The Western psyche has been neutralised after hundreds of years of universalist indoctrination by the Christian churches (‘We’re all one in Christ’)… The core belief of colour blind Christianity is to bring salvation to all tribes. Nation is irrelevant, salvation in Jesus is everything. Marxism preaches the same messianic nation-wrecking ideology.
Below, abridged translation from the first
volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte
des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity)
Christian family life and rigours of criminal practices
The first Christian emperor, in addition to revealing himself as a great military leader, was consistent in the application of capital punishment, also emulated in this by Catholic theologians of all times, not excepting ours. In the year 310, the son of St. Helena [Constantine], is still assured by Christian historians of the second half of the 20th century that ‘few of his successors reached his political and human greatness’ (Baus) and that ‘in his private life he did no secret of his Christian convictions, leading an exemplary Christian family life’ (Franzen).
He had his father-in-law, Emperor Maximian, hanged in Massilia (Marseille) after which all the statues and images that represented him were destroyed.
He ordered to strangle his brothers-in-law Licinius and Basian, husbands of his sisters Constantia and Anastasia; in 336, he enslaved Prince Licianus, son of Licinius, who was then flogged and murdered at Carthage in 326.
He made Crispus, his son (from his spouse Minervina shortly before marrying Fausta) be poisoned along with ‘numerous friends of his’ (Eutropius); incidentally, a few months after the Council of Nicaea in which the symbol of faith was promulgated.
And finally, this paragon of human greatness accused of adultery with Crispus his own wife Fausta, mother of three children and two daughters, who was shortly before recognised on coins as ‘spes reipublicae’ (hope of the State); although nothing was demonstrated. She was drowned in a bath and all her properties of the old Lateran district adjudged definitively to the Pope.
‘Exemplary Christian life’, indeed (Franzen above)!
The Byzantine historian Zosimus, a diehard pagan whose well-documented history of the emperors is, together with Rerum gestarum libri XXXI of Ammianus, our main source of information on the events of the 4th century, claims that after the liquidation of his son and his wife the unpopularity of Constantine in Rome had become so great, that he preferred to change residence.
The decline of the Law became more acute during these 4th and 5th centuries of our era. The classical mentality of the pagan era was displaced by the vulgar right of the late Roman era and the legislation fell ‘to a level of unscientific primitivism’ (Kaser), which justifies the assertion of Jerome, doctor of the Church, ‘aliae sunt leges Caesaru Christi…’
During the republican period, the death penalty, although not formally abolished, was severely limited in its application. Under the Caesars, the tolerance was even greater. The emperor sanctioned, with the death penalty instead of the traditional exile, the publication of anonymous libels, and ordered that the tongue be ripped off from the slanderers, ‘the greatest plague of human life’ before executing them.
Constantine criminalised the kidnapping, until then a private crime. So that he not only condemned to death the abductor, and in a horrible way, but also the bride if she had consented; and also those who had acted as mediators, casting molten lead in the mouths of the slave owners and burning the slaves alive.
A modern depiction of Constantine
Shelley wrote: ‘The punishments promulgated by that monster, the first Christian emperor, against the pleasures of forbidden love were so unutterably grave that no modern legislator would even consider them against the worst crimes’. Constantine also authorised the interrogation through torture during the trials, ‘the methods envisaged were of extraordinary cruelty’ (Grant).
And if Diocletian forbade parents to sell their children as slaves, Constantine allowed it in cases of grave necessity and provided that it was made under a repurchase agreement. If a slave took liberty on his own and took refuge among the barbarians, once captured, they cut off his foot and sent him to forced labour in the mines, which almost always amounted to a death penalty.
A passage from This Time the World
by George Lincoln Rockwell
Without anybody coming out and saying it, the mad scramble for ‘democracy’ has been extended to the sexes and the natural dominance of the male, and the passive submission of the female, which are basic to both natures and absolutely necessary to their happiness, have been scorned as evil carry-overs from our animal natures. A ‘modern’ girl cannot avoid the impression that it is somehow ‘inferior’ to be ‘just a woman’ or ‘just a housewife and mother’, and the corresponding idea, therefore, that she must try to ‘be somebody’ or ‘do something worthwhile’ by having a ‘career’. She receives all sorts of ‘education’, particularly in college, which is not only useless if she becomes a wife and mother, but which irritate and frustrate her natural capacities.
It is not a question of ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’, but a question of possibilities. A girl will grow up to be a woman, a female, no matter what education, ideals, ideas and training she may get. Perhaps it is ‘unfair’ that she was born a woman, physically weak, less able to reason, coldly burdened with the inexorable cyclic functioning of her reproductive system and blessed with the soft, warm, emotional, understanding and patient nature of the machinery designed by Nature for motherhood, above all things.
The effort of feminists and liberals to ‘correct’ what Nature has decreed, whether the effort is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, can lead only to misery for those who attempt to fly in the face of a cold and merciless Nature, and a social agony for a world which is deprived of warm and submissive females and mothers.
It is a mark of insanity for an individual to ignore reality and act as if he were something which he is not. It is no less insane when women pretend that their female natures do not exist, that they are not only the ‘equals’ of men, but the same as men, except for a slight physiological difference. No matter how a few of them manage to succeed in the poses of engineers and steel-workers and fighter pilots and business executives; women today, as a group, are fundamentally acting in the manner of the insane: defying and ignoring reality.
The results are frightfully visible in our whole civilization. The women are becoming masculinized, while the men are getting feminized. One has only to look at a crowd of our teenagers to see how things are going. They wear the same tight pants, the same jackets and the same hats—even the same duck-tailed hairdos. We are breeding and training up a generation of jazzed-up, negroidal, neutered queers.
Our whole approach to women today, as with most of our social attitudes, is that of the Soviets who have women in the army, working in the streets and even in firing-squads, just like men. God save us from such women!
Women are indeed the equal of men, as a group, only when they fulfill the task for which Nature equipped and made them—motherhood. Man was designed, even in the creative process itself, to supply the spark, the drive and the aggressive push of life, while woman is designed to supply the basic building material of new life; nourish, treasure, warm and guide it, until it can sustain its own life. There is no escape from this fate, even if it were bad, which it is not.
If a man is to be honored for making cigars or building bridges or making beer, as our great businessmen are, then surely we ought to honor those who make our people! But the trouble is that our insane ‘liberal’ attitude toward motherhood and homemaking has given women an impossible inferiority complex and frustration about their possible and real achievements in life. We train our girls by the millions to be anything but successful wives and mothers, lead them to believe they are to be an ‘equal’ part of a ‘man’s world’, when the truth is that it is only Nature’s world, and man’s share in it is no greater or more glorious than that of a female-oriented woman who produces, brings up and gives to society a family of happy people.
If our girls were brought up from first consciousness to realize the absolute and total inevitability of their mission in life, but above all to be proud of that mission; train for and then fulfill it joyously, there would be no more talk of ‘achieving’ equality. They would find that Nature has already given them equality in generous measure, if only they will accept it. There can be no sense in discussing the superiority of negative or positive electricity in a battery; they are merely different forms of the same thing, but the difference is vital if there is to be any current. When the male and female potential or voltages are permitted to become ‘equal’, they must be strongly opposite or the current will stop…
It is not women who are at fault in the growing madness of our family and our sexual frustration, it is the men who have permitted it. The women are still born passive and submissive and if our fathers and grandfathers had not failed them as a group, as I failed my first wife as an individual, they would still, as a group, be enjoying their birthright and the honor owed them by society for being the most exalted manufacturers and executives in the world, the manufacturers of Our People!
Upon achieving power, one of our first tasks will be an all-out public relations drive to help our entire population—men and women—to see that ‘motherhood’ is not the silly, sloppy thing which is made of it today.
Below, abridged translation from the first
volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte
des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity)
Editor’s note: Constantine did not only wage war on the adepts of Hellenic culture but on the Aryans themselves, the blond Goths: he perpetrated massacres even against blond women and children. In this entry the behaviour of the Judaized Christians he empowered reminds me the saying, ‘The Jew is always either at your throat or at your feet’.
From the pacifist Church to the Church of the pater castrense
That prince, buried among the funeral steles of the apostles and sanctified by the Eastern Church—although among western heroes there is not lacking of the same genre: Charlemagne for example, was called a Saxon butcher—, that saint Constantine who never lost a battle, ‘man of war’ (Prete), the ‘personification of the perfect soldier’ (Seeck), fought countless wars and great campaigns, most of them ‘with a terrible hardness’ (Kornemann).
In summer or autumn of 306 he waged war against the Bructeri, first in Roman territory and then invading them. In 310, again against the Bructeri, Constantine burns the villages and orders the dismemberment of the ringleaders. In 311, against the Franks; the chiefs of the tribes pay with life. In 314, against the Sarmatians, already vanquished by himself in the time of Galen, now deserving the title of ‘great slayer of the Sarmatians’ (sarmaticus maximus). In 315, against the Goths (gothicus maximus).
In 320, his son Crispus defeated the Alamanni; in 332, it is he himself who again defeats the Sarmatians. All this is worth a rich booty and thousands of prisoners deported to Roman lands as slaves. In 323, he defeats the Goths and orders to burn all their allies alive. The survivors are also thrown into slavery; new title: ‘gothorum victor triumphator’. New foundation: the games ‘ludi gothici’, which are held every year from 4 to 9 February (after having founded the ‘frank games’).
During the last decades of his life, Constantine fought often in the Danubian regions, trying to make ‘land of a mission’ of them (Kraft), and inflicts on the Germans defeats that influenced even their religious history (Doerries). In 328, he subdues the Goths in Banat. In 329, Constantine II almost exterminated an army of Alamanni. In 332, father and son again crush the Goths in Marcianopolis; the number of deaths, including hunger and freezing (‘fame et frigore’, as the Anonymous Valesian says), was calculated in hundreds of thousands, not excepting women and children victims of the ‘Great Diaspora of the Goths’.
In the year 313, Constantine and Licinius enact their Edict of Tolerance; Christianity, once forbidden, becomes a licit religion (which from that moment hastens to declare all other religions unlawful), and from overnight comes the amazing metamorphosis of the pacifists into regimental chaplains! If before they faced everything, even martyrdom, as long as they did not provide the pagan service, now the need to kill seems obvious to them. The Church became the party of the predators from that moment on, it shared the direct and indirect responsibility of a millennium and a half of massacres.
Lactantius ‘was one of the first to enjoy, as favourite of the emperor, the new regime of alliance between the sword and the cross’ (Von Campenhausen); in other words, one of the first to change colours. In 314 he wrote a summary or epitome where he crossed out all the pacifist passages. The grateful writer corrects the dedication of his main work and begins to praise the war and legislative activity of the sovereign. It is then when Christianity happens to become a ‘bloody struggle between good and evil’ (Prete).
Thus Lactantius betrayed his own convictions, denying almost three centuries of pacifist tradition—and with him, in the background, the whole Church, obedient to the will of the emperor who had recognized and made her rich and influential, but who had no job for a pacifist and passive clergy, but for those who agreed to bless their weapons. And they have not stopped blessing them since then, or as Heine has written: ‘It was not only the clergy of Rome, but also the English, the Prussian; in a word, always the privileged priesthood associated with the caesars and their ilk, in the repression of the peoples’.
Modern theologians, who do not dare to deny in their entirety that bankruptcy of the doctrine of Jesus, speak of an ‘original sin’ of Christianity. With this they try to play down the importance of the event, as if remembering the story of the snake and the apple, as if the whole question were nothing more than ‘a small Edenic slip’. As if we did not speak of massacres perpetrated for millennia, now committed in the name of ‘the good news’, of the ‘religion of love’; massacres that now turn out to be fair, necessary and even excellent.
Thus a new theology is born, although wrapped in the terminological garb of the old woman to disguise it. And the new theology is not only political but also militaristic: now they speak of Ecclesia triumphans, of Ecclesia militans, of the theology of the emperor… or of all the emperors, at least of the Romans of Antiquity who brought their line back to Caesar, but much further on in reality.
Writing about the Sutherland Springs church shooting, on The Daily Stormer Andrew Anglin said today: ‘I hate aggressive edgy atheists as much as anyone…’
Apparently Anglin hates those whites who reject the existence of the Jewish god—a volcanic demon that Jews claim appeared to Moses, the very same god that Aryans were compelled to worship after Constantine took over the Roman Empire.
Anglin’s words exemplify beautifully the gulf between me and most American racists. But it’s not only a matter of worshiping the god of our enemy: it’s also about the universalist ethics imposed on whites after Constantine. (Every sandnigger or black could be a citizen of Constantinople as long as he was Christian.)
Another recent example: In his blog for southern nationalists, Hunter Wallace started his article with the words: ‘Devin Patrick Kelley, the EVIL bastard who murdered 26 people at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, TX this morning…’
One of Kelley’s victims, the 14-year-old daughter of church pastor Frank Pomeroy, was black. A pre-Christian Aryan would never mourn the killing of a black adoptee, and the rest of the adult victims in Texas were complicit of tolerating such sin against the holy ghost: adopting a subhuman as if she was human.
I would only mourn the white children killed: the only really innocent victims inside the church.
The others were sinners. But Anglin, Wallace and many American racists still have the Bible as their sacred book instead of Hitler’s Table Talk, right? ‘Almost two thousand years—and not a single new god!’ said Nietzsche.
This is the sort of thing that moves me mightily to continue the translation of Deschner’s book, who in this pic is shown long before he started to write his magnum opus…
Below, abridged translation from the first
volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte
des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity)
A gold multiple of ‘Unconquered Constantine’
with Sol Invictus, struck in 313 AD.
Constantine as saviour, deliverer and vicar of God
Rudolf Hernegger says he does not know any other historical personage ‘whose influence has remained so unchanged for seventeen centuries’ and underlines, to our understanding, that ‘for the past 1,700 years the Church has deserved the epithet of ‘Constantinian’.
The predecessors of Constantine feared the Christians and some of them fought them. Instead, he favoured them and thus won them for his cause, to the point that he called himself ‘bishop for foreign affairs’ (episkopos ton ektós) of the Church, or as Grégoire ironized, ‘the gendarme of the Church’. In effect, Constantine placed the clergy at his service and imposed his will on it.
‘He soon dominated the episcopate as he dominated his official and demanded unconditional obedience to public decrees, even when they intervened in the internal affairs of the Church’ (Franzen, Roman Catholic). The Church gained influence but lost independence, and some people, already during the 4th century, began to see it. The Church became part of the Empire, instead of the Empire being a part of the Church. The bishops owed gratitude to the emperor, their protector, who had favoured them so much.
And they obeyed Constantine: He was the master, he convened the councils and even decided on questions of faith, however confused his own Christology was (but… which Christology is not?). Constantine imposed theological formulas which he and his successors commanded to respect. He and they made the Church of the State, ‘where the word of the emperor, without becoming the highest commandment, nevertheless had a decisive weight and not only in matters of external order but also in matters of doctrine’ (Aland).
Although Constantine, during misfortunes, continued to consult the signs of the sky and the viscera of the animals, he made all his family Christian and ended up receiving also the baptism, calling himself a saviour appointed by God, sent by the Lord and a man from God. He declared that he owed everything he had to ‘the greatest God’; ordered that honours be performed as ‘representative of Christ’ (vicarios Christi) and that he be buried as the ‘thirteenth Apostle’. Pagans and Christians were to greet him with genuflection, of which perhaps only the bishops were dispensed. And anything he had touched was also sacred. (Sanctus and sanctitas, well-known notions of paganism, were preached about imperial dignity.)
The central point of the new capital of Constantine, which was named after him, was the court: of exaggerated luxury, in the Oriental manner, built ‘iubente Deo’, that is, by divine order, on a land four times more extensive than the old Byzantium, and with the help of forty thousand Goth operatives.
With the founding of this ‘new Rome’, the former capital of the empire was definitively relegated to a second place; the influence of the Hellenic East was reinforced and the conflicts between the Eastern and Western Church became more acute. Constantine, on the other hand, surpassed the old emperors when he named his palace, a prototype of the primitive basilica and ‘house of the king’ not ‘encampment’ (castra) like the former houses, but temple (domus divina) in the image and likeness of the celestial throne room. The throne room was shaped like a basilica, as if it were a sanctuary, and a ceremonial of strong ecclesiastical flavour was created, which later the Byzantine emperors intensified, if possible.
The Eastern Church has Constantine as the ‘thirteenth apostle’. He and his mother are considered among the saints, and many Greek churches have his image and celebrate with great pomp his festival on May 21.
Julian presiding at a conference of Sectarians
(Edward Armitage, 1875)
Constantius had arrived at noon and gone straight to his apartments. That was all anyone knew. He might be with us in a few minutes, a few hours, or not at all. Meanwhile, we waited nervously in the great hall of the villa. The rafters were hung with boughs of evergreen, and the ordinarily musty interior smelled of pine and eucalyptus. At one end of the hall, on a dais, a gold throne had been set. To the right of the throne, but at floor level, was the ivory chair of the praetorian prefect of the East (he had arrived with the Emperor). According to rank, the officers of the state were arranged to the left and right of the throne. Just at the foot of the dais stood Bishop George in all his glory with Gallus on his right and me on his left.
Looking more than ever like a huge peacock, Eusebius stood at the door, surrounded by his staff of ushers. No one spoke or moved. We were like statues. Though the room was not hot, I was sweating nervously. I glanced at Gallus out of the comer of my eye; his mouth was twitching from the strain.
After what seemed days, we heard trumpets. Then the cry “Augustus!” which always precedes an emperor began, at first far off and faint; then closer, louder: “Augustus! Augustus!”
My legs began to tremble. I was afraid I might be sick. Suddenly with a crash the double doors were flung open and there in the doorway stood Flavius Julius Constantius, Augustus of the East. With a gentle moan, Eusebius embraced Constantius’ knees, melodiously murmuring soft words of ceremony not audible to the rest of us who were now prostrate, as the Lord of the World slowly and with extraordinary dignity crossed the room to his throne. I was too busy studying the mosaic floor to get even a glimpse of my imperial cousin. Not until the Master of the Offices gave the signal for everyone to rise was I able at last to observe my father’s murderer.
Constantius was a man of overwhelming dignity. That was the most remarkable thing about him; even his most ordinary gestures seemed carefully rehearsed. Like the Emperor Augustus, he wore lifts in his sandals to make himself appear tall. He was clean-shaven, with large melancholy eyes. He had his father Constantine’s large nose and thin, somewhat peevish mouth. The upper part of his body was impressively muscular but his legs were dwarfish. He wore the purple, a heavy robe which hung from shoulder to heel; on his head was a fillet of silver set with pearls.
Constantius sat very still on his throne as the Master of the Offices brought him Bishop George, who welcomed him to Macellum. Not once did the Emperor look at Gallus or me. The occasional ritual responses he made were said in such a low voice that none of us could make out the words.
Then the moment came. Bishop George led Gallus and me to the Master of the Offices, who in turn led us up to the dais and presented us formally to the Emperor. I was terrified. Without knowing how I got there, I found myself embracing Constantius’ knees, as court etiquette requires.
From far off I heard the Emperor’s voice, measured but rather higher-pitched than I had expected, “We are pleased to receive our most noble cousin Julian.” A large callused hand reached down, gripped me firmly by the left elbow and helped me to rise.
For an instant I was so close to Constantius that I could make out every pore in his face, which was sunburned dark as a Persian’s. I noticed the silkiness of his straight brown hair, only just beginning to turn grey. He was thirty-two, but I thought him ancient. I also remember thinking: what must it be like to be Emperor of Rome? to know that one’s face on coins, on monuments, painted and sculptured, is known to all the world? And here—so close to me that I could feel the reciprocal warmth of his skin—was the original of that world-famous face, not bronze or marble but soft flesh and bone, like me, like any other man. And I wondered: what is it like to be the centre of the world?
For the first time I experienced ambition. It came as a revelation. Only in communion with the One God have I known anything to equal it. How candid I am! I have never admitted to anyone that in my first encounter with Constantius, all that I could think was how much I should like the dominion of this earth! But my moment of madness was brief. I stammered a speech of loyalty, and took my place beside Gallus on the dais. I can remember nothing else that happened that day.
Constantius remained at Macellum for a week. He attended to the business of the state. He hunted. Bishop George had a long interview with him on the day he arrived, but then, to the Bishop’s chagrin, Constantius ignored him. Though Gallus and I dined at the Emperor’s table every evening, he never spoke to us.
I was beginning to fear the worst. But Gallus, who saw Eusebius every day, said that the eunuch was optimistic. “He’s positive we’ll be allowed to come to court this year. At least I will. He also said there was talk in the Sacred Consistory that I be made Caesar for the East.” Gallus glowed with excitement. “Then I could live at Antioch. I’d have my own court. After all, it’s what one was born for!”
Below, abridged translation from the first
volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte
des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity)
The Catholic clergy, increasingly favoured
Obviously, an earthly paradise was inaugurated at least for the Constantinian ‘court bishops’, and for the Catholic hierarchy whose servility before the emperor assumed, like Eusebius in his writings, ‘the psalmist’s tone when he speaks of the Lord’ (Kühner). Others sang in chorus, like the Fathers of the Church: Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria. And they did not lack motives. The Christian religion, once persecuted, became recognized and official. Moreover, the Catholic Church and its prelates enjoyed growing privileges that were worthy of power and wealth.
The emperor made donations to the clergy of large estates in Syria, in Egypt, as well as in Tarsus, Antioch, Alexandria and other great cities. We must bear in mind that Oriental donations meant, in addition to income, import operations especially in the market of spices and essences of the East, much appreciated by the Romans. In a word, the famous Patrimonium Petri began to accumulate, of which we will have occasion to occupy ourselves very often later on.
In Constantine’s time begins the metonymy (both in Latin and in Greek) of the word ‘church’ to mean both the community of believers and the building, formerly also called templum, aedes and other names. Constantine continued to erect churches in Ostia, Alba, Naples, and also in Asia Minor and Palestine. As he himself wrote to Eusebius, ‘all of them must be worthy of our love for the splendour’ and monuments to their victories.
Now, all these churches—the Basilica of St. Peter in Rome, the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, inaugurated by the emperor in person (335), whose pomp should be superior to that of all others, that of the Nativity in Bethlehem, that of the Apostles and that of Peace (Irene) in Constantinople, the great basilica of Antioch, those of Tire and Nicomedia, endowed with ‘truly imperial’ splendour, ‘decorated with many and rich votive offerings of gold, silver and precious stones’—they consumed immense sums. All the more so because the construction mania of the emperor was emulated by other members of the imperial family, and especially by his mother, Helena. Eusebius, as chronicler of the court, never tires of praising ‘the inexhaustible generosity of imperial donations’.
The clergy, in particular, received from Constantine ‘the greatest honours and distinctions, as men consecrated to the service of the Lord’. Again and again Eusebius reiterates that ‘they were honoured and envied in the eyes of all’, ‘he increased their prestige through laws and decrees’, ‘the imperial generosity opened wide the coffers of the treasure and distributed its riches with a generous hand’. And there were many bishops who were able to emulate the grandeur and splendour of the imperial court itself. They received special titles and incense cleansings; honours were given to them on their knees, they were seated on thrones conceived in the image and likeness of the throne of God.
Others recommend humility in their sermons!
So many and such were the signs of Constantine’s favours that the influence and economic power of the bishops increased rapidly. They participated in the free distribution of wheat. In their favour only for them, the emperor annulled the laws that disadvantaged the single people or without children. He equated them with the highest officials, those who were not obliged to genuflect in the presence of the sovereign.
In 321, the churches were authorized to receive inheritances, a right that pagan temples had never enjoyed, except in very special cases. On the other hand, for the Church this privilege was so lucrative that only two generations later the State was forced to issue a decree ‘against the plundering of the most gullible devotees, especially women’ (Caspar). This was not an obstacle to the fact that, only a century later, the ecclesiastical patrimony had reached gigantic proportions, as there were more and more Christians who ‘for the salvation of their souls’ made donations to the Church, or left whole fortunes. That custom became a kind of epidemic during the Middle Ages, seizing the Church a third of the extension of all Europe.
Constantine trusted so much the prelates that he even delegated to them part of the powers of the State.
In the trials, the testimony of a bishop had more strength than that of the ‘distinguished citizens’ (honoratiores) and was unassailable. But there was more, the bishoprics acquired their own jurisdiction in civil cases (audientia episcopalis). That is, anyone who had litigation could go to the bishopric, whose sentence would be ‘holy and venerable’, as decreed by Constantine. The bishop was authorized to sentence even against the express wish of one of the parties, and in addition the ruling was unappealable; the State being limited to the execution of the sentence with the power of the secular arm.
‘Soon the Church became a State within the State’ (Kornemann).
American white advocates are now discussing what they call ‘optics’ as PR for the movement (two of the most recent pieces by Hunter Wallace and Andrew Anglin: here and here).
Incredibly, Wallace who a few years ago sided mainstreamers against Greg Johnson, is now tolerant of fashy optics in the rallies while Anglin, whose site with acid sarcasm on Jews often uses Nazi imaginary, is now claiming that the movement needs electoral politics and Americanism!
Just compare this with what James Mason said in Siege (this morning I just added one more of the chapters of Siege as a post for this site). But Mason himself has his own problems. He was stuck in the religion of our parents and abandoned revolutionary politics: a religion I’m now debunking with my translations of Deschner’s Criminal History of Christianity.
Wallace seems to have a better grasp of reality than Anglin, but generally speaking their movement is a failure. And it is a failure because all of them are unable to give up Christian ethics. Apropos of the fact that Kevin MacDonald is now accepting Jewish contributors for The Occidental Observer, I responded to Franklin Ryckaert today:
The real issue here is my claim that whites do indeed have a loose screw. Our central intellectual figure in understanding the JQ cannot fathom à la Hitler that no Jew ought to be platformed, especially in a Jew-wise forum.
You can imagine an ‘Anti-Semites Watch’ periodical run by Jews admitting a Nazi contributor! Recently someone said that many white nationalists support Israel because they believe that Jews should have a home of their own, but that Jews don’t reciprocate the favour: they don’t support a home nation for whites anywhere in the world. That was an excellent point!
The Aryan problem does encompass the Jewish Problem. If even secular white nationalists subscribe the Christian commandment to love our enemies, we have a huge problem at home.
I will continue to promote MacDonald’s trilogy as fundamental reading to understand the JP but not only I’ve now removed The Occidental Observer from my blogroll list: I’m more confident than ever that NS should replace WN/Alt-Right (cf. my comment on Strauss/Zweig below), and that the ongoing discussion among them on optics is for Kindergarten racists who have no clue about the history of Christianity.
I was referring to this comment on mine about Richard Strauss and Stefan Zweig in Nazi Germany.
State of Emergency
Are you among the conventional survivalists with a few guns, a few rounds of ammunition, some medical supplies, maybe a C.B. radio, and enough food and water for anywhere from two days to two years stored away? Are you one of the ruggedly individualistic types who, as long as he owns his firearms, swears by God that this is a free land and he is a free man? Or are you one of those intrepid ones who says he’ll “shoot the first nigger” that comes rampaging up onto his front porch? In other words, do you count yourself among those rednecks who are smug in their sense of Right Wing-style “readiness”? If so, you can stop reading right here.
Years ago I wrote, after headlines appeared about the discovery of Wesley Swift’s hideout and arsenal (that included everything from automatic weapons to armored vehicles), that if Swift—who died in the late Sixties—could have foreseen the day when, after his death, all his extensive preparations were unearthed and captured by the System, without a fight, that surely he would have viewed it as the end of all hope of resistance. He had expected a full-blown invasion of the United States by Russian and Chinese troops and I know of no group or individual who was as well-prepared for the worst of emergencies as was Dr. Wesley Swift. The “emergency” never came. Swift died a natural death, and the government scooped up his vast arsenal.
Even Commander Rockwell was POSITIVE that the Blacks were going to go on an all-out rampage before the decade of the Sixties was out, and touch off the race war that so many talked about in those days. (In 1967, the year of his death, he had begun to organize what he called the “White Guard” on a quicker, more informal basis than the Storm Troopers, so sure was he that hell would break loose that very year.) But a massive welfare pay-off, a general caving-in of White resistance, and perhaps even a shift in Enemy strategy kept the conflict from coming out into the open.
It was just about two years ago that a number of otherwise respectable and credible Right Wing groups were issuing super-serious, straight-faced accounts of how, in the summer of 1983, Ronald Reagan would die in office, the economy would fall right through the bottom, and coloreds everywhere would go berserk. This was the prediction from the “experts” who were, thereby, unfortunately placing their reputations on the line.
I recall at about the same time one particularly provocative and sensational sheet released—not by what I would want to call “kooks” but by major Movement standard bearers—to the effect that in the upcoming weeks the Anti-Christ himself would seize all television networks (and automatically turn on all TV sets that might be off at that time) and mesmerize any and all whose glance was caught! Thank God the Movement has a shorter-than-hell memory span! Otherwise, that one would be impossible to live down.
Through no fault of his own. Commander Rockwell’s “The Jews Are Through in ’72” never materialized and 1972 came and went uneventfully. Black riots slowed and practically ceased. The economy certainly worsened but did not collapse. The government, the society, and the country itself is becoming more and more like one big, giant, pulsating blob of a stinking, noxious Jew. The next major landmark in time—1984—is behind us. And I’m betting strong that one of the favorites of the fakers—1988—will come and go likewise and hardly even be noticed. I wasn’t long in figuring out that it really meant sticking your neck way out to venture to put a date on practically anything of a social of historic nature. It’s gambling of the worst sort unless you yourself have the means at hand to force the issue according to your own timetable.
It is simply that there has never before existed a more CONTROLLED environment than the one in which we exist today. Things don’t just “happen” anymore. If they don’t come off Big Brother’s drawing board, then they’re not “sanctioned” and most of the time don’t take place at all or, if they do, they’re of a nature hardly worthy of note. Big Brother is in CONTROL. This plus the fact that the population DOESN’T GIVE A DAMN. Things are slipping constantly, gradually, but no significant upsets are being allowed that might either alarm the populace or provide the revolutionists an opening to take advantage of. I don’t expect it to change unless SOMEONE CHANGES IT!
In fact as well as in theory, we are in the period of “Beyond Nineteen Eighty-Four”! From here on out we can forget about even George Orwell. Of course, the astute have been aware all along that “1984” had come into effect long before if ever arrived on the calendar. And I, for one, about a decade ago abandoned the “emergency” school of thought. That is, betting in favor of and preparing for something of a very sudden and fixed nature to occur to transform the situation; something which has to be braced for, weathered in a comparatively short—if harsh—period, and then to be emerged from on the “dawn of a new day”. (I do favor full preparation for a “lights out” type emergency, but that would probably be of a rather long duration and, again, short-term thinking is useless.)
The whole thought was false all along but, up until perhaps this decade, the majority could have claimed ignorance. I began to sense the true nature of the situation, as I said, about ten years ago mainly because of experience born of intense involvement in revolutionary activity and thought. But for the rest, the object lessons are all there now.
Many can’t grasp it, no one really wants to realize such a fact, but there are also plenty who refuse to be parted from their fun and games (like children, they expect and want it all now). What we face is not an emergency, nothing of a romantic or extraordinary nature but, rather, an indefinite period of what Warren G. Harding would term “normalcy”. (I know that taken individually or collectively the manifestations of contemporary “society” are anything but “normal” to us but, as far as great numbers and great periods of time are concerned, they are quite normal indeed.)
Therefore WE are the abnormal and the out-of-place. We have always been such, except that until now most have figured that “Der Tag” was just around the corner which would turn things topsy-turvy in our favor.
That is not about to happen. What it means for each of us is this: as long as there was a hope, real or imagined, of a sudden change in the basic course of things, then we could almost afford to hide behind our “unreal” attitude and approach to the situation with a “You’ll see!” thought guiding us. Presently it has to be clear to all that nothing of the sort is going to be ALLOWED to happen and events are going to maintain a strictly business-as-usual complexion for the foreseeable future. And it is impossible to hide behind an abnormal strategy for very long in a stolidly normal environment, where nothing out of the ordinary is PERMITTED to happen.
It should be added right away that those who do continue to go on in the manner of the past do so as utter and complete fools.
Are you going to go on kidding yourself? Telling yourself that you’ll be ready for it when “it” comes? If you’re a reactionary and a Right Wing type, then it may well require a sudden emergency to get you off your ass. But if you are a revolutionary, then, for you, “it” is here right now, and always has been here, right around you. You were born into it and, unless you kill it, it is going to kill you.
Having nothing initially to do with the name of this publication, what we have to adapt to is not a sudden emergency and then back to normal but, instead, a state of SIEGE. The system WILL fall one day. But when? Certainly no time soon? I’ve said often in the past that the winner of this race, this “Deathwatch 2000”, will be the one who finishes LAST. So it is up to each of us, individually, to see to it that we outlast the System. And you don’t accomplish this by merely stockpiling anything (unless you are prepared to become a hermit for the next 50 years or so). You military buffs should already know that a static defense went out with the Nineteenth Century, and that now it is all up to the fast and the resourceful.
What must our definition of victory now become? To have survived another day, another year. To exist in and amongst the System… but not as a consumer, not as a statistic or as a victim. To exist decently and, to be sure, to “keep the wolves away from the door”. If you’re living smart, as you should be, you’ve already eliminated coloreds and criminals from your uppermost list and have gotten down to the very basics of defending against the real Enemy: the capitalist foreclosers. The old Right Wing types will know how to deal with a violent, one-on-one situation, but how about the ever-encroaching System? Here is where you have to become SMART!
Commander Rockwell said that the purpose of life was to struggle as hard as you can for what you believe in and to enjoy the fight. You cannot fight to your fullest potential for what you believe in while being a full-time slave helping to bolster the Pig economy. And you certainly can’t enjoy your fight existing under unrelenting social and economic pressure. The herds and armies of zombie-ized clones out there cannot or will not see that there IS an alternative. The revolutionary will ALWAYS find or make his own alternative. It is being done. And in this lies not only the definition of short term victory but the PROMISE of ultimate victory one day. We will LIVE. We will out-live the System. And, should we individually not make it all the way, then we will not have been cheated for we will have had our share.
Living within the Beast System as a revolutionary, day-to-day, is the REAL emergency and it calls for emergency measures to be taken on a ROUTINE BASIS. To be able to exist thus is the victory!
Vol. XIV, #1 – January 1985
Order a copy of Siege (here)
