web analytics
Categories
Protestantism Racial right

TOO, OD and CC on Xtianity

Regarding what I was saying a couple of days ago about an exchange of mine in The Occidental Observer, it is curious that when I criticise Christianity, some racialists resort to smearing me rather than answering my arguments.

On another racialist forum, Occidental Dissent, a commenter who some time ago said I was right about Christianity (though he added I was pretty severe) commented yesterday: ‘­­I am not a Believer but I wouldn’t mind living in a strict Christian theocracy if that form of government knew how to deal with the jews, coloreds, communists and queers’. That hypothetical is a pipe dream: history shows us that Christian theocracies have never implemented Aryan preservation in the West. Then the editor of that webzine intervened in that comments section:

Feel free to show me the data where White identity is correlated with secularism or paganism. If there is a sizeable audience for this, I have never seen any evidence of it. There is no such thing as a White pagan ethnostate or a White secular ethnostate because there is no support for it. BTW, White identity has always been associated with Protestantism here. There was never a point when that was not the case. The very idea of racial purity comes from Protestant settlers who didn’t want to mix with the natives.

First of all, there was indeed a pagan state exclusively for Nordid whites. The Nazi government was quasi-pagan (my next line of research will be precisely Hitler’s anti-Christian POV and Himmler’s paganism). Secondly, if the Americans had been as purists as the Nazi leadership, they wouldn’t have allowed that anti-racist, anti-slavery propaganda flourish in the US, something that OD’s editor knows very well. (In 1688 some Quakers signed an antislavery petition in Pennsylvania: a little mustard seed that, over the centuries, grew into the huge tree of today.) Third, even without having developed an explicitly racial ideology, Sparta and Republican Rome were de facto ethnostates for the Nordid types. Finally, white identity has always been associated with Protestantism in the US because Catholics have been mixing since Constantine, but Protestant churches now admit even blacks to the white altar!

The Occidental Dissent article is a response to yesterday’s article in Counter-Currents ‘What Christian Nationalism Looks Like in Current-Year America’ by Robert Hampton. What Hampton says about Christian nationalists is worth a look. In addition to considering the stance of these Christian nationalists as ‘Israelite LARPing’, Hampton said:

In reality, Christian nationalism is an evangelical, multiracial, philo-Semitic circus… Some figures associated with the movement will highlight the dangers of illegal immigration or Critical Race Theory, but it’s not their central focus. They’re in a spiritual struggle to make America Christian again. This is not a euphemism for making America white again. The central identity they want for Americans is the Christian faith, not the racial identity of the men who built this country. What unites us is religion, not race. This identity can include all people, regardless of color. All that matters is that one professes a fundamentalist version of Christianity.

However, there is one phrase I disagree with Hampton:

Christianity is still the faith of the vast majority of white people, and it would be stupid to wage war against it.

This seems to me like telling the loved one of a heavy smoker that it is stupid to wage a war against smoking; that he has to find another way to prevent cancer instead of lecturing him about giving up his bad habits. So bad are Xtian habits that Hampton writes: ‘A lot of what fundamentalist Christians believe doesn’t align with our struggle, for example their worship of the state of Israel and their strange fixation on adopting non-white kids’.

As old visitors know, this thing, raising coloured kids, is the real sin against the holy ghost. What I don’t quite understand is why anti-Christian racialists like Kevin Alfred Strom keep saying things like: ‘The primary enemy we face as a people, beyond any question, is the Jewish power structure’. Is it because they are stuck in William Pierce’s school and haven’t yet crossed the Rubicon?

The inversion of values brought about by Christianity from the 4th century c.e. onwards is the root of our fall. We wouldn’t have these problems (now even influential Jews) in a modern society that had emerged not from the Christian Middle Ages, but from a parallel quantum world in which the descendants of Spartans or Republican Romans had discovered science, modern technology and eventually National Socialism.

Categories
Catholic Church Chess Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) Merovingian dynasty

Christianity’s Criminal History, 147

– For the context of these translations click here –

 
Ignorant, criminal on a grand scale and a good Catholic

It is true that we cannot judge that epoch, an epoch of ignorant, superstitious, fallacious and bloody people, with our modern—oh so ethical—modern standards: we must not act anachronistically against history! But can we and should we still measure that era, a thoroughly Christian era, by Christian criteria, by certain biblical criteria, such as the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount or the commandments of the Decalogue? And precisely because we look at it in this way, shouldn’t we recognise it by its fruits?

The Catholic author Daniel-Rops, too, feels a prevailing sense of ‘horror’ at ‘the continually repeated spectacle of crimes that are frankly unspeakable’. ‘Everywhere there is blatant violence, ready to explode at any moment. Nothing stops it: not family ties, not the precepts of the most elementary decency and not even the Christian faith’. Not even that? Didn’t the faith allow all that to go on? Didn’t it provide what we might call the supreme consecration, the endorsement of the status quo? Didn’t the faith pray for the rulers, the generals, the cutthroats? Didn’t it pray before wars, during wars, and after wars? Didn’t it participate in wars and plundering, or make continual donations to the Church from the spoils of war or plunder? Didn’t it fatten the powerful on the misery of the masses?

The Church unreservedly sided with the scoundrels and butchers. And while the violent acts of the kings are more and more unbridled, the chain of blood vengeance never ends, the murders of relatives multiply precisely among the great ones: the Catholic son kills the Catholic father, the brother kills the brother who is as Catholic as him, the Catholic uncle kills the Catholic nephew, and while the robberies of the Merovingian kings occur, the annihilated enemies who were Germanic princes, and the snatched booty of gold, jewels and weapons could hardly be hidden any longer under the underground vault of the palace of Braine; the episcopate saw in those crowned Catholic criminals the legitimate representatives of state authority, the representatives of God on earth.

Since the Church sided with the Merovingian potentates from the beginning as their ally, it was able to develop as it hadn’t done for a long time. Its influence grew, and both the secular and monastic clergy became incredibly wealthy. And to a large extent the almost permanent catastrophes, and the terror that rarely ceased, greatly favoured the appearance of donations to the Church. ‘As people expected protection and help from them, and were continually threatened by looting, arson, murder and violence, they turned to the Church and its saints’ (Bleiber).

The Church thought nothing of opposing this. Its wheat increased. It was only between 475 and the beginning of the 6th century that the number of Gallic monasteries increased tenfold; but in the first half of the following century more abbeys were built there than ever before or since. And looking back to the middle of the 7th century, a modern researcher even speaks of ‘an episcopal and monastic state’ (Sprandel). The episcopate, which was a ‘great power’ not only economically but also politically (Dopsch), played almost as decisive a role in the kingdom as the absolute sovereign monarchy did in the Church. The two were closely linked and intertwined, for the ruler also had to show himself devotissimus of the Church and, at least in the Carolingian period, was regarded ‘as a clergyman’ (Brunner).
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: Chess, as it is known today, emerged in Medieval Europe as an evolution of a Persian game which in turn evolved from an Indian game (the earliest reference to the latter is found in the Mahabharata: an epic-religious text of the Aryans from the 3rd century BC).

As can be seen in the picture, two bishops flank the king and queen in the original formation of the game, already in its European incarnation.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The whole period, cruel in the extreme and extraordinarily fraudulent, was at the same time very ‘pious’. Attendance at Sunday mass was widespread ‘at the ringing of the bells they crowded into the churches’ (Pfister). Eucharistic communion became almost as widespread. Church singing was zealously cultivated. Almost everyone attended the processions. Catholic festivals were celebrated as great popular festivals. People prayed before they began to eat, and not a glass of water was drunk without first making the sign of the cross. And it was not only God who was prayed to, but all imaginable saints were invoked continually. Numerous churches were built with marble columns and marble-covered walls, stained glass windows and many paintings; the rich even had their own domestic chapels. The kings dealt with saints, as Theuderic I did in 525-526 with St Gallus in Cologne (who set fire to a temple there, ‘because none of the foolish pagans were to be seen’ after which the arsonist took refuge in the royal palace). Childebert I visited a saint. Queens, like Radegund for example, washed the feet of bishops. Crass superstition was commonplace. Relics from Rome and Jerusalem were hoarded, and pilgrimages were made, looking for health, to the supposed tombs of the apostles.

In a word, there was a deep conviction ‘of the reality and power of the living God’ (Heinsius). There abounded ‘a vigorous and fresh faith in God and his providence; one dealt with the divine, not as an abstraction or an idea, but as a very real force. This conviction prevailed among all, shared by ecclesiastics and laymen without distinction’. The first half of the 7th century was openly regarded as ‘a flourishing period of the Frankish Church’ (Hauck), which was seen to be ‘deeply rooted in the people of the Franks’ (Schieffer), and the bishops and episcopal synods ‘applied to the work’ (Boudriot).

Categories
Monologe im Führerhauptquartier

Monologe im Führerhauptquartier, 17

Führerhauptquartier

14 auf 20. 8. 1941, nachts
H/Fu.

Wenn man dem deutschen Volke etwas Gutes wünschen will, dann wäre es, alle fünfzehn bis zwanzig Jahre einen Krieg zu haben. Eine Wehrmacht, deren einziges Ziel es ist, den Frieden zu erhalten, führt zu einem Soldat-Spielen – man betrachte nur Schweden oder die Schweiz -, oder sie wird eine Gefahr im Sinne revolutionärer Einstellung.

Wenn man mir vorhält, hundert- oder zweihunderttausend Menschen sind durch deine Kriegführung ums Leben gekommen, so kann ich dem entgegenhalten: Durch meine bisherige Tätigkeit hat die deutsche Nation schon über zweieinhalb Millionen Menschen mehr bekommen; verlange ich zehn Prozent davon als Opfer, habe ich neunzig Prozent gegeben; ich hoffe, daß wir in zehn Jahren mindestens zehn bis fünfzehn Millionen Deutsche mehr auf der Welt sind; ob Mann oder Frau, ist gleichgültig; ich schaffe die Lebensvoraussetzungen.

Das Leben ist grausam. Werden, Sein und Vergehen, es ist immer ein Töten; alles, was geboren wird, muß wieder sterben, ob durch Krankheit, Unfall oder Krieg, es bleibt das gleiche. Nur können die, denen der Krieg Wunden geschlagen hat, einen Trost finden darin, daß ihr Opfer um der Zukunft des Volkes willen gebracht ist.

Viele große Männer waren die sechsten, siebenten Kinder! Wenn ich einen Menschen töte, der da ist, weiß ich, was verlorengeht. Was durch die Geburten-Beschränkung getötet wird, weiß ich nicht. Der Mensch, den ich vor der Geburt töte, ist das ewige Rätsel. Die Kriege führen zum Geburten-Reichtum, sie sind die Lehre, nicht in den Fehler zu verfallen, mit einem Kind sich zufrieden zu geben.

Es darf nicht von England abhängen, ob die Völker des Kontinents zu leben haben. Die Ukraine und dann das Wolga-Becken werden einmal die Kornkammern Europas sein. Wir werden ein Vielfaches dessen ernten, was jetzt auf diesem Boden wächst. Dabei hatte Rußland mit seinen 170 Millionen Menschen im Zarenreich nie Hunger gelitten. Und auch mit Eisen versorgen wir Europa. Wenn Schweden einmal nicht will, gut, dann nehmen wir es aus dem Osten. Die belgische Industrie kann ihre Erzeugnisse – billige Gebrauchsgegenstände – gegen Getreide aus diesen Gebieten tauschen; aus Thüringen und dem Erzgebirge zum Beispiel können wir unsere armen Arbeiterfamilien herausnehmen, um ihnen große Räume zu geben.

In den besetzten ukrainischen Gebieten strömt das Volk in die Kirchen. Ich hätte nichts dagegen, wenn, wie jetzt, alte russische Bauern den Gottesdienst halten; dagegen müssen wir überlegen, ob wir die Priester wieder kommen lassen; im Priestertum hat, wie ich einer Denkschrift entnehme, die russische Opposition die Basis zu einer panslawistischen Bewegung gegeben geglaubt.[1]

___________

[1] Auf welche Denkschrift sich Hitler hier bezieht, ist nicht zu ermitteln. Die deutsche Militärverwaltung verhielt sich in Rußland den Kirchen gegenüber zunächst wohlwollend. Auch der Reichsminister für die besetzten Ostgebiete wollte aus taktischen Gründen Rücksicht nehmen. In seinen Instruktionen vom 8. 5.1941 hieß es: »Kirchenpolitisch kann durch Toleranzedikte eine Freiheit des rein religiösen Glaubens gewährleistet werden ohne jede staatliche Verpflichtung«. (IMG Bd. XXVI, 1030-PS, S. 597). Bormann und Heydrich widersetzten sich diesen Plänen. Hitler erklärte in einer Besprechung am 16. 7. 1941, »die Tätigkeit von Kirchen käme keinesfalls in Frage« (IMG Bd. XXXVIII, 221-L, S. 93).

Categories
PDF backup

WDH – pdf 431

Click: here
Categories
Kevin MacDonald

Throne revisited

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Third Reich

The Führer’s monologues (viii)

Given the uncompromisingness in the implementation of his ideological goals, Hitler encountered permanent resistance from all opposing forces in Europe. The struggle against communists, socialists and pacifists, waged from the beginning, became steadily tougher during the war. More complicated was the confrontation with the liberal and conservative forces of the bourgeoisie, who expressed more and more reservations as the war progressed and circumvented or delayed numerous orders. They could rarely be forced or ousted because they could not be replaced as experts in their fields of activity. Disgruntled by this, Hitler repeatedly criticised civil servants, teachers, professors and intellectuals who did not take into account the requirements of the time.

The intensification of the Weltanschauungskampf (worldview struggle) is particularly evident in the accusations against Christianity and the Christian churches. Since Christians fundamentally respect every human being as a creature of God, many of them rebelled against the practices of racial, ethnic and occupation policies when they realised that these were not temporary exaggerations or excesses, but a planned approach. Not only the small group of those who actively resisted became a danger for the National Socialist leadership, but also the constantly growing number of Christians who, out of conscientious objection, refused the regime in whole or in part.

The accusations against the churches and Christianity were so sharp not least because Hitler was by no means areligious and believed in a Creator, but in contrast to the Christians was convinced that he knew and could do His will. From his point of view, the churches were acting completely unnaturally by observing the commandment of love, which included the incurably ill, people of different skin colour and race, and unbelievers. For him, therefore, Christianity was ‘pre-Bolshevism’ (table talk #40). In Hitler’s view, Paul had transformed and used the teachings of Christ to undermine and bring down the Roman Empire from within. Through the demand for equality of all people, the uprising of the lowly and the inferior had been initiated: the ground was prepared for overthrow and destruction. ‘Pure Christianity’, Hitler concluded, ‘leads to the destruction of humanity, it is naked Bolshevism in metaphysical dressing’ (table talk #66).

The verbal radicalism of the attacks against Christianity was also determined by the fact that Hitler knew exactly that he could not wage a determined church struggle during the war. He was well aware of the power that the churches still represented. A great conflict, therefore, was bound to lead to deep anxiety among the population and evoke great dangers during the war. Therefore, it seemed advisable merely to register the opposition of the bishops, clergy and church laity and to postpone the reckoning until a later time (# 130).

Hitler’s sharp front against Christianity was by no means approved of by all, even within the NSDAP and its branches. Ministers who had gained their office through the party broke ranks. Even in the SS there were still leaders and members who had not left the church and who were bound to come into serious conflict in the event of a dispute. It was no different in the corps of political leaders up to the highest ranks. This example—others could be brought up—shows that the NSDAP was not a monolithic bloc, and that there was no basic consensus even on decisive questions. In the Weltanschauungskampf Hitler could not rely unconditionally on his party; rather, he was dependent on other forces and power-bearers to carry out his plans and orders.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: This wonderfully shows that it was not time to wage war! It was time to consolidate the Nazi state and educate the masses about Christianity: something that white nationalists across the Atlantic haven’t yet managed to do. (That’s why I consider them semi-normies, as I said yesterday.)
 

______ 卐 ______

 
But other groups of Germans were certainly not unreservedly prepared to make the goals of the National Socialist state their own. In Hitler’s national community (Volksgemeinschaft), the social contradictions and the old ideals were by no means overcome, as has been shown, but only pushed back; they broke out again when rapid rearmament and military expansion overstretched popular forces. Even before the war began, the enthusiasm of the national bourgeoisie that it had shown in the face of the reintroduction of universal conscription and the foreign policy successes of the Third Reich was waning. Regimentation, growing restrictions on economic, intellectual and cultural activity and the constant threat of external conflict led to a revival of faded principles. The working class, which to a large extent had recognised the efforts to revive the economy as well as the improvement of social benefits, increasingly rebelled against the restrictions on the choice of employment and the enforcement of their wage demands. The more powerless they felt in the face of decisions to extend working hours and worsen employment conditions, the more they became aware of the disintegration of trade union organisations.

In Hitler’s thinking, ideological goals had absolute priority, so he ignored the concerns and wishes of the population as soon as his rule was securely established. His regime became uncompromising, the subordinate leaders and generals were to be ‘ice-cold dog snouts’ and ‘unpleasant people’ (#98) when it came to accomplishing the tasks set. Convinced of the rightness of what he was striving for, he allowed no leniency or forbearance. He understood people with their faults and weaknesses, but forbade himself and others to take them into account. His regime was not in the service of the people, but the people were made to serve his worldview.

In recent years, various attempts have been made to revise the image of Hitler. According to them, the leader of the Third Reich appears as the man of peace, the patron of the arts and the builder of a new, more beautiful Europe.[1] Evidence for these theses can certainly be found in the monologues published here. And there is no doubt that Hitler knew how to win over and inspire people for himself and his goals right up to the end. But anyone who reads these conversation notes carefully, cannot ignore the fact that he wanted to build the happiness of future generations on the misfortune of those whom he declared enemies or who did not act and believe as he did. On the way to his future, not only enemies but also enthusiastic followers and faithful followers were left behind as victims.

_________

[1] I will mention here only one book, representative of many others, by the architect Hermann Giesler: Ein anderer Hitler. Erlebnisse–Gespräche–Reflexionen. Leoni am Starnberger See, 1978.

Categories
George Orwell Racial right

Astronomic doublethink

Doublethink is a neologism that appears in George Orwell’s novel 1984, and is part of the lexicon of so-called Newspeak. It is a process of indoctrination whereby the subject is expected to simultaneously accept two mutually contradictory ideas as correct, often in contradiction with their own memories or sense of reality. White nationalism is a perfect example that illustrates the meaning of this Orwellian term:

There is not a single non-white who ever expresses outrage or denounces the members of their race who murder, mug and rape white people. I’d even chance to say it’s not ‘normie whites’ who bother to publicly denounce these acts of their race, but terminal white liberals, white racialists or ‘fellow white people’ aka jews. Ultimately it doesn’t matter even if these non-white groups denounced their rapists, terrorists, murderers because every non-white body on white territory is an act of war. Every non-white body means fewer white people. —Verdigris

Virtue signalling isn’t confined just to white liberals. Those here weeping about all the black ‘people’ this horrible racist young white man killed are engaging in it too. No doubt this will qualify them for a kiss from the crucified rabbi when their shades float up to heaven. —Robert Morgan

The American white nationalist ideology represents such astronomical doublethink (anti-Semites obeying the moral precepts of the Jew who wrote the gospel) that if their doublethink could be measured it would reach Pluto. —C.T.

Follow Morgan on The Unz Review for continued updates on how, through Christian ethics, the normies and semi-normies he rebuts are part of the problem, not the solution (I include white nationalists in the ‘semi-normies’ group).

Categories
Catholic Church Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) Merovingian dynasty

Christianity’s Criminal History, 146

 

The Church in the Merovingian Period

‘The Frankish reign of the Merovingians… was an age bathed in blood and murder, full of the most dreadful tragedies, at the same time replete with believing zeal and holiness’. —Franz Zach, Catholic

‘No one in history ever founded so many monasteries again…’ —P. Lasko

‘… a bloody period of the Frankish Church’. —A. Huack

‘Naked violence reigned everywhere… the continually renewed spectacle of almost unspeakable crimes’. —Daniel Rops, Catholic

 
In the Merovingian period Gaul was already fundamentally Christian, and became increasingly Christianised.

It is true that its oldest inscription, certainly Christian, only dates from the year 334 and Lyon; but today it has been lost. And, indeed, at that time Christians were still a minority, even in the cities where the Christian emperors, and of course their Christian collaborators too, lived.

In any case, the spread of Christianity in Gaul had already made rapid progress, and it seems that by 250 there were already bishops there: in Toulouse Saint Saturninus, Arles Marcianus, Paris Saint Dionysius and Narbonne, where a few decades later there is evidence of a Christian cemetery. And in any case, these bishops, like those of Tours, Clermont and Limoges, were in no way delegates of Rome. The alleged Roman mission is undoubtedly a falsehood of the 5th or 6th century: an attempt by the papacy to assert its authority. And, naturally, such a falsehood also had to ensure the apostolic origin of these Gallic bishoprics. The same motif is also found in Spain.

But in the 4th century, episcopal sees already swarmed Gaul. In the Belgian-Germanic territories, too, there are more and more bishoprics: in Orléans, Verdun, Amiens, Strasbourg, Speyer, Worms, Basel, Besançon, and Chalon-sur-Saone. Not to mention older ones, such as those of Trier, Metz and Cologne, all of which—like those of Tongeren and Mainz—falsely claimed to be foundations of disciples of the apostles.

At the end of the 5th century, when Gaul became the epicentre of Western history, some 115 bishops ministered there, almost exclusively in cities. And by the end of the 6th century, Gaul was occupied by 11 metropolitan sees with 128 dioceses: Arles had 24 bishoprics, Bordeaux 17 and Bourges 9, Lyon 10, Narbonne 7, Reims 12, Rouen 9, Sens 7, Tours 8, Trier 9 and Vienne 5.
 

A kind of holy cancerous ulcer

This period, in which Christianity infected the Germanic world, the dominance of the Frankish nobility was forged and the typical medieval society of royalty, church and nobility emerged from the 5th century, was an era characterised, as few others had been, by unbridled passions and bloody atrocities, betrayals and untold crimes.

Palace intrigues, dynastic quarrels, incessant betrayals, the unscrupulous elimination of kings and princes (the average lifespan of the Merovingians was 24.5 years) and the bestial campaigns to wipe out entire families were as commonplace as drunkenness and epidemics, famines and plundering. The history of Gaul in the Merovingian period is a unique chronicle of barbarism. Administration, trade and agriculture all collapsed to a greater or lesser extent, and crime triumphed to the full.

There has hardly ever been a more anarchic period in Europe than these early centuries of the Middle Ages. And yet the clergy didn’t think of forbidding intervention. The prelates were not overly incited by the desire for martyrdom. And the Church itself came to enjoy all the plundering and pillaging. Its real estate, which had already increased in the 4th century, then increased immeasurably.

Already in the 6th century its wealth grew ‘to infinity’ (Dopsch). ‘During the Merovingian period no memorable rebellion of ecclesiastical authority ever broke out, simply because the Church was not in opposition to the civil power, but collaborated closely with it’ (Bodmer). Indeed, the Frankish bishops participated in the power struggles between kings and grandees, ‘albeit with material and not spiritual weapons’ (Bund), going so far as ‘the de facto usurpation… of instruments of state and military power’ (Prinz).

In reality the high clergy and the first nobility are the driving forces of that immense confusion. In the imperium, they set up semi-independent powers, causing it to lurch either to one side or the other in permanent crises, which led to chaos.

There have never been so many saints, perhaps except for the martyrial era with its squadrons of so-called blood witnesses. In the 7th century alone, no fewer than eight hundred have been counted. Moreover, ‘that Merovingian century, so decisive for the development of the West’, found ‘a spiritual expression appropriate to the age in the lives of saints’, hagiography having experienced ‘an undoubted increase’.

The saints enjoyed high prestige. They built great monasteries with pompous churches. Like their biographers, they had an unmistakably positive attitude towards the monarchy and the nobility, most of them coming from aristocratic families. One could almost have the impression that ‘nobility was the anteroom to sainthood’, and one could speak of the ‘self-sanctification’ of Merovingian noble society (Prinz).

This was just as beneficial to the Church as the caste of the lords. Its desire for political-charismatic domination, which had been damaged by the apostasy of the old faith, was strengthened by the resources of the new faith providing Christian legitimisation. At the same time, however, the epoch, and especially the 7th century, was characterised by a ‘flowering’ of hagiography and a taste for the miraculous, which amounted to ‘the greatest falsification of historicity’, and consequently led to ‘the state of prostration of Western historiography’. All in all, this ‘was the result of a barbarisation, after the ancient stream had dried up’ (Scheibelreiter).

Categories
Free speech / association

Where do we go from Buffalo?

Although Andrew Anglin has always condemned violence, The Daily Stormer went down today because Payton Gendron (left) dared to mention Anglin’s site in his manifesto!

‘Legislation will be drafted to ban the mere expression of every last idea contained in Gendron’s manifesto, despite the fact that most of the material has nothing to do with direct calls for violence’, writes Jim Goad in a piece published today on Counter-Currents.

I hope he’s wrong…

Categories
Civil war Real men

Gendron’s manifesto:

A brief critique

First of all, I would like to say that the way bourgeois racialists denigrate the actions not only of this shooter but previous ones (Breivik, Tarrant, etc.) in the comments section of Counter-Currents, The Unz Review and even The Occidental Observer, is infinitely more reprehensible than what these lone wolves do (see what Robert Morgan said on The Unz Review).

I have the impression that these bourgeois racialists have been saying these mean things about the lone wolves because they are incapable of revolutionary thinking, only reactionary comments; and the existence of the wolves confronts them not only with their cowardice as Aryan men, but with their intellectual cowardice.

As I said in my post yesterday, this is no time for violence. But it is time to talk about revolution while respecting the limits of Brandenburg v. Ohio: something the cowardly bourgeois don’t even dare to do with their internet pseudonyms—cowards! That said, the manifesto of the latest lone wolf is full of typical adolescent mistakes; which is obvious, as this wolfie is a teenager.

For example, it is striking how many pages the teenager devoted to educating his readers about the weapons he said we should acquire for immediate revolutionary action. Herein lies his first error, a psychological error. Unlike mature racists like us, Payton Gendron hasn’t realised, as Robert Morgan has, that the overwhelming majority of whites simply don’t want to be saved. They are, as I have said several times, the worst generation of whites since prehistoric times.

It is impossible to make a revolution when almost one hundred per cent of white males have fallen into a state of terminal degeneration. And if the race still has a chance of being saved, it is only because there is a chance that some of them will begin to cross the whole psychological Rubicon toward National Socialism (not just part of the river, as the despicable bourgeois racialists do) once the social catastrophes start to converge.

In his manifesto, the teenager wrote:

Did or do you personally hate foreigners or other cultures?

No, many people and their cultures are great, but it’s important to note that they can only stay great if they are separated from each other.

If the teenager had come across this site, he would have realised that the above statement is false. Just remember what I have said about pre-Columbian cultures, and the way the Chinese treat animals, to realise that the above statement is rubbish. I don’t even want to link what I have said in books like Day of Wrath and On Exterminationism about Amerindians or the Chinese because the regular visitor to this site already knows what I mean. These non-whites have behaved like real monsters towards animals and children and don’t deserve our sympathy. The teenager’s ignorance on this point proves that it is no time for revolution but, as Bloodraven said, to learn. In his manifesto, Gendron wrote:

Are you a Christian?

No. I do not ask God for salvation by faith, nor do I confess my sins to Him. I personally believe there is no afterlife. I do however believe in and practice many Christian values.

So Gendron believes and practices many Christian values. He is aware that ‘leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful’. But precisely because he left Bloodraven’s cave before finishing his training, he failed to see the past to the extent of realising, as those who did stay there have realised (remember that in his Zarathustra Nietzsche put this legendary character in a cave), that it was precisely the early Christians who hated anything strong, good and successful, such as Greco-Roman statuary that they shattered. Gendron continues:

Who is truly to blame?

The people who are to blame most are ourselves, European men. Strong men do not get ethnically replaced, strong men do not allow their culture to degrade, strong men do not allow their people to die. Weak men have created this situation and strong men are needed to fix it… STRONG MEN MUST RISE UP.

Once again: the adolescent doesn’t realise that these strong men no longer exist, only lemmings. Then Gendron talks about a subject that hurts me to the core: the rapes of a huge number of pubescent English roses on Cuck Island, linking articles with statistics. Gendron ignores that Rudyard Kipling’s poem about the wrath of the awakened English is now such an anachronism that English males can hear of those statistics and they still love immigrants. (The Christian triumph of loving the enemy has reached its climax today, especially among secular whites.) Gendron wrote:

They see the decay all around them, plummeting, free-falling birth rates all across the Western world. Millions of invaders landing on our shores, conquering our towns and without a single shot fired in response. Broken families with soaring divorce rates, that’s if they even bother to get married at all. Suicide rates climbing year by year, not just for adults, by even teens and children as well and the only time people seem to even notice is when one of their own idols commits the act (singers, sports stars, actors). Drug use at all levels of society, in all age groups, any source of distraction or relief to escape a culture of nihilism. Rampant urbanization and industrialization, ever expanding cities and shrinking forests, a complete removal of man from nature, with the obvious results. Pedophile politicians, pedophile priests and pedophile pop stars, demonstrating to all the true depravity of our age. Art and beauty subverted beyond all recognition, bauhaus travesties replacing nouveau wonders, soulless metropolitan architecture of glass and steel reflecting no society, no culture, no people and therefore belonging everywhere, and nowhere. Suicidal, nihilistic and degenerate pop icons produced from a dead culture: Michael Jackson (pedophile, self hating, self mutilating, opiod addict), Madonna (degenerate, drug addict, childless, whore, anti-christian, pro miscegenation), Kurt Cobain (suicidal, drug addict, self hater, anti-social), Freddy Mercury (lifelong identity crisis, lifelong battle with hedonism and drug use, eventual death due to sexual hedonism) just to name a few.

Bold typeface is mine. Pedophile priests have always existed in Christendom (cf. what we have been saying on this site about psychohistory). The teenager ignores that Christian ethics is behind some of the things he abhors in that paragraph, as anyone who has stayed long enough in the cave knows.

I was going to quote 750 more words from Gendron’s manifesto, including his concluding paragraphs and his call to arms, but it’s unnecessary.

Let us remember that Michael O’Meara ends the first book published by Counter-Currents with a call to arms, and we already see what has happened since the year of its publication in 2010: the authors and readers of that webzine sank more and more into a bourgeois lifestyle and essayism, not the ‘iron dream’ that Harold Covington liked to talk about in his radio podcasts.

Gendron probably never read a major intellectual like Michael O’Meara, and by jumping out of the cave prematurely he doesn’t even mention a less educated revolutionary, James Mason.

Incidentally, the image above was chosen by Gendron himself for the end of his manifesto.