…for the record, what Gaedhal calls ‘Atheistic Hyperchristianity’ is what we have been calling ‘Neo-Christianity’ on this site.
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?
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.
I watched a recent video of Jordan Peterson arguing with a Woke guy and was surprised that when the Woke guy told him that he knew a trans person who had been successful in life, Peterson acknowledged that in that case his sex change might have been a success story, albeit an exceptional one. Yesterday Tucker Carlson, in criticising the grotesque trans males who show off to children at schools, said in passing that perhaps it was a good thing that the homo community succeeded with the (misnamed) ‘gay marriage’.
Given that Peterson and Carlson are the best-known conservative figures in the media, what they recently said reminded me of my metaphor: that it is really the Left that is in the driving seat, and that the right can only apply the brakes slightly here and there but that both are headed for the cliff.
And what about white nationalists? If we remember my metaphor, while it is true that the nationalists have jumped off the train of the big Leftists and the dwarf rightists, they are heading, at pace, towards the same abyss. Not long ago there was an article on homosexualism in The Unz Review that mentioned Greg Johnson. When in the comments section I wanted to link to an article in The Occidental Observer by Andrew Joyce critical of Johnson’s apology for open and avowed homosexualism, I learned that Kevin MacDonald had deleted it.
Woke people (Jews and Leftists on the driving seat), conservatives who barely apply the brakes, and American racialists who got off the train but are headed in the same direction… What’s wrong with this picture? For those who don’t know this site, see pages 92-95 of Daybreak, ‘Ethnosuicidal Nationalists’, a book linked in the featured post.
Enrique Ruiz Garcia was the real name of ‘Juan María Alponte’. Ruiz took this alias because of his admiration for José María Apote, Cuba’s first freed slave! Enrique Ruiz, better known as Alponte in Mexico City and Spain, earned a doctorate in history from the University of Madrid and practised journalism in Mexico for half a century. He moved here after fleeing Franco’s regime in 1968; he published many books, and won important international recognition. That Franco’s Spain was the least bad country in Europe in the 1960s can be seen here and that was the Spain from which Alponte fled. Why?
Because Alponte was a perfect Spanish-speaking idiot.
Years ago a commenter told me on this site that the literature written in Spanish is a real disaster, in that all known authors are leftists; not a single one is right-wing. For the same reason, I call Latin America the subcontinent of the blue pill. Here everyone is asleep in the matrix that controls the West, and the projection of the West that is Latin America insofar as it was conquered by the Spanish and Portuguese.
I say that Alponte, who was considered a great humanist in Spanish-speaking intellectual circles, was an idiot because that is what he was along with the rest of the Spanish-speaking intelligentsia, and a single example will suffice for me to prove it.
In this article in Spanish, Alponte writes about Jean-Marie Le Pen siding one hundred per cent with a totalitarian France that doesn’t admit any historical revisionism regarding the Second World War. Alponte, and the rest of the Spanish-speaking intelligentsia, are idiots because it doesn’t occur to them that it is impossible to believe in freedom of speech, and at the same time, to applaud that the French state represses people like Jean-Marie Le Pen with fines and jail.
‘Idiots’ is an understatement. When I once visited Alponte at his home in Coyoacán (I wanted to publish my book and mistakenly believed he would help me), he was so busy that he told the maid that he wasn’t at home. But I peeked into his study and there was Alponte: reading in a study more than saturated with books.
But erudition isn’t directly proportional to wisdom. The case of Alponte and the rest of the Spanish-speaking intellectuals are paradigmatic of the point of view of this site. It was not the Jews who tricked us into subscribing to an anti-white ideology (think of the freed black slave that the idiot Ruiz used to change his name!). It was Christianity, or more precisely insofar as Ruiz/Alponte was a secular man, Christian ethics. I would like to illustrate this point with the latest email Gaedhal has sent to several correspondents:
When one fully deconverts from Christianity, one does not just reject the supernatural claims—nobody but nincompoops believe in Christianity’s supernatural claims. One also deconverts from Christianity’s axiology. Previous generations were content to give up the supernatural claims, and then attempt to out-christian the Christians on axiological matters.
My interpolated note: I, the atheist, am holier than thou, the Christian.
The term ‘axiology’ comes from the Greek word ‘agō’, which means ‘I drive’. Imagine the scales of justice. What is the driving force that balances these scales? This is what axiology asks. It was ex-Catholic César Tort who introduced me to this philosophical concept.
In my view, it is still Christian assumptions such as ‘the sanctity of human life’ and ‘human equality’ that is balancing the scales of justice in the West. The notion that everybody is equal comes from the notion of soul equality. As Alex Linder points out: if you believe that we are all equally created, then it kinda follows that we are all created equal.
However, as Revilo P. Oliver points out, once we reject Yahweh and his ‘special creation of man’, all notions of human equality should be abandoned also. In the same way that no two racehorses are equal, neither are any two humans.
And so even though fewer and fewer people believe in Yahweh, nevertheless, Jehovitic notions such as the sanctity of human life and human equality are still balancing the scales of justice. (In my view, I value blue whales more than most humans, and I value a rainforest more than a city teaming with the human virus.)
It’s a pity that I have so much work to do with correcting the syntax of our books before putting the links back in the featured post. I wish I had finished so that the critique of anthropocentrism in the book by Savitri Devi we recently translated would show, in a more formal way, what Gaedhal said above.
Update of 5:50 pm
When this guy was still living in Spain, the Spanish press was not in the hands of Jews. And yet, without Jews, the idiot changed his name, within Spanish culture, to a sort of virtuous BLM signal for Spanish speakers, decades before BLM emerged in the US. In other words, black lives were of the utmost importance to this neochristian.
The best way to realise that it is we rather than the Jews who are responsible for white decline is simply to listen, very carefully, to the great communicators of Western culture.
In my post on Tuesday, in which I reproduced an angel painted by da Vinci, I alluded to Kenneth Clark: who from the time we had a black-and-white television captivated us with his Civilisation series. These days I re-watched ‘The Fallacies of Hope’ while reading the corresponding chapter in the text version of Civilisation. In the TV version, we heard that Clark chose a few bars of the Funeral March from Beethoven’s Eroica to illustrate his disenchantment with Napoleon.
It’s a pity that what Clark told us in the TV version about Napoleon’s secret police doesn’t appear in the book. Why did he leave it out? The audio-visual version is supposed to condense what is written, not vice versa; and the dungeons of Napoleon, who crowned the French Revolution, are not even pictured in the text.
‘The Fallacies of Hope’ is a phrase from the painter Turner, and in the episode referred to we see allusions to various years: France 1830, Spain 1848, Germany 1848, France 1848, Hungary 1848, Italy 1861, France 1871—all these were the naive daughters of the monster that came later—Russia 1917, Spain 1936 (remember what I recently said about Franco), Hungary 1956, France 1968 and Czechoslovakia 1968.
Clark then complains about prisons for political prisoners in Nazi Germany, Franco’s Spain (who was a dictator when the BBC filmed Civilisation) and Hungary, but says not a word about the millions of Russians imprisoned by Lenin and Stalin. Why did Clark omit the most conspicuous?
Civilisation, about which in 2012 I had written several reviews on this site, can serve wonderfully to show how the distorted view of today’s West was generated: liberalism as a product of Christianity (Clark considered the Church of England too secular for his taste). A close reading of Civilisation, as well as careful viewing of the television version, is an excellent passport to penetrate the Christian-liberal zeitgeist.
Here is what Clark, who had a very deep insight into Western art, didn’t know. Since he speaks of the Church as the cornerstone of our civilisation (his series begins with Greek art and continues through the Middle Ages), it is clear that he knew nothing of what we have been translating from Karlheinz Deschner’s book (Clark died three years before the first volume, in German, of Deschner’s history of Christianity came out). Also, in 1969 Civilisation was released in the UK and the US, a few years before The Gulag Archipelago was published. As we have been saying on this site, to be ignorant of the history of Christianity, or communism, is tantamount to being a historical fool. Since I was brought up as a child in the arts that Clark mastered so well, it is easy for me to understand him. But art alone is insufficient to understand what happened: we need to know the dissenting voices.
Still, as I said, Civilisation, in its two versions, is a magnificent gateway to understanding how liberalism is shaped by a Christian scholar. Despite the title of the penultimate episode of Civilisation, ‘The Fallacies of Hope’, Lord Clark never lost hope in the liberal point of view. That same episode, in its television version, shows us images of liberated students in post-’68 Paris, and Clark puts his faith in their struggles never suspecting that, once grown up, those same Sorbonne students would open the gates to mass migration.
But what Clark got absolutely right is that, to understand a culture, you have to understand its art. More recently Tom Sunic has said things in line with this premise, and I have refracted it here by mentioning the novelistic art of some nineteenth-century white authors, such as the European author of Ivanhoe (a pro-Jewish novel), the female author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin (a pro-black, anti-racist novel) and Ben-Hur (authored by a pro-Jewish American colonel): great bestsellers of their time.
Rather than the misguided approach of so-called social sciences, to penetrate the deep secrets of art is to understand our soul.
Here we can watch Nicolás Márquez and Agustín Laje in their video yesterday discussing Laje’s new book.
Agustín Laje Arrigoni (born in Córdoba in 1989) is an Argentine writer, political scientist and lecturer. He is co-author of El Libro Negro de la Nueva Izquierda (The Black Book of the New Left) and author of the recently published book La Batalla Cultural: Reflexiones críticas para una Nueva Derecha (The Cultural Battle: Critical Reflections for a New Right).
Laje is the founder and president of the Fundación Libre, a conservative think tank. In Latin America he has been labelled an ‘ultra-right-winger’ by various media. Remember that Latin America subscribes to the egalitarian madness of the West, but since miscegenation has already been consummated here, there is little talk of race, hence racial issues are not discussed by Laje. Although his remarks have been labelled homophobic by the Spanish-speaking MSM, Laje subscribes to the liberal paradigm of ‘let him live’ regarding lifestyles, and only rejects third-wave feminism, not the first two waves. Despite this, Laje calls himself a paleolibertarian, anti-feminist and opposes euthanasia, abortion and homo marriage.
Given that La Batalla Cultural has just been published by HarperCollins, it’s perhaps worth saying that Laje quotes a writer as his conclusion: “Todo lo bueno de la civilización occidental, desde la libertad individual hasta el arte se debe al cristianismo” (‘Everything good in Western civilisation, from individual freedom to art, is due to Christianity’). Obviously, like racialists north of the Rio Grande, Laje is ignorant of the history of Christianity even though Catherine Nixey’s book, which we have been quoting here, has been translated into Spanish.
Compared to the neighbouring country to the north, I consider Latin America the continent of the blue pill. There is nothing in MSM that resembles, say, Tucker Carlson. One has to search social media to find the voice of an Argentine, Agustín Laje, and his YouTube channel: a kind of Latin American Tucker who in the Spanish-speaking MSM would be inconceivable.
I mention this only because the experiences I have had with racialists in the UK and US concerning Latin America have been surreal. When I spoke to Jez Turner in London, for example, he asked me if there were no nationalist movements in Latin America. His question left me cold, because any nationalism in this part of the continent is preached based on a consummated miscegenation—never based on Aryan preservation! Also, when I corresponded with Tom Goodrich, I noticed that he had an infinitely naïve view of Latin Americans. He told me that, unlike Americans, they would give me juicy donations here. The truth is that, in all the years I have received donations, I haven’t received a single cent from a Spanish speaker!
I’ve already written about these things in my review of David Duke’s trip to Mexico seven years ago. But I am still surprised that English speakers haven’t realised that there is no such thing as a red-pilled activist in this part of the continent. Not a single one. They all sleep in the matrix that controls us. Still, if I read Laje’s new book that is turning into a bestseller, I will be reviewing it in the Spanish section of this site (although it is the Catholic Laje who should read Nixey’s book).
The opinion that Adolf Hitler was an agent of the diabolical forces, that his initiation was only a monstrous counter-initiation, and that his SS Order was only a sinister brotherhood of black magicians, is—without a doubt!—widespread among anti-Hitlerians more or less daubed in occultism (and there is no shortage of them).
The most convincing argument against this seems to me to come from India. In the West, the confusion in terms of knowledge of the principles is such that it’s difficult to say whether there is still a group that can legitimately claim a true filiation with the Tradition. There is therefore no point of comparison between the attitude of true initiates and that of charlatans. According to René Guénon, practically all societies in Europe that claim to be ‘initiatory’ nowadays would be classified under the latter heading. However, it is their members who make themselves heard, who agitate, who take a stand against Hitlerism as Louis Pauwels and the Jew Bergier did, whenever they could, in the magazine Planète. Incidentally, I don’t know of a single European group interested in esoteric doctrines which is not anti-Hitler (I could be wrong, of course; I would like to be wrong on this point).
But the same is not true in India.
For one thing, one is faced with a completely different ‘spiritual landscape’ there. Instead of dealing with groups with more or less ‘initiatory’ claims, moving amid a huge profane society, infatuated with experimental science and ‘progress’ and concerned above all with its material well-being, we are in the presence of a traditional civilisation, very much alive despite the growing influence of technology. The man of the masses, not poisoned by propaganda since he still enjoys the ‘blessing of illiteracy’ (to use an expression dear to the Führer), thinks more about it than the individual of the same social level in the West—which among us is not an achievement! He thinks about it, above all, in the spirit of Tradition as witnessed by the young Sudra whose story I recalled at the beginning of these Memories and Reflections.
The Hindu who has been to school, and even the one who has studied in Europe or the USA, is not hostile to Tradition. He is familiar with the idea of natural hierarchy, of biological, and therefore racial, heredity intimately linked to the karma of each individual. And in the vast majority of cases he lives according to the immemorial rules of his caste—even when the ‘progressive’ government of a so-called ‘free’ India (in reality: a grotesque copy of Western democracies) has proclaimed the abolition of castes and imposed universal suffrage. In some cases, of course, he brings back subversive ideas or shocking habits back from his contacts with foreigners. But then he is scorned by his own, and orthodox society turns away from him—no government having the power to force matters, he has to accept it whether he likes it or not.
As for the traditional initiatory groups and the isolated masters of true secret science, they continue to exist as in the past: in silence, unnoticed by the general public. They keep themselves, in principle, out of the whirlwind of politics, and don’t give press conferences. At most, a word, a reflection formulated with a visitor who respects the Tradition, even if he is not an initiate himself, can sometimes let us guess where the earthly sympathies of this or that sage.
There are also, as is to be expected in an age of universal decadence, people who profess ‘spirituality’ and groups who claim to be transcendent masters and claim to transmit the so-called ‘initiation’ without having a shred of a right to it. There is no shortage of charlatans in orange tunics—or naked, with their bodies covered in ashes—who hang around temples, especially in places of pilgrimage, living by begging or swindling, posing as ‘gurus’ to credulous widows. They are rascals but of small scale and limited harmfulness.
Infinitely more dangerous are those individuals or groups who work to bring to India—as far as possible—the anthropocentrism inherent in religious or political doctrines influenced more or less directly by Judaism or by the Jews. By this I mean all those individuals or groups who, under cover of a false fidelity to Tradition, which they twist and disfigure as they please, preach egalitarian principles, democracy, and the horror of all violence, even if it is detached when this is exerted against ‘men’, whoever they may be—whereas the monstrous exploitation of animals (and trees) by man hardly disturbs them (if they are not completely indifferent there, and even if they don’t justify it!).
I am thinking of all those who claim to pay homage to the ‘true ancient wisdom’ by obstinately denying any natural racial hierarchy, by condemning the caste system to the core, by preaching the ‘right’ of people of different races to marry each other if they believe that in this way they will find their ‘happiness’. I am thinking of those who would like to replace, among Hindus, the old caste privileges with privileges based on ‘education’ (in the Western sense of the word) and the concern for metaphysical orthodoxy with an ever-increasing preoccupation with the ‘social’, the ‘economic’, the ‘improvement of the living conditions for the masses’. I am thinking of the organisers of ‘Parliaments of religions’, of the advocates of a fusion between ‘East and West’ at the expense of the spirit of Tradition, which was originally common to both, and which only Hinduism has preserved as the basis of civilisation; of the missionaries of a universal morality centred on ‘man’, as conceived by both the Christian and the rationalist West.
The ‘mission’ which claims to be inspired by the divine Ramakrishna—a true initiate who lived in the last century—seems to be moving more and more in this direction, under the influence of Western benefactors, especially Americans. But this trend is not new.
More than a hundred and fifty years ago it emerged with the foundation of the Brahmo Samaj, a society of deists deeply influenced by their English university education and the Protestant form of Christianity. This sect, under the pretext of bringing Hinduism back to a so-called ‘original purity’, interpreted it according to that ‘modern spirit’ whose hold on Europe René Guénon so rightly deplored. But, as Guénon says again, its adherents are, despite the social position and, what is more, the high caste of the best known of them, rejected by the orthodox Hindus. The latter refuse to give them their daughters in marriage or to accept their daughters for their sons. And in the villages they would not accept a glass of water from them—and, I repeat, no government could force them to do so. This attitude comes from the fact that the Brahmo Samajists reject the principle of the caste system: the unequal ‘dignity’ of men, according to their heredity. It also comes from the fact that the Brahmo Samaj is not Indian any more than any other like-minded sect is India (for example, the Arya Samaj, which is ‘Arya’ in name only because it also rejects the idea of a natural hierarchy of races).
How Christianity is transmuted
into liberalism: a textbook case
In my post the day before yesterday I tried to see liberalism as a movement heretical to traditional Christianity. These days I have also been watching many YouTube videos where we can see the Mexican Alberto Athié (pictured above) speaking.
After twenty years of priestly ministry, Athié resigned in 2003 when he discovered that the Catholic Church not only had no interest in curbing cases of sexual abuse, but also had an internal mechanism to cover up the perpetrators, silence the victims and protect its image. What I said recently about Spotlight in the US can be compared to what is happening in Latin America.
My mother used to see Athié at religious celebrations when he was still a priest because Athié’s brother married one of my close aunts. When Alberto Athié began to denounce in the media the paedophile worm can that was the Catholic Church in his country, the two brothers stopped talking to each other.
In the first post of this month I mentioned, in grey letters, an anecdote told to me, very close to where I’m writing this entry, by Athié’s buddy: José Barba, one of the victims of the paedophile priest Marcial Maciel. But I didn’t tell everything that happened when Barba visited me with a friend.
When the subject of women came up, I expressed my views on feminism (see our book On Beth’s Cute Tits). Barba, then in his late seventies, sided with feminism in such a way that I even felt his gestures were rude when he heard me speak: he started yawning, signalling that he didn’t want to hear what I was saying. I was surprised by his rudeness, as Barba continues to go to mass despite his activism against paedophiles in the church. Why did the old wise man who speaks fluent Latin, reads the New Testament in the original Greek, and had been a seminarian react like that? The slew of videos of his buddy Athié that I have seen these days revealed the mystery.
The now secularized Athié, who still believes in the gospel message, says in one of his videos that feminists helped them enormously in the cause of bringing paedophile priest cases to light. Hearing him speak in various televised interviews over the years, one discovers how Christianity began to transmute. Once he hung up his habits he began to sympathise more openly with liberation theology, so-called women’s rights, a Manichean vision where there are exploited poor and exploiters in a nation, third world countries whose underdevelopment is caused by the prosperity in first world countries, and so on: the typical toxic cocktail of Latin American leftism.
The Athié family has a reputation of mocha (goody-goody) in the country, of a very traditional and recalcitrant Catholicism. It is fascinating to see how, after an Athié priest hung up his habits, it didn’t take long for his Catholic programming to metamorphose into the typical liberalism we see in countries that had practised traditional Christianity. In the specific case of Latin America, as the anti-Aryan crossbreeding has already been consummated (see my comment yesterday in the comments section of The Occidental Observer), what it is now all about is achieving the long-awaited equity between men and women. Athié completely and utterly endorses this Orwellian agenda in Latin America. So from an extremely traditional family we now have, when you leave the church, a typical modern-day liberal.
The racial right in North America, so obsessed with Jews, doesn’t want to see the elephant in the room: only the countries that used to profess traditional Christianity have become ethno-suicidal. Even the Asian copycat countries that now worship Mammon are not so imbecilic as to invite masses of Blacks or Muslims to immigrate while devising shut-up neologisms like ‘racist’ for those who rebel, and even hate-speech laws to punish dissent. Likewise, feminism, taken to the point of hating men, is a phenomenon that only affects once-Christian countries as is now the case not only of Spain but Latin America, which has also embraced gender ideology, and the Athié case illustrates this wonderfully.
For those who know Spanish, I suggest you watch some of the videos with Athié. The former priest speaks in a very good-natured, cordial, charismatic and empathetic way: a true spiritual heir of the mythical Jesus.
Yesterday I changed the subtitle of this site by replacing the word ‘fourteen’ with ‘sacred’. Thus I also include the four words (to understand the latter the visitor would have to familiarise himself with my eleven books). Yesterday the thought also came to me that liberalism, which is now in its final metastasis in all former Christian countries (not only the originally Aryan countries, but Latin America as well), is ultimately a heresy.
As we have said several times, the Christian notion of the equality of men in the eyes of God was transformed, after the American and French Revolutions, into the equality of men under the law. After the defeat of Nazi Germany, this was transmuted in the US into equality for blacks and women; and, in the new century, into using the power of the State to denigrate the white male and achieve—at last!—equity.
The secular psychosis of today’s world only affects those countries that were once traditional Christian. Ethno-suicidal liberalism doesn’t affect the billions under Islam, the Chinese regime or the Indian people who still embrace Hinduism. However, that doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is legitimate. It means that a heretical faction of traditional Christianity, insofar as it secularised the gospel message (i.e., secularised the inversion of values in the New Testament), has taken root in all former Christian countries.
I have already discussed this in ‘On empowering birds feeding on corpses’ which can be read on pages 181-184 of Daybreak. But my initiative to call ‘heretics’ secular liberals, whose most extreme form today are the ‘woke’ people, came to me yesterday. That, heretics, is what they really are. The image of St. Francis is explained in the referenced article from Daybreak: a book which, by the way, remains unavailable in printed form as we haven’t raised the funds to solicit the services of a printer that won’t deplatform us.