web analytics
Amerindians Catholic religious orders Kevin MacDonald Miscegenation Racial right

Avoiding the C-word

Several years ago, Brad Griffin of Occidental Dissent posted articles in which he blamed liberal republicanism and ‘the spread of evangelical Christianity’ for today’s suicidal liberalism: a clever way of avoiding the C-word, Christianity without adjectives. Today Kevin MacDonald did the same in The Occidental Observer: he blamed a specific form of Christianity, Yankee puritanism, for today’s suicidal liberalism. In ‘Massive blindspot’ on Friday I wrote: ‘Instead of seeing the elephant in the room, Christian ethics, they fixate on these trifles’.

It is very easy to reply to these racialists. First of all, Americans tend to only see their belly button. If we introduce the history of Latin America in the racial discourse, it is clear that from the Rio Grande to Argentina the Europeans of the Iberian Peninsula managed to develop an ethnosuicidal ideology without the influence of Protestant puritanism.

But our voice is not heard by the majority of American racialists. Last month, for example, no one commented on ‘Reflections of an Aryan woman, 5’. There I denounced my father’s symphonic work, where he honours a Spanish monk. As early as the 16th century, my father boasted, some monks who emigrated to the Americas behaved as true precursors of (so-called) human rights.

In my previous post I cited the best definition of Christianity that I’ve ever heard: ‘Christianity, in essence, means not the number of priests ordained: but the number of niggers loved’. Well, south of the Rio Grande we could rephrase that definition like this: ‘Christianity means not the number of Catholic priests ordained but the number of nacos loved’. (In Mexico naco is equivalent to the North American nigger, although referring to the Amerinds.) The number of nacos loved by the Spanish and Portuguese was such that in Latin America, unlike the Anglo-Germans of the north, they weren’t cornered in special territories. This very Christian practise resulted in the greatest miscegenation in history: a whole continent, where Europeans irrevocably stained their blood.

The important thing to note here is that my late father was right: Spain brought with it the monastic orders dedicated to protecting the Indian with zeal. Without the help of Protestant puritanism or republican liberalism, the Europeans in the Spanish and Portuguese part of the continent practised a racial harakiri, of which today we see the consequences only by turning on the TV.

MacDonald and the white nationalists will continue to avoid the word. Alas, I can’t even say that racial science will advance during the burials of the old proponents of white nationalism because even the young nationalists—not just Griffin—avoid the C-word!

7 replies on “Avoiding the C-word”

The only good thing Americans did in their history was the near-extermination of the native redskin naco.
They carried out a relentless, unfettered genocidal campaign against non-Whites, combined with a huge territorial expansion; an easier, faster, more brutal version of Generalplan Ost, without all the meticulous racial profiling that would entail with the Russians and Slavs – whom, like the Spaniards and Portuguese, did a shit job during their long expansion to Vladivostok.

The C-word will become a hot topic of debate pretty soon.
I watched on Youtube a young american WW2 reenactor doing a Livestream, with a roomful of German Wehrmacht weapons, gear and paraphernalia. He was talking about his reenacting tour, his opinions on politics and the Eastern front, and even hinted at the holohoax and un-demonising the SS. He was obviously a closet Nazi.

Then the Live-Chatters asked him if he was a C-word, and when he affirmed, a torrent of rebukes came:
“Why are you supporting an anti-European religion?!”
“Don’t you know the Christ-cucks are working with (((them)))?”
“Christ-cucks are enemies of true White pagan religions!”

He did what Griffin and MacDonald did: avoided the subject, defending his religion with the classic “Not All Christ-cucks Are Like That” or NACALT.

It was soothing to see so many youtubers with a level 6 awareness.

I’m seeing a line in the sand being drawn, and it’s a matter of time till we start seeing a lot of opinions change on the CQ.

It’s off-topic, but you are such an aesthetically-minded person, I wish to hear your opinion. Why is it the case that the Germanic Führer didn’t have his own Jacques-Louis David or Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres? When I imagine Napoléon I, I see these beautiful visions of light and “reason”, a reenactment of both the Republican and Imperial Rome. Just take a look at the Arc de Triomphe de l’Étoile, or any other Empire style building. “its iconographic programme pits heroically nude French youths against bearded Germanic warriors in chain mail.”

Whereas I don’t have such images when I think of the Third Reich. Even though it explicitly based itself on the Nordic elements of antiquity. See the Ministry of Aviation building. It is gloomy and imposing, comparable to the worst from the USSR, and far worse than even Baroque. That austerity seems almost Protestant to me? Was it an anti-aristocratic part of NS? Or did those illustrious, splendid art styles go out of fashion?

I am of course taught to reminisce about Auschwitz. But ironically, it was the NSDAP leaders who never had the stomach for observing the murder of men and other animals, both Hitler and Himmler. Whereas the Emperor of the French spent 20 years of his life in unrelenting wars, relishing the deaths of men and horses around him, murdering his own wounded soldiers, he was in the thick of the carnage for decades!

To my knowledge, the only time when you mentioned Napoleon at all was in that lone quote by William L. Pierce saying that he let the Jews in, during his process of unifying Europe. I won’t deny it, but I doubt it does the superhuman psychopath justice. And I’m pretty sure, under the veneer of secular anti-feudalism there was an awakening of the French racial self.

I guess, I could never seriously sympathise with the German nationalists who alongside the Anglo and the Russian drowned such a man with their mediocre corpses.

> ‘…under the veneer of secular anti-feudalism there was an awakening of the French racial self’.

Do you see? This is the problem with visitors who haven’t read Pierce and Kemp’s stories about the white race.

Napo is despicable because he never rebelled against what happened with the guillotine: many blonds were sent there because they were blonds. This is Kemp:

The French Revolution soon took a sub-racial undertone—often it was enough to have blond hair to be declared a noble and be beheaded. This was taken to an extreme under a bloodthirsty period known as the ‘reign of terror’ and led to civil and foreign wars for ten years…This led to a denordicization of the French population which is still evident today in the relatively small number of blonds amongst the modern French population.

This explains a lot. When in the following century Gobineau wrote his seminal essay on race, the French ignored him (just as Latin Americans ignore me). It was the Germans who took him seriously.

You didn’t touch upon the radiant nature of the French art of the period as opposed to at times brutalist currents in the Third Reich.

I read Kemp. I have a hard time believing that the French population was so sharply racially divided after a millennium of interbreeding with the Nordic elite, considering that the peasants had terrible famines every few years (the famine of 1692-93 killed 2 million Frenchmen out of a population of 18-20 million, 10%). It seems more like a black legend. Even then, 30 thousand were killed during the Reign of Terror in 1793-94. The Napoleonic wars should be blamed more, as they had 1.8 million French dead, often of the best stock.

The French of the timeline where Napoleon had lost didn’t accept Gobineau. The defeat of 1815 was accompanied by decades of the staunchest reaction against both liberalism and nationalism.

Pre-modern history is frankly confusing. Luther alone is a good example with his establishment of the vernacular German… while translating the Bible for the masses! Am I at fault for seeing a rebirth of nationalist feeling despite the egalitarian message of the revolution? When the NatSocs shot their films, they focused precisely on the people’s war aspect, depicting kings as servants (or traitors in the case of Austria 1804-06) of said people.

The two key events that marked the triumph of liberalism were the Abolition of feudalism in France on the night of 4 August 1789, which marked the collapse of feudal and old traditional rights and privileges and restrictions, and the passage of the so-called Declaration of the Rights of ‘Man’ (cf. what Savitri will say about ‘Man’ in my next entries about her book). The rise of Napo as dictator in 1799 heralded a reverse of many of the republican and democratic gains. However, Napo didn’t restore the Ancien Régime. He kept much of the liberalism and imposed a liberal code of law, the Code Napoleon.

Outside France the Revolution had a major impact and its ideas became widespread. Furthermore, the French armies in the 1790s and 1800s directly overthrew feudal remains in much of western Europe. They liberalised property laws, ended seigneurial dues, abolished the guild of merchants and craftsmen to facilitate entrepreneurship (i.e., Mammon worship), legalised divorce, and closed the kike ghettos.

Napo pulled down the last of the barriers between us and Jews, and by the time of his disgrace in exile the Jews were solidly entrenched nearly everywhere.

In a nutshell, no 14-wd. priest would have Napo in the same pantheon as Leonidas, Hermann and Hitler.

That does sound pretty bad, thanks. But didn’t the NSDAP oppose monarchists, too? Was feudalism positive at all, with its splintering of the race and nation into a myriad of useless petty states? I have nothing against the healthy aspects of feudal morality, of course (divorce, segregation, etc.).

Comments are closed.