Schopenhauer famously said that the sun sees so much carnage on its daily course that it were better if the earth, like the moon, were still in a crystalline state and not able to call forth the phenomenon of life.
I agree with the carnage bit. I disagree with the notion that a crystalline dead universe is superior to a universe with life in it.
Just personally I think that not existing forever is an unimaginable concept. Hitchens said that every attempt to imagine the extinction of our own personal consciousness fails. Alan Watts, a non theist, said that not existing forever is not an experience that you can have. The atheist Epicurus said that death does not concern us. Where we are, death is not; and where death is, we are not. Thus, as opposed to Benatar, I propose, instead, making the best of a bad situation. Existing on this Hell Planet of parasitism and predation is a bad situation.
However, Schopenhauer’s point that no decent God would claim this Hell Planet of predation and parasitism as his own handiwork still stands. The parasites and predators on this planet are no compliment to any decent God. By believing in this Lord of theirs, it sets you up to be duped in so many other ways. If you can buy that today with its rapes, murders, tortures, shootings, stabbings, car deaths, starvations, amputations, acts of paedophilia etc., was created by their Lord, then you can also buy Matt Chandler’s crocodile tears and his extremely sketchy outline of the events that transpired.
There is much more to this story than meets the eye.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s Note: Matt Chandler is a pastor of a church in Texas.
Gaedhal hit the nail on the head when he said ‘by believing in this Lord of theirs, it sets you up to be duped in so many other ways’. As long-time visitors to this site know, I only woke up to racial issues after I turned fifty springs in this world. Before that, I devoted myself to understanding a family tragedy caused, first and foremost, by my father.
After decades of thinking about it, I concluded that once you accept astronomical doublethink, as in Christianity with the doctrine of eternal damnation and the punisher being a god who supposedly loves us infinitely, you can believe anything.
I am not going to detail how Puebla Catholicism corrupted my father’s mind in the 1930s and how that is related to a tragedy that happened in the 1970s. Anyone who wants to know about that can read my autobiographical books. But after decades of pondering the subject I see clearly that the original sin lies in the religion of our parents.
That’s why I have hope…
If the original sin is Christianity, the white race can still be saved. Serious would be, as Kevin MacDonald seems to suggest, that universalist altruism is genetic among whites. I don’t think it is, because whites weren’t bananas before Christianity. It was Christianity that made them crazy, like methamphetamine makes crazy those drug addicts we see in the TV series Breaking Bad.
If deranged altruism is genetic, the Aryan is doomed to extinction. If instead it is malware that has taken hold of the Aryan psyche, it is possible to remove the malware from our souls through Nietzschean transvaluation (which includes ‘secular’ values back to Greco-Roman values). See why The West’s Darkest Hour is the only thing worthwhile among the racialist forums? No one but us is proposing the formula Umwertuung aller Werte as the salvation of our souls.
Nota bene: Today I won’t add another article on Deschner’s history of Christianity because I am still very busy correcting the syntax of the book Daybreak.
‘The Rogue Prince’ is the second episode of the first season of House of the Dragon, which first aired yesterday on HBO.
Lord Nigger  suggests to his daughter Laena Velaryon, a twelve-year-old mulatto, who in the series appears wearing a blonde wig, that she, the child, proposes to King Viserys Targaryen to marry her. As I was saying a week ago, given that in the novels the Velaryons are as hyper-Nordic as the Targaryens, the mulatto girl’s proposal makes no sense: ‘I will give you many children of pure Velaryon blood’.
The casting of House of the Dragon, unlike the casting of Game of Thrones, is so surreal that someone who has read the novels would think that dialogue like that, read in some George R.R. Martin book, could only mean that a precocious Norse nymphet means that the king’s offspring will be as Nordic as that of his predecessors (of course: after the precocious nymphet menstruates and can procreate).
Unlike what I did with Game of Thrones, doing an episode-by-episode review of this new HBO spawn will be a test of patience for me; and it’s not clear that I’ll be up to the task. That many white people are fans of this series can only mean that the white race has lost its Lebenskraft or thirst for life.
But the episode doesn’t begin with the surreal scene described above. Near the beginning we see Lord Nigger making an arrogant entrance into the Small Council. If we take into account what Gaedhal said yesterday about Israel’s first kings, Saul and David, having a Jew direct a popular series for goyim consumption seems to fit in with exterminating the best of them. And also following what we were saying yesterday (JQ = CQ), it was precisely the Christians who, in historical times, proclaimed that it was okay for a white to marry a coloured because all are equal in the eyes of the god of the Jews. (Do you see why those white nationalists who continue to worship such a god are idiots?)
Back to The Rogue Prince. We see Lord Nigger with intimidating gestures in the Small Council, in front of the king. A woman, Princess Rhaenyra, and Lord Nigger, are the only brave ones in the Small Council when it comes to controlling the rogue prince Daemon. The Council dismisses Princess Rhaenyra’s suggestion to show strength against Daemon, and she is relegated to selecting a new knight for the King’s Guard. Unlike Game of Thrones, where the main characters are white, the princess chooses a mudblood, Ser Criston Cole.
We then see Lord Nigger and the king in the castle gardens. I can think of no better way to demoralise the Aryan man than to watch these scenes. We didn’t even see these things in Game of Thrones, even though it was also filmed by Jews. The fact that they are putting more and more miscegenation in these series only points to a cinema of the future in which no whites will appear any more.
As the Targaryens are the most Nordic of Martin’s universe, and as House of the Dragon is about that feudal house, this new series should’ve been the more Nordicist of the two series, and is turning out to be the less Nordicist. That Martin hasn’t torn his garments but accepted this visual outrage only shows how infinitely corrupt white people, including its artists, have become. Changing the skin colour of the characters of the Velaryons House is a greater outrage than the feminism we saw in Game of Thrones. In the old series we only saw mixed couples in the brothels of Westeros. Here we are getting it from the nobility (as in the real world happened recently in England: instead of marrying an English rose, the rogue prince chose a coloured bitch).
Returning to the second episode, in Dragonstone the blond Daemon meets his mudblood lover (who in the novel is ultra-white because she’s an albino). Fortunately, in the next scene the king announces that he isn’t going to marry the precocious mulatta of the above pic but Alicent of High Tower House, who is white. Lord Nigger rises from the Small Council table and angrily says ‘This is an absurdity’, and storms off. Apparently, in real life, the princes of the UK can no longer behave as a fictional character does in a series filmed by a Jew: to marry a woman of their lineage…
 See what I said about Lord Corlys a week ago.
To many racialists, my constant criticism of white nationalism may seem excessive. But I do so and will continue to do so, for a very specific reason.
The platform that Kevin MacDonald provides, at least in the first and third books of his trilogy on Jewry, could potentially be ideal for understanding the West’s darkest hour: Whites and Jews have been engaged, for over two thousand years, in an ethnic war in which only one can come out alive (the best of the Gentiles, says the Talmud, must be exterminated; that is, the competing Aryans).
Instead of constructing an ideological edifice in which this fundamental premise serves to understand the Christian problem, bearing in mind that Christian ethics is the poison that is killing the Aryan, most contemporary racialists turn a blind eye to what is right under their noses: the JQ and the CQ are one and the same (again, remember Nietzsche’s long quote in The Fair Race).
Perhaps it would be a good idea for me to start quoting our friend Gaedhal’s letters so that, drop by drop in many posts to come, we can better understand the mind of Jewry—and the schizophrenia of white racialists who worship the god that wants to exterminate them. In his missive today, Gaedhal informs us of the following (note how psychotic, from this point of view, it is to admire Saul, David and company):
‘…lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.’
Numbers 23:9b KJV
‘Nations’ above is, in the Hebrew text, ‘goyim’. The Jews do not see themselves as part of the family of nations. They see themselves as separate, distinct, superior, and wish to dominate and enslave the gentile nations. Later on, in the Bible, one of the gentile nations tricks Israel into letting them live by becoming their slaves!. They become hewers of wood and drawers of water.
The reason why David was preferred by Yahweh to Saul is because Saul let some of the Goyim live—in disobedience to Yahweh’s strict command to exterminate them all!—whereas David did not. David was perfectly obedient to Yahweh in this respect, yea, a man after Yahweh’s own heart in this regard. It became a saying in Israel that Saul killed thousands of Goyim but David killed tens of thousands of Goyim.
Kevin MacDonald continues to publish Christian author Andrew Fraser, about whom a commenter said yesterday in the comments section of The Occidental Observer (TOO):
The Christian cult was designed to weaken the gentile Roman Empire. Paul and his cabal have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Christians generally protect Jews and embrace their influence. This was true in the Renaissance as it is today. Why is this discussion given any weight in our movement? Christianity is a Jewish lie that prevents us from understanding evolutionary teleology and the ethics which flow from this, as well as the insights of Dr. McDonald. Please publish something more topical. Is this a digital synagogue?
At least whoever moderates TOO let that comment from an anonymous commenter go through. But I am still annoyed by the lack of intelligence of the semi-normies who comment on racialist forums.
In the comments section of Counter-Currents, for example, I recently saw again credulous comments on Joseph Atwill’s book, Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. For all those who cannot distinguish between sound scholarship and crank scholarship I recommend a post from 2020, ‘Atwill’s Cranked-up Jesus’, which quotes the opening paragraphs of a polemic debunking Atwill authored by Richard Carrier, a sound scholar.
Unlike the poor approach to Christianity we see in racialist forums, one way to begin to familiarise oneself with the subject is precisely to read Carrier’s magnum opus (which obviously must be done in print, as every good scholar reads), and Catherine Nixey’s fine book on the destruction of the classical world by Christians that we have mentioned so much on this site.
Since most racialists today are de facto conservatives, they seem to be stuck in a sort of intellectual medieval age. They don’t even seem to be familiar with the New Testament exegesis by non-fundamentalist Christians, let alone with scholars who left Christianity behind, such as the excerpts from Deschner’s book on the history of Christianity that is now occupying much of my time.
On 5 June 754, after twenty-five years of ministry, Boniface together with his choral bishop of Utrecht, and fifty companions were killed by the Frisians of Dokkum on the Doorn, fiercely defended by his men, in the fight of ‘arms against arms’ (Vita Bonifatii), as befits the Christians. Uselessly he held over his head ‘the holy book of the gospels’ against the deadly blow.
And in a genuinely Christian manner, in ‘the land of the infidels’ burst ‘at once the swift warriors of future vengeance, well-kept but unsatisfied guests’ (sospites sed indevoti hospites), as the priest Willibald of Mainz wittily puts it, inflicting ‘an annihilating defeat on the pagans who confronted them’. The Frisians fled, ‘were beaten down in a huge mass, and turning their backs they lost their goods, estates and heirs with their lives. But the Christians returned home with the spoils of women, children, servants and handmaids of the idolaters’ (Vita Bonifatii).
Isn’t that a joyful and pious religion? Especially when the Frisian survivors of the plunder, the enslaved women and children terrified by murderers, ‘and by divine punishment’, embraced the faith of the one whom they had killed. Traces of this persist to this day in Fulda.
Of course, this is only a half-truth. The whole truth is told by the priest Willibald at the end of the eight chapter of his Vita (the ninth and last chapter is ‘a later addition’—Rau). The point is that, then, many miracles overflowed there:
Where the sacred corpse had been deposited… divine favours overflowed abundantly. And all who came there, afflicted with the most diverse diseases, found health of body and soul through the intercession of the holy man. So that some, whose bodies were almost completely dead, who were almost exanimate and seemed to be breathing their last breath, regained their former health; others, whose eyes were covered with blindness, recovered their sight, and still others who, imprisoned in the snares of the devil, had their spirits troubled and had lost their reason, obtained the primitive freshness of spirit.
And all this thanks to ‘the champion in the race of the spirit’. And, as is to be expected and as Willibald’s work concludes, ‘through the Lord, to whom be glory and honour for an eternity of eternities. Amen’.
Unfortunately, we haven’t finished with Christianity. On the contrary, by now it is developing more and more magnificently. While Boniface committed to the popes, the popes made a commitment for themselves. And for them the most important factors of power were still, above all, the Byzantines and the Longobards.
– For the context of these translations click here –
The beatissimus dominus took care of women of ‘the tribe of the Angles’. His kinswoman Leoba, a whole generation younger than himself, he appointed abbess in the see of the archbishopric; Thecla, a relative of Leoba, he made abbess of Vitzingen and Ochsenfurt-on-the-Main. And all certainly for the great cause, the mission of all Germany, for the one whom Gregory III called ‘the apostle of the Germans’ (in reality: of Rome) and whom he appointed archbishop on a further journey to the Catholic capital (732), all for ‘the very advantageous business’ (talis commercii lucro) as is explicitly stated in such a context. Hence, the pope, with the whole Church, victoriously vindicated the apostle.
Of course, ‘business’ doesn’t mean the ‘pinch of silver and gold’ (argenti et auri tantillum), which Boniface occasionally donated to the holy father, but the conversion of ‘paganism and heterodoxy to the knowledge of the true faith’. From Hesse to Friesland he destroyed everywhere, ‘more as a conqueror than as a converter’ or missionary, the pagan places of worship, and on their ruins, with their very stones and timber, he erected Christian churches. He demolished the idols of Stuffo, Reto, Bil, the goddess Astaroth and so on. He tore down their altars, and felled the sacred trees in the Hessian forest, probably where, because they were under the direct protection of the Frankish fortress of Büraburg, they were in no personal danger, such as the oaks of Donar in Geismar, the tribal shrine, erecting with their wood a chapel to St. Peter, ‘his first sign of victory’ (Haller).
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s Note: It is these kinds of historical facts that have moved me in the past to obsess on this site about Game of Thrones. As no normie is going to study Deschner’s ten books, the most astute way to start conveying the most important facts of Aryan history is precisely novels in which these facts are alluded to fantastically, with castles, princesses and dragons. As we saw in past years with my countless entries on the TV series Game of Thrones, in the universe of novelist George R.R. Martin the fanatics of the new religion felled the sacred trees of Westeros.
This is the language the normie understands, and it’s a shame that the Jews who directed both Game of Thrones and the new prequel that has just been released betray fundamental facts of Martin’s prose. In a world where real Aryans took Martin to television, these outrages of the new religion perpetrated on the sacred trees of the old religion could be filmed in such a way that the message would be inspiring to whites.
______ 卐 ______
But Boniface also had to see no less than thirty churches and chapels destroyed in Thuringia. In Rome, however, the apostle didn’t only fight paganism, but at least as much, and probably even more, the sort of Christianity which wasn’t obedient to Rome, as among the Bavarians and the Alamanni. That was the second and shorter, though more important, phase of his activity.
Bavaria, where Boniface reformed (739) the church with the help of duke Odilus, after his relations with Charles Martell had cooled, had already been Christianised much earlier, though not Romanised. Thus, Roman Christianity and the Scottish missionary, ‘the first ‘Von-Rom Movement’ (far from Rome!)’ (Behn), ‘clashed violently’ in Bavaria (Schieffer). But there and in Thuringia Boniface, at the behest of Gregory II, eliminated as far as possible the old Christianity which had developed without violence. He tried to wrest the communities from the successors of these ecclesiastics and, with the help of state power, to bring them unceremoniously under the pontifical yoke.
But the papal legate also and especially fought against the Frankish clergy, who had preserved their autonomy vis-à-vis Rome and whose reformer he had avoided, if not fought against. In 738 Gregory III therefore strongly recommended obedience to his man regarding the bishops of Bavaria and Swabia, and at the same time insisted: ‘You must detect, prevent and annihilate the pagan customs and doctrines of the Bretons who roam everywhere, or of false and heretical priests and all their depravities’.
Boniface, who met with the ‘fierce resistance’ of many freemen (Epperlein), who was rude in his foreign manners, had no compunction and always went about with a large retinue; he was as obliging as they could wish for in Rome and more papist than the pope. He never asked why; he simply had to obey, as he had been taught. He was in fact ‘the heir of the Roman Church in England’ (Lortz).
The ‘apostle of the Germans’ was so unsure of his faith and so imbued for life with his tendency to sin, that he continually sent real questionnaires to Rome ‘as if we were kneeling at your feet’, to receive answers to the supreme questions of conscience.
Gregory II, who on 22 November 726 calmed his apostle’s eagerness to ask questions, let him know ‘the position in our Church’. An example: if parents have already deposited their sons or daughters ‘within the walls of the monastery’ (inter septa monasterii) at an early age, under no circumstances may they later leave the monastery and marry. ‘We strictly forbid it, because it is a sin to loosen the reins of pleasure on children, who were consecrated to God by their parents’. What barbarism beats in that answer, or behind this one: ‘You have also asked the question whether, when a contagious disease or mortality invades a church or a monastery, those who haven’t yet been affected can flee from that place to avoid the danger. That seems utterly foolish, for no one can escape the hand of God’ This rhetoric has not always, but quite often in everyday practice, been a function of minimisation, discharge and beautification. Theologians and historians, thanks to their phrase ‘link to the times’, don’t need to call the crimes and criminals of the Church and the State crimes and criminals.
Those were times when some served two sides, attended the Christian liturgy and at the same time offered sacrifices to Wotan; they ‘ate bulls and goats sacrificed to the pagan gods’, which could in no way harm either Christ or Wotan.
Today I discovered this author and just requested his book The Jesus Hoax: How St. Paul’s Cabal Fooled the World for Two Thousand Years.
In a nutshell, he says that Jews figured out the best way to undermine the power of Rome and created the New Testament. You heard it right: Skrbina claims that Christianity was not only a myth but was deliberately produced by Jews to harm or destroy the Romans (see for example this interview).
Skrbina calls this the ‘Antagonism Thesis’, which he believes has more explanatory power than the ‘Mythicist Thesis’ because it ‘addresses the question of motive… The mythicists and other skeptics have no good account of a motive’.
Last year Counter-Currents published an article by Skrbina and I will be reviewing his book as soon as it reaches me (as you know, the masthead of this site is the essay of Judea vs. Rome in The Fair Race).
St Boniface, ‘Apostle of the Germans’ and of Rome
‘He was an utterly devoted person, one might almost say tender, not a tempestuous personality or a force of nature. A man of utterly pure and lofty idealism’. —Wilhelm Neuss
‘Moreover, any historian—including an atheist—should recognise that Boniface opened the door wide for us, that through him the frontier of Europe was opened to the east. The same is true of Charles’s wars against the Saxons’. —K. König and K. Witte
‘Boniface, who has influenced the history of Europe more profoundly than any other Englishman after him, was not just a missionary but a statesman and a genius of administration, and above all a servant of the Roman order’. —Christopher Dawson
‘The glory of the Middle Ages rests in a good part on his work’. —Joseph Lortz, Catholic theologian
Around 680, probably at the age of seven, the Anglo-Saxon boy Wynfreth (Winfrid), later called Bonifatius in Rome, was given by his father to the monastery as puer oblatas.
Editor’s Note: Anyone familiar with what we have quoted on this site from historian Lloyd deMause will know that paedophilia is not a recent phenomenon in the Catholic Church. From its earliest days parents who didn’t love their young donated them to monasteries—the institution of Oblation—where they could be sexually used by the elders. Deschner continues:
‘But the boy, who had been entrusted to the monastery without consulting his will, grew up to become a man of his own free will’, writes the German scholar Schramm today. In a monastery! A man of his own free will? As if Boniface had not been a servile slave of Rome for the rest of his life! ‘Day and night he cultivated scientific studies to procure eternal happiness’, according to the priest Willibaid in his bombastic Vita, which he wrote about his monastic hero in Mainz at the end of the 8th century.
Boniface began a propagandistic pilgrimage, but with a ‘missionary authorisation’ from Rome. Pope Gregory II (715-731) commissioned him on 15 May 719 ‘to exercise the service of the kingdom of God among all peoples imprisoned in the error of unbelief’. He was to examine—again in the poetic language of the biographer Willibald—‘whether the uncultivated fields of their hearts were to be ploughed by the plough of the gospel’.
Deliverance from ‘all uncleanness’ among the people of Hesse, Thuringia, Saxony and some bloodshed
The inhabitants of Hesse were still largely pagan, while the Thuringians—among whom the Frankish conquerors built the first churches in their feudal castles—had been partially converted to paganism by Saxon raids and pagan reactions. In any case, despite his honey-sweet doctrine, Boniface quickly failed here, partly because of the Christian bishops and priests and partly because of the lack of military support.
Still in 719 he left Thuringia and went, ‘filled with great joy’ at the death of the Frisian Duke Radbod (according to Vita Bonifatii), to Frisia until 721, where he was placed under the command of the elderly missionary Willibrord, an ‘Oblate’ like himself, i.e. already spiritually violated as a child.
With the backing of the high Frankish nobility and the force of Frankish arms, Willibrord had, since 690, spread his knowledge among the West Frisians under Pippin II and, briefly and unsuccessfully, among the Danes and Saxons. He fled from Radbod with little apparent martyr’s vocation and only returned after his death. Only the victorious campaigns of Charles Martell in 718 and 720 (repeated in 722 and 724) against the Saxons made possible the beginning of their Christianisation, their liberation from ‘demons’, ‘error’ and ‘diabolical fraud’ (Gregory II). With the invocation of the Holy Trinity, Willibrord destroyed the ‘idols’, desecrated and reduced to ruins the sanctuaries of the Frisians, killed their sacred animals and worked astonishing miracles. To put it briefly: it was in connection with the military men Pippin and Charles Martell that he weeded out ‘the tares of unbelief’ and strove to ‘renew by baptism those who had just been subdued by force of arms’ and ‘to spread without delay all the light of the gospel’ (Alcuin).
In 721 Boniface separated from Willibrord for reasons we ignore. He had refused to be consecrated bishop by Willibrord and returned to the territory of Hesse-Thuringia, where he founded a small monastery on the Amoneburg… After the first successes Gregory II called Bonifacius back and on 30 November 722 consecrated him a missionary bishop (without a fixed see). He thus became entirely bound to Rome by oath…
Boniface benefited from the campaigns of Charles Martel and his donations to the church of Utrecht and the monastery of Echternach, which soon became the basis of gigantic Catholic propaganda that extended as far as the Meuse, the Scheldt and the mouths of the Rhine.
In 722 Gregory II had also given the ‘apostle of the Germans’ a missionary commission for the Saxons. It is true that in 718 they had been driven out of the lower Rhine and defeated by Charles, but they remained almost entirely faithful to their ancient beliefs. They were one of those Germanic tribes east of the Rhine. The planned ‘conversion’ of the Saxons with mass baptisms only came about after Charles’ long and carefully prepared campaign of 738, which was carried out in close cooperation with the clergy. Gregory III (731-741), who once called the Frankish warlord who waged war almost year after year ‘St Peter’s beloved son’, declared the following in a letter to Boniface on 29 October 739:
You have given us knowledge of the peoples of Germania, whom God has delivered from the power of the pagans, by having gathered into the bosom of the holy mother Church hundreds of thousands of souls by your efforts and those of the Frankish prince Charles (tuo conamine et Caroli principis Francoruni).
The number is certainly exaggerated. But the Saxons were ‘delivered from the power of the heathen’ only by the military expedition of Charles Martell (738) ‘with dreadful bloodshed’ (Fredegarii continuationes). And in connection with this came the mass baptisms of the Saxons. Their conversion to Christianity took place ‘in close contact with the military-political organisation’ (Steinbach). This is probably even a ‘large-scale attempt at a Saxon mission before the period of Charlemagne’ (Schieffer).
It is true that Charles Martell was not very religious, but for political reasons he was ‘extremely interested’ (Buchner) in the spread of Christianity in the east. And there is no doubt that Boniface ‘owed everything to the victorious arms and personal protection of Charles Martell’ (Zwölfer).
Already in the years 718, 720, 722 and 724 Charles had fought against the Saxons, as mentioned above. He repeatedly crushed uprisings of the Frisians and Saxons, and it was only through these bloody acts of violence that the ‘conversion’ or, as Boniface puts it, the liberation of ‘all the heathen’s filth’ depended. Gregory III attributed the missionary success as much to Charles Martell as to Boniface. And Boniface personally confesses to the English bishop Daniel of Winchester: ‘Without the protection of the prince of the Franks (sine patrocinio principis Francorum) I could neither have guided the people of the Church nor defended the priests and ecclesiastics, the monks and servants of God, nor without his command and his fear could I have eliminated the pagan customs and the horrors of idolatry in Germania’.