Laurent Guyénot recently wrote in The Unz Review: “The Christian question is the flip side of the Jewish question, which has now become the Israeli question. It is the question of Christendom’s responsibility—and complicity—in Jewish Power”. Unfortunately, Guyénot messed up shortly afterward with these words: “Let’s not confuse Christ and Christianity. The life and philosophy of Jesus are deeply inspiring; I’m not questioning that”.
Well, at least his first sentence quoted above from his article, which at the time of writing has received 174 responses, is a step in the right direction.
12 replies on “Guyénot”
Robert Morgan commented:
See all of his recent comments here.
“I’m not questioning that” – that’s the problem for me: what these idiots will and will not question as standard (which doesn’t seem to be very much in the first instance). As Morgan correctly notes, it’s hard to directly refer to the life of someone who never existed outside of revolutionary myth. I would have loved Laurent Guyénot to elaborate there as to just what in his Jesus’ philosophy that he found so universally inspiring.
Definitely I agree with what Robert Morgan suggests, it’s just that ‘Jesus Derangement Syndrome’, which I assume is somehow a play on the neologism ‘diagnosis’ Trump Derangement Syndrome, doesn’t sit well with me as the original phrase is meant to disparage those who are anti-Trump, and I wonder if it’s the same here for their Jesus figure, (much as Morgan is appropriating it for his own uses).
I saw his response to Je Suis Omar Mateen also, who said, tellingly:
There’s no one more dangerous and deluded in this case than the person who falls back on what, with a typical lack of discernment, is claimed as ‘obvious’.
It’s good there’s so many comments on there, even if there are rather a lot of defensive conservatives. I saw the article yesterday. Many of the commenters seem to be splitting hair over ‘real’ Christianity, or coming out with that tired, fallacious ‘look how much Christianity forged and sustained our conquering civilization’ argument, which I think Adunai disproved recently in pleasant fashion by remarking on multiple historical examples of wide-spread miscegenation under Christianity and the enforced emancipation of blacks.
I would have added the brief note – of the kind mentioned by Guyénot himself – that it’s hardly sustaining and bolstering our European people to, for example, send so many hundreds of thousands to Skythopolis death camps for the sole crime of remaining ‘Gentile’, as occurred from 359CE.
Someone made the point in paraphrase that ‘well, it must have had some merit as it caught on…’ without making mention of the sort of low life scum it originally caught on among, the foreigners and radicalised slave classes unfortunately present in Rome with renewed strength (I suppose those given a leg up since Emperor Claudius’ 41CE constitution to protect slave legal rights, and those sort of unhelpful precursors, and of course the fearful change in attitudes in aftermath of the Spartacus slave war post 71BC).
This is what Adunai said on 28 July of the last year:
And in another thread:
By the way, thanks to Morgan’s appropriation, I have replaced the category “deranged altruism” with the tag “Jesus Derangement Syndrome” because that is what atheistic hyper-Christians suffer from.
Please see my comments on Unz. I noticed the caveating of Guyenot.
Thank you for the link Gaedhal. In that thread, this is what a commenter just said about me:
Hilarious. Maybe the commenter is right—and that’s why this site has become a ghost town! (very very few are willing to discuss with me or Benjamin).
You have excellent website and comments! Sir Caesar should be a Pope of the new (coming soon?), Church of Cosmo-Theism! We are at the last stage of the Age of the Kali Yuga, so hang on for a while longer, the best fun is the anticipation! There was an interesting piece some years ago from the Barnes Review… “Indo-Aryan End Time Beliefs” Harrel Rhome. February 2009 (Scribd)
I had to come back to this. It was so absurd… courtesy of the accurately titled ‘Lackadaisical Reader’:
He’s right, you know. He unthinkingly summed up parental introjection beautifully (although I see he has a rather limited appreciation of ‘time immemorial’).
Another one who can see only one moral paradigm; the moral system, not just an example of a rubbish one. An inability to think outside his equally limited ‘Enlightenment’ strawman. Is is not them who are acting in sub-group self-interest, as opposed to the interests of the Aryan race at large, their Christianity given prominence? At least he’s honest… he’s in it for the social club ‘community’, so no one has to turn to him and tell him it’s bullshit.
I mused recently that, despite regular expert answers, Dr. Robert Morgan may be pursuing an ill-advised course of action in the long run (and no offence intended to him!):
My gut instinct is that, as with leftists, it is impossible to argue with conservative Christians as they’re ignorant and don’t argue on good faith/change their minds, due to the nature of this early-established parental introjection and faith. I’d imagine I’d end up losing my temper with them (and get banned?). I remember every time I’ve posted to Unz in the past I just get ignored – I think there are just too many commenters there, and they operate under a communist commenting policy where everyone’s comment is seen as basically equal. One ends up wading through large piles of awful comments, and then of course due to the prolific nature of the site, 20 or so new distraction essays come up elsewhere and they move on – that’s the problem, they’re a mixed bag there, and never stick to one core topic long (or make a proper effort to unite their topics into a Weltanschauung). I find too much ‘debating’ a futile exercise sometimes.
Morgan argues, at length, and with effort expended, in longer intellectual paragraphs, putting energy into his reply. His idiot interlocutors notice this smugly (I’m thinking primarily of the John Johnson/Former White Man types), and blast out another crappy few word long retort, toying with him. Morgan has been right the entire time. But, in his eyes, and somehow anyway, the Christian has ‘won’ the stalemate argument, stalling him indefinitely with nonsense, unprepared to budge an inch. It’s like a schoolchild eternally asking ‘why? but why?’ to each definitive answer to a question. Unless he wants his words there for posterity for others, I feel he should draw off from directly engaging the idiots, definitely. They’ll wear him down otherwise, and simply pin him while they have their sport. Save replies for potential humans.
Personally, I prefer posting on friendly turf. They can find it if they like, or the whole can be passed to them briefly now and again.
Trying to argue in good faith with Christians is a fool’s errand because they will always prioritise their parental introjects. In a certain sense, the convinced Christian, like those you mention at Unz’s forum, and the vindictive autobiographer are antipodes because by knowing oneself, one realises that our minds had been programmed with the faith of our Christian parents. In other words, faith—believing, for example, that Jesus’ words are wonderful—is merely a parental introject. But by knowing oneself and the Gods one realises the toxicity of this Semitic malware.
Without knowing oneself it is impossible to run antivirus programs in our minds, so to speak, that encapsulate these subversive programs (always remembering that the Jews wrote the NT).
If you look at my recent exchange on Unz, instead of answering me, they went straight to the ad hominem. Typical.
I feel great anger for how this Morales c**t treats you online. I was just reading his low-brow, cynical, shallow littles responses, each one in the simplest, crassest misrepresentation, jabbing at you sneakily like a predatory insect. I gather they’re extremely typical, and delivered regularly.
Say you were taken as non-white (well, you’re white enough to me, and if not to others, you have earned your place, surely, as an elderly man of no threat to a Nordic future, just as I am not, and one who has contributed significantly to a lasting future, infinitely more than myself)… and we know for a fact he definitely isn’t white (hence I suppose all of his problem in this)… I certainly am, to a reasonable standard until Nordic purity can be obtained, so I hope, speaking as that white European mind with mutual problems to yours that you don’t mind me posting here that I’d quite like to crucify him to the wall.
I suppose that’s difficult from this far away (and formally defined impractical) but we can like what we can like in the realm of (just) ideas. It’s the same with ‘John Johnson’ really, his replies are invariably unambitious and common – one sees it in the sleazy writing style – that ‘oh, you think *that* do you? gotcha!’ urge to ridicule off the bat. More than immature. I’m sorry you’re had to endure it. He has no honour.
That’s what I thought to myself recently. What does one actually do with these malevolent, moronic cultist turncoats, disgusting as they are in their very existence? I suppose one notices them, and yet gathers elsewhere, silently and in whatever way suits the upcoming times, and takes them outside (perhaps through that realistic-enough question-mark phase) and one nails them to wood, until they are hanging dead. Either way, I am not prepared to tolerate them any longer (and I couldn’t argue). I hope that kind of answers John Johnson’s question for him as to step 2. It’s a shame you can’t track the other one.
Please take this as me letting off steam, as seems most reasonable. But ideally they would be crucified.
Morales constantly makes these kinds of comments on WDH, but they go straight to the spam filter. I guess his hope is that I’ll read them and get demoralised, but I don’t.
The best thing to do is ignore him. Mauricio told me when he came to visit me a year ago that he would let Morales slander him on racialist forums and just ignore him.
Well, maybe he’s right (“don’t feed the troll” they say)…
Thank you for the advice. Yes, I shall do just that. Incidentally, he doesn’t impersonate my name (I imagine it would quite hard to emulate the flow of my syntax although he’s free to try – I don’t check), but I’ve noticed, very occasionally, that he slanders me on there, usually in response to others. You know, the typical shit… ‘the mentally ill guy’, and other ancient tiring clichés stemming from that. I see all he does is find something that he knows will appeal to the sensitivities of his moron audience then puts outrageous spin on someone’s real position so as as to appeal to the pre-existing bias of the crowd, in the fewest words possible, reducing the intelligence of any remark, always making it as crass as possible in the process. Truly? I don’t think he believes anything (bar sensing the inferiority that sets him off).
My psychological hypothesis is that no one has spoken online with the rudeness I do about racial mixing in Latin America. For years, Morales “se puso el saco” (literally, he has put on his coat)* as we say in Mexico, and has become a persistent stalker. As I told him not long ago, Veritas odium parit.
_________
(*) There is no equivalent phrase to se puso el saco in English. Perhaps the closest saying is “if the shoe fits, wear it” and in Morales’s case, he was mortally offended by my POV on racial mixing because he is apparently a tri-racial Brazilian.