web analytics

Author: C .T.

Categories
Christendom Judaism

Xtianity:

A religion for sheep, 3

by Revilo P. Oliver
Published by Liberty Bell Publications in 1980,
under Oliver’s nom de guerre Ralph Perier.

God’s race

The Fathers of the Church got down to work near the end of the second century, when, incidentally, the Emperor in Rome, although he bore a Roman name, was a man from northern Africa, probably of mixed Semitic and Berber ancestry, whose native language was Punic, a Semitic dialect. Their overriding purpose, to judge from the results, was to preserve and protect the Jewish connection, which the Marcionites and other “heretics” had threatened.

When the Christians started scribbling gospels around the middle of the second century, they produced a very large number, and the composition of gospels to suit the whims or ambitions of would-be holy men went on through most of the next two centuries.

From such compositions, the Fathers of the Church collected and selected their favourites, making such revisions as they deemed expedient and probably composing supplements. These they eventually put together into a small anthology, which they called a “New Testament” and thus indissolubly joined to the Jews’ story book, which they called an “Old Testament.” The final selection of pieces for the anthology is said to have been made in 367 by Athanasius, a particularly bull-headed holy man, who is still revered for his services in establishing the incomprehensible doctrine of a three-in-one-god, of which Jesus was 33%. His authority made it thenceforth impossible to compose new gospels with any chance of implanting them in the canon he had established. Thereafter, revision of the stories about Jesus was limited to short interpolations and verbal substitutions.

A Christian artist’s conception of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, which had secured the official endorsement of Roman Emperor Constantine, and which served to marginalize the many Christian sects (and their innumerable gospels) which had been competing with the “Fathers of the Church” — and set the stage for their persecution.

The effect of this combination of “Testaments” was to impose on Christians, under pain of eternal damnation, the odd belief that, throughout the greater part of human history, the Jews were the Chosen People of a terrible and truculent god, who savagely and often capriciously afflicted the lower races when they did not cravenly submit to his Master Race. To be sure, the Jews temporarily alienated his affections when they crucified one-third of him, but Christian doctrine assures us that God will eventually “change their hearts” and they will come flocking back to Jesus. (No one seems to worry about the morality of changing a man’s mind by a psychological process that must resemble hypnosis.) In the meantime, God still loves his erring children, even though they worship only a third of him, and they must be preserved for the coming miracle of their reconciliation with daddy.

Another consequence of the Fathers’ convenient doctrine is that the Jews were God’s Race until a date that Christians now set at sometime between A.D. 29 and 34; thereafter, they became a religion, since Jews who have been laundered in holy water miraculously cease to be Jews.

The effect of this paradox was to make Christianity seem anti-Jewish and therefore attractive to all the goyim who resented their exploiters, while preserving for the Jews their prestige as a wonderfully “righteous” and “god-fearing” people, who had long been the intimates of the Christians’ own god.

Of the many advantages that Christianity conferred on the Jews, none was greater than the privilege of masquerading as a religion and thus concealing their race. It ensured them the protection of both church and state as they rapaciously amassed wealth in mediaeval Europe. One has only to ask oneself what would have happened, had Chinese or Malays swarmed into the cities to set up their enclaves (ghettos) to monopolise commerce, practise usury, and control finance. Even more important, it gave them perpetual access to the seats of power.

We are told that Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Jews from Spain in 1492. Nonsense! By that time, Jews were safely and immovably ensconced in every important segment of Spanish society as “converts.” A century later, one-third of the archbishops in Spain and of the higher clergy was composed of Jews who practised Christian rites in public and privately snickered at the stupidity of the goyim. Toynbee estimates that Jews formed about the same proportion of the nobility. And no one need be told that a tightly cohesive third of any organisation has effective control of it. The Inquisition, to be sure, caught a few of the marranos who were careless or inept in their dissembling, but that served to reassure and pacify the populace.

Edward I banished the Jews from England in 1290, and we are told that England was Judenfrei until they swarmed in (with their money-bags) under Cromwell. No one, I believe, has tried to compute how many Jews, in keeping with the immemorial tactic of their race, had themselves sprinkled with the Christians’ magic water, took English names, and tried not to laugh at the British in public. And one can only guess how much the masqueraders had to do with the rise of Puritanism, a brand of Christianity that was primarily based on the “Old Testament,” and the revolution that placed in power fanatics who, for example, made the observation of Christmas illegal.

Christians today wax irate when they are shown translations of certain passages in the Jewish Talmuds, which are said to prove how much the Jews hate Christianity. It is true that there are pejorative references to Jesus of Nazareth, who was certainly one of the christs who contributed to the composite figure in the “New Testament.”

No one seems to notice that the Talmuds speak as pejoratively of the last of the important christs in antiquity, of whose Jewish orthodoxy there can be no question.

Assuming the name Bar-Kokhba, he caught thousands of the Greeks and Romans off guard and butchered them, and he carried on a guerrilla war of terrorism for almost three years until the Roman legions gave proof that Yahweh had again forgotten to send celestial reinforcements to help His People exterminate the goyim. Nevertheless, the Talmudists denounce him bitterly, even changing his assumed name from Bar- Kokhba (“the son of the star”) to Bar-Koziba (“the son of the liar”). The Jews hate him and asperse his memory because he failed.

Theologians who are concerned to show Christians how much the Jews hate their religion translate as “Christians” or “Christianity” some or all of a dozen words and phrases in Rabbinic, of no one of which is the meaning so indubitable that the Jews cannot quibble about it. It would be a waste of time to quibble with them. The Jews do feel contempt for persons who believe the Christian tales, and they do hate our race, which is probably meant by those words and phrases which are not merely synonyms of goyim, their general term for races and peoples who perversely refuse to recognise the vast superiority of the Jews.

Categories
Quotable quotes

Adolf quote

‘Words build bridges into unexplored regions’.

—Hitler

Categories
Revilo Oliver So-called saints

Xtianity:

A religion for sheep, 2

by Revilo P. Oliver
Published by Liberty Bell Publications in 1980,
under Oliver’s nom de guerre Ralph Perier.

The Fathers of the Church

Today, including all of the many minor sects, is what it was made by the patient and subtle work of the Fathers of the Church. They were a knavish lot. There is no way of knowing how many of them were actually Jews on duty for God’s Race. It is highly unlikely that any one of them was a Greek or Roman. Most of them were probably Semites or descendants of one of the other Oriental peoples that swarmed into the mongrelised Roman Empire and displaced or replaced the Romans. Whatever their racial antecedents, it is clear from their own writings, despite much later whitewashing, that they were a motley crew of shysters, psychopaths, and other misfits. They were calculating or compulsive liars and forgers; see the able review of their record by Joseph Wheless, Forgery in Christianity (New York, 1930).

One of the Fathers’ most audacious and successful hoaxes certainly emits a Jewish odour. By brazen affirmation constantly repeated, they put over the claim that the wicked Romans, beginning in the time of Nero, persecuted Jesus’s little lambs because the innocent creatures wanted to worship “the true God.” Nothing could be more absurd historically. The Romans, aside from their typically Aryan obtuseness to the facts of race, were an admirably practical people and knew how to govern. It was their fixed policy never to interfere with the superstitions of their subjects. They impartially tolerated the most grotesque rites and obscene religions. Some of the disgusting cults that flourished among the dregs of society practised human sacrifice, but so long as they were content to sacrifice their own members, the Romans took no action: They knew that nothing should be done to save fools from the consequences of their folly. It was only when religious zeal inspired the murder of Romans or of the subjects entitled to their protection that the Romans drew a line beyond which their toleration would not go. Even then, they punished, not the pernicious faith, but only violence and conspiracy to commit violence.

The vermin executed by Nero were Jewish terrorists from the rabble of the huge ghetto that the Jews had planted in Rome. They were accused of having set the great fire that destroyed the greater part of Rome in 64; they confessed and were executed—cruelly, it is true. When one considers the appalling outbreaks of Jewish nihilism that occurred throughout the world from time to time, whenever a christ stirred up the rabble, one sees that it is highly probable that the terrorists were guilty of the crime to which they confessed. It is true that Nero’s political opponents, who were conspiring to overthrow him, preferred to accuse him of the crime; and the young egomaniac’s arrogant folly, when he expropriated the devastated centre of the city for an extravagant new palace, seemed to confirm the political propaganda. That was what enabled the Fathers, when they began to impose their hoax on the ignorant more than a century later, to pretend that the ferocious terrorists had been persecuted for wanting to love everybody.

When historical criticism became feasible in our eighteenth century, the Fathers’ clever hoax long escaped detection: Thirteen centuries of Christianity had so accustomed our people to the practice of torturing and killing men for their thoughts and superstitions that the story seemed plausible enough.

After the middle of the third century, when the successors of the extinct Romans tried desperately to shore up the crumbling empire, a few of them are known to have taken some action against Christians as such, but we do not know under what provocation and, of course, no reliance can be placed on the tales told by the Fathers. The usual policy, however, was toleration, and we know that Diocletian admitted Christians to positions of high trust and responsibility in his own palace until 303, when the Christians’ piety got the better of them and they tried to murder him by burning him alive in his own bedroom. That made him angry.

At the end of the fourth century, St. Jerome, who was much better educated than most of the Fathers and probably the best of a bad lot, was the real founder of a new type of short story that became immensely popular: tales about the “martyrs” who “suffered for their faith.” There is extant a letter by Jerome in which he bitterly reproves some Christians who thought that it mattered that the hero of his first fiction had never existed. That, Jerome indignantly said, was irrelevant, since his tale edified the clergy’s customers, who knew no better. And Jerome went on concocting the tales with such brilliant success that he soon had a host of imitators, all trying to invent more grisly plots.

Jerome, as you see, was an accomplished theologian. He is now best remembered for his revision of the Latin text of the Bible, which he carried out with the help of kindly Jews, who hovered about him, eager to explain the mysteries of God’s Word. Those Jews, we may be sure, knew what Christianity was doing for them.

In 313, Constantine and his colleague, Licinius, who were jointly fighting civil wars against rival emperors, issued the so-called Edict of Milan, which proclaimed universal toleration for all religious cults and specifically named the Christians as cults to be tolerated. The two emperors undoubtedly felt that the support of the Christian organisations would be an asset in the civil wars, and Constantine may have foreseen that they could be especially useful to him when the time came for him to turn upon and destroy his ally and brother-in-law, Licinius. Of course, as soon as Constantine was safely dead, the Fathers of the Church concocted a story that he had been privately “converted” by a childishly-imagined miracle in 312, and had been actually baptised on his death bed, so that the soul of one of the most treacherous rulers undoubtedly flitted right up to Jesus.

A fourth-century head of Constantine, which clearly shows not only the degenerate appearance of its subject, but also the decline of Classical art that had already taken place. Art would decline even more precipitously after the Christians’ rise to complete power. It would not attain greatness again until the rediscovery of Classical ideals and philosophy during the Renaissance.

Christians still like to repeat the myth about the “conversion” of Constantine and the Triumph of the True Faith. All that really happened was that the Fathers of the Church, securely established by the edict of toleration, shrewdly used their bargaining power in intrigues with the various ambitious generals who were slugging it out for the grand prize. The real triumph of their Church came only with the final victory of Theodosius in 394, when the Fathers at last got the power to use the imperial police and army to begin persecuting in earnest. Their first concern, of course, was to exterminate their Christian competitors and destroy all their gospels. Some of those gospels, however, escaped them in one way or another. That is why we now know a good deal about the competing brands of Christianity.

We Aryans still have an instinctive respect for honesty and a peculiar respect for facts. We are shocked by the hypocrisy and mendacity of the Fathers, and Christians of our race cannot bring themselves to believe those ostentatiously pious individuals were what the record shows them to have been. In justice to them, however, we should remember that their deceptions were not un-Christian. They thought—or at least it was their business to teach—that Salvation depended on belief in certain inherently implausible tales and on conduct they approved. From that premise, it followed that any lie or trick that would induce the desired faith in the yokels was not only justified, but meritorious. As a recent writer has said, “Lying for the Lord is a normal exercise of piety.”

Categories
Quotable quotes

Adolf quote

‘Strength lies not in defence but in attack’.

—Hitler

Categories
Christendom Revilo Oliver

Xtianity:

A religion for sheep, 1

by Revilo P. Oliver
Published by Liberty Bell Publications in 1980,
under Oliver’s nom de guerre Ralph Perier.

OUR contemporaries are coming to a radically new understanding of the Jewish problem. One by one, and independently of one another, several of our best minds have re-examined the historical record or analysed the forces that are today driving our race to suicide. And each of them has come spontaneously to the conclusion that Christianity was a Jewish invention, devised for the specific purpose of enfeebling and paralysing the civilised peoples of the world, on whom the Jews were preying in antiquity and have preyed ever since.

A century ago, Nietzsche perceived that our civilisation, although it seemed to have an absolute mastery of the whole world, was infected by a degenerative disease, a cancer of the spirit that would destroy it, if our people did not have the intelligence and the fortitude to excise the malignancy. He came to the conclusion that Christianity was a “transvaluation of values,” a mental virus cunningly invented and propagated by the Jews to implement “Jewish vengeance and hatred, – the deepest and sublimest hatred in human history.” Our contemporaries, whether or not they have read the Genealogy of Morals, reason largely from events that have occurred or from historical evidence that became available since Nietzsche’s day. They come to substantially the same conclusion.

The origins of Christianity are extremely obscure. No historical record of its beginnings has survived, and scholars can only draw deductions from the earliest historical references to it and inferences from its confusing and incoherent mythology.

One thing is certain. Christianity was originated by Jews and based on oral traditions about one or, more probably, several of the Jewish agitators and miracle-mongers who bore the extremely common Jewish name of Jesus and called themselves christs. The word ‘christ’ comes from a Greek word that means ‘oil, grease,’ but which was used in the Jews’ uncouth dialect of Greek to mean ‘a messiah,’ that is, a man appointed by the Jews’ tribal god to lead his Chosen barbarians to a definitive victory over the civilised peoples, whom they implacably hated. One of the cleverest tricks of the Fathers of the Church in promoting their cult was to give to non-Jews the impression that ‘christ’ was the name of a person, and even to this day many Christians ignorantly believe that their god was a man who was baptised “Jesus Christ.”

Nietzsche saw that successful promotion of Christianity depended on a pretence of reciprocal hostility between Christians and Jews. It depended on making the Jewish cult, when peddled to the goyim, seem non-Jewish and even anti-Jewish. “Was it not,” he asked, “a necessary feature of a truly brilliant politics of vengeance, a far-sighted, subterranean, slowly and carefully planned vengeance, that Israel had to deny its true instrument publicly and nail him to the cross like a mortal enemy, so that ‘the whole world’ (meaning all the enemies of the Jews) might naively swallow the bait?” This policy, however, produced an unexpected backlash, which was only with difficulty brought under control.

It would take a volume even to summarise the scandalous and scabrous history of Christianity from its known beginnings around the middle of the second century to the triumph of a particularly shrewd and aggressive sect in the fifth century. There were hundreds of sects, each with its own bundle of gospels, peculiar doctrines, and adroit theologians, but among them there were dozens of sects that took seriously the purported antagonism of the Jews to the new religion.

One of the earliest of the Christian sects of which we have some record, and for almost two centuries one of the largest, was the Marcionites. It is noteworthy, by the way, that until quite recently, the earliest extant inscription from a Christian church came from a Marcionite church that was built in 318 and, of course, destroyed when the victorious sect got the power to persecute.

The Marcionites believed that the Jews were “the synagogue of Satan.” They denied that their Jesus had been a Jew. They saw that it was preposterous to claim that an incarnate god could die or would foolishly have himself crucified. They held that it was outrageous to identify the supreme god, who was a just god and loved all mankind, with the capricious, ferocious, and highly immoral god described in the Jews’ story-book, which Christians now call “the Old Testament.” The Marcionites naively thought those stories historical, but regarded them as a chronicle of the crimes perpetrated by the Jews and their supernatural accomplice, a much inferior deity whose abused power the supreme god had justly revoked. Other Christian sects took the logical step of frankly identifying the Jews’ god with Satan. This plausible identification commended itself to goyim who had to live with Jews and suffer their depredations.

We have no means of estimating numbers, but it is possible that early in the third century, taking the numerous sects as a whole, a majority of the Christians repudiated the notion that the wily Jews were God’s People and that the Jesus who was divine could have been a Jew. The anti-Jewish sects, however, appear to have thought of themselves as merely religions and to have believed what was said in their scriptures about love, faith, and peace. Content to believe certain dogmas and to observe rules that would assure them postmortem bliss, they seem to have had no interest in political intrigue and conspiracy, for which they had no talent. So they eventually fell victims to a gang of crafty, ruthless, and tightly-organised theologians, who are now known as the Fathers of the Church and given a prominence they cannot have had in their own time, when they must have appeared to be just another clique of salvation-hucksters.

When the Fathers of the Church finally got their hands on the police powers of the state, doubtless with much covert help from the Jews, they extirpated the anti-Jewish Christians with fire and sword, the natural instruments of Christian love as understood by ambitious holy men. Despite all the pious massacres in the fifth century, the anti-Jewish “heresy” has reappeared from time to time in later ages. It is found today in certain “fundamentalist” churches and, most clearly, in the group of loosely affiliated sects called “British Israel,” whose members probably have never even heard of the Marcionites or their other ancient precursors.

“British Israel” may be another ploy that backfired. It began in England at the time when Disraeli was crawling up to the British Prime Ministry and peerage. In its original form, it taught that the “ten lost tribes” supposedly taken captive by the Assyrians had been Anglo-Saxons, who migrated en masse from Assyrian territory to the British Isles. A handsome genealogy was concocted to show that Queen Victoria was a lineal descendant of a bandit chief named David. It followed, therefore, that God’s Own People, to-wit, the Anglo-Saxons and the Jews, reunited at last after many centuries, should jointly rule the world. That notion, however, imposed too great a strain on even Christian credulity.

Bizarre “geneology” issued by a “British Israel” group; many of their claims are now echoed by “Christian Identity” churches.

Today, the “British Israelites” accept the story that the “ten tribes” were Anglo-Saxons or, at least, Nordics, and hot-footed it from Assyrian territory to the British Isles or, at least, northern Europe. They further claim that the Jesus of Holy Writ was an Aryan, despite his distinctively Jewish name and the distinctively Jewish (or conceivably Egyptian) name of his supposed mother. They rely principally on some of the early Christian forgeries which explicitly describe that Jesus as having had blue eyes and blond hair and beard. They do not use, and seem not to know, the tradition, attested as early as any of the other Christian tales, that one of the Jesuses was the son of a Jewess by a soldier named Pandara/Panthera, who probably was not a Jew and could well have been a Macedonian or other Greek in a Seleucid or Roman army.

We must feel a considerable sympathy for the “British Israelites” of the present. They candidly recognise the Jews as the eternal enemies of our race. They are the best of the Christians and are making a valiant effort to free their religion from its Jewish trammels and make it conducive to the survival of our race. Unfortunately, their doctrine is historically preposterous and, what is even worse, demoralising. It makes our race the accomplices and beneficiaries of the ferocious god, Yahweh, who, according to the “Old Testament,” helped his pets swindle, plunder, torment, and butcher their betters in Egypt and Canaan.

Categories
Revilo Oliver

Primary cause

by Gaedhal

I seem to be one of a few who pay attention to ‘real Christianity’, and what is abroad in this declining movement.

Thus, the Riemenschneider[1] vs. Joel Webbon situation has probably not been analysed from a Team-White perspective.

Generation Zyklon is mostly ‘none’, and so now, on the White Side, we can criticise Christianity as the Jewish psyop it always was to our heart’s content. Revilo P. Oliver and William Luther Pierce, privately, came to the conclusion that Christianity was antiwhite, but, at least initially, they were extremely reticent in attacking it. Oliver released a pamphlet, under a pseudonym, in which he said that not only was Christianity anti-white, it was the primary cause of the white demographic eclipse that we are currently enduring.

In this video, James White says that you should love black believers more than white non believers. Indeed, if your daughter rejects Jesus, James White tells you to hate her. The Jewish Messiah came to sow division amongst gentiles:

Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division (Luke 12:51).

Also, you should hate her.

If any one comes to me without hating his father* and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple (* NRSV CE).

Christianity is Jewish psychological terrorism against whites. Cesar and Kyle Hunt understand this, and their respective websites, West’s Darkest Hour and Renegade Tribune, understand this.

James White quotes these two vile verses. White is a true believer in Christianity. Speaking of White’s version of Christianity, Foote, the leader of the secular society said:

‘a hateful creed in its true colours’.

By this, he meant that Christianity is a hateful creed of threats and empty promises, and that White’s version of Calvinist Extremism is in all likelihood, the truest expression of Christianity. This is not to say that Christians ought to be hated. I do not say this at all. Christians have a persecution complex, and hating them only plays into this. As I said before: the best response to Christianity is to politely ignore it. In a recent pieville slice, Linder said that Christianity should be banned in the white ethnostate. I disagree with this. However, I absolutely do agree with him that any antiwhite preaching by Christian ministers should be a death sentence.

Christianity is dying of itself as the KJV puts it. We should just leave it alone and allow it to die a natural death. I think that this was Saint Adolf Hitler’s attitude in his table talks. Hitler could be quite liberal—in the true sense of this word, i.e. tolerant and generous to opinions that were not cynically subversive—when he wanted to be. Liberalis in Latin means: ‘free’ or ‘generous’, and Hitler was an admirer of the true liberality of the Classical world. This, of course was replaced by the Inquisitions, witch-hunts and book-burnings of the Christian Dark Age.

A funny thing is happening in Calvinist Extremism. A lot of the younger Calvinist Extremists are experiencing a racial awakening; are discovering what they naively call ‘the Jewish Question’—when, in reality, it is the Jewish Problem—and they are beginning to question World War 2 Allied Propaganda. They are beginning to reject the Post War Consensus. Hey, maybe that the Jews and the communists won the greatest war ever fought might not be a good thing. As Cesar might put it: they are beginning to dip their toes in the Rubicon… And then Boomer Christians like Doug Wilson and James White come in to attempt to gatekeep, and to attempt to corral these men back onto the Con-servative reservation. Christianity—just as with Sicut Judaeis Non—is a gatekeeping operation. When the Jews get into trouble, they ring up the Christians so as to gatekeep, and to provide controlled opposition, and to propose non solutions such as throwing Holy Water over them or exiling them… so that their luckless descendants will again fall prey to them in a century, or so.

With this ‘Antioch Declaration’, we see that Christianity is still working as it was set up to; as it was intended to. Christianity is both a control grid for the Jews, and it is also a buffer zone between Jews and whites.

As Urban Jungle Girl put it: boomers such as James White must take their vile anti-white creed with them when they die.

__________

[1] Riemenschneider is German for: ‘strap cutter’ i.e. a maker of leather straps. German surnames are an excellent way to build up vocabulary in the language of the Fatherland.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note:

Oliver released a pamphlet, under a pseudonym, in which he said that not only was Christianity anti-white, it was the primary cause of the white demographic eclipse that we are currently enduring.

In six instalments I’ll post it the following days.

Categories
Miscegenation Racial studies

London lies

A 24 November 2015 article by Arthur Kemp

New claims by the Museum of London—replicated throughout the controlled media—that London has always been as “ethnically diverse” as it is now are easily disprovable lies being used to justify the ethnic cleansing of the city of white people.

The AFP newswire coverage of the story is a case in point:

A DNA analysis of four ancient Roman skeletons found in London shows the first inhabitants of the city were a multi-ethnic mix similar to contemporary Londoners, the Museum of London said on Monday.

Firstly, they are deliberately confusing ethnicity and race.

Ethnicity is a cultural term, such as ‘German,’ ‘English,’ ‘Polish,’ or ‘Irish.’ Ethnicity is most often expressed in linguistic boundaries.

Race, however is a genetic term, and all Europeans have genetic commonality. The Museum of London is deliberately mixing up these two meanings to try and create the impression that London has always been racially diverse—when in fact all the evidence shows that it has always been racially homogenous until the advent of present-day Third World immigration.

All Europeans are comprised of a number of genetic strains which came together in three distinct waves, dating from the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Indo-European eras, which stretched over 40,000 years in total.

As a result, any investigation of European genetics will find shared DNA, and consequently that European national boundaries are the product of language rather than race.

The existence of common DNA strings in any given European nation does not mean that that nation is ‘ethnically diverse,’ merely that they share a common origin founding population which created Europe.

The claims by the Museum of London that the Roman-founded city’s population was “similar to contemporary Londoners,” does not stand up to the test of history, DNA, or even the ‘new’ analysis of the skeletons now being boasted about in the controlled media.

The new “multi-ethnic” claim is based on DNA-analysis of just four skeletons—hardly a scientifically accepted sample size, bearing in mind that at its height, Roman London had a population of at least 60,000.

Furthermore, of the four skeletons, only one is claimed to have DNA originating outside of Europe—and even that claim is highly dubious.

According to the BBC’s coverage of the “multi-ethnic London” story, the first skeleton, called the “Lant Street teenager,” showed that she “grew up in North Africa” but that her female DNA (mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA) is common in southern and Eastern Europe. She had blue eyes, the study said.

Then, in a ridiculously unscientific manner, the BBC article claims that there ‘were things about her skeleton that suggested she had some Sub-Saharan African ancestry’—in other words, the claim to what they incorrectly call multi-ethnicity is based upon some unspecified ‘thing’ about the skeleton—while at the same time they say that all the DNA evidence shows that she was European.

In reality, racial skeletal differences are vast and easily discernable to the naked eye, and any expert would have no trouble at all in definitively asserting racial origins based on a study of such a complete skeleton. No ‘suggesting’ would have to be done.

The second skeleton analyzed, known as the “Mansell Street man,” showed that he had dark brown hair and brown eyes. According to the BBC, his “mitochondrial DNA line was from North Africa and his remains show African traits as well.”

The Mansell Street man could well have non-European origins. It is well known that the Roman legions employed mercenaries from all over their empire, and there are recorded instances of some troops stationed along the Hadrian Wall being of non-European, or Middle Eastern, extraction. Their numbers were however tiny, especially when compared to the overall size of the population of Britain.

But, even more importantly, the Museum of London and the controlled media are either being incredibly ignorant, or willfully deceptive by insinuating that the present-day population of North Africa resembled that of 2,000 years ago.

In ancient times, North Africa had a huge original white European presence, known as the ‘old Europeans.’ It was these people who played a major role in creating the Carthaginian civilization, based in present-day Tunisia.

The Carthaginians were early Rome’s greatest enemy, and the famous Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage raged from 264 BC to 146 BC. That was the era of the famous Hannibal of Carthage, who came close to conquering Rome. He was a Carthaginian hero, and coins were issued in his time showing his face—and his European-origin race is clear from these depictions.

A quarter shekel of Carthage, perhaps minted in Spain. The obverse may depict Hannibal with the traits of a young Melqart. The reverse features one of his famous war elephants.

The face of Hannibal, Carthage’s greatest warrior, from a silver coin struck at that city around 220 BC.
The Roman province of Africa consisted of a large piece of North African territory, and a vast network of European cities were built up, many of which can be seen to the present day.

Egypt, for its part, after its final collapse into multiracial backwardness around 800 BC, was occupied by the white Macedonians under Alexander the Great in 323 BC.

For the next 275 years, the white Macedonians ruled Egypt in a dynasty known as the Ptolemaic Kingdom. Their last ruler was the most famous queen of all, Cleopatra (actually the seventh queen of that name).

Despite propaganda to the contrary, Cleopatra and the Ptolemaic ruling elite were not African, but European Macedonian. After the fall of Cleopatra, Egypt also came under Roman rule.”

From this understanding of North African history, it is clear that the Roman-era population of North Africa contained a large residual European element. Given the ancient history, it is therefore highly likely that genes found in Europe can also be found among the present day North Africa population.

This does not however mean that a Roman-era skeleton found in London is multiracial—all it means is that some other Romans left similar genes among the gene pool of present-day North Africans.

The third skeleton used as “evidence” by the Museum of London to “prove” London’s “multi-ethnicity” is known as the “Gladiator.” According to the BBC, his mother’s ancestral line “is common in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.”

Once again, this is perfectly normal for European mtDNA, which, as the genetic research website Eupedia correctly pointsout, is not as accurate in measuring ethnic ancestry as Y-DNA, or male ancestry is.

In fact, Eupedia even specifically says that in ‘Europe, mtDNA haplogroups are quite evenly spread over the continent, and therefore cannot be associated easily with ancient ethnicities.’

A distribution map of European mtDNA,indicating the continent wide diversity of Europe;s founding maternal population. For the Museum of London to claim that this shows the “ethnic diversity” of Roman London, is laughably ignorant, if not a malicious lie.

Furthermore, the ‘youngest’ mtDNA in Europe which is claimed to have originated in the Middle East, the K1 haplogroup, dates from 12,000 years ago, further casting doubt over any claim of ‘multi-ethnicity, as this gene would have been part of present-day Europe’s founding population.

The fourth and final skeleton used by the Museum of London’s “multi-ethnic” claim is known as the “Harper Road woman,” who had brown hair and brown eyes, but, as the BBC admits, was a native Briton.

This fourth skeleton was clearly one of the Old European R1B haplogroup-Britons, from whom nearly 70 percent of the present-day inhabitants of Britain originate, a figure which rises to 90 percent in Ireland.

In conclusion, it can be seen that of the four skeletons used by the Museum of London and the controlled media to allegedly ‘prove’ how ‘ethnically diverse’ Roman-era London was, only one is possibly of non-European origin.

This is very different to media claims that ‘DNA has confirmed that London was an ethnically diverse city from its very beginnings’ and similar such nonsense.

On the contrary, London, founded by the Romans, was a European city.

It is clear that the ‘multi-ethnic’ claim is being invented to try and justify the current Third World invasion of London which has turned it into a minority white city in just three decades.

To even suggest that Roman London was as “ethnically diverse” as present-day London, which has large numbers of Bangladeshis, Chinese, Ghanaians, Indians, Jamaicans, Nigerians, Pakistanis, and Turks, is an outright lie.

It is based on a politically-biased ‘interpretation’ given to just one skeleton’s dubious DNA, and is a deliberate deception, presented as fact to justify the ethnic cleansing of white European people from Britain’s capital city.

Britain’s capital city.

Categories
3-eyed crow

Throne

At midnight, I watched Tyrone’s speech in the finale, ‘The Iron Throne,’ which I used in one of the most important articles on this site (this one). I listened to it first in Spanish and then, to feel the euphony of the language, in German, as the original Game of Throne discs I own were sent to me from Germany (Tyrone’s speech can be watched in English here).

It is the story we tell ourselves that seals our fate. Ever since Constantine took power Westerners have been telling themselves a history written by Jews—the Bible—whereas what Hitler proposed is that we should start telling ourselves the Aryan story again.

In other words, the collective white unconscious is currently enslaved by a Jewish story. It is high time to begin re-engendering the Aryan collective unconscious by telling ourselves a story written by Aryans. (That will always be an impossible task as long as whites fail to repudiate the Bible in favour of an abridged edition of Mein Kampf, along with Uncle Adolf’s after-dinner talks.)

Categories
Lightning and the Sun (book)

The Lightning

and the Sun, 9

Their real enemies and their only enemies. Adolf Hitler has pointed out no others. (And that is precisely the reason why the whole world—this doomed Dark Age world, stricken with madness, which exalts its foes and kills its friends,—has risen against him like one man). The fact is too important not to deserve a thorough explanation.

Nothing is more unfair to National Socialism than the all-too-easy description of its inherent ‘Anti-Semitism’ as ‘a means intended to turn the German people’s attention away from their actual exploiters’ (meaning: the German capitalists), or, as a modern expression of the age-old ‘envy’ of the Goyim—of any Goyim—at the sight of the Jews’ undeniable success in business. The first assumption, brought forth ad nauseam by the Communists and their sympathisers,—reveals either a complete absence of good faith or a complete misunderstanding of the Jewish question as such and therefore of all serious, vital ‘Anti-Semitism.’ The latter may well be applied to Armenian ‘Anti-Semitism’ (or to that of any commercially clever Levantines, whose trickery the Jews alone are able to outdo). It has nothing whatsoever in common with the profound, biological and therefore irreducible hostility which opposes National Socialists and Jews.

No doubt, that hostility first burst out in a popular uproar in answer to all the tangible harm wrought by Jews against the German people during a few decades (and many a German whose family Jews had reduced to misery at the time of the inflation, after the first World War, welcomed the boisterous Anti-Semitism of the young Movement for personal no less than for national reasons); no doubt, the first thing that made Adolf Hitler himself a definitive enemy of the Jews was his knowledge of the anti-German part played by the latter, both politically and socially, in Austria and in Germany, already before 1914, in particular, his knowledge of the Jewish spirit and Jewish leadership of Marxism, and his awareness of the presence of Jews in the press, in the theatre, etc., behind all propaganda directly or indirectly aiming at the destruction of every healthy national instinct among people of German blood. In other words, National Socialist Anti-Semitism is—first—racial self-defence of the Aryan; a vigorous reaction against the mischief the Jews did (and are, by the way, since 1945, again doing) in an Aryan land.

But there is more—and much more—to be said. What the Jews did and do (and cannot but do) is a consequence of what they are—and of what they remain even when they turn their backs to Jewish tradition (or pretend to do so) and become Christians, Theosophists, Buddhists or just ‘rationalists,’ or Communists. And they are, fundamentally, irreducibly—already in the invisible Realm of which this world of shapes and colours and sounds is but a projection,—the polar opposite of the natural Aryan élite; the dark counterpart of the youngest Children of the Sun. As racially conscious as they, if not—alas!—often more so; as tightly bound as they to one another through the most compelling solidarity; through total solidarity (in practical—financial and political—no less than religious or so-called religious affairs) such as one can, in history, if at all, seldom come across; nay, as devoted as they to a merciless collective purpose. Only theirs is not the legitimate consciousness of true superiority and the blood-solidarity of Nature’s best ones; nay, it is not the healthy racial pride and patriotism of a real people in their place within the scheme of Life. Nor is their collective purpose by any means, like that of Adolf Hitler’s followers, ‘in harmony with the original meaning of things.’ On the contrary! For the Jews are, in the first place, not a race in the true sense of the ward,—let alone ‘God’s chosen one.’ They are neither an homogeneous variety of Semites nor a brotherhood of kindred Semitic types bearing to one another such a relation as that which binds together Aryans of ‘Nordic,’ ‘Dinaric’ and other types within the German nation. One needs but to look at them, in order to be convinced of this; nay, to look at them in the country where they have been gathering for the last thirty or forty years from all the ghettos of the world in the name of their common past and common nationhood: Palestine. One meets there, apart from the ‘classical’ Jew, Jews of all physical types, including the Slav, including the ‘Nordic’—rare,, no doubt, yet present and not necessarily marred by the well-known visible signs of Jewish descent. And some of the members of the strange pseudo-ethnical, pseudo-religious world-community—such as, for instance, the so-called ‘black Jews’ of Cochin, on the Malabar coast,—have no Jewish blood, in fact, no Semitic blood at all in their veins[1] which does not prevent them from feeling themselves ‘Jews.’

The Jewish world-community is—has been, more and more, for centuries already—not a Semitic, nation but a raceless brotherhood gathered around a Semitic nucleus; a raceless brotherhood, however, as racially-conscious as any people can be; increasingly numerous cosmopolitan elements who put the usual characteristics of the raceless—faithlessness; unscrupulousness; disregard of order; soul-poisoning scepticism,—to the service of the racial idea that they have partly inherited partly adopted from their full-blooded brothers in faith and brothers in interests, and Semites—a very definite, inferior section of the broad Semitic race—in whom masterfulness in subtlety and intrigue outways by far all warrior-like qualities.

And its collective aim, pursued throughout history with relentless consistency, is nothing less than the prosperity and power of the Jew, everywhere in the world, at the expense of all non-Jews. The consciousness of being (more or less) ‘children of Abraham’ and the common ‘Law’ under which, (nominally at least) its members live, may well keep the community together. Yet they are but means to an end. And the end—the common collective purpose: actual Jewish rule—is what really matters.

It is an unholy purpose, the fulfilment of which would imply the dissolution of all races and of all genuine nationalities; of all natural communities, i.e., of all those that have a solid racial background (first the dissolution of the most gifted and most conscious one; of the most fit to rule—the Aryan—and then, gradually, of all others, including, ultimately, the Semitic nucleus of the Jewish community itself) and the ever-tightening grip of a soulless money power—the power of the raceless, gifted with destructive intelligence—over increasingly bastardised and numberless masses of Menschenmaterial, possessing neither thought nor will of their own, nor the innocence and nobility of real animals. It is the purpose of the Forces of darkness, whose influence grows, whose free play becomes more and more free and shameless, and whose rule asserts itself as a more and more obvious reality, as history run; its fated downward course. It is the purpose of Time itself, as Destroyer of all creation; as Leveller and Denier. And it is the purpose of the community, ‘in Time’ par excellence; of the community who, like the privileged Aryan élite gathered around Adolf Hitler, talks passionately of its ‘mission’ and calls itself ‘chosen’—and rightly so; but who omits to state that, contrarily to the pure-blooded disciples of the Man ‘against Time,’ it has been chosen not by ‘God,’ not by the everlasting Forces of Light and Life, to serve Life’s constructive goal, but by the Powers of Death, to bring about, through ever-increasing unfaithfulness to the original divine life-pattern, i.e., through increasing untruth, the end of this Time-cycle. The end, without a new beginning—for that is the intention, the tendency of the Death-forces. While the purpose of the National Socialist Movement—its real, deep purpose, far beyond all ‘politics’—was and remains the glorious new Beginning—the new victory of uncreated Light over the dark Powers; the new victory of Life in its original earthly perfection, of Order, in its true meaning, in spite of the temporary, unavoidable reign of Chaos; the Golden Age of the next Time-cycle.

In one word, the sharp hostility between National Socialists and Jews means infinitely more than that which the detractors of the Hitler faith so lightly take it to be. It reveals not the usual tension between any two rival ‘racialisms,’ but the unique opposition between the two poles of thinking Life at the very end of the present Dark Age. That is the hidden but real reason why it is absolute—and why its tangible expressions have been, and will, at the first opportunity, again be, so deadly.

Adolf Hitler knew it. The wisest among his true disciples knew it, and know it. The all-powerful leaders of world Jewry knew it, and know it.

 

_______________

[1] Those so-called ‘black Jews’ are just low caste Indians whose fore-fathers have once accepted the Jewish faith. To this day, they marry among themselves only.

______ 卐 ______

The Lightning & the Sun by Savitri Devi (Counter-Currents Publishing, 2014, unabridged edition) can be ordered here.

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms)

Hitler, 50

Despite the bravado, Hitler trod very carefully. Shortly after his release, Hitler had two meetings with the Bavarian minister president, Heinrich Held, at which he assured him that he would not attempt another putsch. He toned down some of the rhetoric in Mein Kampf, the second volume of which he was writing in the calm of his mountain retreat at Berchtesgaden, the use of which had been given to him by a well-wisher.

Hitler also moved to sort out his national status, which acquired renewed importance after the speaking ban. In early April 1925, he wrote to the authorities in Linz requesting his ‘release from Austrian citizenship’. Hitler also had a long discussion with the Austrian consul in Munich and expressed his desire to surrender his nationality. On 30 April 19 25, the Austrian authorities finally stripped him of the citizenship he had never accepted. This did not mean that Hitler had established his right to stay in Germany beyond all doubt—he was now formally ‘stateless’—but he had at least ensured that it would be more difficult to deport him somewhere else. The threat of removal, however, remained, and the Bavarian authorities reminded him of it from time to time…

Hitler avoided confrontation, partly in order to concentrate on the completion of Mein Kampf. ‘Not a word from Hitler,’ Goebbels noted right at the end of 1924, ‘Oh this sly fox with the political instinct.’ A fortnight later, he asked anxiously, ‘What will Hitler do? That is the anxious question every day. Hopefully he will not go over to the camp of reaction.’ Hitler’s reticence annoyed some of the rank and file, who complained that it would be better for him to sort out the ‘problems’ in the movement than to work on a ‘high political work’. The Bavarian police, which kept a close eye on Hitler after his release, also reported that he seemed to be absorbed by Mein Kampf, which was concerned ‘exclusively with Marxism and Jewry’. This was, as we shall see, by no means a completely accurate summary…

Hitler gave thirty-eight speeches in 1925, and fifty-two in the following year. This gave him limited traction, however, partly because the numbers attending were substantially lower than during his heyday in 1923, and partly because he was still banned from appearing in public in much of Germany. Hitler was thus forced to speak to closed party meetings, in salons, or at private events. Nor could he put too much reliance on his personal magnetism…

Hitler would have to work with the people he had rather than the people he would like to have had. He knew that the party needed to transcend his own person. Personal loyalty was not enough; he needed party cadres to obey not just him but their immediate superiors. The Führer principle was thus extended beyond the Fuhrer himself. More talented and trained speakers were needed, so that the entire strain of communicating the message did not fall on him and a few others. ‘We need speaker schools,’ he announced in March 1925, ‘because to this day this mass movement has only 10-12 good speakers.’ In other words, Hitler was learning not to hog his charisma, but to spread it around. His speeches and instructions increasingly referred not just to the Führer in the singular, but to the plural Führers upon whom the leadership of the movement depended.

Central to this was the establishment of a proper party bureaucracy. Here the Social Democrats explicitly served as a model. Hitler spoke grudgingly of the SPD as a party ‘organized like the SA’. Despite shortage of funds, the NSDAP moved to new premises in the Schellingstrasse in Munich in the summer of 1925, and Hitler signalled his plan to build a dedicated ‘Party Headquarters’ in Munich paid for by the membership…

Hitler also resurrected the Sturmabteilungen, not as a paramilitary formation, as it had developed in the months preceding the Putsch, but as an organization dedicated to ‘strengthening of the bodies of our youth, bringing them up on discipline and dedication to the common great ideal [and] training in the marshalling and reconnaissance service of the movement’.There should be no weapons, either carried openly or stored in depots. Anybody who violated that rule was to be expelled. Hitler’s concern here was to avoid being dragged into illegality by armed hotheads. The immediate effect of this ruling was to precipitate a breach with Röhm, for whom the paramilitary aspects of the SA remained central. He resigned and eventually emigrated to South America . That same month Hitler created the ‘Protective Squadron’ soon known simply as the SS, a personal protection squad whose first leader, Josef Berchtold, placed particular stress on ideological purity. In a critical assertion of authority, Hitler had established a monopoly of violence within the movement.