Recently, a couple of friends retweeted my tweet:
Jews hate their enemies.
White nationalists obey (((Jesus))): they love them.
Who’s winning?
While referring to our street fighters, the recent use of phrases such as ‘heinous act’ among quite a few white nationalists and folks in the Alt-Right, motivates me to start using the epithet ‘Jew obeyers’ even on those who describe themselves as ‘anti-Semites’.
Editors’ note: To contextualise these translations of Karlheinz Deschner’s encyclopaedic history of the Church in 10-volumes, Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, read the abridged translation of Volume I.
The great Christian ideal:
The inversion of Greco-Roman values
Already at the end of the 4th century and only in the desert regions of Egypt, there were apparently 24,000 ascetics. They were buried in subterranean places, ‘like the dead in their graves’, they dwelt in huts of branches, in hollows with no other opening than a hole to creep up to them. They squatted like troglodytes on large rocks, on steep slopes, in grottos, in tiny cells, in cages, in dens of beasts and in trunks of dry trees, or else they were placed on columns.
In a word, they lived like wild animals because Saint Anthony, the first Christian monk known to history, had ordered ‘to lead an animal life’: a mandate that also the so often praised Benedict of Nursia adopted in his rule. And according to the currency of the ancient ascetics, ‘the true fast consists of permanent hunger’ and ‘the more opulent the body, the more minute the soul; and vice versa’. They limited themselves to picking out a grain of barley from the camel dung with their fingers, remaining, for the rest days or even whole weeks, in total abstinence.
Surely we should not always give credence to what the Christian chroniclers wrote. Some of these saints did not even exist. Some of these stories are of analogous nature of the ‘ancient Egyptian novels adapted to new ideas’ (Amélineau). Other stories, despite their propensity for hyperbole, are touching. Macarius of Alexandria, for example, kills a horsefly on a certain day and punishes himself. For six months he lies on the ground from which he would not move, in a wasteland ‘in which there are big gadflies like wasps, with stingers that pierce the skin of boars. His body is in such a state that when he returns to his cell they all take him for a leper and only recognise the saint by his voice’.
Whatever the degree of veracity of these stories, from them it clearly transcends everything that influenced, mislead and annoyed the Christians of that time and those of subsequent centuries: the sublime ‘ideal’ by which they had to abide. Those lunatics were idolised, celebrated, consulted and they and their peers passed for saints.
The Temptation of St. Anthony
by Matthias Grünewald.
Anthony wandered from one hiding place to another along the Libyan desert, attracting other anchorites, attracting demons and angels, having full visions of lascivious women, earning more and more the fame of sanctity, of the ideal (Christian) hero. Towards the end of his long life his stature literally grows, with so many miracles and visions, to enter heaven.
In relation to all this, the Vita Antonii (Life of Anthony) of that old forger that was Athanasius, exerted a most than nefarious influence. Written in Greek towards 360 and promptly translated into Latin, it became a popular success; even more, a paradigm of Greek and Latin hagiography.
And it is quite possible that, as Hertling praises, this fable of Anthony has been ‘one of those books that decide the fate of humanity’, since, according to Hartnack, ‘no other written work has had a more stunning effect on Egypt, Western Asia and Europe ‘that that despicable product which emerged from the pen of St. Athanasius the Great’, ‘perhaps the most fateful book of all that have ever been written’. That work is ‘the ultimate piece responsible for which demons, miracle stories and all kinds of goblins found their accommodation in the Church’ (Lexicon of Concepts for Antiquity and Christianity).
Throughout those centuries, most authors of primitive Christianity resolutely reject Greco-Roman culture, philosophy, poetry and art. In the face of all this, they maintained an attitude of profound distrust, of declared hostility: an attitude determined both by the resentment and the anti-Hellenic hatred of the more or less cultured Christians.
I am sorry, but when a commenter calls ‘Jew’ another commenter on this site with no proof of his Jewish background, he or she has to be banned. (Usually, this happens when he who cries ‘Jew!’ is losing an argument in the comments section.)
Although I find offensive the American flag that shows up sometimes in the studio’s background and disagree with Gariépy that Molyneux is honest, with a diametrically opposed character to mine (I’m a creature of boiling hate) Gariépy pulverised Molyneux in his most recent show. Gariépy has demonstrated that Molyneux’s most recent video on the Jewish question, that I briefly discussed yesterday, is full of strawmen.
After 1:10 to 1:18 it is very interesting to learn how Gariépy became interested in the JQ. Those who don’t have the time to see the whole show must at least watch those few minutes.
Unfortunately, at 1:24 atheist Gariépy reveals himself as a secular neo-Christian. If he already woke up in the JQ, he still has to go a long way to wake up in the CQ. (Later he says that he has people to ban hate speech in the comments section.)
After 2:31, almost at the end of the show, Gariépy believes Molyneux that the latter has no Jewish blood: a claim Molyneux made precisely in the video Gariépy is taking issue with. Well, I’m not so sure…
Further to my claim that ‘Wallace’s and Johnson’s love is murdering the white race’.
After minute 28 Richard Spencer, in the show The Public Space #201, said that Robert Bowers ‘should be punished for this crime…’ Eight minutes later he said, ‘We absolutely condemn them’ (Bowers and Dylann Roof). Spencer is right that Roof and Bowers committed mistakes from the point of view of harming the movement. But that’s not the point of this post.
While talking about a hypothetical ethnic cleansing after minute 134, Spencer mocked the novel of William Pierce of ‘kill all these people… Turner Diaries… We are going to live through this slaughterhouse… It will be only us… That is both absolutely absurd and completely undesirable. I think our movement does need to recognise other people morally speaking; that they are going to have their place under the sun…’
Spencer is not a post-Nietzschean. He has not read my Day of Wrath. Like Hunter, Greg and thousands of other identitarians, Spencer is a neo-Christian. Stalin’s (((willing executioners))) killed about 60 million. In narcosis while diving, the most dangerous symptom is the impairment of judgement. How many millions more will they have to kill outside Russia to wake up Christians and neo-Christians from their axiological narcosis?
At 4:05 of this YouTube clip President Trump said regarding Bowers et al: ‘Those seeking their [the Jews] destruction, we will seek their [great emphasis in the president’s voice] destruction!’ No head of any Western nation had made such a remarkable statement before!
Dear American racists:
Wake up. Uncle Sam is the wickedest creature that has emerged in modern history.
Do you honestly believe that, if whites had not embraced Judeo-Christianity since Constantine, they would be suffering now from the most extreme form of ethno-suicidal philo-Semitism?
When will you start awakening by taking seriously the masthead of this site?
Don’t you see that, compared to Evropa Soberana’s essay (and Tom Goodrich’s book), everything you see on other pro-white forums is almost irrelevant?
Today Greg Johnson wrote about Robert Bowers:
This was a terrible act: immoral, illegal, and politically damaging to white interests. I hope Bowers receives a fair trial and just punishment…
Again, no in-depth article on this site. But post-Nietzscheans are welcome to offer their comments below. Suffice it to say that Hunter Wallace, whom I mentioned in the previous post, commented today on Greggy’s article. A Christian hetero and a secular Neo-Christian homo: they are on the same page axiologically.
Wallace’s and Johnson’s love is murdering the white race.
You see now why this site focuses on axiology and the transvaluation of all Xtian and Neo-Xtian values?
In a chronologically-ordered New Testament, Romans is the seventh book. It is considered St Paul’s magnum opus and, for the Christians who follow the steps of St Augustine and Luther, the most important piece of theology of the New Testament.
I cannot blame St Paul for the doctrine of eternal torture, that he did not invent. But I do blame his Catholic followers that, after Origen, rejected as heresy the notion that hell would not be eternal.
After the Reformation the Protestants took Paul’s sola fide formulation in Romans to rationalise their extremely wicked idea of eternal damnation, where the good deeds of the individual are useless and what counts is blind faith in (((Jesus))). Martin Luther certainly took such wicked premise to its extreme theological formulation, as I argue in my essay ‘On Erasmus’.
I am most curious how Lutherans like Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent could respond to what we have been saying in this site, especially the translations of Deschner’s work, Evropa Soberana’s essay on Rome and Judea and Catherine Nixey’s book about the destruction of the classical world by the Christians? How can racist Christians reconcile their worship of the god of the Jews with Aryan preservation is a mystery for me.
Stefan Molyneux has reacted on the massacre of Jews by Robert Bowers.
By the sixth minute, he mentioned Hitler shaking his head in disapproval. From the 7:20 minute on, he gave many statistics about the Jewish community in the diaspora and in Israel (the statistics are irrelevant to those who understand the Jewish problem). From minute 20 he began to talk about anti-Semitism and confessed ‘I had a Jewish step-grandmother’.
At no time did he address the Jewish problem, which on this site I have defined in a nutshell (Jews are never over-represented in organisations or movements that represent the interests of the white majority, only in those that weaken that majority).
Molyneux’s extreme dishonesty is obvious. He has uploaded thousands of videos and invited many intellectuals… but cleverly eludes every intellectual conscious of the Jewish problem. Not only does he fail to invite a Jew-wise blogger. He does not even debate with the most elemental writing of, say, Kevin MacDonald. Molyneux could, without inviting the professor, answer what MacDonald says only in the preface of his best-known book: an essay that summarizes his life’s work. But the dishonest Molyneux fails to do it…
Nor does he mention, even in passing, the webzine that best explains the Jewish problem, The Occidental Observer. At minute 28:47 Molyneux exclaimed: ‘Blaming Jews I do not see it! In fact I see the opposite’ in the sense that he sees the Jews as a positive influence for the West. He says that the Dark Ages had more to do with Islam than with Judaism, which makes him an ignorant (cf. the masthead of this site, ‘Rome vs. Judea; Judea vs. Rome’).
From minute 34 Molyneux launched such a passionate speech against gentile hatred of Jews that it makes me think he has Jewish blood; he almost cries. He ends by saying ‘We must reason with each other. Reason. Evidence’—but he violates exactly these words because of what I’ve said above!
Molyneux ends his clip with teary eyes. He reminded me that at some time in his life he represented works by Shakespeare. His YouTube show is more theatre than substantial ‘philosophy’.
He’s obviously trying to do a psyop trick on us.
There is something that can trigger the (dormant) murderous spirit of the Aryan: the smell of human blood. I remember that when Bush Jr. invaded Iraq, for the first time on the Internet the hits stopped being the degenerating porn sites. Those who talked about the war got the first place.
What would happen to the Aryan psyche if my prophecy against the American dollar is fulfilled, leading to social chaos in the big cities? Yes: freedom of expression in the country of the First Amendment is constrained by law. The absolute limit seems to be the Brandenburg Law that allows the American to talk about the revolution—as long as it is an academic subject; never to incite an immediate act of violence.
Under that constraint, I ask English-speaking natives to write a novel inspired by the novels of Pierce, who died at the beginning of the century, and Covington who died this year. But unlike them the novel that I have in mind would be a sort of FAQs on how to lead a realistic revolution in our times.
It seems obvious to me that in that work of fiction the idea would be to win the first battle: to silence the media. All anchors would be threatened by the revolutionary command: ‘A single anti-white message that comes from your lips implies the death penalty for you, or your loved ones…’
The fictional work—which I cannot write because my native language is Spanish—could begin with the story that, in the near future, there are not many revolutionaries and such a civil war cannot be born. However, with the passage of time the Alt-Right movement would grow exponentially while the policies of anti-white genocide in South Africa, North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand increase. In our hypothetical novel the moment would come when only the hardest core of such an expanding movement would be of the calibre of a Bowers. With two thousand tough guys the freedom fighters would begin to silence, through sheer terror, the MSM…
That would be the guiding principle of the novel that would have to be sold by a medium alien to Amazon or Lulu insofar as, although a purely fictional work does not violate the Brandenburg Law, the Silicon Valley and some corporations do violate your First Amendment rights.
