web analytics
Categories
Artikel auf Deutsch Ferdinand Bardamu

Warum Europäer das Christentum zurückweisen müssen, 1

Von Ferdinand Bardamu

(Aus dem Englischen ins Deutsche übertragen von Albus)

Die Krankheit des Christentums

Der Altphilologe Revilo P. Oliver bezeichnete das Christentum einmal als „geistige Syphilis“. Der Musiker Varg Vikernes sagte, das Christentum sei ein „Problem, das von der medizinischen Wissenschaft gelöst werden muss“. Er bezeichnete es als „HIV/AIDS des Geistes und der Seele“. Nur das Paradigma der sexuell übertragbaren Krankheit kann Licht auf die wahre Natur der christlichen Religion werfen.

Im Falle der Syphilis gibt es eine Latenzzeit. Dies ist vergleichbar mit dem Wachstum und der Verbreitung des Christentums im Römischen Reich bis zur Herrschaft Konstantins im frühen 4. Jahrhundert. Die Symptome einer syphilitischen Infektion nehmen an Schwere zu und führen zu einer Fülle von lebensbedrohlichen Folgen. Die durch die Syphilis verursachten neurologischen und kardiovaskulären Degenerationen schwächen den Körper des Wirtes. Hält die Infektion ohne ärztliches Eingreifen an, tritt der Tod ein. In ähnlicher Weise schwächt und zerstört das Christentum den Staat durch die Verbreitung seiner degeneriertesten und von ihm abgeleiteten Ideologien, wie Liberalismus, Sozialismus und Feminismus.

Das Christentum ist eine Perversion des Selbsterhaltungsstrebens. Das macht es zu einem Zerstörer ganzer Zivilisationen und Völker. Das Christentum anzunehmen ist nichts anderes, als sich eine Schlinge um den Hals zu legen und von einem hohen Gebäude zu springen. Es ist Selbstmord für alle, die sich dummerweise von seinen giftigen Lehren beeinflussen lassen. Die westliche Kultur wäre für immer verloren gewesen, wenn nicht die heidnische Wissenschaft und Philosophie in der Renaissance wiederentdeckt worden wäre. Zu unserem Leidwesen ist das Abendland erneut dieser geistigen Plage erlegen. Die himmlische Stadt Gottes sitzt nun über das Abendland zu Gericht. Der gekreuzigte Jude hat gesprochen: Der Okzident – gewogen und für zu leicht befunden!

Die Kirche hat die irdische Stadt Rom immer mit Verachtung betrachtet; die Wirtskultur, die die Religion so lange bebrütet hat, bedeutet dieser Hure Babylon, die sich vor allen Völkern der Welt prostituiert hat, nichts. Wenn die gesamte westliche Wissenschaft und Technologie über Nacht verschwinden würde, wäre die Kirche nicht im Geringsten davon betroffen; was zählt, ist, dass die Verkündigung des Evangeliums ohne Unterbrechung weitergeht, nichts anderes. Christentum und Orienierung an der Rasse sind im Grunde genommen unvereinbare Ideologien.

Der christlich Religiöse steht am Scheideweg; er muss sich entscheiden zwischen dem Evangelium oder dem Überleben der westlichen Zivilisation und der europäischen Rasse. Er kann nicht beides wählen. Ein echter christlicher Religiöser kann sich nur für das Überleben der christlichen Orthodoxie entscheiden, andernfalls wäre er ein Abtrünniger, dem das ewige Heil für immer verwehrt bliebe.

In einer Welt, in der das evolutionäre Überleben ein Nullsummenspiel ist, ist das Christentum der große Feind der europäischen Rasse und der westlichen Zivilisation.
 

Das Evangelium der semitischen Lügen?

Jesus Christus ist eine mythologische Figur. Die Erzählungen der Evangelien, seine persönlichen „Biografien“, beruhen nicht auf einer zugrunde liegenden historischen Realität. Was wir über Jesus wissen, stammt nicht von Augenzeugenberichten, sondern von weitgehend widersprüchlichem Hörensagen, verfasst etwa vierzig oder fünfzig Jahre nach seinem angeblichen Tod. Im Gegensatz zu dem mythischen Jesus, mit dem er oft verglichen wird, ist der Philosoph Sokrates in den historischen Aufzeichnungen wesentlich besser belegt. Zeitzeugen wie Platon und Xenophon schrieben detaillierte Berichte über das Leben und den Tod des Sokrates.

Die Entdeckung, dass es sich bei der ersten Christologie um eine „hohe“ Christologie handelte, ist ein weiterer Beweis für den mythologischen Ursprung Jesu. Dies steht im Gegensatz zu der von der älteren Bibelwissenschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts vertretenen Position, die vor allem von Wilhelm Boussets „religionsgeschichtlicher“ Schule vertreten wird. Dieser Ansatz wird am besten durch den heute vergessenen Kyrios Christos veranschaulicht. In diesem Werk vertrat Bousset die Ansicht, dass die kultische Verehrung Jesu erst dann Wirklichkeit wurde, als die ursprüngliche palästinensische Glaubensgemeinschaft hellenistischen und orientalischen Einflüssen ausgesetzt war.

Im Gegensatz zu Boussets „religionsgeschichtlichem“ Ansatz argumentieren moderne Bibelwissenschaftler, dass die ursprüngliche palästinensische Glaubensgemeinschaft mit einer „hohen“ Christologie begann. Maran atha war ein aramäisches Gebet, das den Titel Herr (YHWH) auf Jesus übertrug und ihn bat, sein Reich auf Erden zu errichten, um die eschatologischen Hoffnungen des Alten Testaments auf einen kommenden Messias zu erfüllen. Die „hohe“ Christologie, die die ersten palästinensischen Gläubigen vertraten, ebnete den Weg für die heidnischen Ansichten über Christus als Objekt religiöser Verehrung. Unter den frühesten heidnischen Gläubigen wurde Jesus verehrt, mit Gott selbst gleichgesetzt und als Kyrios bezeichnet, der griechischen Form des Tetragrammatons in der Septuaginta. Er war sogar das Ziel von Gebeten. Damit unterscheidet sich Jesus nicht von anderen mythologischen Figuren, die in der Antike verehrt wurden, wie Dionysos oder Herkules.

Die unausweichliche Schlussfolgerung ist, dass Jesus ein Hirngespinst ist, wie die Götter der alten Griechen. Denjenigen, die argumentieren, dass der jüdische Monotheismus ein Hindernis für die unmittelbare Vergöttlichung eines Sterblichen war, sei gesagt, dass die Logos-Theologie des hellenistischen Judentums das Wort Gottes erstmals in halb-anthropomorphen Begriffen darstellte und damit den Grundstein für den expliziten „binitarischen“ Charakter des Urchristentums legte.
 

Die Religion des Nahen Ostens schlechthin

Das Christentum ist in erster Linie eine Erfindung der meist ungebildeten palästinensischen Juden des 1. Jahrhunderts, von denen Saulus von Tarsus der einflussreichste war. Er änderte später seinen Namen in Paulus. Er war der Prototyp des „hässlichen mickrigen Juden“ der antiken Welt. Selbst Paulus musste zugeben, dass er von seinen Gegnern oft als „schwach“ oder „unscheinbar“ verunglimpft wurde. Eine außerkanonische Quelle aus dem 2. Jahrhundert verstärkt diesen Eindruck, indem sie den Apostel als klein, kahl, „breitbeinig“, mit langen Augenbrauen und Hakennase beschreibt. Er war die lebende Verkörperung des stereotypischen Juden. Wenn Paulus nur eine Karikatur gewesen wäre, hätte er sich bei den Juden in Streichers Der Stürmer gut aufgehoben gefühlt. Paulus war der erste, der das Christentum über das Mittelmeer verbreitete und der neuen Missionsreligion einen durch und durch expansionistischen Charakter verlieh. Er legte den Grundstein für die christliche Theologie und diente als ursprünglicher Katalysator für die „syphilitische“ Infektion, die nun Europa ruiniert hat.

Das Christentum ist die Religion des Nahen Ostens schlechthin. Nur weil die Sprache des Neuen Testaments Koine-Griechisch ist, ist diese Religion nicht weniger als eine semitische Erfindung. Das Gegenteil zu behaupten wäre so, als würde man die Analekten des Konfuzius ins Englische übersetzen und dann behaupten, der Konfuzianismus sei eine westliche Religion, weil das Medium, das für seine Übermittlung verwendet wird, die englische Sprache ist. Selbst die wenigen heidnischen Elemente in der Religion, wie die Verwendung des stoischen Logos im johanneischen Prolog, werden durch die Brille des alttestamentlichen Judentums gefiltert. Die Erzählungen der Evangelien sind jüdische Legenden, die auf jüdischen Vorstellungen von Messias, Auferstehung, Reich Gottes usw. beruhen. Das Christentum ist nicht nur durch und durch jüdischen Ursprungs, sondern auch die wichtigsten theologischen Lehren des Neuen Testaments sind aus dem Alten Testament und dem intertestamentarischen Judentum der griechischen und hasmonäischen Zeit abgeleitet. Die Verbreitung des Christentums über den Mittelmeerraum war das Werk unternehmungslustiger, umherziehender Juden.

Als das Christentum im Reich einen festen institutionellen Rahmen erhielt, begannen die Theologen, mit Juden und Heiden zu diskutieren, die der neuen Religion feindlich gegenüberstanden. Diese Diskussionen erforderten die Übernahme griechischer und lateinischer philosophischer Terminologie, um die orthodoxe Lehre präziser und klarer auszudrücken. Dies geschah nicht nur zu apologetischen Zwecken, sondern auch, um die kultivierten Heiden für sich zu gewinnen, indem man den semitischen Lehren des Urchristentums einen dünnen Anstrich intellektueller Seriosität verlieh. Trotz dieser kulturellen Anleihen bleibt das Christentum eine im Wesentlichen semitische Religion.
 

Eine Religion für einfältige Menschen

Gelehrte haben schon lange festgestellt, dass das Christentum schon immer eine große Anziehungskraft auf den untersten Abschaum der Menschheit ausgeübt hat. Nur wenige Intellektuelle wurden jemals von der Religion angezogen; diejenigen, die konvertierten, wurden zu anti-intellektuellen Extremisten, die der westlichen Kultur und Zivilisation den Rücken kehrten. Der lateinische Theologe Tertullian aus dem 2. Jahrhundert, einer der bigottesten christlichen Anti-Intellektuellen, der je gelebt hat, fragte berühmt: „Was hat Athen eigentlich mit Jerusalem zu tun? Welche Übereinstimmung gibt es zwischen der Akademie und der Kirche?… Wir wollen keine neugierige Disputation, nachdem wir nun Christus Jesus beitzen, keine weiteren Nachforschungen, nachdem wir des Evangeliums teilhaftig geworden! Mit unserem Glauben haben wir alles, wir wollen nichts anderes.“ Zeitgenössische heidnische Philosophen stellten häufig fest, dass die ersten Bekehrten aus den Reihen dummer, unwissender Menschen stammten. Celsus, ein früher heidnischer Kritiker der neuen Religion, schrieb, es sei christliche Politik, die Weisen und Gebildeten abzuweisen; nur Knaben, Narren und Sklaven kämen als potenzielle Konvertiten in Frage. „Ihre Lieblingsausdrücke“, schrieb Celsus, „sind: ‚Stell keine Fragen, glaube einfach!‘ und: ‚Dein Glaube wird dich retten!‘ ‚Die Weisheit dieser Welt‘, so sagen sie, ‚ist böse; einfältig zu sein, bedeutet gut zu sein‘.“

Das gebildete Heidentum verachtete den Volksglauben. Um des Glaubens würdig zu sein, mussten die Religionen logisch konsistent und empirisch fundiert sein. Sie mussten eine gewisse Grundlage in Wissenschaft und Philosophie haben. Alles andere war „Aberglaube“. „In der klassischen Antike wurde Aberglaube als Angst vor „Dämonen“ und als Glaube an die übernatürliche Verursachung natürlicher und physischer Phänomene, wie z. B. Krankheiten, definiert. Für die heidnischen Intellektuellen verkörperte das Christentum alles, was sie am Aberglauben verabscheuten. Was das Christentum besonders verwerflich machte, war, dass es die schlimmsten Eigenschaften des Judentums übernommen hatte, nämlich Intoleranz und Bigotterie. Außerdem verbreitete sich die Religion wie eine ansteckende Krankheit. So sah es der heidnische Intellektuelle: Das Christentum wurde von beschränkten Menschen für beschränkte Menschen erdacht und verbreitet, vor allem weil es dem Aberglauben der Massen sehr ähnlich war.

Der Siegeszug des Christentums führte in der Spätantike zu einer völligen Umkehrung der heidnischen Wertvorstellungen der Eliten. Der gebildete Mensch übernahm nun mit ganzem Herzen den Glauben der halbbarbarischen Menge. Der heilige Augustinus, der ursprünglich eine klassische Ausbildung genossen hatte und in Rhetorik geschult war, konnte mit Zuversicht behaupten, dass alle Krankheiten übernatürlichen Ursprungs seien, und setzte sich damit offen über die etablierte griechische medizinische Praxis hinweg. Während vor Konstantin eine beträchtliche Kluft zwischen dem Glauben der gebildeten Heiden und dem des einfachen Volkes bestand, gab es nach Konstantin keine solche Kluft mehr. Zum ersten Mal in der klassischen Antike waren die Elite und die Massen in Bezug auf den Glauben nicht mehr zu unterscheiden, und alle hingen naiv der Verehrung von Heiligen, ihren Reliquien und Wundern an.

Der Triumph des Christentums im Westen war der Triumph einer tiefgreifenden Beschränktheit, die Jahrhunderte andauerte.
 

Das Christentum: Zerstörer von Imperien

Das Christentum war ein Schlüsselfaktor für den Niedergang Roms. Als die Kirche zur dominierenden Institution der Spätantike wurde, belastete sie die wirtschaftlichen Ressourcen des Reiches erheblich. Dabei handelte es sich nicht um einen einfachen Vermögenstransfer; die Gelder für heidnische Tempel und Heiligtümer wurden nicht einfach aus den weltlichen Kassen abgezweigt, um das kirchliche Wachstum zu finanzieren. Anders als die heidnischen Kulte wurde die nizäische Staatsreligion von einer riesigen zentralisierten Bürokratie verwaltet, deren Reichweite das ganze Reich umfasste und deren Beamte zahlreicher und besser bezahlt waren als die des Staates. Einnahmen, die für die Verbesserung der Infrastruktur wie den Bau von Straßen, Brücken, Aquädukten und Theatern hätten verwendet werden können, flossen in den Bau nutzloser Gebäude wie Kirchen und Klöster und in die Ernährung von „Müßiggängern“: Mönchen, Priestern und Bischöfen, die nichts von materiellem oder wirtschaftlichem Wert für den Staat beitrugen. Diese enorme Verschwendung von Ressourcen wird noch erstaunlicher, wenn man den relativ niedrigen Stand der technischen und wissenschaftlichen Entwicklung im Reich bedenkt. Wirklich arbeitssparende Geräte waren selten, so dass produktive Arbeit von Hand oder mit Hilfe von Ochsen verrichtet wurde. Die Menge an Arbeitskräften, die benötigt wurde, um die „nutzlosen Mäuler“ der christlichen Kirche zu ernähren, zu kleiden und unterzubringen, war erheblich größer als die eines typischen Beamten im römischen Staatsdienst.

Die enormen Talente von Männern wie Athanasius und Johannes Chrysostomus, die als fähige Generäle und Herrscher besser für die Verteidigung des Reiches geeignet gewesen wären, wurden stattdessen für die Ausweitung der Macht und des Einflusses der Kirche im täglichen Leben verschwendet. In der Tat ist die Verschwendung wertvoller Arbeitskraft und materieller Ressourcen im Dienste „nutzloser Mäuler“ ein wiederkehrendes Thema in der Geschichte des Christentums. Die christliche Sorge um „nutzlose Mäuler“ hatte eine zutiefst dysgenische Wirkung auf den europäischen Genpool. Die geistige Elite Europas wurde ermutigt, sich aus der Gesellschaft zurückzuziehen und sich der spirituellen Disziplin der ewigen Keuschheit oder Jungfräulichkeit zu verschreiben, anstatt ihre Gene weiterzugeben. Dies wirkte sich negativ auf den durchschnittlichen IQ der Bevölkerung aus und hinterließ der Kirche eine Fülle leicht zu kontrollierender und gefügiger Leibeigener, die mit jeder Generation weniger in der Lage waren, die Zivilisation um sie herum zu erhalten. Thomas von Aquin ist das Hauptopfer dieser zerstörerischen Verschwendung menschlicher Talente. Sein Genie wäre in der Medizin oder der Experimentalphysik besser aufgehoben gewesen; stattdessen wurde es törichterweise für die Engelslehre und anderen mittelalterlichen Aberglauben vergeudet.

Die schlimmsten Zerstörungen, die dem westlichen Reich zugefügt wurden, wurden natürlich von Christen verübt. Die große Plünderung Roms im Jahr 411 – die als entscheidender Moment für den Niedergang des Abendlandes gilt – wurde von einem arianischen Christen verübt. Die Plünderung Roms im Jahr 455, die noch verheerender war als der erste Barbareneinfall in die ewige Stadt, wurde von einem anderen Christen verübt, der zuvor das Reich geschwächt hatte, indem er die Provinz Afrika als sein persönliches Lehen an sich riss. Und natürlich war auch derjenige, der den endgültigen Gnadenstoß versetzte, der die römische Kaiserherrschaft im Westen beendete und das dunkle Mittelalter in Westeuropa einleitete, ein Christ.

Apologeten leugnen in der Regel die Rolle des Christentums beim Niedergang des Reiches und erwidern, dass Byzanz den Untergang des lateinischen Westens überlebt hat. Unsere christlichen Rechtfertiger übersehen dabei, dass der Osten reicher und bevölkerungsreicher war. Dadurch konnte der byzantinische Staat den enormen internen Schaden, der durch die Plünderungen des parasitären nizäischen Staatskultes verursacht wurde, besser auffangen. Es gibt auch geografische Gründe für das Überleben von Byzanz. Der östliche Kaiser hatte eine viel kürzere Grenze zu verteidigen. Konstantinopel, die kaiserliche Hauptstadt, war von einer Reihe massiver Befestigungsanlagen umgeben, die von Konstantin begonnen worden waren und im frühen 5. Jahrhundert vollendet wurden. Diese waren für barbarische Angreifer praktisch uneinnehmbar. Anders als der Osten hatte der Westen keine zweite Verteidigungslinie.

Der nizäische Staatskult zwang Rom in die Knie und zog den Vorhang über dem klassischen Altertum zu. Der zivilisatorische Zusammenbruch, der darauf folgte, ist als das dunkle Zeitalter bekannt, in dem das nachrömische Europa einen erheblichen Rückgang des Lebensstandards erlebte. In der Zeit, in der die Christen am mächtigsten waren, verfielen die Straßen und Überlandwege, die das Reich durchzogen; Brücken und Aquädukte wurden praktisch nicht mehr benutzt; das Wissen um das Bauen mit Stein und Mörtel verschwand fast völlig; die Alphabetisierung, soweit sie überhaupt vorhanden war, verschwand mit Ausnahme des Klerus; die persönlichen Hygienestandards verschwanden; es gab keine Sanitäranlagen mehr in den Häusern; große Teile des ehemaligen Reiches wurden entvölkert, und schließlich wurde auch die Verwendung von Münzen fast völlig eingestellt, was das Ende der komplexen Geldwirtschaft der römischen Zeit bedeutete. Die christliche Hegemonie in Byzanz führte zu einer jahrhundertelangen wissenschaftlichen und technologischen Stagnation. Es gab sogar ein Byzantinisches Dunkles Zeitalter, das Hunderte von Jahren andauerte. In dieser Zeit schrumpften die Grenzen, die Städte wurden auf befestigte Enklaven reduziert, das Geld wich dem Tauschhandel, und die byzantinische Literatur bestand aus einer Fülle fader Hagiographie.

Dies war die Welt des Christentums: eine Welt tiefster Unwissenheit und Dummheit, in der brutale Männer unter dem Deckmantel der Religion eine schwache und hilflose Bevölkerung tyrannisierten. Das dunkle Zeitalter war das Geschenk des Christentums an Europa. Es wurde von Christen eingeführt, von Christen geleitet und von Christen jahrhundertelang aufrechterhalten. Europa erlebte eine seiner dunkelsten Stunden, als die Christen auf dem Höhepunkt ihrer Macht und ihres Einflusses waren.
 

Das Christentum: Bringer der Unwissenheit

Das Christentum ist gefährlich, weil es Ignoranz und Dummheit über die Vernunft stellt. Im Evangelium ermutigt Jesus seine Jünger, wie „Schafe“ zu sein, die dümmsten und fügsamsten aller Tiere. Hier ist der ideale Christ eine Person mit geringer Intelligenz und wenig Bildung. Jesus sagt, dass man nicht in das Himmelreich kommen kann, wenn man nicht wieder ein Kind wird. Als Antwort auf den zweifelnden Thomas sagte Jesus: „Selig sind, die nicht sehen und doch glauben.“ Der Apostel Paulus griff diesen Standpunkt auf, als er schrieb: „Die Weisheit dieser Welt ist eine Torheit in den Augen Gottes.“ Durch ein Programm religiöser Indoktrination von der Wiege bis zur Bahre zwang die Kirche die Europäer, diese Überzeugungen als göttlich geoffenbarte Wahrheiten des Himmels zu akzeptieren. Die weit verbreitete Akzeptanz dieser Überzeugungen trug dazu bei, den wissenschaftlichen und technischen Fortschritt in Europa über tausend Jahre lang zu bremsen.

Die Kirchenväter propagierten die „heilige Unwissenheit“ als ein Ideal, dem man nacheifern sollte. Tertullian ist unter den patristischen Schriftstellern für seinen militanten Anti-Intellektualismus bekannt. Obwohl er zu den prominentesten Verächtern der klassischen Philosophie und Wissenschaft gehörte, war er keineswegs in der Minderheit. Seine Haltung ist typisch für kirchliche Amtsträger in der patristischen und mittelalterlichen Zeit. Zu dieser langen Liste christlicher Fanatiker gehört auch Tatian, ein bekannter Apologet, der alle heidnischen wissenschaftlichen und philosophischen Errungenschaften als wertlos, ja sogar als schädlich für die christlichen Gläubigen ansah. Clemens von Alexandrien, ein weiterer prominenter vornizäischer Schriftsteller, vertrat die Ansicht, dass Bildung für das Heil nicht notwendig sei. Origenes gab seine umfangreiche Sammlung heidnischer Literatur wegen der grundsätzlichen Unvereinbarkeit von weltlicher Bildung und Bibelstudium weg. Die Apostolischen Konstitutionen aus dem 4. Jahrhundert, ein frühes Werk des kanonischen Rechts, das im Osten als maßgebend galt, befiehlt dem gläubigen Christen, alles heidnische Lernen als „fremdartig“ und „teuflisch“ zu meiden.

Basilius von Caesarea riet den Gläubigen: „Lasst uns Christen die Einfachheit unseres Glaubens den Demonstrationen der menschlichen Vernunft vorziehen … Denn viel Zeit mit der Erforschung des Wesens der Dinge zu verbringen, würde der Aufrichtung der Kirche nicht dienen.“ Ironischerweise wird Basilius von den Apologeten des Christentums als ein Beispiel für Mäßigung angesehen. Er war der Ansicht, dass der Nutzen heidnischer Literatur vom Grad der Übereinstimmung mit der Heiligen Schrift abhängen sollte, was Philosophie und Wissenschaft zu einer Art zweit- oder drittklassiger Magd der Theologie machte. Die Schriften, die am wenigsten mit der Bibel übereinstimmten, also fast alle weltliche Philosophie und Wissenschaft, sollten in den Mülleimer geworfen werden.

Athanasius von Alexandria verachtete alle weltliche Weisheit als Blasphemie gegen den gekreuzigten Gott. In seiner berühmten Hagiographie des heiligen Antonius wird der ungebildete Mönch als weiser Mann dargestellt. Trotz seines Analphabetentums gilt Antonius’ Einsiedlerdasein als „vollendetes Vorbild für ein anachoretisches Leben“. Antonius bittet sogar heidnische Philosophen, die ihn besuchen, in seiner „Weisheit“ ihm gleich zu werden, obwohl er keine Ahnung von weltlicher Bildung hat.

Die Predigten von Johannes Chrysostomus, einem bekannten Anti-Intellektuellen des 4. Jahrhunderts, sind voll von abscheulichen Verurteilungen von Philosophie und Wissenschaft. Er forderte die Gläubigen sogar regelmäßig auf, ihren Geist von aller weltlichen Weisheit zu befreien. Johannes wetterte routinemäßig gegen das klassische Erbe und befürwortete dessen systematische Ausrottung, aber nur, um die Macht und den Einfluss des Evangeliums im täglichen Leben zu verstärken. Johannes predigte vor einem elitären Publikum in Konstantinopel und vertrat die Vision eines radikal reinen und asketischen Christentums, das von allen heidnischen Einflüssen befreit war. In Anbetracht seiner rednerischen Fähigkeiten und seiner beträchtlichen Invektiven sowie seines hohen Ranges im patristischen Kanon kann kein Zweifel daran bestehen, dass Johannes’ großer Hass auf das weltliche Wissen bei der Entscheidung der Kirche, die Schriften der klassischen Antike zu zensieren und zu unterdrücken, eine einflussreiche Rolle spielte.

Johannes Cassian, der große geistliche Führer der lateinischen Christenheit, riet dem Mönch, zu seiner persönlichen Erbauung die Gesellschaft ungebildeter Bauern aufzusuchen. Der Abt Arsenius, ein ehemaliger kaiserlicher Hauslehrer, betrachtete seine Bildung in klassischem Griechisch und Latein als minderwertig gegenüber der „Weisheit“ der ungebildeten ägyptischen Mönche. Der christliche Asket und Theologe Evagrius Ponticus (4. Jahrhundert) erklärte: „Selig ist der Mensch, der unendliche Unwissenheit erlangt hat.“ Die Statuta Ecclesia Antiqua aus dem 5. Jahrhundert verbot dem Klerus die Lektüre heidnischer Bücher, es sei denn, deren antichristliche und ketzerische Ansichten mussten widerlegt werden. Dies wurde in das Decretum Gratiani aus dem 12. Jahrhundert aufgenommen, das bis 1918 eine Quelle des Kirchenrechts der römischen Kirche war.

Obwohl das Christentum als eine Schriftreligion gilt, wurden die christlichen Lehren bis zur Erfindung des Buchdrucks durch Gutenberg im Jahr 1440 mündlich weitergegeben. Das patristische und mittelalterliche Christentum sah die Alphabetisierung in einem negativen Licht. Die kirchliche Tradition hatte immer behauptet, dass die ersten Apostel in einem Zustand „gesegneter Unwissenheit“ lebten. In Nachahmung dieser Männer weigerten sich die Christen, ihren Gemeinden das Lesen und Schreiben beizubringen, insbesondere in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten des Bestehens der Kirche. Die vornizäische Kirche erstellte keine Bibelübersetzungen für die einheimische Bevölkerung in den Provinzen und an den Grenzen, obwohl diese seit den ersten Tagen des Urchristentums in regelmäßigem Kontakt mit reisenden Missionaren stand. Die wenigen patristischen Ermahnungen zum Bibellesen richteten sich an eine kleine Minderheit von gebildeten Christen. Jahrhunderte theologischer Kontroversen trugen dazu bei, dass das Bibellesen als subversives Unterfangen angesehen wurde. Der Klerus riet aktiv davon ab und sorgte dafür, dass das einfache Volk unter seiner Obhut über Generationen hinweg Analphabeten bleiben würde. Im Mittelalter wurden Kirchenkonzilien einberufen, um den Laien den Besitz der Bibel in lateinischer oder einer der romanischen Sprachen zu verbieten. Wer dabei ertappt wurde, dass er die Bibel in die Volkssprache übersetzte, auf den wartete der Scheiterhaufen.

Die Paideia [Erziehung, Bildung] litt unter der neuen kirchlichen und christlich-kaiserlichen Bürokratie. Die Beamten von Kirche und Staat hatten Wichtigeres zu tun, als kleinen Kindern die Grundzüge der lateinischen Grammatik und des Rechnens beizubringen. Der Analphabetismus nahm zu und verbreitete sich unter christlichem Einfluss weiter. Die bildungsfeindlichen Prioritäten der Kirche, die im Laufe der Zeit immer stärker wurden, hielten immer mehr Menschen davon ab, Bildung zu erlangen.

Dies setzte sich fort, bis die Alphabetisierung aus ganzen Regionen des nachrömischen Europas verschwand. Die tief sitzende Feindseligkeit der christlichen Kirche gegenüber Lernen und Gelehrsamkeit sowie ihre positive Einschätzung von Unwissenheit und Analphabetismus hielten das westliche Europa über Jahrhunderte auf einem prähistorischen Entwicklungsstand.

Das 4. Jahrhundert, in dem das Christentum seinen Siegeszug antrat, war eine Zeit des bedeutenden geistigen Niedergangs. Es gab keine großen Persönlichkeiten in Wissenschaft, Architektur oder Medizin. Im 4. Jahrhundert gab es keine Philosophen vom Kaliber eines Plotin; es gab keine großen Schriftsteller oder Dramatiker. Die Schulen wurden geschlossen, die höheren Studien wurden aufgegeben, und die heidnischen Bibliotheken wurden verschlossen. Die intellektuellen und künstlerischen Erzeugnisse der Zeit waren von geringer Tiefe und Substanz. Die allgegenwärtige christliche Feindseligkeit gegenüber dem Leben des Geistes führte zu diesem Zeitalter der Sterilität.
 

Die christliche Zerstörung des künstlerischen Erbes Europas

Theodosius war der erste christliche Kaiser, der dem Heidentum systematisch den Garaus machte. Er begann mit einer Reihe von drakonischen Maßnahmen, kurz nachdem er 380 n. Chr. das nizäische Christentum zur offiziellen Staatsreligion erklärt hatte. Gegen Ende seiner Regierungszeit wurden die Gesetze zum Verbot der hellenistischen Religion – die so genannten Theodosianischen Dekrete – immer härter. Dieses kaiserliche Programm des kulturellen Völkermords mündete in den letzten Jahrzehnten des 4. Jahrhunderts in eine Orgie der Gewalt und Zerstörung.

Der kommende Sturm wurde von dem christlichen Fanatiker Maternus Cynegius vorausgesagt, der 384 von Theodosius zum Prätorianerpräfekten ernannt wurde. Unter dem kaiserlichen Befehl, heidnische Opfer und Weissagung zu unterdrücken, startete er seinen ganz persönlichen Kreuzzug gegen die hellenistische Religion. Mit Hilfe von Bischöfen, Priestern und einem Heer randalierender Mönche zerstörte Cynegius einige der heiligsten Stätten im griechischen Osten. Viele dieser Gebäude beherbergten die größten Kunstschätze des Altertums.

Archäologische Funde aus dem östlichen Mittelmeerraum belegen eine erhebliche Zerstörung und Schändung von Tempeln. Dies kann auf die Zeit von Cynegius’ Tätigkeit im Osten datiert werden. Zeitgenössische hagiografische Quellen wie die Vita Porphyrii bezeugen die spektakuläre religiöse Gewalt gegen die heidnischen Heiligtümer und Tempel in der Levante. Im Jahr 386 flehte der heidnische Redner Libanius, ein scharfer Kritiker des christlichen Bildersturms, Theodosius an, die Tempel und Heiligtümer des Reiches zu erhalten. Er sprach von Heerscharen „schwarzgekleideter Mönche“, Vielfraße und Trunkenbolde, die „mit Stöcken, Steinen und Eisenstangen und in manchen Fällen, wenn sie diese verschmähen, mit Händen und Füßen auf die Tempel losgehen. Dann folgt die völlige Verwüstung, das Abreißen der Dächer, der Abriss der Mauern, das Niederreißen der Statuen und das Umstürzen der Altäre, und die Priester müssen entweder stillhalten oder sterben. Nachdem sie einen Altar abgerissen haben, eilen sie zu einem anderen und zu einem dritten, und Trophäen stapeln sich auf Trophäen, entgegen dem Gesetz. Solche Schandtaten kommen sogar in den Städten vor, aber am häufigsten sind sie auf dem Lande. Der Feinde sind viele, die die einzelnen Angriffe verüben, aber nach ihren zahllosen Verbrechen versammelt sich dieses versprengte Gesindel, und sie sind in Ungnade gefallen, es sei denn, sie haben die übelste Schandtat begangen…“

Die Christen verwüsteten nicht nur Tempel, sie verstümmelten auch heidnische Statuen und verunstalteten Inschriften. Die gewaltsame Zerstörung heidnischer religiöser Artefakte ist archäologisch gut belegt in der Levante und in Afrika, wo die christlichen Bilderstürmer am aktivsten waren. Dieses Zerstörungsmuster erstreckte sich über das gesamte Reich und lässt sich auch an so weit entfernten Orten wie Nordwestgallien und Britannien nachweisen. Weitaus zerstörerischer als die Zerstörung der Tempel durch christliche Eiferer war die kaiserliche Anti-Heiden-Gesetzgebung, die alle Subventionen für die einst blühenden polytheistischen Kulte des Reiches beendete. Ohne Zuschüsse aus der kaiserlichen Staatskasse konnten die Heiden ihre religiösen Monumente nicht mehr instand halten und reparieren. Verstärkt wurde dies durch zusätzliche Gesetze, die die Schließung aller Heiligtümer und Tempel anordneten und Heiden mit dem Tod bedrohten, wenn sie weiterhin Haruspizien und Tieropfer praktizierten. Dies führte dazu, dass die wichtigsten Bauwerke und Kunstdenkmäler des Reiches dauerhaft dem Verfall preisgegeben waren und schließlich zu Grunde gingen.

Der weit verbreitete christliche Vandalismus der Spätantike war die größte Kampagne der Weltgeschichte zur Zerstörung des künstlerischen und architektonischen Erbes einer ganzen Zivilisation. Diese Kampagne zur Auslöschung der großen Monumente der Antike aus dem Gedächtnis war wesentlich zerstörerischer als die barbarischen Invasionen des 5. Jahrhunderts. Die Christen des späten Kaiserreichs waren die ISIS oder die Taliban ihrer Zeit, auch wenn dies eine Untertreibung sein mag, da die Christen um ein Vielfaches zerstörerischer waren. Ohne diese zusätzliche Zutat der ritualisierten Gewalt wäre das Christentum nie die dominierende Religion der antiken Welt geworden.

Categories
Daybreak Publishing Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (book) Ferdinand Bardamu

August 2020 edition

Editor’s preface

This collection of essays is the result of eleven years of following closely the movement known as white nationalism, which I discovered while living in Gran Canaria: an island near Africa that belongs to Spain.

Part I explains the Jewish question. I reproduce two articles, the first one by William Pierce and the second by a Jew, Marcus Eli Ravage: the only article by a Jew to appear in this collection. The Third Reich propaganda ministry used Ravage’s article as devastating admission of the reality of the Jewish problem in the Czernowitzer Allgemeine Zeitung of September 2, 1933.

Although Pierce believed that the primary cause of white decline was Jewish subversion, he was aware of the Christian question: a subject explained in Part II of this book. Unlike Pierce, we shall see Christianity as the greatest conquest of the Aryan soul by Jewry, and therefore the primary, not the secondary, cause of the West’s darkest hour. Given that I consider Pierce the most brilliant mind America has produced, I find it very embarrassing to concede that the Jew Ravage had a better perspective on the ultimate cause of white decline.

Since Pierce died in 2002, American white nationalism has been represented by some major figures and their respective webzines: for example, the Americans Kevin MacDonald, Jared Taylor, and Greg Johnson. The current legacy of these intellectuals is of much lower quality than Pierce’s, as unlike the latter none seem to recognise the reality of the Christian question. That Jews cannot be the primary cause of white decline on the American continent should be as obvious as pointing out some facts. The Spanish and Portuguese irreparably corrupted their blood in colonial times by marrying Amerindian women, and Anglo-Germans north of the Rio Grande waged an anti-racist war when Lincoln was president. All of this happened before the Jews took over the media in the West. Perhaps the most respected figure in white nationalism today is Professor Emeritus Kevin MacDonald. In Ferdinand Bardamu’s essay on Part II, he includes a devastating critique of MacDonald for his failure to recognise the Christian problem.

While it is true that in his weekly radio lectures Pierce regarded Jewish subversion as the primary cause of white decline, in Who We Are, his history of the white race, we see a perspective in which Pierce seems to have perfect awareness of the Christian problem. Perhaps because many of his listeners were American Christians Pierce had to do something similar to what Hitler did: not be hostile to Christianity in public, only in private with his closest friends. For that reason, in part III it is reproduced much of Pierce’s story of the white race.

Of the articles in this compilation, the one that gets us to the core of the Judeo-Christian question is the essay by Evropa Soberana, penname of a Spanish writer whom I translated into English. Soberana’s essay uncovers the best-kept secret of ancient history: the apocalypse that the Aryan world suffered when the Judeo-Christians destroyed and inverted the values of the Greco-Roman culture 1,700 years ago. As explained in the footnotes, I did some modifications to Soberana’s essay and even took the liberty to correct some errors or add a few short phrases of my own, and the epigraphs at the top of the essay.

Soberana mentions Jesus of Nazareth. Before my ideological maturity I viewed the historical Jesus as a human, in contrast to the Christ of dogma. But recently New Testament scholar Richard Carrier has demonstrated that the textual product of the evangelists is literary fiction. In other words, not even the ‘historical Jesus’ of secular exegetes existed: it is a character as mythical as Romulus or Osiris. On the other hand, Soberana does not reference all of his statements. For a more academic approach to this subject, see our abridged edition of Christianity’s Criminal History by Karlheinz Deschner (distributed also by Lulu, Inc., Second edition 2020). In the original German edition, Deschner uses thousands of footnotes in his monumental ten-volume work, Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums.

As Nordicism is almost a taboo among most white advocates, in Part IV I include two articles on the same topic: one from a European and another from an American who published his piece on the ethnicity of the ancient Greeks and Romans in Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance. Part V on failed masculine cultures reproduces other translations of Evropa Soberana’s essays on the Spartans, the Berserkers and the Vikings. What can we say about the brutal childrearing methods described in those essays when compared with my eleven-book autobiographical study on child abuse, De Jesús a Hitler, excerpted in Day of Wrath? In the first place, the child abuse that Soberana recounts is not the type of abuse that I had investigated before becoming racially conscious. Those who understand the trauma model of mental disorders know that not even the most horrible wars produce the kind of injury to the inner self that causes madness. If the abuse affects the community, as was the case of Spartan boys, the psychological toll is of an entirely different nature.

What the West needs at present is a sort of balance between the eternal masculine—Sparta, the origins of Rome, the Vikings—and the eternal feminine that presently is engulfing the male psyche throughout the West. The Third Reich incorporated and eliminated—like the Hegelian aufheben—the contradictions of the extreme yin that the West suffers today with its Jesus archetype, and the extreme Yang of the Berserkers. To save the white race from the extinction already looming on the horizon, the role model is National Socialist Germany, the golden mean between the polar opposites. Nazi Germany was a highly cultured society as well as a tough military state, as we shall see in Part VI. Unlike Greece, Rome, and the Vikings, Hitler’s National Socialism did not fail. It was assassinated by Anglo-Saxon Christians and neo-Christian Soviets who represented two sides of the same egalitarian coin. In one of the articles of this compilation we will see that Hitler said that Bolshevism was axiologically derived from Christianity.

This is why what happened in the Second World War is so tragic. Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947, is a book authored by Thomas Goodrich, published ten years ago. Goodrich’s book tells about a Holocaust committed by the Allies on the Germans, even after the war was over. If someone asked me to recommend a single text in the present compilation, I would unquestionably recommend J. A. Sexton’s review of Hellstorm that appears in Part VI. The crime that the Anglo-Saxons committed in World War II is so astronomic that it may cost the very existence of the white race, as we can see in Pierce’s essay in Part VII.

Finally, the appendix reproduces another essay by Evropa Soberana, translated, adapted and abridged for this book. Many images, including a complex phylogenetic tree that summarises the new racial classification, have not been included in the present abridgement. Most endnotes of the original text have also been removed, although some of them merged within the main text.

To date, the lack of sponsorship has prevented the researcher Valg and Soberana from writing the second part of the new racial classification. From the Editor’s point of view, it is impossible to evaluate it scientifically because physical anthropology has almost become heresy in the academy after World War II. If the Third Reich had been allowed to prosper, there would now be a constellation of physical anthropologists, from the Atlantic to the Urals, who would have developed this science and many articles in peer-reviewed journals would be available today.

C. T.
August 2020

 

______ 卐 ______

Remember that I delete obsolete PDFs every time I upload an updated version of my books. A printed copy of this book is unavailable for the moment due to Lulu’s breakdown (see my previous post today). But the updated PDF is available here.

For those who have not read Hitler’s table talks, I would suggest reading pages 541-550 of the free PDF on how this Cassandra said in the 1940s what we have been saying here in the 21st century.

The essays of mine that I removed from this August 2020 edition will appear along with another twenty of my essays in a separate book.

Categories
Catholic Church Charlemagne Christian art Constantinople Destruction of Greco-Roman world Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (book) Ferdinand Bardamu Friedrich Nietzsche Goths Individualism Judea v. Rome (masthead of this site) Karlheinz Deschner Kevin MacDonald Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) March of the Titans (book) Martin Luther Miscegenation New Spain Old Testament Painting Portugal Racial right Reconquista Reformation Renaissance Richard Carrier Spain Temple of Artemis Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Kevin MacDonald’s apologetics

Update of September 16, 2020: This essay has been edited for inclusion in my book Daybreak. I would suggest reading the much-corrected text instead of the text below (see ‘Two essential books’, which contains a link to the Daybreak PDF).
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Kevin MacDonald’s Preface to Giles Corey’s
The Sword of Christ
(originally published: here)

Slightly edited, this entry copies and pastes the previous entries from the first to facilitate the visitor to read them in due order.
 

§ 1

In this first entry about such book-review I just want to comment on a couple of subjects: the painting that appears in MacDonald’s book-review (see above) and what a commenter said on Counter-Currents.

As we can see in the comments section, several Counter-Currents commenters are either Christians or sympathetic to Judeo-Christianity, so they liked McDonald’s pro-Christian essay-review and some of them even have requested Corey’s book. One exception was commenter Asdk:

If we were to apply Kevin Macdonald’s perspective on the culture of critique to modern ideologies, Christianity would be very easily understood. Christianity is an ideology created by Jews to benefit the Jewish people, to break the feeling of tribal union of the peoples who are rivals to Jewish hegemony…

We can already imagine how different white nationalism would be if the webzine admins of Counter-Currents and The Occidental Observer were like Asdk!

Regarding Giovanni Gasparro’s painting, The Martyrdom of St. Simon of Trento reproduced at the beginning of this entry, it was painted this very year in old baroque style. The idea to create such painting reminds me of one of my favourite paintings by Hieronymus Bosch, reproduced below. The idea is the same: the bad guys—Jews—surround the child to be sacrificed or the divine rabbi to be crucified!

Gasparro’s 2020 painting at the top of this article measures seven by five feet, and references a blood libel that led to the execution of several Jews in 1475. The scandal (some would call it moral panic) started around the disappearance and death of a Christian boy in Trento named Simonino. He was later made a saint and the day of his death, March 24, was included in the Roman martyrology—hence the cherubs in Gasparro’s painting—until its removal in 1965.

In his article MacDonald tells us ‘This [blood libel] is a topic that I have never written about… However, we should not be surprised to find that such practices occurred’.

I am not going to take issue with him because what I want is to answer his Christian apologetics, not this new approach to the JQ. I will limit myself to point out that on the subject of blood libel I had already written in 2013 commenting on a brainwashing, politically-correct and philo-Semitic Spanish TV series, Isabel (Isabella I of Castile): times when MacDonald was apparently more sceptical about libel claims.
 

§ 2

MacDonald starts his review with these words:

Giles Corey has written a book that should be read by all Christians as well as white advocates of all theoretical perspectives including especially those who are seeking a spiritual foundation that is deeply embedded in the history and culture of Europeans.

White advocates of all theoretical perspectives? What would Revilo Oliver and William Pierce, geniuses so critical of Christianity, have opined about Corey’s book? What would Alex Linder opine today? Spiritual foundation embedded in European culture? MacDonald ignores the difference between Western Christian Civilisation and European civilisation, as explained in an article so old in this site (‘The Red Giant’) that it already appeared in the previous incarnation of it (in Blogspot, in the previous decade).

MacDonald also says about Corey’s book: ‘This is excellent scholarship’. If the scholarship is excellent, blood libel had to be historical. But as I said in my previous post I don’t want to discuss the Jewish Question but the Christian Question. MacDonald wrote: ‘Corey is well aware that contemporary Christianity has been massively corrupted’.

Completely false. Christianity today is as legitimate a form of Christianity as the others. Previous Christianisms were based on St. Augustine, and in the case of the Catholic Church, also on St. Thomas Aquinas. The Christianity of Pope Francis today, like the Christianity of the medieval St. Francis of Assisi, is based more on the direct message of the gospel. There is no true Christianity and an heretic Christianity: only Christians use anathemas and excommunicate each other, always claiming that their faction is the true Christianity. For non-Christians like us, St. Francis was as authentic Christian as St. Augustine, however different they were in their politics.

On the Counter-Currents thread, commenter Asdk added the following:

It sounds ridiculous, but in the middle of the Christian era, the Pope did it with the pre-Columbian natives; today the descendants of such an aberration populate most of Latin America and soon they will be the new majority of North America.

What happened in Latin America is relevant: something that I have said so many times in the racialist forums that I gave up because nobody was listening.

And they don’t listen for the simple reason that the miscegenation on a colossal scale in this American continent, perpetrated by the Spanish and Portuguese since the 16th century, just when they persecuted the Jews and the crypto-Jews, is such a demonstration that there is a Christian problem that it doesn’t even have to be argued: only to point out the events that occurred in the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking parts of the continent.

Last month I reproduced this image of a Spaniard
marrying an Indian with the approval of the Church.

MacDonald says the corruption is recent. How does he explain the greatest genetic catastrophe that occurred in his continent, when Jewry was being persecuted by the Inquisition? The trick MacDonald and white nationalists do has been to ignore history south of the Rio Grande—and history north of the Rio Grande I should say insofar New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, California and Texas, before the 1840s war, belonged to Mexico and previously to New Spain!

For MacDonald to say that Christianity has been ‘massively corrupted’ he must be ignoring, of necessity, the history of those states that now belong to his country, since the New Spaniards never forbade interbreeding. Why doesn’t MacDonald see that more than half a billion mestizos in Latin America are the direct result of marriages between Iberian whites, Indians and blacks—marriages that both the Spanish crown and the Church approved?

The answer is clear: if he dared to see the history of New Spain his paradigm would collapse immediately, since it would be obvious that alongside a Jewish problem there has existed a huge Christian problem.

In the 1530s a Pope bull allowed the bachelor Iberians in the continent to marry Amerind women. This happened only a decade after the conquest of the Aztec Empire. As Asdk says, Christianity is blind to racial matters. And the Church did not give a damn about the biological havoc that such bull would cause. Incidentally, the Catholic Church was so powerful in New Spain that by the end of the 17th century it owned more than half of its territories. Like today’s elites, it was in the Church’s interest to rule over low-breed mestizos rather than high-IQ Aryans.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. This epigram by Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr in 1849 means ‘The more it changes, the more it’s the same thing’. Yes, there is no such a thing as ‘contemporary Christianity has been massively corrupted’ as MacDonald wrote. Only an ignorant of history in the American continent can say such a thing.
 

§ 3

Comment by Robert Morgan

C.T.: ‘I would be very interested to know what you think of that article (KMD’s review of Corey’s book)’.

The first thing that stands out is that MacDonald appears to have changed his opinion. I recall him writing at one point something to the effect of “Christianity isn’t necessarily the way forward”. Now he enthusiastically endorses a Christian revival, writing “I agree entirely with Corey’s conclusions and recommendations for a revival centered around the adaptive aspects of Christianity…”

C.T.: What strikes me as incredible is that Tom Sunic and others have told MacDonald that it is time to look at the role Christianity played in white decline. But KMD doesn’t seem to have the slightest intention of responding to these criticisms. He just ignores them’.

Yes, that’s true. His monomaniacal focus on Jews leads him astray, and he has always been loathe to examine the weakness of his philosophical underpinnings. Reading him, I get no sense that anything except what the Jews are doing is important. White people seem to exist for him only to be victims of the Jews.

I’ve already written about the inherent weakness of the Christian worldview, which is essentially a psychotic view of reality. Corpses come back to life, people aren’t really their bodies, but instead are “souls” trapped inside those bodies, demons not only exist but can somehow possess or take over those souls and bodies, things are conjured out of thin air, etc. Yet this is the worldview that MacDonald thinks is unequivocally good and “adaptive” because, after collapsing Western civilization once, and after a thousand years, it led historically to, among other things, the Enlightenment, the Age of Exploration, colonization of the New World, and science and high technology.

But these developments contained within themselves racially destructive consequences. Colonization of the New World caused race mixing, and out of control technology is causing mass extinctions of plant and animal species, perhaps irreversibly damaging the climate and ecosystem. This is supposed to be adaptive? Or again, consider the cultural consequences of scientific birth control technologies and abortion, which have done more to bring about the destruction of the nuclear family than any amount of Jewish animus. How was that adaptive?

From a philosophical point of view, MacDonald is being exceedingly naive, if not disingenuous. Whatever he approves of is adaptive. Anything he disapproves of isn’t. It’s the same approach he uses to Christianity. If Kevin MacDonald personally approves of it, it’s “good” Christianity (e.g., Luther’s disparaging comments about Jews, or Chrysostom’s), whereas if it’s a Christian ideology he doesn’t find it to his taste (e.g. the Scofield Bible, Christian Zionism, Christian churches sponsoring immigration, etc.) it’s been “corrupted”. These verdicts are absolute and eternal, too.

There’s no sense here that conditions may change, and behavior that was once adaptive may later be maladaptive; no sense that some of the “bad” things may have benefits, just as the supposedly “good” things contained racially destructive consequences. Christianity itself, notably, may be the most prominent of the things that were “bad” but had benefits; something that once was of use, but now is only an impediment. MacDonald’s view of it is static, not dynamic, and that’s a weakness.

No one can tell what is adaptive or maladaptive in advance. One can only pass judgement on that in retrospect, and even that judgement will unavoidably be from a particular point of view containing various assumptions and moral values. It’s not too surprising then that MacDonald, with his Christian moral values, praises Christianity as the way forward.
 

§ 4

MacDonald wrote:

Until the twentieth century, Christianity served the West well. One need only think of the long history of Christians battling to prevent Muslims from establishing a caliphate throughout the West—Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, the Spanish Reconquista, the defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna. The era of Western expansion was accomplished by Christian explorers and colonists. Until quite recently, the flourishing of science, technology, and art occurred entirely within a Christian context.

In recent posts I have been talking about the need to rewrite history. This paragraph was only made possible by centuries of misinformation when it comes to historical facts.

I have read the only two stories that in English have been written from the point of view of racial preservation, that of William Pierce and that of Arthur Kemp. Since Pierce died before I woke up, I was only able to visit Kemp when he lived in a beautiful little town in England.

The only two stories that have been written under the POV of white advocacy run under one premise: Western civilisations have fallen due to the imperial phase that inevitably leads to miscegenation. (Of the two stories, only Pierce recommends extermination or expulsion of non-whites after having learned the tough lessons of history.)

One of my huge surprises when reading those two stories, Who We Are and March of the Titans, is that starting with a pro-white POV inverts many values that we had taken for granted in the more academic and conventional stories.

For example, it is striking to learn that the Greeks of the Dorian period were pure Nordids who came to the peninsula from the North. And something similar could be said of the first tribes that created the Roman Republic in the other European peninsula: they also were unmiscegenated Nordids. (He who wants to learn about the Nordic component of the founders of Greece and Rome in a single article could read a piece originally published in an American Renaissance periodical that I reposted: here.)

All of this had been kept from me by conventional historians simply because most of them have been Christians. And concerning more recent secular historians, they live under the sky of the ideas that led to the French Revolution regarding the equality of men: a doctrine breathed even in the American Declaration of Independence: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…’

Only when the reader of history repudiates this egalitarian premise he is ready to understand history. Otherwise he might be a scholar but his historical knowledge will be contaminated with such a false worldview that distortion is unavoidable. And conventional books of history are so replete of distortions that after the Nazi period and the two preliminary stories referred to above we must, like them, start from scratch.

I don’t think MacDonald has read the Pierce or Kemp books. If he had read any of them, he would have realised that what he says in the paragraph above cannot be sustained from this scratching point of view.

The following is what MacDonald seems to ignore:

The Christian era began with a hostile takeover of classical culture—that is, white culture—by a sect of Levantine origin. In the 4th and 5th centuries of the common era, in a destructive outburst like the one ISIS has perpetrated in more recent times, the temples of the white gods and sculptures displaying Aryan beauty, were destroyed by Judeo-Christian fanatics along with entire libraries of ancient wisdom. Karlheinz Deschner devoted his entire life to studying the true history of Judeo-Christianity and I translated several passages from his ten-volume Christianity’s Criminal History (here). If someone does not have the time to read this translated book, let him read a single article that summarises the white apocalypse that the ancient world suffered at the hands of this Semitic cult (here).

I must say something about Charles Martel mentioned by MacDonald and the Spanish Reconquista. Given my Hispanic origins, the history of Spain as told by Pierce and Kemp powerfully caught my attention several years ago, when I read their books. Both mention something that left me cold: the Iberian Visigoths—pure whites of the Nordid type—were deceived by Christians to commit miscegenation: a little piece of information that won’t be easy to find in conventional histories.

Remember that the Goths were a Germanic people who played a major role in the fall of the Western Roman Empire. In the first centuries of our era the Iberian Goths burned at the stake their fellow whites that dared to mix their precious blood with mudbloods. But the king of Hispania Recceswinth committed the greatest blunder in Iberian history: a blunder still unrecognised by normie intellectuals and normie historians as a blunder: but a gigantic blunder nonetheless. By converting to Christianity Recceswinth abolished the long ban on miscegenation (which reminds me of the rigorous Spartan ban against miscegenation), which resulted in the immediate mongrelisation of the Visigoths. The king of Hispania’s decision allowed any person of any racial origin, as long as he professed Christianity, to intermarry with the Germanic Goths. Such rupture of the ancestral prohibition against miscegenation and worship of the enemy god (the god of the Jews) occurred just a few decades before their territories… were invaded by the Moors!

If you worship thine enemy’s god, thou art defeated;
Adopt the religion of his fathers, thou wilt be enslaved;
And if thou propagate with his daughters, thou art destroyed

This crucial page in the history of Spain would have to be studied in far greater depth than the preliminary ‘stories’ of Pierce and Kemp. But I suspect that the Visigoths would have been invincible if, with the benefit of hindsight, they had expelled or exterminated the mudbloods—mainly peoples of Hispania of Semitic origin (non-Jewish Semites had begun to invade the Iberian peninsula since the times of the Carthaginians!).

Hispania aside, if the Roman Empire had not decayed, and let us remember that Gibbon blames the Christians for it, Islam wouldn’t even have had a chance of its spectacular conquests that only the gates of Vienna stopped, that MacDonald mentions. By subscribing to the official story, MacDonald is viewing Christianity as our saviour before Islam, not as the cause of the power gap that occurred after the Christians destroyed the classical world (or tricked the Visigoths), leaving the remaining whites at the mercy of a primitive Arabic tribe.

On the Western achievements that MacDonald mentions in the quote above, he is framing them as achievements of the Christian spirit. Nothing farther from the truth!

The white man had to fight for centuries against the prohibitions of the Church to regain his right to scientific research, technology, and art uncontaminated with biblical passages or the lives of the saints. Now my history teacher comes to mind, whose brothers were blond, at Colegio Madrid. She told us that in New Spain they used the trick of putting covers of lives of saints on secular books imported from Europe so they could pass through customs. And this happened until the beginning of the 19th century! Again, MacDonald is ignorant about history down the south of Rio Grande.

Above I linked a PDF with my translations of some passages from Christianity’s Criminal History. Below I would like to quote pages 291-293 of that book to counter MacDonald’s naïve vision:

The Western world darkens more and more

Culture was highly esteemed in the 4th and 5th centuries. It was one of the legacies of antiquity and enjoyed an ‘almost religious veneration’ (Dannenbauer). Still in the year 360 a law of the emperor Constantius could declare that education was the supreme virtue. And really many noble families of that time, Gallic and Roman, were consecrated to it and particularly in the bosom of the Senatorial proceedings. But they were already simple custodians of the culture, to which they did not enrich. And everywhere there were circles and social forces of a very different kind, even in the highest positions. The Christian king Theodoric the Great was no longer able to write his own name on the documents: neither could most of the Christian princes. Theodoric wrote the four letters LEGI (‘I read it’) by means of an aureus mold expressly forged for him. The instruction of the Goth children was practically forbidden by him, since, as he seems to have said, he who trembled before the master’s blows would never know how to despise the cuts and rushes of the sword in battle.

In Gaul, apparently, where the school system had flourished from the beginning of the 2nd century until the end of the 4th century, public schools are disappearing over the course of the next century, no matter how much here and there, in Lyon, Vienne, Bordeaux and Clermont there still are schools of grammar and rhetoric in addition to, naturally, the private ones. But all the teachings, at least the literary, served exclusively for the collection of material for sermons and treatises, to deal with the Bible and for the consolidation of the faith. Scientific inquiry was already a thing of the past: it no longer counted or was appreciated. The knowledge of Greek, which for centuries was the requirement of every authentic culture, became a rarity. Even the Roman classics, such as Horace, Ovid and Catullus, were cited less and less.

Libanius, the champion of Hellenistic culture, the most famous professor of rhetoric of the century, complains about the aversion aroused by that profession. ‘They see’, he says, referring to his students, ‘that this cause is despised and thrown on the floor; that does not bring fame, power or wealth but a painful servitude under many lords, parents, mothers, pedagogues and other students, who put things upside down and believe that it is the teacher who needs them. When they see all this they avoid this depreciated profession like a boat the pitfalls’.

In the time of Augustine there are hardly any schools of philosophy in the West. Philosophy is frowned upon, it is a thing of the devil, the original father of all ‘heresy’, and it causes fear to the pious. Even in a centre of culture as important as Bordeaux philosophy is no longer taught. And even in the East, the largest and most important of the universities of the Roman Empire, that of Constantinople, has only one chair of philosophy out of a total of 31. The knowledge of something that had existed for a long time was lost in almost all areas. The spiritual horizon became increasingly narrower. Ancient culture languished from Gaul to Africa, while in Italy it practically disappeared. The interest in natural science vanished. Also jurisprudence, at least in the West, suffers ‘havoc’, an ‘astonishing demolition’ (Wieacker).

The bishop Paulinus of Nola, who died in 431, never read a historian: a typical attitude of the moment. Whole eras fall in the oblivion, for example, the time of the Roman emperors. The only renowned historian in the late 4th century is Ammianus Marcellinus, a non-Christian. Entire synods forbid the bishops to read ‘pagan’ books. In short: scientific research ceases; experimental testing stops; people think increasingly with less autonomy. A few decades later no doctor could heal Bishop Gregory de Tours, a man with a mind full of superstitions, but he could miraculously be healed through a drink of water with some dust taken from the tomb of St. Martin.

Only clerics will still read.
 

§ 5

St. John Chrysostom exhorting Aelia Eudoxia. Note how the Empress—the spouse of the Roman Emperor Arcadius—, in this painting by Jean-Paul Laurens, has people in her Byzantine entourage who are not whites.

Kevin MacDonald wrote:

Such individualism was not disastrously self-destructive. As Corey notes, “Christian universalism historically posed little to no danger to white survival because it was preached by whites living in a world ruled by whites; it was only in the multicultural Egalitarian Regime inseminated in the mid-twentieth century that Christian sacrifice was transformed into a call for racial suicide.”

Precisely because MacDonald, like most white nationalists who do not follow Pierce and Kemp, knows little of true history, he is unable to see that healthy religions promote the good of a tribe, and unhealthy religions, a phenomenon that appears in the imperial phase of a civilisation, forget what’s good for the tribe and start to speak solely and exclusively in individualistic terms, of ‘individual salvation’. Richard Carrier, whose book appears on the sidebar, has studied this phenomenon in several Mediterranean religions at the time of the decline of the Roman Empire, and MacDonald and those who believe that any form of universalism was not ‘disastrously self-destructive’ should become familiar with his work.

That religious individualism was toxic from the beginning is evident in the fact that in shifting from the good of the group to individualism (the Christian must think above all about the salvation of his soul), the foundations for miscegenation are laid. Once Constantine changed the name of the old Byzantium to Constantinople, the new capital of the Empire became a melting pot for all the races of the Mediterranean, in which the pure Nordid blood of the patrician Romans was forever lost.

MacDonald wrote:

Instead, Corey advocates a revitalization of Medieval Germanic Christianity based on, in the words of Samuel Francis, “social hierarchy, loyalty to tribe and place (blood and soil), world-acceptance rather than world-rejection, and an ethic that values heroism and military sacrifice.” This medieval Christianity preserved the aristocratic, fundamentally Indo-European culture of the Germanic tribes. This was an adaptive Christianity…

Adaptive Christianity, really? Some historians say Medieval Germanic Christianity started with Charlemagne, right? Kemp told me that he would rate Charlemagne well up in the top five most evil characters of European history. I recommend Thomas Hodgkin’s The Life of Charlemagne to those who have swallowed the Christian version of this evil man. If we keep in mind Deschner’s Christianity’s Criminal History we will see that even after the Aryan apocalypse of the 4th and 5th centuries, there were still many Germanic tribes in the 6th and 7th centuries who refused to worship the god of the Jews. Charlemagne forced these uncontaminated Nordids to worship the enemy god: a historical milestone related to that tardive metastasis, the philo-Semitic stage that the US is currently suffering.

MacDonald wrote:

My view, developed in Chapter 3 of Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism is that traditional Christian theology was fundamentally anti-Jewish and was developed as a weapon which was used to lessen Jewish economic and political power in the Roman Empire. Here Corey describes the writings of the fourth-century figure, St. John Chrysostom [see painting at the top of this § 5], who has a chapel dedicated to him inside St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome as well as a statue outside the building. His writings on Jews are nothing less than scathing and reflect long-term tensions between Jews and Greeks in Antioch. And Chrysostom was far from alone in his hatred… The traditional Church was certainly far from friendly toward Jews.

Despite the fact that the Muslim Jihadists are anti-Jewish, many contemporary Jews promote the Islamisation of Europe for the simple fact that the best goyim (whites) must be destroyed according to them. Jews are willing to have some of their own fall in order to win their ultimate battle against the Aryans.

Something similar happened with the hostile takeover of the classical world by Judeo-Christians, many of whom had Semitic blood. Their anger was directed against the white world. They didn’t care that those fanatics MacDonald talks about committed anti-Jewish acts. What mattered was to overthrow the classical world at all costs.

MacDonald ignores that what was ultimately at stake, as explained in the climax of ‘Rome against Judea; Judea against Rome’ in The Fair Race, was this: ‘435 CE: In this year occurs the most significant action on the part of Emperor Theodosius II: He openly proclaims that the only legal religion in Rome apart from Christianity is Judaism! Through a bizarre, subterranean and astonishing struggle, Judaism has not only persecuted the old culture, and Rome, its mortal archenemy, adopts a Jewish creed—but the Jewish religion itself, so despised and insulted by the old Romans, is now elevated as the only official religion of Rome along with Christianity!’ That diabolical political game of different kinds of Semites is what MacDonald has failed to see.

MacDonald speaks highly of St. John Chrysostom, as if this ‘anti-Semite’ was a champion for the Aryan cause. What did this saint, so revered among clueless white nationalists do? Do nationalists know what happened to the immense Temple of Artemis, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World?

It was built near Ephesus in the 6th century BCE over an area considered sacred since, at least, the Bronze Age. Its construction took 120 years and it could be said that it was comparable to a cathedral.

St. John Chrysostom and his henchmen flattened it in 401 following a Christian emperor’s edict—the year after Chrysostom had instigated the massacre of 7,000 blond Goths in Constantinople! The stones were used for a tomb and a bath-house and a cross was raised on the spot where Diana’s statue had stood. What remains today of the temple can be seen: here.

It was the religion of the pure white that had to be flattened at all costs, not the Judaism that survived the Aryan apocalypse of the ancient world.

It is clear that history must be rewritten from the POV of the priest of the 14 words, and that stupid books like Corey’s must be vehemently repudiated if we want to save the race from extinction. Not only books of this type are bad history: they are as toxic reading of history as that which we could read from a Jew. But Christians are artificial Jews, right?
 

§ 6

MacDonald wrote:

And although Protestantism was generally far more amenable to Jewish interests even before its current malaise, there certainly are exceptions. Here Corey emphasizes Martin Luther’s writings on Jews. Luther emphasizes Jewish hatred toward Christianity and their sense of superiority vis-à-vis Christians, seeing the latter as “not human; in fact, we hardly deserve to be considered poor worms by them.”

I’ve been saying that people like MacDonald don’t know the stories of the white race written not by charlatans like Giles Corey, but by genuine racialists. Let’s read what William Pierce says in Who We Are about Luther:

The Reformation. Another factor which undoubtedly made the West more susceptible to the Jews was the Reformation, the lasting effects of which were confined largely to Europe’s northwestern regions, in fact, to the Germanic-speaking regions: Germany, Scandinavia, England and Scotland, Switzerland. The Church of Rome and its Eastern Orthodox offshoot had always been ambivalent in their attitudes toward the Jews. On the one hand, they fully acknowledged the Jewish roots of Christianity, and Jesus’ Jewishness was taken for granted. On the other hand, the Jews had rejected Jesus’ doctrine and killed him, saying, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:25), and the medieval Church was inclined to take them at their word. In addition to the stigma of deicide the Jews also bore the suspicion which naturally fell on heretics of any sort. During the Middle Ages people took Christianity quite seriously, and anyone professing an unorthodox religious belief, whether he actively sought converts or not, was considered a danger to the good order of the community and to the immortal soul of any Christian exposed to him.

What the Protestant reformers did for the Jews was give the Hebrew Scriptures a much more important role in the life of the peoples of Europe than they had enjoyed previously. Among Catholics it was not the Bible but the Church which was important. The clergy read the Bible; the people did not. The people looked to the clergy for spiritual guidance, not to the Bible. Among Protestants that order was reversed. The Bible became an authority unto itself, which could be consulted by any man. Its Jewish characters—Abraham, Moses, Solomon, David, and the rest—became heroic figures, suffused with an aura of sanctity. Their doings and sayings became household bywords. It is ironic that the father of the Reformation, Martin Luther, who inadvertently helped the Jews fasten their grip on the West, detested them and vigorously warned his Christian followers against them. His book Von den Jueden und ihren Luegen (On the Jews and their Lies), published in 1543, is a masterpiece. Luther’s antipathy to the Jews came after he learned Hebrew and began reading the Talmud. He was shocked and horrified to find that the Hebrew religious writings were dripping with hatred and contempt for all non-Jews…

Alas, Luther could not have it both ways. He had already sanctified the Jews by elevating the status of their history, their legends, and their religion to that of Holy Writ. His translation of the Old Testament into German and his dissemination of the Jewish scriptures among his followers vitiated all his later warnings against the Jews. Today the church he founded studiously ignores those warnings…

The great tragedy of Luther is that he failed to… recognize that no religion of Jewish origin is a proper religion for men and women of European race. When he cut himself and the majority of the Germanic peoples off from Rome, he failed at the same time to cut away all the baggage of Jewish mythology which had been imposed on Europe by Rome. Instead he made of that baggage a greater spiritual burden for his people than it already was. The consequence was that within a century of Luther’s death much of Northern Europe was firmly in the grip of a new superstition as malignant as the old one, and it was one in which the Jews played a much more explicit role. Before, the emphasis had been on the New Testament: that is, on Christianity as a breakaway sect from Judaism, in which the differences between the two religions were stressed. The role models held up to the peoples of Europe were the Church’s saints and martyrs, most of whom were non-Jewish. The parables taught to children were often of European origin. Among the Protestants the Old Testament gained a new importance, and with it so did the Hebrew patriarchs as role models, while Israel’s folklore became the new source of moral inspiration for Europe. Perhaps nothing so clearly demonstrates the change, and the damage to the European sense of identity which accompanied it, as the sudden enthusiasm for bestowing Hebrew names on Christian children.

The Reformation did more for the Jews than merely sanctifying the Old Testament. It shattered the established order of things and brought chaos in political as well as spiritual affairs—chaos eagerly welcomed by the Jews. Germany was so devastated by a series of bloody religious wars that it took her a century and a half to recover. In some German principalities two-thirds of the population was annihilated during the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in the period 1618-1648, commonly known as the “Thirty Years War.” Everywhere during the 17th century the Jews took advantage of the turmoil, moving back into countries from which they had been banned (such as England), moving to take over professions from which they had been excluded, insinuating themselves into confidential relationships with influential leaders in literary and political circles, profiting from the sufferings of their hosts and strengthening their hold, burrowing deep into the rubble and wreckage of medieval society so that they could more easily undermine whatever rose in its stead. / End of Pierce’s quote

Pierce fell short. Nietzsche saw beyond what Pierce saw: Luther revitalised Christianity when it had begun to die in Rome itself! Had Cesare Borgia reached the papacy in a world without Luther, the transvaluation of values—the salvation of whites!—could’ve started from the Renaissance in Rome. But exactly the opposite happened: the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation vindicated Christianity. One thing is clear: MacDonald is not a reader of Nietzsche. If there is a quote that I have quoted more than once, it is what Nietzsche says about Luther (skip until you see § 61: here).

MacDonald wrote:

Mainstream Christianity from traditional Catholicism to mainstream Protestantism was fundamentally adaptive in terms of creating a healthy family life.

Here MacDonald is not only ignoring the subject mentioned in §2: that a cohesive family is useless to our cause if marriages in Catholic Latin America have been, for half a millennia, between white and non-white. And regarding Europe MacDonald is also ignoring the catastrophe that occurred in Portugal. After their forays into Africa the Portuguese not only imported blacks to the Iberian Peninsula, but unlike the Anglo-Germans in North America who originally did not marry them, the Portuguese immediately proceeded to stain their blood forever, courtesy of an Iberian, Recceswinth-like Christianity that didn’t care about racial preservation.

MacDonald writes about the traditional family in Christendom ignoring what happened in immense territories where Catholicism had a grip on the white psyche. And even in the US where miscegenation was not perpetrated for quite some time, the havoc that Puritans caused for their infatuation with the sacred book of the Jews can be seen in the names they gave their white children. Pierce is worth quoting again. He wrote:

Even before the Reformation a few Jewish names had been adopted by Europeans, but they were in most cases variations of the names of Christian saints of Jewish race: John (Heb. Johanan), Matthew (Heb. Mattathiah), Mary (Heb. Miriam), Ann (Heb. Hannah, supposedly the name of the maternal grandmother of Jesus). In addition, a few other purely Hebrew names had come into fairly common usage in parts of Christian Europe prior to Luther’s time: Adam, Daniel, David, Michael, Elizabeth, and Sarah are examples. During the l7th century, however, practically every name from the Old Testament came into general use. The madness reached its height among the Puritans, who scorned the names of their own ancestors and christened their offspring with such atrociously alien appellations as Israel, Amos, Ezekiel, Lemuel, Deborah, Reuben, Esther, Abner, Samuel, Nathan, Noah, Ephraim, Gideon, Jesse, Rachel, Susannah, Leah, Elihu, Abigail, Benjamin, and Abraham. The Puritans brought this pernicious habit with them to America, and Hebrew names were more common in the New World than European names during the Colonial period. / End of William Pierce’s quote

Don’t be surprised, professor MacDonald, that the US became the #1 philo-Semitic country of the world! So what’s the primary cause of white decline, Judaism or Christianity? What’s worse: the external enemy—the Jew—or the traitor—the Christian?
 

§ 7

Comment by Vig

Reading the comments here it shows how quickly attention steers away from the core topic and gets into the distraction of details.

As I have understood the issue here is that a reputed academic scholar has made significant statements as a result of a serious psychological research into the causes of the downfall of the culture and influence of the white Europeans. All this clearly under the banner of a conservative and right wing oriented view, which led him to the conclusion that Jewdom is the ultimate culprit of the (our) downfall.

Then the question arises, as Cesar has put forward on many occasions, that a man of such academic reputation as KMD has not dared to make the next logical step in his research and expose the phenomenal similarity between Judaism and Christianity?

Lack of courage, unwillingness or just lack of depth? Respectable as he may be he did not have the guts to be like a Nietzsche and dig till rock bottom, and criticize his own paradigms.

If you ask me the whole thing of academic debate especially in the field of the “alpha sciences” like psychology, is very often sheer sophistry. To see what the words really stand for you have to meet the author in person. Then why is this Christianity again and again creeping around the corner?

Because it is so deeply ingrained in our value system that it has become sub conscious. Then the question arises how much suffering will be needed to bring this festering wound to the surface?

If the more representative figures of the white nationalist movement fail to open up to the issue of the corrupting influence of Christianity, that means they did not have the existential experience that allowed you and me to understand the human psyche on a deeper level than the level that they are mentally operating on.

On that basis indeed white nationalism is a flawed initiative.

What I mean here is that traumatic experiences can initiate an emotional maturity that is beyond the retarded state that western humanity is in at the moment.

I think it is not negation but simple incapacity from their side.

The fact that there will come no answer from that side is because their whole social life has been narrowed down to the verbal, intellectual Hegelian discourse and exchange of ideas, while the answer to our crisis cannot be addressed on this level at all.

It is an ego problem. The ego blocks the expression of certain inner states that, if expressed, would indicate that one is emotionally and instinctively degenerated if at all recognized as such.

To have an authentic knowledge of one’s emotional and instinctive nature that makes the use of intellectual projections absolutely unnecessary, has become very rare for western man. Eine Kulturkrankheit.
 

§ 8

Kevin MacDonald wrote:

As I write this in the summer of 2020, we are experiencing what feels like the end game in the Jewish conquest of white America.

End game of the Jewish conquest or of the Christian conquest of the Aryan soul? Has MacDonald read the words of Joseph Walsh on the sidebar?: The deep-seated death-wish that seems to have taken hold of the collective subconscious psyche of the Aryan race after Hitler’s death is I believe a consequence of centuries of Jewish brainwashing via Christianity and its secular offshoots.

Once the majority of Aryans had rejected Hitler they embraced what remained of Christianity, Christian ethics, with a vengeance. Aryans are aware of what our race is capable of becoming from the photos and films of NS Germany and many of them hate and fear their own race’s potential for greatness due to attachment to an irrational morality and so our race is in a sort of self-destruct mode.

If the National Socialists had won the Second World War our race would not have entered into this intense struggle to overcome the oldest and most effective weapon of the Jews, Christianity. So this post-1945 struggle with the mental disease of Christianity does serve a purpose in that it will either destroy us for good or make us even stronger.

Before Aryans can annihilate the biological Jew on the physical level they must destroy the alien Jewish mind virus on the mental level by overcoming Christian morality. /End of Walsh’s quote

But MacDonald wrote:

I agree entirely with Corey’s conclusions and recommendations for a revival centered around the adaptive aspects of Christianity…

And what are Giles Corey’s conclusions and recommendations? Corey wrote, as quoted by MacDonald:

We must not tolerate subversion. Liberalism must go; we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the Enlightenment. We cannot afford to countenance any further anti-American, anti-family, anti-white speech, and this should be reflected in a new Constitution. Just as conservatism was not enough, the United States Constitution was not enough, with gaps that left it gaping wide for judicial “interpretation.” For another thing, we must circle the wagons and inculcate the Männerbund, restraining our individualism at least for the time being. For another, we must return to (((our Lord and Savior))).

I have added the triple parentheses to MacDonald’s quote of Corey. What these guys don’t know is that, as a commenter put it, thinking you can aid in saving the white race while, at the same time, bending the knee to Jewish deities—Yahweh and Yeshua—is some kind of combination of insane, dishonest, cowardly, naive, or very stupid. To bottom line it, it won’t and can’t work (see Ferdinand Bardamu’s complete essay that MacDonald rejected for his webzine: here).

This demolition that I have made of such a respected figure in white nationalism moves me to leave this site with these last entries for a period of time without adding new entries, although I will be answering the comments that don’t get off the subject of MacDonald and the Christian question.

Finally, even though I left the essay by a Spaniard, ‘Rome against Judea; Judea against Rome’ linked in a sticky post for a long time, it doesn’t seem that many visitors have noticed that that essay appears in Part I of The Fair Race, the PDF of which can be accessed on the sidebar. So I have no choice but to publish it in PDF separately and put it back in a sticky post. It is a shame that people like MacDonald have not read an essay that I consider central to understanding this site.

Especially the ‘Judea against Rome’ section of that essay explains the Jewish question better than any article MacDonald has published on The Occidental Observer, as the Spanish writer goes to the historical roots of the darkest hour in the West.

Categories
Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (book) Ferdinand Bardamu Racial right

Con Swede, Johnson and Bardamu

In 2009 I started to wake up to the real world thanks to the Internet. It was precisely thanks to Conservative Swede that I started to grasp the Christian Question (CQ), as we see in the article ‘The Dismiss of Christianity’ that here appears in The Fair Race.

I titled that article ‘The Red Giant’ on this site. It is based on two long discussion threads from July 2009 on the Gates of Vienna (GoV) forum that can still be read here and here. I even spoke with Conservative Swede on the phone for over an hour in that year, when I lived in Spain.

Not long after, this Swede got so mad at me when I mentioned Hitler and the Reich on GoV that he swore (did the admin of GoV delete his insults from this comment?). Elsewhere he asked me if I wanted to exterminate the Jews and that made me suspicious. The next year, after a civil exchange about the JQ on the now nuked Mangan’s site, the Swede closed his blog and informed me that I had motivated him for such a drastic decision, although he added that he kept the reasons to himself.

Conservative Swede’s behaviour seemed bizarre and inexplicable to me. The only hypothesis I could come up with is that he might have some Jewish background. That was the first time that someone who allegedly defended the West left me stunned.

Although the admin is a gentile, GoV is a philo-Semitic forum, so by 2010 I had moved to Counter-Currents. But Greg Johnson, the admin of CC, would also surprise me with so many inconsistencies that it is not worth repeating. By the way, it was a comment by Johnson on April 20, 2010 in the comments section of Occidental Dissent (the whole Irmin Vinson essay that later the OD admin deleted!) that reconciled me to Hitler.

Then Johnson stopped defending Hitler as he used to do in 2010, and for the second time I left a forum that I had initially loved.

Later I would be disappointed with The Occidental Observer, Kevin MacDonald’s webzine, and precisely because of what Ferdinand Bardamu posted here, in The West’s Darkest Hour. I also chose Bardamu’s essay on why Europeans should abandon Christianity for The Fair Race. But now it is Bardamu himself who has disappointed me!

In his article published yesterday on The Occidental Observer, ‘White Nationalism and its Leftist Enemies’, Bardamu no longer uses the ‘neochristian’ term he used in his lengthy essay on The Fair Race. In his recent essay on MacDonald’s webzine, he replaced it with the term in vogue in white nationalism circles, ‘cultural Marxism’. It is true that while speaking of ‘an ideology of all-consuming, overwhelming psychotic White racial self-hatred’ Bardamu wrote:

… while elevating the virtues of his own Judeo-Christian slave morality—humility, weakness, equality—to a position of supremacy. Through Nietzschean transvaluation of all values, good becomes bad and bad becomes good.

However, as an almost orthodox white nationalist, Bardamu emphasises the JQ rather than the CQ. And what is worse, although I also published on this site his essay on NS Germany that they had rejected in other white nationalist forums (remember that NS and WN are two different animals), Bardamu doesn’t seem to have read what we say about NS Germany in Part I of The Fair Race—or even the central essay of that book. I am referring to ‘Rome vs. Judea; Judea vs. Roma’ also featured in Part I of The Fair Race. After a paragraph on the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, in his essay yesterday Bardamu wrote:

Unlike Rome, the decline of America has been purposely engineered by hostile elites. The expatriate Jews of the Frankfurt School pathologized… Apparently, Whites have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by the media and education system they have come to embrace the demographic transformation of America as a fait accompli

Ignorance abounds in this quote. It was Jewry, in the form of Judeo-Christianity, that caused the collapse of Rome (cf. the part ‘Judea vs. Rome’ in the aforementioned essay of The Fair Race). And regarding the hostile elite, Bardamu seems to ignore the countless quotes I have collected on this site from Robert Morgan, who has been arguing with conservative racialists at Unz Review for quite some time, proving that anti-white and pro-black ideology to the point of a bloody civil war predates the mass migration of Jews into the United States. In fact, my post yesterday, ‘Confederate Cassandra’ was nothing more than quoting what Morgan had quoted a few days ago on Unz Review. The words with which Bardamu concludes his essay on the MacDonald webzine—:

America must die because the Whites who once formed her civilizational backbone are deracinated, alienated and milquetoast cosmopolitans. If the destructive policies of the elites are irreversible, it is because there is no longer anything for Whites to rally around, nor is there anything to draw them together. America must die, but that does not mean White nationalism must die along with it.

—I could paraphrase like this: Not only America, but Christianity must die because those males who once formed with it their civilisational backbone are now deracinated, alienated and lobotomised eunuchs. Judeo-Christianity must die, but that doesn’t mean that the ideals of National Socialism must die along with it.

Categories
Christendom Ferdinand Bardamu

A forum comment

Europeans have begun setting the intellectual basis for the final rejection and collapse of Christianity. I, however, project that no intellectual argument will defeat Christianity. Reality will.

It will collapse under the sheer force and relentless evolutionary pathway of the universe. Already in terms of real spiritual substance and vitality, Christianity is dead. It’s just the empty crust that needs some good wind to blow it away. But this is not so obvious to the unobserving eye because the churches are still filled, the coffers full of money and the choir still sings. But I tell you that the church has triumphed over Christianity. Christianity is dead. Only its tomb (churches) remain and they too will be swept away.

Please read the 17-part series on ‘Why Europeans Must Reject Christianity’. Read the comments. Don’t be miffed at the somewhat racial sentiments cos it’s a white nationalist site. Just remember that they too have abandoned Christianity and seek to drive the movement deeper. (Navigate your way through the site to read the article in an orderly fashion.)

____________

Editor’s Note: The commenter refers to Ferdinand Bardamu’s essay. It is no longer necessary to read it in the form of blog entries as it now appears on pages 571-641 of The Fair Race.

Categories
2nd World War Emigration / immigration Ferdinand Bardamu Kali Yuga Third Reich

Wouldn’t whites be better off If Hitler had won the Second World War?

by Ferdinand Bardamu

Interviewer: And what in your opinion is the tragic element of our epoch?

Louis-Ferdinand Céline: Stalingrad…The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There’s been a cataclysm. Its epicenter was Stalingrad. After that you can say that white civilization was finished, really washed up.

— Interview, 1960

 

I: Western Europe’s Post-WWII recovery

WWII is considered the most destructive conflict in history. No other conflict, not even the 13th century Mongol invasions, comes even close. An estimated 60 million to 80 million are believed to have been killed during WWII; in contrast, the Mongols only killed an estimated 30 million to 40 million. Huge swaths of territory in Europe were reduced to ruin by Allied bombing. Germany, Poland and Russia suffered the most devastation. The combined wartime expenditures of both Axis and Allied powers were astronomical, running into the trillions of dollars in today’s currency. In the immediate wake of Axis defeat, there was chaos; Europe had no functioning governments or judicial systems. The economy had virtually disappeared, save for a thriving black market. Schools and universities were no longer open to students or the general public. Millions were left homeless; families were torn apart; entire populations, like the ethnic Germans of Eastern Europe, were forcibly driven from their homes. Armed bands of men took whatever they wanted and the occupying soldiers of the Red Army engaged in mass rape. Women of all ages and classes openly prostituted themselves for food and shelter. Many took advantage of the war’s end to settle old scores; National Socialist collaborators were rounded up, beaten and killed. Women who were perceived as being too friendly with the soldiers of the Wehrmacht were seized and had their heads shaven.

In 1948, Congress approved the four-year Marshall Plan, authorizing disbursement of billions of dollars in US funds to rebuild European industry and infrastructure. The amount given in aid totaled 5% of US GDP. By the time Western Europeans had received these funds, their continent was well on the way to full economic recovery. From 1947 to 1949, mining and manufacturing production was restored to pre-war levels in most areas; in 1950, per capita food production was restored to pre-war levels. West Germany, the most war-ravaged country in Western Europe, reached pre-war levels of per capita GDP in 1955. To all neutral observers, West Germany’s recovery and economic growth was nothing short of miraculous. It was known as the Wirtschaftwunder or “West German economic miracle,” the brainchild of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer’s Minister of Economic Affairs, Ludwig Erhard. He stimulated economic growth through currency reform, abolition of price controls and tax cuts. From 1950 to 1959, West German GDP grew faster than anywhere else in Western Europe. By the 1960s, West Germany had emerged as the largest and most influential economic power in Europe. In contrast, East Germany, its Stalinist counterpart, stagnated under Soviet rule.

Despite the enormous devastation caused by WWII, Western Europeans were able to rapidly recover and achieve levels of economic and industrial development far surpassing pre-war levels. This wasn’t the first time Europeans were able to easily bounce back from tragedy; they had also bounced back from the ravages of the Black Death and the Mongol invasions.
 

II: The hostile elite’s pathological “Europhobia”

Since the end of WWII, the hostile elite has been flooding Western Europe with non-whites from the developing world’s most impoverished and war-torn areas. Globalists advocated diluting white racial purity to never again experience the horrors of European all-out war. The hostile elite justified this race replacement using the most flippant excuses. “Europeans aren’t having enough children,” they complained, “we need more super-fertile Third World invaders!” “We need fresh blood for jobs no European wants to do,” others moaned, “without workers, who will support Europeans in their old age?” On deeper examination, the hostile elite’s reasons for Third World invasion must be immediately dismissed as deliberate falsehoods.

Globalists claim that low fertility is always a bad thing; but a reduction in the number of excess mouths to feed would allow wages and living standards to rise. Letting jobs go without anyone to fill them isn’t as damaging as the globalists would like us to believe; through the market’s built-in self-correcting mechanism, rising corporate demand would induce an increase in real wages and the labor supply would fix itself. If there is a genuine labor shortage, excess demand would be channeled into research and development, leading to the invention of labor-saving devices. Conversely, they could also stimulate the fertility rate by offering various incentives, like cash bonuses. Excessive reliance on foreign workers to support elderly Europeans is just another ridiculous Ponzi scheme; invaders would get old, requiring even more workers; needless to say, such infinite growth is ecologically unsustainable. There are limits to Europe’s carrying capacity; as neo-Malthusian ecologists are fond of pointing out, infinite growth with limited resources is an impossibility. A more logical solution would be to eliminate mandatory retirement age, allowing the elderly to work for as long as they wanted. Another serious problem with the fatuous “we need workers to support our elderly pensioners” is that Mohammed al-Baghdadi will not want to support elderly whites when his people form Europe’s next majority.

There is only one plausible reason for elite-managed Third World invasion: demographic aggression against Europeans in retaliation for the horrors of WWII. For centuries, whites were subjected to evolutionary selective pressures that maximized the prevalence of beneficial traits, but removed maladaptive traits from the gene pool. Not only did IQs rise, but high trust cultures fostering social cohesion and co-operative behavior were established. As a result, Europeans were able to rapidly recover from tragedies like the Mongol invasions and the Black Death. In fact, if Europe had been destroyed by a devastating thermonuclear war, the surviving whites would have still been able to recover because of their enormous social and human capital. After a few generations, the population would have returned to replacement levels of fertility and Western civilization would flourish once again.

Sub-Saharan Africans and Middle Easterners are the majority of Europe’s invaders. The sub-Saharan African is known for his penchant for violence and savagery; Middle Easterners are usually inbred hicks. In many Arab populations, the consanguineous marriage rate exceeds 50%. Because of low IQ, many are believers in militant Islam, an ignorant, crass superstition originating in the Saudi desert. As these two groups increase in Europe, Western population genetic structure will change for the worse, making it harder for Europeans to recover from tragedy. If the percentage of Africans and Middle Easterners becomes high relative to whites, white resilience in the face of tragedy will eventually disappear. Changes in the white race’s underlying genetic structure are irreversible, unless vigorous negative eugenic action is taken. By flooding Europe with Third World invaders, globalists are destroying the cradle of Occidental civilization, something the Mongol Hordes and the Soviet communists were never able to accomplish.
 

III: National Socialist-occupied Europe
vs. globalist-occupied Europe

In their propaganda literature, the National Socialists said they opposed the “big capitalism” of the “American economic system,” the globalism of the interbellum years. In the 1932 pamphlet “German Farmers, You Belong to Hitler!,” they warned that global expansion of American capitalism would turn the world into a “giant trust” concerned only with “profits and dividends”; man would be enslaved to the empty “slogans of progress, technology, rationalization, standardization.” The final aim of American “big capitalism” was “the world dictatorship of Jewry” through “parliament and the swindle of democracy.” National Socialism and globalism were diametrically opposed; only globalists promoted white genocide, whereas the Third Reich was preoccupied with issues of white racial survival.

Whatever destructive impact National Socialism had on the world stage was actually quite small, at least when compared to the destructive impact of contemporary globalism. The National Socialists, some of the most genuine European nationalists in Western history, treated their citizens with far greater compassion than the current hostile elites of Western Europe. The National Socialist party’s large-scale public investment in make-work schemes, the building of new autobahns and land reclamation, stimulated economic growth. Through these policies Germany managed to escape the Great Depression; by 1939, unemployment was almost 0%. National Socialists provided their citizens with one of the highest living standards in the world; at no point did they ever seek to exert negative pressure on real wages and living standards by artificially increasing labor supply. German racial hygiene was improved through eugenics; this meant euthanasia for the genetically unfit and Lebensborn, the controlled breeding of racially pure Aryan children. Through legislative policies and material incentives, the German fertility rate was increased. Abortion and birth control measures were outlawed, except for those deemed “useless eaters”; free money and food were given to women who had children. Women who had 6 or more children were exempted from paying income tax; those with 8 children or more received a Mother’s Cross made of pure gold, one of the Third Reich’s highest honors.

The barely disguised, murderous anti-white hatred of globalism makes it a far more destructive force than National Socialism. Globalists support Third World invasion because it reduces white fertility, the result of lowering wages and rising housing costs because of excess demand. The removal of economic opportunities for indigenous whites through outsourcing is considered a humanitarian duty. Third World invasion has other negative effects on whites. In Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests (2003), territories monopolized by “ethnies” are said to have very specific carrying capacities; if Great Britain’s maximum carrying capacity is 120 million, but is currently occupied by 60 million whites, the addition of 60 million non-white aliens would prevent indigenous Britons from increasing their numbers beyond 60 million. The presence of genetically distinct Third World invaders would result in substantial losses in white ethnic genetic interests. The disappearance of the white man’s distinctive racial traits would genetically transform the population. This is genocide through race replacement and miscegenation.

Compared to the Third Reich’s environmental impact, the globalist regimes of modern Europe are far more destructive. As most population growth in globalist-occupied Europe is both artificially induced and massive, there will be overcrowding, significant material scarcity and increased carbon emissions (cause for concern among those convinced by the scientific evidence for global warming). Exponential population growth in a finite territory always harms ecological sustainability; available resources for the next generation of whites would be substantially reduced.

German National Socialists tried to preserve, increase and enhance Western Europe’s white population. The globalists, on the other hand, actively seek to destroy Western Europe through physical and cultural genocide. Their favorite leftist weapons, feminism, multiculturalism and non-white invasion, will reduce indigenous whites to a minority. This will eventually lead to race extinction through miscegenation and race war. The end result of globalism will be far more destructive than the World Wars combined; at least under National Socialist rule, Western Europe would have survived and flourished.
 

IV: Globalism: more dangerous than
National Socialism… and Communism?

Cultural Marxism is the ideological foundation of contemporary globalism. This is the belief that racial and sexual inequality are caused by social oppression. Marxist ideology has informed all modern attempts to socially engineer humanity to reduce inequality. Since equality does not exist in nature, Marxist social engineering of egalitarian outcomes will always lead to mass murder and genocide. In The Black Book of Communism (1999), Stéphane Courtois and other European academics estimated communism’s death toll at 85 million to 100 million individuals during the 20th century, as opposed to the 25 million noncombatant fatalities attributed to the National Socialist regime (other sources generally place this at approximately 11 million). Whatever one thinks of the politics of the Third Reich, they were at least grounded in the scientific realities of neo-Darwinian biology, which is why they were far less destructive and far less murderous than communism and that other Marxist-derived ideology, globalism.

Interestingly enough, the greater internal weaknesses of communist regimes like the Soviet Union made them far less dangerous than their globalist counterparts. The inability of the centrally planned economy to efficiently allocate resources, as well as military expenditures vastly in excess of consumer goods spending, among other reasons, led to Soviet collapse in 1991. Cultural Marxist propaganda combined with neo-liberal capitalism is far more economically sustainable than Soviet communism. At least communist ideology did not ruin ordinary Russians by destroying their way of life and culture. The Soviet version of multiculturalism, the ethnofederal model, never dissolved Russian ethnic identity to replace it with a deracinated, faceless Homo sovieticus. On the other hand, the purpose of globalist multiculturalism is total destruction of Europe by erasing its indigenous culture and reducing indigenous whites to a minority, finally wiping them out through miscegenation and race war. If there is no anti-globalist revolution in the near future, this policy will continue indefinitely, until whites one day go extinct.

At least Russians were able to emerge from Soviet totalitarianism with their racial health still intact.
 

V: The 20th century’s greatest tragedy

Let us envision an alternative scenario where the Axis powers had emerged from WWII as the victors.

National Socialist-occupied Europe would stretch from the Pyrenees to the Russian Far East. There would be destruction, but far less than the wave of destruction unleashed by hostile globalist elites. Whites would be able to quickly rebuild and replenish their numbers through natural increase. Most importantly, their population genetic structure would remain intact. The National Socialist totalitarian regime would eventually crumble, as no system of governance endures forever, replaced by some other form of government promoting white racial interests. Obviously, there would be no globalism, multiculturalism or Third World invasion.

National Socialist eugenic policies would make Europeans stronger and healthier; this would increase their capacity to maintain and advance their own civilization. Because the Soviets were defeated by the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad in 1943, there would be no Cold War. If there is a Cold War between the Third Reich and the United States, the aim of American foreign policy may be “containment” of National Socialist power and influence in the Americas. If North America’s hostile elite embraces multiculturalism and Third World invasion following an Axis victory in WWII, dissident whites would at least have a safe haven to flee to; they would also have a base of operations to conduct covert anti-globalist activities against Washington.

An Axis victory in WWII would mean that whites would not be under attack, as they are today. By shielding their citizens from the genocidal race-mixing propaganda of the globalists, Soviet communism inoculated Eastern Europe from the twin pathologies of multiculturalism and non-white invasion. National Socialism would naturally have been far more effective at preserving white racial purity. An all-white Western Europe would be able to pick up the pieces when North America’s globalist regime inevitably collapses and devolves into both civil and race war, perhaps installing a sympathetic National Socialist government in Washington.

The Allied victory in Europe was a colossal mistake; the wrong side had won the war. The forces of darkness, represented by the liberal-leftist regimes of Roosevelt (later Truman), Churchill and Stalin, had triumphed over the racial and national freedom offered by the Italian fascists and German National Socialists, the real would-be saviors of Europe. Although not obvious then, this has become blindingly obvious now. Céline’s pronouncement on the fate of Western civilization remains prophetic: “Europe died at Stalingrad… After that you can say that white civilization was finished.”

Categories
Christendom Destruction of Greco-Roman world Ferdinand Bardamu Kevin MacDonald Miscegenation Philosophy of history Transvaluation of all values

Why Europeans must reject Christianity, 21

by Ferdinand Bardamu

 
A Europe without Christianity?
The world of classical antiquity shone as a lamp in the dark, filled with a youthful vigor that ensured its institutions and ideas would endure long after Greece and Rome ceased to exist as viable political entities. Science and reason were then snuffed out by the darkness and imbecility that followed in the wake of Christianity. Libraries were destroyed; art treasures were smashed; building in non-perishable materials almost vanished from memory; personal hygiene disappeared; ignorance was considered a virtue; chaos ensued. This was the triumph of Christianity, a syphilis of the mind that nearly wiped out Western civilization. Although Christian power and influence were shattered long ago by the rediscovery of science and reason, a resurgent Christianity now dominates the West in the form of liberal egalitarianism and cultural Marxism. These philosophies serve as the ideological basis of endless mass Third World immigration and other multiculturalist policies. This neo-Christianity has been imposed on the West by totalitarian liberal-leftist governments.
Understanding Christianity through the prism of group evolutionary strategy can shed light on the significant threat the religion poses to Europeans. As a seminal concept originally formulated by Prof. Kevin MacDonald, it was used with devastating effect in his analysis of 20th century Jewish intellectual and political movements. In a world characterized by in-group ethno-racial preference, absence of a group evolutionary strategy allowing populations at the species and sub-species level to survive and replicate is highly maladaptive.
A group evolutionary strategy is defined as an “experiment in living.” This refers to the establishment of culturally mediated processes or ideological structures that allow humans to exercise control over natural selection at the group level. The basic characteristics of Jewish evolutionary group strategy are:
1.) the rejection of both genetic and cultural assimilation into neighboring populations. Jews in Europe and the Middle East segregated themselves from gentiles by fashioning a distinct identity for themselves. This was accomplished through enforcement of strict endogamy and residential segregation. The genetic relatedness between Jewish groups, such as the Sephardi and Ashkenazi, is higher than between Jews and European populations because of this age-old resistance to assimilation; 2.) successful economic and reproductive competition that has driven Europeans from certain sectors of their own societies (such as finance); 3.) high ethnocentrism; 4.) within-group altruism favoring Jews at the expense of outgroup members, and; 5.) the institutionalization of eugenic practices that selected for high intelligence and conscientiousness in Jewish populations.
In contrast, Christianity undermines group survival by suppressing natural ethnocentric tendencies and maximizing the spread of dysgenic traits. Christianity provides no effective barrier to the cultural and genetic assimilation of Europeans by surrounding non-white populations; for example, during the Spanish and Portuguese colonization of the Americas in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church aggressively promoted miscegenation among the conquistadores. Ecclesiastical officials encouraged the European colonists to marry and interbreed with their native Indian and African concubines. This resulted in large-scale demographic genocide, which replaced European genetic homogeneity with mestizaje.
That Christianity is a non-ethnocentric ideology based on moral universalism is another serious problem with the religion. Europeans will always champion the interests of hostile out-groups at the expense of fellow Europeans in the name of Christian love and brotherhood. Christianity also opposes the high aggressiveness directed towards outgroup members; instead, believers are expected to practice nonviolence and compassion in the face of demographic replacement. High aggressiveness is a defining feature of Jewish group evolutionary strategy. It has allowed Jews to outcompete Europeans in their own societies.
Lastly, Christianity is militantly anti-eugenic, which is why it allows weaklings to survive and reproduce. This has decreased average IQ and the prevalence of other beneficial traits in European societies. In contrast, Jewish group evolutionary strategy institutionalizes eugenic practices that positively select for these traits, especially high intelligence. These eugenic practices have allowed Jews to exercise a degree of influence over Western societies vastly disproportionate to their actual numbers. Unlike Judaism for Jews, Christianity does not function as a group evolutionary strategy for Europeans, but as a recipe for racial and cultural suicide on a massive scale.
All aggressively pro-active measures against Christianity are certainly ethically justifiable in the face of Western decline and European racial extinction. In this essay, a more scientific approach is recommended. The European intellectual, before he devises any plan of action, must first acknowledge that no other biological process is as important for humans as evolution through natural selection. If he is to have any belief-system, it must be the civil religion of eugenics. Incorporating eugenics into the fabric of civic life would obviate coercion, making racial hygiene a matter of voluntary acquiescence. He would also do well to embrace the trifunctional worldview of the ancient Indo-Europeans.
For many thousands of years, trifunctional ideology served as an effective deterrent to the pathology of moral universalism. By envisaging the tripartite caste system as the fundamental pillar of a new order, the iron law of inequality is exalted as the highest law, the one most conducive to the achievement of social harmony. In this vision, the highest caste, equivalent to the brahman of Aryan-occupied India or the guardians of Plato’s Republic, would be absorbed in scientific and technological pursuits for their own sake. They would be entrusted with the material advancement of civilization. Their moral system, informed by the principles of evolutionary biology and eugenics, would be derived from the following axiom:

What is morally right is eugenic, i.e. improves the race biologically;
what is morally wrong is dysgenic, i.e. degrades the race biologically.

The second class of individuals will be bred for war and the third will consist of industrial and agricultural producers. These correspond to the Aryan kshatriyas and vaishyas or the “silver” and “bronze” castes of Plato’s Republic. Since these individuals do not possess the cognitive ability to participate in the highly abstract civil religion of the brahmans, they will worship their distant ancestors as the racial gods of a new religion founded on eugenic principles.
Christianity is an irrational superstition, which means that its influence will not be mitigated through logical argument. The child-like simplicity of Christian dogma is “a feature, not a bug.” Without an ability to appeal to the lowest common denominator, Christianity would not have spread as rapidly as it did during the 4th century. An enlightened European humanity, educated in the principles of Darwinian evolution and eugenics, cannot co-exist side by side with this ancient Semitic plague. The negative correlation that exists between Christian religiosity and intelligence simply reinforces this conclusion. Christianity is a seemingly intractable problem for primarily eugenic and biological reasons. Although a eugenic approach is clearly needed, other things must be done. If Christianity is to be abolished, all state-sanctioned programs of multicultural indoctrination must be completely eliminated along with it.
Through a program of rigorous eugenic breeding and media control, Europeans will be weaned from the neo-Christian ethical system they have imbibed since childhood. They will come to see eugenics as a necessary form of spiritual transcendence instead. Through a process of evolutionary development that is both culturally and technologically mediated, the lowest castes will embrace the brahman civil religion and see themselves as gods; the more evolved brahmans will move on to a more intensive contemplation of increasingly sophisticated mathematical and scientific abstractions. This progressive development of European racial consciousness will ensure the adoption of a successful group evolutionary strategy among Europeans.
The gradual phasing out of individuals with IQs below 100 will be carried out as an act of religious devotion among the lower castes. Aryan kshatriyas, the “knights of faith” of the new Aryan race religion, will impose a eugenic regime over the entire globe, repopulating the Third World with highly evolved super-organisms that will turn these former hellholes into terrestrial paradises. Wasting precious material resources caring for less evolved members of the human species will be a thing of the past. Humanity, whose scientific and technological progress stagnated during the late 20th century, will once again resume its upward journey toward the stars.

Eugenic breeding will force Europeans to realize the truth of Nietzsche’s core insight: Christianity, a transvaluation of all values driven by ressentiment, is a slave morality. It is the revolt of the underman against the aristocratic Indo-European virtues of strength and magnanimity, pride and nobility. By repudiating the syphilitic poison of Christianity, Europeans will become a race of value-creators, once again in charge of their own destinies as they affirm the beauty of life in all its fullness.

– End of Bardamu’s essay –

Categories
Alexander the Great Ancient Greece Ancient Rome Catholic Church Christendom Deranged altruism Egalitarianism Ferdinand Bardamu Individualism Kevin MacDonald Marxism New Testament Renaissance Universalism

Why Europeans must reject Christianity, 20

by Ferdinand Bardamu

 
The Christian apologetics of Prof. Kevin MacDonald
Sociobiological accounts of Western pathological altruism are based on inferences not supported by the available empirical evidence. For example, if the individualism of European societies is the result of evolutionary adaptation under ecologically adverse conditions, a similar tendency would be found among other ethno-racial groups that evolved in the same environment. However, Eastern Europeans and Northeast Asians evolved in the same North Eurasian and Circumpolar region but remain strongly ethnocentric and collectivist.
Those arguing in favor of a European genetic basis for pathological altruism face another serious problem: for thousands of years of recorded history, there isn’t a single instance of collectively suicidal behavior among Europeans until the Christianization of Rome in the 4th century. Why this is the case requires the following explanation.
Ancient ethical norms diverged considerably from modern ones. Pity was condemned as a vice; mercy was despised as a character flaw. Mercy was viewed as the antithesis of justice because no one deserved help that had not been earned. The rational man was typically expected to be callous towards the sufferings of the less fortunate. His philosophical training in the academies had shown him that mercy was an irrational and impulsive behavior whose proper antidote was self-restraint and stoic calm in the face of adversity. In the Roman world, clementia was reserved exclusively for the vanquished in battle or the guilty defendant at trial. Weaklings and the economically disadvantaged were beneath contempt.
Life in the ancient world was quite brutal by modern Western standards. The punishments meted out to criminals—blinding, burning with coals, branding with hot irons and mutilation—were exceedingly cruel and unusual. Public entertainment was noted for its brutality. Scratching, biting, eye gouging and mauling an opponent’s genitals were accepted as legitimate tactical maneuvers for boxers and wrestlers alike. In the naumachia, armies of convicts and POW’s were forced to fight each other to the death in naval vessels on man-made lakes. Gladiatorial combat remained immensely popular for centuries, until the monk Telemachus tried to separate two gladiators during a match in the Roman coliseum. He was promptly stoned to death by the mob for his efforts. Slavery was considered a non-issue in the ancient world. Aristotle rationalized the institution by dividing men into two classes: those by nature free, and therefore capable of assuming the responsibilities of citizenship, and those who were by nature slaves. A slave was defined as chattel property bereft of the capacity to reason. This meant that he could be sexually exploited, whipped, tortured and killed by his master without fear of legal reprisal.
Racism or, more accurately, “proto-racism” was more widespread and more accepted in the ancient world than in our politically correct modern Western “democracies.” As revealed by in-depth examination of classical literary sources, the Greeks were typically ethnocentric and xenophobic. They were given to frequent generalization, often negative, about rival ethnicities. The Greeks casually and openly discriminated against foreigners based on deeply ingrained proto-racial prejudices. Ethno-racial intermarriage, even among closely related Greek ethnic and tribal groups, was universally despised. It was even regarded as a root cause of physical and mental degeneration. The absence of terms like “racism,” “discrimination” and “prejudice” in the ancient world reveals that proto-racist attitudes were not generally condemned or seen as pathological.
Greek intellectual and biological superiority was determined by their intermediate geographical position between lazy, stupid northern Europeans and effeminate, pleasure-loving Asians. The Greeks were the best of men because they had been exposed to the right climate and occupied the right soil. The Greeks looked down upon foreigners, pejoratively referring to them as “barbarians.” This was an onomatopoeia derived from Hellenic mockery of unintelligible foreign speech. Barbarians were viewed as the natural inferiors of the civilized peoples of the Mediterranean basin. Prejudice was not only directed at foreigners. Significant interethnic rivalry also existed among fellow Greeks, as demonstrated by the history of the Peloponnesian Wars. Greek patriots despised their Roman conquerors, even referring to them contemptuously as barbarians. After the conquest of Macedonia, the Romans embraced the prejudices of their Greek subjects as their own.
How do contemporary sociobiological accounts of Western pathological altruism explain this?
It has been alleged that pathological altruism was always a deeply ingrained European character flaw. The Pythagorean communism of the 5th century BC is frequently mentioned as corroborating evidence, but these practices were reserved for the intellectual elite. Much the same could be said for Stoic cosmopolitanism, which bears no similarity to the deracinated cosmopolitanism of the modern West. In the Greek variant, the intellectual gains world citizenship by living in accord with the cosmic law of universal reason; in the Roman variant, the cosmopolis is identified with the Roman patria.
The Hellenistic empire of Alexander the Great is believed by some to have been established on a morally universalist foundation. These accusations have their basis in the rhetorical amplifications and literary embellishments of chroniclers who wrote long after the exploits of Alexander. The expansion of the Greek sphere of influence in Asia was romanticized by some as implying a new world order based on an imagined brotherhood of man. This is contradicted by the historical record. In actuality, Alexander and his generals promoted a policy of residential segregation along ethno-racial lines in the conquered territories, with Greek colonists on one side and natives on the other. In the Greek view, Hellenized Egyptians, Israelites, Syrians and Babylonians were racial foreigners who had successfully assimilated Greek culture; clearly then, cultural and linguistic Hellenization was not enough to make one “Greek.”
Ancestral lineage was an important component of ancient Greek identity. Herodotus observed that the Greeks saw themselves as a community “of one blood and of one tongue.” Caracalla’s extension of the franchise to Roman provincials in 212 AD was not an act of universalism per se, but occurred after centuries of Romanization. It was done for purposes of taxation and military recruitment. This imperial legislation, known as the Antonine Constitution, did not abolish ethnic distinction among Roman citizens.
The conventional sociobiological explanation of Prof. MacDonald and others is contradicted by the pervasive brutality and ethno-racial collectivism of ancient societies. Given Christianity’s role as an agent of Western decline, no explanation will be fully adequate until this is finally acknowledged and taken into consideration. Prof. MacDonald, in an essay for The Occidental Observer, “Christianity and the Ethnic Suicide of the West”, ignores this major obstacle to his own detriment, arguing that from a Western historical perspective, Christianity was a relatively benign influence. Despite MacDonald’s eminence as an authority on 20th century Jewish intellectual and political movements, his defense of Christianity reveals a superficial understanding of history, contemporary political theory and Christian theology.
Prof. MacDonald whitewashes Christianity throughout, denying that the religion has ever been “a root cause of Western decline.” He observes that Christianity was the religion of the West during the age of European exploration and colonization, but not once does he mention that Christianity was a spent force by the late Middle Ages, having undergone a serious and irreversible decline in power and influence. Prof. MacDonald does not mention that after 1400, Christendom was no longer unified because the legitimacy of medieval ecclesiastical authority had been shattered; first, by the rediscovery of classical science and philosophy, which shook the Christian worldview to its very foundations, and second, by the Protestant Reformation, which reduced the pope to the status of a mere figurehead.
This set the stage for the large-scale dissemination of atheism and agnosticism in the 20th century. Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press, combined with the spread of mass literacy, virtually ensured that the Christian church would never again control European intellectual life. If the late medieval church had retained the same ecclesiastical and political authority it had under Pope Innocent III, European colonization and exploration of the globe would have been virtually inconceivable. For these reasons, it is more historically accurate to situate European territorial expansion within the context of resurgent pagan epistemic values, i.e. empirical rationality, intellectual curiosity and the pursuit of scientific progress for its own sake, during the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution.
It is argued that the decline of the West has co-occurred with the decline of Christianity as an established faith, but this is incorrect. The Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution, as well as exploration and colonization that occurred along with it, were only possible because of the collapse of ecclesiastical authority in the late medieval period. This eroded the Christian stranglehold on the spread of knowledge, replacing blind faith with the pagan epistemic values of classical antiquity. The recent decline of the modern West beginning in the 1960s has co-occurred with the growing influence of a neo-Christian ethic in the public sphere, just as the decline of the ancient world co-occurred with the triumph of Christianity over the forces of paganism.
Prof. MacDonald observes that Christians have not always been consistent moral universalists in practice, but this is a non-sequitur. Marxists have not always been consistently anti-racist or multiculturalist, given Stalin’s rabid anti-Semitism, aggressive policy of national Russification, and deportation of entire ethnic populations to Siberia, but this does not change the fact that anti-racism and multiculturalism are characteristic features of Marxist orthodoxy. Since when have the inconsistent practices of a few individuals ever mitigated or excused the destructive nature of an ideology completely at odds with the biological reality of human nature? Likewise, MacDonald’s non-sequitur does not affect the central importance of spiritual equality in the Christian belief-system. Historically, Christians were divided on whether spiritual equality entailed certain real-world implications or was of purely eschatological significance.
This hopelessly muddled line of argument revolves around a nebulous definition of “traditional” Christianity, a term either alluded to or directly mentioned throughout. If traditional Christianity is supposedly good for Europeans, how can it be universalist and ethnocentric at the same time, as in the case of American abolitionists and slave-owners? Or is traditional Christianity whatever form of Christianity MacDonald finds acceptable? If this is the case, what is the point he is trying to make here? Prof. MacDonald mentions that the patristic writers frequently criticized Jewry for being obsessed with biological descent. This placed them at odds with the multicultural and multiethnic ideology of the Christian religion. But how can the patristic writers, who systematically formulated the official dogmatic orthodoxy of the church, not be representative of “traditional” Christianity? Paradoxically, MacDonald acknowledges the ancient origin of the church’s race-mixing proclivities. If he believes that the patristic writers were corrupted by egalitarian principles at a very early date, he should at least provide evidence of theological subversion.
According to Prof. MacDonald, the secular left, which initiated the cultural revolution of the 1960s, is not Christian in inspiration. This statement is egregiously wrong, revealing a profound ignorance of the philosophies of liberalism and Marxism, especially in terms of their historical development. These belief-systems originated in a Christian theological context. The core ideas of liberalism, human rights and equality, have their genesis in the careful biblical exegesis of 17th and 18th century Christian political theorists. Marxism is deeply rooted in the fertile soil of the Christian tradition, especially in the speculative Protestant rationalism of Hegel. It also draws additional inspiration from the Reformed theological principles of Luther and the communist socio-economic practices of the primitive Christian church.
The hostility between the secular left and “traditional” Christianity is emphasized to further demonstrate the non-Christian origins of Western pathological altruism. However, his observation is completely irrelevant, as both traditional and secular Christianity are essentially rival denominations within the same Christian religious tradition. The mutual hostility that exists between the two is to be expected. Furthermore, it is foolhardy to maintain that traditional or mainline Christianity has been corrupted by the secular left; given the origins of liberalism and Marxism in Christian theology and biblical exegesis, it is more accurate to say that traditional Christianity has allowed itself to be corrupted by its own moral paradigms after taking them to their logical conclusion. The Christian theological basis of social and biological egalitarianism is merely the rediscovery and application of the original ethical teachings of Jesus and the primitive church.
Prof. MacDonald says the “contemporary zeitgeist of the left is not fundamentally Christian.” He fails to realize that the liberal-leftist ideas behind Third World immigration and state-sanctioned multiculturalism have deep roots in the Christian tradition. There is a common misunderstanding, no doubt propagated by Christian apologists, that one must embrace the supernatural claims of Christian religious dogma to be considered a Christian. This contention is not supported by contemporary scholarship. For example, Unitarians reject traditional Christian orthodoxy but remain well within the Christian fold. Neo-Christianity, like Unitarianism, is a thoroughly demythologized religion, properly defined as the application of New Testament-derived ethical injunctions to the management of contemporary social and economic relations. By this definition, Liberals and Marxists are no less Christian than your typical bible-thumping “holy roller.”
If Christianity is ultimately responsible for the destruction of Western civilization, asks MacDonald, why aren’t Middle Eastern Christians destroying their own societies by aggressively pushing the same universalist and ethno-masochistic agenda? In this case, the comparison is historically flawed. The medieval Islamic conquest of Byzantine North Africa and the Near East virtually guaranteed that Middle Eastern Christianity would follow a socio-historical trajectory differing significantly from the one followed by Latin Christianity. Up until quite recently, Middle Eastern Christians inhabited a medieval world no different from the one Europeans had lived in for centuries before the dawn of the Renaissance. Middle Eastern Christians never experienced any Reformation that allowed them to shake off the tyranny of ecclesiastical authority and wrestle with the real-world implications of spiritual equality.
Furthermore, none of the conditions for a Reformation ever existed in what remained of Middle Eastern Christendom. There was no humanist movement, which meant no dramatic increase in literacy or availability of printed material. There was no rediscovery of the patristic writers or of the ancient biblical manuscripts in the original languages. Access to the original source material would have made it easier for religious dissidents to challenge ecclesiastical authority and refute long-established medieval Christian dogma. In fact, Middle Eastern Christians were dhimmis, a persecuted jizya-paying religious minority in a larger Moslem world hostile to their very survival. Given the precariousness of their legal situation in the Ottoman empire, they had no time for the finer points of biblical exegesis or theological analysis.
Prof. MacDonald states, erroneously, that in Judaism there is no “tradition of universalist ethics or for empathy with suffering non-Jews.” He is obviously not familiar with the teachings of the Old Testament: “The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:34) Christianity is simply the radical universalization of Hebrew ethical concern for the plight of hapless foreigners living among them; as such, it is firmly embedded within the soil of 1st century Palestinian Judaism. Although Christianity has absorbed Greek philosophical ideas because of its wide dissemination in Europe, it is obviously not a European invention.
At this point, Prof. MacDonald asks: If the “moral universalism / idealism” that is destroying Sweden is due to Christianity, how does one explain “how people can lose every aspect of Christian ideology except the ethics”? To answer this question, let us inquire into the historical genesis of the Christian religion and the identity of its earliest followers.
Christianity originated in the yearning of Palestinian Jewry for social justice while having to patiently endure the tyranny of foreign rulers. Under these harsh conditions, Jewish beliefs in a messiah acquired an unprecedented sense of urgency, eventually assuming militant and apocalyptic overtones. This sense of urgency reached a crescendo in 1st century Palestine; self-proclaimed messiahs amassed armed bands of followers poised and ready to establish the son of David on the throne of Caesar, by force if necessary. This is the environment in which the Jesus myth originated, woven together from different strands of Jewish tradition in an atmosphere of deep-seated yearning for the coming advent of a messiah. This advent symbolized the end of Roman tyranny and the establishment of the kingdom of god on earth.
Christianity’s earliest followers were drawn from the refuse of the empire. Why? Because Christianity was the first mass movement in history to give concrete expression to the inner yearning of the people for freedom from oppression and hunger. What man has not sought to escape the oppression of his masters or the poverty of his surroundings? With the rise of Christianity, like the rise of Jewish Messianic belief, the inchoate yearnings of the mob for deliverance from oppression were replaced with a vision of a new social order that would inaugurate an age of universal justice and freedom. This new vision would lead to the establishment of a worldwide communist economic system that would forever solve world poverty and hunger. In the New Testament was found a blueprint for an ideal society that would inspire generations of social reformers and leftist revolutionaries.
For centuries, it was the only widely accessible document that demanded social justice for the poor and downtrodden and the only document to propose a practical solution to the problem of social inequality: the establishment of a socially egalitarian or communist society on earth. The religion of Christianity tapped into this deep-seated, age-old psychological yearning of the masses and, for the first time in history, gave it a coherent voice. This ensured the survival of ethical Christianity long after the decline of ecclesiastical orthodoxy in the late Middle Ages, allowing it to flourish, virtually unchallenged, in the ostensibly secular milieu of the modern 21st century Western “democracies.”
As a control mechanism, ethical Christianity was remarkably flexible. It could be used to justify any social arrangement, no matter how unjust or brutal. Its promise of “pie in the sky” had a remarkably pacifying effect on the illiterate serfs, who were expected to toil on the lord’s manor for their daily bread. Feudal landowners encouraged Christian religious instruction because it produced an easily controlled and manipulated peasantry. Vassals had it drummed into their heads from the moment of birth that servants must obey their masters. The church promised them life everlasting in paradise if they faithfully observed this requirement until death.
The great rarity of the peasant revolt against serfdom reveals the shrewd pragmatism of those who used religion as a means of safeguarding the public order. Punishment for original sin and the Pauline dualism between body and spirit, among other things, provided European rulers with additional convenient rationalization for the institution of serfdom. In the right hands, the ethical pronouncements of the New Testament could be used as an agent of revolutionary change, capable of stirring up mass revolt and potentially unleashing forces that could tear apart the “vast fabric of feudal subordination.” This was demonstrated by the Peasant Revolt of 1381, ignited by the fanatical communist-inspired sermons of the renegade priest John Ball.
The concept of human rights—Christian ethical injunctions in secularized form—illustrate in concrete fashion why the morality of the New Testament managed to survive long after the decline of Christian dogmatic orthodoxy. Rights dominate the field of political discourse because they are considered by egalitarian ideologues the most effective mechanism available for ensuring (a) the equal treatment of all persons and; (b) equal access to the basic goods deemed necessary for maximal human flourishing.
This practicality and effectiveness must be attributed to the ability of rights to fulfill the secret yearning of the common people, which is to ameliorate, as much as possible, the baneful effects of oppression and want. It achieves this by demolishing the traditional social and political distinctions once maintained between aristocracy and peasantry, placing all individuals on the same level playing field. The concept of rights has allowed the masses to closely realize their age-old utopian aspirations within a liberal egalitarian or socialist context. The concept’s great flexibility means that it can be interpreted to justify almost any entitlement. Even those who openly rejected the notion of rights, such as utilitarian philosopher Bentham, were unable to devise a more satisfactory mechanism that ensured equal treatment of all.
The Marxist tradition, emerging from under different historical circumstances, never fully decoupled Christian ethical teaching from traditional orthodoxy; instead, Marxist philosophical method necessitated an “inverted” Judeo-Christian eschatological and soteriological framework, largely because dialectical materialism is primarily an inversion of Hegel’s speculative Protestant rationalism.
In Hegelian Christianity, knowledge is substituted for faith. This eliminated the “mysteries” of Christian orthodoxy by making rational self-knowledge of god a possibility for all believers. The trinity as absolute mind, and therefore reason incarnate, means that Jesus of Nazareth was a teacher of rational morality, although his ethical system had been corrupted by patristic and medieval expositors. If “the rational is real and the real is rational,” as Hegel said, history is not only the progressive incarnation of god, but god is the historical process itself. The triadic structure of the natural world, including human self-consciousness, proves that the structure of objective reality is determined by the triune godhead of Christianity.
Hegel’s interpretation of Christianity gave Marx the raw material he needed to extract the “rational kernel” of scientific observation from “within the mystical shell” of Hegelian speculative rationalism. This liberated dialectical analysis from Hegel’s idealist mystification, allowing Marx to do what Hegel should have done, before succumbing to Christian theological reflection: construct a normative science, a Realwissenschaft, analyzing the socio-economic developments within capitalism that would unleash the forces of worldwide proletarian revolution.
The secularization of Christianity preserved the religion’s ethical component, while discarding all supernatural elements. This gave us modern liberalism. In contrast, Marx turned Hegel’s Protestant theological system upside down, a process of extraction resulting in the demystification of Hegelian Christianity. In Marxist philosophy, the inversion of dialectic removes the analytical tool—the “rational kernel”—from within its Christian idealist “shell.” This is then applied to the analysis of real-world phenomena within a thorough-going materialist framework, like the internal contradictions of capital accumulation in Marxist crisis theory.
Prof. MacDonald argues for a genetic basis for moral universalism in European populations, a difficult argument to make given the historical evidence indicating a total absence of pathological altruism in the ancient world before Christianization of the Roman empire. He mentions the systematic brainwashing of Europeans and the major role of Jewish political, academic and financial influence in the ethnocide of the West, but again forgets to mention that all these cultural forces rationalize European dispossession using political ideas like universal human rights and equality, the two fundamental pillars of secularized Christianity.
Prof. MacDonald’s attempt to exculpate Christianity of being “a root cause of Western decline” is easily refuted. In the final analysis, Christianity, at least in its organized form, is the single greatest enemy of Western civilization to have ever existed.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support The West’s Darkest Hour.

Categories
Catholic Church Christendom Demography Egalitarianism Ferdinand Bardamu Kali Yuga Liberalism

Why Europeans must reject Christianity, 19

by Ferdinand Bardamu

 
Most destructive force in European history? World’s most dangerous religion?
Among the great religions, only Christianity contains within its shell an unlimited capacity for self-destruction. Nihilism lies at the core of the Christian gospel; in pure form, the religion demands the total renunciation of all worldly attachment for the greater glory of the kingdom of god. Christianity is the negation of life because it sets goals that, when attained, lead to the annihilation of the individual. As far as Western survival is concerned, this can only mean one thing: civilizational collapse and ethnic suicide. This is exactly what happened during the Dark Ages, when Christians were at the apogee of their power and influence in Europe. This decline was reversed by courageous intellectuals who had rediscovered the glories of the ancient civilizations, using this past achievement as the basis for new achievements and discoveries.
Christianity is a dangerous religion. It maximizes the survival and reproduction of the genetically unfit at the expense of society’s more productive members. It promotes the mass invasion of the West by foreigners of low genetic quality, especially from the Third World. By lowering collective IQ, Christianity has accelerated Western civilizational decline.
Neo-Christianity, in the form of liberalism and cultural Marxism, has inherited the orthodox Christian high regard for Lebensunwertes Leben. Christians and neo-Christians have even provided the necessary economic and political means, i.e. welfare statism and human rights, for ensuring that the genetically unfit breed large numbers of offspring with each passing generation. This has created an “idiocracy,” one that threatens the sustainability of all Western institutions. With each passing year, an enormous fiscal burden is imposed on the state for the support and daily maintenance of this growing class of dependents.
The Christian belief in the sacredness or intrinsic worth of all human life means that the religion is best regarded as an inherently anti-eugenic force. This Christian hatred of race improvement has manifested itself throughout European history. Christian monasticism and the priesthood, which removed Europe’s most gifted men from the gene pool, helped prolong the Dark Ages by hundreds of years.
Christian opposition to eugenics may also be driven by a recognition that actual religious belief is correlated with genetic inferiority. The negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity has been known since the mid-1920’s. Recent findings include a 2009 study revealing that atheists have average IQ’s 6 points higher than religious believers. This more than exceeds the threshold for statistical significance. The study further explored the relationship between national IQ and disbelief in god, finding a correlation of 0.60. This negative correlation, replicated across multiple studies, is the main reason why Christianity has experienced such explosive growth in the underdeveloped regions of Africa and Latin America.
In this context, Christian opposition to eugenics is a defensive maneuver. A more biologically evolved population would abandon Christianity for a rational belief-system. This would bankrupt the Christian religion by emptying church coffers and forcing its clergy to find an alternative source of employment.
Christianity is a threat to global peace and security. This makes it the world’s most dangerous religion. The Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination in the world at almost 1.3 billion members, is opposed to abortion and all other forms of contraception. Protestants are also against abortion, although many support voluntary contraception. Neo-Christians, which include modern liberals and cultural Marxists, although not opposed to the free availability of abortion and contraception in the West, are opposed to population stabilization and reduction in Third World countries.
Although modern research has demonstrated the existence of a significant positive correlation between foreign aid and fertility, Christian organizations continue to actively send aid to Third World countries. The continuous flow of money from the global north to the global south has led to explosive population growth in the developing regions of the world.
This problem is most acute in Africa, where the demographic situation has been significantly exacerbated by foreign aid from the liberal governments of developed countries and Christian charities. The population increases through a continuous stream of charitable donation, which places great strain on available resources as the local carrying capacity of the land is exceeded. Competition for scarce resources intensifies, bringing violent conflict in its wake; large-scale famines occur with increasing frequency and severity. The destabilization of entire regions leads to increasing numbers of Africans desperately trying to escape worsening conditions in their own countries, accelerating the destruction of Western civilization through the demographic timebomb of Third World migration.
After the West has been utterly destroyed by rampaging migrant hordes, the populations that once survived on Christian charity and foreign aid return to subsistence-level conditions after Malthusian catastrophe. This results in widespread depopulation of Africa south of the Sahara Desert.
Like the patristic Christianity that once menaced the world of classical antiquity, the “neo-Christianity” of social welfare liberalism and cultural Marxism threatens to bring about the complete destruction of modern Western civilization. Political doctrines like equality and human rights, forged within a Christian theological context, are now used as tools for the dispossession of Europeans in their own homelands. Not only is neo-Christianity represented by liberal-leftist ideology; it is also an intrinsic element of modern Christian teaching that has rediscovered its primitive Christian roots.
All Christian churches, both Protestant and Catholic, support racial egalitarianism; they actively promote the ethnocide of the West through massive and indiscriminate Third World immigration. This resurgent neo-Christianity gathers momentum with each passing decade. Time will only tell whether the neo-Christian recreation of god’s kingdom on earth is successful, but the current prognosis for Western civilization remains a bleak one.
The multiculturalist state religion was implemented during the cultural revolution of the 1960s. Reversal of course is not possible in this current atmosphere of state-sanctioned political correctness. If the liberal-leftist regimes of the West maintain their grip on power, the dystopian conditions they have socially engineered will continue without interruption into the foreseeable future. The totalitarian nature of multicultural ideology is further reinforced by the systematic brainwashing of Western populations and Jewish elite control of politics, the media, all major financial institutions and the academic world.
European civilization is in danger of being permanently eclipsed by the specter of neo-Christian influence, which hangs over the continent like the sword of Damocles. We will always have the Bible and the church, but Western scientific and technological advancement will not be with us forever. It is obvious that Christianity offers nothing but endless misery and suffering for Western man. Unless the remaining vestiges of Christianity in Europe are extinguished without a trace, European civilization will find itself submerged in a dark age more long-lasting and calamitous than the one that engulfed Europe after the Christianization of the Latin-speaking West in the 4th century.
For the first time in history, Western man must choose between Christianity or the survival of his own civilization. We can only hope that he chooses wisely as the “hour of decision” fast approaches.

Categories
Ferdinand Bardamu Hegel Karl Marx Martin Luther Marxism Philosophy Philosophy of history Reformation

Why Europeans must reject Christianity, 18

by Ferdinand Bardamu

 
Karl Marx, chief interpreter of the “Protestant Aquinas”
Marxist ideology is neither rationally explicable nor empirically verifiable. This means that Marxism is not subject to revision when its prophecies fail to materialize, or its cardinal doctrines are disproven; instead, like the Christian religionist, the Marxist ideologue is forced to engage in mind-numbing apologetics to maintain a thin veneer of ideological respectability. Despite claims of being “scientific,” Marxism requires a rigid doctrinal orthodoxy that demands excommunication of heretics who deviate from the established creed. Marxism is, in fact, a neo-Christian religious cult with its own prophets, saviors, holy books, holy days, and holy sites, as well as sacred rituals and devotional music.
Marxism shares the same basic doctrines as Christianity, albeit in materialist garb. The Garden of Eden finds its Marxist counterpart in the egalitarian social arrangement preceding the rise of civilization. The Fall from paradise occurs with Adam and Eve’s disobedience; in the Marxist worldview, the Fall occurs with the introduction of the division of labor. In Christianity, there is the devil; in Marxism, the villain is the capitalist. Marx’s historical materialism is merely the eschatological framework of Christian orthodoxy in secularized form. In Christianity, god works through history to redeem the elect. This leads to an apocalyptic showdown between the forces of good and evil, the millennial reign of Christ, and the re-establishment of utopian conditions on earth. The same teleological view of history is found in Marxist ideology. The internal contradictions within the flow of capital resolve themselves in favor of proletarian liberation from capitalist exploitation. The continuous valorization and concentration of financial resources in the hands of the capitalist, combined with the “immiseration” of the proletariat, generate apocalyptic conditions or “revolution.” This leads to the overthrow of the capitalists, seizure of the means of production, dictatorship of the proletariat and finally, the establishment of communist paradise at the end of history.
Marx’s vision of history is so deeply rooted in Christianity that his philosophy would be more accurately classified as a branch of liberal Protestantism. This would situate Marx within a Christian theological tradition beginning with the Jew Saul of Tarsus. Even Marx’s atheism does not exclude him from the Christian tradition; the dialectic in Marx’s philosophy of history possesses the same function as the triune godhead of Christianity; both are abstract agencies whose purpose is to bring the salvation plan of history to its final consummation in apocalyptic conflict, returning all humanity to an imagined golden age that once existed in the remote past. Marx, like the primitive Christians and their Reformed inheritors, takes the anticipatory view of human spiritual equality to its final logical conclusion.
From whence does Marxism acquire its character as a secularized version of the Christian gospel? The philosophical method of dialectical materialism, the cornerstone upon which the entire edifice of “scientific” socialism was constructed, is derived from Hegel’s use of dialectic in Phenomenology of Spirit. Hegel, called the “Protestant Aquinas” because of his systematization and unification of a wide variety of topics in philosophy and Christian theology, first conceived of dialectic in his early theological writings. According to the philological and historical evidence, Hegel, after having spent years immersing himself in St. Paul’s Letters as a Protestant seminarian, appropriated the term Aufhebung from Luther’s commentary on Romans. This was Luther’s translation of the messianic term katargesis in the Pauline epistles. Hegel made the term the fundamental axis of his dialectic because Luther’s use of Aufhebung had the double meaning of abolishing and conserving, like its koine Greek equivalent katargesis.
Of greater significance is Hegel’s use of Protestant trinitarian theology to elucidate the underlying structure of objective reality. For Hegel, the Absolute is the complete totality of everything in existence; if this is considered as a unity, the Absolute is god, or the self-consciousness of the universe. The world of sense and experience is necessarily triadic because, as Absolute Mind, it reflects the trinitarian structure of the Christian godhead. This makes everything in the known universe amenable to rational explanation. “Mystery” has no place in Hegel’s version of Protestant theology because faith has been replaced with knowledge.
Hegel’s logical system is divided into three parts, each corresponding to the three persons of the trinity: I. Logic II. Nature III. Spirit. These are each further subdivided into three more categories and so on, reflecting Hegel’s belief that any systematization of philosophical and theological knowledge must faithfully mirror the underlying triadic structure of objective reality to achieve some degree of rational coherence. Even Hegel’s dialectical method, the cornerstone of his philosophy, is triadic in structure. The dialectic has three “moments”: (1.) a moment of fixity; (2.) a dialectical or negatively rational moment and; (3.) a speculative or positively rational moment.
In Hegel’s dialectic triad, a fixed concept (first moment) becomes unstable because of a one-sided or restrictive character (second moment). In the process of “sublation” (or Aufhebung), the concept of the first moment is overcome and preserved, but an inherent instability within the concept leads to the creation of its direct opposite. In the third moment, a higher rational unity emerges from the negation of the original negation. Hegel’s teleological vision of the historical process unfolds according to this three-stage dialectical process of contradiction, sublation and unity of opposites.
This system is by no means strictly deterministic; in Hegel’s view of history, the trinitarian god is revealed as transcendent in the dynamic relationship between historical necessity and contingency, which subsist as overarching unity on a higher rational plane of existence. Without this crucial ingredient of contingency, the telos of history would remain outside humanity’s grasp, frustrating the divine plan of a trinitarian god who reveals himself through the logic of the historical dialectic. The Hegelian telos is the universal self-realization of freedom through the historical development of man’s consciousness of the divine, attaining its highest stage of fulfillment in the elimination of all Christian “mysteries” through complete rational self-knowledge of god. Given the role of freedom in this dialectical view of history, the pivotal significance of the Protestant Reformation for Hegel is easily comprehended. Luther’s iconic enunciation of the doctrine of universal priesthood, combined with his repudiation of medieval ecclesiastical authority, meant that freedom was on the threshold of achieving full actualization within the historical process as a universal phenomenon, bringing us further toward the telos of history in modern times.
Like St. Augustine’s linear view of history in City of God, Hegel’s view is also fundamentally Christian, permeated by the eschatological and soteriological elements of Protestant orthodoxy. The central miracle of Christianity, the Incarnation or Logos made flesh, is further reflected in the unfolding of the historical dialectic. The dialectical overcoming of particularity and universality, finite and infinite at the end of history, when man achieves rational self-knowledge of the absolute, is patterned on the Incarnation, or the dialectical overcoming of the opposition between god and man. The self-manifestation of god in the historical process makes man co-agent in the divine plan of post-historical redemption. This occurs despite man’s alienation and estrangement from god. The “unhappy consciousness,” yearning for god, finally becomes aware of his individual co-agency in god’s plan of universal salvation and achieves liberation from despair. This realization, which is really a collective one, ushers in the end of history by ensuring man’s salvation through the establishment of god’s kingdom on earth.
For Marx, the Hegelian dialectic suffered from an internal contradiction. The logic of dialectic presented human history as an evolutionary process, one of constant motion and change, with no final, absolute form. Yet paradoxically, the laws of dialectic that structured historical development within Hegel’s idealist system were absolutes in a system that was itself final and absolute. How was this contradiction to be resolved? “With [Hegel],” Marx wrote in Das Kapital, “[the dialectic] is standing on its head. It must be inverted, in order to discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.” Inversion of Hegel’s speculative idealism resolves this internal contradiction by recasting the logic of evolution as an open-ended process. The materialist dialectic replaces the idealist teleological-conceptual framework of Hegel’s system with an evolutionary form of human social and biological development. Nothing is absolute in Marx’s system, except the need for continuous dialectical progression through contradiction and unity of opposites. If all substantial being is relative and transitory, it follows that the laws of dialectic can only be applied to it in a relative fashion. If evolution is a continuous and open-ended process, no idealist resolution of its objective material contradictions is possible without fetishizing them as part of some hermetically sealed, closed system. Thus, Marx’s inversion of the dialectic rescued it from Hegel’s absolute Christian idealist framework, giving it a thoroughly natural, anthropological foundation within an evolutionary materialist framework. With a materialized dialectic, Marx was able to formulate a philosophical methodology that could analyze capitalist economic relations from a scientific perspective.
The eschatological conceptualization of history as both linear and teleological is a uniquely Judeo-Christian “contribution” to Western culture. This replaced the earlier Greek view of history as a cyclical process. Hegel translated the eschatological framework of Lutheran Protestant theology into a well-organized philosophical system. The laws of dialectic were simply contradictions within the Christian narrative of redemption. The Marxist theory of historical materialism assimilated this Christian eschatological framework, in “demystified” and rational form, precisely because its philosophical methodology incorporated Hegel’s dialectic as the motor force of historical development. Thus, we have primitive communism for the Garden of Eden, capitalist oppressors for the devil, man’s self-alienation for the effects of original sin, a classless society for the kingdom of god and so forth. In Marx’s secularized Protestant theology, historical evolution proceeds by way of class conflict, leading to proletarian emancipation and communist paradise. In Hegel, man achieves rational self-knowledge of god, whereas for Marx, man achieves rational self-knowledge of himself at history’s end, which is really the beginning of man’s “true” history according to the Marxist plan of salvation.
Marx’s philosophy, when stripped of all socio-economic elements, is the trinitarian and Christological dimension of Hegel’s speculative Protestant rationalism in materialist form. The eschatological and soteriological framework of orthodox Christianity remains intact, although secularized and inverted. Like every good Protestant, Marx acknowledged the influence of the Reformation upon his own ideas, tracing his revolutionary pedigree through Hegel to the renegade monk Luther.
The global dissemination of Marxism has revealed Karl Marx as one of the most influential Christian theologians after St. Paul. This neo-Christianity is potentially even more destructive than the patristic Christianity that infected and nearly exterminated the Western civilization of antiquity. Economic Marxism has killed an estimated 100 million people in the 20th century; if trends continue, cultural Marxism will lead to the civilizational and cultural extinction of the West.