web analytics

Tag: Christian question (CQ)

Categories
Miscegenation Nick Fuentes

Webbon’s

interview – 6

By discussing “cultural Christianity” almost from the beginning of the interview, Nick Fuentes and Joel Webbon seem to be getting closer to what we’ve been saying: that there is such a thing as secular Christianity (liberalism, or what we call “neochristianity”).

By minute 38, they both agree that to live in the new Christian Republic they envision in the US, you have to be a Christian. They ignore the fact that this very thing was already implemented in Constantinople, the so-called Second Rome. In a few centuries that town ended up as a melting pot of all the Mediterranean races! (Needless to say, for us in the new republic to be formed the requirement is that the citizen be of pure Aryan descent.)

Shortly after, Webbon says that Christianity is not a religion exclusive to white people, but for all people. That this pair’s thinking is medieval is evident when, after minute 52, they begin to discuss theologically who goes to hell.

Categories
Kevin MacDonald Videos

Kevin & Joel

Yesterday we saw Joel Webbon interview Jared Taylor. Now we’ll see that he interviewed Kevin MacDonald too.

In MacDonald’s panoramic account of the history of Jews in the West, the professor emeritus omits a crucial fact: the Judeo-Christians who wanted only the god of the Jews to be worshipped in the Mediterranean were involved in the fall of the Roman Empire.

Then MacDonald says that Christianity began as a very anti-Jewish ideology (for example, that the Jews killed Christ). This omits the level of subtlety with which Jews make their psyops: by the time of Emperor Theodosius, all worship of Aryan Gods was prohibited, and the empire imposed Christianity while tolerating Judaism (proof of this is that no temple to Jupiter, Zeus, Apollo, or Athena survived after Theodosius’s edicts: only churches and synagogues).

In other words, for white nationalists it’s easy to cherry-pick facts like the verse in the gospel that the Jews killed Christ, but the situation needs to be viewed in perspective. And from a historical meta-perspective spanning centuries, it’s clear that only two religions were de facto permitted after the first Christian emperors: Xtianity and Judaism.

Later, Webbon asks an interesting question: what is it about white people that makes them so gullible, so susceptible to believing the psyops of Jewry?

Neither of them blamed the Christian ethics that took hold of the Aryan collective unconscious. MacDonald argued that white people are individualistic, but I get the impression that, like Jared Taylor, MacDonald also lacks a clear vision of what the European zeitgeist was like before Constantine.

Webbon agrees with the professor and talks about how Scandinavians, who are now the most individualistic, founded Minnesota (the recent protests against ICE were mentioned). But as always, they’re telling the story from the perspective of Christendom (the Visigoths came from Scandinavia and saw themselves as a group before Catholicism conquered ancient Hispania).

Then MacDonald talks about the migrant gangs that are causing havoc in Sweden, and argues that the Swedes can’t do anything about it because they don’t dare to acknowledge the problem.

Neither of them is thinking clearly. Do they honestly believe that the Vikings wouldn’t have acted decisively against sandnigger migrants who raped their young? (The racial right’s blindness to the inversion of values caused by Christianity seems to be universal.)

Then MacDonald says something I agree with: “We lost control of our culture,” and whoever loses that battle, he added, loses “the evolutionary race.” He said this in the context of the media and academia, controlled by the Jews. But when he specifically spoke about who created the moral values of modern white men, he didn’t dare say it was the rabbis who wrote the New Testament. In other words, MacDonald can’t have it both ways: his theory has a solid scientific basis, but Christianity has exerted more influence on us than media and academia together given its existence over two thousand years.

MacDonald speaks of “moral communities” as a characteristic of white psychology, and mentions the American Puritans who were abolitionists and how, once the value of slavery being unjust was established, anyone who believed in its validity could get into serious trouble (alluding to the Civil War). But even here we see that there used to be Christians who didn’t share antiracist morality (just as Russians and other Eastern Europeans don’t share Wokism). To understand the dark hour, it is necessary to recognize that a faction of Christianity imposed itself on the entire West after World War II, and that this wouldn’t have happened with, say, what the Nazis called “positive Christianity.”

It’s now too late for Webbon’s dream of establishing a kind of “positive Christianity lite” in the US for the reason I mentioned yesterday. To expel over one hundred million non-whites and crucify the traitorous whites who brought them here, we need anti-Christian governments (only pagan Nazis would do things like what we read in The Turner Diaries).

I’d like to end this post with a reflection on what MacDonald said about Tucker Carlson, whom we all appreciate for bringing the JQ to public attention, at least when criticizing the Israeli government and its American lackeys. MacDonald is right about this, but he also points out that Tucker is allergic to Aryan identity.

What the professor omitted in his interview with Webbon is that Tucker has said many times that he is not a white identitarian because of the Christian religion he professes.

Categories
Jared Taylor Racial right

Jared v Joel

I don’t see Christianity as a big problem because our racially-conscious ancestors… had no illusion about race at all. They care very much about the salvation of the souls of their slaves… building Sunday schools for black people. —Joel Webbon

Since Jared Taylor is the son of pious Christians who tried to evangelize the Japanese, and Joel Webbon is a Christian Nationalist, after the twelfth minute of the interview (linked below) neither believes in the malice of politicians in recent decades for bringing millions of non-whites to the West. I, on the other hand, not only blame the politicians but also this pair for following the commandment to love your neighbour (for example: these politicians) instead of openly hating those who have brought the orcs to Nordid lands.

A couple of minutes later, Webbon asks Taylor why only whites are susceptible to bringing coloured people to their lands. What an incredible lack of insight: it’s your proclaimed Calvinist faith that originated the problem (I recently recommended Tom Holland’s Dominion and I recommend it again). It’s curious that Webbon uses the term “suicidal toxic empathy” without realizing that it comes directly from the gospel.

Taylor responds that a hundred years ago Americans weren’t ethno-suicidal. He thus ignores the fact that the cancer of Judeo-Christian values only metastasized after 1945. In his country, the process had already begun with Washington’s 18th-century presumption of not being anti-Semitic, and even more so with the Quaker ideology of the 19th century, which infected the American collective unconscious to such a degree that it led to the deaths of countless Southerners in a civil war in which the villains of our story triumphed.

In Taylor’s response, it’s also noticeable that—like everyone on the American racial right—he doesn’t talk about Latin America, even though they began their ethno-suicidal process on the Iberian Peninsula with Moors and converted Jews. And let’s not even mention how those peninsular Spaniards procreated with Indigenous women on the American continent (the case of the Portuguese was even worse: with Negroes in Lisbon itself). By focusing on the US, their view of the West is myopic.

Then Taylor begins to talk about democracy, the rights of the weak, respect for women, and freedom of speech as qualities exclusive to white people: another example of myopia. Once again, this pair is telling history from the perspective of Christendom, ignoring the Greco-Roman, Viking or Indo-European worlds. Taylor cites Angela Merkel’s decision to allow millions of Syrians into Europe as an example. I don’t want to repeat what Holland said on the subject and how he located the aetiology of Angela’s deed in Christianity (see pages 154-156 on Angela in Holland’s text in our abridged version of his book, Neo-Christianity, linked in our featured article).

Then Taylor mentions those who blame Christianity and intermarriage, adding: “All of this perversion of Christianity” referring to Woke culture. Note that although it is true that it is a perversion of traditional Christianity, it doesn’t answer the argument of Nietzsche, Holland and others: that Christianity gave birth to liberalism (which we call neochristianity).

Webbon replies that he’s pleased with what Taylor said because, as a Baptist Christian, he doesn’t believe we should blame his religion. He repeats the typical clichés of white nationalists: that if Christianity were guilty, how would we explain the Crusades? (Tip: the Crusades weren’t undertaken out of racial passion: a pope called the First Crusade to defend the interests of the Church.) Shortly after, he adds that Christians centuries ago recognized that peoples were different, but omits that the Church—unlike the Visigoths before their conversion—permitted mixed marriages. Even El Cid didn’t revert to the healthy racism of a millennium earlier, during the time of the Visigoths in Hispania: at one point in his life, El Cid even worked for a powerful Moor.

Then Webbon and Taylor discuss Hitler and the Holocaust in a way that could be called “fair enough.” But they should read Holland, who argues that the new axiology that demonizes Hitler is neochristian, albeit atheist (for those who are too lazy to read his book, there are a huge number of people interviewing Holland on YouTube).

After elaborating on the above, Webbon argues that Christianity would solve the guilt problem afflicting white men today. He doesn’t seem to realize that this guilt was precisely induced by Christian values, and this is especially evident in the post-WWII consensus. As our friend Joseph Walsh said, that consensus represented the ultimate triumph of gospel values, so much so that atheists especially embraced them with fierce fanaticism.

Then Taylor returns to the anti-Christian position that blames the religion of our forefathers and says that as the West becomes less Christian, it becomes more ethno-suicidal. This ignores two things: (1) before Constantine, ethno-suicide was accidental, for example, miscegenation in the late and decadent Roman Empire, not an explicitly anti-white ideology and (2) the same old story: he is ignorant of books like Dominion, which demonstrate how traditional Christianity metamorphosed into atheistic neochristianity.

Then Webbon says that in his American utopia, the government and voters could only be Christian. So, would people like William Pierce and Revilo Oliver be second-class citizens?

Elaborating on what Webbon calls Christian Nationalism, he says that whites are incapable of understanding themselves as a collective. He ignores (1) that in pre-Christian times, the pure Nordics who conquered India, Sparta, the early Romans and the Visigoths considered themselves a group, and that (2) it was precisely the threat of eternal damnation for those who didn’t worship the god of the Jews that fell upon the Aryan collective unconscious like an atomic bomb: it atomized it, turning whites into “individuals,” “souls” whose priority was to save themselves from the torments of hell.

The only good thing about Webbon’s American utopia is that he wants a return to traditional patriarchy. At a crucial moment, Taylor asks him if, in his ideal America, a morally upright black Christian could vote, but not a non-Christian white. Webbon replies that, indeed, only that black could vote.

Webbon then presents Taylor with a thought experiment: if one of them were king, how would the culture be better? But he cheats: because the thought experiment begins without specifying how one hundred million non-whites would be “deported” from the US to the point that only 20% of the population would remain non-white. Since the experiment begins this way, the dishonesty lies in Webbon’s avoidance of scenarios like The Turner Diaries, where an anti-Christian morality is needed to carry out such a massive deportation (or extermination, in the case of the novel).

This would be my response to the “If I Ran the Zoo” scenario. I would threaten that remaining 20% to leave within four months, or else every non-white man, woman and child seen on the street would be shot on the spot.

Simple.

However, Webbon understands better why feminism is so toxic than most of the racialists I’ve seen online (and Taylor more or less agrees with him on this). But shortly after, Webbon says it would be atrocious not to properly feed a quadriplegic child. My response: a society of exterminating soldiers would resemble that of the Spartans.

A few minutes later, Taylor again commits a fallacy that I had already detected before. He said that he focuses on race, and that’s why he doesn’t want to have other battlefronts like feminism, the JQ, or Christianity. The fallacy lies in the fact that all these issues are interconnected with preserving the race. Let’s remember the slogan “transvaluation of all values.” It’s impossible to focus exclusively on race without taking away the power of non-reproduction from women today. Without transvaluing that value to the patriarchy of the past, spoiled gals would continue to drive the Aryan race to extinction since they don’t want to have many children. The same could be said of Christianity, the idealization of homosexuality, the anti-Nordicism in vogue on the American racial right and so on. Only the dissident who realizes that all these are facets of the same geometric figure is ideologically cleansed of ethno-suicide.

In other words, Taylor claims he doesn’t want to antagonize so many whites because what we need most is to work together. But he doesn’t realize that even the racial right is ethno-suicidal, as I have shown on this site. More than once I have used the metaphor that the post-WWII zeitgeist is similar to a train with Jews and ultra-liberal whites in the two main driver’s seats, accelerating the train toward the precipice. American conservatives are like a secondary co-pilot who applies the brakes here and there, slowing the train down, but not stopping it. White nationalists have gotten off the train, but faithful to Christian morality, they continue along the same route, albeit on foot, toward the precipice. They will take longer than those on the train, but the neochristian mandate that everyone obeys is to head for the precipice (to understand my metaphor I would suggest reading my anthology, Daybreak).

Taylor assumes that his ideology is not headed for disaster. But it’s clearly headed there, since he has never repudiated the Christian ethics of his parents. Then he says he is against those racists who say that if someone is Christian, he “cannot run for office.” Once again: Taylor ignores the fact that a Christian would never dare to expel the Jews from their country, or even scare them into leaving by opening Auschwitz II. (Furthermore, to achieve this, Taylor would not only have to repudiate Christian morality, but also the ideology of the Founding Fathers he so admires.) With presidents who submit to Christian morality, the Jewish problem will never be solved. In fact, we could see Webbon as a traditional Christian and Taylor as what we call a neochristian.

Webbon then discusses the New Testament, and it’s clear his Protestantism is essentially fundamentalist: he takes all the great miracles as historical, such as the resurrection, Jesus’ ascension into the clouds, and the Great Commission (those who still believe all of that should read NT scholar Richard C. Miller).

Shortly after, Webbon says something that perfectly illustrates my point: that Christians who sympathize with racialism are headed for disaster. He says that in the society he envisions, there would be no laws against a Negro marrying a white woman!

Near the end of the interview, Webbon mentioned that an early Protestant theologian held Constantine in such high esteem that he invoked the biblical commandment to honour one’s parents and ancestors (that is, even the first Christian emperor). Compare this to what Karlheinz Deschner says about Constantine in the book we’ve summarized.

A few minutes later Taylor said he, too, would oppose banning interracial marriage!

Do you finally understand why the Führer’s way is the only way? And why, in practical terms, fundamentalist Christianity and secular neochristianity are two sides of the same coin?

I didn’t watch the rest of the program because Taylor very politely left shortly after saying that, and Webbon began discussing his interview with two professed Christians.

Categories
Liberalism Nick Fuentes

Webbon’s

interview – 5

Remember, there are ten episodes of this interview. This is the fifth.

At the beginning, Joel Webb quotes a text that blames only Judaism for liberalism. I call this self-righteous monocausalism, since it’s obvious that Christians are the biggest culprits (even early Church Fathers criticized Jews for their selective compassion, saying it wasn’t universalist but ethnocentric). As always, this pair seems to have no idea that the doctrines of the religion they profess have axiological consequences.

Later, Nick Fuentes says he believes in the historicity of Christian child sacrifices by Jews in the Middle Ages: something I don’t believe was historical. But Fuentes is right to criticize Napoleon for “emancipating” the Jews in Europe, something that didn’t happen in Russia (in my opinion, because the Russians didn’t go through a Renaissance and an Enlightenment that eventually transformed into neochristianity).

Webbon says: “All false religions lead to hell.”

That’s worse than any toxic message from Jews on Netflix or any other mass media outlet. I challenge anyone who doubts this to read my autobiography, Hojas Susurrantes, and still claim that the doctrine of eternal damnation wasn’t worse than Jewish subversion for the mental health of white men. The most ironic thing about this is that this pair ignores the fact that the core of the New Testament was written by Jews.

But shortly afterward, Fuentes said something very true: that the message of forgiveness is absent in the Old Testament, that it only appears in the Gospel (for example, with words like “forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing”), and that the Old Testament speaks more of exterminating enemy peoples.

What Fuentes ignores is that the Old Testament message is the right one if the Aryans were to adopt it (as Himmler’s SS did). This pair takes the out-group altruism inspired by Christianity for granted: it’s a morality that Christians don’t even question (nor do atheist neochristians).

In this fifth instalment of the interview, we again note what Gaedhal once said: the dissident right is more primitive than liberal Christians, insofar as they wholesale ignore academic studies of the New Testament that differ from fundamentalist dogma (for example, Webbon speaks of the Transfiguration as if it were a historical event).

The blatant dishonesty comes soon after, when Webbon says, “Christian faith and reason are not at odds with one another.” If they were honest, these Christians would be familiar with the critical literature on New Testament historicity written since the time of Reimarus.

I make these comments from that series to show how lost American white nationalism is, even though Webbon isn’t one of them (Fuentes does consider himself a white nationalist). This episode proves it.

Later, Webbon asks Fuentes what transformed the healthy antisemitism of yesteryear into today’s pathological philosemitism. Fuentes blames modernism and liberalism. I wonder if Nick knows that we call liberalism “neochristianity” on this site? (new visitors who haven’t read our quotes from Tom Holland’s book should read them now).

Shortly after, Webbon says: “The engine of liberalism is egalitarianism: the complete flattening of every natural distinction…” Although Webbon mentions race and gender, he sees the speck in someone else’s eye but not his own. Following the destruction of the Greco-Roman world, it was Judeo-Christians who introduced egalitarianism into European culture. (Although both detest the word “Judeo-Christian”, they also ignore that early Christians were mostly Semites from the Roman Empire: so the term is legitimate.)

Note that, when they later discuss Protestant currents like dispensationalism, some factions of that current accept the salvation of Jews—that is, no post-mortem damnation for the chosen people. However, they don’t extend this courtesy to so-called “pagans” (those who refuse to worship the god of the Jews). How can this pair not realise that this type of doctrine will sooner or later develop a philosemite theology (not only Protestant, but also Catholic after the Second Vatican Council)?

Fuentes then says that the foundation of liberalism and modernity is the concept of the human psyche as a tabula rasa, a “blank slate”: that we are all born as persons, and therefore equal. He fails to realise that this belief was spawned by elemental Christian teachings: that, unlike animals, all humans are born with a “soul”, and that “God” doesn’t distinguish between “souls”.

Do you see why we call liberalism neochristianity? Later, they both agree that we must wait for the Jews to convert to Christianity and that, in the meantime, Jews have rights and shouldn’t be mistreated. Compare this to the Germans of the last century, who transvalued Christian values into values similar to those of Titus and Hadrian during Rome’s wars against Judea.

Do you finally understand what our slogan means?

Umwertuung Aller Werte!
Transvaluation of all values!

Categories
Christendom NS booklets

Booklets, 3

As I’ve already said, I originally didn’t want to post my private comments on some booklets published under the auspices of the Third Reich because I didn’t want to openly criticise National Socialism: I kept those criticisms to myself. Now that I better understand the dark times, and considering that my duty is to yearn for a dawn in the Aryan collective unconscious, I believe I must exhume my notes written on the blank pages of these booklets.

On July 19, 2021, for example, in the booklet shown in the image, I wrote:

I barely see the first paragraph and a problem arises.

Since I am a priest of the Fourteen Words and not a Nazi, the likely fact that this booklet won’t be anti-Christian (cf. also my fundamental difference with white nationalists) suddenly occurred to me.

The booklet is composed of ten articles by various authors. Then I read the following sentences from the first article, written by Erich Maschke. It doesn’t matter that the rest of the articles by the other nine authors didn’t contain passages I consider offensive. What I want to point out are the contradictions of National Socialism between those who represented its exoteric face and the more esoteric enlightenment on Christianity held by Hitler and his inner circle.

Erich Maschke wrote:

…the heathen Prussians. By force of arms must the Brothers subdue or drive out the heathen tribes… War against the heathen was the highest duty, the greatest sacrifice which a man could offer. [page 5]

…this forcible Christianizing of the Baltic countries of Prussia, Latvia and Estonia… The Prussian tribes were fought until they were subdued and accepted the Christian faith. [pages 6-7]

Maschke wrote these things apparently approving of the forced conversion of these Germanic pagans. On the blank page at the end of the booklet I wrote:

It’s worse than what I wrote inside the cover!

I was so surprised that it motivates me to start a new series for WDH, which we could begin with “Why Nazism Failed, Part 1.” And I would continue if I find this type of message in the other thirteen booklets I bought and will read (except for Sieg der Waffen which doesn’t have any bad messages).

I never expected this. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the priest is not a Nazi, although he still considers Hitler the man whose birth should replace that of the mythical Jew whom the fools of American racialism still worship.

Sometime later, I wrote on the back cover in black ink: “What I wrote in this booklet with blue ink [quoted above] is devastating. I’ll see now if I’ll report this to WDH…”

But I didn’t do it in 2021.

Categories
Conservatism Nick Fuentes

Webbon’s

interview – 4

After the eighth minute Nick begins to talk about his ideology: “America First.”

Right away there’s the problem, because “America” isn’t just made up of white people, but millions of people of colour.

But of course: Fuentes is a Christian. Compare that to the priest with the 14 words, “The Aryan comes first,” which leaves no room for misunderstanding. But that’s not Nick’s starting point.

Some time later Fuentes said he might vote for a black man running for president.

Do you see why all that “America First” is rubbish, if not outright treason?

Shortly after, Webbon says that abortion is wicked, even for blacks; and before that he said there would be 25 million more Negroes in the US if abortion were prohibited! Nick agreed.

Compare this treacherous bullshit to the Nuremberg Laws.

In the rest of the conversation they said pertinent things about the JQ, but what was indicated shows that Christians aren’t useful for preserving the Aryan race from ongoing extinction.

Categories
Conservatism Nick Fuentes

Webbon’s

interview – 3

Nick Fuentes says that, for St Paul, the “concession” was to marry in the sense that celibacy is better.

See the inferiority of Christianity to Judaism: the stars promised to Abraham were his future kike descendants without demonising sex. But in Judeo-Christianity sex is sinful for gentiles (i.e., white people from the Mediterranean). The god of the Jews “concedes” us marriage so that we don’t burn with lust, but the highest state is non-reproductive celibacy, and Fuentes even talks about monasteries.

Then Nick confuses marital masculinity with a feminised husband. Since I’ve been talking about Breaking Bad, let’s say that Nick confuses masculinity with a character like Walter White: a “man” who put his family above everything else. On the other hand, we see true masculinity in Sparta, pre-imperial Rome, the Goths, the Vikings and National Socialism where there is Männerbund, unlike the decadent 21st-century America so well represented in the gynocentric scenes of Breaking Bad.

In practice, Nick’s Catholic recipe is perfect for the dysgenics that has been perpetrated in Europe since Christianity was imposed on whites. This dysgenics (“Are you smart? Go to the monastery and don’t reproduce!”) caused the IQ of Jews to rise over the centuries while the IQ of whites dropped. This perverse eugenics / dysgenics reached the point where Jews now have the highest IQ: a genetic courtesy of Christianity that Nick and other racialists stupidly cling. Just look at Nick’s statement in his interview with Joel Webbon: “The priesthood, the monastic life is the most masculine thing that a guy can do…”

Above, Ascyltos, and Giton playing the role of Ganymede, in Fellini Satyricon. Zeus was capable of countless love affairs not only with goddesses but with women. On one occasion, he even fancied Ganymede and abducted him to see what the androgynous ephebe tasted like. But for Nick the masculine man is not represented by Zeus but by the Aryan humiliated with a ton of guilt—the monk—if he fails to love the Jewish god.

In sharp contrast to the Greco-Roman ethos, above we see Franciscan and Benedictine monks in the film The Name of the Rose.

Webbon then quotes Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians; he says that celibacy is a gift, and talks to Nick about “fleshy appetites” in the Christian sense. Compare this with the Greco-Romans. Their Gods were openly rapists; it was Christianity that made us feel guilty about that. Fuentes, incidentally, is a virgin as he recently confessed to Piers Morgan: something inconceivable to the ancient Greeks and Romans of his age.

Are you beginning to understand what the Judeo-Christian inversion of values was? For kikes sexuality isn’t sinful but Paul preaches something else to us, and these idiots—not just Nick but Christian racialists in general—are incapable of seeing the Jewish psyop!

A little later in the interview, Nick says that many put family above God (that is, above the Semitic god with his double standard for Jews and gentiles). That’s why Fuentes goes on to say that the pinnacle of masculinity is the celibate monk.

At minute 40, Nick says that since women are ultimate conformists to the System, they can betray you if you marry in this anti-white male era. Let’s illustrate this with Skyler who, in an episode of Breaking Bad, goes to a female psychotherapist who suggests Skyler to report her husband Walter to the police for drug trafficking. Walter had been foolish enough to confess everything to his wife in private, when you should never tell women anything about serious matters, such as committing illegal acts or having an affair with Ganymede: they are incapable of understanding the male drives.

Do you see why we should only have lunches and dinners with heterosexual soldiers? Even after the Spartans were married they didn’t eat with their wives but with other tough guys where they could talk as rudely as I do on this site.

Categories
Adam Green Axiology

Damn

Christians!

White nationalists are completely nuts: they have the enemy right in front of them, the big elephant in the room, and out of sheer pride they refuse to see it: they are wicked people.

Adam Green has demonstrated this forcefully in this video.

I’ve been talking about Joel Webbon because of his interview with Nick Fuentes. Green’s video begins with Webbon saying that he would give his daughters away to a black and a hispanic as long as they are Christians!

Then Green shows clips of other notable Christians…

After watching Green’s video, do you understand why I feel alone among so-called American “racialists”? Who among them has a blog like mine that openly says that the Christian Problem is the primary cause of white decline (the JQ is merely a secondary infection, as it is Christians who worship the god of the Jews)?

At the end of Green’s video, we also see some rabbis. But what really matters are the whites who have a xenomorphic parasite attached to their faces—Christianity—and don’t want to tear it off. On the contrary: they have amalgamated their psyche with the xenomorph!

From this angle, anyone who doesn’t reject Christian ethics—and I mean both atheists and Christians—is a subject who has allowed the Jew to stick his dick down his throat and doesn’t even realise that he has an alien creature at the core of his being!

Forget the forums of the “dissident” right!

Down with white nationalism, the scam of scams!

Down with Judeo-Christianity!

Let’s implement Nietzsche’s Law against Christianity!

Only Hitler—or rather Kalki—saves!
 

Categories
NS booklets Racial right

Booklets, 1

German: Dich ruft die SS!

The darkest hour of the West is due to the extreme degeneration of white men, especially those Europeans who swallowed the propaganda of the American Diktat after World War II.

On the other side of the Atlantic, what “white nationalists” are incapable of understanding is that, as Matt Koehl said, a race that rejects Hitler will perish.

Among the noblest civilisations that defended their race—the Aryans who conquered India, Greece, and eventually Rome; the Vikings; and the Visigoths who killed those who dared to intermarry—, after the Judeo-Christian infection only the National Socialists intellectually developed a model of nationhood that fulfilled the sacred words. The others fell so short that they eventually Christianized like the Norsemen, or a thousand times worse: they intermarried.

Although Koehl’s eight words (“A race that rejects Him will surely perish”) should be displayed in every home of the brotherhood we wish to create, that doesn’t mean I share Koehl’s faithful orthodoxy, as we will see in this series on NS booklets translated into English.

On July 22, 2021, when I read the booklet pictured above, originally published in German by Himmler, I wrote on its blank pages:

Upon reading page 7, I can’t help but think that I shouldn’t visit the WN websites again, which are garbage compared to this fighting spirit.

It is precisely because the US is founded on that materialistic phrase containing the deceptive word “happiness” that it makes Americans the antithesis of the Aryan hero. But there’s a problem.

The problem I was referring to was page 10, where the author of the booklet, whether Himmler or one of his associates, wrote “…so help me God!”

The problem with imagining the deity in the singular is that it’s done under the umbrella of Jewish monotheism. An Aryan who wants to refer to providence would have to do so in the plural, “Gods,” inspired, let’s say, by the inscription of the Oracle of Delphi. Although the National Socialists, especially the pagan SS, were transitioning from Christianity to Germanic paganism, there were Jewish remnants in pronouncements like this one.

Given that after 1945 Christian ethics exploded in a secular way like a red giant star burning Aryan DNA around the globe, it’s necessary to recognise that this evil persisted, albeit to a minuscule degree, in translated booklets like this one.

Had the Nazi leadership realised this, they wouldn’t have launched insane wars of conquest (like Operation Barbarossa) but would have instead dedicated all their power to educating the masses in a kind of neo-Nietzschean racism, beginning with essays similar to Eduardo Velasco’s on Judea and Rome. They didn’t because, unlike us, the Nazis failed to grasp that the JQ wasn’t the primary cause of the Aryan decline but rather the CQ.

That said, there are many things I appreciate about the booklet, such as the fact that there was a group of SS members who were professional musicians. And by music, we obviously mean non-degenerate music (one of the enormous failings of the American racial right is their inability to make this distinction): music that inspires the highest ideals, like what I recently said about the Eroica Symphony.

Page 66 of the booklet begins with these words: “German parents! Sooner or later your son will become a soldier.” Reading this in 2021 reminded me that even the most radical of American white nationalists, the late Alex Linder, opposed National Socialism because he subscribed to individualistic libertarianism.

Let’s respond to Linder.

One of the greatest damages caused by “introducing spiritual terror” (Hitler’s words) to the Aryan collective unconscious is precisely that it atomized it: from a collective, whites became atomized particles, “souls” whose main purpose was to avoid eternal torment in hell. The spiritual terror finished off the racial solidarity that had already declined in Imperial Rome.

Even anti-Christians like Linder never understood that it wasn’t enough to repudiate the dogmatic part of Christianity, but rather the axiological part as well: like this transition from collectivist societies like Sparta and Republican Rome to imperial degeneration. One of the most notable features of the decadent religions that arose in the Mediterranean is that, unlike their ancient predecessors, they were religions of personal salvation—and I’m not referring only to Christianity (cf. Richard Carrier’s work on the plethora of Mediterranean religions in the Roman Empire).

On page 87 of the booklet, which mentions many colours of Waffen-SS insignia, I learned that the colour used in concentration camps was light brown. As several visitors know, last year I visited Dachau outside Munich: a place I love because unlike, say, the feminized Groypers, the goal there was to eliminate internal opposition including rebellious Christians. Recall the words of a Christian I quoted last month:

He [Hitler] filled Dachau with Catholic clergy; hundreds were worked to death or died under medical experiments.

Bishops who preached against euthanasia faced arrest.

The Gestapo dissolved every independent Catholic youth organisation in Germany. Catholic newspapers were banned, publishing houses seized, and confessional schools closed or converted to state use.

The Concordat he signed in 1933 was violated before the ink dried.

In his own recorded words, he called Christianity “an invention of the Jew” and “the heaviest blow that ever struck humanity,” declaring that the Church would be eradicated once the war was won. His inner circle confirmed the plan was total.

Pius XI answered with Mit brennender Sorge, the only encyclical in history smuggled into a country and read from every Catholic pulpit on the same Sunday, condemning the idolatry of race and blood, and National Socialism itself, by name.

Condemning “the idolatry of race and blood”! Actually, it was magnificent to have condemned the worshipers of the god of the Jews, those rebellious Christians, the true idolaters. Loving your blond sons and blue-eyed daughters isn’t idolatry!

Do we finally understand what Nietzsche meant when he said that Christianity had inverted the values of the Greco-Roman world? If I were the dictator of the US and an insolent disciple of Nick Fuentes rebelled publicly against these types of measures, I would undoubtedly send him to the American incarnation of Dachau.

Categories
Nick Fuentes

Webbon’s

interview – 1

“For me, the overall result is the visible and systematic poisoning of the youth of our people through Christian education…” —Himmler to Bormann (see the bibliographic source for this letter in my article from yesterday).

Yesterday, the first hour of a ten-hour series of Nick Fuentes’ interview with Christian nationalist Joel Webbon was uploaded on YouTube.

At the beginning of the interview, we see that Nick is infinitely closer to Christian nationalism than to white nationalism (recall that in his interview with Tucker, Nick said he was a white nationalist but not at the level of William Pierce’s WN, his words). Obviously, neither Fuentes nor Webbon are National Socialists.

Shortly after, Nick says that the US should have a Christian government. Compare this to what Richard Weikart says about Hitler’s esoteric anti-Christianity, in contrast to the Führer’s exoteric image (prolefeed for the German proles).

Soon after, both say things that go against the US Constitution, such as that the government should not pass laws regarding the establishment of a religion. Then Nick mildly approves of the interviewer’s crazy idea of implementing blasphemy laws in the US: something that would overturn the First Amendment. Interestingly, as a gospel follower, Nick doesn’t want the death penalty for most murderers, but he does want it for those who desecrate the consecrated host or wine.

Only at this point does Nick speak about secular racialism, and they even briefly touch on the topic of our worldview, which we might call anti-Christian racism. Nick confesses that his Groyper movement was precisely a reaction against that secularized racialism: a step back towards American traditionalism.

The interview ends with Nick expressing his desire for an alliance between his America First ideology and his interviewer’s Christian nationalism. Their movement represents, in my humble opinion, the last-ditch effort of American Christianity.