web analytics

Category: Liberalism

Categories
Liberalism Racial right

Sixteen

years later (I)

The long task of drying my wet books has given me the opportunity to reread some texts that greatly influenced my thinking. In particular, I want to revisit the writings that introduced me to white nationalism in September 2009. I believe quoting and analysing these texts will help clarify how my views were shaped, especially given that, before encountering white nationalism, I had no exposure to such ideas due to their suppression by the System.

At the time, I was living in Spain. The first author I read who critically spoke about forbidden topics, such as blacks and feminism, was a Jew who had converted to Christianity and was still alive in 2009: Larry Auster. At that time, I knew nothing about the Jewish Question and was fascinated by what Auster wrote on his website View From the Right. I will be quoting from my printouts in the order in which I placed the articles from 2009 in the binder (pic left), whose pages, incidentally, are still damp. Today, I will have to put them back in the sun to continue drying.

So let’s quote some passages from what Auster said at a conference in Baltimore in February 2009 (emphasis mine):

To deal with the crisis facing our civilization, we must be both realistic and imaginative. The realism part consists in recognizing how bad our situation is.

The entire Western world is at present under the grip of the modern liberal ideology that targets every normal and familiar aspect of human life, and our entire historical way of being as a society.

The key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society, the principle to which all other principles must yield. We see this belief at work in every area of modern life.

The principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every human society and institution. A society that cannot discriminate between itself and other societies will go out of existence, just as an elm tree that cannot discriminate between itself and a linden tree must go out of existence. To be, we must be able to say that we are us, which means that we are different from others. If we are not allowed to distinguish between ourselves and Muslims, if we must open ourselves to everyone and everything in the world that is different from us, and if the more different and threatening the Other is, the more we must open ourselves to it, then we go out of existence.

This liberal principle of destruction is utterly simple and radically extreme. Yet very, very few people, even self-described hard-line conservatives, are aware of this principle and the hold it has over our society. Instead of opposing non-discrimination, they oppose multiculturalism and political correctness. But let’s say that we got rid of multiculturalism and political correctness. Would that end Muslim immigration? No. Multiculturalism is not the source of Muslim immigration. The source of it is our belief that we must not discriminate against other people on the basis of their culture, their ethnicity, their nationality, their religion. This is the idea of the 1965 Immigration Act, which was the idea of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applied to all of humanity: all discrimination is wrong, period. No one in today’s society, including conservatives, feels comfortable identifying this utterly simple idea, because that would mean opposing it.

To see how powerful the belief in non-discrimination is, consider this: Prior to World War II, would any Western country have considered admitting significant numbers of Muslim immigrants? Of course not; it would have been out of the question. The West had a concrete identity. It saw itself as white and in large part as Christian, and there was still active in the Western mind the knowledge that Islam was our historic adversary, as it has been for a thousand years, and radically alien. But today, the very notion of stopping Muslim immigration is out of the question, it can’t even be thought.

What would have been inconceivable 70 or 80 years ago is unquestionable today. A society that 70 years ago wouldn’t have dreamed of admitting large numbers of Muslims, today doesn’t dream of reducing, let alone stopping, the immigration of Muslims. Even the most impassioned anti-Islamic Cassandras never question—indeed they never even mention—the immigration of Muslims, or say it should be reduced or stopped.

You don’t need to know any more than what I’ve just said. The rule of non-discrimination, in all its destructive potentialities, is shown in this amazing fact, that the writers and activists who constantly cry that Islam as a mortal danger to our society will not say that we ought to stop or even reduce Muslim immigration. Such is the liberal belief which says that the most morally wrong thing is for people to have a critical view of a foreign group, to want to exclude that group or keep it out.

The dilemma suggests the solution. What is now unthinkable, must become thinkable; what is now unsayable, must become sayable; and ultimately it must replace non-discrimination as the ruling belief in society. I know that this sounds crazy, utterly impossible. But fifty or a hundred years ago it would have seemed crazy, utterly impossible, that today’s liberalism with its suicidal ideology would have replaced the traditional attitudes that were then prevalent. If society could change that radically in one direction, toward suicidal liberalism, it can change back again. It’s not impossible.

In the same way, modern liberalism says that it is evil to believe that some people are more unlike us than others, because that would also be a violation of the liberal principle that all people are equally like us. The equality principle of modern liberalism says that unassimilable immigrants must be permitted to flood our society, changing its very nature.

This is the ubiquitous yet unacknowledged horror of modern liberalism, that it takes the ordinary, differentiated nature of the world, which all human beings have always recognized, and makes it impossible for people to discuss it, because under liberalism anyone who notes these distinctions and says that they matter has done an evil thing and must be banished from society, or at least be barred from a mainstream career.

This liberalism is the most radical and destructive ideology that has ever been, and yet it is not questioned. Communism and big government liberalism were challenged and fought in the past. But the ideology of non-discrimination, which came about after World War II, has never been resisted—it has never even been identified, even though it is everywhere. What is needed, if the West is to survive, is a pro-Western civilization movement that criticizes, resists, and reverses this totalistic liberal belief system that controls our world.

There are several observations I can make now, reflecting on these texts after sixteen years. With greater maturity, I can identify key ideas that I missed at the time, which are central to my current understanding.

Auster observes that liberalism, which poses a threat to the West’s ethnic survival, emerged after World War II. However, he avoids the argument that England’s war declaration on Hitler was wrong (future quotes from the binder don’t come from ethnic Jews like Auster).

Another thing that comes to mind is that, behind Auster’s principle of non-discrimination, we encounter what I quoted the day before yesterday. I am referring to Robert Barnes: “Slavery abolition was on the clock the moment the American Revolution went forward. Because once you say, ‘All men are created equal’, sooner or later all men have to be treated equal”.

Bingo! Those who heard Barnes’ audiovisual words that I linked to in that post will have heard that the principle of non-discrimination is due to Christian ethics, secularised by the Founding Fathers (or as we should call them, the Founding Cucks). In Barnes’ words, “What they [the Founding Fathers] meant by a Christian nation was the ideal that we are all equal, and that we get that equality from [the Judeo-Christian] God, that gave us all souls. That was a revolutionary break”. Indeed, and as Tom Holland wrote in Dominion, “[Benjamin] Franklin, like the revolution for which he was such an effective spokesman, illustrated a truth pregnant with implications for the future: that the surest way to promote Christian teachings as universal was to portray them as deriving from anything other than Christianity” (emphasis added).

Naturally, Auster, the Jew who converted to Christianity, didn’t go so far as to blame his adopted religion as the ultimate cause of the principle of non-discrimination that currently surrounds us like water surrounds a fish.

Categories
Liberalism

Stage

by Gaedhal

My good friend Alex [Linder], who has since gone to be with the ground, said that we should attack and mock—with our words—conservatives, because we are in direct competition with them, and not with Liberals, and Communists.

There are a lot of voices out there, like this nutcase, who wish to drag us back to a previous stage of the Christian Revolution. Fascism is different to Naziism. Fascism is a Christian phenomenon, whereas Nazism is esoterically antichristian. I was reading Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin, and it is clear from this dialogue that Hitler was antichristian, although he pretended otherwise. In Bolshevismus by Dietrick Eckhart, Hitler calls Christianity “the first communist cell”.

This form of Fascism—specifically, Christian authoritarianism as practiced by Salazar, Franco, Mussolini, and Dollfuss—is inherently Christian. Communism and Liberalism, so far from being anti-christian is simply what happens when Christianity, naturally, atheises. The Christian god, let us remember, does not exist, and so Christianity, if left to itself, will eventually atheize. Thus Revilo P. Oliver spoke of “The Marxian Reformation”.

Liberalism was dreamt up by the Christian theologian, John Locke.

Spinoza, who dreamt up the “dialectical” metaphysic of Communism was good friends with Quakers, who themselves were a more extreme sect of Communist Anabaptists like John Bunyan and Thomas Muentzer.

Thus, what our wingnut, Alex Hexagon, describes as political systems of decay: Communism, Liberalism and Christian Authoritarianism, are merely evolved states of Christianity.

Hexagon equates Liberalism with The Cult of Ugliness. Christianity was the original cult of ugliness. They whitewashed the frescoes, threw sculptures into the see, defaced sculptures with crosses, destroyed beautiful architecture such as the Serapeum. Christians did in the first centuries of the Common Era exactly what “Liberals” do today: and a hatred of good architecture is shared between yesterday’s Christians and today’s liberals.

Isaiah assures us that the central character in the Christian mythos, Jesus Christ, has no beauty in him. Early Christianity was a literal cult of ugliness.

The answer to a revolution is not to overthrow it with an earlier stage of that revolution, but to overthrow the revolution, completely, ad radicem, at root.

Christianity, as Revilo P. Oliver points out, was a mob revolution against Aristocratic Epicureanism. If you want to overthrow the revolution, then return to Epicureanism, i.e. the observance of causal reality. In Epicureanism, there most certainly is a difference between Jew and Gentile, between male and female. In Aristocratic Epicureanism, the first are always first and the last are always last. In Aristocratic Epicureanism, the Xenos is not someone to be welcomed, but an enemy invader to be countered. Aristocratic Epicureanism is basically an opposite ethic to that of the sermon on the mount. If you want Europe to return to its former greatness, then re-embrace what Revilo P. Oliver calls the true white western philosophy: Aristocratic Epicureanism.

There are plenty of hucksters out there selling Christianity as a cure-all for all that ails us, whereas, in my estimation, it is the thing that slowly poisoned us to begin with. A philosophy totally at odds with reality: the last shall be first, will eventually doom our civilization.

Starting with the Reformation, Europeans began to take the ethic of the New Testament seriously. Illiterate peasants, prior to the Reformation, probably had no idea what the Sermon on the Mount even was, and, therefore, opperated according to the previous pagan-ethic. The Roman Catholic Church, certainly, did not want to follow the suicidal ethic of the New Testament. However, as Nietzsche points out: when Luther “restored the gospel”, the poisonous suicidal ethic of the New Testament was let loose upon Europe unto its own destruction. The Roman Catholic Church would itself embrace this suicidal ethic at Vatican 2.

Categories
Liberalism Them and Us (book)

YouTubers

Yesterday I watched the critics on YouTube of what Danny Vendramini says in Them and Us: How Neanderthal Predation Created Modern Humans. I don’t know if Vendramini still lives in Australia (his website is defunct). At any event, it’s very easy to debunk these “debunkers”.

One of them tried to refute Vendramini’s claim that Neanderthals had fur by arguing that fur can fossilize, and the Neanderthal remains found do not show fossilized fur. What the YouTuber omitted is that this, fossilized fur, rarely happens, so only if the remains of a mummified Neanderthal were ever discovered would we know who is right: the orthodox view of the Neanderthal as furless, or Vendramini.

More than one YouTuber claimed that Vendramini’s statement that Neanderthals evolved in Ice Age Europe was false and that the climate then was similar to that of Europe today.

These “debunkers” haven’t even read the Wikipedia page on Neanderthals and other hominids, which tells us that the origin of Neanderthals dates back to the Mindel Ice Age (between 400,000 and 350,000 years ago), during which climate change and the rise of the Arctic ice cap apparently forced European populations of H. heidelbergensis to seek refuge from the cold on the continent’s southern peninsulas. These migrations isolated H. heidelbergensis populations, inducing a population bottleneck and favouring speciation. By the end of the Ice Age, heidelbergensis populations had already begun to acquire Neanderthal traits. Finally, between 230,000 and 200,000 years ago, H. heidelbergensis had acquired enough physical range to be differentiated into a new species, Homo neanderthalensis.

A YouTuber misrepresented Vendramini by omitting that his bottle-neck theory only referred to our Skhul-Qafzehs ancestors of the Levant, not to other hominids in other parts of the globe (insofar as the latter didn’t clash with the Neanderthals). Another YouTuber misrepresented what Vendramini said, that Neanderthals belonged to the group of primates, as if implying that Vendramini was unaware that Homo sapiens was also a primate—a clear straw man since Vendramini never implied that! He also said that Neanderthals and early humans probably became best friends, good neighbours. I could mention other wishful thinking arguments, strawmen and misrepresentations from YouTubers but I will limit myself to saying that the final straw came when these “debunkers” showed Neanderthal and human skulls side by side on their own cameras.

Anyone not infected with the kind of egalitarianism that wants to make us see niggers as brethren will see with his own eyes the enormous differences between the two skulls. I couldn’t believe what I was watching in the “debunkers'” videos…For example, although the visual impact is that we are looking at another species, one that looks more like an evolutionised ape (see the protuberances above the eye sockets and the great occipital elongation), these YouTubers were claiming, by posting images like the one above in their own videos, that Neanderthals were humans like us! Of course, not a word came from the lips of these “debunkers” about the fact that Neanderthals had eye sockets much higher than ours.The “debunkers” also didn’t say a peep regarding another of Vendramini’s observations: that Neanderthals had larger eyes than ours.To grotesquely insult our intelligence, one of the main “debunkers” included this image of… a purported Neanderthal girl several times throughout his video!
Another of the “debunkers” had no choice but to acknowledge that throughout Europe multiple caves have been found whose remains prove that Neanderthals were cannibals. But he was quick to exonerate them by claiming that Homo sapiens had also eaten human flesh. This reminded me once again of how anthropologists, so imbued with the precept of loving one’s neighbour, write about the “noble savage” while idealising infanticidal cultures (see the delirious cases I compiled on this subject in my Day of Wrath).

Many other things the “debunkers” alluded to in their videos, such as whether Neanderthals could sew or use flowers at their funerals, can be answered simply by reading the Wikipedia page on Neanderthals—taking into account that Wikipedia is aligned with these YouTubers’ anti-white agenda. A calm reading of that Wikipedia article puts in its place the exaggerations the YouTubers had to resort to in their eagerness to dismiss Vendramini’s Neanderthal Predation theory.

Forget the YouTubers. They’re white trash. Only when academia returns to the hands of scholars who don’t hate the white man (and that would only happen after a revolution) can Vendramini’s work be valued on its own merits.

For the moment, that’s impossible.

Categories
Axiology Liberalism

Slave

(Connections, 2nd Season, Episode 20).

I’m not finished with James Burke, and I’d like to add to what I said about him in the comments section on Tuesday.

I have just watched episode 20 of the second season of Connections. I draw the viewer’s attention to what Burke says about the German concept of Lebensraum from this point until the end of the episode.

What impresses me about Burke, as what impresses me about two other Britons of whom in previous years I have spoken much on this site—Kenneth Clark and Tom Holland—is that, while I admire their intelligence and penetration in their observations—artistic and western history (Clark), religious, axiological and historical (Holland) and scientific, technological and historical (Burke)—, all three are prisoners of Christian morality.

If it were possible (obviously no BBC or similar TV service would fund my project) I would make a series of thirteen programmes explaining what Holland says: how the morality of the contemporary atheist, even the radical one, is still dominated by Christian ethics. But I would film that series from an opposite scale of values to that of the neochristian Holland.

In the segment linked above, for example, Burke reproves the doctrine of Lebensraum, which some Germans planned to implement in Africa or Latin America. Because of that scale of values that seems so natural to Burke and virtually all contemporary Britons, I live in a horrid world, and in a Latin American city at that.

What good is brilliance in explaining technological inventions that have revolutionised mankind if Burke remains a slave to Christian morality? Obviously, he has never asked himself this question because there are no transvalued men on his island.

Or are there?

Categories
Liberalism

Normie historian

It shouldn’t be thought that only neo-Nietzscheans like us, or historians like Tom Holland, believe that today’s secular liberalism is Christian-inspired. On 27 February 2012 I started to write some notes on a series still watchable on YouTube, The Western Tradition by the normie historian Eugen Weber. Those notes, which I wrote a dozen years ago in a notebook that I reread after midnight, mention some white nationalist personalities with whom I had not yet distanced myself. Here is my translation to English of those 2012 notes:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Absolutely fascinating is Eugen Weber’s programme #43 for understanding our century. Although it deals with the 21st century it sheds enormous light, especially what he said almost halfway through the programme: that in 1848 they emancipated the slaves and that the emancipation of women would still take a long time—which means that Weber moves in the liberal framework of the 20th century.

Fascinating, I say, because now that I’ve posted an entry on The West’s Darkest Hour about the debate in The Occidental Observer about the holocaust, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the monocausalists [those who believe that only the Jews have caused the Aryan decline] are wrong.

How clear. Conservative Swede is right. All that evil started in the French Revolution. Hunter Wallace discovered the same thing with his analysis of the United States. Mark Weber, too, in his quotable quote about the American Constitution, saw the ‘rights of man’ as the virus that infected, and in our century exploded in full force, the West.

The infection comes from whites.

The French Revolution is like Christianity 1,600 years ago: cultural suicides.

Pride. Megalomania. Hubris.

Remember that in programme #43 of Eugen Weber’s series, the historian mentions Rousseau and Shelley, who by the way killed their children [cf. Paul Johnson’s The Intellectuals]. He also recalls that Weber also mentioned the novel Ivanhoe where ‘the heroine is a Jewess’ amid the century of the emancipation of the Judas [a derogatory term in Spanish for Jews]. And remember that Weber said that the common man was more influenced by the novel than by Marx’s texts.

How clear, isn’t it?

Romanticism so understood was another suicidal Christianity. What happened in the 20th century was the culmination of that infection (with Jewish help, of course; but, as Wallace says, white society had already gone down that road).

Actually, despite everything I read in The Occidental Observer, I increasingly blame whites for their own misfortune. If Linder were right, Norwegians wouldn’t be so infected with suicidal liberalism [when I wrote that I had in mind that there were very few Jews in that country].

In episode #44 Weber says: ‘And this point of view which combines empathy, charity and guilt (emphasis in his voice) is very much with us today’.

How clear!

Weber refers to the social projects of the 19th century after the hell that Doré and Dostoyevsky saw in London. Therein lies the root of what was to become ‘deranged altruism’. How clear and transparent!

In this episode #44 Weber speaks for the first time about the white race, and says that with their ideologies whites caused the overpopulation of non-whites in the colonies. He even uses the word ‘stupidity’ and mentions the missionaries!

That only the Judas are the usual suspects is pure bullshit. The virus was already in place before that. Besides, it was at the end of the 19th century that the ‘mass culture’ with its fucking sports and empty heads started. Now it is infinitely worse!

At the end of the penultimate programme of his series, Weber spoke well of the contraceptive pill: as the greatest advance for women, even more than women’s suffrage. Neither he nor other liberals saw the demographic consequences: white suicide!

It is clear that all this axiology/memeplex came not only from the Judas but from the me, me, me generation! In the previous programme, by the way, Weber said that after WWII Europe’s self-confidence had collapsed. Remember what Kenneth Clark said in Civilisation: the loss or gain of confidence is pivotal for a civilisation to flourish…

Categories
Axiology Liberalism

Who’s neo-Christian?

He is the unwary pseudo-apostate, deist or even atheist, who hasn’t realised that by rejecting the ‘all are equal in the eyes of God’ of his Christian parents, and transmuting that doctrine to ‘all are equal before the law’, he is axiologically still a Christian.—C.T.

Categories
Israel / Palestine Liberalism

Lambert

On this site I have several times embedded videos of Derek Lambert interviewing New Testament critics such as Richard Carrier and Richard Miller, but I have also criticised Lambert for his Neo-Christian anti-racism.

There is something very striking about apostates from Christianity. They almost universally embrace a liberal and egalitarian faith even more extreme than the Christian universalist, something we knew from the first incarnation of The West’s Darkest Hour with the post ‘The Red Giant’, originally uploaded when Blogspot hosted my site (then we moved to WordPress and now to the present address).

In his correspondence today, our our learned friend Gaedhal tells us:

Lambert was on [redacted], and I even exchanged a few emails with him. However… I just don’t like him. I have always had an intuitive dislike of him. Now he introduces his father, a volunteer in US-instigated wars of plunder, adventure and regime change.

Again, my anti-war principles are informed by the far-left podcast Citations Needed. I am trying to be fair and balanced as I can. In the same way that I don’t respect the cops, I don’t respect the troops. As I said before, if these wars were in our interest, American troops would be fighting on the North American Continent. British troops would be fighting on the island of Great Britain to defend against the ongoing invasion of that island by ‘boat people’.

I don’t care, in the slightest about the deaths of 1,000 Israeli settlers on Palestinian land. The Jews are fucking around on Palestinian land. Every now and then, some of them are gonna find out. In retaliation, the Israelis have besieged the Palestinian territories, cutting off water and electricity, which is a war crime.

It is curious how the social media are mentioning this, which is true, while omitting that the Allies did exactly the same after 1945 with millions of Germans, who died like flies. Those who haven’t read Sexton’s review of Hellstorm should stop reading this post and read the review now!

They refuse to allow humanitarian channels for the likes of the UN or the Red Cross. If Israel is fighting a total war against the Palestinians, then we can expect, from time to time, the Palestinians to retaliate. If 1,000 Irish Catholics were murdered by Muslims, the Jews wouldn’t care. Indeed, they would immediately redirect and reframe the conversation to ‘I sure hope there isn’t a backlash against the Muslim community.’ When white people are murdered by Muslims in Europe, the Jews always derail the conversation to talk about the evils of Islamophobia. Tucker Carlson is a genius for using this tactic against them. Yeah, sure, the death of a thousand Israelis is tragic, and all, but what about all the Americans who are killed by our own ‘settlers’. As I said before: solidarity is a one-way street, and the Jews have zero solidarity with me, my people, my ethnicity, my country, my continent.

Again, being anti-war is both a right-wing thing and a left-wing thing. Saoradh, from the far left opposes the actions of Israel, and US-instigated wars and I from the radical right do so too. Israel is an abomination, and no real antitheist would shill for them. This is a point that Alan Green brings up: Lambert only seems to be antitheistic towards Christianity and Islam. Judaism—the source of the Abrahamic stream of pure poison—gets treated with kid gloves.

Philo-Semitism is due to the baleful influence that Christianity has had on the Western psyche. On the anti-Semitic right, it is very common for pundits to cherry-pick historical facts such as the expulsion of Jews from various reigns in Christendom. But they omit the main fact: Judaism was ultimately tolerated because the so-called Old Testament appears in both the Jewish and Christian bibles. What was never tolerated after Constantine and the following emperors—except Julian—were the 100% Aryan religions: whether they were the religions of the Greco-Roman world or, later with Charlemagne, of the Germanic world.

Lambert is a real ace at interviewing, say, Richard Miller, and in fact I bought and read Miller’s book thanks to Lambert’s interviews. But non-Nietzschean apostates become, axiologically, atheistic hyper-Christians and, worst of all, many like Lambert become openly philo-Semitic Zionists. That is why, we have said, atheists are even worse than Christians (the key to this apparent mystery is provided by Nietzsche’s epigraph to the post ‘The Red Giant’).

Categories
Axiology Liberalism

Just…

…for the record, what Gaedhal calls ‘Atheistic Hyperchristianity’ is what we have been calling ‘Neo-Christianity’ on this site.

Categories
Liberalism Videos

The homo and the hetero

On the first of this month I commented on an interview that a liberal dude with his hair painted blue did this year with Richard Spencer. Sometimes you need to have the patience to watch such things just to probe what is wrong not only with today’s liberals, but with the racial right. Exactly the same can be said of those who complain about the Woke monster and who, at least for now, YouTube allows them to air their grievances. The best known are people like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Matt Walsh for the latter’s documentary What’s a Woman? But other voices are interesting to listen to because all these people don’t realise that they themselves are involved in the genesis of Wokism.

Yesterday I watched a YouTube conversation between a homosexual Englishman, Andrew Doyle, and the American Peter Boghossian.

If we take into account what Tom Holland says in Dominion (for those who don’t want to read the whole book I have highlighted some crucial sentences in bold), which resonates with what Alexis de Tocqueville predicted of the US (that the principle of equality always demands more and more equality), I find it incredible that these people don’t see the elephant in their room.

Doyle for example, who looks like an individual with a higher than average IQ and who has a broad literary and European culture, twice or three times mentioned the Nazis repeating the eternal slogans of our time (and he errs in saying that David Irving is a holocaust denier in his books). While Doyle acknowledged that Woke people don’t understand art and that Greek and Renaissance statuary is superb, he said that our age has moved beyond the way the ancient Greeks treated women (i.e., he tacitly endorsed the feminism of our age). Doyle doesn’t like Huckleberry Finn being taken off library shelves for its racist language, but he believes that today’s West has moved beyond the racial prejudices of the past. I could cite more double-think examples, but the talk between homo and hetero is rife with such things.

But what Peter Boghossian, the straight American, does is a thousand times worse than what the homo said. At the beginning of the conversation I was unaware that Boghossian, a well-known figure in the circle of critics of trans activism, had adopted a Chinese baby. That kind of behaviour is what I have called on this site the sin against the holy spirit of life: an unforgivable sin. (At least the English homo is not causing irreparable damage to the next generation with cuckoldry-like behaviour: raising a child of a foreign race!)

What can be learned from the surreal conversation between the homo and the hetero? While Christian racialists are also scared of the Woke monster, none of them has the slightest insight. To Christian racialists I would remind a passage from gentile David Skrbina quoted in the Neo-Christianity PDF linked above, a few words I highlighted in bold: ‘You Gentile Christians don’t even know what you’re worshipping—which in fact is us [Jews]’. That is: conservatives are afraid of the monster but fail to realise that they fed the monster until it finally grew up. It originated like a mustard seed with Paul’s letters and now the tree is so huge that even birds nest among its branches not because of Jewish subversion, but because whites have given themselves over to evil by believing the Jews who wrote the Bible. Indeed, Holland’s book shows how the seedbed of Christianity grew into the baobab that, following that metaphor from Saint-Exupéry’s book, grew to burst the planet of the little prince.

In the conversation embedded above, the homo and the hetero agree that the Woke tolerate no debate. But do they, the homo and the hetero tolerate it with people to their right, say questioning anti-racism, feminism and the anti-Nazi narrative of the time (e.g., here)? And what about today’s racialists: are they capable of responding to Skrbina or Holland? At least Kevin MacDonald reviewed the former’s book, but the strength of my latest PDF shows how the egalitarian virus of Christianity mutated into the super-egalitarian virus of neo-Christianity (Holland’s book).

When will white nationalists debate these issues?

Categories
Axiology Christendom Dominion (book) Liberalism Tom Holland

Western values are Christian values

by David Lindsay

Tom Holland has written a superb overview [Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World] of the impact of Christianity on the West. He argues we in the West are moored to our Christian past and our morals and ethics derive from Christianity. Holland believes that Christian values permeate Western culture and thinking. If anything, Christianity’s influence has been underestimated. Holland claims that many beliefs that we take for granted have Christian origins. He argues that George W. Bush was mistaken in assuming that Muslims shared a Christian worldview and such values are universal.

Holland does not fully explain what he means by Christian values. Jesus spoke repeatedly about inequality and injustice. He spent a lot of his time helping the poor and society’s outcasts. He wanted his followers to love their enemies. The Bible suggests that God is closer to the poor than to the rich. Matthew 25 states the key test for a disciple is treating the poor and the hungry as if they were Jesus. Professor Richard Hays of Duke Divinity School believes that Christians are meant to direct their energies towards the renunciation of violence, the sharing of possessions, and overcoming ethnic divisions. Holland discusses the impact of Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, who were both students of the Bible. They preached a message of non-violence and forgiveness.

Saint Paul claimed that Christ’s church was open to all, slave and free, Greek and Jew, male and female. He taught that everyone is equal before God and we should love one another. These were revolutionary ideas in the Roman world and we still struggle with them today. Holland argues that because God loves each of us unconditionally, we are in turn meant to love and respect our fellow man. Holland discusses the Beatles and he claims that songs like “All You Need is Love” and “Imagine” express Christian beliefs.

Holland has written extensively about Rome, ancient Greece, and Islam. He claims that the more he studied classical antiquity the more alien he found it. Holland concluded that his values were distinctly Christian. Christianity became the dominant religion in Western Europe because of the Romans. Pagan Rome was a barbaric place. It was depraved and violent. The Romans entertained themselves by having criminals eaten alive by wild animals. Rome was also corrupt and materialistic, with only the rich having any rights. Julius Caesar is fondly remembered by classical scholars but he carried out genocide in Gaul. The Romans tended to destroy societies that got in their way. The Romans and Greek philosophers like Aristotle did not care about the poor and the downtrodden, they viewed them as losers. Aristotle justified slavery as natural, claiming some humans were slaves by nature, lacking the moral reason to be regarded as the equals of free men. Christianity must have seemed an attractive option for many ordinary people in the ancient world.

Holland does not believe that God exists but he was raised a Christian. He claims that we in the West have retained our Christian morals and ethics even though many of us have stopped believing in God. The book is not a history of Christianity. He mentions theologians like Irenaeus, Anselm, Origen, Marcion, and Pelagius. It helps to have some knowledge of Christian history to understand their significance.

When the Britain Empire occupied a country it would usually be forced by Christians to ban practices they considered barbaric. In India, Hindu widows would sacrifice themselves by sitting atop their deceased husband’s funeral pyre. The British banned this practice because of pressure from Christian evangelicals. William Wilberforce was a devout Christian, who forced the British Parliament to ban the slave trade in 1807. The Bible did not seem to condemn slavery, but British Christians knew it was wrong. As Western culture has become more liberal we have embraced behavior that the Bible specifically forbids, like divorce, working on the Sabbath, and homosexuality. We are now making our own rules, but they are still rooted in the gospels.

In 2002, the World Humanist Congress affirmed “the worth, dignity, and autonomy of the individual.” Holland views this as a quintessentially Christian idea that finds no parallel in the ancient world, or in other parts of the world today. Humanists believe “that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others.” Holland argues that the source of humanist values is not to be found in science or reason but in Christianity.

Holland suggests that Western secular liberals are deluding themselves in believing that Western views on human rights are universally shared. Western Liberals have insisted that Afghans should embrace gender equality. Holland claims that “To be a Muslim was to know that humans do not have rights. There was no natural law in Islam. There were only laws authored by God.” For some Islamic scholars, such as Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi the idea of equality between men and women, or between Islam and other religions, is “a monstrous blasphemy”. There is no such thing as “human rights” only the laws of Allah; any attempt to impose those human rights on Islamic countries is infidel heresy and will lead to friction.

Holland discusses the dark side of Christian history. Over time, he writes, Christians “have themselves become agents of terror. They have put the weak in their shadow; they have brought suffering, and persecution, and slavery in their wake.” He notes, for example, that the efforts of missionaries to bring Christianity to Africa were undermined by a “colonial hierarchy” in which black people “were deemed inferior.” But he also argues that the very standard by which we condemn colonizers is itself Christian.