web analytics

Category: Miscegenation

Categories
London Miscegenation William Shakespeare

Shakespeare

William Shakespeare was also a ‘man of his time’, in that his plays were performed at the London Globe. Compare this with the wretched lives of the ‘men against their time’: so ignored that, in their isolation, they usually suffer psychic annihilation (as would happen to Nietzsche).

On a mainstream television channel last century I caught glimpses of what appeared to be a series of Shakespeare’s complete works. Each drama, comedy or tragedy was performed by native actors—naturally all ethnically pure English—and I was so impressed by the more than beautiful euphony and musicality of Shakespearean English that I immediately fell in love and understood why his poetry represents one of the pinnacles of European art.

Alas, in this century, the last time I visited London, I went to Shakespeare’s Globe to see a performance of Antony and Cleopatra and… I received a horrifying shock: unlike the beautiful images I had seen on television in the previous century, now not only was the casting of the Shakespearean tragedy at the Globe itself replete with blacks, but an Arab was fondling his English girlfriend in the audience!

It is events of this kind that make one abandon the classics and devote oneself to Hitler with the utmost fanaticism! While I can recognise the very high culture represented by the English poet’s theatre, what is the point of being immersed in his dramas if what prevails in England today is the ethnosuicidal tragedy of astronomic self-hatred of the English themselves? I was a tourist in London when this happened, and it should be no surprise that Tyrone Joseph Walsh, mentioned in my previous article, vehemently refused to accompany me to the Globe.

Now Tyrone is rotting in jail for rebelling against his country’s vehement ethnosuicide. Only now do I fully understand why one loses all interest in one’s country’s greatest literary figure when things like what happened to me at the Globe happen.

So, sharing the disinterest of the friend who is now unable to communicate with us, I shall confine myself in this entry to re-posting what I have written in previous years about Shakespeare’s best-known tragedy:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Of my list of fifty, this was the first film that, as I recount in my autobiography, really made an impression on me when I saw it on television in 1975, with my dad by my side. Precisely in trying to understand how a defect or fault in my father’s character corrupted the whole family dynamics, years later I would ponder much in the words that, in Laurence Olivier’s voice, we listen at the beginning of Hamlet (1948 film):

So oft it chances in particular men
That for some vicious mole of nature in them,
By the o’ergrowth of some complexion,
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason,
Or by some habit grown too much; that these men–
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
Their virtues else — be they as pure as grace,
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault.

As a teenager watching it at home, I was most impressed by Hamlet’s inward-spiralling soliloquies in one of the early scenes, when he is left alone in the hall and the court guests leave. If instead of the forty-year-old actor Olivier, the director had cast a teenage actor of my age—as he appears in Shakespeare’s tragedy!—I would have connected much more with the character. But even so, his soliloquies near the beginning of the film made a big impression on me because that is what I used to do as a teenager, and precisely because of a family tragedy that no one but me seemed to have any introspection about.

However, it is impossible to critique the film without critiquing not only Shakespeare, but the Christian era of which both Shakespeare and I are a part.

As Alice Miller observed in one of her books, the Judeo-Christian commandment to honour the parent has been fatal to the mental health of Christians (and I would add, of atheistic neochristians alike). Although Christians destroyed the vast majority of the classical world’s plays, tragedies and comedies, in the little that remains it can be seen that in both Iphigenia and Electra it’s clear that there is maddening mistreatment of their children by their parents. But not in Hamlet where an uncle is the bad guy. Nevertheless, for the Elizabethan period Hamlet was a breakthrough in the right direction, although millennia earlier the Greeks had already reached the marrow of the human soul. In sum, for the time Hamlet definitely represented a leap forward to a more self-conscious self.

Another thing that, now grown up, struck me when I rewatched the film was the character of Ophelia when Hamlet wants to grab her: the personification of the eternal feminine that I’ve been talking about on this site, which also appears in Shakespeare when we listen: ‘In her excellent white bosom, these…’ Hamlet’s scenes with Ophelia in the castle should be paradigmatic of how women will be in the future ethnostate, and are worth seeing. But back to what I said above.

Whites won’t mature as long as they are trapped by Judeo-Christian commandments. Even in areas as distinct from racial preservation as mental disorders (in Shakespearean tragedy we read that the teenage Hamlet was said to be deranged), we can never understand each other unless we transvalue our values to the values of the times of the Greek tragedies. Back then, before the commandment to honour our parents, it was easy to see that Clytemnestra’s mistreatment had affected the mental health of her daughter Electra; or that Iphigenia’s sacrifice by Agamemnon had affected Clytemnestra terribly, and so on. Even the tough Spartans wept at these open-air tragedies when they visited Athens because they reflected what was happening in the real world.

So much do Christian ethics permeate the secular world that even in his Dictionnaire philosophique Voltaire says that ‘It is natural for children to honour their parents’, and the so-called mental health professionals of our times feel the same way. In our century, the Judeo-Christian injunction to honour the parent, now secularised, moves writers to shift the villain of the story, for example from father to uncle as in Harry Potter (and Hamlet!) and only through such a shift is audio-visual drama permitted.

To transvalue all values is to recognise that the tragedies of the classical world were more profound and direct than the indirect tragedies of our Christian era. And even though Shakespeare, like Montaigne, set religion aside in their writings, they still moved on the axiological scale of our age, where the mandate to honour the parent is so profound that there is a whole fraudulent profession, psychiatry, which tries to keep the parental figure out in the cases of traumatised children and adolescents at home (cf. my books in Spanish).

 
Hamlet revisited

Though fictional, Hamlet is a character who, asking himself a thousand questions as he wanders the vast halls of the Danish castle, he also struggles with mental illness. In my article ‘Hamlet’ last year [reposted above], I implied that the Greek tragedians knew the human soul better than the great writers of Christendom for the simple reason that the latter have lived under the sky of the fourth commandment, honour our parents, and that this prevented them from seeing that some parents drive their children mad. This is so true that I commented in that article that even Voltaire hadn’t broken with that Christian commandment (it was not until the 20th and 21st centuries that a Swiss writer, Alice Miller, repudiated such a toxic commandment).

But in this entry I didn’t want to talk about the trauma model of mental disorders. I want to put Shakespeare on par with Goethe in the sense that their most famous works, Faust and Hamlet, contain strong Christian residues. Like Goethe, Shakespeare needs to be contextualised.

What could a continental freethinker do in the mid-16th century during the wars between Catholics and Protestants? Become a recluse. A sceptic of Christianity, Montaigne, did exactly that: something that evokes that many contemporary racialists are now recluses because of social ostracism if they dare to come down from their towers. Montaigne impresses me because he was the true representative of the intellectual side of the Renaissance, in sharp contrast to Erasmus who still lived in the thickest medieval darkness (cf. what I wrote about Erasmus in Daybreak).

England was then freer than Montaigne’s France, and that is the background to understanding William Shakespeare. We know that Shakespeare read Florio’s translations of Montaigne and that he was very impressed by him. Kenneth Clark said that Shakespeare was the first great poet of Christendom without religious beliefs.

Hamlet by William Morris Hunt.

However, like Goethe with his Faust, this is not entirely accurate. Shakespeare’s Hamlet has to be placed within the matrix of Elizabethan England: a time when Christian doctrine was still taken very seriously, both in its Anglican and Papist versions. Hamlet suffered a schizogenic struggle. He struggled internally with the command of his father’s ghost, from purgatory, to avenge him; but Hamlet couldn’t condemn himself, should he commit the mortal sin of murdering his uncle if he was, after all, innocent: a dilemma with which he struggles internally throughout the play.

So despite being influenced by the free-thinking ideas of his time, like Goethe Shakespeare was playing with Christian post-mortem doctrine. Nonetheless, from the viewpoint of my trilogy, which tries to fulfil Delphi’s mandate, Hamlet certainly represents a breakthrough in insight: it is the first foray into what we may call the true self (as opposed to the false self: the internal struggles we read in Augustine’s Confessions).

What gives Hamlet such evocative power is that the tragedy doesn’t take place on stage but within Hamlet’s soul. The whole play is a soliloquy, and since I have finished my trilogy these days with a postscript to my own tragedy with my father, I would like to quote a few words from Hamlet’s second scene:

Would I had met my dearest foe in heaven
Or ever I had seen that day, Horatio!
My father!—methinks I see my father.

A couple of minutes of the 1948 film interpretation from this point onwards portrays Hamlet’s inward-spiralling soliloquies very well. Incidentally, when I saw that film with my father in 1975 he had already mistreated me.

Categories
Miscegenation Nordicism Racial right

Lebensborn

‘If we could establish the Nordic race and, from this seedbed, produce a race of 200 million, the world would be ours.’ —Himmler

In heated debates, many commenters on racialist forums continue to discuss Hitler and National Socialism these days, including Greg Johnson (e.g., here).

One of the most recurring themes of Hitler’s critics has been the way the Germans treated the Slavs in WW2. I am enormously struck by the fact that none of them have been able to point out the obvious. It was perfectly natural and laudable that Himmler and his people, who had some Norwegian villages as an almost perfect paradigm of the Aryan, wanted to Aryanise the occupied territories of those who had suffered miscegenation due to the continuous Asian invasions.

Concerned about this issue, while walking through a beautiful little English village I once asked historian Arthur Kemp, author of a book on the history of the white race, a naive question. I asked him what percentage of Russians would be mixed. I say naive as it is obvious that they are already all more mixed than the purest Nordics—the paradigm with which Himmler and his ilk wanted to populate Europe, beautifully portrayed by the American Maxfield Parrish whose paintings now hang on the walls of my studio.

As we said in my anthology ‘On Exterminationism’, a few months after its founding, Himmler’s Lebensborn project opened Heim Hochland, the first home for pregnant women. For this purpose, the National Socialists took over the construction of a Catholic orphanage in Munich. Initially, the institution could accommodate up to thirty mothers and fifty-five children, and the candidates were carefully selected. Only women who met the characteristics of the dominant race were admitted. Candidates had their skulls measured, and only those with the coveted elongated skull, typical of the Nordic type, could be admitted. They also had to meet other requirements, such as blond hair, blue or green eyes and good health. Those who passed the test received the best care.

This fact, that due to the brutal Asian invasions the Slavs’ bloodline was already more compromised than the specimens chosen by Himmler and the SS to repopulate the conquered territories, is completely overlooked by all these critics of Hitler. They overlook it because of their Christian ethics and the mandate of universal brotherhood, so they see all Caucasoids (except Jews) as brothers. It is surreal to admit, but only someone who is not an Aryan, such as myself, has been able to point this fact out over the years in my disputes with white nationalists.

The thing to do is to applaud Hitler’s plans, including his Master Plan East, and only criticise him militarily (easy to say now: he should’ve waited until he had the atomic bomb before venturing into Operation Barbarossa).

What I say in ‘The Wall’ stands, which is why it remains and will remain the featured post of The West’s Darkest Hour. An axiological wall separates National Socialists from white nationalists and very few Americans have crossed it. William Pierce was one of them but it is a wall that very few racialists are, now, willing to cross.

There is something I have perceived and have already said but it is worth reiterating.

In my experience on this site, thanks to the emails sent to me by the more radical commenters I have noticed that only those who were martyred as children or teenagers by their parents have been able to truly break with the values of today’s West. It is difficult to visualize it if you don’t read the autobiography of one of them. But for the sake of understanding I will use an analogy.

Only people like Solzhenitsyn, who suffered years in the Gulag, broke with the ideology of the Soviet state to the extent that, already a refugee in the US, he wanted that state to be destroyed. We can already imagine nationalist Russians in Brezhnev’s time! Despite Stalin’s crimes, it would be unthinkable for them to wish for such a thing because, unlike Solzhenitsyn, they didn’t suffer the horrors of the Gulag.

Only intense suffering makes one break with the paradigm in turn, although I recognise that suffering resulting from parental abuse annihilates psychically almost everyone. That is why I must translate my books into English, something I will restart now that I am beginning to settle down after a very calamitous move.

Categories
Holocaust Miscegenation

Lawyer

and prosecutor

I still can’t find a place to move, so I don’t have time to resume my full-time activities for the sacred words. But today, at the bank, and already at home watching a video on how the old left thought (‘How the Left Destroyed Itself’ with Yanis Varoufakis), my mind doesn’t stop its train of thought.

Recall once again the faces of white Mexicans in my recent post ‘Blue pill’. In one of Mexico City’s best-known malls, where I was today because the banks are open there on Saturdays, I saw a huge billboard in the car park showing a Caucasian male with a black couple. I had seen such billboards in London but apparently, they are now catching on in the third world. The West suffers from an endless hatred: an exterminationist hatred of the white race even in countries where, like Mexico, there are very few true whites.

I didn’t take a picture of the huge billboard I saw in the mall with my mobile phone (although as a priest of the holy words I don’t use a mobile phone in a city without friends, for banking matters I have to carry it). But I think we Westerners have seen such billboards in various countries.

On the other hand I must confess that, although I don’t have time to read at the moment, I find fascinating what I have barely read of the 1455-page Spanish translation, which I recently acquired, of the classic book The Destruction of the European Jews. In digital form, I own the revisionist counterpart: the Holocaust Handbooks series (pic of one of them on the left). It would take a lifetime—many years that I no longer have on my horizon—to assess both sides. Hopefully, future priests will follow my method: listen to both the prosecutor and the lawyer before rendering an educated opinion.

In any case, as we can see from my featured post ‘The Wall’, the priest is not affected by the official story as he is a man who has already transvalued his values. As a Swede said on page 83 of my anthology On exterminationism:

What is certain is that the Holocaust would not have produced any debilitating psychological effect on non-Christian whites. (By Christianity I mean ‘Christian morality.’ Most atheists in the West are still Christian, even if they don’t believe in God or Jesus.) Being emotionally affected by the Holocaust presupposes that you think: (1) Victims and losers have intrinsically more moral value than conquerors and winners, (2) Killing is the most horrendous thing a human can do, (3) Killing children and women is even more horrendous and (4) Every human life has the same value.

None of these statements ring true to a man who has rejected Christian morality. Even if the Holocaust happened, I would not pity the victims or sympathise with them. If you told the Vikings that they needed to accept Jews on their lands or give them gold coins because six million of them were exterminated in an obscure war, they would have laughed at you.

Who within the American racial right, which largely subscribes to Christian ethics, thinks like this neo-Nietzschean Hyperborean?

Categories
Ancient Rome Miscegenation

Christianity:

The communism of antiquity, 6

by Alain de Benoist

 

This certainty that the Empire needed to collapse for the Kingdom to come explains the mixed feelings of the early Christians towards the barbarians. Undoubtedly, at first, they felt as threatened as the Romans.

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, distinguished between external enemies (hostes extranei) and internal enemies (hostes domestici). For him, it was the Goths that Ezekiel was referring to when he spoke of the people of Magog. But, in the second stage, these barbarians, who were soon to be evangelised, became auxiliaries of divine justice. Christians could not admit that their fate was linked to that of a ‘Babylon of impudence’. That is why the Carmen de Providentia or the Commonitorium of Orentius are scarcely interested in other than the ‘enemies within.’ In the 3rd century, in his Carmen apologeticum, a Christian author, Comodian, speaks of the Germans (more precisely of the Goths) as ‘executors of God´s designs.’ In the following century, Orosius, in turn, affirms that the barbarian invasions are ‘God´s judgement’ that come ‘in punishment for the faults of the Romans’ (poenaliter accidisse). It is the equivalent of the ‘plagues’ Moses used to blame the Pharaoh.

On 24 August 410, Alaric, king of the Visigoths, after besieging Rome for several weeks, entered the city by night through the Porta Salaria. It was a converse patrician, Proba Faltonia, of the Anician family, who, after sending her slaves to occupy the gate, had it surrendered to the enemy. The Visigoths were Christians, and the spiritual and ideological solidarity bore fruit. The Anicians, of whom Amianus Marcellinus (XVI, 8) says that they were reputed to be insatiable, were known as fanatics of the Catholic party. The sack of Rome that followed was described by Christian authors with kindly strokes. Alaric’s ‘clemency’ was praised. Georges Sorel asked: ‘Were the vanquished guilty?’ St Augustine says of the Visigothic leader, he was God’s envoy and the avenger of Christianity. Oretius says that only one senator died and that it was his fault (‘he had not made himself known’), and that it was enough for Christians to make the sign of the cross be respected, and so on. ‘Such daring lies, says Augustin Thierry, were later admitted as indisputable facts’ (Alaric).

Around 442, Quodvulteus, bishop of Carthage, claimed that the ravages of the Vandals were pure justice. In one of his sermons, he tried to console a faithful member who had complained about the devastation: ‘Yes, you tell me that the barbarian has taken everything from you… I see, I understand, I meditate: you, who lived in the sea, have been devoured by a bigger fish. Wait a little: an even bigger fish will come and devour the one who devours, despoil the one who despoils, take the one who takes… This plague that we are suffering today will not last forever: in truth, it is in the hands of the Almighty’. Finally, at the end of the 5th century, Salvianus of Marseilles affirms that ‘the Romans have suffered their sorrows by the just judgement of God’.

In the 2nd century, the City had been invaded by foreign cults. A temple to the Great Mother had been erected on the Palatine Hill, where fanatici officiated. Moral contagion did the rest. ‘Through the gap opened in the barrier that closes the horizon of terrestrial life, they were going to penetrate all sorts of chimaeras and superstitions, drawn from the inexhaustible reservoir of the Oriental imagination.’ (Bouché-Leclercq). These were the bacchanalia, the rites with mysteries, the Isiac cult, the cult of Mithra, and finally, Christianity. The words ‘The last of his family’ were written in the tombs more frequently. Pompey’s line had disappeared in the 2nd century, and also Augustus’ and Maecenas’ lines.

Rome was no longer Rome; all the rivers of the East flowed into the Tiber. It was only much later, in the Renaissance, that Petrarch (1304-1374) observed that the ‘black epoch’ (tenebrae) of Roman history had coincided with the era of Theodosius and Constantine; while in northern Europe, in the early 16th century, Erasmus (c. 1469-1536) claimed, although he called himself a ‘militiaman of Christ’, that the true barbarians of ancient times, the ‘real Goths’, had been the monks and scholastics of the Middle Ages.

Categories
Kali Yuga Miscegenation Painting

2 founding fathers

In the middle of the year I added a post in which I was alarmed about the existence of serial child killers in the US. These last few days, however, I have seen a lot of videos of horrific murders committed by American adults on other adults.

I won’t mention the names of the perpetrators, which you can easily find out by looking them up on YouTube. Still, I am now thinking of a young Aryan lad in whose room his mother found a bag containing a human head (in police interrogation the lad gloated that he had destroyed the corpse’s eyes with a knife); a woman who had killed her mother and hid her body in the garage until the cops found her; another woman who killed seven of her newborn babies and collected their corpses in boxes that began to smell bad; a man who suffered from the same disease that depressed Robin Williams but, unlike the famous actor, butchered his wife with a small but sharp knife (the video reveals that the policeman who entered the crime scene had to get out and throw up the turkey because of what he had seen, as the day before had been Thanksgiving Day), etcetera.

There is no doubt that American society is sick. But the serious thing is that practically no one, not even white nationalists, realises the causes of the spiritual sickness that has befallen their society. Only Americans like Francis Parker Yockey began to sense the cause, but his best-known work, Imperium, was written in prose so opaque that, in my opinion, it is no longer of any use to us in this century.

Writing in prose so clear and transparent that the essentials can be said in a short blog post, the darkest hour (Kali Yuga) not only of the US but of the West began in 1945. Two of the featured posts that can be read on the menu of this site, ‘Founding Myth’ and ‘The Iron Throne’ deal with the matter and I need not repeat myself. What I would like to clarify today is something else.

I have recently said some very harsh things about the ‘Founding Father’ of the Americans, George Washington, because of his philo-Semitism. But I, born south of the Rio Grande, could say the same about the Founding Father of Mexico: Hernán Cortés.

Cortés and La Malinche is a mural by José Clemente Orozco frescoed in 1926. It is preserved on the main staircase of the Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso, located in the centre of Mexico City.

Cortés not only conquered Mexico-Tenochtitlan in 1519-1521, the seat of the Aztec empire, but also initiated the interbreeding of Iberian White and American Indian. One need only travel to contemporary Mexico to see the ravages of this miscegenation sanctioned by both the Catholic Church and the Spanish Crown.

Now, as I have also said recently, the pre-Christian Visigoths of ancient Hispania burned at the stake any couple who dared to procreate a mongrel baby. What a reversal of values between this taboo of the pagan Goths and the 16th-century mixing perpetrated throughout the American continent! (remember that a large part of what is now the US belonged to New Spain).

This miscegenation on a scale never seen before was, in my opinion, worse than Washington’s philo-Semitism because it condemned the newly discovered continent to perennial underdevelopment, at least in the part that was colonised by the Spaniards and the Portuguese.

By expressing myself in this way about the country of my birth, I have become such an outcast that I have not a single friend, so I never carry with me my cellphone (which I only use for my bank account). But what I want to get at is that, if I express myself in this way about Cortés and the Iberian conquistadors who mixed their blood, why shouldn’t I also express myself harshly about the Founding Father of the neighbouring country to the north and his philo-Semitic epigones?

Categories
Goths Hans F. K. Günther Miscegenation

The dissolution

of Germanic racial care by medieval Christianity (5)

by Hans F. K. Günther

Jan Luyken’s 1698 engraving of the quintessential subversive Jew, Paul, dictating his famous Letter to the Romans to his scribe.

Baher also saw the price of poverty, which must have seemed to the hard-working German peasant the price of inability to work at a time when there was still enough free land to clear and cultivate. For him, poverty was the appropriate fate of the incapable, not the state in which a person was closer to the Kingdom of God. Baher is the price of the weak and sick, the suspicion found in appearance as a sign of spiritual contamination (see p. 377). In the Epistle to the Romans (12:16) Paul warns: Do not aim at high things, but lower yourselves to the lowly – this was the negation of Indo-Germanic values such as pride, the drive for power, the joy of owning land, of competing with all the forces of the region. The medieval pious person was led away from these Indo-Germanic values to values of courage, i.e. according to the root of the word (serve): of being a servile person, of being homeless, celibate and without possessions.

This transformation of values through the ecclesiastical teachings of the Middle Ages was characterized by one of the best experts on pagan Germanic culture, Andreas Heusler:

It is deeply unscriptural that one openly and joyfully admits to pride and the drive for power. Anyone who has what it takes should want to be the first in their region. The sentence that he who humbles himself finds no place in these hearts. The will to power has the affection of the narrator and the listener. With compassion one follows the self-confident man who is bowed down by fate. Something new in the Christian stories is the look of satisfaction that touches the fall of the powerful. To the extent that bias and malicious joy prevail in the sagas, it is directed less against the tyrant and oppressor than against the coward and the quiet, even against the upstart.

The teachings of the medieval church thus dissolved the Germanic focus on a human image of spiritual perfection and a noble lifestyle, and instead taught the characteristics of those who had been described by the Germanic people as litilmenn, as people with small souls. The new doctrine thus eliminated the original model of the volatile, noble and beautiful person. This had to have an effect over the centuries and, together with other historical forces, resulted in us Germans being racially and genetically different from the Germanic peoples.

The racial history of the Germanic people as such ends with the conversion of the Germanic people to Christianity. It begins with the period between the 9th and 11th centuries when the barrier between the free and the unfree, here earlier, there later, at the latest in Lower Saxony and in Scandinavia, there only completely in the 14th century, the mass history of the individual Germanic-speaking tribes, in Germany the racial history of the German people, fell. The German people of the later Middle Ages and the modern era already presents itself as a selection result of those centuries in which the racial breeding of the Germanic people, which had returned to Indo-Germanic roots of the Neolithic period, had been dissolved.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s 2 ¢

As far as the last paragraph is concerned, since I have Spanish ancestry it came to my attention in William Pierce’s Who We Are and Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans that the Visigoths of ancient Hispania only began to interbreed after the introduction of Christianity. A century before the Moors invaded the peninsula, these pure Aryans had terrible punishments for the mixed couple who dared to procreate a mongrel baby. Why are these historical facts that Hans Günther and others talked about not mentioned in the forums of the American racial right?

I think we already know the answer…

Categories
Hans F. K. Günther Miscegenation Racial studies

The dissolution

of Germanic racial care by medieval Christianity (2)

by Hans F. K. Günther

 
In many areas of Sweden and Norway the racial barrier between free and unfree fell much later than in southern Germania, because Christianity penetrated there much later. In Sweden there were many unfree servants who had been imported from Finland, from areas of predominantly non-Nordic race. Sweden seems to have had the largest number of unfree people around 1200, although by then many people had already been freed under southern Christian influence. But there were still many unfree people in Sweden up until the 14th century, most of them probably in Uppland, the region opposite the Finnish coast, where the need for servants was greater due to the seat of the kingdom and the estates of the powerful large farmers. In some areas of Uppland there are today relatively many short-headed people with broad faces, pronounced cheekbones and features of the Baltic race, which are more common in Finland. When the serfs in Sweden became free around 1200 and later, these people moved to the undeveloped and inhospitable areas, as there was still enough cultivated land. In many cases, the names of settlements and villages indicate that such places were cleared and founded by freedmen. But in these areas, the people are mostly darker in skin, hair and eyes than other Swedes, and at the same time more shy, simple, distrustful and religious in their souls, and not as open and frank as other Swedes. Thus, according to research by Rihtén, despite some later mixing of the populations, there is still a racial difference between the descendants of former freemen and those of former serfs.

Another abolition of the idea of ancestry and ethnic origin was brought about by the idea of redemption – this idea itself was such a characteristic idea of the Near Eastern racial soul that Claus combined the spiritual traits of the people of the Near Eastern race to form the image of the ‘redemptive man’. The redemption taught by the church should, however – and this is the essential difference compared to the traditional racial cultivation of Germanic culture – at the same time bring about a liberation and rejection of species, tribe, language and people, which here appeared as something restrictive and degrading. The ‘Revelation of John’ (5:9) taught that God had redeemed people through his blood from every tribe, every language and every people (ex omni tribu et lingua et populo et natione).

John of Patmos called to write the so-called Book of Revelation. Note how the Christian artist paints both the god of the Jews (or is he an angel?) and Johnny as pure Aryans.

A Jew of the Hellenistic-Roman era could, under certain circumstances, see his nationality as something repulsive and something to be discarded. There were many at that time who detested the Jewish people; there were also some Jews who saw their people as inferior to the Hellenes and Romans. Josephus, for example, the Jewish historian on the side of the Romans besieging Jerusalem, felt this way as a citizen of the world with a Hellenistic education. But now the Germanic peoples were supposed to see their tribe, their language and their way of life as something from which they had to be redeemed. Through priestly instruction, the spirit of the East now influenced the West.

In my work Piety of a Nordic Kind (1934) I tried to show why the idea of redemption in all its interpretations and effects must have seemed completely alien to Germanic culture at first: redemption from what evil and to what other life? Midgard, the world of sensible order, the cultivated homeland, was his evil, was in fact something divine, and Utgard, the power of the anti-divine, was to be fought on the side of the god. There could not be a better life than the combative life on this earth and in friendship with God. It was precisely as a pious person that the Germanic people possessed the security described above and, as a nobleman and descendant of select aristocratic peasant families, the certainty of good nature. Now Midgard was to become for him a scene of original sin and frailty in need of redemption, his very nature bound to the disgusting ‘flesh’ that leads to sin, something sinful from which a soul separated from the body must strive for an afterlife. All human nature was corrupted in its infancy, ‘evil from birth’ (Genesis 8:2) and created from ‘sinful seed’ (Pyalm 51:7). According to this doctrine, it was no longer possible, as it seemed to the Indo-Europeans, that something divine could manifest itself in human races; rather, everything human was inherited, unworthy before God and therefore dependent on redemption, redemption through a blood-stained head.

For the reasons stated above, no evidence has survived of the effect such teachings had on the Germanic mind. This mind probably opposed them with a similar resistance to that felt by Goethe, who rebelled against the doctrine of original sin and wanted to see certain phenomena recognized as an ‘inherited virtue.’ We also know of Goethe’s indignation at Kant’s idea of ’radical evil’ in man – Goethe was certainly too good a connoisseur of reality to overlook the fact that the majority of his contemporaries could probably provide examples of something ‘radical evil.’ but he refused, out of what one might call an Indo-European feeling, to understand this ‘sad evil’ as something necessary and essential to the human species and to all types of people, and believed that Kant had introduced this view into his teachings in order to attract Christians to his philosophy as well, as he wrote in his letter to Herder on June 7, 1793.

The Germanic peoples may have felt something like this in relation to the medieval church teachings. An idea such as that expressed by Luther in his baptismal book (1526), that the child before baptism is possessed by the devil and a child of the devil; further an idea such as that expressed by the Augsburg Confession (Confessio Augustana) and the Formula of Concordia (Formula Concordiae), the obligatory foundations of the Germanic Church, that a person conceived and born of the devil cannot have a true faith in God by nature; that there is nothing found and uncorrupted in the body and soul of man and that he is therefore not only unwilling but completely incapable of doing good and that his whole nature, person and being is completely corrupted by original sin. Such ideas, in contrast to Germanic-Indo-Germanic thinking, can only have entered the minds of the descendants of converted Germanic peoples after centuries of appropriate interpretation. Individual Germanic tribes have certainly tried to interpret the church teachings in a native sense; one such attempt, which may have seemed strange enough to most Germanic tribes of the time, is represented by the Old Saxon Geltand-Bichtung of the 9th century. The sober-minded among the Germanic noble farmers – and sober thinking was always widespread among the farmers of predominantly Nordic origins – may have initially perceived the church teachings somewhat in the same way as Frederick the Great did according to his living will of 1768.

Categories
Hans F. K. Günther Miscegenation Racial studies

The dissolution

of Germanic racial care by medieval Christianity (1)

by Hans F. K. Günther

 
In the following, we will not examine whether the church teachings to which the Germanic peoples were to be converted could still adequately represent the pure teachings of the Galilean Jesus. This original teaching, as scientific biblical criticism has shown, can hardly ever be adequately understood. In any case, Christianity came to the Germanic people as an essentially alien, oriental teaching. That it was intended as a teaching for orientals is perhaps already shown by Jesus’ words that he had not come to abolish the Jewish law, and may also be indicated by words such as Matthew 10:5 and 6; 15:21; 15:26, which indicate that Jesus only wanted to address his preaching to the Jews. (The words ‘Go and teach all nations’ have been shown to be inauthentic, a later addition.) The question of the rapacious direction of Christianity can, however, remain undiscussed here, since we shall only consider how the church teachings – which are by no means the same as original Christianity – must have influenced the Germanic racial cultivation since the age of the Frankish wars of apostasy against the pagan Germanic people.

Since the zeal for conversion, which stands for a faith as an oriental phenomenon, eradicated as far as possible all evidence of the pagan past in contrast to the characteristically Nordic tolerance of the Indo-European form of faith, hardly any evidence has survived about the effect of the collision of church teachings with Germanic tradition on the Germanic racial cultivation. It is therefore necessary to attempt a fundamental comparison of both religious worlds with regard to this racial cultivation, a comparison which, in the interests of brevity, must be somewhat rough and schematic, especially since the reality of human life can also combine ideas from contradictory spiritual worlds with one another to form the most diverse balances. In reality, the struggle between the spiritual worlds described continues to this day, and the Christianity of both major Christian denominations is no longer the Christianity of the early Middle Ages preached to the Germanic peoples and its adherents in the then ‘racial chaos of the Mediterranean countries’.

Medieval Christianity initially opposed the barriers between peoples and avarice as being contrary to God: here there is neither Jew nor Greek, here there is neither slave nor free, as Paul said in Galatians 3:28. This was certainly said in relation to otherworldly values: towards God there is neither lord nor slave, neither free nor unfree. The New Testament is also indifferent to the slave question, and this is due to logical thinking, because all earthly circumstances are of no importance compared to otherworldly values, except that wealth can detract from otherworldly values. Furthermore, the slavery question and the class question could not gain any significance in an eschatological otherworldly belief, i.e. a belief in an imminent end to the world and the coming of the Kingdom of God. But when this end of the world did not occur, a worldly conclusion was drawn from such statements as Paul had expressed: the abolition of national and racial barriers, of the barriers between free and unfree. Paul taught the Athenians (Acts 17:26) that all people were created from one blood: ex uno sanguine, as the Bulgata translated, the wording of which became binding Holy Scripture for the Germanic peoples through the conversion in the West.

Paul at the Areopagus of Athens

In Athens, this message of equality was not a new doctrine, for the late Hellenes, a confused, degenerate mixture, thought the same way for the most part. They were, at least in the cities, also mostly descendants of slaves of the earlier, now extinct Hellenes and descendants of the immigrated foreigners (Metoics), and such populations always tend towards the doctrine of equality, which is intended to justify or conceal their descent. Likewise, the Jews, from whose spiritual training Paul came, in Hellenistic and Roman times liked to spread doctrines of equality wherever they were opposed by a traditional consciousness of the other’s species. Jews in particular were involved in the reinterpretation of a term of Indo-European origin such as humanitas from a goal concept of full humanity and success in a national sense to a catchphrase concept of a ‘humanity idea’ that abolished all differences in ancestry. However, the ex uno sanguine was now preached to the Germanic peoples who still lived entirely in the racial tradition of the Indo-Europeans, and indeed as a religious obligation written down in the Holy Scripture.

The grave finds may well give the impression of a rapid racial cross-breeding; but, as always in such cases, the tradition of a certain racial separation, only gradually fading away, probably continued for several centuries, even though church doctrines rejected such a separation. First of all, the occurrence of non-Nordic forms in the graves could only indicate an equally careful burial of the free and the unfree classes, whereas previously only the free had been buried more carefully in the row graves. Gölder also suspects such a process before the actual racial cross-breeding: With the introduction of Christianity, a change of this kind began in all graves in Germany, which can only be explained by the fact that the brachycephalic (short-headed) people, who had long existed alongside the non-Germanic type as serfs and servants, were gradually no longer buried separately. In pre-Christian times, unfree people and foreigners were buried separately.

The church often made serfs into clergy, thereby raising them to the status of free men. Some bishops appear to have admitted serfs into the clergy precisely because of their greater docility. B. Hölder refers to chapter 119 of the decisions of the Synod of Aachen in 816-17 to support this assumption. In the Frankish Empire: priests were mainly taken from the serf class, because a free man could not become a priest without the king’s permission. In the 11th and 12th centuries, however, celibacy among the lower clergy became the norm, which again inhibited the reproduction of the families raised to the status of free men.

Categories
Correspondence Miscegenation Racial right

Ersatz Christians

Today I received an email from Benjamin containing this paragraph:

By the way, I made the fool error of checking The Unz Review this morning (I can’t sleep in following nightmares) and see that Edward Dutton idiot has an article on miscegenation where he goes on and on about psychological instability in mixed-race couples and pins it on r-selection and the psychology of the parents (the latter not untrue, ironically, but his position is on genetic transmission, another one evidently unaware of the flaws in twin studies and ‘equal environments’). I read all the comments too. I was waiting to hear someone mention Mendelian inheritance and the law of dominance and uniformity, or the breeding out of white racial traits, never to return in the long run, or about the sheer anti-natural criminality of it, or something like the opening pages of Who We Are, but no, all Dutton cared about when it comes to miscegenation is, basically, will the offspring be higher in mental illness/mutational load? I left in annoyance. Trust conservative white nationalists to make a mess of understanding the topic, with their bio-psychiatry/sub-optimal genetics/IQ obsessions.

Later he said:

The context for it was that I was frustrated that people pay money for Dutton’s tripe and promote it in the dissident realm, as opposed to something worthwhile. There’s literally nothing now white nationalists haven’t got wrong! It frustrates me so much. They just crib each other relentlessly and understand nothing. And yet they have (relatively) huge donations coming in.

Benjamin hits the nail on the head as to why the American racial right has been making us nauseous. Basically, they are neochristians. They virtually all live under the Ersatz-Christianity sky Oliver was talking about and would find it inconceivable to take the steps Himmler took in implementing the Master Plan East in what is now Russia; or to burn at the stake those who mongrelised, as the ancient Visigoths did in Hispania before the Christians brainwashed them (the converts continued the practice but… burned the heretics instead of the miscegenators!).

When is the racial right going to understand that their entire movement is charlatanism and that only the ideology that spawned Uncle Adolf isn’t (or what Pierce wrote in Who We Are)? It’s these kinds of issues that I’d love to say in the daily podcasts: a way of presenting last century’s National Socialism by debunking today’s white nationalism.

Categories
Miscegenation Racial studies

London lies

A 24 November 2015 article by Arthur Kemp

New claims by the Museum of London—replicated throughout the controlled media—that London has always been as “ethnically diverse” as it is now are easily disprovable lies being used to justify the ethnic cleansing of the city of white people.

The AFP newswire coverage of the story is a case in point:

A DNA analysis of four ancient Roman skeletons found in London shows the first inhabitants of the city were a multi-ethnic mix similar to contemporary Londoners, the Museum of London said on Monday.

Firstly, they are deliberately confusing ethnicity and race.

Ethnicity is a cultural term, such as ‘German,’ ‘English,’ ‘Polish,’ or ‘Irish.’ Ethnicity is most often expressed in linguistic boundaries.

Race, however is a genetic term, and all Europeans have genetic commonality. The Museum of London is deliberately mixing up these two meanings to try and create the impression that London has always been racially diverse—when in fact all the evidence shows that it has always been racially homogenous until the advent of present-day Third World immigration.

All Europeans are comprised of a number of genetic strains which came together in three distinct waves, dating from the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Indo-European eras, which stretched over 40,000 years in total.

As a result, any investigation of European genetics will find shared DNA, and consequently that European national boundaries are the product of language rather than race.

The existence of common DNA strings in any given European nation does not mean that that nation is ‘ethnically diverse,’ merely that they share a common origin founding population which created Europe.

The claims by the Museum of London that the Roman-founded city’s population was “similar to contemporary Londoners,” does not stand up to the test of history, DNA, or even the ‘new’ analysis of the skeletons now being boasted about in the controlled media.

The new “multi-ethnic” claim is based on DNA-analysis of just four skeletons—hardly a scientifically accepted sample size, bearing in mind that at its height, Roman London had a population of at least 60,000.

Furthermore, of the four skeletons, only one is claimed to have DNA originating outside of Europe—and even that claim is highly dubious.

According to the BBC’s coverage of the “multi-ethnic London” story, the first skeleton, called the “Lant Street teenager,” showed that she “grew up in North Africa” but that her female DNA (mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA) is common in southern and Eastern Europe. She had blue eyes, the study said.

Then, in a ridiculously unscientific manner, the BBC article claims that there ‘were things about her skeleton that suggested she had some Sub-Saharan African ancestry’—in other words, the claim to what they incorrectly call multi-ethnicity is based upon some unspecified ‘thing’ about the skeleton—while at the same time they say that all the DNA evidence shows that she was European.

In reality, racial skeletal differences are vast and easily discernable to the naked eye, and any expert would have no trouble at all in definitively asserting racial origins based on a study of such a complete skeleton. No ‘suggesting’ would have to be done.

The second skeleton analyzed, known as the “Mansell Street man,” showed that he had dark brown hair and brown eyes. According to the BBC, his “mitochondrial DNA line was from North Africa and his remains show African traits as well.”

The Mansell Street man could well have non-European origins. It is well known that the Roman legions employed mercenaries from all over their empire, and there are recorded instances of some troops stationed along the Hadrian Wall being of non-European, or Middle Eastern, extraction. Their numbers were however tiny, especially when compared to the overall size of the population of Britain.

But, even more importantly, the Museum of London and the controlled media are either being incredibly ignorant, or willfully deceptive by insinuating that the present-day population of North Africa resembled that of 2,000 years ago.

In ancient times, North Africa had a huge original white European presence, known as the ‘old Europeans.’ It was these people who played a major role in creating the Carthaginian civilization, based in present-day Tunisia.

The Carthaginians were early Rome’s greatest enemy, and the famous Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage raged from 264 BC to 146 BC. That was the era of the famous Hannibal of Carthage, who came close to conquering Rome. He was a Carthaginian hero, and coins were issued in his time showing his face—and his European-origin race is clear from these depictions.

A quarter shekel of Carthage, perhaps minted in Spain. The obverse may depict Hannibal with the traits of a young Melqart. The reverse features one of his famous war elephants.

The face of Hannibal, Carthage’s greatest warrior, from a silver coin struck at that city around 220 BC.
The Roman province of Africa consisted of a large piece of North African territory, and a vast network of European cities were built up, many of which can be seen to the present day.

Egypt, for its part, after its final collapse into multiracial backwardness around 800 BC, was occupied by the white Macedonians under Alexander the Great in 323 BC.

For the next 275 years, the white Macedonians ruled Egypt in a dynasty known as the Ptolemaic Kingdom. Their last ruler was the most famous queen of all, Cleopatra (actually the seventh queen of that name).

Despite propaganda to the contrary, Cleopatra and the Ptolemaic ruling elite were not African, but European Macedonian. After the fall of Cleopatra, Egypt also came under Roman rule.”

From this understanding of North African history, it is clear that the Roman-era population of North Africa contained a large residual European element. Given the ancient history, it is therefore highly likely that genes found in Europe can also be found among the present day North Africa population.

This does not however mean that a Roman-era skeleton found in London is multiracial—all it means is that some other Romans left similar genes among the gene pool of present-day North Africans.

The third skeleton used as “evidence” by the Museum of London to “prove” London’s “multi-ethnicity” is known as the “Gladiator.” According to the BBC, his mother’s ancestral line “is common in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.”

Once again, this is perfectly normal for European mtDNA, which, as the genetic research website Eupedia correctly pointsout, is not as accurate in measuring ethnic ancestry as Y-DNA, or male ancestry is.

In fact, Eupedia even specifically says that in ‘Europe, mtDNA haplogroups are quite evenly spread over the continent, and therefore cannot be associated easily with ancient ethnicities.’

A distribution map of European mtDNA,indicating the continent wide diversity of Europe;s founding maternal population. For the Museum of London to claim that this shows the “ethnic diversity” of Roman London, is laughably ignorant, if not a malicious lie.

Furthermore, the ‘youngest’ mtDNA in Europe which is claimed to have originated in the Middle East, the K1 haplogroup, dates from 12,000 years ago, further casting doubt over any claim of ‘multi-ethnicity, as this gene would have been part of present-day Europe’s founding population.

The fourth and final skeleton used by the Museum of London’s “multi-ethnic” claim is known as the “Harper Road woman,” who had brown hair and brown eyes, but, as the BBC admits, was a native Briton.

This fourth skeleton was clearly one of the Old European R1B haplogroup-Britons, from whom nearly 70 percent of the present-day inhabitants of Britain originate, a figure which rises to 90 percent in Ireland.

In conclusion, it can be seen that of the four skeletons used by the Museum of London and the controlled media to allegedly ‘prove’ how ‘ethnically diverse’ Roman-era London was, only one is possibly of non-European origin.

This is very different to media claims that ‘DNA has confirmed that London was an ethnically diverse city from its very beginnings’ and similar such nonsense.

On the contrary, London, founded by the Romans, was a European city.

It is clear that the ‘multi-ethnic’ claim is being invented to try and justify the current Third World invasion of London which has turned it into a minority white city in just three decades.

To even suggest that Roman London was as “ethnically diverse” as present-day London, which has large numbers of Bangladeshis, Chinese, Ghanaians, Indians, Jamaicans, Nigerians, Pakistanis, and Turks, is an outright lie.

It is based on a politically-biased ‘interpretation’ given to just one skeleton’s dubious DNA, and is a deliberate deception, presented as fact to justify the ethnic cleansing of white European people from Britain’s capital city.

Britain’s capital city.