The Left is basically a Christian heresy that threw away the Bible and God, but kept the worse and most criminal of its beliefs.
But the Left flows out of Christianity. Without the Christian element within society, the Left has no basis for its moral ideology and would go extinct, or turn into a religion itself.
43 replies on “The real root”
Christianity is the dangerous irrelevancy of White Nationalism.
Tell that to Heimbach and the Southern Nationalists…
I’d rather see the entire white race miscegenate than live another hundred years under a Jewish creed of emasculation.
I’m not well versed in theology so I couldn’t argue whether centuries of history is false, but I’ve always had a huge discomfort with the rhetoric of devoutly christian White Nationalists.
For instance, I sometimes imagine myself on some Pro-White council, discussing issues that would determine victory, defeat or the very lives of White Nationalists.
This leadership comes from all shades and stripes, though most of us likely adhering to some form of National Socialism, with others patriot-type libertarians with racial elements, and of course, those with devout Christian identities. We are all allied at that moment, despite our differences, in the creation of the White Republic.
What troubles me is the thought that while we fight and die to secure the 14 words, many of us will never accept Christ, and for that, our Christian comrades must believe we are ultimately destined to suffer in hell for eternity.
If anything, the good White vs. Bad Whites dichotomy just sickens me, and Christianity is just the finest example of Whites taking ingroup moral warfare to the extreme. This war of racial survival is in perspective very simple, yet Whites seem unable to conduct classic tribal warfare. Everything must be termed and expressed in those possessing “right thoughts,” vs. those with “wrong thoughts,” in need of forced conversion. Christianity is the highest example of this because the “right thoughts:” acceptance of Christ and an infallible God, can’t be compromised with, only mutated to fit ideological biases of the converted.
Again, HAC is usually correct. The tensions of Christians vs. National Socialists in his books is the best view I’ve seen to the problem so far. Of course, since Whites are most eager to kill one another over the “true faith,” the conflict will likely be racially-conscious Whites vs. Christians and liberals fully engrossed in modern spirituality.
A good thought experiment would be to imagine a VNN commenter as a member of this futuristic council together with a few Southern nationalists. What would happen when the VNN revolutionary member proposes final solutions for certain subversive groups? Who will oppose him on purported moral grounds?
Do you remember Hunter Wallace’s question in Jim Giles’ show when he asked Linder that if he was in a room with a six year-old Jewess, would he pull the trigger on the child’s face? Where the hell does this sort of SPLC question came from? From Hunter’s background in Protestantism and his admiration of hyper-moralist Luther?
Some time ago at his Age of Treason, Tanstaafl told his readers that hate debilitates the psyche, etc.—pure pious and castrating Christian doctrine about this sentiment even if Tan apparently is not Christian.
And look how neo-Christian Greg Johnson, who goes to the Swedenborg Church in San Fran to deliver traditional homilies about Jesus, expressed himself about Pierce’s novel (“…a monster”).
It can be no coincidence that those on the SS’s top who delivered speeches on the necessity of realistic ethnocidal measures to conquer the world had already given up Judeo-Christianity. The hardcore Nazis of the 1930s were years ahead American Christian WNsts eighty years later. How would Heimbach and Parrott react if such speech were delivered in English in 2013 during a conservative conference? (Lol!)
The above examples expose Christianity and also corroborates what I have said: American WNsm is a weak movement. Just watch Dave Duke’s videos and compare them to Himmler’s speeches. I blame Christian axiology for this.
I’d rather see the entire white race miscegenate than live another hundred years under a Jewish creed of emasculation.
Put that in your title bar, Chechar – defender of English Roses and the White Race.
That was said in poor taste, I take that back.
Ever read this?
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/rassenpo.htm
It’s a pamphlet used in for youth education under the Third Reich. Christianity is listed among the Enemies of the National Socialist Worldview:
That’s by Himmler I believe. Himmler was anti-Christian. Here’s another quote by him:
Himmler was more practical—i.e. more ruthless-than Hitler, and it’s a shame that he was only granted full powers from 1943 onward, when it was too late. Hitler thought he could work with the old Christian order until the war took a bad turn and they revealed their true colours. The Christian traitors began to be dealt with by Hitler and Himmler at the end of the Reich. Hitler knew he was lacking in certain areas and didn’t think of himself as the Overman but as someone preparing the way for the Overman / Overmen to come.
The coming Aryan Overmen must harbor no illusions. Christianity must be rooted out from our race. Our race should become as hard and cold as the scandinavian / hyperborean holy land that we settled in. No more “thou shalt not kill”. No more cancer of the desert. The modern world is a rotting corpse to which the White Man is chained to. He must destroy this world before it destroys him and to undertake that a religion that prohibits natural feelings of hate and punishment must be destroyed along with the modern civilization it gave birth to.
While I understand Christianity’s impact historically, naming it as the big ideological problem now seems strange.
Heimbach’s understanding of Christianity is the most scripturally and historically accurate; the single most important feature of the religion is achieving immortality by aligning yourself with Jesus and accepting his blood-sacrifice for your sins. There is an implicit equalism in this because even the stupidest and most dysfunctional can acquire immortality through Jesus, and will probably have an easier time “believing” than someone intelligent and skeptical. Nonetheless it is salvation through Jesus that is key, Christianity doesn’t particularly care if slaves are held so long as they profess Christianity, and says that women should be subordinate to men so long as both are equally subordinate to Christian doctrine.
To a White liberal “Christian” living today the thought of telling a Hindu or a Jew that they will “perish” without accepting Jesus as the Son of God is inconceivable. They would even go so far as to claim it’s “un-Christian”, although if challenged on this they’ll go off into some non-sequitur about “freedom of religion” or something. Calling a tribal witch-doctor a “godless heathen” is unthinkable to them. It’s not just that they won’t force conversion through violence, they won’t even try to bully people into converting through propaganda, but if any of them met Heimbach they’d be sputtering and hissing about how he must repent.
So I think Varlaan is behind in his timeline; the Christian element in society is nominal, and leftist Humanism has already become the functional religion of White civilization. Human equality is simultaneously considered a true fact and a moral imperative, it’s the only principle that rationalism won’t separate into “is” or “ought”, it’s enforced by a mixture of conventional law enforcement and a shadowy group of “civil rights experts” who are as feared as the Spanish Inquisition, and it bleeds into education and media in (usually) a completely ham-fisted and contextless way (if you have 4 Reverend Martin Luther Kings and add 2 more, how many Reverend Martin Luther Kings are leading America to a glorious Land of Equal Opportunity where All Persons are Created Equal?).
Don’t get me wrong, Christianity set itself up for a lot of this. “Accept everyone into your religion equally, so long as they profess your religious doctrine” isn’t a particularly good basis for a religion, and once you take away the religious context it utterly breaks your society. It also set itself up for failure as a religion by making smart-ass claims about boats full of giraffes to impress the gullible. And it taught its followers “humility” and pacifism before “God”, right before “God” abandoned them to be eaten by cannibals.
Humanism hasn’t been hampered by its lack of Christ, or Christ’s -ianity. As the Swede said, the sun with its core removed expands outward. The leveling of all Humans “before God” becomes the leveling of all Humans in all circumstances. However, I think it’s worth repeating that other religious doctrines were setting themselves up for the same thing; Buddhism and the multicult (literally) proto-Christianity of the Roman Empire, for two examples. Today there are tons of assorted religious offshoots (Wiccanism, Unitarianism, Bahaism, Freemasonry, etc) that are each trying to outdo the rest in their professing “tolerance” and “inter-faith dialogue”. (There is also at least one religious doctrine – Christian Identity – which is completely non-Humanist, despite considering itself Christian. CI is not historical Christianity, but they make a strong enough argument from pure scripture.)
In summary, Humanism is historically connected to Christianity and even more intrinsically connected to “Western Culture” post-Reformation, but Christianity is neither its only point of origin nor a particularly advanced form of it. We live under what was once a Christian axiomatic framework but essential parts of Christianity have been carved out from it, and peripheral parts have been moved to the center and grotesquely inflated.
So under your terminology Richard Dawkins is a Christian and Pastor Butler isn’t. The Pope is Christian but still not as Christian as Obama. The Reconquista wasn’t very Christian, but the Jews collaborating with the Moorish occupation were much more Christian. Pussy Riot was leading a Christian coup against an unChristian cathedral. Can you see why that word-usage might drive some people crazy? Saying you oppose Christianity is like saying you oppose the yellow sun, the sun with its core still in place, because if it wasn’t for the yellow sun and its weak core we wouldn’t have the red one. It isn’t wrong but it’s confusing to phrase it in that manner.
Those urban liberals have much more in common with the early Christians than most people realize:
http://christianthinktank.com/urbxctt.html
Let me give you another analogy, one that I belief is better then the sun-analogy.
Imagine a hydra, with a body and a hundred snapping heads. movements like socialism, zionism, feminism, freemasonry, liberalism, multiculturalism, humanism and gay-rights are all heads and they are busy snapping at use.
But whats the body, what is the ground those heads sprung from? It’s christendom and I would wager that whites could cut of all the heads to a bloody stump, but after centuries the body of christendom would produce gnostic and communialist movements that strove to create the same goals the left creates now.
All the morality of the left, all it’s goals and it’s methods, all have there origin within christianity and only the interplay between secular left and christian left, is what keeps the left from turning completely stale.
Without christianity the left would be, like yoga in the west, a fun pastime and a joke.
I agree to an extent that the Christian creed is the cause of the problem in so much as it emasculates the most talented men at an early age. But the masses will always be ‘Christians’ to one an extent, whether identified as such or not.
But the most critical aspect of Christianity to modern times, as Nietzsche clarified, is this faith’s sponsoring of the bourgeois ideal of peace and happiness. I cannot think of anything more destructive to our sense of identity than a worldview based on pleasure and money-making/security.
The white race is only superior to other races in potential because of its dynamic creativity and striving for excellence; Christianity makes us mediocre and not much better than Negroes, except for crime statistics and IQ.
But Christianity is as false as any other major religion or New Age cult. As to historicity, have you read my quotations of the research on the historical Jesus? (I read those books when I was still struggling with my religious & parental introjects):
https://westsdarkesthour.com/2012/12/24/the-historical-jesus/
Chechar, when you were a Christian, was an overwhelming sense of pity and connectivity with the suffering of others a part of you life?
I did, and feel cheated for giving away so much emotional energy towards others … after reaching maturity I realized how foolish the whole affair was by virtue of the fact that 90% of human beings are totally worthless, lacking skill, sensitivity, or virtue (in my opinion). The only people who are worthy of charity are those you know to be of quality, not the general mob or starving children in Ethiopia.
The ethical command to ‘love thy neighbor’ is plebeian; if every man were a Schopenhauer or a Nietzsche in intellectual and spiritual temper, I might think differently.
Definitively: when I was a Christian and admired St Francis, I even felt pity for the downtrodden browns in Mexico. If I could continue to write my autobiography one of the possible titles for my next book would be “From St Francis to Himmler”.
This is what WN Christians don’t understand: I have passed thru their stage and they haven’t passed thru mine. In other words, my psyche harbors the software, so to speak, to decode their wavelength. Conversely, they don’t have any software to decode mine.
It’s like a metamorphosis. Butterflies can understand worms because they were once worms, but worms have not experienced a butterfly flight yet.
Once I gave up Christianity and started to transvaluate my values I remember myself, long time ago, walking in downtown Los Angeles. I asked myself, Would you take the lives of all of these blacks and browns to expand yours, if possible? In my silent self-conversations I answered in the affirmative.
Now I have even gone beyond that. I believe that there are millions of white Untermenschen, as a blogger from Swede said here about a year ago.
Christianity is psychological torture for honest men born into the faith system with little alternative, as it was for me, and appears to have been for you.
I wasted my youth enthralled in pity, guilt, self-effacement, humility, pointless charity, prayer, and other idiotic activities. The rest of my time was spent contemplating an escape from this prison of a worldview that had been imposed upon my mind and spirit.
No Deutsch: in your early twenties you’ve wasted almost nothing. I am the one that lost decades in this cult and in New Age offshoots from Christianity.
I haven’t seen you post anything on your current worldview as it pertains to your personal philosophy, although I have a general idea of what it might be.
I think you would resist the label and deny it, but you seem to me to be a Jungian. A secular, well-informed mind who embraces myth and values symbolic cultural patterns/tribal identity.
No. I had in mind my stage in a cult but the story doesn’t end there; it’s just too sketchy and there’s no biographical narrative. I could write a long volume recounting it.
I am not a Jungian btw. And only became conscious about the pro-white blogosphere too late in my life—at fifty!
I would guess you have always been ‘Western’ in spirit, so just realizing the more explicit details of that later in life doesn’t seem so inconsistent.
I won’t even consider you a ‘racist’ or ‘racially conscious’ … I think the concept of an all white society is just normal. The fact that some races are inferior to others is just common sense to me; it was the accepted view prior to the League of Nations and later the United Nations.
It is abnormal and suicidal not to be tribal; modernity takes the danger out of life, and with it goes the tribalism to an extent.
I’m glad that the overwhelming sentiment among WNs is anti-Xtian. I don’t think we should make any courting gestures to Xtians to join WN; we should offer them the same choice our ancestors were … convert (to paganism) or die.
Paganism, unlike Xtianity, can never perish unless the whole white race perishes, because it’s orientation is the primordial identity of white men. We don’t believe in anything specifically, we just affirm our own identity through action … that is paganism.
I was under the impression that in America most WNsts were Christians?
Not in my experience, but then again, my circles include young white men not living in the South.
Keep in mind their are a lot of radical and intelligent ‘pagans’ who are not the leadership type (because they hold nuanced opinions) … therefore you don’t hear about them as much as Heimbach, Terry, or Parrot.
But that leaves Buddhism a disembodied head. The problem is that multiculturalism, feminism, miscegenation, and other humanist evils are seen in pre-Christian times, part of a sort of late-Classical worldview where loyalty to the state outranks race, all religions are considered to be variants of the same concept, and being able to speak a language means you share a worldview (what the Jews still call “Hellenism” from the way Judeans were allowed to “assimilate” into Greek culture). That combined with a general miasma of wealth, regimented labor, and a lack of purpose is the climate Christianity sprang from.
Getting rid of humanism without getting rid of “Christianity” would require a fundamental overhaul of what the Christian religion is, historically, and while theoretically possible it would be a huge waste of time. That does not mean that to remove Christianity would somehow cause cultural Marxism and global capitalism to disintegrate. Christianity is just a handicap when more advanced forms of humanism exist, hence humanist revolutions in France and Russia being explicitly atheistic, and the Jewish support of “secularism” whenever devout Christians and liberals are in conflict.
I don’t think the Russians were laughing…
This is less the religion’s hedonism and more the religion’s outright lack of goals once everyone’s already converted. Okay, you accept Jesus, you’re going to heaven, you’re not allowed to kill yourself to get there faster, so just sit around and watch TV until you die by accident. (A lot of this is Paul’s influence, Jesus was at least more active.)
When I say “historical” I mean its history as a professed religion (especially the dogma of the Catholic church pre-1900s, and the early protestant churches), not the historical existence of Jesus himself (who I basically treat like a literary figure, with everything magic treated as metaphor).
Christianity is actually more unrealistic than most “New Age” nonsense, and that’s part of the reason it’s never going to make a recovery among literate Whites. The Genesis account isn’t just tacked on, Adam disobeying God is the entire origin of sin, the narrative fundamentally doesn’t work with evolution.
The analogy works the same with Buddhism to Hinduism, as Leftism to Christianity and the reason Buddhist states survive is because Buddhism swallowed a large part of Hindu metaphysics, art and ceremony.
The same analogy works with the left, either they follow the history of Russia, they first create a free people’s republic, then the republic changes into a dictatorship this happens alongside religious genocide, the dictatorship collapses again and they allow Christianity to take up a modest role and leftism becomes milder again and most of the country turns towards consumerism.
Or, and this is still a possibility for the left, they mix leftism with elements from there parent-religion, perhaps a form of Baptist or Catholic thought. This would be a leftism with ceremonies, prayers, churches and monks and could possibly survive as a cult in distant parts of the earth.
On your question about many modern ills existing in the past, that is absolutely true, but any basis these ills would have are in the campaigns of Alexander, who conquered the Orient and then allowed his people to be conquered by the Orient.
The three Abrahamic religions are the inheritors of the Orient, they with the exception of some esoteric cults are the only thing that is left of Stoicism, Skepticism, Gnosticism, Mazdaism and other Orientalish, Hellenistic cults, that mostly sprang from the ghettos of Alexandria.
The difference as I see it is that Hinduism isn’t humanist in the same sense as Christianity, that was added on with Buddhism as Christianity added it on to Pharisaical Judaism. In other words the humanism that springs from Christianity and forms the heart of modern liberalism could have come from other sources as well (including Alexander’s empire, as you noted).
Leftism overextending and destroying itself in the absence of Christianity (or some other diluting factor) is probable, more of an explosion than an implosion. Interesting then to note that Christianity is becoming continually weaker…
The problem with the bourgeois ideal of Christianity is that it is hypocritical; it appeals to the idea of creating a ‘safe world’, but at the same time eliminates the conditions which produce the great men capable of sustaining such a civilization.
Additionally, one cannot be a bourgeois, living in excess and leisure, and at the same time a Christian, supposedly giving one’s heart to the Lord in common cause with the misery and horrible suffering endemic to the world.
Christianity is about self-effacement; few Christians actually practice this, they instead just pretend to for the perks of eternal life with Jesus and the social rewards.
There’s mixed messages, Jesus says the rich won’t go to heaven but Paul says they will so long as they believe in Christ’s resurrection. In most people’s minds it leaves charity as something that’s “good” but optional; God doesn’t care enough about it to damn you for not doing it so screw it (unless your local priest is getting on your case about it).
The concept of heaven and hell are stolen from paganism. In the ancient world, heaven was conceived of as the abode of the gods, where mortals who realized themselves would go after they died. It wasn’t a place, so much as a state of being for warriors and wise men; in Valhalla, fighting continues … the afterlife is not place of peace. The Nordic Sagas and Tibetan Book of the Dead make it clear that the other side was not thought by the ancients to be a bright and sunny place necessarily.
The concept of Hell was invented by Dante, or more correctly, it was falsely encouraged by the Church around the same time to scare believers into submission.
But again, this derives from the ancient world, where the Nordic ‘Hel’ or ‘Sheol’ was thought to be the ground, nothing more. Most common folks are sent to hell when they die because they have not transcended their animal nature, and thus their fortune in the after life is to be reincarnated on the earth. This has nothing to do with personal reincarnation … it means their body is recycled like compost.
Whether these concepts are accurate or not, they are the foundation upon which Xtian is built, with false interpretations which benefit the priests.
Christianity is a Jew-mind-weapon. Christianity is psychological herd-preparation for Cultural Marxism, leading to hard Communism. We have Cultural Marxism/Political Correctness because of Christianity. We must overcome the degeneracy of Christian thinking for the survival and expansion of our White race. National Socialism is the only way of salvation.
Adolf Hitler was right.
“National Socialism is the only way of salvation.”
Of course, but explaining this to WN Christians is impossible.
Christians will kill WN; they must be excluded from the process altogether. National Socialism had it right. Why any white man would choose a salvation cult over one of life affirmation when presented with philosophical reasoning is beyond me.
Jesus was crucified because he proclaimed the morality that individuals should be guided by the spirit within them, not by the law and the prophets. This is the appeal of Christianity to the authentic European. It is the appeal of a life based on sovereign individualism. NS is, as KMac asserts, a mirror image of Judaism fueled by demagoguery. The ancient Germanic tribes were not ruled by word constructed laws created by some king or Fuhrer. The ancient Germans did not need to be told, as Hitler told the Germans, and Jesus told the Jews to love one another as I love you, because their belief in a fair fight in a challenge by combat killed the unscrupulous among them. Group force (legal means) was not needed to destroy the word-constructed serpent that lay in their midst.
Nice try, but I think I can pop your liberal bubble.
Jesus was crucified because he and his groups preached the end of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, Jesus thought he was the son of God and that everyone should worship God through him.
Individuality does not exist, I for one have never seen an individual. European people are not individualist, and neither is any group of people on this earth.
If there is anything that would appeal to the European people, it would be Christ choosing to die in order to save humanity and not his “individuality”.
National-Socialism is not a mirror-image of Judaism, Judaism is a multiracial, religious cult that is globalistic in nature, while national-socialism is a monoracial, cultural movement that is routed in soil and tradition.
Another point that National-Socialism does not get along with Judaism is the focus on laws and rituals within the Jewish movement, which is completely absent in National-Socialism, which focuses on tradition and “the good life”.
Also your claim about ancient Germanic tribes not being ruled by the words of a king, of fuhrer is an outright lie. Eloquence was priced highly amongst ancient Teutons, there where councils that followed oral traditions of law and one could appeal there case to these counsels.
But that doesn’t matter because we are no longer a bronze-age pastoral society, but an industrialized, information-age society. That is a large leap, when you study Greek history, you will find that shortly after the towns grow bigger, a number of lawgivers like Solon, Numa and Lycurgus pop up and reform society.
Therefor I do not think it should be the goal of white-power, white-purist and white-nationalists to return to the ancient Teutonic way of life.
I think the vast majority of ashquenazi are atheists or agnostics and even their religion, ie Judaism, the belief is not based in fact but as with Eastern religions, they need to have a set of ceremonies for” believe ” but not to experience so intensely as do Europeans.
Leftism is the evolution of the extremely high capacity of abstraction of Caucasians, which is missing in other people, including the Jews.
A religious connection is more consistent with the historical culture of the Eastern peoples, is a way to connect people with their cultural past. But it does not happen in the nations of the Middle East or Europe where people tend to idealize their beliefs completely, making them real since they believe them.
For liberals then human equality is not just a belief, it is real, even if it makes sense or have no scientific proof.
But I think it’s easier to understand this difficulty to understand the factual reality of things through stupidity cognitive of many Christians.
link
Varlaan said some things in the Christianity thread that I agree with, and are partially contrary to Kmac’s theories. I’ll comment on them here, since I think they’re relevant.
“Individualism” is a nonsense liberal term, which refers to two completely unrelated characteristics and purposefully tries to conflate them. Those characteristics are intra-population variance and selfishness. Variance is simply how different any two members of the population are from each other. Selfishness is a lack of concern for the collective.
An example of a population with low variance and high selfishness would be ghetto niggers; they’re all fairly similar to each other but have very little ability to cooperate and trust one another. A more extreme example would be just about any non-social animal, like a spider. Spiders of the same species, age, and sex may be completely indistinguishable from one another, and yet they have no collective consciousness at all. Can such a creature be called “individualistic” or “collectivistic”, without either one being absurd?
A creature with high variance and low selfishness would be like an ant; there would be radically different variations of it (worker, soldier, queen) but each variation would be working towards the same goal. Hypothetical creatures like the Zerg from Starcraft would be an extreme example of this in intelligent life. To say that ants are “individualistic” because they allow workers and queens to live radically different lifestyles is again absurd.
Whites aren’t organized like an ant colony but as far as humans go they’re more ant than spider. We have among the highest degree of variance in IQ and other mental attributes but we also have among the highest degree of trust and altruism. I consider “individualism” to be primarily a rhetorical device used to justify capitalist selfishness through appeals to variance, and later to justify anti-social leftist behavior in the same fashion.
Regardless of what Judaism is, this quote reminds me of something else Kmac is mistaken about: the claim that Whites are not an ethno-centric race. Whites are the most racially-minded race on earth (exempting the Orientals, perhaps).
How do I know? Because we’re the only race that absolutely, universally defines ourselves by our racial purity. Nearly every Black considers Obama to be Black but I doubt there is a single White person who thinks his White mother makes him White. Traditionally Arabs think an Arab father makes you Arab and Jews think a Jewish mother makes you Jewish; neither of these tribal-legalistic conceptions make sense biologically, intelligent Jews and Arabs are forced to adopt White (Mendelian) rules (both parents must be of the race). Again, I doubt there is a single White person on earth, no matter how “liberal” or “conservative”, who thinks “Whiteness” is passed on from a certain parent.
How can Blacks, Jews, and Arabs be adept at defending their race when they can’t define it correctly? The answer is they really can’t, if Whites were miscegenated to the degree that they are we’d probably consider ourselves already dead. Blacks, Jews, and Arabs lack the necessary level of idealism to be truly racial, or at least have difficulty with it. What Kmac is considering “ethno-centrism” is mostly just belligerence and loosely-defined Chauvinism. As a counter-example look at the Japanese; they have a much stronger racial conception and are capable of defending their biological race in their long-term decisions, they just aren’t as greedy or savage as other groups and so tend to be overlooked.
As a side note there’s a dysfunctional conservative tendency (not implying Kmac makes it!) to claim that Judaism “was the first religion of racial supremacy”, part of a larger trend towards claiming that Whites are the world’s Noble Humanist Ally against the “Zionists” who act like the villains from a Jewish movie and secretly want to enslave every race of human with their military-industrial imperialist xeno-patriarchal blah blah blah. Typical conservative shit. In actuality the first “racial supremacist religion” was Hinduism, which established the Aryan caste system over the dark-skinned natives of India.
Looking back on the history of the White race as recorded, and the history of our demographic purity, there’s no way we would have made it this far had the White race been significantly less racist than the races that mongrelized themselves and didn’t even notice. If I recall even the Romans were surprised by the degree to which the northern Europeans rejected miscegenation, and commented favorably on their historic purity. That the idea of Whiteness as purity remains nearly untouched even today further supports this.
Now my third rant: there is no such thing as “universalism”, it’s a nonsense idea. If Whites “see everything as universal” then that means they see the universe as universal, which is common sense.
What people actually mean when they talk about “universalism” is that Whites take characteristics of White societies and apply them to all human societies. Except that’s not “universalism”, that’s just Humanism. If Whites start taking attributes of White societies and start applying them to non-human animals they go insane, like the PETA guys, and even they don’t actually get very far (they don’t try to claim that predation is “ethnic cleansing” or that humans should start shipping grain and medicine to the forests). These racial attributes aren’t being “universalized” because that would literally become impossible to conceive (asteroids have “freedom of speech”?).
Once you start criticizing God’s super-special soul-having reason-using brotherhood of walking monkeys then you’re in dangerous territory. What about their Human Rights, what about being made “in God’s image”, what about Western philosophy and “the Categorical Imperative”? It isn’t just a revolt against the last century of liberalism, it’s a revolt against “Western Civilization” as we now know it. No wonder people would rather criticize “universalism”.
– – – – – –
So then, what’s the problem, if the White race has one of the most accurate racial conceptions, has both a high degree of variance and a collectivistic morality, and is entirely justified in its “universalism” towards the universe?
I would say the number one defining trait of the race is its idealism, or its capacity to will in the abstract (as Gottlieb said), of which creativity and moral perfectionism are a part. I think in this regard we outperform the Orientals, who are at least as intelligent but more predictable. The White race also has more variance in intelligence than them, which makes society more leadership-dependent and better allows new forms of idealism to coalesce around a luminary personality.
What this means is that the White race needs a strong spiritual/idealistic core, something that spans the gap between the most base physical problems and the highest existential insights, like a tree holding up the sky. The White capacity for self-delusion, self-destruction, and spiritual decay is as large as our capacity for creativity and strength, because we can overcome lower-level instincts and “common sense” in the service of a higher purpose – or a lower purpose, in this case. We will either be a conduit for gods or for demons, for the overman or oblivion.
(Oops, meant to post this in the new caterpillar thread.)
Just because both are related. All personality traits and cognitive style have their advantages and disadvantages. Some of these traits are almost as divine gifts, like creativity Caucasian. However, the higher the height, the greater the fall. Asians are an economic race. I believe they have eliminated these excesses unusual talent since the days when they were incubated in the current plateau of Mongolia. They are minimalist, both in appearance and intelligence. While we can find all sorts of unusual types, sometimes exuberant (as a redhead), sometimes markedly brilliant (as Machiavellian intelligence of the Jews) and goodness (common in many European Caucasians). What is happening is the result of the evolution of warmongering Caucasians who once made them so great, is so weak now.
You should see the work of the blogger, HBD chick, she welcomes this theory about the unusual individualistic traits of Europeans, especially northern Europeans.
On the one hand, this evolution markedly caused by Christianity and very likely unintentional, resulted in decreased inbreeding in Europe, primarily in Scandinavia and Britain.
Precisely the regions where inbreeding decreased we see the most extreme cases of liberalism. Clearly it is necessary to gather a number of other explanations to understand the phenomenology of behavioral north and northwest Europe. However, this would be a form of explanation for the emasculation of the European male population.
On the one hand, the decrease of inbreeding may have resulted in increased intelligence but also the decrease in crime, Nature tribal.
Another study, talks about the types of families in Europe. Despite the purely cultural explanation is evident that genetic factors also should influence this situation considerably.
The clear effect of Christianization of Europe was the domestication of the white man.
Crime reduction and safe communities are the result, but also the reduction of the traits responsible for the survival of any species in the animal kingdom irrational.
Stubbs,
Your worldview is complex. If you don’t put it in book form it will remain kind of mysterious.
Damn, I’ll need to learn how to write better then…
I mean that it merits a book; not mere blog comments.
I think I agree with the claim that only white people and maybe some East-Asian groups like the Japanese are capable of race-consciousness.
Amongst the mudpeople of Africa and Asia there is no racial-consciousness, only religion or class.
A negro from a distant part of Africa might be racially pure, in the sense that there hasn’t been any admixturng with other racial groups for thousands of years, but the consciousness of being part of a group, with innate qualities that are not just reflected through religion or class is completely missing.
I think you could say that human kind has lived through three tier systems. The first tier is the instinctive copying behavior of early hominids, the second tier is the outward ceremonial and religious world of the mudraces and the third and highest tier being races with racial-consciousness, a sense of history and destiny.
We belong to the third tier, left-wing whites and most ethnic groups on earth belong to the second tier, it is important to understand that every religion out there, from Islam to Hinduism to Leftism is build upon the concept of race-mixing, because those religion are learned modes of thought and do not come from race-consciousness.