Click: here
The software converter could not add the image of the video within the article ‘Today’s Germans ‘allow this effigy of national humiliation’, but I’ve embedded it below:
https://youtu.be/qQZSwPpt-Zw
Categories
Month: September 2021
Categories
A WN take on 9/11
by James Dunphy
Conspiracy theorists believe that since many Jews have profited from 9/11, they were behind it. While Jews may have played leading roles in getting the US to simultaneously invade and invite the world, which resulted in part in 9/11, this doesn’t mean they played a direct role in it. Jews often pursue their own tribal goals to the detriment of the white majority.
They also disproportionately occupy the upper echelons of many white societies. This results in an uncomfortable relationship between them and their white host population, so they seek to make alliances with other minority groups, such as Africans, but also with those who don’t even yet live in the nation by opening the borders. This is what Jews on the American Jewish Committee did when they supported Emanuel Celler’s lifelong mission of opening America’s borders to non-whites, which culminated in the 1965 Immigration Act.
For their part, Zionist Jews use the US as Israel’s muscle in the Middle East. This angers Muslims, whom their Leftist brethren have been inviting into the US. This in turn leads to mass murder and chaos. By pursuing their own sectarian agendas, Jews bring about this chaos. Worst of all, they capitalize on the fear terrorist attacks elicit by using the FBI and Homeland Security to target peaceful Trump supporters and white advocates. Jews always seem to thrive in an environment of low-level chaos where they can manipulate the unsuspecting white public in a direction favorable to Jews. This doesn’t mean, however, that they play a direct role in events such as 9/11.
Ultimately, Osama bin Laden, KSM, Ramzi Yousef, and their followers failed to accomplish the three points of Yousef’s manifesto. America’s diplomatic ties with Israel remain strong. Following 9/11, evangelicals became even more pro-Zionist, viewing Ashkenazi Jews as racially and religiously closer to them than their Palestinian neighbors. This seems to have waned in the past decade, though, as the Internet is red-pilling a lot of Christians about the dubious theology and history of Christian Zionism.
_________
Read it all at Counter-Currents (here).
Categories
One honest truther
That the Truthers movement is a religion based on blind faith can be corroborated by an interview that the young Briton, mentioned in my previous posts, did with Charlie Veitch. Okay: Charlie is an archetypical liberal. But these fragments of the interview (starting here and here) are worth watching.
For the full documentary on how Andrew Maxwell took five typical young British conspiracy believers on a road trip from New York to Washington to tackle the truth about the events of 9/11, see: here.
It is the deep connection of Christianity (and, in particular, the ‘holy Sacrifice of the Mass’) with the ancient mysteries that has ensured its survival to the present day. And it was a stroke of (political) genius in Paul of Tarsus to have given such an interpretation to the most ancient myths of the Mediterranean world that he thereby assured his own people, over this world and over all the peoples he was destined to influence over the centuries, an indefinite spiritual domination.
It was a stroke of genius (also political) of the Emperor Constantine to have chosen the spread of the religion which, by spreading most rapidly, would give the ethnic chaos which the Roman world then represented the only unity to which it could still aspire.
Editor’s Note: Once again, Savitri was ignorant of the history of the House of Constantine. But we can’t blame her. In English, the real history of Christianity only reached public opinion decades later, with books like Catherine Nixey’s The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World (see our quotations of Nixey: here).
And it was, in the case of the Germanic leader Clodwig, known as Clovis in the history of France, another stroke of genius (political, too), to have felt that nothing would ensure him permanent domination over his rivals, other Germanic leaders, as much as his own adherence—and that of his warriors—to Christianity, in a world that was already three-quarters Christian, where the bishops represented a power to be sought as an ally.
Editor’s Note: Nixey’s book is just a book. Karlheinz Deschner’s ten-volume Christianity’s Criminal History is almost an encyclopaedia, and unlike Nixey he did write about Clovis (see our translation: here).
Political genius, not religious; still less philosophical—for in all cases it was a question of power, personal or national; of material stability and success, not of truth in the full sense of the word, i.e., of agreement with the eternal. Those were ambitions on the human plane, not thirsts for knowledge of the Laws of Being, or thirsts for union with the Essence of all things, the Soul, both transcendent and immanent, of the Cosmos.
If it had been otherwise, there would have been no reason why the religion of the Nazarene should have triumphed for so many centuries: its rivals were equal to it. It had only one practical advantage over them: its fanaticism, its childish intolerance inherited from the Jews: an intolerance which could make the Roman or the cultured Greek of the early days of the Church smile, and which the German, nurtured in his beautiful religion which was both cosmic and warlike, could rightly find absurd; but which was going to give to Christianity a militant character, which it alone possessed since orthodox Judaism remained—and was to remain—the faith of a people.
Editor’s Note: Compare this with what Manu Rodríguez wrote for this site:
Nothing forced the Goths, Lombards, Burgundians and Franks to be Christianised but their greed for power and willingness to take over the remains of the Empire without reflection or discussion of its ‘ideological’ bases, fully Christianised by the 5th century (the century of the Germanic expansions). This was not the case of forced Christianisation, centuries later, of the Saxons and Frisians (by Charlemagne), or the politics from the top (the monarchs) as done by the Norwegians (Olaf ‘The Holy’) and the Slavs (Vladimir, also ‘The Holy’). The Germans could have been the liberators of Europe, but they put their arms in the service of a foreign faith and an ecclesia (priestly community). This attitude says very clearly how they were indifferent to their own traditions.
It was a betrayal. Our history would have been different if they had remained faithful to the cultural legacy of their ancestors.
Savitri continues:
Christianity could now only be fought by another religion that claimed to be as universal and as intolerant. And it is a fact that, up to now, it has only retreated on a large scale from Islam and, in our days, from the false religion of Communism.
Islam also was linked to the Old Testament of the Jews. It had, like it, come out of the desert, but was stripped of all the symbolism which links the cult of Christ to the old Mediterranean myths, Egyptian, Chaldean, etc., of the death and resurrection of the Saviour Wheat, and to the prehistoric rites which made them tangible to the faithful. (For the Mohammedan, Jesus-Issa is ‘a prophet’, not a God, and certainly not ‘God’). Syria, Egypt and the whole of North Africa, which had been Christian for three or four centuries, were Islamised overnight. Europe would have been conquered, had it not been for the war that Charles Martel and his Franks were victorious between Tours and Poitiers in 732 (and of course, hadn’t it resisted for centuries as Spain did).
Certainly, an Arab victory, followed by the conquest of the whole of Europe according to the plan conceived twenty years earlier by the brilliant Musa al-Kabir, would have been, from the racial point of view, a catastrophe of the first magnitude. The Aryan race would have lost, throughout the continent, the purity it still retained in the eighth century. At most, there would have remained here and there islands of predominantly Aryan population, just as there are still regions in North Africa populated mainly by Berbers, or as there are still places in Spain where the (northern) Visigoth type has left more traces than elsewhere. On the whole, Europe would have become, as regards blood, less pure even than it is today, which is not an understatement. But from the strict point of view of the evolution of the ideas and morals of each of its peoples, and more particularly of its religious psychology, its history would perhaps not have been very different.
It is true that Arabic would probably have supplanted Latin, and that there would probably not have been a ‘Renaissance’ in the tenth century of the Hegira. Or would the Greek scholars of Constantinople (themselves Islamized?) have emigrated to the West when the Turks approached, to courts very similar to those of the Moorish capitals of Spain, and would they have awakened a nostalgia for classical antiquity there, despite everything? Let us not forget that Aristou (Aristotle) and Aflatoun (Plato) were known and admired by Arab scholars.
There would certainly have been no painting or sculpture reproducing the human form: this is contrary to the laws of Islam. The artists of Italy, Germany and the Netherlands, the Leonards, the Michelangelos, the Dürer and the Rembrandts, would have been born. Enough Aryan blood would have remained for them to be born. And they would have given their genius an expression that was just as strong and probably just as beautiful, but different. But there are two features of the Christian civilisation of Europe which would have remained tragically the same: anthropocentrism, and intolerance—intolerance on all levels, a normal continuation of religious intolerance and its consequence, what I have called the superstition of ‘man’.
The spirit of controversy, inherited from decadent Hellenism, would not have failed to give rise to sects. The spirit of exclusiveness, inherited from the Jews, the mania that each one must believe, with his brothers in faith, the sole holder of the secrets of the Unknowable, would have made of these sects parties hating each other, and militating savagely against each other, for it was and is still the temperament of the European to fight savagely, as soon as he has accepted the combat.
There would undoubtedly have been wars of religion, and a Holy Inquisition which, in terms of horror, would have left nothing to be desired of the one that now exists. The Americas would have been discovered and conquered, and exploited. The caravels would have carried the faith of the victorious Prophet instead of that of the crucified Jesus, and the standard of the Khalifs would have replaced that of the very Catholic kings.
But the conquest, exploitation and proselytising would have been just as ruthless. The old cults would have been rigorously abolished, as had been, twenty-five centuries earlier, the worship of the Baalim and the Mother Goddesses, wherever the ‘good’ Jewish kings had extended their domination. The Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan would also have been razed to the ground. It did not matter that mosques had sprung up on their foundations instead of Christian cathedrals! From the point of view of Quautemoc and Atahuallpa, and of the populations of Mexico and Peru, this would have meant the same thing: the choice between conversion or death.
It is true that the Jews of antiquity had not even given this choice to the worshippers of Baal and Astarte, and that in North America the Aryans, morally could not be more Jewish (giving enormous importance to the Old Testament), were hardly going to leave it to the Indians, whom they had to decimate, almost to the point of complete extinction, by alcohol, not even granting them the honour of dying for their Gods, with weapons in their hands.
The Spaniards—and the Portuguese—apparently cared more about the fate of the immortal souls of ‘all men’. They were closer to the Jews, followers of Jesus, and especially of Paul of Tarsus, than they were to the Jews who were comrades-in-arms of Joshua, son of Nunn, or of King David or of Jehu. Nevertheless, they were, in any case, what all good Christians are or should be, according to Pope Pius XI: ‘spiritual Semites’, and religious intolerance is a Jewish product, the Jewish product par excellence.
Historically, little is known about the person of Jesus of Nazareth, his origins, his life before the age of thirty, so much so that serious authors have questioned his very existence.
Editor’s Note: Incredibly, Savitri said this decades ago. Nowadays, for most white nationalists questioning the existence of the historical Jesus is still taboo.
According to the canonical Gospels, he was raised in the Jewish religion. But was he a Jew by blood? More than one of the words attributed to him would suggest that he was not.
Editor’s Note: But this phrase is slightly misleading. If we are dealing with a mythical figure, it makes no sense to speculate about what ‘he’ used to say.
It has been said that the Galileans were an island of the Indo-European population in Palestine. In any case, what is important—what is at the origin of the turning point in history that Christianity represents—is that, Jewish or not, he is presented as such, and, what is more, as the expected Messiah of the Jewish people, by Paul of Tarsus, the true founder of Christianity, as well as by all the apologists who follow one another over the centuries.
What is important is that he is integrated into the Jewish tradition, he is the link between it and the old Mediterranean myth of the young God of Vegetation, dead and resurrected: the Messiah to whom the essential attributes of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysus, and all the other dead and victorious Gods of Death are attributed, and who pushes them all into the shadows for his own benefit—and that of his people—with an intransigence that none of them knew, a typically Jewish intransigence: that of Paul of Tarsus, of his teacher Gamaliel, and all the servants of the ‘jealous God’, Yahweh.
Not only is a ‘new meaning’ given to the ancient mysteries, but this meaning is proclaimed the only good, the only true one: the rites and myths of pagan antiquity, from the most remote times, having only ‘prepared’ and ‘prefigured’ it, just as ancient philosophy had only sensitised souls to the reception of the supreme revelation. And this revelation is, for Paul, as it was for the Jews of the Judeo-Alexandrian school before him, and for all the Christian apologists who were to follow him—Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Origen—, the one given to Jews by the God ‘of all men’.
Jewish intolerance, hitherto confined to one people (and to a despised people whom no one thought of imitating), spread with Christianity, and later with Islam—this reaction against the Hellenisation of Christian theology—to half of the earth. And, what is more, it is this very intolerance that has made the success of the religions linked to the tradition of Israel.
I have mentioned the religions of salvation—in particular that of Mithras and that of Cybele—that flourished in the Roman Empire at the time when Christianity was in its infancy. At first sight, each of them had as much chance as Christianity of attracting to itself the restless crowds for whom the Roman order was not, or was no longer, sufficient, and who, increasingly bastardized, felt themselves alienated from any national cult whatsoever. Each of them offered the average person everything he was promised—the religion of the crucified Jesus—and with rites all the more capable of attracting his adhesion, because they were more barbaric.
In the third century of the Christian era, it was the cult of Mithra, the old Indo-European solar god, seen through the thousand distorting mirrors represented by the races and traditions of his new worshippers, which seemed to be the one to prevail, provided that no decisive factor intervened in favour of one of his rivals. The God was popular with the legionaries and their officers. Emperors had seen fit to receive initiation into his mysteries under the hot-blooded shower of the Redeeming Bull. An increasing number of common people were following the movement. It may be said with all certainty that the world dominated by Rome came very close to becoming Mithraic—instead of Christian—for some twenty centuries. It can be said with no less certainty that it did not become so, not because of any ‘superiority’ of the Christian doctrine of salvation over the teaching of the priests of Mithras, nor because of the absence of bloody rites among the Christians, but because of the protection accorded to the religion of the Crucified One by Emperor Constantine, and no other factor. Now, it was precisely the intolerance of Christianity—especially, if not solely—that earned the preference of the master of the Roman world.
Editor’s Note: Like almost everyone else, Savitri was unaware that Christianity was imposed on the Mediterranean by destroying the temples, statues and libraries of the classical world (those new visitors who haven’t read the Judea vs. Rome essay should read it now).
What the emperor wanted above all was to give this immense world, populated by people of the most diverse races and traditions, as solid a unity as possible, without which it would be difficult for it to resist for long the push of those who were called Barbarians. Unity of worship was the only thing he could hope to impose on it, provided he could achieve it quickly. Among the religions of salvation, which were so popular, that of Mithras undoubtedly had the greatest number of followers. But it did not promise to spread quickly enough, first and foremost because it did not claim to be the only Way and the only Truth. It risked allowing its rivals to remain for a long time, and the much-desired unity would not be achieved—or would take centuries to achieve—when the interests of the Empire demanded that it be achieved in a few decades.
Editor’s Note: This madness was similar to what Western governments do today: Let’s dilute the white race in the hope that the mongrel masses will be easier to tame. Those familiar with the content of this site know that the policies of Constantine and subsequent emperors only weakened the West to the point of rendering it vulnerable, centuries later, to Islam and the conquests of the Huns and Mongols.
The same could be said of the old cult of Cybele and Attys: its priests did not proclaim, like the Jews, that they alone possessed the truth. On the contrary, they believed, like all the men of antiquity (except the Jews), that the truth has innumerable facets, and that each cult helps its followers to grasp one aspect of it. They too would have allowed rival religions to flourish freely.
Christianity, though already in the fourth century steeped in ideas and symbols borrowed either from Neoplatonism, the old Aegean mysticism or forms even further removed from the eternal Tradition, had inherited from Judaism the spirit of intolerance. Even its most enlightened apologists, those most richly nourished by classical Greek culture, such as St. Clement of Alexandria or Origen, who, far from rejecting ancient wisdom, considered it as a preparation for that of the Gospels, did not put the two pearls of wisdom on the same level.
There was, in their eyes, ‘progress’ from the former to the latter, and Jewish ‘revelation’ retained its priority over the more distant echo of the voice of the one god which could be detected in the pagan philosophers. As for the great mass of Christians, they regarded all the gods of the earth as ‘abominations’—or ‘demons’—except the one who had revealed himself to men of all races through the Old Testament prophets—the Jewish prophets—and through Jesus and his posthumous disciple, Paul of Tarsus; the latter, a hundred per cent Jew, the first considered a Jew and a son of David by the Church, although his origin is unknown and his historicity has been questioned.
Categories
Mistakes corrected
In the video that I embedded in my previous comment, this young Brit says that out of the thousands who watched his miniseries about the 9/11 attacks, only one stopped believing in conspiracy theories. That is precisely the experience I have had with people I met in a New Age cult and parapsychology: the vast majority are impervious to the evidence.
The pathology of belief is a topic that goes beyond the limits of this site, although I have talked about it in my books written in my mother tongue. Simply put, the astronomical delusions represented by religions, paranormal pseudo-sciences, and even secular ideologies (feminism, anti-racism, idealising sexual deviants, etc.) have nothing to do with reason and good judgment. It has to do with self-esteem, self-image, groupthink, and the defence mechanisms we develop in the face of a cruel world.
The subject is huge, and just as Oliver Sacks used the biographical narratives to illustrate the symptoms of right-brain injuries, only an autobiographer who has rid himself of one such false paradigm could illustrate how the psychology of self-deception works.
By the way, in my post yesterday about truthers I made a couple of minor mistakes that I just corrected. One of them was a link to the wrong article about Ron Unz. It is worth rereading the right article, including the discussion thread.
The intelligence of Jews is merely verbal, as Stefan Moly says in this video with another Jew, Dave Rubin. A Jew can have a very high verbal IQ; an Asian or an Aryan may have a very high IQ in spatial intelligence, and at the same time both, Jew and gentile, may be mentally retarded in an area of intelligence that is not evaluated by psychometric tests.
Those who have read the late neurologist Oliver Sacks (I read two or three books by him) will know what I am talking about. In his books, a literary treat (unusual for a neurologist), Sacks talks about judgment: an area of the brain ignored by neurologists because to study it requires the biographical narrative of those with a disease in some area of the right hemisphere of the brain.
I don’t want to delve too deeply into what Sacks is trying to tell us. In a nutshell, we can use his legacy as an analogy to also talk about those with high IQ and who are literally insane regarding judgement. Remember what I said about world champion Bobby Fischer in my recently published The Human Side of Chess? His case exemplifies it: extremely high IQ in computational matters (chess is ultimately a computing game) and a true mental infant, and madman, regarding the most elementary aspects of life.
I can say something similar about all those who believe in conspiracy theories, be the best known—such as the JFK assassination or the September 11 attacks—or the lesser-known, such as that the US government has been misleading the public since the 1940s by hiding alien ships in their hangars, that the moon landings were staged, and so on. (By the way, I have only studied in-depth one of these conspiracy theories, the so-called Satanic Ritual Abuse, as can be seen in my critique of Lloyd de Mause, and in 1996 I saw Buzz Aldrin at the Hyatt Regency Houston downtown.)
I’m not going to repeat what I’ve already said about Unz on this site, who just posted another of his crazy articles about one of these theories (9/11): an ethnic Jew who also believes the insanity that millions upon millions believe about JFK.
If I write this post it’s because I’m shocked that so many racialists believe in such nonsense. They are obviously like Fischer: very good at understanding JQ (J of Jew) but insane about the more mundane aspects of life.
Sacks has a point: true intelligence is not only IQ but judgment. And many contemporary Westerners have lost their minds.
The lie of Unz and the beardless racialists is that the ‘official’ story about JFK and 911 is not that of the government but that the masses believe. What matters is what the masses believe. If someone believes what the masses believe he is a normie, not a dissident of the system. Simple as that!
Those who have never heard a truly sceptical voice about 911 should watch this video about Building 7, supposedly the strongest argument of the ‘truthers’ (his other videos on 911 are linked: here). Likewise, those who believe that Oswald didn’t act alone, let them see what I have written about Unz: here.
There are a ton of ‘truthers’ in white nationalism, a movement (WN) to which I don’t belong. As visitors know, I rather call myself a priest of the 14 words. I still have a lot to translate from Savitri’s book, and I don’t want to waste time by discussing the subject with those nationalists who haven’t read Vincent Bugliosi’s book. So this entry will not receive comments. Read Bugliosi and then we talk…
Much has been said about Jewish ‘racism’. And the doctrine of the ‘chosen people’ has been made an expression of this ‘racism’. In reality, in the eyes of the ancient Jews—I mean, of course, the orthodox Jews—membership of their race, i.e. of the ‘family of Abraham’, was only of value if it was combined with the exclusive service of the ‘jealous God’, Yahweh, the sole protector of Israel. According to the Bible, the Moabites and Ammonites were racially very close to the Jews. Were not the former descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his eldest daughter, and the latter from Ben-Ammi, the son of Lot and his youngest daughter? [1] Lot, son of Haran, was a nephew of Abraham. [2] It does not seem that this link of kinship facilitated relations between the children of Israel and these peoples. If blood united them, their respective cults separated them. Chemosh, the God of the Moabites, and Milcom, the God of the Ammonites, were, in the eyes of the Jews, ‘abominations’—like all the gods of the earth except their own—and their worshippers, enemies to be exterminated. In Jewish racism, independent of any religion, the attitude of accepting a Jew and treating as such any man born as such, whatever his beliefs may be, seems to me to be something recent, dating at most from the eighteenth or seventeenth century, that is to say, from the time when Israelite-inspired Masonic societies began to play a determining role in the politics of the Western nations.
This is perhaps a product of the influence of Western rationalism on the Jews, despite themselves. It found its most spectacular expression in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Zionism, which could be called an avant-garde Jewish nationalism. This movement certainly respects the religious tradition of the Talmud and the Bible, but without identifying with it in any way. Its political faith is ‘national’, but it cannot be compared to that of Catholic Spain, Ireland or modern Greece, which is also inseparable from the state religion. But I would call it nationalism rather than racism, because it involves the exaltation of the Jewish people as such, without the enthusiastic awareness of any blood solidarity uniting all the peoples of the desert who are usually called Semitic.
Modern in its expression, this nationalism is not, however, different from the solidarity which, after the introduction of the Mosaic law, existed among all the children of Israel as early as the thirteenth century B.C. The religion of Yahweh played a primordial role. But this role consisted precisely in making all the Jews, from the most powerful to the humblest, feel that they were the chosen people, the privileged people, different from the other peoples, including those who were closest to them by blood, and exalted above them all. This the Jews have increasingly felt in modern times without the help of a national religion; hence the decreasing importance of that religion among them (except in the few permanent hotbeds of Jewish orthodoxy).
In other words, the Jews, who for centuries had been an insignificant tribe in the Middle East, among so many others, very close to the others in language and religion, before Abraham and especially before the Mosaic reform, gradually became, under the influence of Moses and his successors Joshua and Kaleb, and then, under that of the prophets, a people immersed in their own idea of themselves; having nothing but contempt for the men of the same race as themselves, who surrounded them, and all the more so for the people of other races. The prophet Ezra, on the return from the long Babylonian captivity, ordered those of his children who had remained in Palestine to marry Canaanite women to be set apart, on the pretext that this would only loosen the bond which united them and their families to Yahweh and weaken their sense of being a ‘chosen people’, a people not ‘like the others’.
They could have remained in this way indefinitely, isolated from the rest of the world by a national pride that was as immeasurable as it was unjustified because they were, already in antiquity, fairly mixed in race, if only because of their prolonged stay in Egypt. (The world would certainly not have been worse off for it—on the contrary.) They did not remain so because, to the idea of ‘one God’—a ‘true’ God, as opposed to the ‘false’ gods, the local and limited gods of other peoples—could not but be added, sooner or later, the idea of universal truth and human community. A God who alone ‘lives’—while all the others are only insensible matter, at most inhabited by impure forces—can only logically be the true God of all possible worshippers, that is, of all men. To refuse to admit this, it would have been necessary to attribute life, truth and beneficence to the gods of other peoples as well, in other words, to cease seeing in them only ‘abominations’. And the Jews refused to do this, after the sermons and threats of their prophets. The one God could well prefer a people. But he had to be, of necessity, the God of all peoples—the one whom, in their folly, they ignored, while only the ‘chosen people’ paid him tribute.
The first attitude of the Jews, conquerors of Palestine, towards the peoples who worshipped other gods than Yahweh, was to hate and exterminate them.
Their second attitude (when in Palestine the Canaanite resistance had long ceased to exist, and above all, when the Jews were losing more and more of the little importance they had ever had on the international level, to end up being only the subjects of Greek kings) was to throw the idea of the inanity of all Gods (except their own) and the false conception of ‘man’ as independent of peoples into the spiritual food basket of a decaying world; of ‘man’, a citizen of the world (and ‘created in the image of God’), whom Israel, the chosen people, had the mission of instructing and guiding to true ‘happiness’.
This is the attitude of the Jews, more or less ostensibly daubed with Hellenism, who from the fourth century BC until the Arab conquest in the seventh century AD formed an ever more influential proportion of the population of Alexandria, as well as of all the capitals of the Hellenistic and then the Roman world. This is the attitude of the Jews today, the very attitude that makes them a people like no other, and a dangerous people: the ‘ferment of decomposition’ of other peoples.
It is worth my attempt to give you a story about it.
As I said, this was already germinating in the fanaticism of those servants of the ‘unique’ and ‘living’ God, the Jewish prophets, from Samuel to the writers of the Kabbalah. One thing that must not be forgotten, if we want to try to understand it, is that the ‘one God’ of the Jews is transcendent, but not an immanent one. He is outside of Nature, which he has drawn out of nothing by an act of will, and different from it in essence; different not only from its sensible manifestations, but also from anything that might permanently underlie them. He is not that Soul of the Universe in which the Greeks and all Indo-European peoples believed, and in which Brahmanism still sees the Supreme Reality. He made the world as a craftsman makes a marvellous machine: from without. He has imposed upon it the laws which he has willed, and which might have been different if he had willed them differently. He gave man dominion over the other created beings. And he ‘chose’ the Jewish people from among men, not for their intrinsic worth—this is clearly specified in the Bible—but arbitrarily, because of the promise, once and for all, to Abraham.
In such a metaphysical perspective, it was impossible to consider the gods of other peoples—and all the less so since these were, for the most part, natural forces or celestial bodies: ‘aspects’ or ‘expressions’ of the one God. It was also impossible to emphasise in the least the indefinite variety of men and the irrefutable inequality which has always existed between human races, and even between peoples of more or less the same race. Man, whoever he may be, must have had in himself, and alone of all created beings, an immense value, since the Creator had formed him ‘in his own image’ and established him, because of this very fact, above all living beings. The Kabbalah says it very clearly: There is the uncreated Being who creates, God; the created being, who creates: man; and the rest: all the created beings—animals, plants, minerals—who do not create. This is the most absolute anthropocentrism, and a false philosophy to begin with, since it is obvious that ‘all men’ are not creators (far from it!) and that some animals can be.[3]
But that is not all. In this new humanistic perspective, not only did the Jew retain his place as the ‘holy people’, as the Bible puts it, who were destined to bring the one Revelation to the world, but whatever other peoples had produced or thought was only of value insofar as it accorded with the said Revelation. Unable to deny the enormous contribution of the Greeks to science and philosophy, some Jews of Alexandria, of Greek culture (and sometimes of Greek name, such as Aristobulus of the third century B.C.) did not hesitate to write that all the most solid Greek thought—the work of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle—was due, in the final analysis, only to the influence of Jewish thought, which had its source in Moses and the Prophets. Others, such as the famous Philo of Alexandria, whose influence on Christian apologetics was so considerable, did not dare to deny the obvious originality of the Hellenic genius, but retained from the ideas elaborated by them only those which they could bring into line with the Mosaic conception of God and the world, altered or even completely distorted.[4] Their work is this hybrid product which is the result of the influence of the Mosaic genius. Their work is that hybrid product which in the history of thought bears the name of ‘Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy’, a set of ingenious combinations of concepts drawn more or less directly from Plato (not necessarily in the spirit of Plato) and old Jewish ideas (such as the transcendence of the one God and the creation of man ‘in his image’). This is a superfluous scaffolding, no doubt, in the eyes of the orthodox Jew, for whom the Mosaic Law suffices, but is a marvellous instrument of spiritual control over the Gentiles, in the service of Jews (orthodox or not) eager to wrest from other peoples the direction of Western (and later, world) thought.
Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy and religion, increasingly imbued with Egyptian, Syrian, Anatolian symbolism, etc., professed by the increasingly bastardised people of the Hellenistic world, formed the backdrop against which Christian orthodoxy as we know it gradually emerged in the writings of Paul of Tarsus and the early apologists, and became clearer in the course of the succession of Councils. As Gilbert Murray remarks, ‘it is a strange experience… to study those obscure congregations, whose superstitious, charlatan-ridden, hopelessly ignorant members, drawn from the proletariat of the Levant, still believed that God could procreate children in the wombs of mortal mothers, held the “Word”, “Spirit” and “Divine Wisdom” for persons bearing these names, and transformed the notion of the immortality of the soul into the ‘resurrection of the dead’, and to think that it was these people who were following the main road to the greatest religion of the Western world’.[5]
No doubt there was, in this early Christianity preached in Greek (the international language of the Near East at that time), more non-Jewish than Jewish elements by Jewish and then Greek missionaries to the raceless urban masses—so inferior in every respect to the freemen of the ancient Hellenic poleis. What dominated was the element which I dare not call ‘Greek’ but ‘Aegean’, or rather ‘pre-Hellenic Mediterranean’ or pre-Hellenic Near East, for the peoples of Asia Minor, Syria, and Mesopotamia all exemplified it, too, to a greater or lesser extent, in their cults from the depths of the ages. It was the myth of the young God cruelly put to death—Osiris, Adonis, Tammuz, Attys, Dionysus—whose flesh (wheat) and blood (grape juice) become food and drink for men, and who resurrects in glory every year in the spring. This element had never ceased to be present in the mysteries of Greece, both in classical times and before. Transfigured, ‘spiritualised’ by the sense of allegory attached to the most primitive of rites, it is manifest in the international ‘salvation’ religions, rivals of Christianity in the Roman Empire: in that of Mithras, Cybele and Attys.
As Nietzsche saw it so well, the genius of Paul of Tarsus consisted in ‘giving a new meaning to the ancient mysteries’: taking the old prehistoric myth, reviving it, interpreting it in such a way that, forever, all those who would accept this interpretation would also accept the prophetic role and the character of the ‘chosen people’ as bearers of the unique revelation.
_________
[1] The Bible, Genesis, Chapter 19, verses 36-38.
[2] The Bible, Genesis, Chapter 11, verse 27.
[3] The practical intelligence of animals is no longer questioned; yet it also can be creative, as Koehler’s experiments in particular show. But let us think especially of the paintings—eminently ‘abstract’—executed by several of Desmond Morris’s chimpanzees, creations which could be taken, and in fact are currently taken, for human works of the same style.
[4] Edouard Herriot, Philo the Jew, 1898 edition.
[5] Guibert Murray, Five stages of Greek religion, 1955 edition (New York) p. 158.
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!
An icon depicting Emperor Constantine, accompanied by the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325), holding the Creed of 381.
I’ve been watching the recent discussion between Adunai and Robert Morgan in the comments section of The Unz Review. Morgan seems to hold a classic view of Christianity: the one I held before reading a conservative Swede in Gates of Vienna. Now I see that Christianity is not just its dogmatic part, let’s say, what we who were Catholics used to hear during the Creed on Sundays:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all;
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God;
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father,
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation descended from heaven.
[Etcetera.]
The above is the dogmatic part that not all westerners believe now. But Christianity is also the axiological part, what we have been calling Christian ethics. And from this angle westerners continue to be Christians. As Adunai summed it up in his discussion with Morgan: Christianity, in essence, means not the number of priests ordained: but the number of niggers loved.
This means that secular, atheist or agnostic whites continue to be Christians. It doesn’t matter that they have left behind the dogmatic side of Christianity, the Credo quoted above. The axiological part of Christianity (secular neochristianity I call it) is today in its red giant phase: incinerating, with its suicidal ethics, the nations that used to be traditional Christian.
It was not Darwin, or the revolution of ideas that started 1789, as Morgan seems to believe, what marks real apostasy. Adunai is right that Hitler was the first one who tried to transvalue Christian values back to pagan times (see also our ongoing translation of Savitri Devi’s book). This is our litmus test: If you are willing to do something similar to the Nazis’ Master Plan East, then you have left Christianity behind.
Otherwise you’re a fucking neochristian.