Click here
Category: Evropa Soberana (webzine)
Click here
Click here
Click here
It seems like December last year, about a year ago, when Blogger cancelled the account of the Spaniard who used to blog under the pen name Evropa Soberana.
The previous month I had an article published in The Occidental Observer about a Spanish-speaking intellectual of Jewish descent whose work has had considerable influence in Mexico and Spain. It upsets me that this writer is currently travelling to several Spanish-speaking countries to promote his latest book, and that the most valuable writings in Spanish from the pen of a Spaniard have been vaporised by the System!
Fortunately, I have long since made a backup of Evropa Soberana’s site, and every Sunday I will upload to this site a PDF of each of his articles, starting with this PDF of what the site’s homepage looked like before his account was cancelled.
As my regular visitors know, a few years ago one of Evropa Soberana’s essays represented a sort of eureka moment in my spiritual development. Reading it, I realised that the Christian problem and the Jewish problem are one and the same (something Nietzsche had already glimpsed since the 1880s). Not only does that long essay appear in the first of our books that can be accessed in the Featured Post; it has also been translated into French (click here).
Given that, after a year, Evropa Soberana has not re-uploaded the content of his site using another platform, nor has he answered my emails since 2018, I fear the worst. Of course: I cannot know, but if a sudden death has surprised him, I would suggest that visitors who value The West’s Darkest Hour content not only save the PDFs of the Evropa Soberana backup that I will be uploading every Sunday, but the PDFs of our books that can be accessed in the Featured Post (remember, this Friday I added the revised edition of Christianity’s Criminal History authored by a German scholar). While I am healthy at the moment, an unexpected death can surprise anyone. Only by saving the most valuable content on our hard drives and DVDs will we have the elements to survive intellectually if the System decides, in the future, to cancel all our platforms.
By the way, the day before yesterday I wanted to change the Daybreak image that was the emblem of this new incarnation of The West’s Darkest Hour for another image by the same artist, Maxfield Parrish. The idea was to put up all the Parrish paintings I know of, changing them every Sunday so that you wouldn’t always see the monotony of the same image.
But the WordPress software got stuck and no longer allows me to upload images to the main page. And as I never edit the code directly, I couldn’t fix it. But it doesn’t matter: I moved Daybreak to the Featured Post and it will stay there.
I’ve been disgusted by what the racial right has been saying about Kanye ‘Ye’ West these days, after his pro-Hitler pronouncements. Interestingly, Greg Johnson has said kind things about Ye, which prompted me to comment on his forum yesterday. But many so-called racists, by which I mean commenters on forums like The Unz Review and others, are throwing dirt on Hitler’s memory because of Ye’s comments.
These people just don’t get it. If there is one thing I like about Evropa Soberana, it is that he admired the Third Reich’s transvaluation of values. Soberana was able to get to the other side of what we have been calling the psychological Rubicon because he had already rejected Christian ethics. As I told Johnson, the Christian Matt Walsh was one of those who joined the chorus in defaming for the Nth time the memory of the Führer in a way that seems indistinguishable from the pronouncements of the ADL or the SPLC.
It disgusts me that a large percentage of commentators on the new right feel such hostility towards the most admirable man History has ever produced. Such a disgusting situation motivates me that the next book to be in the Featured Post is Savitri Devi’s Souvenirs et Réflexions d’une Aryenne: most of whose chapters we have already translated from French. This is the best of her books as far as an introduction to Savitri’s thought is concerned: the greatest European admirer of Hitler after 1945.
If anyone wishes to face a very different pro-white thinking from that of many anti-Nazi commentators on the new right, you can use one of the online translators to start reading the articles of Evropa Soberana, another European, that I will be uploading from next Sunday onwards. The litmus test for he who has crossed the Rubicon is not, as many of these imbecile commenters say, to believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The real test is to admire Hitler—the real Hitler, not the Hitler of the allied propaganda that subsists in the minds of the so-called new right.
When I finish proofreading Savitri’s book, I will resume the new translation of the Führer’s after-dinner talks. Only then will I be able to shake off some of the crap I have recently read in the English-speaking world about Hitler.
David Skrbina published his book The Jesus Hoax in 2019. Evropa Soberana re-published Rome v. Judea; Judea v. Rome in 2013 (it seems that his previous site, where he first published it, was suspended). The similarities between the two books are striking (remember that Soberana’s is the most recommended essay in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour), although Soberana wrote his book in Spanish and Skrbina in English.
In a new series I’ll quote some passages from Skrbina’s The Jesus Hoax. What struck me most about this book, published in Detroit by Creative Fire Press, is that Skrbina quotes Hitler favourably and accuses first-century Jews of mythmakers! Except for the book by Soberana that we translated for The Fair Race, I was unaware of any other recent attempt to blame the Jewish authors of the New Testament (NT) for the brainwashing that their work represented for the West.
Recall that Soberana’s site was cancelled by Blogger last December. I don’t know if this Spaniard died because I haven’t received a reply since that month, when I sent him an email. Be that as it may, I saved his posts and will be uploading PDFs of them, in the original language in which they were written, once a year has passed since the site ‘Evropa Soberana’ was cancelled.
But not even this Spaniard was the first to discover that the gospel message was a psyop of Jewry to corrupt the Greco-Roman world. The first to say so in the modern world was Nietzsche, whom both Soberana and Skrbina quote (we ignore whether Celsus or Porphyry also said so because Constantine had their books burned).
While I agree with both of them that the NT has been a psyop to tame us, I disagree with both of them on the existence of Jesus. Until November 2018 (I was very influenced by NT scholar Morton Smith) I believed there was a historical Jesus if only we ignore the miracles the evangelists tell us about. I had to make an effort to digest Richard Carrier’s work to realise that even that human Jesus didn’t exist (watch this lecture by Carrier, though I studied his thick treatise on the non-existence of Jesus).
The issue is important because, as we saw in my Daybreak’s featured essay, it is not the same thing for a human Jesus to have existed as for the tale about his life to have been a hundred per cent the literary fiction of the Jew Mark, who was extremely pissed off about the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by the Romans.
The other big difference between me and Skrbina is that, since now I don’t believe Jesus existed, I give more weight to the one who penned the elaborate tale—Mark the evangelist—than to St Paul. While potentially subversive, Paul’s theology, the first Christian author, is too esoteric and only the literary genius of Mark could paint for us a flesh-and-blood Jesus who spoke in parables and sat down to eat with publicans and sinners. Paul’s cryptic theology wouldn’t have conquered the white man’s soul unless it was transformed into an entertaining story, which is what the first evangelist did (the Jews Matthew and Luke only added verses of their own inventiveness to Mark’s original gospel).
I also disagree with Skrbina in that, unlike Nietzsche and Soberana, he doesn’t seem to realise that the egalitarian and pro-poor ideas of the NT were poison to the ancient Romans. Although Skrbina is white he doesn’t seem to be a racialist, and has barely glimpsed what his predecessors, Nietzsche and Soberana, saw more clearly.
But as I said, I am impressed that someone has published a book whose thesis is analogous to Soberana’s, which I have called the ‘masthead’ of The West’s Darkest Hour. Next week I’ll start posting excerpts from The Jesus Hoax.
How did Christianity become liberalism? At the core of liberal thought we encounter individualism, egalitarianism and universalism. When European civilisation reached its peak before the decline of ancient Greece and Rome—think of the paradigms of Sparta and Republican Rome—values were not individualistic but social; not egalitarian but aristocratic, not universalistic but ethnocentric.
Christianity transvalued such values. By introducing spiritual terror with the doctrine of eternal damnation, it inverted social values into individualistic values (as it obsessed us in medieval times with the idea of personal salvation). Through the catholicism of the Church of Rome (‘catholic’ means ‘universal’), Christianity broke down ethnic barriers to the extent of turning the so-called Second Rome, Constantinople, into a hodgepodge of ethnicities very similar to what the globalists are trying to do today in the West.
When I was a teenager and read Nietzsche for the first time (Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist by the way), I didn’t understand why Nietzsche would put a constellation of notable, more or less secular people, side by side with Christians and fulminate them all equally. It took me decades to come across the reason for all this in a text we christened here ‘The Red Giant’, to the effect that Christianity is in its most destructive phase, the secular phase, after burning its religious phase. But it was only by studying Evropa Soberana’s article on the wars between Judea and Rome that I connected the dots between the JQ and the CQ.
Both the red giant essay and Evropa Soberana’s essay were written for the internet. In the wake of last month’s accident, I recently said that I shuddered that a website could be so fragile. Now that Blogger has taken down Evropa Soberana’s site since last year, I am more aware than ever that these post-Nietzschean ideas are more fragile than I thought. Given that the Spanish author who blogged under the pen name Evropa Soberana has not uploaded his site since it was taken down (as I did after WordPress took mine down last month), I have come to think that, perhaps, this Spaniard has died.
People who are perfectly aware of the Christian question could be counted on the fingers of one hand. The CQ, as the ultimate diagnosis of white man’s disease, is for the moment an embryonic idea. None of us is wealthy enough to set up a publishing house to guard these ideas for posterity precisely because it is an embryonic idea of which Nietzsche was its precursor. My only hope is that death doesn’t surprise me and I can continue blogging for another two or three decades…
As I have said countless times, I have called the translation of a Spaniard’s essay on Judea and Rome the ‘masthead’ of this site, in the sense that it is a sort of combination of NS and Nietzsche’s thought (something the Nazis never dared to do openly).
Not only that, The Fair Race (see sidebar), which is a sort of extensive manifesto for the Aryan to wake up, contains other fundamental essays from Evropa Soberana such as the essay on Sparta and a new racial classification.
But Blogger has taken down his site!
Fortunately, I saved all his articles on a DVD. Yesterday I sent an email to the Spaniard we call here Evropa Soberana, but have had no reply.
I hope his site will be restored elsewhere.
New visitors to The West’s Darkest Hour who haven’t read his ‘Rome v. Judea; Judea v. Rome’—our masthead—should do so now.
Categories
Basic intro to eugenics
Without my editorial note, I’ll probably add Evropa Soberana’s ‘Introduction to eugenics’ as second essay in the 2020 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. Some would say that the essay is for normies, but then why folks in the Alt-Right have produced babies with non-Aryan Caucasoids (just compare the nymphs on the pic with Richard Spencer’s former wife)?
by Evropa Soberana
‘All people can be Gods people now through the New Covenant… all peoples have a right to exist and continue to exist, but no race is superior in the sight of God. Each people has been given specific attributes and responsibilities but to God every soul is valuable’ —Matt Heimbach.
Editor’s Note: Is race a social construct? This is what liberals believe—and apparently Christian white nationalists like Heimbach believe that, for God, race is a mere human construct. (No wonder why people say that liberalism is the bastard son of Christianity…)
Below, my abbreviated translation of ‘Intro a la eugenesia’, published six years ago by the Spaniard blogger Evropa Soberana:
______ 卐 ______
It is undeniable that in the species and in any human group there are diversity of qualities.
Some individuals are intelligent and others are stupid; even there are morons. Some individuals have health of steel and others are sickly. Some individuals are tall, others are short. Some individuals are strong, others are weak. Some individuals are brave, others are cowards. Some individuals are disciplined and hardworking, others are lazy and slothful. Some individuals are honest, noble, righteous and loyal, others have a clear inclination towards lying, falsehood, disloyalty and betrayal.
It is also undeniable that almost all these qualities are hereditary and depend on genetics to a greater or lesser extent (usually more greater than lesser).
The question that arises is: what qualities, from those listed above, seem more desirable to us and which ones would we like they end up prevailing in the future world if we want the Earth to be a better place?
If you are a logical person I address the following question: in the path that, as a species, we have been going through the last millennia, what qualities, of those listed above, tend to be selected?
The current mentality, produced by a civilisation isolated in its technological bubble, ignores a hundred percent the laws of Nature, of blood, of selection and of the inequality of men; laws that, necessarily, place the best ones above and the worst ones below. The modern world is, then, the perfect example of a diabolical selection in reverse, or dysgenics. Many people of inferior genetics have been perpetuated, and many people of superior genetics have not done so (for example, in medieval times because of fratricidal wars, witch hunts and celibacy of very large social sectors at the hands of the Church). That hurts the race. When the number of biological waste increases and that of bodily monuments to the gods decreases, we can be sure without any doubt that we are moving towards a future of biological trash.
Today, the individual is sacred and untouchable, while concepts such as ‘race’ and ‘homeland’ are considered abstractions, when the only abstraction is the individual who is born and dies fleetingly and while only human groups are solid and lasting realities.
In harder and more authentic times, the birth rate was vigorous, but the harshness of environmental conditions cut off the lives of the weakest. Thus, in a family of ten children, it was possible that they reached reproductive age only five. Each of these five would have, in turn, ten children, of which five would survive, the fittest. The result was that, in several generations, the defectives were virtually eradicated and the only ones left standing were the fittest. Thus, fighting against the elements, in wars, epidemics and catastrophes, the population of the planet remained stable but, nevertheless, as a species, we tended to improve generation after generation. Each ‘litter’ tended to be better than the previous one.
Humanity was not spiritually prepared for the advent of the modern industrial revolution, technology and health services. Obviously, the technology turned out to be in many ways salvation for Man, but he forgot to foresee that the immense population growth that would inevitably take place would have to be compensated in other ways. Instead of foreseeing measures that would continue to maintain a selection of the best ones to regulate the population, the uncontrolled proliferation of human beings was allowed, at the expense of Nature and of the biological quality of the population.
Ever since health services, technology, social services and Judeo-Christian morality have spread freely, a whole legion of sick, decrepit, retarded and handicapped people invade the horizon of the species that in a world dominated by Nature would never have seen the light, or they would have lasted a short time. We, who have the technique and the means to quickly and painlessly do what Nature usually does slowly and painfully, are propagating and perpetuating the inferior seeds.
It is argued that technology in itself is not good or bad, but depends on the use that is given. Today, it is being used diabolically, oriented to make us sick, to weaken us and to get away from the Earth and our own nature. In the future, when the imbecility of this civilisation has been overcome, the application of technology must take a 180-degree turn.
But then there would be a selection: we would choose the types to prevail, we would discriminate, and that is unfair (for me, of course: because I want to perpetuate my genes, and with them, the associated declines)!
It will be unfair to you, but it is fair to the race, which is more important than you. On the other hand, it is unfair for the species that your hereditary rubbish spread like the plague, no matter how much that offends you.
And yes: it sounds to me like selection. It’s like in the exams. He who gets more than a 5, approves, and he who gets 5 or less stays out… a ‘selection’ in full rule. How monstrously unfair! What ominous discrimination towards those who did not pass! How politically incorrect!
Just like those places where they do not let you pass if you do not wear shoes, or if you wear piggy pints, or if you don’t go with female company, or if you dislike the Romanian gatekeeper.
Or those expensive restaurants where you cannot go if you’re not with tie and well dressed. Or those clubs where they only accept Latin bitches. Or those 5-star hotels where if you lack dosh to pay for a suite they don’t accommodate you. Or those bars where they would crush you if you say, ‘Long Live Spain!’
This is discrimination and pure and hard selection, which surrounds us 24 hours a day, and always in much more unjust and unnatural ways than genetic discrimination.
But then a caste system would be formed and the equality would be destroyed!
Yes, but don’t we have a ‘caste system’ today? Is not that capitalist caste system based on money? Doesn’t that destroy the sacrosanct ‘equality’? Is such an economic criterion of social stratification not infinitely lower, unnatural, unjust and petty than the genetic one? Don’t it tend to enthrone mediocre, vile and malicious individuals?
Nowadays, one can be clown, brat, son of a bitch, depraved, pervert, false, traitor, snake, unfriendly, repellent, drug addict and stupid: but they will open the doors wherever he goes and will bow if he is rotten with money and makes ostentation of it visible.
Likewise, one can be an intelligent, good, healthy, brave, strong and friendly chap that the System will overlook if he is poor.
Today, a chick is ‘good’ if she has a neckline, thong, miniskirt and shows off her body, even if mediocre, while a beautiful gal is not stunning if she goes in tracksuit and shirt. Is not that tremendously unfair?
So what are you afraid of when you suggest the possibility of wiping out all that and selecting the best individuals or genes for higher breeding?
But then we would operate modifications on the individual and force changes in the whole society!
So good! You have a son. Don’t you teach him to behave so that he is more presentable? Don’t you wash him and comb him so he looks better? Won’t you give him a better education to make him wiser? Isn’t that ‘operating modifications’?
Don’t we have a ridiculous and pathetic educational system, as well as a monstrous subliminal propaganda apparatus that ‘forces change’ throughout society, even in public opinion? Are not those changes, by the way, worse?
So what are you afraid of when you suggest the possibility of operating modifications for the better?
But then we would all end up being tall, handsome, blond, strong, gifted, indestructible, immortal, perfect and blue-eyed!
And what’s wrong with that?
Let’s see… taking the genetic range of yours and your partner, they give you to choose how you want your future child to be. How would you ‘ask’ him?
Short, maybe? Dummy? Black, no doubt? Something ugly, perhaps…?
Wouldn’t you ‘ask’ for the best range within your gene pool and that of your partner?
Oh, I don’t care how he looks like, and I’ll love him anyway.
I’m proud of you. Look, I’m going to shed a little tear with so much solidarity, so much progressivism, so much equality, so much tolerance and so many rainbows. But tell me: If the look doesn’t matter, then why the hell do you dye your hair or blow it?
Why do you brush or shave? Being a man, wouldn’t you ignore an ugly gal, fat and with a goatee? Why do you buy clothes designed to enhance your virtues and hide your shortcomings? Why do you make up? Why do you wear heels? Silicone? Implants? Operation of breast augmentation? Rhinoplasty? Lifting? Skin creams? Several liposuctions? Insulin for diabetes? Extirpation of the appendix? Gadgets for asthma? Barbiturates? Sleeping pills? Glasses or contact lenses? Anabolics?
Why, in short, do you try to pretend? Isn’t it because you are aware that this is a treasure? And isn’t all that a thousand times more unnatural than being born with privileged genes?
The problem is that people work on the phenotype, disguising their defects with money, paints, patches, amendments, accessories and harmful chemicals (and expensive, which is a lucrative and convenient business for the System). Perhaps, O hypocrites, wouldn’t you kill for good genetics, for health of steel, for beauty of birth and for not needing all those ridiculous complements to disguise your superficial miseries?
Don’t you spend (you and the State) bunch of monies in such patches and globs to hide your defects and your diseases, cash that could be saved if such defects were eradicated by tuning up certain genes harmlessly? Doesn’t all the waste of keeping the retarded, terminally ill, be cut off in a single generation with a little common sense, for God’s sake?
Oh, I wouldn’t choose the looks of my son, I’d just let him be born without messing with his genes.
Once again I’m shedding a tear. Sniff.
But when you see that all your little friends go through life begetting beautiful super-babes, healthy, responsible, intelligent, strong, loving, I have the vague feeling that you don’t want to stay behind, be the less coolest mother and condemn you to have to listen to your asthmatic, diabetic or simply mediocre child, without asking yourself how you were such a scumbag as not to give him a better birth having the means to do so.
But then babies born through genetic engineering will be unnatural beings!
Those babies wouldn’t be any more unnatural than a bourgeois obese with toad face; drinker, sedentary, dressed up to the neck and spending five hours a day on TV, or taking his BMW even to go shit.
Nor would it be more unnatural than a 50-year-old fat woman, unlookable, ramshackled, wrinkled, materialistic, smoker, varicosed, sterile, without children—but yes: a progressive, activist, sponsor of children of alien races in foreign countries, with her hair dyed blond, with lots of make up, with a purse, talking on her cell phone and stuffed with gelatinous muffin tops and flabs that none wants to see.
And, of course, they won’t be more unnatural than the troop of the sick, deviant, criminals, whores, parasites, inverted and degenerates who parade through our civilisation and to whom, on the other hand, no one deprived of their right to be born.
You yourself, don’t you take the bus or go by car? Don’t you get into noisy bars to get drunk and distract your will? Don’t you have sex with a condom or with an anti-baby device? Don’t you watch TV? Isn’t all that also ‘unnatural’? So what are you telling me, fucking piece of plastic with legs? I will accept the word ‘unnatural’ as valid only and exclusively if they come from the mouth of someone like Tarzan or Mowgli.
Why, then, almost perfect children, born out of the cross-breeding of the best of the species, should be unnatural and abominable beings? Couldn’t they be ordinary people, and have the same privileges as, for example, a homosexual mestizo, obese, diabetic, squatter and carrier of various venereal diseases?
Well, that seems discrimination to me. Who decides who is perfect? Isn’t that playing to be God?
Maybe it is playing God, but since no one is going to come down from heaven to give us instructions, and since we are not going to sit and watch the species degenerate until we become sickly Tinkiwinkies fused with TV, the bag and the car at the same time, someone with judgment has to fill that void.
Bearing in mind, moreover, that the species is on the verge of catastrophe we must favour an exacerbately high birth rate among the best specimens, and prevent the worst from multiplying. Modern Western civilisation is the only civilisation in the history of humanity that does not conceive of sex, marriage, family and birth-rate as biological weapons destined to propitiate ‘the victory of the cradles’—without which ‘the victory of the soldier’ is incomplete.
It will be necessary to cross-breed keeping in mind the selection of qualities such as Nordic blood, good constitution, intelligence, strength, stature, courage, leadership ability, health, resistance, discipline and a very long etcetera, which are the qualities selected by Nature itself when the suicidal and insane Judeo-Christian morality does not interpose between Her and man. It would not be necessary to ‘force’ things in this sense (‘you two are good specimens, let’s mate’), but to encourage their desire to emerge naturally and spontaneously.
If this type of policy was supported by the techniques and means that exist today, we would have, in a matter of generations, an almost perfect race, and all the defects—together with the expenses and miseries they cause—eradicated forever.
‘Good’ is everything that improves the race; ‘bad’ is everything that makes the race worse.
From this point of view, it could be necessary to resort to artificial methods (genetic engineering, state intervention, selective crossings) to correct the indescribable nonsense caused by 2000 years of artificial dementia.
Your urban brothel lifestyle, contaminated, uprooted, unhealthy, asphalted, greasy, degenerated, drunk and immoral harm the species and that is unnatural.
Your compassion and diligence towards junkies, the defective, retarded, homosexual, dirty, delinquent, sickly, parasites and judicially sentenced is something that harms the species and that is unnatural.
Your social-economic selection is something that harms the species, that makes it worse and tends to form a type of inferior man, in addition to being a thousand times more immoral than natural-genetic selection.
Your castration of the instinct of aggressiveness is something that worsens the species and leaves us unarmed before more brutal humanities.
Genetic selection, good birth and the selective matching of the best individuals are things that benefit the race and tend to form a type of superior man. Therefore they are good and desirable in themselves.
Conclusion: as long as an intervention in human reproduction is not a reality, mate only with individuals of similar genetic and racial quality of you. Guide yourself through the traits of the body, the soul, health and the tone of skin, eyes and hair.