web analytics

Category: Racial right

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) George Lincoln Rockwell Racial right

Hitler, 11

Strikingly absent from Hitler’s thinking immediately following the war, and indeed for some time thereafter, was any serious anxiety about Russian power or the Soviet Union. This is not surprising, given that Germany’s main enemy had been the western allies, and the fact that Russia had been defeated by 1917. Hitler was not even worried about communism as an external threat. The impact of the Baltic emigre and ferocious anti-Bolshevik Alfred Rosenberg during this period was not significant and, in any case, the two men did not even meet until a few months later. Like many Germans, Hitler saw Bolshevism as a disease, which had knocked Russia out of the war, and then undermined German resistance a year later. He did not fear a Soviet invasion, not even after the victory of the Reds in the Civil War. Instead, Hitler fretted that communism would destroy the last vestiges of German sovereignty in the face of the Entente. ‘The threatened Bolshevik flood is not so much to be feared as the result of Bolshevik victories on the battlefields’, he warned, ‘as rather as a result of a planned subversion of our own people’, which would deliver them up to international high finance.

At this point Simms puts endnote 43 of his third chapter, and at the end of the book we can read the sources of Hitler’s words. But as I have said, in these quotations from some passages of Hitler I omit both the endnotes and the bibliographical sources.

Significantly, Hitler wasted no words on the Soviet Union in his early statements from 1919 save to predict that it was set to become a ‘colony of the Entente’. This means that capitalism and communism were not simply two equal sides of the anti­-Semitic coin for Hitler. Bolshevism was clearly a subordinate force. Its function in the Anglo-American plutocratic system was to undermine the national economies of independent states and make them ripe for takeover by the forces of international capitalism.

I find Simms’s revisionism in his biography of Hitler so fascinating that just as in ‘Hitler 6’ I interpolated 9,000 words from another author’s book to show my disagreements with Simms (in the sense that even a Jewish scholar shows the genuine motivations of Germans in the face of Jewish subversion), in ‘Hitler 12’ I will interpolate a 4,500-word article by Gregory Hood.

That article, ‘Rockwell as Conservative’, published ten years ago in Counter-Currents, is perfect for understanding the maturity I have undergone in recent years regarding the primary aetiology of white decline.

Rockwellian Nazism was America’s fascist movement par excellence when I was a child. He hated commies as much as US Senator Joseph McCarthy during the late 1940s through the 1950s. Hood shows that George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of Rockwellian Nazism, was ideologically closer to American conservatism than is generally accepted on the racial right.

I would suggest starting the reading of that 2013 article, ‘Rockwell as Conservative’ from the ninth comment in the comments section: the response from Martin Kerr, who inherited the organisation Rockwell created, as well as the brief responses from Greg Johnson.

Just because I am going to interpolate that long article by Gregory Hood into this magnifying glass review of Simms’ book doesn’t mean that I agree with what Hood has said in other articles. On the contrary: Robert Morgan and I have criticised him very harshly because, like other white nationalists, Hood is clueless on the Christian Question.

Nevertheless, his article ‘Rockwell as Conservative’ is great for understanding why Rockwell and the neo-Nazis have failed and will continue to fail. Hood’s POV aside, the continuing failure is because, unlike Hitler, these Americans haven’t transvalued their values.

But even that is another matter. What concerns us for the moment is only Hood’s criticism of Rockwell. Like today’s white nationalists, Commander Rockwell never noticed the major etiological factors of Aryan decline, only the minor ones. Otherwise, he would never have defended, as Hood does, the American flag.

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) Racial right

Hitler, 8

Brendan Simms continues in the third chapter of his book:

From mid November 1919, Hitler mounted a series of full-scale attacks in public speeches on the main enemy—‘absolute enemies England and America’. It was Britain which had been determined to prevent Germany’s rise to world power, in order not to jeopardize their ‘world monopoly’. ‘That was also the reason,’ Hitler claimed, ‘to make war on us. And now America. As a money country it had to intervene in the war in order not to lose the money they had lent.’ Here he explicitly made the link between his anti-capitalistic critique and the hostile behaviour of the western coalition. This was closely connected to Hitler’s anti-Semitism. ‘The Americans put business above all else. Money is money even if it is soaked in blood. The wallet is the holiest thing for the Jew,’ he claimed, adding: ‘America would have stuck with or without U-boats.’ What is remarkable here is that the terms ‘the Americans’ and ‘the Jews’ were used almost interchangeably.

As I said earlier, a small faction of the American racial right, represented by Francis Parker Yockey (1917-1960) and the retired Michael O’Meara (1946 – ) were, like Hitler, harsh critics of Anglo-American capitalism.

Anyone wishing to be introduced to Yockey’s thought can do so by reading Kerry Bolton’s essay, ‘A Contemporary Assessment of Yockey’, pages 47-70 of this PDF I compiled.

Anyone wishing to be introduced to O’Meara’s thought can do so by reading my excerpts from his Toward the White Republic here.

O’Meara’s Toward the White Republic was the first book published by Counter-Currents. In yesterday’s post I discussed ‘White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism’: an article by O’Meara that should have been included in Toward the White Republic (the first page of the hard copy I own contains a few words the author wrote to me). Greg Johnson delayed the publication of the short article ‘White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism’, whereas O’Meara wrote it in 2010 and Johnson published that piece in October 2011.

O’Meara always wrote very clearly, concisely and didactically, which I cannot say of Yockey, although Bolton’s essay linked above summarises Yockey’s philosophy admirably. But even if a visitor reads carefully the summaries of these two intellectuals linked above, he still won’t have arrived at the Christian Question that Hitler himself would, years later, understand. Even more than Mammon worship, the CQ has been the real poison for ethno-suicidal whites. For example, although the Chinese have become Mammon worshipers, by not submitting to Christian ethics they haven’t become ethno-suicidal like the white madmen, who import millions of coloureds. But let’s take it one step at a time. Simms continues:

If Hitler’s profound hostility to the Anglo-Saxon powers was shaped by his anti-Semitism, it was also distinct and, crucially, anterior to it. He had, after all, spent almost the entire war fighting the ‘English’, and latterly the United States. Hitler became an enemy of the British—and also of the Americans—before he became an enemy of the Jews. Indeed, he became an enemy of the Jews largely because of his hostility to the Anglo-American capitalist powers. Hitler could not have been clearer: ‘We struggle against the Jew,’ he announced at a public meeting in early January 1920, ‘because he prevents the struggle against capitalism.’

The rest of Germany’s adversaries, by contrast, fell into a second and milder category. The Russians and the French, so the argument ran, had become hostile ‘as a result of their unfortunate situation or some other circumstances’. Hitler was by no means blind to the extent of French antagonism, but it is striking that he discoursed at much greater length about the financial terms of the treaty, and the blockade, than the territorial losses to Germany’s immediate neighbours. This focus on Anglo-American, and increasingly on US, strength, with or without anti-Semitism, was by no means unusual in Germany, or even Europe generally. It reflected a much broader post-war preoccupation with the immense global power of the United States. As we shall see, Hitler’s entire thinking, and the policies of the Third Reich after 1933, were in essence a reaction to it.

Remember the words by the Canadian Ronin in my post yesterday: ‘The betrayal of the White European race stems from deep, deep within, so deep that it is not visible or obvious for most’. That’s something the white nationalists south of Canada still don’t want to see! These are the words of Greg Johnson, Michael O’Meara’s editor a dozen years ago, in the thread discussing O’Meara’s article that white nationalism, as O’Meara understood it, is not simply a synonym of anti-Semitism:

I think that O’Meara has a chip on his shoulder and is spoiling for a fight with people who are essentially on his side. I don’t see any good that can come from that.

This, of course, is to misunderstand the whole thing, as O’Meara wasn’t trying to unnecessarily provoke the Counter-Currents commentariat. What he was trying to convey is that there are more serious causal factors in white decline than Jewish subversion, and that consequently our horizon shouldn’t be limited to the JQ.

Johnson’s words quoted above are from 2011. What American white nationalists still don’t want to see, we will see in this extensive review of Simms’ revisionist biography of Hitler.

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Michael O'Meara Racial right

Deep, deep within

Judeo-centric white nationalism is just another variant of the prevailing country-club conservatism.

—Michael O’Meara

The O’Meara article linked in my post yesterday is basic, I said, to understand our point of view. In case something happens to Counter-Currents, where the article is hosted, I copied it for this site. Although C-C’s images are absent from our copy, you can read the 2011 comments in that copy’s thread.

If one reads the article carefully one will notice that, with his critique of Anglo-American capitalism, O’Meara unwittingly placed himself close to the young Hitler we were talking about yesterday in the context of Brendan Simms’ book. O’Meara even presents us with a competing paradigm to Kevin MacDonald’s: the paradigm that currently represents, shall we say, orthodoxy in American white nationalism. O’Meara said:

…anti-Semites prefer to indulge in fairy tales about “cultural Marxism” and the Frankfurter bogey man—unconscious of or uninterested in the larger subversion.

The larger subversion! (this smells like the content of The West’s Darkest Hour). Too bad that, because of his Irish Catholicism, O’Meara didn’t admire Hitler. Several years ago I asked in a thread on this site why Solzhenitsyn didn’t espouse Hitler’s cause if both Solzhenitsyn and Hitler wanted to destroy the Soviet Union. An English commenter replied that, for axiological reasons, Solzhenitsyn’s Christianity prevented him from doing so. I think that although Solzhenitsyn was an Orthodox Christian and O’Meara a Catholic Christian, the commenter’s response is accurate. In the 2011 thread on C-C, O’Meara continued:

Kevin MacDonald, unlike his epigones, knows how to make an argument and support it with substantiating evidence. Nevertheless, his argument proves NOTHING (except his own intelligence), for with the same methods but in reference to different facts, I could make an equally convincing argument to “prove” that corporate capitalism (or the Cold War state, Catholicism, Protestantism, or a half-dozen other factors) were far more influential in legalizing the formal de- Europeanization of the American people.

We have focused on the Christian Question on this site because it is a taboo subject among many on the American racial right. But O’Meara, like Hitler, was absolutely right to mention other factors. For example, when I read MacDonald’s entire trilogy on Jewry, after finishing the third one I was left with the impression that his analysis—basically blaming the Jews for the West’s dark hour—fell short. Those were times when I considered myself a white nationalist, before I began to harbour some doubts about that simplistic explanation. O’Meara was one of the intellectuals who began to broaden my perspective.

I think the discussion thread in that relatively old C-C article is paradigmatic in terms of how, unlike O’Meara, white nationalists don’t want to look in the mirror. O’Meara stopped being active on racial right forums when he realised that American racialists weren’t going to abandon their monocausal dogma. Something similar happened with the retired blogger Sebastian Ronin, whom I mentioned in my recent entry on the 42 films I will no longer review individually. The following year of the discussion in C-C, Ronin wrote: ‘The betrayal of the White European race stems from deep, deep within, so deep that it is not visible or obvious for most’, and then added:

The first step of the revolution does not begin with the expedient and safe blurting of Jew, Jew, Jew; that is after the fact. The first step of the revolution begins upon the surface of a mirror to identify the source of weakness that has allowed the penetration of an alien and poisonous spirit.

Looking in the mirror is precisely what I try to do with my autobiographical books. Hopefully, the lengthy review I will be doing of Simms’ book will do something to broaden the POV of the common racialist, insofar as Hitler’s meta-perspective was certainly broader than the short-sighted perspective of those who criticised O’Meara in C-C, including Johnson.

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) French Revolution Racial right

Hitler, 5

The normie biographer Simms writes:

The ‘Gemlich’ letter, which is the first surviving longer political text by Hitler, defined the Jewish ‘problem’ partly as a medical issue. Hitler dubbed the Jews the ‘racial tuberculosis of the peoples’. Partly, the ‘problem’ was defined in political terms, with the Jews cast as the ‘driving forces of the revolution’, which had laid Germany low. Here he was referring not to the events of 1917 in Petrograd but to the workers’ and soldiers’ councils of 1918 in Germany.

The above quote seems to suggest that this young Hitler’s view of the Jews is identical to that of contemporary white nationalism. Since my approach is different, what can I reply? Let’s summarise my view.

Christianity fried the Aryan’s brains with the doctrine that ‘all are equal in the eyes of God’ (the New Testament message of the rabbis who wrote it for us Gentiles). Yesterday, when talking about some films and the subject of the French Revolution came up (and I suggest you watch Danton instead of the crap that Ridley Scott filmed), it reminded me that the secularisation of that Christian doctrine aggravated the matter. I mean that after the French Revolution, the psyche of the Aryan went from all are equal in the eyes of God to all are equal before the law (for new visitors, see what Tom Holland says in this featured PDF to understand the process of how it went from ‘in the eyes of God’ to ‘before the law’).

Following this secularised principle originally inspired by Christianity, France was the first European country to grant civil equality to Jews. Indeed, the legal position of Jews in France was widely envied by Jews in other countries. As a result of the so-called Jewish emancipation, and because of the high IQ of the Jew compared to the common Gentile, the first thing Jewry did, courtesy of Napoleon, was to take over the media in the 19th century. Otto Glagau, who led a journal, Der Kulturkämpfer, complained: ‘No longer can we suffer to see the Jews push themselves everywhere to the front, everywhere seize leadership and dominate public opinion’.

An 1806 French print of Napoleon empowering the Jews.

The secularisation of the Christian principle was catastrophic. Kevin MacDonald makes a point in the second book of his trilogy on Jewry when he says that Christendom defended itself against Jewish subversion based on the Christian myth. But that went into crisis, as the new God of the French Revolution still rules the scale of values in the West today. While it is true, as American southern nationalist Hunter Wallace has seen, that modernity uncovered Pandora’s box, neither Wallace nor MacDonald has the meta-perspective of Tom Holland (cf. the PDF linked above).

The Christian Question (CQ) is not to be underestimated. Before modernity, when the Inquisition ruled and 16th-century Spain was wiser about the Jewish Question (JQ) than 19th-century Europe, Iberian whites committed ethno-suicide in the Americas by intermarrying with Amerinds. This historical fact is nothing less than a ‘checkmate’ to the Judeo-reductionism of the typical white nationalist. And even forgetting the miscegenation perpetrated by the Spanish and Portuguese and focusing on the history of Austria and Germany, it’s clear that Christianity is responsible for the empowerment of Jewry.

For example, many pan-Germanists were imprisoned in the late 1880s and early 1890s, and the League Against Anti-Semitism was founded in 1891 by a pacifist who was eventually awarded the Nobel Prize, Bertha von Suttner.

This wanker attracted a wide membership, mostly members of the educated and Gentile bourgeoisie and even aristocrats who were so scandalised by pan-Germanism that they denounced it as ‘the narrow beer-hall politics of the unshaven’. Quite a few Protestant clergymen and Catholic intellectuals subscribed to the League Against Anti-Semitism. As devout Christians, Bertha von Suttner and her husband Arthur founded the League in response to the growing ‘anti-Semitism’ across Europe (cf. Otto Glagau’s quote above). So this cancellation of the healthy mind represented by 19th-century pan-Germanism also came from Christians and their Christian principles of equality. That’s why, addressing today’s nationalists, Robert Morgan recently said: ‘These ignorant imbeciles complain endlessly about Jews, but who let the Jews into white society?’

In the next entry we will see that even this very young Hitler, before he became aware of the CQ, was much more mature than the white nationalists of today in that he saw that the JQ was interwoven with the most bestial of Anglo-American capitalism.

Categories
New Testament Racial right Richard Carrier

Medieval racists

This interview uploaded yesterday is fascinating, and the very fact that none of the mainstream forums of the racial right touch on the subject of textual criticism of the New Testament is symptomatic of a wilful ignorance that is deeply rooted in the movement.

Richard Miller makes a point that is obvious to me. Serious New Testament scholarship is divided into two camps: (1) those who believe that most of the NT narrative is fictional but that there is a residue that could be historical, and (2) those who maintain that it was all literary fiction from the beginning. Miller belongs to the first group and another Richard, Richard Carrier, to the second group. But the dialogue between these two camps is quite cordial, academic and respectful.

On the other hand, there are the pseudo-scholars, the fundamentalist Christians who study the NT but begin their ‘research’ with pre-established conclusions (Jesus was resurrected from the dead, etc.). Their scholarship reminds me of the medieval university in Paris where philosophy was allowed to exist but only as a handmaiden of theology. Miller has said that serious NT scholars no longer pay attention to this apologetic posturing.

The racial right, I said, as well as fundamentalists ignore serious NT scholarship: scholarship that doesn’t start from the catechism we were taught as children but uses the methodologies of contemporary historiography to evaluate New Testament texts. This became clear the last time Kevin MacDonald published an article by a fundamentalist Christian in The Occidental Observer, as I told the author himself.

Taking into account that, concerning the NT, white nationalism is still medieval and that we must ignore not only the scholarly authors (such as the apologist in MacDonald’s webzine) but the Christian commentariat of that webzine and other racialist webzines, it is more interesting to ponder who, of the two Richards, is right: the mythicist or the historicist.

It seems to me that Miller, although I have infinite respect for his work, still suffers from what in a 2012 post on this site we called the ‘Platonic fallacy’.

And incidentally, I see these two camps, represented by the two Richards, from a very different angle to their point of view: the Delphic Oracle maxim. Given that deep autobiography is my forte, and that in my life I have gone through all three stages—from traditional Christian (1960s-1980s) to secular historicist (1990s-2018), and from secular historicist to mythicist (2018 to date)—I venture to conjecture that Miller’s stance, as well as the stance of his interviewer, represent a residue of parental introjects (see my post ‘Slaves of parental introjects’).

It is so disturbing to our egos to conceive of the whole Jesus story as mere literary fiction from the pen of Jews for Aryan consumption that even accomplished rationalists like Miller, and his young interviewer, are unable to take the final step.

But as I said, the issue of which of the two Richards is right isn’t so important. What is important is that Christians on the racial right are, as far as textual criticism of the NT is concerned, in the Middle Ages. And there is little point in trying to rescue them. That’s as fool errand as wanting American evangelicals, the source of the power of the American Jewish lobby, to read Kevin MacDonald’s webzine and stop supporting Israel in the current Palestinian conflict!

The West’s Darkest Hour is not for white nationalists. It is for people honest enough to assimilate the splendid work of Miller, or Carrier. As I said, the distinction between secular historicists and mythicists is not as serious as it is when we encounter the fundamentalists, who abound on the so-called racial right, and still believe that a Jew isn’t only risen but is our Saviour.

Categories
Kevin MacDonald Racial right

My difference with white nationalism in a nutshell

Kevin MacDonald is probably the most respected figure in American white nationalism, whose message is that Jewish subversion is the primary cause of white decline. Thomas Kuhn used the Rubin vase to illustrate how a paradigm shift works: the experience of seeing either a vase or two faces before exactly the same image engages a subject’s subjectivity. For example, MacDonald tells us at the beginning of this article: ‘The Gaza war is bringing us an awesome display of Jewish power over the US media and political culture’.

I would have said: ‘The Gaza war is giving us an astonishing demonstration of the hypnotic power of Judeo-Christianity in the political culture of the United States’, in the sense that if this continent hadn’t been conquered by Christians (let’s say it had been conquered by the Vikings), the Jews wouldn’t have the power they now have in the US.

MacDonald is seeing the faces of Jewry in Rubin’s vase. I am seeing the Christian cup whose Kool-Aid turned many Americans into demented fanatics of the state of Israel. Exactly the same information, the same ‘vase’, is being processed by me and white nationalists in a radically different way!

See these excerpts from David Skrbina and Tom Holland’s books on the origins of Christianity, and what we might call atheistic hyper-Christianity, to understand what we mean.

Categories
Psychology Racial right

Christian cup

Kevin MacDonald’s most recent article, ‘Will the Gaza War Threaten Jewish Power in the U.S. and Their Status as Occupying the Moral High Ground?’, caught my attention.

KevinMac is probably the most respected figure in American white nationalism, whose message is that Jewish subversion is the primary cause of white decline. I have mentioned in the past that Thomas Kuhn used the Rubin vase to illustrate how a paradigm shift works: the experience of seeing either a vase or two faces before exactly the same image engages a subject’s subjectivity. For example, KevinMac tells us at the beginning of his article: ‘The Gaza war is bringing us an awesome display of Jewish power over the US media and political culture’.

I would have said: ‘The Gaza war is giving us an astonishing demonstration of the hypnotic power of Judeo-Christianity in the political culture of the United States’, in the sense that if this continent hadn’t been conquered by Christians (let’s say it had been conquered by the Vikings), the Jews wouldn’t have the power they now have in the US.

KevinMac is seeing the faces of Jewry in Rubin’s vase. I am seeing the Christian cup whose ‘Kool-Aid’ turned many Americans into demented fanatics of the state of Israel (to a certain degree, Ben Klassen had already detected this psychological phenomenon in the US decades ago). Exactly the same information, the same ‘vase’, is being processed by me and white nationalists in a radically different way.

Update of November 10:

Mark Weber, the head of the INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW, in his address at a London Forum meeting also viewed exclusively the faces, not the cup!

Categories
New Testament Racial right Richard Carrier

Update

I am surprised that the Christian author of The Occidental Observer (TOO) article I was talking about yesterday responded to me in several TOO comments. Generally, white nationalist Christians have simply ignored me. For example, I have said countless times that the fact that the Spanish and the Portuguese mixed their blood in Latin America since the centuries when Christianity was in good shape means that the problem of Aryan ethnosuicide is more complex than what Judeo-reductionists claim, insofar in those times the Inquisition reigned in the Americas, an institution that controlled the Jews. The American racial right has ignored these facts so many times that I gave up and resigned myself to posting almost exclusively on this site, instead of trying to communicate with them on their forums, as I did quite often in the past. That’s why the Christian author’s several responses in the TOO discussion thread surprised me.

Below I not only quote my second retort, posted today, on TOO but some other things that I would like to respond to the Christians who are commenting in that thread.

RockaBoatus, the author of the article ‘A 2000-Year-Old Rabbinical Psyop: Did Jews Invent Christianity to Deceive Gentiles?’, told me:

What you’re reading today [textual criticism of the New Testament—Ed.] are simply rehashed and outdated polemics that are about 150 years old with a new sophisticated twist. Conservative biblical scholars have refuted this nonsense…

By ‘conservative biblical scholars’ what you really mean is fundamentalist scholars.

Did you notice that above [i.e., in my first retort] I mentioned Ian Wilson, an English Catholic who has defended Christianity throughout his literary career? Unlike the list of fundamentalist Christians you cite, Wilson is honest enough to agree that what you call ‘outdated polemics that are about 150 years old’ are not outdated at all (cf. his book Jesus: The Evidence).

And Miller, whom I also mentioned above [again, in my first retort], is not anti-Christian like Carrier, who was never a Christian. Miller was a fundamentalist Christian who learned Greek, Latin, German and French to study the New Testament as a full-time scholar. Only when his research was advanced did he realise that there were serious problems with the so-called scholarship promulgated by his evangelical colleagues. This passage from a YouTube interview with Miller is vital to understanding his spiritual odyssey from traditional Christianity to apostasy. In fact, that YouTube channel, with its countless interviews with other NT scholars, can serve wonderfully to answer you (which I can’t do point by point because, as I said, it would take me days).

Regarding the rest of what you say, as well as what Pierre de Craon tells me about the evangelist John, in order not to overwhelm this discussion thread I think I’ll answer it in the next entry of my blog.

The only thing I would like to clarify now is that the thesis that Judeo-Christianity is a Jewish psyop is not exactly my thesis, but Skrbina’s. Rather than blaming St Paul et al, I blame Constantine and the house of Constantine (except Julian) for using the most toxic religion of the Mediterranean, the one inspired by intolerant Judaism, to control the population of the empire. If you don’t want to read the mini-book by the Spaniard Velasco that I linked above, see at least these excerpts from Vlassis Rassias’ book about how the Judeo-Christians of the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries destroyed the temples, sculptures, art and books of the classical world.

That is the starting point to understand the darkest hour of the West.

______ 卐 ______

 
The above is what I posted today on TOO. In one of his several replies to my yesterday’s retort, RockaBoatus said: ‘Jews did NOT “invent” Christianity.’ But he omits that St Paul was Jewish. He omits that the rabid hatred of John of Patmos, the author of the last book of the Christian Bible, was anti-Roman and that the ‘Seven Churches’ to which he wrote (Book of Revelation, 1:11) were in towns replete with Jews. He also omits that even Christian theologians admit that evangelists like Matthew were Jewish, and also the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Another Christian, who has frequently commented on TOO discussion threads, Pierre de Craon, responded to me by claiming: ‘attributing Revelation to John the Apostle is a sound judgment.’

That caught my attention since the consensus of New Testament scholarship is that the Book of Revelation dates from the end of the first century c.e., and a putative apostle from the beginning of the 1st century wouldn’t have lived that long. But to understand cultured Christians like Pierre de Craon I would like to digress a bit.

NT scholars can be classified into three groups: fundamentalists (there are also Catholic fundamentalists, not just Protestants, who believe in the historicity of the Garden of Eden, etc.), liberal Christians and non-Christians.

Since I come from a very Catholic family, in the 1980s I began to read liberal theologians, such as Hans Küng, who unlike the fundamentalists incorporated, to a certain extent, the textual criticism of the NT that has been doing since the Enlightenment, sometimes admirably summarised by Christians such as Albert Schweitzer’s classic The Quest of the Historical Jesus.

Fundamentalists haven’t responded honestly to this textual criticism which, I insist, sometimes comes from exegetes who have not apostatised from Christianity. And exactly the same can be said of the racial right.

Generally, Christians on the racial right as Pierre de Craon belong to the first group: that of Catholic and Protestant traditionalists. They haven’t even managed to assimilate what the liberal Christians have conceded long ago (e.g., Schweitzer’s 1906 classic). In my first retort I mentioned Ian Wilson, who with his books on the Shroud of Turin has even tried to create a kind of contemporary apologetics to support the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. But many of the Christians who comment these days in the discussion thread of the aforementioned TOO article don’t even know that a textual criticism of the NT exists: criticism that Christians like Wilson have already incorporated, for so many decades, into their way of seeing the world.

And what about the third group: the non-Christian scholars who dedicate themselves to studying the NT? What does one of them say about the book of Revelation, say, Carrier?

Revelation was written in the reign of Domitian (the 80s or 90s AD) and used Matthew as its base text. It is indeed an anti-Pauline document, but so is Matthew. And both were written in Greek, and thus for audiences outside Palestine. There is no evidence anyone was alive at that time who would know anything first-hand about the origins of Christianity, least of all the Pillars (they would be two generations gone by then), much less any who would ever have even heard of, much less read, Revelation (or Matthew for that matter). We also have no reactions to Revelation’s publication, so we have no idea how anyone responded to it anyway.

Revelation references no sources; in fact, it claims to have all its information from mystical visions, not any objective evidence at all. Someone, in other words, just dreamed all this (or was claiming to). And so far as we know it had no sources, other than “The Gospel according to Matthew,” which was simply an expanded redaction of the “Gospel according to Mark.” Revelation is therefore derivative and thus cannot corroborate anything. All it does is prove Matthew’s historicism existed at that time. Which we already know—from Matthew (and Mark, whose text is even earlier). It therefore can have no effect on the probability of historicity. Once the Gospels exist, it is already 100% expected there will exist texts expanding and riffing on them, like this, regardless of whether Jesus existed or not. So we are back to simply assessing the probability of the Gospels.

Nevertheless, Revelation is actually a little cagey about whether historicity is actually true, rather than symbolically represented. In Rev. 11 it sufficiently implies Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem; but in Rev. 12, Jesus is born in a lower heaven (in the vicinity of the moon), and soon whisked away to even higher levels of heaven, and seems never to leave there (in a manner that fits the Star Gospel that in OHJ I find in Ignatius and the Ascension of Isaiah). So it’s unclear which version of events the author believed actual and which merely allegorical. It could be both, depending on one’s level of initiation at the time, just as was the case for Osiris cult.

But regardless, since the author shows no sign of having any sources of information other than the Gospels we already know about, and his own imagination, it doesn’t matter. We can’t use it to prove anything in the Gospels is true. We can only use it to prove they were circulating by then, which we already knew, and thus already accounted for.

Based on what I said recently about my autobiographical work and how I can recover my previous Christian selves in exercises of the imagination, people like Miller and I are capable of psychically ‘encompassing’ folks like the Christians who comment in TOO. But they cannot return the favour because they have never experienced any apostasy in their minds (let’s say, that an apostate like Miller returned to the shelter of fundamentalist Christianity).

Update of November 6th

My last comment in that TOO thread was posted today.

Categories
New Testament Racial right

TOO article

The entire RockaBoatus article published yesterday on The Occidental Observer (‘A 2000-Year-Old Rabbinical Psyop: Did Jews Invent Christianity to Deceive Gentiles?’) smacks of apologetics, and answering it point by point would take me days. It’s better to focus on a few passages.

It seems to me, however, that when addressing Christianity and the problems of Jewish cultural subversion, these esteemed writers [Oliver, Pierce, Dalton, Rockwell] have over-reached in their criticisms. Their zeal to vanquish Christianity has not always been grounded on a true knowledge of Christian theology and history. They have often appealed to outdated liberal higher-critical arguments…

The trick with this passage is that none of the racialists mentioned are New Testament scholars, like the recent work of Richard Carrier or Richard Miller, to whom I have dedicated several entries.

In Revelation 3:9, the apostle John records…

RockaBoatus is obviously ignorant not only of recent studies by non-Christians like those of Carrier and Miller on how the New Testament originated. He also ignores old Christian studies that say the author of the book of Revelation has nothing to do with an apostle. Is RockaBoatus unaware of the literary criticism that has been levelled at the NT since Reimarus, which even Christians like Ian Wilson have popularized?

Gentile Christians in the New Testament are described as a people on par with Jewish believers. Together, both Jews and Greeks (gentiles) are described as one in Christ.

But that’s precisely the psyop! The Greco-Romans perceived themselves as superiors to the ugly Semites of Palestine (remember how the sculptures of Aelia Capitolina, which the Romans raised over ancient Jerusalem, showed Aryan beauty humiliating the conquered Jews). Putting them as equals is precisely what it was about for the Aryans to stop feeling superior to the mudbloods!

Historically, and particularly in modern times, Jews have worked feverishly to undermine and ultimately destroy Christianity.

This may seem true in modern times, but there are certainly historical facts that are never discussed on the racial right, and I would like to quote a translation from Spanish to English of the master essay on this site, written by Eduardo Velasco:

Judaea, victorious

In the eyar 435 occurred the most significant action on the part of Emperor Theodosius II. He openly proclaims that the only legal religion in Rome apart from Christianity is Judaism!

Through a bizarre, subterranean and astonishing struggle, Judaism has not only persecuted the old culture, and Rome, its mortal archenemy, adopts a Jewish creed—but the Jewish religion itself, so despised and insulted by the old Romans, is now elevated as the only official religion of Rome along with Christianity!

We must recognise the conspiratorial astuteness and the implacable permanence of objectives of the original Judeo-Christian nucleus! What they did was literally turn the tables on their favour: turn Rome into anti-Rome; place at the service of Jewry everything that the Jews so hated; take advantage of the strength of Rome and its state apparatus to have Rome against Rome itself in a sinister political-spiritual jiu-jitsu—from spitted slaves, trampled, insulted, despised and looked down, to absolute spiritual masters of the Roman Empire!

In a nutshell, Christianity was a subversive movement of agitation against Rome, against Greece and, ultimately, against the European world. As already stated, we have to assume that what has come down to us from the Greco-Roman world is only a tiny part of what was really there and that it was taken away by the Judeo-Christian destruction. Christianity, as a slave rebellion devised and led by Jews with the aim of destroying Roman power—and, ultimately, all European power—was and is a doctrine aimed at converting vigorous peoples into a domesticated flock of sheep. Nietzsche understood it perfectly, but when will we be able to fully assimilate what this meant and what it still means today?

Saint Peter, likewise, commands his readers to “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers” (vv.13-14). If that’s not clear enough, he further urges them to “honor the king” (v.17). We are compelled to ask: Why would a group of “pro-Jewish” writers say such things especially when their primary purpose is to deceive gentiles so that they become just as “anti-Roman” as themselves?

The answer appears in David Skbina’s book, The Jesus Hoax, which Prof. Kevin MacDonald reviewed for TOO: a book that alleges that the entire New Testament was written by Jews, and precisely that the idea was to perpetrate a psyop. At the end of the book Skrbina wrote: ‘This is the “peaceable Jesus” reply. We all know those famous lines, and they get repeated ad nauseum. My general reply is (a) the Jewish cabal was compelled to insert such lines for cover; too much explicit talk of rebellion was dangerous. Also (b) these relatively few lines are outnumbered by far more that imply rebellion and war—see my discussion in chapter five. And in any case, “rendering to Caesar” says nothing about not also working for his downfall. And sure, you may perish by the sword, but that’s what happens in war. I particularly appreciate “love thy neighbor”: Who, after all, was “the neighbor” if not the Jew?’

Finally, although one may claim that Paul was a deceiver and allege that he “made it all up,” this is not the kind of character we find depicted in his epistles. Instead, we find a person who seems devoted to truth…

Paul truthful? Really? I think every visitor to The Occidental Observer should read Skbina’s book, as it answers the kind of arguments we see about Paul in the TOO article (excerpts from his book can be read on pages 11-36 here).

Categories
Racial right

Litmus paper

It is in my peripatetic wanderings that I get my best ideas. Today, thinking a bit about what I said yesterday about Kevin MacDonald, the following occurred to me.

What litmus paper do we have as to who is really defending the white race from the extinction it is experiencing, and who is not really defending it? The answer is simply: the one who has transvalued his values—he defends it. And from this acid test, MacDonald doesn’t defend it entirely in that, by seeing Jewry as the primary cause of the current situation and not Christianity, he inadvertently contributes to the destruction of his race.

How so? Because MacDonald, like the most notable figures in white nationalism—Jared Taylor, Greg Johnson and Andrew Anglin to mention only the admins of the most frequented forums—publishes articles by Christians in his webzine. None of these have transvalued their values to the level of, shall we say, considering what Himmler and his ilk did very moral. We can already imagine KevinMac, Taylor and Johnson sporting T-shirts with the face of the Reichsführer-SS! (even the Christian Anglin has removed the Nazi symbols in The Daily Stormer with which he started).

Transvaluing values to how the Aryans acted before the arrival of Christianity simply means that we will no longer base our morals on the New Testament. Or on the legacy of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution (that pseudo-apostasy of Judeo-Christianity that we here call neochristianity). Whoever has transvalued his values no longer bases his morals on what a Jew wrote for gentile consumption (see what David Skrbina wrote in the most important of our PDFs).

It is as simple as that.