web analytics
Categories
Civil war

A post without comments

Iron March, Rope Culture, National Action, Atomwaffen Division, Siege Culture, System Resistance Network, Sonnenkrieg etc. Who are these guys? Many of their sites are down. Metapedia, which does not promote violence (but which articles might be sympathetic to them), still is down. Conversely, RationalWiki and VICE are biased against them. They probably lie, but if this story is true—:

In early 2017, four members of Atomwaffen were living together in a shared property in Tampa, Florida. One of them, Devon Arthurs (known as TheWeissewolfe on Ironmarch), converted to Islam and killed two of the other members, later telling police they had insulted his religion.

—it vindicates what I said in the other thread: that those groups attract men of unsound mind to the point that someone among them may even kill one of their comrades in arms.

Although a racial revolution á la Turner Diaries is commendable, I believe that would-be revolutionaries should have a fairly sound mind. Even what Covington called a ‘trouble trio’ needs a strategic and tactical guide on how to do it.

The limit of free speech on this issue is fiction, not only as Covington’s novels but as the novel I’ll never write. This site was taken down last September as a result of something said on the comments section, so I won’t allow comments on this article.

Categories
Madison Grant Nordicism Racial studies

Rising, 5

(Madison Grant’s introduction)

All wars thus far discussed have been race wars of Europe against Asia, or of the Nordics against Mediterraneans. The wars against the Mongols were necessary and vital; there was no alternative except to fight to the finish. But the wars of northern Europe against the south, from the racial point of view, were not only useless but destructive. Bad as they were, however, they left untouched to a large extent the broodland of the race in the north and west.

Another class of wars, however, has been absolutely deadly to the Nordic race. There must have been countless early struggles where one Nordic tribe attacked and exterminated its rival, such as the Trojan War, fought between Achæans and Phrygians, both Nordics, while the later Peloponnesian War was a purely civil strife between Greeks and resulted in the racial collapse of Hellas.

Rome, after she emerged triumphant from her struggle with the Carthaginians, of Mediterranean race, plunged into a series of civil wars which ended in the complete elimination of the native Nordic element in Rome. Her conquests also were destructive to the Nordic race; particularly so was that of Cæsar in Gaul, one of the few exceptional cases where the north was permanently conquered by the south. The losses of that ten-year conquest fell far more heavily upon the Nordic Celts in Gaul and Britain than on the servile strata of the population.

In the same way the Saxon conquest of England destroyed the Nordic Brythons to a greater degree than the pre-Nordic Neolithic Mediterranean element. From that time on all the wars of Europe, other than those against the Asiatics and Saracens, were essentially civil wars fought between peoples or leaders of Nordic blood.

Mediæval Europe was one long welter of Nordic immolation until the Wars of the Roses in England, the Hundred Years’ War in the Lowlands, the religious, revolutionary, and Napoleonic wars in France, and the ghastly Thirty Years’ War in Germany dangerously depleted the ruling Nordic race and paved the way for the emergence from obscurity of the servile races which for ages had been dominated by them.

To what extent the present war has fostered this tendency, time alone will show, but Mr. Stoddard has pointed out some of the immediate and visible results. The backbone of western civilization is racially Nordic, the Alpines and Mediterraneans being effective precisely to the extent in which they have been Nordicized and vitalized.

If this great race, with its capacity for leadership and fighting, should ultimately pass, with it would pass that which we call civilization. It would be succeeded by an unstable and bastardized population, where worth and merit would have no inherent right to leadership and among which a new and darker age would blot out our racial inheritance.

Such a catastrophe cannot threaten if the Nordic race will gather itself together in time, shake off the shackles of an inveterate altruism, discard the vain phantom of internationalism, and reassert the pride of race and the right of merit to rule.

The Nordic race has been driven from many of its lands, but still grasps firmly the control of the world, and it is certainly not at a greater numerical disadvantage than often before in contrast to the teeming population of eastern Asia.

It has repeatedly been confronted with crises where the accident of battle, or the genius of a leader, saved a well-nigh hopeless day. It has survived defeat, it has survived the greater danger of victory, and, if it takes warning in time, it may face the future with assurance. Fight it must, but let that fight be not a civil war against its own blood kindred but against the dangerous foreign races, whether they advance sword in hand or in the more insidious guise of beggars at our gates, pleading for admittance to share our prosperity. If we continue to allow them to enter they will in time drive us out of our own land by mere force of breeding.

The great hope of the future here in America lies in the realization of the working class that competition of the Nordic with the alien is fatal, whether the latter be the lowly immigrant from southern or eastern Europe or whether he be the more obviously dangerous Oriental against whose standards of living the white man cannot compete. In this country we must look to such of our people—our farmers and artisans—as are still of American blood to recognize and meet this danger.

Our present condition is the result of following the leadership of idealists and philanthropic doctrinaires, aided and abetted by the perfectly understandable demand of our captains of industry for cheap labor.

To-day the need for statesmanship is great, and greater still is the need for thorough knowledge of history. All over the world the first has been lacking, and in the passions of the Great War the lessons of the past have been forgotten both here and in Europe.

The establishment of a chain of Alpine states from the Baltic to the Adriatic, as a sequel to the war, all of them organized at the expense of the Nordic ruling classes, may bring Europe back to the days when Charlemagne, marching from the Rhine to the Elbe, found the valley of that river inhabited by heathen Wends. Beyond lay Asia, and his successors spent a thousand years pushing eastward the frontiers of Europe.

Now that Asia, in the guise of Bolshevism with Semitic leadership and Chinese executioners, is organizing an assault upon western Europe, the new states—Slavic-Alpine in race, with little Nordic blood—may prove to be not frontier guards of western Europe but vanguards of Asia in central Europe. None of the earlier Alpine states have held firm against Asia, and it is more than doubtful whether Poland, Bohemia, Rumania, Hungary, and Jugo-Slavia can face the danger successfully, now that they have been deprived of the Nordic ruling classes through democratic institutions.

Democratic ideals among an homogeneous population of Nordic blood, as in England or America, is one thing, but it is quite another for the white man to share his blood with, or intrust his ideals to, brown, yellow, black, or red men.

This is suicide pure and simple, and the first victim of this amazing folly will be the white man himself.

Madison Grant.
New York, March 1, 1920.

Categories
Julian (novel) Literature

Julian, 51

Julian presiding at a conference of Sectarians
(Edward Armitage, 1875)

 
In the dim atrium, students were again gathered, talking strenuously all at once as students will. When they saw us enter, they fell silent. I daresay the sight of me alarmed them. But Prohaeresius told them I was to be treated as just another student.

“Not that he is, of course, in spite of the beard and the old clothes.” They laughed. “He is different from us.” I was about to say that even members of Constantine’s family have some (if not much) resemblance to the human family, when he said: “He is a true philosopher. He has chosen to be what we must be.” This was accepted with some delight. Not until a day later did the irony of what he said occur to me.

Macrina took me by the arm and said, “You must meet Priscus. He is the most disagreeable man in Athens.”

Priscus sat on a stool, surrounded by students. He is a lean, cold-faced man, nearly as tall as Prohaeresius. He rose when we approached him and murmured, “Welcome.” I was pleased to meet this great teacher whom I had long known by reputation, for he is as famous for his wit as he is for his ambiguities. He is also completely without enthusiasm, which right off made him a good foil for me since I am often excited by the trivial. We were friends from the start. He is with me now in Persia.

“Try to pin him down,” said Macrina, turning to me, her hand on Priscus’s lean arm as though presenting him to me for a bout of wrestling, “on anything. We think of him as the master of evasion. He never argues.”

With a look of distaste which I have come to know so well (and fear when it is turned on me!), Priscus got his arm loose from Macrina’s grasp. “Why should I argue? I know what I know. And others are always quick to tell me what they know, or think they know. There is no need for confrontation.”

“But surely you must find that new thoughts occur in argument?” I was naïve, of course; I pressed him hard. “After all, Socrates led others to wisdom through argument and conversation.”

“The two are not quite the same thing. I teach through conversation, or try to. But argument is a vice in this city. Glib men can almost always score points off wiser but less well-spoken men. Nowadays style in speaking is everything; content nothing. Most of the Sophists are actors—worse, they are lawyers. And the young men pay to hear them perform, like street singers.”

“Priscus attacks me!” Prohaeresius had joined us. He was amused at what was obviously an old discussion.

“You know what I think.” Priscus was severe. “You are the worst of the lot because you are the best performer.” He turned to me. “He is so eloquent that every Sophist in Athens hates him.”

“All but you,” observed Macrina.

Priscus ignored her. “A few years ago his confreres decided that he was too popular. So they bribed the proconsul…”

“Careful,” said Macrina. “We must not speak of bribed officials in front of what may one day be the greatest official of them all.”

“Bribed the proconsul,” said Priscus as though she had not spoken, “to exile our host. This was done. But then the proconsul retired and was succeeded by a younger man who was so indignant at what had happened that he allowed Prohaeresius to return. But the Sophists did not give up easily. They continued to plot against their master. So the proconsul held a meeting at the University…”

“At my uncle’s suggestion.”

Prohaeresius was amused. “Macrina allows us no secrets. Yes, I put him up to it. I wanted to get my enemies all together in one place in order that I might…”

“Dispatch them,” said Macrina.

Win them,” said her uncle.

“Beat them,” said Macrina.

Priscus continued. “It was a formidable display. Everyone was gathered in the main hall of the University. Friends were nervous. Enemies were active. The proconsul arrived. He took charge of the assembly. He announced that a theme should be proposed for Prohaeresius to argue. Any theme. The assembly could choose it. At first no one said a word.”

“Until my uncle saw two of his very worst enemies skulking in the back. He called on them to set a theme. They tried to escape, but the proconsul ordered his guards to bring them back.”

Priscus looked dour indeed. “It was the guards, I suggest, that won the day for virtue.”

“The honeyed tongue of Priscus!” The old man laughed. “You may be right. Though I suspect the bad judgment of the enemy helped most, for they set me a theme of remarkable obscenity and limited scope.”

“Which side of a woman is the most pleasing, front or back.” Macrina grinned.

“But he accepted the challenge,” said Priscus. “He spoke with such effectiveness that the audience maintained a Pythagorean silence.”

“He also insisted that shorthand reporters from the law court take down every word.” In an oblique way, Macrina was proud of her uncle’s prowess. “He also insisted there be no applause.”

“It was a memorable speech,” Priscus continued. “First, he presented the argument in all its particulars. Then he took one side… the front. After an hour, he said, ‘Now observe carefully whether I remember all the arguments that I used earlier.’ He then repeated the speech in all its intricate detail, only this time he took the opposite point of view… the back. In spite of the proconsul’s order, applause filled the hall. It was the greatest triumph of memory and eloquence heard in our time.”

“And…?” Prohaeresius knew that Priscus would not finish without a sudden twist to the knife.

And? Your enemies were completely routed and where before they despised you, now they hate you.” Priscus turned to me. “They nearly had his life the next year. They still plot against him.”

“Which proves?” Prohaeresius was as curious as I to learn what Priscus was up to.

“That victories in argument are useless. They are showy. What is spoken always causes more anger than any silence. Debate of this sort convinces no one. Aside from the jealousies such a victory arouses, there is the problem of the vanquished. I speak now of philosophers. The one who is defeated, even if he realizes at last that he is fighting truth, suffers from having been publicly proved wrong. He then becomes savage and is apt to end by hating philosophy. I would prefer not to lose anyone for civilization.”

“Well said,” Prohaeresius agreed.

“Or, perhaps,” said the devilish Macrina, “you yourself don’t want to lose an argument, knowing that you are apt to turn bitter as a result of public humiliation. Oh, Priscus, you are vain! You won’t compete for fear you might not win. As it is, none of us knows how wise you are. Silence is his legend, Prince. And he is all the greater for that. Each time Prohaeresius speaks he limits himself, for words limit everything, being themselves limited. That’s why Priscus is wisest of all: silence cannot be judged. Silence masks all things or no thing. Only Priscus can tell us what his silence conceals, but since he won’t, we suspect him great.”

Priscus did not answer. Macrina was the only woman I have ever known who could speak with so many odd twistings and turnings. Irony is not usual to woman, but then Macrina was not in any way usual. Before we had an opportunity to see if Priscus could answer her, we were interrupted by the arrival of my bodyguard, as well as an officer of the proconsul’s staff. Word had already spread throughout Athens that I was at the house of Prohaeresius. I was again taken into custody.

Categories
Currency crash Rape of the Sabine Women

Persistent scepticism

A visitor to this site sent me the following e-mail:

This comment of mine was originally going to be posted in response to a comment of yours about abducting and raping the Sabine women on your blog post entitled ‘Initial scepticism’. Though my comment was not addressed to you directly but to anyone who reads your blog:

It’s sad that white males seem to be only able to talk about solutions to such problems as the Female Problem in future tense. White males speak about what they’re going to do “one day”, “in the future”, just not now. We’re going to abduct and rape our women “one day”…. meanwhile Muslims and Blacks abduct and rape our women now. In the UK Muslim men are having their lust fulfilled with thousands of white girls. Granted UK law is not hard on these Muslim men and actively favors them but at the same time Black men in America do suffer long imprisonment for rape, yet they still rape white women each year on a colossal scale. In addition Black men and Muslim men have their own women under greater control than white men have their women. Black women in Africa have the highest birth rate in the world and Blacks are projected to become the largest race on Earth as we near the end of the century. And Muslim men have their women following a patriarchal rule, covered up with burkas and banging out babies. Meanwhile they rape our own women on the side.

White boys (I’m not going to call us White Men, most of us don’t deserve to be called Men) talk about what they’re going to do “after the collapse”, hoping for a collapse that will cause society to collapse into chaos so the police are dispersed and they can get away with what it is they want to do. But the collapse may never come. What white males have to be prepared for is that killing their enemies and raping their women could very well require breaking their enemies laws. That the only way forward is to become outlaws. True revolutionaries. If the minority of us white males who want our race to survive won’t sacrifice our meaningless ‘freedom’, pleasures and life and endure prison, torture and even death then our race may not be able to survive. If we’re not willing to put anything on the table we don’t deserve to get anything back. Our forefathers sacrificed for their race time and time again. If white males have become incapable of doing what’s necessary for survival then our race is unfit to survive.

If white males were serious about their race’s survival they would be dropping out of society, draining the enemy system for all the welfare money they can, radicalizing themselves and other white males with racist literature, living a lifestyle where they are constantly in and out of prison due to their subversive activities, and finally carrying out terrorist attacks. There are thousands of radicalized Muslims in countries like France and the UK and they successfuly commit terrorist attacks. Imagine if there were thousands of radicalized neo-Nazi extremists in France and the UK. We would be unstoppable! A 1,000 Robert Bowers=11,000 dead Jews! Ultimately White Men have no-one to blame but themselves for their failure to secure a future for white children. White Men are deliberately holding themselves back for various reasons. It appears most white males don’t have the imagination or capability to break with the System and its programming. They are victims and slaves of their own making. Their ‘resistance’ will always be safe non-violent activism within legal parameters.

Thanks for reading, Cesar

T.

As we can see, the visitor used the phrase ‘But the collapse may never come’. In reality, the collapse is inevitable: as can be seen in these four videos by Mike Maloney that, five years ago, I embedded on this site (first, second, third and fourth).

Regarding what the visitor says above, that the coloured ones are already raping white women while the Aryan males only fantasise about doing so in the future, this is obviously due to the fact that the anti-white empire that reigns in the West forbids to some what it allows to others. The author of ‘Lycanthropy: How will the Castilian Wolf deal with Little Red Riding Hoods after the crash’ made it very clear that it is necessary for ZOG to be fatally wounded before white males recover their wives.

The good news is that the System will soon suffer a huge blow with the looming financial accident: a golden opportunity for white nationalists, finally, to grow a pair.

Categories
Alexis de Tocqueville Autobiography Psychiatry Psychoanalysis Voltaire

The hammer of the victims

To contextualise this series about psychiatry, see: here. Below, an abridged translation of a chapter of one of the books that I wrote in the last century:
 

This quotation explains perfectly why the so-called mental health professions have so much power in our societies:

To commit violent and unjust acts, it is not enough for a government to have the will or even the power; the habits, ideas, and passions of the time must lend themselves to their committal. —Alexis de Tocqueville [1]

Since psychiatrists and psychoanalysts diagnose people who are actually victims of insulting environments, their fundamental postulate is precisely to deny what they are. In psychiatric Newspeak the expression ‘victim of the environment’ has been eliminated; the aetiology of any disorder has to be looked for in the reign of the somatic. By doing this it is methodologically impossible that the profession will blame the parents even in cases of flagrant physical, sexual or emotional abuse toward the children (schizophrenogenic emotional abuse was what Helfgott and Modrow suffered). Thus psychiatry carries out an important function: to exonerate the family, the cell of civilisation, of the devastation manifested in the children.

Civil society lives in denial too. It doesn’t want to see that inside its most sacred institution maddening abuses exist on its most vulnerable members: children and adolescents. Both present-day university professions and civil society are as ignorant and superstitious of this situation as the Middle Ages was about diseases caused by microorganisms.

Voltaire saw the learned inquisitors as what they were—instead of diagnosing as ‘heretics’ the persons that the Inquisition tortured and murdered. Henceforth his call Écrasez l’infame! against the church, with which he annotated his liberating letters.

Nowadays the therapeutic state took over the labour of social control of the theocratic state. The call Écrasez l’infame!—Crush the infamy!—can be no more pertinent to refer to a profession that tortures and murders souls of children through psychological re-victimizations and handicapping drugs.

The studying of perpetrators is a revaluation of values of psychiatry: a new science that in lieu of hammering the victims it studies the perpetrators, or simply perps. In this revaluation of all psychiatric values science has to re-orient itself to the study of maddening parents (cf. Helfgott’s life), re-victimizing psychiatrists (cf. Breggin), charlatans who call themselves analysts (cf. Masson), and the civil struggle to abolish the therapeutic state (cf. Szasz).

In addition to these lines of investigation and struggle, my dream is that the study of perps will eventually include a new type of literature to reclaim for biographers and autobiographers the study of the human soul which was usurped by politicians that people call psychiatrists, psychoanalysts and clinical psychologists (psychiatry, psychoanalysis and clinical psychology are pseudosciences). One of the paradigms of this new literature is the study by John Modrow, who contributed to solving the mystery of why some adolescents get mad (in psychiatric Newspeak, ‘schizophrenia’) if subjected to parental abuse and psychiatric re-victimization.

If this new kind of vindictive autobiography doesn’t develop in the future, the true study of the human psyche will stagnate. The Lithuanian poet Czeslaw Milosz, Nobel laureate in 1980, has said that events such as the Napoleonic Wars, the American Civil War and even the Trench Warfare of WW1 were not autobiographically recalled in a satisfactory way, independently of the fact that historians have written entire libraries about those events. [2]

The same can be said of the absent autobiographies of the victims of our society. Hundreds of thousands of Doras didn’t recall literarily their testimonies. Brilliant politicians like Eugen Bleuler and Freud took their words out of their mouths and spoke in their names. Hersilie Rouy, Julie La Roche, Modrow and a few others are the exceptions.

__________

[1] Alexis de Tocqueville, quoted in W.H. Auden and L. Kronenberger (eds.), The Viking book of aphorisms: a personal selection (Dorset Press, 1981), p. 297, quoted in a lecture by Thomas Szasz presented in the Foucault Symposium in Berlin University, May 1998.

[2] Czeslaw Milosz in La experiencia de la libertad/3: la palabra liberada (Espejo de Obsidiana Ediciones, 1991), pp. 102f.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

Categories
Ancient Rome Christendom Destruction of Greco-Roman world Jesus Reformation

Commissary to the Gentiles, 2

by (((Marcus Eli Ravage)))

But even these plots and revolutions are as nothing compared with the great conspiracy which we engineered at the beginning of this era and which was destined to make the creed of a Jewish sect the religion of the Western world. The Reformation was not designed in malice purely. It squared us with an ancient enemy and restored our Bible to its place of honor in Christendom. The Republican revolutions of the eighteenth century freed us of our age-long political and social disabilities. They benefited us, but they did you no harm. On the contrary, they prospered and expanded you. You owe your preeminence in the world to them.

But the upheaval which brought Christianity into Europe was—or at least may easily be shown to have been—planned and executed by Jews as an act of revenge against a great Gentile state. And when you talk about Jewish conspiracies I cannot for the world understand why you do not mention the destruction of Rome and the whole civilization of antiquity concentrated under her banners, at the hands of Jewish Christianity.

It is unbelievable, but you Christians do not seem to know where your religion came from, nor how, nor why. Your historians, with one great exception, do not tell you. The documents in the case, which are part of your Bible, you chant over but do not read. We have done our work too thoroughly; you believe our propaganda too implicitly. The coming of Christianity is to you not an ordinary historical event growing out of other events of the time; it is the fulfilment of a divine Jewish prophecy—with suitable amendments of your own. It did not, as you see it, destroy a great Gentile civilization and a great Gentile empire with which Jewry was at war; it did not plunge mankind into barbarism and darkness for a thousand years; it came to bring salvation to the Gentile world!

Yet here, if ever, was a great subversive movement, hatched in Palestine, spread by Jewish agitators, financed by Jewish money, taught in Jewish pamphlets and broadsides, at a time when Jewry and Rome were in a death-struggle, and ending in the collapse of the great Gentile empire. You do not even see it, though an intelligent child, unbefuddled by theological magic, could tell you what it is all about after a hasty reading of the simple record. And then you go on prattling of Jewish conspiracies and cite as instances the Great War and the Russian Revolution! Can you wonder that we Jews have always taken your anti-Semites rather lightly, as long as they did not resort to violence?

And, mind you, no less an authority than Gibbon long ago tried to enlighten you. It is now a century and a half since The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire let the cat out of the bag. Gibbon, not being a parson dabbling in history, did not try to account for the end of a great era by inventing fatuous nonsense about the vice and degradation of Rome, about the decay of morals and faith in an empire which was at that very time in the midst of its most glorious creative period. How could he? He was living in the Augustan Age in London which—in spite of nearly two thousand years since the coming of Christian salvation—was as good a replica of Augustan Rome in the matter of refined lewdness as the foggy islanders could make it.

No, Gibbon was a race-conscious Gentile and an admirer of the culture of the pagan West, as well as a historian with brains and eyes. Therefore he had no difficulty laying his finger on the malady that had rotted and wasted away the noble edifice of antique civilization. He put Christianity down—the law which went forth from Zion and the word of God from Jerusalem—as the central cause of the decline and fall of Rome and all she represented.

So far so good. But Gibbon did not go far enough. He was born and died, you see, a century before the invention of scientific anti-Semitism. He left wholly out of account the element of deliberation. He saw an alien creed sweeping out of the East and overwhelming the fair lands of the West. It never occurred to him that it was precisely to this destructive end that the whole scheme of salvation was dedicated. Yet the facts are as plain as you please.

Let me in very brief recount the tale, unembroidered by miracle, prophecy or magic.

For a good perspective, I shall have to go back a space. The action conveniently falls into four parts, rising to a climax in the third. The time, when the first curtain rises, is roughly 65 B.C. Dramatis persona; are, minor parts aside, Judea and Rome. Judea is a tiny kingdom off the Eastern Mediterranean. For five centuries it has been hardly more than a geographical expression. Again and again it has been overrun and destroyed and its population carried into exile or slavery by its powerful neighbors. Nominally independent, it is now as unstable as ever and on the edge of civil war. The empire of the West, with her nucleus in the City Republic of Rome, while not yet mistress of the world, is speedily heading that way. She is acknowledged the one great military power of the time as well as the heir of Greece and the center of civilization.

Up to the present the two states have had little or no contact with one another. Then without solicitation on her part Rome was suddenly asked to take a hand in Judean affairs. A dispute had arisen between two brothers over the succession to the petty throne, and the Roman general Pompey, who happened to be in Damascus winding up bigger matters, was called upon to arbitrate between the claimants. With the simple directness of a republican soldier, Pompey exiled one of the brothers, tossed the chief priesthood to his rival, and abolished the kingly dignity altogether. Not to put too fine a point on it, Pompey’s mediation amounted in effect to making Judea a Roman dependency.

The Jews, not unnaturally perhaps, objected; and Rome, to conciliate them and to conform to local prejudice, restored the royal office. She appointed, that is, a king of her own choosing. He was the son of an exciseman, an Idumean by race, named Herod. But the Jews were not placated, and continued making trouble. Rome thought it very ungrateful of them.

All this is merely a prelude, and is introduced into the action to make clear what follows. Jewish discontent grew to disaffection and open revolt when their Gentile masters began importing into Jerusalem the blessings of Western culture. Graven images, athletic games, Greek drama, and gladiatorial shows were not to the Jewish taste. The pious resented them as an offense in the nostrils of Jehovah, even though the resident officials patiently explained they were meant for the entertainment and edification of the non-Jewish garrison. The Judeans resisted with especial strenuousness the advent of the efficient Roman tax-gatherer. Above all, they wanted back a king of their own race and their own royal line.

Among the masses the rebellion took the form of a revival of the old belief in a Messiah, a divinely appointed savior who was to redeem his people from the foreign yoke and make Judea supreme among the nations. Claimants to the mission were not wanting. In Galilee, one Judas led a rather formidable insurrection, which enlisted much popular support. John, called the Baptist, operated in the Jordan country. He was followed by another north-country man, Jesus of Nazareth. All three were masters of the technique of couching incendiary political sedition in harmless theological phrases. All three used the same signal of revolt—“The time is at hand.” And all three were speedily apprehended and executed, both Galileans by crucifixion.

Personal qualities aside, Jesus of Nazareth was, like his predecessors, a political agitator engaged in liberating his country from the foreign oppressor. There is even considerable evidence that he entertained an ambition to become king of an independent Judea. He claimed, or his biographers later claimed for him, descent from the ancient royal line of David. But his paternity is somewhat confused. The same writers who traced the origin of his mother’s husband back to the psalmist-king also pictured Jesus as the son of Jehovah, and admitted that Joseph was not his father.

It seems, however, that Jesus before long realized the hopelessness of his political mission and turned his oratorical gifts and his great popularity with the masses in quite another direction. He began preaching a primitive form of populism, socialism and pacifism. The effect of this change in his program was to gain him the hostility of the substantial, propertied classes, the priests and patriots generally, and to reduce his following to the poor, the laboring mass and the slaves.

After his death these lowly disciples formed themselves into a communistic brotherhood. A sermon their late leader had once delivered upon a hillside summed up for them the essence of his teachings, and they made it their rule of life. It was a philosophy calculated to appeal profoundly to humble people. It comforted those who suffered here on earth with promised rewards beyond the grave. It made virtues of the necessities of the weak. Men without hope in the future were admonished to take no thought for the morrow. Men too helpless to resent insult or injury were taught to resist not evil. Men condemned to lifelong drudgery and indigence were assured of the dignity of labor and of poverty.

The meek, the despised, the disinherited, the downtrodden, were—in the hereafter—to be the elect and favored of God. The worldly, the ambitious, the rich and powerful, were to be denied admission to heaven.

Categories
Goethe Karlheinz Deschner Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) Science Theology

Christianity’s Criminal History, 111


 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.

 

Everything a person needs to know is contained in the Bible

Augustine’s intellectual achievements—which are of a theological nature—have been always overrated. With the exception of certain psychological observations, he always wrote under the inspiration of others, and limited himself to ‘converting into a personal experience what he grasped when meditating on the thoughts of others’ (H. Holl). ‘Never in his life did he have the courage to think autonomously’. A historian so enlightening and worthy of being read as H. Dannenbauer is tempted to apply to Augustine the old sentence with which Goethe referred to Lavater: ‘Strict truth was not his. He lied to himself and others’.

Augustine felt genuine addiction for authority. He always had to find shelter under something, to adhere to something: to the Manicheans, to academic scepticism, to neo-Platonism and, finally, to Christianity. In this regard, he only believed in the Bible by virtue of the authority of the Church (which based its authority on the Bible). The authority of the Bible is in turn a guarantee, Augustine thinks, of the truth. What it affirms is true; it is completely infallible. ‘Moreover, Scripture sometimes appears as a criterion of profane knowledge. Of the historical narratives, we should only believe as long as it does not contradict the affirmations of Scripture’.

Already in the time of Augustine both the wealth of knowledge and the quality of education had declined. However, some classical training still counted to the point that, with it, it was possible to make a career in the Roman Empire and get access the high and even the supreme dignities.

The bishop of Hippo had no notion of Hebrew. Also, his knowledge of Greek was flimsy. He could hardly translate Greek texts. He, a rhetor and for several years a professor at several high schools, barely read the Greek Bible.

To the classics, including Plato and Plotinus to the extent that he knew them, and to the Greek Patristics, he read them in a Latin version. And it is likely that most of his quotations were second hand. Only very few come from direct sources: Livius, Florus, Eutropius, perhaps Josephus, but above all Marcus Terentius Varro, the great scholar of ancient Rome, whose Antiquitates rerum humanarum and divinarum (Antiquities of Human and Divine Things) is his only source of information regarding the pagan deities.

Augustine’s scientific and natural training was very weak. Certainly he did not think it necessary to admit the existence of pygmies, of cynocephali, or of people who protected themselves from the sun under their flat feet. He firmly believed, of course, that the diamond could only be broken with the blood of a goat and that the wind from Cappadocia impregnated the mares. He also believed firmly in purgatory. Moreover, he was the theologian who endowed this idea dogmatic entity.

He also believed firmly in hell, being himself the one who depicts it for us as real physical fire, and who teaches that the intensity of heat is governed by the gravity of sins. On the other hand, he does not believe that the Earth is spherical (nulla ratione credendum est, ‘there is no reason to believe that’) even if it had been demonstrated centuries ago.

The natural sciences, according to Augustine, are opinions. The investigation of the world is at the most investigation of a world of appearances. This applies to the theatre as well as to natural science or magic—eagerness for shows, curiosity, that’s all.

Profane knowledge and culture do not have any value for themselves. They only acquire value in the service of faith and have no other purpose than to lead to holiness, to a deeper understanding of the Bible. Philosophy, that in his old age seemed to him ‘subtle charlatanism’ (garrulae argtiae), has no other value than mere help to interpret the ‘revelation’. Everything thus becomes a resource, an instrument for the understanding of Scripture. Otherwise science—any science—is alienation from God.

The curiosity, the eagerness to know always created suspicions in Christianity. Tertullian had already fought it with crudeness and Augustine, more fiercely, attacks almost systematically curiosity and the longing to know, which leads him to anathematize science.

Painting, music and sculpture are also superfluous. Medicine, architecture and agriculture deserve the same judgment, unless they are to be practiced professionally. This bishop saw in the Church the Schola Christi (Christ’s School) and all the sciences outside it were suspect. Ultimately, everything a person needs to know is in the Bible and what is not there is harmful.

Categories
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn Communism Richard Carrier

Russo-Jewish history

Yesterday, I received from FedEx the treatise of Richard Carrier that endorses the Christ myth theory at the postdoctoral level. White nationalists who continue to believe that there is historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed should obtain a copy of Carrier’s book. As I have said several times, the movement called white nationalism is schizophrenic in that, logically, there can be no such chimera as a Jew-wise movement that submits to the god of the Jews and, at the same time, loves a supposed Jewish dude called Jesus.

Yesterday I could barely tolerate a few seconds of the recent YouTube conversation between Richard Spencer, James Edwards and Kevin MacDonald precisely because of these internal contradictions that did not exist in the upper echelons of Nazi power. And it was precisely the Nazis who wanted to destroy the Soviet Union in which the genocidal Jews played a fundamental role. Precisely because white nationalists are more bourgeois than revolutionary, I fear that in the not too distant future the United States will become an open field of extermination at the mercy of Jews similar to Stalin’s willing executioners.

Solzhenitsyn only wrote two non-fiction books: The Gulag Archipelago and 200 Years Together. No wonder that the second of these books, which deals with Russo-Jewish history, has not been translated by recognised publishers in the Judaized United States. The good news is that Solzhenitsyn’s second non-fictional book has been translated for dissidents like us, who are only allowed to discuss these things on the internet.

I suggest saving the PDF of 200 Years Together on your hard disk. The PDF will become handy when the US becomes like the SU. I want to read it in the coming weeks and months and add some quotes on this site. For the moment, this is the table of contents:
 

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
200 Years Together

 
Volume 1 – The Jews Before the Revolution:

Chapter 1: Before the 19th Century (translated by R. Butler and J. Harris)
Chapter 2: During the Reign of Alexander I
Chapter 3: During the Reign of Nicholas I
Chapter 4: During the Period of Reforms
Chapter 5: After the Murder of Alexander II
Chapter 6: In the Russian Revolutionary Movement
Chapter 7: The Birth of Zionism
Chapter 8: At the Turn of the 20th Century
Chapter 9: During the Revolution of 1905
Chapter 10: During the Period of Duma
Chapter 11: The Jewish and Russian National Consciousness Prior to WWI
Chapter 12: During World War I
 
Volume 2 – The Jews in the Soviet Union:

Chapter 13: The February Revolution
Chapter 14: During 1917
Chapter 15: Among Bolsheviks
Chapter 16: During the Civil War
Chapter 17: Emigration Between the Two World Wars
Chapter 18: In the 1920s
Chapter 19: In the 1930s
Chapter 20: In the Camps of GULAG
Chapter 21: During the Soviet-German War
Chapter 22: From the End of the War to Stalin’s Death
Chapter 23: Before the Six-Day War
Chapter 24: Breaking Away from Bolshevism
Chapter 25: Accusing Russia
Chapter 26: The Beginning of Exodus
Chapter 27: About the Assimilation
Author’s Afterword

Categories
Chris Martenson Currency crash Energy / peak oil

Initial scepticism

In the comments section of the previous post I mentioned a Swede I read in 2009. In internet forums that claim to defend the West, that was the first time I heard about the coming fall of the American dollar, something about which I also commented in the previous discussion thread.

The prediction that the hegemony of the United States will soon end with the fall of its economy, something that would free Europe from US troops (for example, the gringo troops in Germany), is such music to the ears of dissidents that ten years ago I dispatched those theories as wishful thinking. That’s why I can understand that visitors to this site are so sceptical that the dollar will fall. But there is something that happened precisely in 2009 that I must confess.

The guy referred to called me over the phone, from Sweden to Spain (ten years ago I was living in Gran Canaria), and we talked about one hour on various topics. Repeatedly I told him, again and again, that I did not think the dollar was going to tank. My scepticism was based precisely on the fact that such prediction seemed sent to us by a fairy godmother, which smelled like wishful thinking.

The Swede was disappointed by my persistent scepticism and that was the last time we spoke on the phone. However, the YouTube sources cited were there, in the text that the Swede had left. (Recently Blake Hood, writing in Volkish and speaking precisely about the Swede’s text wrote: ‘This is an edited version of this epic post from the blog West’s Darkest Hour. Go read the whole thing’.)

So I started to watch online discussions between Keynesian economists and the economists of the so-called Austrian school, to which belong those who believe that the dollar is going to tank. After watching approximately one hundred YouTube discussions I changed 180º with respect to my original scepticism and realised that those who predict a great financial calamity in the United States are right.

Take into account that the economists who belong to the Austrian school cannot be accused of self-deception for the simple fact that nobody among them, as far as I know, is a white nationalist (only the latter long for a glitch in the Matrix). The conclusions reached by the Austrian economists are based on facts and an interpretation of the facts, especially in matters of economy, energy and the environment.

Those who are as sceptical as I was when I lived in Spain would do themselves a favour if they listened, with due attention, the accelerated course by Chris Martenson (pic left). If you do, keep the very important quote of Dr. Albert Bartlett in mind, as I’ve noticed that white nationalists still think in linear, non-exponential terms (i.e., the collapse won’t be gradual: it will unfold very rapidly).

My own paradigm shift

The following is my response to a comment in the previous thread:

When I say that Jews engineered Christianity I’m sort of hyperbolic, as it is not absolutely clear that Mark—the author of the only gospel (as the other Synoptics copied and pasted large sections of Mark into their gospels)—was a Jew.

Now that I lean toward the Christ myth theory the role of Paul, with his celestial Jesus, becomes more nebulous. It looks like Mark was the big author behind what today is understood as Christianity.

My bicausal point is that, even if the four gospel writers were Hellenized Jews, you still need two to tango.

In classic white nationalism, Jewish subversion is the main cause of white decline (non-Christian white nationalists could say that the kike deceived whites with Christian morality). Remember that duck-rabbit image Kuhn used to illustrate paradigm shifts? I use the above image to illustrate my own paradigm shift from classic white nationalism to, say, Pierce’s Turner Diaries that depicted common whites as despicable degenerates. In contrast to the classical interpretation of the above caricature, I see it the other way: present-day whites are unbelievable naïve and stupid and gullible to believe what the kike tells them.

These days that I have been immersed in mythicism I discovered that salvation gods and individualism (not only in Christianity) always came after the empires were established. Only in the healthy stages of a culture religion was understood as something for the common good. This supports what I said in my previous post about the ‘One Ring’ or gold over blood: those decadent whites who embraced Christianity a long time ago (two to tango) were more responsible for the inversion of values than the subversive kike.

Bourgeois life and comfort seem like the main enemy of every white culture throughout history. That’s why I think that only a convergence of catastrophes in this century will save whites. Such a scenario may push the reset button and shift their presently rotten psyche back again to survival mode.