A Eunuch’s Dream (1874, Cleveland Museum of Art) depicts a eunuch who wanted to marry a harem slave. He experienced a vision of her while smoking his opium pipe, but her little companion holding a knife dripping with blood reminds us that the eunuch’s anatomy precludes the fulfillment of his dream.
______ 卐 ______
I started the Crusade Against the Cross series, now a book, a month ago. Before I return to what I used to do, quoting Simms’ book on Hitler, I would like to say a few things about the racial right. I never tire of analysing the subject precisely because of what I was saying yesterday about how Europeans lost their manhood.
On this side of the Atlantic, whites also lost their manhood, although at least some of them still defend some of it with the Second Amendment. But that’s not remotely enough. What racialists need now is to shift their paradigm: from believing that the Jewish problem is the primary cause of white decline, to realising that the Christian problem is that primary cause. And to do so requires balls: intellectual manhood that racialists on this side of the Atlantic still lack.
Recently, for example, Counter-Currents (CC), one of the most representative sites of American white nationalism, surveyed its visitors. I was enthusiastic about this initiative and answered the survey questions myself.
In doing so, I noticed that the survey taker asked many questions from the System’s POV. For example, he asked the respondents whether they considered themselves to be male, female or a third sex (we can imagine a survey of imperial Germans if the Third Reich had won the war!). Likewise, the CC survey asked whether the respondent suffered from autism or ADHD.
For years I have complained that racialists haven’t realised that psychiatric labels like ADHD are relatively recent, and have been used to tame brave male children with drugs. I brought this to Greg Johnson’s attention himself, as he read my article ‘Why psychiatry is a false science’ in an expanded version in which I included some passages about ADHD and white children.
The problem with the kind of questions like the one in the CC survey is that they don’t adequately rebel against crazy or pseudo-scientific fads (that there are more than two sexes or that there is such a thing as ADHD). But that wasn’t the worst of the survey. It would have been fascinating to see how many of the respondents were Christian, or sympathetic to Christianity for example. But on Saturday, Johnson published an article saying that he will keep some of the poll results to himself! What a disappointment. And we cannot know if any CC readers were upset, because Johnson is known to sometimes not let some comments through (I gave up trying to comment there when he wouldn’t let me discuss Nordicism).
Now let’s turn to another of the most respected sites on the American racial right: the one chaired by Kevin MacDonald. Tobias Langdon is a featured author at The Occidental Observer. On Sunday, Langdon published an optimistic article that opens with these words:
“The West is doomed!” “France is finished!” “Britain is over!” I’ve never understood expressions of despair and defeat like those. They’re obviously self-indulgent and harmful things to say, so how could people with any common sense and self-control utter them? Unless those people aren’t what they pretend to be, of course. No genuine friend of the West should announce that “The West is doomed!” Or announce the same of any part of the West, whether they happen to live there or not.
Langdon goes on to say that fortune favours the brave and that defeatism has been a capital crime in wartime. But he omits one small detail! No one in the mainstream articles of today’s racial right is saying what, a dozen years ago, Michael O’Meara was still saying about an eventual armed revolution. And it is precisely because of this lack of revolutionaries, albeit at the moment only at a theoretical level, that it makes perfect sense to say that France or Britain are finished (David Lane had said so in ‘Open Letter to a Dead Race’). But of course: like CC, Langdon writes for an audience of eunuchs.
There was one commenter who took issue with Langdon and posted this. Remarkably, another commenter defended Langdon Christianly, even talking about the god of the Jews as if (1) that god exists, and (2) capitalising the word ‘God’ as implying that we Gentiles must worship it. That’s fairly common on that supposedly Jew-wise webzine!
Before this site gets back on track, I must quote from the last page of Crusade against the Cross, actually a quote from the last page of Nietzsche’s Der Antichrist:
Law against Christianity [1]
Given on the Day of Salvation, on the first day of the year one (30 September 1888, according to the false calculation of time).
War to the death against vice: the vice is Christianity
First article.—Every type of anti-nature is a vice. The priest is the most vicious type of person: he teaches anti-nature. Priests are not to be reasoned with, they are to be locked up.
Second article.—Any participation in church services is an attack on public morality. One should be harsher with Protestants than with Catholics, harsher with liberal Protestants than with orthodox ones. The criminality of being Christian increases with your proximity to science. The criminal of criminals is consequently the philosopher.
Third article.—The execrable location where Christianity brooded over its basilisk eggs should be razed to the ground and, being the depraved spot on earth, it should be the horror of all posterity. Poisonous snakes should be bred on top of it.
Fourth article.—The preacher of chastity is a public incitement to anti-nature. Contempt for sexuality, making it unclean with the concept of ‘uncleanliness’, these are the real sins against the holy spirit of life.
Fifth article.—Eating at the same table as a priest ostracizes: you are excommunicated from honest society. The priest is our Chandala, —he should be ostracized, starved, driven into every type of desert.
Sixth article.—The ‘holy’ history should be called by the name it deserves, the cursed history; the words ‘God’, ‘saviour’, ‘redeemer’, ‘saint’ should be used as terms of abuse, to signify criminals.
Seventh article.—The rest follows from this.
Friedrich Nietzsche – The Antichrist
I quote this just to show the gulf that separates me from the typical American racialist. Unlike Langdon’s goofy optimism, I am convinced that to save the Aryan man it will be necessary to implement the ‘Law against Christianity’ when we revolutionaries come to power. There is no other way to save him since it’s precisely Christian ethics that has been screwing the Aryan mind.
______________
[1] Nietzsche’s ‘Law Against Christianity’ has been eliminated from numerous editions of The Anti-Christ: A Curse on Christianity because the editors simply cucked before the Judeo-Christian ethos of the masses.
15 replies on “On eunuchs”
I favour Linder’s approach to Christianity: perfect tolerance. Perfect tolerance of Christianity is what is turning Europe atheist. However, there is one important distinction between Linderian secularism and Modern Liberal Secularism: any type of Antiwhite sermonising is a death sentence. You can preach Jeebus and His magic tricks all you like, but if your sermons stray into Antiwhite haranguing, then this is a capital crime.
If you throw a Christian minister in prison, then all upon a sudden he will compare himself to Paul and Peter and John Bunyan. If politely ignoring Christianity is working, then why actively persecute it? Also, persecuting Christianity feeds into their endtimes psychoses. Captain Cassidy points out that Christianity was spread by Dungeon, Fire, and Sword. Not only this: according to Captain Cassidy, Christianity needs dungeon, fire, and sword to maintain itself. For the first time since Constantine, Christianity is completely optional in the West. This, in and of itself is a death sentence for Christianity, according to her analysis. Nietzsche wrote at a time when the Triumphal Beast was still a monster worthy of terror. However, today, it is largely a paper tiger that is dissolving in the rain. In the same way that we don’t need to throw Mithraic priests in prison, because Mithraism just died of old age, as all religions eventually do, so too ought we not to throw Christian ministers in prison.
The problem, of course, is that many still preach sermons that would have gotten them into trouble in the Third Reich.
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if a black pope came to the papal chair. If people like Nick Fuentes became a prominent politician, would he be excommunicated?
Sooner or later American racialists will have to choose between the churches they belong to and the fourteen words. That’s why I am ahead of the time and like to use the harsh language of Nietzsche.
Could you put a space between ‘Captain Cassidy’ and ‘points’ in the above comment?
Sure.
Dear Cesar,
Me again. Thankfully I’m back to some health, as you know in the background. Thanks for your Aryan tolerance of my devastating breakdowns and the madness that litters interpersonal minefields. I don’t know the posters here very well, sorry, so I just needed to clarify. I’m a bit confused. Are we talking devout/spiritual Christians here or Neochristians as well included in this? The reply comments seem ambiguous over this in places, and I can’t discern the usual ordered understanding. I’m loathe to accept this subtle shift to that familiar passing of the buck. I’m afraid for my own ease I mentally class theistic Christians as Neochristians anyway, as the understanding doesn’t quite work the other way around in descriptive practice, for reasons of the former’s overt religious self-identification. I for one, given over 99% of ‘whites’, can’t tolerate pride defenses, observing the empirical subhumanity, that grand self-aggrandizing dispassion divorced from the high instincts of genuine Overmen of our physical anthropology. Whether it fuels them or not to be persecuted – or feel persecuted – I cannot submit to them in duplicitous reverence, just waiting for them to go away, as with Wallace’s Hell, and Adunai’s grand order of dispassion, the lingering tinkle of excuse making for them, and for us, as more of a race than we really are numerically, despite many superficial visual similarities and a lot of fake knowledge. In my experience the English (and those I see increasingly in Ireland, devastatingly, that slip of longish-term Continental Americanism into Derry, my lovely childhood escape to family and heritage dissipating before my eyes) are psychologically synonymous with the Jews, and in an identical mercantile barbarism, oafs and rat-faced marketeers, these walking excuse-factories, these ‘Homo Inanis’. Is is any prudence to separate a distinct ‘Christian’ understand at all in our minds? So what for their desert, and their god? What is not liberal about them, and communistic the while? What is not Neochristian about them? They would – across and alike – have no compunctions over the full-term use of “Nazi”, and not “National Socialist” (or “Gentile”; “Satanism”; “Sociopath”). Allowing them their own name for this beastly vulgarity, who needs that? Beyond this, we’re really not usually any better. I count good personal experiences with good people on the fingers of one hand, and have read now two examples by a pair of unconnected others who can do similar. I’m sorry for my curtness at times, despite the verbiage. It’s unsettling to me, the reactionary reflectiveness, I suppose. I find it hard to keep up with some of the recent comment nuances. Please correct me if I am barking up the wrong tree, it’s been a very busy day for me, and my mind tires. Best regards, Benjamin
“If politely ignoring Christianity is working, then why actively persecute it? Christianity needs dungeon, fire, and sword to maintain itself.”
I think this is true. Christians feed themselves on victimhood and self pity. The more you persecute them, the more it motivate them to stay in their psychosis.
What actually harms Christianity?
-Being entirely optional
-Having alternatives promoted
-Education and physical health
-Strong natural sense of belonging to a community
Pretty much everything that promotes a natural lifestyle close to nature.
You are only Christian material if your life is a lonely, degenerate one. They need you like that in order to remain as a “sinner” and keep drinking Jesus juice.
Today, however, there is a monopoly in social interaction, communication and education. The system control what the masses have access to, so even if christianity is optional, there aren’t decent alternatives to move on.
Nevertheless, I think Gaedhal is right. If our voice was louder and our audience healthier, they will passively leave Christianity and let it die.
The worst sects of christianity do have a persecution complex, but it pales before the massive persecution complex that Judaism relies on. A persecution complex that helps “control the herd” into a monolith of internal cohesion, thats worked for the jews for some 1800 years even when they had no country!
I don’t like encouraging a persecution complex but todays whites are been forced to see themselves as a seperate group persecuted by other races that stick together, and will be forced to develop a new sense of white tribalism to survive.
Please could someone respond directly to my reply post to Cesar above. Either tell me I am correct, or explain to me why I am not. I am genuinely open to either, and would require my own argument to be countered, not an additional ‘have you not considered?’ with a complimentary adding of new ‘well, I think…’ ideas. I am getting tired of these comment sections reading, on the whole, as disjointed individuals. There is limited friendly back and forth, even between the regulars. I do not want to see us as inveterate hypocrites. I would like to get on with you, and I enjoy reading your posts. Often this seems difficult to facilitate, and, frankly, for all my life experience, I have no idea why. Beyond adding syntactic information streams, could we not simply chat, as on a bulletin board, tentatively; a little more making friends, and a little less piping up in Athenian communist democracy, all somehow very individual. This is the main reason I hardly ever contribute my thoughts here directly. It just isn’t quite friendly enough, and there’s too much passive aggression, much as yes, I do go mad quite often, and thus try to keep away for reasons of prudence, fearing a notorious breakout of word salad, which does certainly happen now and again. One doesn’t require amateur armchair psychs over that. I’ve met enough of them, and regurgitating government social propaganda education opinion-techniques is the key historical trait of a totalitarian population i.e. it’s the people, not just the establishment leaders, who end up doing the real damage.
Cheers,
Benjamin
PS. I probably won’t chip in again until maybe tomorrow, so don’t expect anything too punctual – I get quite stressed online.
Hello Benjamin,
There are many entries, including mine, that visitors don’t respond to, and I’ve gotten used to it; they just aren’t interested.
A few years ago, for example, almost no one told me anything about my series criticising Game of Thrones, which, unlike Nietzsche’s, took me more than two months.
Adunai, who apparently has not been recruited by Ukrainian forces as cannon fodder, said something sensible then but I deleted his comment because in other threads he was a troll, as we know.
I’ve never trolled anyone. I do consider you the only Hitlerian on the planet. But existence is contradictory and mysterious. And I’m just a useless shut-in with no effect on the world anyway. (And I have not been abused ever in my life, that’s kind of the privilege.)
Adunai:
Just because I mentioned you, I must have the courtesy of passing up this single comment of yours; but you’re still banned here.
By the way, I haven’t read the emails you sent me since then, but if your blog is silenced I will surmise that they recruited you to send you to the dangerous front (because you are a young Ukrainian), and only until then will I read your emails.
Dear Cesar,
Argh, I’d meant not to type too more tonight, given my ‘free novella’ length ridiculous intense emails. However, I realise I also don’t directly reply much to *you* in sufficient detail. I had some thoughts the other month on Games of Thrones.
Admittedly, at the time, I tried reading the first book (though I’ve never been great with fiction). I found the size and paper quality in my edition cumbersome and sore on my fingers – like something in an airport. I think I tried it sat on a bed in the Waterside in about 2011.
I can’t remember. I’d watched the series. I was quite the normie once. I know I didn’t like the feminism. Oddly, and it’s probably a terrible mistake on my part, I empathised with Ramsay, and didn’t like Jon Snow’s attitudes one bit. I could have seen myself in real-life gleefully cackling along with the Ramsay attitude (and I like animals), much as he’s very teenage about it, and somewhat rakish in the degeneracy stakes (the less said on that the better). I see his stepfather was abominably cold to him (I sensed a paedophilic attitude, and certainly the emotional abuse moving him like a Chess piece; never a good word for him).
I couldn’t relate to the Starks as characters, bar some small pity for Sansa, much as there’s a ridiculous head girl immaturity to her, rather pampered.
It’s the same way there’s too much of a Kant in me, much as I’m certainly closer to a Himmler type than a Hitler type. That’s the ‘malware’ I try to unplug. The “one must always be…” attitude, and Dutton’s odd duel. If Ramsay’s animals agree independently – and they might not be too fond of those who don’t seem to be nice to him or them, perhaps there’s more to this biological guillotines efficiency than meets the eye.
Anyhow, I thought the HBO was terribly convoluted, and the decision making made no sense all over the place, despite trying too hard for that still-campy realism no matter all the mud and rain. I very much enjoyed On Beth’s Cute Tits even if I forgot all the characters, and hadn’t really ‘got into it’, as they say. I was upset when the giant on the Mammoth (and his partner) treated that primordial North God beast like shit.
Also, there are too many swords. Surely single-head hand-axes are a better weapon; catching and locking and butting and parrying, etc. and multi-purpose too (one can shave with one, or climb ledges like an ice-pick, or hammer in nails, and swords always remind me of crusade-crosses). The men in it are almost all teen tacticians, their liberal-ness making that so, and not so much the relentless strategy. I don’t know the name of Jaime’s mercenary sparring partner bloke, the sort of Northumbrian guy, but he felt more reasonable in a sense, if not really up to scratch on a male Nordic morality front.
I resented the series for even having the Dani character, and found watching any scenes in her story arc unbearably cringe-worthy, and Arya’s mentality terrified me, her tiny sociopathy, a soulless Lara Croft/Vasquez monster-poseur, the antithesis of childhood. The tiny little Mormont girl nonsense was bizarre, much as the fantasy of her at least seemed more masculine than many of the idiot males (much as transcribing that gimmick – which could have remained a metaphor in writing and not a character – to film reality was just silly).
I can’t say I appreciated her being bitten in half though by a massive Neanderthalic beast-peasant. I stick to reading your book on the matter. i see you invested it it, and I cannot – and have no reason to – disagree with your conclusions.
Best regards,
Benjamin
Benjamin,
What I meant by mentioning Game of Thrones is that, when a few years ago (before you started to comment here) I spent 73 days posting an entry every day about the 73-episode series, only one commenter, Adunai, told me something substantial in a single comment (which I later deleted due to his trolling elsewhere so there are now zero substantial comments!).
For two and a half months visitors to this site ignored me simply because they weren’t interested in that feminist HBO series. That was simply off their radar, even a masculine critique of it!
In other words, you should not expect someone to respond to you.
Thank you, I’ve just started it – starting with the preliminary ideas around the May 2019 point. The image by the “Bran the Broken” post with that icy face resonated strangely with me. Sadly, I notice the Night King has my natural standing stance, and an odd semi-similarity in the jawline, forehead, aquiline, and eye set (not when I’m podgy or squinting in light). I had that face disturbingly close as a late teenager. I thought of some of my dreams (I don’t always get the very-regular demonic canine-slug ‘synaesthesic nightmares’ – I’ve been told I have Number-Line, they weren’t sure what else, and all it really does is mess with my natural calculus thinking, and colour-height-texture ‘like a lower jawbone” days of the week visuals, the year coil-loop, and I count visually left in increasing time) have been more interestingly visionary. I get a long expanse of icy-snow in the darkness, lit up to about 10-20m ahead, and wide, on all sides, and then pure darkness. Often boundaries (steel modernist poles, like kitchen utensils in cheap steel or tuning fork branches, a horrible look like Soviet architecture, just barbaric and ancient, and Grey Wolf heads stuck into the spike-poles on top, all in a line, like metal brutalist ‘trees’ one could walk through, with a brazier burning each side (like that one on the Harwich coast just behind the school by Beacon Hill), but really, an area one is too afraid to approach. At other times, recurring, I find myself face to face with an unknown man, stooped slightly by the head, but standing too, white-blue eyes, white hair short and a little spiky a young face, feeling like a shamanic Aryan, a Northern ‘shepherd’ down out of the blizzard, the air tinged a light ice blue, oddly, eyes like Bran when they roll back, but not his face, not at all. I’ve had this dream for about 3-4 years, and it’s overtaken the slugs at times (much as i have long acclimatized to them – usually – and they no longer trauma-terrify me; the steel utensil torture wall one did recently, and I leapt up in eerie worry, scared, but not frightened, though deeply unsettled. I have found that Aryan face down to see me comforting, and in my dream I hold my right hand out, arthritic curled, shielding my left, a gap in the middle, like a soft-curled version of the Wing Chun standard stance mixed with a deference, a bit like a waiter minus his towel. The man is original to me, and goodness inspiring, and we just stare for a few seconds just before I fall off into sleep, good to recall, a cosmic moment, and very calming. That tedious long-reflection aside, I’m getting back to your reading. I really am very sorry I wax lyrical (and yet complain). I am going to read it all, and only then really could I add my little stack of two cents.
Thank you very much.
I didn’t write the above for someone to read me, just to convey the reality that sometimes we only talk to ourselves, with an audience of one or zero people.