was also a choice.
If you have evidence of conspiracy to design a religion that would sabotage the white race centuries in the future (for it didn’t immediately generate liberalism), I’d like to see it. Keep in mind though that at that time, no scientific conception of race or racial differences existed, and genes were as unknown as the concept of propaganda. Even contact with other races was extremely limited.
As for why Christianity was selected by the leadership, I think it’s clear that the cash-strapped Roman state wanted to appropriate the riches of the pagan temples. Gibbon says a large part of the wealth of the empire was tied up in the pagan religions. The adoption of Christianity, with the intolerance of other gods that made it unique in the Roman world, provided the perfect excuse to close them down and confiscate their holdings.

If you have evidence of conspiracy to design a religion that would sabotage the white race centuries in the future (for it didn’t immediately generate liberalism), I’d like to see it.

I think that Evropa Soberana nailed it in his essay.
And also: the genocidal consequences for the white race started immediately after the foundation of Constantinople, as every sandnigger could be a citizen provided he was Xtian. (Something analogous would happen more than a thousand years later in Latin America.)
Finally, destroying statues (white marble so beautifully depicts the fair race!), temples and libraries meant destroying the spirit of the race. Obviously, the target of early Xtianity was the whitest culture of the empire.

“I think that Evropa Soberana nailed it in his essay.”
What, specifically?
There are no footnotes in his essay citing ancient sources directly. I’d like to see some indication in source materials that a handful of illiterate Jewish peasants came up with the idea of designing a religion for the purpose of subverting the white race, using concepts that no one else would know about for over a thousand years.
“… every sandnigger could be a citizen …”
Anyone could be a citizen of the Roman Empire, too; not only sandniggers but actual niggers. Again, the idea of biological races and racial differences had not yet occurred to anyone, and of course, people back then knew nothing about genetics. Yet for such a conspiracy to occur, all of these concepts and more would have had to have been known.
“Finally, destroying statues (white marble so beautifully depicts the fair race!), temples and libraries meant destroying the spirit of the race.”
A race is more than its art.

Both Sparta and Republican Rome were de facto ethnostates. It would be inconceivable for them to mix their blood with niggers or sandniggers.
The fall into miscegenation happened gradually and accelerated with Christianity. Kemp, Pierce and Soberana, not to mention the Nazis, have done a good job demonstrating this.
I am not saying that Jewish peasants designed Xtianity. It’s far more complex than that. It’s like the 1917 Revolution. Several ethnicities, not only Jews, were involved in the genocide against the Germanic Rus.
The New Testament for example seems to be a work of Jews and Judaised non-Jews. There are even anti-Semitic verses in the gospel of Matthew. But the message, like the Communist Manifesto, turned deadly for whites (Germanic rus in the century we were born; white Romans in the past).

“The fall into miscegenation happened gradually and accelerated with Christianity.”
Sure, but the growth of the Roman Empire proceeded at the same pace. If you don’t incorporate other races into your empire, the danger of race mixing is negligible. Once you do, you need it to keep the peace and maximize efficiency. At that point, “citizen” changes its definition from the member of a relatively small group to a larger one, one which may encompass nearly everyone. Alexander the Great wanted to put such a conception of citizenship into practice, and this is what happened with the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD. Granting citizenship to all free men in the Empire had the salutary effect on the state of increasing tax revenue, and the franchise was also expanded. This same process was repeated in America. Initially, only white men with property paid taxes or could vote, but later the tax base and franchise were expanded to include both sexes and other races. It’s just the internal logic of the growth of the state playing out. Just as with capitalism, or corporations, there’s nothing inherently racist about the technology of the state. Religion or moral concerns can serve the purpose of justifying such expansion, but don’t cause it. It always follows a familiar and invariant pattern: separate races encounter each other and establish an economic relationship, which then causes social and political mixing between them, and then always ends in genetic mixing. No Jews or conspiracies required.

I’m sure you appreciate that I am neither a mono nor a conspiracist. In the past (before you started to comment here) I used to stress that the main cause of white decline has been materialism or gold-over-race policies. That’s the main sin. Miscegenation is an epiphenomenon of that primary sin.
The difference between you and me is basically Semantics. What you call technology I prefer to call otherwise (the ‘One Ring’).

But recall that the One Ring cannot be used for good. Attempts to do so will fail, because it’s inherently corrupting.

@ Spahn Ranch and CT. Christianity wasn’t a creation of “a handful of illiterate jewish peasants” with a game plan for the millennia. It seems to have started out as another jewish sect for jews only then mutated sometime late 1st or into the 2nd Century AD into Xtianity for Gentiles, with elite jews like Josephus and Philo (later long dead by then) having a big part in this, not illiterate jewish peasants.
There is no hard evidence for a conspiracy only consistency of jewish behaviour over millennia – fanatical hatred of other races, ability to accumulate and horde great wealth, insinuation into elite Gentile circles as advisers and bankers to kings and princes, racial supremacism and the compulsion to dominate and inflict self-destructive harm on host peoples through usury and mind control – propaganda and new, destructive religions. Unerringly consistent behaviour. Some have resorted to metaphysics to explain this unerringly consistent and malevolent jewish behaviour. jews have always thought in terms of race – “you are the seed of Abraham”. Seed or blood.
The jewish game plan for the ages was essentially set out in the OT, the first draft of the protocols.
CT, if you don’t believe in conspiracies how do you explain the two thousand year suppression, by the Vatican foremost, of early Xtianity’s fanatical destruction of Greco-Roman culture? A conspiracy of silence. But let’s not get into a debate on conspiracies.

I forgot to add the word conspiracy theories (911, JFK assassination, a fake Moon landing, etc.).
I think that what S.Ranch is trying to say is that first, it occurred a debasement of healthy Roman Republican values, and then the Semitic opportunistic infection thrived: Aryan swamps of sin, then Codrenau’s mosquitoes.

“… [Christianity] mutated sometime late 1st or into the 2nd Century AD into Xtianity for Gentiles, with elite jews like Josephus and Philo (later long dead by then) having a big part in this, …”
How so? Are you saying Josephus and Philo wrote the Synoptic Gospels? Because the mission to the Gentiles aka the Great Commission is recorded in them.
“There is no hard evidence for a conspiracy …”
I’ve certainly never seen any. That’s why I asked you.
“… fanatical hatred of other races …”
In this world all are pitted against all. That’s just Darwinian reality. What needs to be explained isn’t Jewish hatred, but the lack of white hatred.
“… ability to accumulate and horde great wealth, …”
As a group though, they have less wealth than whites.
“… inflict self-destructive harm on host peoples through usury …”
Interest represents the time value of money, and thus charging interest for a loan is built into the technology of money.
Example: If I have $100 I can either loan to you for a year, or use to buy seed to plant a crop that nets me $105, I need to charge you at least 5% interest to make up for what I could otherwise have made with my money.
It’s a measure of how far the Christian mindset has permeated that people commonly think that it’s unethical to charge interest for a loan. If people borrow more than they can pay back, or borrow at ruinous rates of interest, it’s too bad, but it isn’t the lender’s problem.
“… and mind control – propaganda and new, destructive religions.”
If it were that easy, why not invent a religion or spread propaganda to control everyone in the world? If Jews can control your mind, why don’t they just make you send them all your money right now? Also, Bernays wrote Propaganda only in 1928. The concept didn’t exist in the ancient world, nor did mass media. How did Jews make and spread propaganda before both the concept existed, and the means to spread it existed?

Comments are closed.