Christianity turns the good soft things—love, mercy, forgivenness—into weapons of terror.
There is more residual White racial consciousness in Dixie today than the Federal Republic of Germany.
Fascinating quotations from an exchange between Alex Linder and Hunter Wallace, and from a chapter in Arthur Kemp’s history of the white race, in my two appendices to WDH—both about Christianity.
The second book of Kevin MacDonald’s study on Jewry, Separation and its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1994/2002), the first of his trilogy to be translated to German, is my favorite of MacDonald’s three academic works that I read in more than two years. Professor MacDonald is the foremost scholar on the Jewish question. In Separation and its Discontents (hereafter SAID) he wrote:
Western societies, unlike prototypical Jewish cultures, do not have a primitive concern with racial purity. Rather, concern about racial purity emerges only in the late stages of Jewish-gentile group conflict…
Despite a great deal of commonality among Western anti-Semitic movements, there was a great difference between the universalistic, assimilatory tendencies of traditional Western Christianity and the exclusivistic, racialist program of National Socialism. Indeed, we have seen that beginning in the 19th century an important aspect of German anti-Semitic ideology was a criticism of Western universalism and the development of peculiarly German conceptions of Christianity. A critical component of official National Socialist ideology, as represented in the thought of Alfred Rosenberg, was the idea that “the twin forces of disintegration, namely universalism and individualism, act in perpetual conflict with the Germanic concept of race.” In this regard, National Socialism was indeed profoundly anti-Western. In rejecting both universalism and individualism, National Socialism resembled, much more closely than did medieval Western collectivist Christianity, its mirror image rival, Judaism. [page 196]
In a previous chapter MacDonald had written:
We shall see that with the rise of the National Socialist movement in Germany, the universalist themes of Western Christianity were completely overthrown in favor of a full-blown racialist ideology of the ingroup. In Chapter Five I will argue that National Socialism is a true mirror-image of Judaism. Not surprisingly, it was also the most dangerous enemy that Judaism has confronted in its entire existence. [page 133]
One of the hypothesis advanced in SAID provides food for thought. MacDonald wrote, “I propose that the Christian church in late antiquity was in its very essence the embodiment of a powerful anti-Semitic movement…” (page 112). This is something I had never heard of, and reminds me my first readings of psychohistory and Lloyd deMause’s insights on why the Christ archetype galvanized the population of the ancient world, although MacDonald’s hypothesis is totally distinct and is presented from an altogether distant point of view. But after digesting what both deMause and MacDonald say, for the first time I feel I am starting to comprehend facets of Christianity that would have never occurred to me from a conventional reading to history. If MacDonald is right, the Roman Catholic Church was the earliest attempt toward a type of society that we may call collectivism for European-derived peoples.
Although Christianity always held universalist ideals at its core, it nonetheless fulfilled its role of impeding, as did the Muslim nations, that Judaism became a destructive force for the indigenous culture of the Late Roman Empire and the Early Middle Ages. One of the facts that I learnt in SAID is that most restrictions enacted against Jewry, initiated in the period from Eusebius to Justinian, were still active throughout Christendom until the French Revolution hit the continent with its egalitarian fury. It was precisely the so-called Enlightenment (that presently some Western dissidents are starting to call “the Dark Enlightenment”) what inspired the founding fathers of the United States of America. And contrary to those white nationalists who still insult the memory of Adolf Hitler and the movement he created, I would claim that the mortal sin of the French Revolution, the emancipation of Jewry, was not properly atoned in Europe until the arrival of a specifically racial ideology: National Socialism.
But not only Nazi Germany has been demonized in the public mind. The Inquisition is widely regarded as a black page in the history of the Church even by the most Catholic individuals that I know. In contrast to such view MacDonald presents us with a radical reevaluation of what was precisely the role of the Inquisition. On page 147 he states: “I here develop the view that the Spanish Inquisition was fundamentally an authoritarian, collectivist, and exclusionary movement that resulted from resource and reproductive competition with Jews, and particularly crypto-Jews posing as Christians.” One could even argue that, thanks to the Inquisition, for three-hundred years before the movement of independence that gave birth to Mexico, New Spain (1521-1821) was Judenfrei.
While reading SAID I could not escape the thought that whites are un-insightful because, unlike the Jews and with the exception of William Pierce and Arthur Kemp (see the long chapters in this book quoting them), very few have knowledge of the history of their race. If we take into account that, in one of their holydays, New York Hassidic Jews celebrate their victory over the ancient Greeks who tried to assimilate them millennia ago, a basic question comes to mind: Why don’t we celebrate the victory of Antiochus IV over the Jews, or Titus’ conquest of Jerusalem?
Bust of Antiochus IV
We do not celebrate these victories precisely for the reason that both Kemp and Pierce explain so well: neither the Greeks nor the Romans exist today. What we call contemporary Greeks or Romans are the product of centuries of blood mixing that devalued not only the genotype of the original Indo-European population, but their extended phenotype as well: the Greco-Roman hard ethos and their galvanizing mythos mostly reflected in the Homeric tales. The Greeks and Romans who embraced Christianity were a totally different breed of the pure Aryans of Sparta or the austere Latins of the Roman Republic (see e.g., the essays that I translated from Evropa Soberana in later chapters of this book).
MacDonald himself acknowledges on page 190 that “the Jews have continued as a creative race into the present, while the Greeks gradually merged with the barbarians and lost their distinctiveness—a point remarkably similar to Chamberlain’s ‘chaos of peoples’ in which the decline of the ancient world is attributed to loss of racial purity.” Conversely, I would say that since the Jews have conserved their genotype almost intact throughout the millennia they are able to celebrate their Maccabean revolt as if it was yesterday. In other words, had whites preserved their genes intact, some of us might still be celebrating Antiochus’ victories over the subversive tribe; or, if we knew our history with the same passion that Jews know theirs, we might still be celebrating the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD, or the more recent expulsion of the tribe from the Iberian peninsula.
What conventional historians ignore is that, once the Church lost its power to sell a worldview after the late 18th and early 19th centuries, our genetic individualism placed us at the mercy of a collectivist tribe.
Fortunately, the ethno-traitorous West has committed financial blunders in the 20th and 21st centuries. The dollar and all fiat currencies of the West will crash probably in this decade (I am reviewing this essay in 2014), which means that there is hope that some of us will start to understand the Jewish problem in a post-crashed world. On page 10 of SAID MacDonald says that “in congruence with the results of social identity research, anti-Semitism is expected to be most prominent among those most in competition with the Jews and during times of economic crisis.”
Although most readers of MacDonald treasure The Culture of Critique, the third and last of his trilogy on Jewry as their favorite book of this collection, I believe that MacDonald’s work should be read from the beginning. A People that Shall Dwell Alone, Separation and its Discontents and The Culture of Critique can help us, using William Pierce’s metaphor, to “see the forest” with crystal-clear vision.
Remember Pierce’s words? If we don’t try to understand the Jews we can never really understand what is happening to our race and our civilization. Professor MacDonald’s voluminous texts have done the hard work for us—both the trilogy and his webzine The Occidental Observer—in a scholarly and yet entertaining way.
Excerpted from Tom Sunic’s
recent article at The Occidental Observer:
We often confuse the causes of non-European immigration with its effects. We hunt after a wrong scapegoat. Let us try to clarify it…
The blame for non-European immigration and the decomposition of the European peoples must not be solely borne by the immigrants. It is in the interest of the local capitalists to get a million-strong reserve army of cheap labor to Europe and to the U.S.; in turn, they can lower the wages of their domestic workers. Furthermore, non-European immigrants have little social consciousness, a weak sense of the trade union adherence and practically no sense for the European destiny. Therefore, they can be better manipulated by the local capitalists. One should consider therefore the globalists, the plutocrats and the financial “superclass” as the main enemy of the European peoples. A German stockbroker, or a Croatian or a Russian ex-communist speculator turned now into a capitalist shark, does not care where his nation is—as long as he can rake in big money.
We are all witnessing a reemergence of the silent holy alliance today—an alliance between the ex-Commissar and the Merchant, i.e. the marriage between the left-winger and big business. The European Left is in favor of mass immigration, given that the exotic picture of the non-European immigrant represents for it now the ersatz symbol of its long gone proletariat. For the capitalist, it is beneficial to bring people from the Third World into Europe, because they can best serve the interests of anonymous capital. The capitalist strives towards the removal of his people, because his people are too expensive for his business transactions. A leftist “antifa” wants to erase his people because it will always remind him of the rising “fascist beast.”
But the Church also bears a heavy responsibility for the decomposing situation of the European nations, especially with its ecumenical parlance of “help thy neighbor.” Americans, Europeans and White Christians are nowadays more concerned about the welfare of non-European peoples than the welfare of their own. A rich Qatari, or an oil sheik from Saudi Arabia could not care less are about the young unemployed and destitute masses in Moldova, or the working poor in France of Spain. He does not feel much inclined to help his own kind in Palestine in the first place, let alone give a thought to the suffering of the millions of the unemployed in Europe. The influential American Cardinal, Timothy Dolan, also known “as the American Pope” openly preaches in the American media the necessity of the open borders and openly advocates the protection of illegal immigrants in the USA.
Therefore it is wrong to blame only stateless plutocrats, ethnic lobbies, or starry eyed leftists in their decomposition endeavors of the European peoples. Regarding the destructive equality doctrine by Christian savants, I’ will not discuss it here. I’ll refer you to my papers and books.
♣
From Hunter Wallace’s September 28, 2012 “OD’s Indictment”
In preparation for writing OD’s [Occidental Dissent] first book, Shattering The Golden Circle: The Failure of Free Society in Dixie, Haiti, and the Caribbean, I have spent months intensely researching the rise and fall of slavery in the Caribbean and American South.
I’ve been trying to understand why slavery was destroyed and why approximately four million free negroes were turned loose on our society.
I don’t have to tell you that the consequences of the abolition of slavery have haunted us to the present day. I’m getting to the stage where I am starting to draw some firm conclusions about how and why this happened:
(1) First, New World slavery was overthrown during “the long nineteenth century” from 1770 to 1890.
(2) Second, the decline of the West is not due to a Jewish conspiracy, although Jews have thrived as an effect of the moral decay, especially in the twentieth century. It is not due to any inherent biological predisposition on the part of Whites to embrace racial and cultural suicide either.
(3) Third, I am convinced that the decisive years in pushing the West down the present road to suicide are 1750 to 1850.
(4) Fourth, the culprit is a moral, religious, and ideological revolution in worldview during this period that led to the creation of secular and religious versions of humanitarianism that have progressively undermined the foundations of our civilization.
(5) Finally, the twin doctrines that are to blame for our decline, which brought about this critical shift in moral outlook, are the Enlightenment’s ideology of liberal republicanism and the spread of evangelical Christianity.
This is the ultimate source of the “black cloud” that hangs over our civilization. Discuss.
Note: I will also speculate that industrial capitalism created a middle class that was peculiarly receptive to this worldview – the perfect triumphalist bourgeois ideology – and that the spread of liberal democracy gradually empowered this class in the West which used its newfound power to “progressively” act out its utopian fantasies.
Why did the South and the Caribbean deviate so strongly from this general direction in the nineteenth century? In the South and the Caribbean there was a third cultural pole, race-based plantation slavery, which created a stronger cultural immune system.
By this time the single Jewish causers ought to have taken note that even well-known pro-white bloggers, who are either Christians or married to Christians, are openly saying that the root causes of our predicament are to be found in our most cherished traditions: religion and the ideals of secular liberalism.
The following are a couple of passages from “Death to Modernity—American Perspectives.” Alex Kurtagic responds to what some angry Christian commenters had said (in italics):
1.-
Saying that Christianity started liberalism is like saying the existence of truth is to blame for the distortion thereof.
Tracing the roots of an ideology to a religion’s metaphysics is not the same as blaming the ideology on the religion, or saying that the religion ‘started’ the ideology. The American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (Introduction and Preamble) also have roots in Christianity, yet no one would reasonably ‘blame’ the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence on Christianity or claim that Christianity ‘started’ them. Though known for their pagan outlook and critiques of Christianity, in the Manifesto the ENR merely points out the irony of Christian metaphysics’ having supplied—without that having been the intention—liberal theorists with the means to ‘liberate’ the individual from Christianity (along with anything transcendent or external to the individual).
2.-
What a crock!—blaming the evils of liberalism and the Leftist destruction of the U.S.A. on true Christianity. Liberalism sprang from secularism and both are ‘Jewish’ in origin.
Prior to emancipation, Jews were confined to ghettos and lived under civic and legal restrictions in Europe. By the time Jewish emancipation began in the 1790s, the Enlightenment (associated with secularism) was already in decline and giving way to Romanticism and the Counter-Enlightenment. In most places of Europe, Jews were not emancipated until the mid-1800s. On the other hand, Liberalism, like the Enlightenment, dates back to the 1600s. John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government was published in 1689, over a century before the first Jewish emancipation. Of the thinkers we associate with classical liberalism or the Enlightenment—John Locke, René Descartes, Isaac Newton, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, David Hume, Jeremy Bentham, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, and Baruch Spinoza—only Ricardo and Spinoza were Jews, but both were disowned. The rest were Christians.
What we can say is that many Jews since emancipation have seen the obvious benefit to Jews generally of their host societies being as secular as possible, and have accordingly campaigned in various ways to accelerate and maximise a process of secularisation that had already been begun by lapsed, indifferent, or apostate Christians. The idea of separation of Church and state is not Jewish, but, as Henry Ford describes in The International Jew, Jewish activists—who, obviously, were either preoccupied with real or perceived anti-Semitism or who wished to advance the interests of their ethnic group—used this idea to further their aim of removing Christianity from the public square.
Liberalism does not reject Christianity or religion tout court; indeed, the Founding Fathers of the United States, though liberals to a man, were Christians—not anti-Christian atheists, like the Marxists who subsequently critiqued liberalism—and conceived the United States as a Christian country intended for Christians. What liberalism attempts to do is to ‘liberate’ the individual from anything transcendent or outside of the individual. The existence and the will of God is then ascertained by rational means, and the process of ascertaining is left to the individual, who becomes the measure of all things. Dogmatic belief and subservience to tradition and authority are abandoned.
One must not conflate anti-Western Jewish intellectual movements with liberalism just because the former marshalled liberal ideas to serve Jewish ethnic aims. The abovementioned Jewish movements were of a liberal character because they originated in a liberal context. Had they originated in a non-liberal context, we would have seen Jewish movements of a very different kind. That these movements remain influential highlights the dominance of liberalism and the need to dismantle it, for, once dismantled, these movements will become unthinkable. And depending on what replaces liberalism, ethnic subversion, Jewish or otherwise, may or may not become more difficult. Ultimately, it depends on how we reshape the intellectual landscape—nothing is predetermined or guaranteed.
♣
And this is Hunter Wallace’s latest entry at
Occidental Dissent, “Derb on Ethnomasochism”:
Derb is trying to understand the roots of White ethnomasochism at VDARE and Takimag.
Seeing as how this is a historical inquiry and intersects our particular fixation on the American South, we can unequivocally say that evangelical Christianity and Enlightenment ideology are the roots of this phenomena, and that the anti-slavery movement was its first major flowering.
It doesn’t take much time wandering through what Europeans were doing in the Caribbean in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to figure out that they were operating in another moral universe.
By the late eighteenth century/early nineteenth century, you have your Abbé Raynals and John Browns who are fine specimens of this deranged type.
If I had artistic skills, I would draw a cartoon of a tree labeled “anti-slavery” with fruit hanging from its branches labeled “anti-racism” and “civil rights” and “feminism” and “free love” and “white guilt” and “communism” and “decolonization” and “white genocide.”
Half a year ago the admin of a Catholic, counter-Jihad website in Spain commented in this blog.
Mexico’s backwardness has been the result of its governments after independence, which has been mostly in the hands of whites. Its historical demise is due to the fact that the whites are not breeding, as it is the case, unfortunately, of so many white nationalists.
I quote this friend because his Catholic views reflect exactly the ideology that ruined this part of the American continent: blaming the few whites in charge of a nation consisting of a sea of brown people and sparing the Catholic, Universal ethics that caused the non-white population explosion in the first place.
Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans is a comprehensive book about the odyssey of the white race, presently available only in printed format. After a long transcontinental research Kemp concludes that colonization is only successful when the colonizers ensure that they demographically replace the native population. “Anything less than that will cause the colonial experiment to fail.” Kemp demonstrates his thesis not only through the paradigm of his native Rhodesia, but of every other geographical entity that had been conquered by whites in the last millennia only to be re-conquered by the natives after overwhelming the white conquerors demographically.
William Pierce had reached identical conclusions in Who We Are: ethnic cleansing is the only way to succeed, and, as he hinted in other texts, to do that we must abandon Christian meta-ethics altogether.
Over the boards I’ve said it many times and will say it again: Pace my Christian friends, the price to save the West is to give up Christian axiology, and its secular offshoots, that presently are infecting our minds and our sense of decency.
* * *
Excerpted from the 22nd article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:
The native Amerinds found by the Spaniards in the West Indies were, like those of the mainland, of Mongoloid derivation, being the descendants of Mongoloid peoples who had begun crossing the Bering Strait from Siberia to North America some 12,000 years ago and had then gradually propagated throughout the empty North and South American continents and the adjacent islands.
Since the Spaniards’ entire purpose in the New World was economic exploitation, not the propagation of their own race, they did not deliberately liquidate the native population. In some areas, however, that was the inadvertent effect of the Spanish conquest. The Indians were not constitutionally suited to the unremitting slave labor in the gold and silver mines and on the sugar plantations which was forced on them by their new masters, and they died like flies under the Spanish yoke.
An enormous toll was also taken by smallpox, a disease endemic among the Europeans but one to which the Amerinds, isolated as they had been for thousands of years, had no natural immunity. It virtually depopulated the Caribbean islands and then wreaked havoc among the mainland Indians. (The Indian revenge was syphilis, a New World disease entirely new to the Europeans—at least, in the new and virulent form in which it existed among the Amerinds.)
Beginning of the Black Tide
Because of the inadequacy of the Indians as a local labor force, the Spaniards almost immediately began importing Negro slaves from West Africa. The latter belong to a race ideally suited to the plantation labor of that era. The Blacks were first used in the West Indies, then on the Brazilian mainland. Approximately a million of them were imported in the period 1550-1650, and by the latter date they had completely replaced the Amerind natives as a slave labor force on the Caribbean islands.
(Spanish-English translation of the painting footnote: Spaniard, Mestizo, Indian)
Approximately 150,000 Spaniards and Portuguese had migrated to the New World by the middle of the 17th century, and natural increase had raised their number to about 400,000. They ruled over about 9,000,000 Indians—and a growing population of mestizos (Indian-White mixed breeds), Blacks, mulattos, and Indian-Black mixed breeds. Only on the island of Cuba was there anything approaching a truly White Spanish or Portuguese community.
Northerners Arrive
From the beginning of the 17th century, however, Northern Europeans—English, French, and Dutch—began seriously contesting the Iberians’ claims on the New World. By 1650 nearly 50,000 English (and a few thousand French and Dutch) immigrants were settled on Caribbean land wrested away from the Spaniards, and another 50,000 had landed in North America.
In sharp contrast to the Spanish and Portuguese colonists, the great bulk of the Northern Europeans came to the New World not to exploit non-White labor and make money, but to settle and work the land themselves, in all-White communities. Thus, colonialism acquired two quite distinct meanings in the 17th and 18th centuries: a strictly economic meaning, which applied to all the Southern European and some of the Northern European colonies; and a racial meaning, which applied almost exclusively to the colonies of the Northerners.
The Pollution of the South
Today the only countries in South America which are substantially White are Uruguay (nearly 100 per cent), Argentina (between 80 and 90 per cent), and Chile (approximately 50 per cent).
Women and Plows
Most of the Northern Europeans who came to the New World had quite different motives than did the Spanish and Portuguese. Most of the latter came only to make money, and relatively few brought their women with them; from the beginning miscegenation was common in the areas controlled by the Iberians.
The Northerners, on the other hand, came for the land and the opportunity for a new life on a new frontier. They brought their women and their plows with them, and for the most part, they did their own labor. They saw in the Indians no opportunity for economic exploitation, but only a danger to their families. Until missionaries began making Christians of the Indians and taking their side against the Whites, the latter just pushed them aside, took their land, and formed all-White communities of farmers, craftsmen, and tradesmen, as they had in Europe.
Excerpted from the 21st article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:
The Vikings’ fighting spirit had been sapped by Christianity, but an even larger factor in their demise was their inability to keep in check their quarrels among themselves, combine their forces against outsiders, and thus match the growing power of kings in more unified lands than their own. Excessive individualism took its final toll.
Ever since the close of the Viking Age men in whose veins Viking blood still runs have dreamed of the freedom and the challenge and the glory of those bygone days. Perhaps nowhere is this better expressed than in a stanza from an anonymous Anglo-Saxon poem, The Wanderer:
What has become of the steed?
What has become of the warrior?
What has become of the seats of banquet?
Where are the joys of the hall?
Oh, for the bright cup!
Oh, for the mail-clad warrior!
Oh, for the glory of the prince!
How that time has passed away
And grown dark under the cover of night,
As if it had never been.
Semites and Vikings: No Love Lost
One would expect to find a spiritual difference between a race bred a hundred generations in the marketplace, where survival depended primarily on a glib tongue and an eye for a bargain, and a race shaped by the killing winters of the North, accustomed to combat and hardship. This difference—the difference between the Jewish spirit and the White spirit—is manifested in the world around us in a thousand ways.
Perhaps nowhere has the contrast between the natural, healthy, adventurous spirit of our race and the spirit of the Jew been more sharply drawn, however, than in a couple of recent issues of the student newspaper published on the Los Angeles campus of California State College. In the first issue was printed a poem by Dr. Peter Peel, who teaches history there. The second issue contained a response to the poem from a Jew at the same college.
Here is the poem, which was titled Goetterdaemmerung:
When Spring lightly touches
With hand green and golden
The mountains and fjords,
Then shouts the sea rover,
“A-viking! A-viking!”
The hammers are busy
On weapon and harness.
Then flashes the broad blade
In every sea hamlet.
The dragon ships, thirsty
For bounding blue water,
Leap down to the seashore.
And Olaf of Norway
And Erik of Gotland
And Thorwald the Mighty,
Whose grandsire was Wotan,
Stand fast on the poop deck
With golden hair streaming,
With spear brightly glinting,
With eye fierce and blazing,
Sail out on the swan’s bath—
The grey widow-maker—
For England or Iceland,
Byzantium, Vinland,
Far land or ancient
And ripe for the plunder,
The burning of roof-trees,
The seizing of women,
The tooting of treasure,
The flowing of red blood,
And wine for the victors.
Ah, whence fled those great days,
The days of our fathers,
The days of the valiant,
Of gods and of heroes,
Or fair maids and foul dwarfs,
And lindworms and dragons,
Of Beowulf, Dietrich,
Strong Harald, grim Hagen,
Wolfhart and Siegfried,
The greathearts, the mighty?
Yea loathsome today is
The seed of their strong loins—
The petty, the small, the clod and
the crawler.
The music has gone from the souls of our people.
The thunder has vanished away with Valhalla.
Now meekness and weakness
And womanly virtues
Have shackled, degraded
And shamefully softened
The sons of our fathers,
The sons of the mighty.
And now have we traded
The lightning of storm gods,
The arms of Valkyries,
The halls of Valhalla,
The kiss of wish maidens,
For wings and a nightshirt,
A harp and a halo,
A psalmbook and psalter?
Oh, no, my Lord Bishop!
Hark, grey Galilean,
The Wolf Age is coming,
The great fimbul winter,
When all sick things perish.
A few days after this poem appeared, the following letter [by R.A. Klein] headed “Bloodthirsty Sickness,” showed up on the editorial page of the student newspaper. The poem about the Vikings in the Nov. 25 issue by Peter H. Pee had real soul and beauty—the soul and the beauty of the bloodthirsty.
Let it speak for itself. [Klein wrote:]
“With golden hair streaming, With spear brightly glinting, With eye fierce and blazing… And ripe for the plunder, The burning of roof-trees, The seizing of women, The looting of treasure, The flowing of red blood, And wine for the victors.”
Murder! rape! loot, plunder blood and wine—the wanton destruction of the productive by bloodthirsty savages. And what do these vicious predator-warriors denounce?
“Now meekness and weakness And womanly virtues Have shackled, degraded And shamefully softened The sons of our fathers, The sons of the mighty.”
Yes, how could one be more degraded in the eyes of these savages than to become like those inferior creatures called women.
Beware you women, blacks, Latins and other lesser creatures. The Blond Beast “With golden hair streaming” and warm, red blood dripping from his mighty sword shall rise again. Beware you weak and sick of all races for “The Wolf Age is coming… When all sick things perish.”
Meanwhile, I wait for the day when this bloodthirsty sickness of the Blond Beast shall perish forever from the face of the earth.
Excerpted from the 21st article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:
Karl’s savagery reached a peak in the tenth year of the evangelism: in 782, at Verden on the Aller, with the blessing of the Church, he had 4,500 Saxon nobles beheaded. Twelve years later, in 794, he introduced a policy under which every third Saxon was uprooted from his land and forced to resettle among Franks or other Christianized tribes.
Fairly early in this campaign, in 777, one of the most prominent of the Saxon chieftains, Widukind, took shelter among the Danes and appealed to their king, Sigfred, for assistance against the Franks. Although the Danes were wary of becoming involved in a full-scale war against the formidable Karl, they and the other Northern peoples were put on their guard, and they became increasingly indignant over the Frankish suppression of the Saxons’ religion.
Karl’s brutal campaign against the Saxons undoubtedly helped raise a certain consciousness in the North of the spiritual and cultural differences which separated Scandinavia from those lands which had fallen under the yoke of the Christian Church.
Special Treatment
One manifestation of this consciousness was the erection of the Danevirke, an extensive system of defensive earthworks across the neck of the Danish peninsula, begun in 808.
Another was the special treatment which the Vikings customarily meted out to the Christian monks and priests who fell into their hands. The monasteries and churches, with their troves of treasure mulcted from superstitious citizens seeking to buy their way into heaven, were tempting targets to the raiders from the North anyway, but the element of revenge must have made them even more tempting, and it was for good reason that throughout the ninth century the daily prayer of every pious cleric was: A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine! (“From the fury of the Northmen deliver us, Lord!”).
Genetic Effects of Monkery
Another interesting eugenic contrast between North and South is provided by the Christian practice of clerical celibacy. Although there were many periods during the Middle Ages in which violations were commonplace, as early as the fourth century the Church began insisting on total celibacy for the higher clergy. With the growing incidence of monasticism after the sixth century, a greatly increased portion of the population of Christian Europe was subjected to the rule of celibacy.
In the Middle Ages the clerical life was not, as is often the case today, simply a refuge for those who could succeed at nothing else; it was usually the only route to scholarship—and often the only route to literacy as well—and it attracted many able and intelligent men, whose genes were then lost to their race. For a thousand years, until the Reformation, there was a selective draining away of Christian Europe’s intellectual vitality.
A Mighty Hive
The high birthrate among the most active and energetic elements of the population in the Northern countries led to land-hunger and the drive for external conquests. In the words of 17th-century English statesman and writer Sir William Temple: “Each of these countries was like a mighty hive, which, by the vigor of propagation and health of climate, growing too full of people, threw out some new swarm at certain periods of time that took wing and sought out some new abode, expelling or subduing the old inhabitants and seating themselves in their rooms.” This state of affairs also held long before the Viking Age, of course.
In addition to the generalized effects of a high birthrate, two other consequences of polygyny which bore on the rise of Viking as a way of life were the large numbers of second, third, fourth, and later sons in the families of Norse landholders—sons left without inheritance and without land, unless they could wrest it away from someone else—and a shortage of women.
The most popular way to solve the latter problem was to go on a raid and carry off women from Ireland, England, or France, although there was also a heavy traffic in Slav slave girls from the Rus realms. The Hrafnsmál tells of life in Harald Fairhair’s court: “Glorious is their way of life, those warriors who play chess in Harald’s court. They are made rich with money and fine swords, with metal of Hunaland and girls from the east.”
Victory at Hafrsfjord
The political consolidation which began taking place in Scandinavia in the ninth century served as an especially strong impetus to Viking colonizers. As mentioned earlier, the Vikings were extremely individualistic, extremely resentful of any encroachments on their freedom of action. After Harald Fairhair won a great sea victory at Hafrsfjord over the Viking chieftains of western Norway in 872, many of them left Norway with their households and their followers and settled in Iceland and the smaller islands of the North Atlantic rather than submit to Harald’s rule.
A century later, political consolidation having been achieved, Scandinavian monarchs began to realize the policy advantages in bringing their people into the same religious camp as their neighbors to the south. The first to take the step was Denmark’s Harald Bluetooth, son of King Gorm the Old. In 965, 15 years after Gorm’s death, Harald allowed himself to be baptized, and then he undertook the forcible conversion of the rest of the Danes: a move which did not sit well with many and led to further emigration and turmoil in the North. It also led eventually to Harald’s deposition and banishment.
The Viking Way to Immortality
The heroic ethos, the core of the Viking attitude toward life, of which the high value placed on fidelity is but one aspect, is probably stated best in the oft-repeated lines from Grettir’s saga:
Cattle die, and kinsmen die,
And so one dies oneself.
One thing I know that never dies:
The fame of a dead man’s deeds.
To the Viking immortality was not gained by being baptized, going to Mass every Sunday, and being openhanded when the collection plate came around; the only way he knew to overcome the annihilation which awaits every man in the grave was to live his life in such a way that other men would remember him and esteem his memory. The individual consciousness must die, but the consciousness of the community, the tribe, and the race lives on; and, to the extent that the individual has entered that collective consciousness, he becomes immortal.
The Last Viking
The coming of Christianity to the Viking world eventually meant the end of that world, but it did not change the Viking ethos immediately, as is evidenced by the life of a man who was certainly one of the most remarkable of all the Vikings, and the last of the truly great ones: Harald Sigurdsson, who, after he became king of Norway, was also known as Harald Hardraada (Hard Ruler) and Harald the Ruthless.
His deeds are the subject of one of the most fascinating of the Viking sagas (King Harald’s Saga), which we would be inclined to dismiss as an unusually imaginative work of heroic fiction, were it not solidly confirmed by the historical record.
Christian Terror
Olaf, like Denmark’s Harald Bluetooth before him, was deposed and chased out of his country after attempting to impose Christianity on his countrymen against their will. For two years Olaf had waged a campaign of Christian terror, burning the farms of all Norwegians who would not bow to the Church of Rome. Many of the stubborn traditionalists who fell into his hands he maimed or blinded.
Finally his subjects revolted, and he was forced to flee to Russia. When he returned with an army, including his half-brother Harald, in 1030 he was defeated and killed, and the wounded, 15- year-old Harald became a fugitive.
Olaf, despised by the Norwegians, was immediately made a saint by the Church, and today he is the patron saint of Norwegian Christians.
Excerpted from the 21st article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:
Called many names—Danes, Geats, Norsemen, Rus, Swedes, Varangers—they are best known to us by the name which is also used to characterize both the age in which they flourished and the way of life of many of them: Vikings. Like two great waves of raiders, conquerors, and colonizers before them, the Goths and the Anglo-Saxons, they came from the Nordic heartland: southern Sweden and Norway, the Danish peninsula, the adjoining portion of northern Germany, and the nearby North Sea and Baltic islands.
Essence of Whiteness
They are of special interest to us in our endeavor to understand who we are, not so much because most of us have Viking forebears (although a great many people with immediate roots in Ireland, Scotland, England, and northwestern France, as well as in Scandinavia, do), but because they give us a clearer, more detailed picture of that pure essence of Indo-Europeanism of Whiteness—which is the common heritage of all of us, whether our recent ancestors were Germans, Celts, Balts, or Slavs, than we can obtain from a study of any other European people.
German in language like the Goths and the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings retained other aspects of Germanic culture which those earlier emigrants from the Nordic heartland had already lost by the dawn of the Viking Age. In particular, the Vikings held to their Indo-European religion and worldview longer than any of the other Germanic peoples. They also remained hardier, fiercer in battle, and more venturesome than those who had been softened by the more civilized living to the south.
Best and Worst in Our Race
The Vikings not only serve us as an especially useful epitome of Whiteness at a time when our survival demands a renewal of the best of our old values and strengths, but they also provide us with a clear reminder of the danger inherent in one of our most lethal weaknesses: excessive individualism and lack of racial solidarity. A study of the Vikings acquaints us with both the best and the worst (or, in this age, the least affordable) of the characteristics of our race.
No Viking Democrats
The men who inhabited this region were necessarily self-reliant, tenacious, energetic, and resourceful. No anemic democrats these: the terrain was not suited to the placid, ant-heap mentality of lesser races to the south; it bred men with strong wills and stronger egos, a natural warrior aristocracy.
Cultural Unity
The isolation by terrain and climate of many Viking communities did not prevent the Vikings from having a remarkable unity of culture, language, and spirit but it certainly did not encourage political unity. Viking individualism seemed to be inimical to a sense of racial solidarity. While more subjective races to the south were often drawn together by the perceived need for mutual support in the face of a hostile world, Vikings were much more inclined to face the world as individuals.
Their loyalty and sense of community seldom extended beyond the fighting band to which they belonged or, at most, to that limited region of Norway or Denmark or whatever which they considered “home”. And they would as gladly—or almost as gladly—hew down the Vikings of a rival band as a monastery full of trembling priests in some southern land. Within the band, however, the Viking ethos demanded a solidarity as uncompromising as that of the other Germanic peoples of their time.
Ralph the Walker
Just as in England and Ireland, however, Vikings who at first came only to seize women and gold later came to seize land as well. This process reached its climax early in the 10th century when a Viking band wrested away from the West Franks a substantial piece of territory in northwestern France, south of the lower Seine.
First White American
A few years later another Greenland Viking, Thorfinn Karlsefni, made a determined effort to establish a permanent Viking presence in America. He fitted out three longships and recruited 160 men and women to accompany him on the westward voyage. They built a community in North America which they called Straumfjord, and in 1004 Thorfinn’s wife Gudrid bore him a son, Snorri, there: the first native White American.
Unrelenting attacks by Indians made life very difficult for Thorfinn’s American colonists, however, and after three years they abandoned their settlement and returned to Greenland.
Had the Vikings’ weapons been technologically superior to the bows and arrows of the [Amerinds]—as Columbus’ firearms were—then White history in America would have begun 500 years sooner than it did. As it was, the individual superiority of the Viking warriors in battle could not make up for the enormous numerical advantage enjoyed by the hordes of Red men who opposed them.
Purest Cultural Heritage
Today these North Atlantic islands, of which Iceland with its quarter-million inhabitants is the most significant, preserve the Viking cultural heritage in its purest form. The modern Icelandic and Faroese languages are nearly identical to the Old Norse spoken by the Vikings, while English and the other Germanic languages have undergone great changes during the last 1,000 years. In folkways as well, many Viking traits have been preserved in the islands, especially in Iceland and the Faroes. There has even been a return to the Viking religion by some Icelanders in recent years.
No Minorities
Iceland is outstanding in another respect as well: alone among the White nations of the world it does not bear the curse of non-White minorities; it has no Blacks, no Jews, no Vietnamese, no Mexicans. Iceland has not been invaded for the last 1,000 years, except during the Second World War, when the country was occupied by American troops. The bulk of the foreigners withdrew after the war, and Icelanders insisted that future U.S. troops sent to man the air base which the United States was allowed to maintain on the island include no non-Whites.
The greatest debt that the White race owes to Icelanders is for their preservation of the Norse literary heritage: the Viking sagas. While church officials in other European countries were rounding up and burning all the pre-Christian books they could lay their hands on during the Middle Ages, Icelandic scholars were busy writing down the sagas which still existed only in oral form and transcribing, annotating, and expanding those which had been put into writing earlier.
Genocidal Evangelism
Beginning in 772, a year after he became sole king of the Franks upon the death of his brother Carloman, Karl, later known to the French as Charlemagne, son of Pepin the Short and grandson of Karl the Hammer, waged a 32-year campaign of genocidal evangelism against the Saxons. The campaign began with Karl’s destruction of the Irminsul, or World Pillar, the Saxon equivalent of the Norse World Ash, Yggdrasil, located in the Saxons’ most sacred grove, at Eresburg (on the site of the present Marburg), and it became bloodier, crueler, and more intolerant as it wore on.
In 774, at Quierzy, Karl issued a proclamation that he would kill every Saxon who refused to accept the sweet yoke of Jesus. Henceforth a contingent of Christian priests accompanied the Frankish army on its expeditions against the Saxons, and in every Saxon village those who refused to be baptized by the priests were slaughtered on the spot.
Even if we omit what male Spaniards did with their genes in the Americas with countless Indian women and imported blacks, the sad history of Spain, racially a melting pot of Mediterranean Iberians, Phoenicians, Nordish Celts, Romans, Nordish Goths, Jews, and Moors, is a textbook case of white decline as the result of both ethno-suicide—Christianity—and Semitic genocide.
♣
Excerpted from the 19th article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:
Although King Wamba [a Visigothic king from 672 to 680] was a strong ruler, who successfully put down a Basque rebellion and maintained his frontiers against his Frankish neighbors to the north and Arab pirates raiding by sea from the south, prosperity had already begun taking its toll of Gothic vigor. It was Wamba’s immediate predecessor, Recesuinto, who, at the insistence of the Church, took the first direct step toward Gothic racial suicide (if we do not count as such Sisibert’s allowing baptized Jews to pass as Gentiles a few years earlier) when he abolished the longstanding ban against intermarriage.
Prior to Recesuinto’s reign, the racial pride of the Goths had remained intact. None but Goths might rule, and Goths might marry none but Goths. The penalty for violation of this ban was quite severe: both partners were burned at the stake. Thus, the blood of the Goths had remained unmixed with that of their Roman, Iberian, and Jewish subjects. Recesuinto allowed Goths to marry baptized Jews and anyone else who claimed Christian beliefs, and the nobility of Spain has since been tainted heavily with the Semitic blood of department-store heiresses, or the equivalent thereof in that pre-department-store era.
The Jews conspired all the more against the Goths, and the successors of Recesuinto and Wamba were obliged to take measures against them on a number of occasions. They failed, however, to rid their kingdom of the pestilence, because they did not apply the same measures against baptized Jews as against their unbaptized brethren. This shortsightedness finally led to the undoing of the Goths during the reign of Roderic, who took the throne in 709.
While the men of Roderic’s race had grown soft and indecisive over the course of the dozen generations which had passed since the time of Adolf, unable finally even to cope with a gaggle of money-hungry Semites in their midst, a new Semitic danger had begun to rise to the south of them.
Here Pierce describes how the Peninsula fell to Islamic invasion a few years later. Only in the mountains of the north, in Asturias, were the Nordish Goths able to hold back the Semitic tide permanently. Pierce adds:
Even today, 12 centuries after the fact, Jews still gather in their synagogues on holidays to gloat over their destruction of the Goths, and Jewish writers openly boast of their treachery. The popular Jewish author and lecturer, Max I. Dimont, has taken particular satisfaction in the fate of the Gothic women, both in Spain and in those areas of Gaul subject to Moorish raiding parties from the south. In his best-selling book, The Indestructible Jews, Dimont writes: “As blond Christian maidens fetched fancy prices in the slave markets, raids in Christian lands by Muslim private entrepreneurs became big business. Female captives were pedigreed like dogs. Their Christian antecedents, their genuine blondness, their virginity, and their ability to bear children were all ascertained and notarized before they were marketed.”
Dimont discreetly avoids mentioning that the slave merchants doing the pedigreeing and marketing of these White girls were, in most cases, Jews. What he does say is: “From the inception of Islam’s conquest, Spanish Jews had soared to the highest government posts. A series of brilliant Jewish viziers—viceroys—enriched the caliphate’s coffers and helped usher in an age of splendor and learning.”
Pierce proceeds to describe the heroic deeds of Charles Martell, who unlike the Goths was successful in repelling Muslim invasion. Then he says:
Though forced to retreat south of the Pyrenees, the Arabs and the other Muslim invaders of Spain remained in the peninsula for nearly 800 years, and the genetic damage they wrought there was great. Islam, like Christianity, makes no distinction of race; all that counts is religion, not blood. Thus, the interbreeding begun under Recesuinto to satisfy the demands of his bishops continued at an accelerated pace under Muslim rule, and, as mentioned by the Jewish writer Dimont, the Arabs and Moors were especially fond of mingling their genes with those of Spain’s blond Gothic nobility.
One indication of this lust is revealed by the terms imposed on the Goths who remained in the unconquered enclave in the northwest, which later grew into the Kingdom of Galicia: In order to keep the Semites at bay they were required to pay a tribute of 100 blond virgins each year. It was not until the reign of Alfonso II, which began in 791, that the Goths were again strong enough to put an end to this humiliating imposition.
After a few more paragraphs Pierce ends his chapter with these words:
Not until 1492 was the reconquest of the peninsula finally completed. In that year the unbaptized Jews were expelled en masse from the country they had betrayed eight centuries earlier, and the remaining pockets of Moors followed them ten years later. The Inquisition, which had been established in 1478, dealt to a limited extent with the baptized Jews.
A quotation from John Martínez’s:
“Why Christianity and not Judaism
is the Enemy #1 of the White Race”
“Blaming Christianity is a sort of taboo topic in most of the English-speaking White Nationalist blogosphere.”
—Tom Sunic
It is a taboo topic in the whole WN blogosphere, Chechar.
These folks are ready to speak the unspeakable about race differences and the Jewish Problem. But they refuse to take the final step and face the fact that, if it was not for Christianity, perhaps we would not have to be discussing all of these problems now because they might not have happened in the first place.
How can someone advocate for the dignity and self-reliance of the White race while operating within a non-White, Levantine cult?
How can these people expose the Jews and their race supremacist cult while worshipping a Jew (!) and making extensive use of the Jewish mythology and the Jewish Weltanschauung?
It is mind-boggling…
My view about the core problems facing the White race today is that Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Communism are Semitic and therefore alien, extraneous ideologies that should be consigned to the trashcan of History. The differences I see among them nowadays are close to irrelevant as far as our interests are concerned.
Bluegrass comments here:
America was the preeminent racialist country before any European equivalent arose, but it was always held back from completely securing the existence of the European race by the mitigating power of our Christian foundation.
No Christianity means no Puritan proselytizing and universalism within the American psyche, which means no ideological foundation to tolerate the presence of Africans, Indians, or any non-White immigration.
Christianity always made it “uncouth” to be overly racialist. European America was able to implicitly secure the genetic stock through immigration restrictions, segregation, and what have you, but it was always a precarious position.
This semi-implicit racialism, always pervaded by the Christian sense that it was not necessarily the most dignified of ideologies, was easily destroyed by the Jewish culture of critique.
From then on, without the sounder minds to shepherd the flock our universalism (Coolidge etc) took hold and our religion became the realization of the proposition nation.
Of course, to realize that dream the destruction of White genetics has become a necessary sacrifice.
A personal note:
When I was translating to Spanish “Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy,” chapter 7 of Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, I suspended the translation when I hit this 1924 sentence about Israel Zangwill:
Mr. Zangwill spoke chiefly on the immigration question, declaring that if Jews persisted in a strenuous opposition to the restricted immigration there would be no restriction. “If you create enough fuss against this Nordic nonsense,” he said, “you will defeat this legislation. You must make a fight against this bill; tell them they are destroying American ideals. Most fortifications are of cardboard, and if you press against them, they give way.” [emphasis added]
If most fortifications in 1924, when supposedly American ethnocentricity was still very robust, were “of cardboard,” I told to myself, there must be an underlying factor that prevents us from defending our ethny, a primary infection.
Most nationalists act under the assumption that the Jewish Problem is the primary infection. My working hypothesis is that the JP, if compared to the most common HIV-related infections, is not the virus that is killing us but something like a bacterial disease such as tuberculosis, pneumonia or septicaemia: a deadly opportunistic infection that the HIV virus allowed to thrive.
Kill all the bacteria if you want. I have no problem with that. But if we want to save ourselves from extinction we really must go after the primary virus that weakened our defenses in the first place.
Jewry is Enemy #2.
For my collection of articles
dealing with Enemy #1 see here.