The following is not a formal post but rather a comment that I chose to put here rather than on this thread, where it belongs.
______ 卐 ______
Obviously, we see the world in a very different way.
The mere fact that Rome changed from Republic to Empire was a voluntary surrender to evil, as Brutus and his followers saw it. Julius Caesar should be one of the most reviled figures in Western history.
Believing the Jews was explicable among the envious non-whites around Rome. But for a white Roman to believe them, and allowing being baptized, was a sin as Julian the Apostate saw it.
Following Constantine and the next Christian emperors was voluntary surrender to evil, as philosophers like Libanius saw it.
Once Christianity was established, having burned the libraries of classical knowledge was voluntary surrender to evil. To have broken the statues that represented the divine beauty of the Aryan race was voluntary surrender to evil (for a list of these atrocities see: here).
To have destroyed the temples, including the most beautiful building of Alexandria and another one, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World leaving only these ruins in the respective two cases, was voluntary surrender to evil.
The fact that whites repudiated the healthy religion of the Hellenes and accepted the idea of eternal torture by fire, even for unbaptized infants, was such a massive and astronomical voluntary surrender to evil, that it is most likely that their little race will perish due to such a sin.
That the so-called secularized whites of today are incapable of healing psychically, and continue to believe the lies of the Jews and Christian ethics, is voluntary surrender to evil.
As Axe of Perun says, with the historical and exegetical tools at our disposal today there is no excuse. Nationalists could repudiate the perfidy of their own parents—their religion—; the ethics that accompany it, as well as its secular offshoot from the late 18th century. Not doing so is voluntary surrender to evil. And there are hundreds of white nationalists who think they’re good but deep down they’re bad. (That’s why the first pages of my Day of Wrath start with the example of Greggy’s ethics.)
If there is something that emerges from my Hojas Susurrantes and ¿Me Ayudarás? it’s to frame the discourse in ethical terms—if we are to save the West from the extermination in progress. But that can only be done with the complete collapse of the USA and through the acute suffering that, for decades, white sinners shall suffer: a dark night for the soul, a window of opportunity to amend one’s own ways.
As Pierce said about the common American, so surrendered to evil, ‘The only way to persuade the population of this country that they need to change their ways is to give them a good, hard boot in the ass—about 600 times. They need to be reprogrammed, and that takes order and discipline, not books or leaflets…’
2 replies on “A response to Spahn Ranch”
Casting things in moral terms is man-centered. Understanding things in terms of technique has greater explanatory power, since even animals use technique, while it would be absurd to apply moral standards to them. Technique is a way of understanding all animal behavior, including man’s. In fact, DNA itself can be regarded as chemical coding for a set of techniques. In this sense, forms of life (species) are biological technology. The difference between these two ways of regarding the same thing is like the difference between a Ptolemaic view and a Copernican view of the world. One puts man and his world at the center of the universe and makes everything revolve around him, and the other locates him properly on a planet circling a rather ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy, just one among billions. The former is very comforting to man’s ego and accords well with Christianity, the latter a cause of distress and contradicts the Bible. But only the latter is correct.
This is in addition to the problem of all the Christian baggage associated with the terms sin and redemption, good and evil, and so on. Classical civilization had the words, of course, but they had quite different ideas of these things than Christianity. But since the NT is written in Greek, Greek words got appropriated by Christians for their own purposes and used in different senses than they originally had. For example, in NT Greek, ἁμαρτία (hamartia) is the word for sin, when originally it was a morally neutral term more along the lines of “missing the mark”, a failure, or a tragic flaw. Likewise with the other words. Christianity gives them its own meaning. For some reason, you appear above to be using them in the Christian sense. Even if you aren’t though, I think most people will understand them in that way. If we want to get rid of Christianity and its racially toxic worldview, it’s self-defeating to encourage Christian morality.
I use those terms as Nietzsche used those terms in his Zarathustra: as irony.
And when, say, Matt Parrott evaded the Hell question long ago in the comments section of this blog, he surrendered his will to evil (as many WN Xtians do).