web analytics

Category: Kevin MacDonald

Categories
Holocaust Kevin MacDonald

Carolyn Yeager confronts KMD

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for replying! I wrote that you had ‘never admitted that [you] seriously doubted that “it” occurred as generally described’. So it’s not what you have said but what you have failed to say. Also, publishing someone else’s articles in your capacity as editor of The Occidental Observer is not equivalent to a statement from you.

In 2017, you participated in a videocast of Torah Talk with Luke Ford, a non-ethnically Jewish student of Torah and Talmud. One of Ford’s young students asked you the clearly unexpected question: ‘What are your thoughts about holocaust revisionism?’ I quote your answer word for word:

Yeah, I guess I’m not, uh, I’ve never had any sympathy really, before—I haven’t seen anything that would really, you know, convince me. And I, frankly, haven’t dealt into it very much. My view is that it’s not important for what I’m doing and I don’t think it’s really important—I think what’s really important is the culture of the holocaust, you know, how it’s taught in school, how it’s used to defend Israel, and it’s used as a weapon against people who oppose immigration, and all those things—ah I think those are very important things to discuss. So whether it actually happened, exactly, and all that is something that I don’t think is possible to even go there anymore, is just… just uh… third rail.

Definition of ‘third rail’: A subject that tends to be avoided because of its offensive or controversial nature.

I’d like to insert here that IF it’s not important whether the H. actually happened, how can there be a culture about it that is important? We need to know whether it happened or not—if not, there can be no culture based on it. You were also asked your feelings about Adolf Hitler. You answered:

Oh God, I think that the only term I can use is a disaster. I think that his own personality… got in the way of [the generals] carrying out their strategic military [goals] in World War Two. I think he was, you know, he thought of himself as a general or something. You know, he interfered with policy that should have been left to professionals and I think that that was… horrible, that was a disaster.

There was more, which you can read for yourself at [Carolyn’s site].

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s Note: Read the whole exchange at The Occidental Observer.

Categories
Kevin MacDonald

Throne revisited

Three years ago, on 19 May 2019, the finale of Game of Thrones, ‘The Iron Throne’, premiered. Because of how popular this HBO series became among normies, I’ve tried to use Tyrion’s message in the finale about the stories we tell ourselves.

What strikes me most is that the story being told by American white nationalists is, like the story told to the plebeian German under the Nazi regime, the story that the Jews wrote for our consumption, the New Testament: a story where the heroes and protagonists are Jewish.

It reminds me that I recently watched the special edition DVD of the 1959 film that won so many Oscars: Ben-Hur. Commenting on the opening of the film with images from Nazareth, Charlton Heston was talking to another film pundit, who remarked that the people in red clothing were the ‘bad guys’ of the movie, i.e. the Romans. It was implied that the good guys were the Jews!

It is alarming that American racialists keep coming up with these stories in which the Aryans are the bad guys and the Jews the good guys, as if telling us such stories had nothing to do with the empowerment of the Jews in the West!

Never mind that Game of Thrones is rubbish (I criticised each of the 73 episodes in On Beth’s Cute Tits). What matters is my use of the finale to say something that reminds me of Goethe’s words: The hardest thing to see is what is in front of you.

And indeed, today’s racialists, unlike Hitler, are unable to see what is right under their noses: that to tell us a Jewish story for two thousand years is pure poison for racial preservation, and that the first thing we must do is to tell us the Aryan story.

Categories
Alice Miller Autobiography Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald Psychohistory Racial right

WDH vs. TOO

‘Tanstaafl cannot think in terms of a combined causality, for him there can be only one cause: the Jews’. —Franklin Ryckaert

I woke up thinking I would post an entry from another section of Savitri Devi’s book and, while checking my email spam filter, I come across an article in The Occidental Observer (TOO) about Tanstaafl (Tan).

Although I never met him personally (the American government doesn’t give me a visa to visit the US), when I first woke up to the Jewish question, Tan and I were friends. Then I began to ask questions, such as the cases of ethno-suicidal miscegenation without Jewish subversion that have occurred throughout history, and I distanced myself from him. While I still believe that the JQ (the Jewish Question) is a very real thing—Kevin MacDonald is more or less right, as far as he goes, in his three books on the JQ that I’ve read—, in expanding the JQ into the CQ (the Christian Question) I lost almost all the friends I had known, thanks to the internet, from white nationalism.

But before I get into the title of this article, which I came up with because my previous article is entitled ‘WDH vs. AmRen’, I would like to confess a few things about my biography.

As you can read in my autobiographical books, my adolescent life begins with a family tragedy that destroyed several people. Cognitively, I was not well after the storm and fell into a neochristian cult, whose dogmas led me into a ‘dark night of the soul’.

Specific anecdotes are beside the point except that, after a period of blind belief in the cult, called Eschatology, I began to ask questions. For example, why, if Eschatology develops paranormal powers to heal the body and in theory one can prolong youth, did eschatologists get sick and die like everyone else (see my article on the subject on pages 9-24 of Daybreak)? My teachers of Eschatology never answered me, nor did it ever occur to them that they should answer me.

That was the first time I left a group that had served as a new family after the loss of my biological family. It was also the first time I realised that a group of religionists are so self-encapsulated in an ideological bubble that any rational argument attacking their bubble from the outside will simply be ignored.

Years after I left the cult, something similar would happen to me with another group I belonged to, but this time it was just an internet group about abusive parents: specifically, readers of the Swiss psychologist Alice Miller. By now I was familiar with the work of Lloyd deMause, who, in his book that was translated into several languages, History of Childhood, said that children had been much more abused in the historical past, and more so in non-Western cultures. Since Miller’s fans were (and apparently still are) all liberals, they didn’t enter into an honest discussion with me about the terrible treatment of children in non-Western cultures.

So, for the second time, I lost a group I had acclimatised with, and for exactly the same reason: a lack of honesty on the part of my colleagues to face the facts. My conclusions about deMause’s work can be read in my book Day of Wrath, and my final word to those I left behind as I crossed the bridge from Miller country to White Nationalist country can be read: here.

But my spirit of always going to the frontier of knowledge made me cross, once again, another bridge, although crossing it has left me almost alone. A commenter on this site hit the nail regarding this ultimate loneliness: ‘The leap from 5 to 6 [of Mauricio’s ladder] is astronomical due to the Xtian malware rejection. Feels lonely sometimes’. Indeed: by introducing the CQ we lose the friendship of not only Christian white nationalists, but Christian sympathisers like Kevin MacDonald and many secular people who comment on his site and AmRen.

The West’s Darkest Hour used to be visited by more people, and even receive more donations, before I went nuclear on the CQ. But I won’t change my views unless someone shows me I’m wrong.

A while ago I asked commenters who subscribed to ‘monocausalism’—Jewry as the primary cause of white decline—not to argue here. I have modified that request and I think that, if they have good reasons to refute me, they could point them out to me—as long as they take into consideration what I say in the single comment of the sticky post!

But there is a problem with this desire of mine for dialogue. If I take into consideration my past, for example all those decades I lost in the cult and the reluctance of eschatologists to discuss the issues with me, or the reluctance of Alice Miller fans to discuss my interpretation of deMause, I think I should understand that white nationalists will never try to refute me. Like the eschatologists and Miller fans, they will simply ignore what I say even though it would be possible, say, for one of these fans to write a critical review of my Day of Wrath, or for the nationalists to write critical reviews of the other books on the sidebar.

As those who study paradigm shifts know, the old-school proponents (e.g., those who believe in the quasi-monocausal premise of TOO) have to die off so that the proponents of the new paradigm—that the CQ and JQ are two sides of the same coin—can begin to flourish.

The problem is that we don’t have much time. The anti-white establishment is growing by the day to ‘wait’ for the monocausalists to die out (think, for example, of who Biden wants to nominate to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat). Rather than trying to convince them, it would be great if younger people could climb Mauricio’s ladder and get to where very few of us are. And if we are wrong, let those of the old school start, for example, by answering what Ferdinand Bardamu objects to about Kevin MacDonald (pages 171-181 of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour).

 

Update of February 4

Edmund Connelly, PhD, the author of ‘Tanstaafl and Rational [!] Discussion of Jews’—the first link in the above article—didn’t mention what Greg Johnson thinks about Tan’s monocausalism.

In white nationalism there are three main sites of pundits: TOO, AmRen, and CC (Counter-Currents) administered by Johnson. Had Connelly been a little more objective, he would have taken Johnson’s objections to Tan into account.

Exactly the same can be said about the commenters in the TOO discussion thread. As of this update, there is not a single critique of Tan—or monocausalists like him—of the sort of Greg Johnson’s sharp critique. That gross omission vindicates what I wrote above about ‘the quasi-monocausal premise of TOO’.

Categories
Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (book) George Orwell Kevin MacDonald Racial right

A fair hearing – when?

George Orwell said: ‘At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question… Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals’.

But these days, after years of hard work, Kevin MacDonald is getting a fair hearing on Jewish influence in the West—in an Israeli journal! (see KMD’s ‘My paper on Jewish influence blows up’). Despite the tearing of clothes by the usual suspects (ADL, etc.), his ideas are finally being discussed in a mainstream journal, giving him a chance to respond.

I wonder how long it will take a similar courtesy that these Israelis are extending to KMD, but this time from racialists regarding The West’s Darkest Hour?

This is our challenge to the prevailing orthodoxy in white nationalism: unlike your monocausalism, we believe that Christian ethics enabled the Jewish problem. But to this day, our unfashionable opinion has never been given a fair hearing in your highbrow forums (for example, KMD rejected Ferdinand Bardamu’s article on Christianity that now appears in The Fair Race). You haven’t done so even though it would be relatively easy to review, say, our masthead book (I only authored the preface).

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald Miscegenation Racial right

How KMD ushers in the new year

In my last post last year I reminded visitors that none of the mainstream white nationalist forums has tried to answer my main point about miscegenation in Latin America, when Jews had no influence in the Americas. Kevin MacDonald’s first article this year in The Occidental Observer opens with these words:

Nathan Cofnas published a paper in the Israel-based academic journal Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel in February of last year titled “The Anti-Jewish Narrative.” Andrew Joyce wrote a masterful reply, “The Cofnas Problem,” while I decided to try to publish a response in Philosophia. My paper went through two rounds of peer review and was finally accepted. It is the lead article in the January issue of Philosophia, and is available as an open-access paper on Springer Nature.

This is the first time I have attempted to publish an article on Jewish influence in the mainstream academic literature since The Culture of Critique was published in 1998 by Praeger, so it is something of a milestone.

MacDonald is one of the most respected white nationalists in America. I would like to respond to what he says about his milestone by paraphrasing the article’s abstract, replacing terms that refer to Jewry with terms that refer to Christian ethics. This is MacDonald’s original abstract:

The role of Jewish activism in the transformative changes that have occurred in the West in recent decades continues to be controversial. Here I respond to several issues putatively related to Jewish influence, particularly the “default hypothesis” that Jewish IQ and urban residency explain Jewish influence and the role of the Jewish community in enacting the 1965 immigration law in the United States; other issues include Jewish ethnocentrism and intermarriage and whether diaspora Jews are hypocritical in their attitudes on immigration to Israel versus the United States. The post-World War II era saw the emergence of a new, substantially Jewish elite in America that exerted influence on a wide range of issues that formed a virtual consensus among Jewish activists and the organized Jewish community, including immigration, civil rights, and the secularization of American culture. Jewish activism in the pro-immigration movement involved: intellectual movements denying the importance of race in human affairs; establishing, staffing, and funding anti-restrictionist organizations; recruiting prominent non-Jews to anti-restrictionist organizations; rejecting the ethnic status quo as a goal because of fear of a relatively homogeneous white majority; leadership in Congress and the executive branch.

What KMD says both in this article and in his trilogy on Jewry is basically true. My objection is that it is short-sighted, in that it doesn’t adequately consider the history of the white race outside his nation. This is my paraphrase:

The role of the Catholic Church in the transformative changes that have occurred in the West continues to be controversial… On this side of the Atlantic, the post-Conquest era after 1521 saw the emergence of a new, substantially Spanish elite in the American continent that exerted influence on a wide range of issues that formed a virtual consensus among the organised Church and Catholic religious orders, including immigration of blacks from Africa, civil rights for the native Amerindians, and the Christianization of the Americas. The activism of the Spanish and Portuguese crowns involved a pro-immigration movement (in the following centuries more blacks migrated to the Catholic Americas than to Protestant America); Christian movements denying the importance of race in human affairs, and minimizing white supremacy to the point of wholesale mestization of the Iberian whites with both, native Amerindians and imported blacks.

If you wonder where these blacks are in Latin America, the answer is brutal: they have long since been genetically amalgamated with the other races, so the average ‘mestizo’ is actually the product of all three races.

Is it getting through that my ‘heliocentric’ paradigm replaces the ‘geocentric’ paradigm of the US racialist right? The policies of the 1965 Act that MacDonald mentions in his January 1st piece fall within my own life span. By contrast, what Christians did on the continent, ruining the DNA of those who came from the Iberian peninsula, was perpetrated for centuries (the first cases of interbreeding were consummated even before the Conquest of the Aztec Empire).

But obviously, white nationalists will continue to ignore these facts because confronting them would imply updating their little paradigm! Incidentally, to the translation of Ferdinand Bardamu’s essay into the language of Cervantes on why Europeans should reject Christianity, I have added a brief prologue and an epilogue, which can be read in the Spanish section of this site (here and here).

Categories
Kevin MacDonald

Bardamu in French!

And now, a native French speaker has taken the trouble to translate Bardamu’s essay into French.

It is a very important essay. Unlike Evropa Soberana’s essay, which focuses on the Ancient World (the origin of the tragedy, so to speak), Bardamu provides a global and comprehensive view of how Christian ethics metamorphosed into liberalism, cultural Marxism and white ethno-suicide in recent decades—the final metastasis of the old Judean-Roman war.

Whoever reads Bardamu’s essay, now also available in French (which includes a critique of Kevin MacDonald) will understand why Bardamu, Soberana and this site provide a different paradigm for understanding Aryan decline than the one offered by white nationalists. We are closer to Hitler’s after-dinner talks than what Christian Americans (or Americans who sympathise with Christianity, like MacDonald) are discussing in the forums of the racialist right.

If any of you would like a slightly abridged version of Bardamu’s essay in English in print, don’t forget that it appears in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (see sidebar).

Categories
Kevin MacDonald Psychohistory

The French and the Swede

Yesterday I mentioned Kevin MacDonald’s article in which he was trying to understand a series of tweets from white Americans celebrating that they will become a minority in their country. The phenomenon of white ethnosuicide is too large for the professor, who, like the vast majority of white nationalists, believes that the JQ is the primary factor of Aryan decline.

As we know, I don’t think the JQ is the primary factor. Having lived for more than half a century in the largest metropolis in Latin America, I can’t believe in the JQ every time I go out on the street, as the horrendous miscegenation was perpetrated by the Spanish when the Inquisition, which existed in the centre of the city, protected society from crypto-Jews. It’s obvious that what happened in the Americas was ethnosuicide, caused by a Catholic (i.e., universalist) worldview about the races.

Since MacDonald’s hypothesis is insufficient for me, I have tried to understand the phenomenon from a more comprehensive paradigm than that of the white nationalists: a paradigm that explains all the historical data and doesn’t only focus on recent history, as does MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique.

I woke up today remembering a passage from my Day of Wrath, which mentions a Frenchman, and another passage from a seminal essay on this site, by a conservative Swede. The latter said:

Secular Christianity has thrown out God and Christ, but keeps the Christian ethics (inversion of values etc.). And the Christian ethics actually gets heightened and unfettered in Secular Christianity (I have written much about that in my blog). With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity each person has to be like Jesus himself, doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to fulfil Christian ethics. On top of that, with the Industrial Revolution and the surplus it created in our societies, we came to the point where all the good deeds of Christian ethics could finally be executed by giving off our surplus to all the poor and weak foreign people around the world: food, Western medicine, and other aid.

Italics are mine. The italicised words evoke those whites who want to become minorities; and the whole quotation evokes what we have recently translated from Savitri’s book. Westerners are so plugged into the matrix of Christian ethics—atheists included—that they are unable to see that putting man at the centre of the universe has been a historical outrage, from all angles. Hence the wisdom of the title of the last Savitri book that was published, Impeachment of Man. Keeping in mind what Savitri says about putting the so-called Homo sapiens as the centre of Nature, let’s continue with the Swede:

Thus the Western Christian civilisation caused the population explosion in the Third World. It is entirely caused by the Western Christian civilisation, since these Third World countries were completely unable to do this themselves. Christian ethics commands that every single human life should be saved if possible. Before, more than half of the children in Third World countries died. Now virtually all survive, and we have the population explosion.

Yesterday a commenter said that he had read the sidebar books but not my Day of Wrath. I get the impression that few have read it. But psychohistory is vital to understanding Aryan ethno-suicide. In a passage from Day of Wrath we read:

I mention all of this to throw light on the long Colin Ross quotation way above. The self-harmer women of Dallas pierced themselves because they believed in their wickedness and they needed an escape valve to discharge some of the pressure from the volcano of rage against their parents they carried inside.

At the expense of their mental health and due to the locus of control shift, the evil of their parents had been transfused to their mentality since their childhood, making the perpetrator good and safe to attach to. Let us remember that this shift helps to solve the basic dilemma of the human race: the affective attachment to our parents due to our long dependency. Ross does not comment on the ancient Mexicans, but according to Lloyd deMause this sort of self-injuring alleviated the Amerindians from the anxiety of the internalised image of a parent, now sublimated, that would castigate them because of a prosperity perceived as sinful (we will see where this gets us when analysing the West of the 21st century).

The passage is helpful although, in the case of ethnosuicidal Aryans, I don’t mean that they have necessarily been abused as children. However, although the trauma model of mental disorders aims to decipher the mental illness of a disturbed individual, we could analogise this phenomenon to a whole demented age; let’s say, how the Romans committed cultural suicide by embracing Christianity, the ‘Aryan apocalypse’ as can be seen on this site’s masthead.

Currently that apocalypse is repeated, but this time it is focused against the white race. Just as it is possible to interpret the disorder of a subject based on his abusive childhood, it is possible to interpret the neurosis, and even psychosis of an entire race, based on its buried history. Yesterday, when I was leafing through the Life magazines of the 1950s and 60s once more, I came across an article about academic historians, including scholars on the history of Christianity. They didn’t mention the catastrophe that occurred in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries of our era (I was going to dedicate today to Christianity’s Criminal History #141 but changed my mind). In Day of Wrath I quote the French:

In other words, self-harming and harming others are two sides of the same coin. We displace our contained rage on others and ourselves because of the absolute dissociation of the resulting emotions from the treatment we received in the past. If the pre-Columbian people displaced more than us it was simply due to a more primitive form of childrearing than ours. For Claude-François Baudez of the National Centre of Scientific Research in Paris, the Mesoamerican ‘sacrifice of others only replaced self-sacrifice on the condition that the alter is equivalent to the ego’. Human sacrifice was, ultimately, the sacrifice of the ego ‘as it is shown in the first place by the primaeval myths that precede self-sacrifice’.

Of course, it would require a more academic treatment of these issues to try to decipher the apparent mystery of Aryan suicide. But with the above quotes we can see that psychohistory can provide us with some clues.

The mind of blacks and mestizos is easy to understand: they are simply moved by an inferiority complex versus the Aryan. Jews are more complex, although MacDonald’s trilogy deciphers their psychology.

But the psychology of contemporary whites is extremely bizarre because in the 4th century they suffered from a neurosis that in our times has reached the level of florid psychosis: a psychosis that must be deciphered if we are to save them.

Ultimately, psychohistory can decipher both, a specific case of a psychotic person and the whole history of the Christian Era.

Categories
Amerindians Catholic religious orders Kevin MacDonald Miscegenation Racial right

Avoiding the C-word

Several years ago, Brad Griffin of Occidental Dissent posted articles in which he blamed liberal republicanism and ‘the spread of evangelical Christianity’ for today’s suicidal liberalism: a clever way of avoiding the C-word, Christianity without adjectives. Today Kevin MacDonald did the same in The Occidental Observer: he blamed a specific form of Christianity, Yankee puritanism, for today’s suicidal liberalism. In ‘Massive blindspot’ on Friday I wrote: ‘Instead of seeing the elephant in the room, Christian ethics, they fixate on these trifles’.

It is very easy to reply to these racialists. First of all, Americans tend to only see their belly button. If we introduce the history of Latin America in the racial discourse, it is clear that from the Rio Grande to Argentina the Europeans of the Iberian Peninsula managed to develop an ethnosuicidal ideology without the influence of Protestant puritanism.

But our voice is not heard by the majority of American racialists. Last month, for example, no one commented on ‘Reflections of an Aryan woman, 5’. There I denounced my father’s symphonic work, where he honours a Spanish monk. As early as the 16th century, my father boasted, some monks who emigrated to the Americas behaved as true precursors of (so-called) human rights.

In my previous post I cited the best definition of Christianity that I’ve ever heard: ‘Christianity, in essence, means not the number of priests ordained: but the number of niggers loved’. Well, south of the Rio Grande we could rephrase that definition like this: ‘Christianity means not the number of Catholic priests ordained but the number of nacos loved’. (In Mexico naco is equivalent to the North American nigger, although referring to the Amerinds.) The number of nacos loved by the Spanish and Portuguese was such that in Latin America, unlike the Anglo-Germans of the north, they weren’t cornered in special territories. This very Christian practise resulted in the greatest miscegenation in history: a whole continent, where Europeans irrevocably stained their blood.

The important thing to note here is that my late father was right: Spain brought with it the monastic orders dedicated to protecting the Indian with zeal. Without the help of Protestant puritanism or republican liberalism, the Europeans in the Spanish and Portuguese part of the continent practised a racial harakiri, of which today we see the consequences only by turning on the TV.

MacDonald and the white nationalists will continue to avoid the word. Alas, I can’t even say that racial science will advance during the burials of the old proponents of white nationalism because even the young nationalists—not just Griffin—avoid the C-word!

Categories
Deranged altruism Kevin MacDonald

The iceberg

The Aryan problem is similar to what we cannot see from a ship when we spot an iceberg. That’s why racialists focus only on what they can see: the JQ, what is on the surface of the sea.

Kevin MacDonald’s recent article is splendid to understand my point of view: the Aryan problem is much more massive than the Jewish problem.

MacDonald quotes a recent Twitter thread of a young, blue-eyed blonde whose face might as well appear on this site’s sidebar, but who relishes that white people like her are becoming a minority in her country.

The serious thing is not so much this Tweet of a woman who hates her beautiful race. The worst part is that, as MacDonald points out, her Tweet garnered thousands of approvals from many other whites who hate themselves and yearn for them to become a minority. (I had already become aware of this phenomenon with the gigantic numbers of whites marching, on behalf of blacks, in various western cities in the wake of the BLM destructions.)

Neither in the comments section of The Occidental Observer nor in The Unz Review, where Ron reposted MacDonald’s article, is the professor’s diagnosis of what he calls ‘altruistic punishment’ questioned. MacDonald alleges in his diagnosis that such a phenomenon of self-hatred is related to individualism, and puts whites as genetical individualists.

If there is one thing that others and I have complained about MacDonald, it is that he analyses the West from the start of Christendom. Ancient Sparta and Republican Rome were not individualistic societies, and neither were the Vikings and Goths (and let’s not talk about Nazi Germany). MacDonald’s hypothesis collapses when we introduce the history before Christianity, and even more so when we see that open and shameless self-hatred began in 1945, as I haven’t tired of reiterating with the links in the article that the sticky post leads to.

Although MacDonald’s article is worth reading, there is universal blindness in racialists who comment on his article’s thread, both on his forum and Ron Unz’s site. Neither wants to see the havoc Christianity wreaked on the psyche of the Aryans.

When I lived in California in the 1980s, I was extremely surprised to discover the televangelists. One of them, Charles Stanley, said something before an audience of well-to-do white worshipers that I will never forget: ‘… because I deserve hell’. Obviously only his faith in Jesus could save him from everlasting torture, but the conviction with which he said that, and the expression of the faithful Aryans who listened to him, I have not been able to get out of my head.

Now that the Aryans are without their Jesus, insofar Christianity is in crisis, what remains has been malware of infinite guilt albeit in secular form. Several times I have pointed out that this is what Tom Sunic said, with milder words, in Hungary during that dinner at which the government (supposedly the most nationalist in Europe) put Richard Spencer in jail.

I don’t know how to reiterate it anymore, but the links in the sticky post contain the key to understanding this suicidal passion of the white man. It is unfortunate that very few are following me on this site. Let’s just compare the number of my followers, those fully aware of the CQ, with the number of neo-Christian whites who were fascinated by the Tweet of the pretty ethno-traitor.

What can save the white man from this suicidal drive which dwarfs the Jewish problem as in the image above? As I reiterated recently in one of the discussion threads: only an apocalyptic convergence of catastrophes! At the moment the only thing a desperate reader can do is trolling other racialist sites with, say, the essay on Judea versus Rome also linked in ‘The Iron Throne’.

Categories
Kevin MacDonald

Morgan v. MacDonald

Kevin MacDonald:

‘Since I am not a believer…’

This is surely a strange admission for MacDonald to make, since in the preface to Giles Corey’s book, he endorsed Christianity as the way forward for whites, writing ‘I agree entirely with Corey’s conclusions and recommendations for a revival centred around the adaptive aspects of Christianity…’

Is he dissembling here in an attempt to preserve the illusion of his scholarly objectivity, or does he really mean being a believing Christian is only for other whites, of lower IQ perhaps, a case of do as I say, not as I do?

Also, he doesn’t appear to have thought very carefully about the conclusion of that sentence in the preface I just quoted, which continues ‘the aspects that produced Western expansion, innovation, discovery, individual freedom, economic prosperity, and strong family bonds’.

The West was Christian, yes. But how did Christianity make any contribution at all to expansion, innovation, and discovery? Where does Jesus recommend his followers go conquer the world? Where does it say in the Bible that Christianity has anything to do with innovation or discovery? Nowhere, as far as I know.

Further, Christianity’s track record with such endeavours isn’t very good, to put it mildly. It destroyed all the beginnings of science in the ancient world, and those texts that survived only survived by accident, having been proscribed after the Christian takeover of the Roman Empire. Christianity has typically opposed scientific innovation, from Bruno and Galileo right up to Darwin, whose theory of evolution, ironically enough for an evolutionist such as MacDonald, it continues to oppose.

He concludes:

And it can scarcely be doubted that Catholicism and mainline Protestantism have been completely corrupted and actively subverted so that millions of White Americans have been swept up by the multiculturalism and replacement-level immigration as moral imperatives. Jewish activism has certainly been part of this, but traditional Christian universalism and moral egalitarianism are also part of the equation. One might say that Christianity, despite periods when it was highly adaptive, carried the seeds of its own destruction—a chink in its armour that made it relatively easy to subvert once the culture of the West had been subverted by our new hostile elite.

But what can he mean when he both affirms that traditional Christianity’s universalism and egalitarianism were ‘seeds of its own destruction’, and that it was at the same time ‘subverted’? One online dictionary defines the word subvert thusly: ‘To overthrow (something established or existing); to cause the downfall, ruin, or destruction of; to undermine the principles of; corrupt’.

Christianity’s principles of universalism and egalitarianism in this case are being implemented, not overthrown. Far from being ‘subverted’, that Christianity has been faithful to its principles is precisely what he’s complaining about! Insofar as I can make any sense at all of what he’s saying, it seems he advocates a revival of the old corrupt Christianity that, not always successfully, tried to ignore these principles.

Seems like a losing proposition all around.