web analytics

Byzantine discussions

about Roe v. Wade

In the Spanish language, the expression Byzantine discussion means a useless discussion in which each side can never succeed in proving its assertions to the opposing side. It is equivalent to the expression ‘discussing the sex of angels’, as this was the subject that the Byzantines were discussing in a serious way when the Ottomans laid siege to Constantinople, and this fact is considered to be the closest origin of the expression Byzantine argument. Not only the Byzantines, but also in Europe the medieval nominalists considered it weird that there could be a single thing existing in several places at the same time. By contrast, the realists held that all instances of green are held together by the relation of participation or imitation, but this relation cannot be explained.

In other words: without rejecting the theological presuppositions of Christianity, white intellectuals wasted their intellect in completely useless discussions, and precisely because of their inability to apostatise from their religion.

The same can be said today when we look at the forums of white nationalism. On the hot topic, Roe v. Wade, one of the leading nationalists on the Christian side said yesterday: ‘Some White Nationalists would do almost anything except convert to Christianity and have kids to return to those demographics. Human sacrifice sure isn’t moving the ball’. His secular counterpart, who in my eyes is a typical neochristian, wrote in his webzine: ‘I believe that White Nationalism is completely consistent with respecting the rights of other human beings. We can’t just murder millions of people because it is convenient. That may be fine for liberals, but the New Right occupies higher moral ground’.

Higher moral ground, really? I will still dedicate this day to finish correcting the syntax of the third book of my trilogy in Spanish, which I will start translating into English when I can. I believe it can greatly help noble whites (not the ignoble ones who say things like the above) to save their race by abandoning all vestiges of Christian ethics, which includes the ‘human rights’ of the French revolutionaries.

Note that, for the Nazis, abortion of Aryans was forbidden and only abortion of non-Aryans was legal. The Christianity and neochristianity of the white nationalists discussing the implications of Roe v. Wade these days is patent in that they are incapable of thinking like them. Not for nothing does the Spanish section of this site now advertises four books of which three are openly anti-Christian: Evropa Soberana’s which was originally published on a now-censored blog; Ferdinand Bardamu’s which was originally published on this site (Bardamu disappeared and his email no longer works); and Catharine Nixey’s, the only one published by a regular publishing house.

But in my books I go further. If we follow in the footsteps of the leading philosopher of a post-1945 National Socialism, Savitri Devi, we would no longer even think as the Nazis thought about abortion in public before the Second World War. Now our values system must emulate what Himmler said in private regarding his Master Plan East. American racialists, whether Christian or secular, are light-years away from this way of seeing things. We need young people who are capable of shattering the Tablets of Stone currently followed by both Christian and secular racialists in America.

1 Reply on “Byzantine discussions

  1. The views of the NS leaders shifted heavily depending on whether or not they were appealing to the masses. This not only applied for religion, military tactics or the question of abortion but also to marriage which is seen as something ‘sacred’ in Christianity.

    The advent of war in 1939 gave greater urgency to breaking down taboos against sexual relations outside marriage, since German men were dying, reducing the population. On October 28, 1939, Himmler exhorted his SS men and policemen to reproduce more, whether inside or outside of marriage.[1] His order, approved by Hitler, stated,

    “Beyond the boundaries of perhaps otherwise still necessary bourgeois laws and customs it will also outside of marriage be an important responsibility for German women and girls of good blood, not lightly, but rather in profound moral seriousness, to become the mothers of children of soldiers who are going to the front and of whom fate alone knows whether they will return or fall in battle for Germany.” [2]

    Himmler apparently followed his own advice, fathering two children by a mistress in the 1940s.[3] He promised that the Lebensborn would make sure the wives, girlfriends, and babies of the SS men would receive adequate prenatal and maternity care while the men were away at war.[4] Himmler’s views went public in January 1940, when the SS weekly magazine, Das schwarze Korps, aroused controversy by publishing an article ENCOURAGING women to bear illegitimate children. It chided women, even unmarried women, who shirked their duty to procreate, comparing them to army deserters.[5] Rudolf Hess also ENCOURAGED German soldiers to reproduce outside marriage in an open letter to a single woman published in the official Nazi newspaper. He promised that if a soldier died in battle after getting his fiancée pregnant, the child would be considered the soldier’s legitimate child.[6]

    Hitler completely supported relaxing the taboo on illegitimacy. In February 1934 he told his entourage that his regime would see to it that illegitimate children were put on par with legitimate children, because population expansion was vital.[7] In a monologue in May 1942 he made even clearer that marriage was not sacrosanct. He told his entourage that in areas of the German Reich with poor racial qualities “racially valuable military units” should be sent to “renew the blood of the population” by copulating with locals. Anyone who complains that this will damage the morality of the German people is a hypocrite, he continued. Though he considered the ideal for reproduction a loving, lifelong relationship between a man and woman, nonetheless population growth and racial quality took priority over traditional notions about the sanctity of marriage.[8]

    As the bloodletting increased on the Eastern Front, Hitler and Himmler became more concerned about the reduced number of men. They discussed allowing polygamy to help repopulate Germany. Hitler preferred polygamy and illegitimacy to the alternative: some women going without children. “A girl, who has a child and cares for it, is superior to an old spinster,” he declared in March 1942.[9] According to Felix Kersten, Himmler’s private physician, in 1943 Hitler was considering altering marriage laws after the war to allow war heroes to marry more than one wife. This temporary measure would then be evaluated to determine if monogamy should be retained or not. Himmler was of the opinion that present monogamous rules were immoral and that polygamy would be beneficial.[10]

    [1] Richard Breitman, The Architect of Genocide: Himmler and the Final Solution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991), 108.
    [2] Quoted in Herzog, Sex after Fascism, 51.
    [3] Breitman, Architect of Genocide, 109.
    [4] Lilienthal, Lebensborn, 132.
    [5] Stephenson, Women in Nazi Society, 67.
    [6] Lilienthal, Lebensborn, 133.
    [7] Schaumburg-Lippe, Als die golden Abendsonne, 114.
    [8] Hitler, May 12, 1942, in Hitlers Tischgespräche, 288–289.
    [9] Hitler, March 1, 1942, in Hitlers Tischgespräche, 117–118.
    [10] Felix Kersten, The Kersten Memoirs, 1940–1945, trans. Constantine Fitzgibbon and James Oliver (New York: Macmillan, 1957), 176–178, 180.