web analytics

Tag: Christian problem (CP)

Categories
Christendom Revilo Oliver

Christianity

and the survival of the West, 1

by Revilo Oliver (1973)

Contents

The Religion of the West
The Orient
Christianity Today
The Predictable Future
The Consequences
Succedaneous Religion
Postscript

The mission of this generation is the most difficult that has ever faced a Western generation. It must break the terror by which it is held in silence, it must look ahead, it must believe when there is apparently no hope, it must obey even if it means death, it must fight to the end rather than submit… The men of this generation must fight for the continued existence of the West.

—Francis Parker Yockey (1948)

 

Chapter One: THE RELIGION OF THE WEST

YOU, WHO ARE NOW reading these lines, and I are strangers. I have no means of knowing whether you are a Christian or an atheist. That, however, will not matter, so long as we talk about facts and not wishes.

The observed and verifiable facts of the world about us are not affected by religious faith or the lack of faith. Christians and atheists must find themselves in perfect agreement when they affirm that lead is more malleable than steel, that the earth is an oblate spheroid rotating on its axis, that whales are mammals, that Germany was defeated and devastated by the many nations allied against her in 1945, and that the Chinese are Mongolians. About such matters there can be no dispute among Western men, who instinctively accept the reality of the world about us and cannot believe, as do many Orientals, that it is merely an illusion in the mind of a dreamer.

If we would salvage and restore our civilization—the Occidental culture that is peculiarly our own and that now seems to be disintegrating and rotting before our very eyes—we must do so as Western men, by observing reality objectively and by reasoning from it dispassionately. And when we try to compute what resources remain to us, we need first of all to determine the actual strength of the Christian tradition at the present time.

It is a fact, which Christians will regard with satisfaction and some atheists may deplore, that Western civilization, for about half of its recorded history, has been a Christian civilization in the sense that the great majority of the people belonging to it (though never, at any time, all of them) believed implicitly in the truth of the Christian revelation. That religious unanimity was for a long time so nearly complete that, after the fall of the Roman Empire and the evanescence of hopes for its restoration, we of the West regarded our religion as the bond that united us and distinguished us from the rest of the human species. During the Middle Ages, our ancestors occupied the greater part of Europe, and, until they discovered the American continents, they lived only in Europe, but despite that geographical unity, they did not generally refer to themselves as the Europeans. For all practical purposes, furthermore, our ancestors belonged to the same division of the white race: they, like the true Greeks and the true Romans before them, were all members of the great race that we now call Indo-European or Aryan, but they had in their languages no word to designate their blood relationship and biological unity. Thus, when they referred to the unity of which they were always conscious as something transcending the constantly shifting territorial and political divisions of Europe, they called themselves Christendom. And for many centuries that word was adequate and misled no one.

For many centuries the West was Christendom and its civilization was indubitably Christian: that, whether you like it or not, is an historical fact. There is a complementary historical fact that was less obvious at the time and that even thoughtful men overlooked or tried to ignore until the events of the past two decades made it indubitable: Christianity is a religion of the West, and, for all practical purposes, only of the West. It is not, as its polemical adversaries so often charge, a Semitic cult, for it has never commanded the adhesion of any considerable number of Semites, and it is not, as Christians once generally believed, a universal religion, for experience has proved that it cannot be successfully exported to populations that are not Indo-European.

Experience has also proved that it does not do the slightest good to deny ascertained facts. The men of Classical antiquity knew, of course, that the earth is spherical, and Eratosthenes in the third century B.C. calculated its circumference as 24,663 miles. But the early Fathers of the Church, living in the age of growing ignorance that shrouded the last century of the Roman Empire, decided, on the basis of some statements in the Old Testament, that the earth ought to be flat or, at least, no more curved than a shield. Lactantius was the most eloquent and probably, therefore, the most influential of the many who assiduously demanded that the earth be flat and so imposed on their contemporaries the conviction that it was. In the Middle Ages, to be sure, there were some learned men, such as Buridan, who knew that the globe is a globe, but they, like learned men today, who all know very well that talk about the equality of races is utter nonsense, usually refrained from publicly denouncing fashionable delusions. It was not until the Fifteenth Century that the truth became again inescapable, but when it did, the Christians, being men of the West, who do not deny the lessons of experience, surrendered the comfortable error in which they had once generally believed; and since that time, no rational Christian has doubted that the earth is spherical.

Today, as in the Fifteenth Century, Western men have had to discard a congenial assumption to bring their conception of the world into conformity with observed reality. So long as we of the West held unquestioned dominion over the whole earth, we permitted ourselves to assume that our civilization in general, and our religion in particular, could be exported and made universal. We did not sufficiently observed that talent for mimicry is common to all human beings and indeed to all anthropoids; that all human beings stand in awe of those who have power over them; and that a genius for dissimulation and hypocrisy is hereditary in the most intelligent Orientals. Even with these oversights, the evidence against our assumption was fairly clear, but in the pride of our power we felt that we could indulge an assumption that was so congenial to the romantic generosity that is a peculiarity of our race. But the events of half a century, and especially of the last two decades, have shown us, beyond peradventure of doubt, the shape of the world in which we live. We now know what our prolonged missionary effort, cultural as well as religious, accomplished—and how its visible effects were produced.

When Cortés and his small but valiant band of iron men conquered the teeming empire of the Aztecs, he was immediately followed by a train of earnest missionaries, chiefly Franciscans, who began to preach the Gospel to the natives and soon sent home, with naive enthusiasm, glowing accounts of the conversions they had effected. Their pious sincerity and innocent joy still lives in the pages of Father Sahagun, Father Torquemada, and many others. For their sake I am glad that the poor Franciscans never suspected how small a part they played in the religious conversions that gave them such happiness. Far, far more persuasive than their sermons and their book had been the Spanish cannon that breached and shattered the Aztec defenses, and the ruthless Spanish soldiers who slew the Aztec priests at their own altars and toppled the Aztec idols from the sacrificial pyramids. The Aztecs, Tepanecs, and other natives accepted Christianity, not because their hearts were touched by alien and incomprehensible doctrines of love and mercy, but because it was the religion of the white men whose bronze cannon and mail-clad warriors were invincible.

That was early in the Sixteenth Century and even then there were not wanting indications that should have given pause to a critical mind, but we of the West went on repeating that fond mistake for four centuries, as the missionaries whom we sent to all parts of the world wrote home glowing reports of the number of “hearts” they had “won for Christ.” It was only after our enemies’ campaign of “anti-colonialism” really got under way that most of us realized that what had won all those hearts was primarily the discipline of British regiments and the manifest power of the white man.

We now know what happened. On many a shore of Africa, for example, missionaries eager to “win souls for Christ” ventured to land alone, and the aborigines, after mutilating and torturing them for a good communal laugh, ate them, cooked or raw according to the custom of the local cuisine. Usually, a few weeks or a few months later, a British cruiser hove to off shore and lobbed half a dozen 4.5 shells into the native village, and, if not pressed for time, landed half a company of marines to beat the bushes and drag out a dozen or so savages to hang on convenient trees. Consequently the tribe, if not very obtuse, took the hint and respected the next bevy of missionaries as somehow representing the god of thunder and lightning. And if the men of God distributed enough free rice and medical care with their sermons, they were able to make “converts,” as the natives learned to utter the words that Christians like to hear.

That is, in essence, the whole history of “winning souls” among the savages. There were, of course, many local variations. If the first missionaries were preceded by troops or white settlers, the blacks had already been convinced of the virtues of Christian rifles and had learned that white men should not be regarded as esculent comestibles. It often happened, however, that the natives, even after many years of preaching and conversion, rejected the white man’s odd rites very emphatically, and a fresh supply of missionaries was needed. In 1905, for example, the Maji-Maji conspiracy in Tanganyika murdered all the missionaries and almost all the white men and women in the entire territory, and it required a German regiment and several companies of marines to restore the teachings of the Gospel. That was done by giving some forty or fifty thousand demonstrations that a Mauser bullet could penetrate even a black hide that had been most carefully anointed with the grease of a boiled baby.

The Christian missionaries did teach a ritual and often inculcated a superstition that had some superficial resemblance to their religion, but as for teaching the spiritual substance of Christianity, they might as well have followed the example of St. Francis and preached sermons to the birds. That is why the many, many thousands of devoted Christians who expended their whole lives to “save souls” built only an edifice of cardboard and tinsel that is now gone in the wind.

What the vanishing of that flimsy facade has made obvious was predictable from the first. The religion of the West has never been comprehensible to the rudimentary minds of Congoids, Capoids, and Australoids, races so primitive that they were congenitally incapable of inventing a wheel and even of using one without supervision—races that could not develop for themselves even the first and simplest preliminaries of a civilization. When the missionaries invented systems of writing the crude languages of the primitives, they had also to invent words to express such concepts as “God,” “soul,” “justice,” “morality,” and “religion”—invent them by either creating new words or by perverting to such meanings sounds that in the native jargons conveyed impressions that were faintly and remotely analogous. That fact alone should have made us think. It was clear, furthermore, that the “converts,” even those who had been most thoroughly imbued with an awe of the god of repeating rifles and locomotives, would conform to the white man’s morality only under coercion, and that whenever they escaped from the white man’s supervision they spontaneously reverted not only to their own mores but also to whatever form of voodoo they had practiced before. Even if earlier experience had not been conclusive, what happened in Haiti at the very beginning of the Nineteenth Century should have removed the last lingering doubt. But the missionaries did not learn, and the “Ladies’ Missionary Society” went on contributing their mites, plying their needles, and glowing with tender emotion for the sweet little savages depicted by their romantic imaginations.

Although it is true that in some places in the former colonial possessions missionaries are still tolerated, if they are obsequious to the natives and pay very well, we have at last learned that the Gospel follows the British regiments in the white man’s ignominious and insane retreat from the world that was his.

Categories
3-eyed crow

Map

Or:

Why this site receives hardly any comments from racialists

 
Why the silence among the commenters that Benjamin recently complained about?

Looking through the books I read years ago, I see things I already knew but didn’t dare to write about in this public forum out of respect for Hitler and his people. It all has to do with the metaphor I chose for the featured post, ‘The Wall’.

Despite being separated by a Wall, the white nationalists of this century and the National Socialists of the past are very close to each other. The Wall represents either accepting the necessity of genocide/extermination of the racial enemy—pre- and post-Christian ethics (north of the Wall)—or refusing to accept it (Christian ethics, south of the Wall).

If I were merely on the north side of the Wall but close to it, I could get along perfectly with, say, those who comment on Alex Linder’s forum or some of today’s few neonazi exterminationists.

But this is not the case…

I am so far north of the Wall that not even an eagle flying high above the Wall could spot me from its field of vision. I mean that both the National Socialists of the last century, and the white nationalists of the present, regard Jewish subversion as the primary cause of Aryan decline. And I don’t.

I have been very critical of the American racial right for its ‘monocausalism’ but, as I said, I hadn’t dared to confess why I was so separated, geographically, from the classical National Socialists. Perhaps one might get a quick idea of what I mean if we see that Hitler was closer to the Christian Wagner than to the anti-Christian Nietzsche, and I am closer to Nietzsche than to Wagner.

Like Nietzsche, I believe that Christianity and its bastard son (atheistic liberalism) is the primary cause of Aryan decline, not our racial enemies, the Jews. It is precisely Christian ethics, and this already breaks even with Nietzsche’s philo-Semitic stance, that prevents the Aryan from settling accounts with his historical enemies.

From this angle I wouldn’t be a Nietzschean, but a sort of neo-Nietzschean Hitlerite. But neither did Hitler and his ilk know that Christianity was the primary cause of Aryan decline. Most Nazis were monocausalists. Few were type A bicausalists. I, on the other hand, am a type B bicausalist (see this post from a dozen years ago).

Let’s give a few examples, but first let’s be clear that some of the top Hitlerites were aware of the Christian Question. Himmler for example said:

I have the conviction that the Roman emperors, who exterminated [ausrotteten] the first Christians, did precisely what we are doing with the communists. These Christians were at the time the vilest scum… [1]

But unlike me, Himmler was an A bicausalist:

The war we are waging is chiefly and essentially a race war. It is first and foremost a war against the Jew… [2]

And the same could be said of Hitler himself:

[The Jews were] the enzyme of decomposition (Ferment der Dekomposition).

And this, even though in Mein Kampf Hitler claimed that the North Americans held power on the continent, and not the Latin Americans, because the former hadn’t corrupted their blood by marrying Indian women. But in that passage of Mein Kampf Hitler omitted to blame Christian ethics for miscegenation in Latin America, since the Spaniards and Portuguese had admitted mixed marriages since the 16th century. As I have said elsewhere, Hitler couldn’t blame Christian ethics because it would have been political suicide in a Catholic/Protestant Germany. He also said, to his adjutants three days after the Wannsee Conference:

It is the Jew who prevents everything.

I am convinced that the internalised Christian ethics, as a result of an ogre of the super-ego in the Aryan collective unconscious (see my previous post), is what prevents everything. But as I just said, for political reasons Hitler could not speak openly as a bicausalist B, even though there are more critical phrases in Hitler’s Table Talk of Christianity than of Judaism.

The point is: since I am not a politician of my time, like Hitler, but a ‘man against my time’, in solitude I can afford to analyse the Aryan psyche to its ultimate consequences, to the extent that I go further and farther north where only very few will dare to follow me.

That is why this site receives hardly any comments from racialists. Although most are on the south side of the Wall, and only a few have crossed it, no one wants to migrate farther and farther north until they find the raven’s cave.

Even in racism it is much easier not to break with the accepted wisdom than to follow the raven’s lead.
 

______________

[1] P. Padfield, Himmler (NY: Henry Holt, 1990), page 334.

[2] He said this on 21 June 1944 to top military and SS leaders in Sonthofen.

Categories
Psychology So-called saints

Augustine, 6

BOOK IX: With his mother and friends he returns to his native Africa

‘…where I had offered you as a sacrifice, my old self’ Augustine writes in this chapter. He didn’t realise that his ‘new self’ was what psychologists today would call the false self: his relationship with his god, to whom he speaks in the second person singular, was a maternal introject—not his true self! But now imbued with his false self, the absorbing mother within him, he writes: ‘My heart was fire’ and ‘now I was disgusted by those who rebel against the Scriptures’: a preamble to the destruction of the works of Celsus and Porphyry ordered by Emperor Theodosius II.

After his ‘conversion’ Augustine wrote to Ambrose and signed up to be baptised, so he, his mother and Alypius, who would also convert to the cult of the Galileans (Emperor Julian’s term), returned to Milan.

We also brought Adeodatus, my natural son, born of sin. You had gifted him well. He was barely fifteen years old… His intelligence left me speechless.

A little later, Augustine devotes some interesting pages to how his grandparents had educated his mother, and how they had turned her into a puritan: through mistreatment. I was especially struck by these words, which are understandable if we imagine the African heat, where the family grew up: ‘Apart from the hours when they ate soberly with her parents, she wasn’t allowed to drink even water, even if she burned with thirst’. But I find it very strange that in his book Augustine didn’t tell anecdotes about his siblings. What did he want to hide from us? What we do know is that his mother had fulfilled her mission:

She said to me: ‘My son, as far as I am concerned, I no longer find pleasure in this life… There was only one reason why I wanted to stay a little longer in this life. I wanted to see you as a Catholic Christian before I died. My God has fulfilled this desire even more fully than I wished. I see you his servant, who despises the happiness of the earth. What am I doing here?’

I don’t remember my answer well. What I do remember is that, barely five days later—not many more—she fell into bed with fevers… At fifty-six years of age and thirty-three years of mine, that pious and holy woman was released from her body.

It is very significant for those of us who research mental disorders to read, a couple of pages later, a retrospective recollection when her mother was still alive:

And she also reminded me with emotional affection that she had never heard a harsh word or insult against her come out of my mouth.

But he would take out his pent-up rage with his theological pessimism, so opposite to that of Pelagius. The following year Adeodatus died (had the great doctor of the Church treated his son well?) and the narrative part of his Confessions ends. The rest of the next four chapters are mere homilies for new converts.

If we ignore them (books X to XIII of his Confessions), it seems very significant that Augustine ended his book with this great account of his mother. As my father told me, ‘Faith is suckled’. And as Monica told her son: ‘Where I was’, in her dream of the rule, ‘there you were’. The rest—the coming theology of Augustine—followed from there.

No wonder that the year Augustine died, 430 c.e., was the year in which the Dark Ages began. When I see the astronomical damage done to the white man by the Imperial Church, that Church of which Augustine was its great architect, I increasingly admire Nietzsche’s The Antichrist. Unlike Cervantes, Goethe, Dante, Shakespeare and Augustine himself, the German philosopher was a ‘man against his time’, a poet against the Christian Age. Now, thanks to new ways of refuting Christianity besides Nietzsche’s—Richard Carrier’s mythicism and the autobiographical genre I want to inaugurate (which precisely shows that faith is indeed a programme installed in us by our parents)—, the mental virus for the white man implanted by deranged theologians could, potentially, cease to infect us.

Giovanni di Balduccio, Tomb of St Augustine in Pavia, Italy.

Categories
Racial right

Quietness

by Benjamin Power

I feel very frustrated that comments on WDH have on the whole tailed off. Where did they all disappear to? Or were they timewasters in the first place? I didn’t think so. I dislike the quietness. It’s like they’ve all lost their spines. I don’t know if they’re demoralised, or simply ideologically opposed all of a sudden when National Socialism didn’t turn out what they wanted it to be/didn’t turn out to be ‘hardcore’ WN with swastikas. I imagine it’s the Christian question, but more so especially the trauma model and animal rights that gets them the most—most people are cruel; I’ve gathered that, and resent being forced to high moral standards.

I had an obvious thought as to the commenters, and commenters in general. I notice the most responses are always to the ‘what was done in the war/what could have been done instead in the war’ topic set. It’s because, I think, this topic is basically abstract, and doesn’t require personal change. One can mull over nerdy history perspectives all day long, massaging tiny new snippets of information in.

But to discuss ethics is more of a quality than a slew of mere information, and brings the person in question into the debate, not just the abstract at arms length, and thus is harder to massage into their already-rigid position, as, for once in their lives, coming from the dissident right in general as they are, they are encouraged to see ‘the mentally ill’ not as hate objects, but as victims of parental cruelty, and, more than that, are encouraged to realise that by eating meat they are causing unnecessary suffering, and are so evil in some sense.

That takes too much effort to change over compared with editing in a tiny new snippet of historical insight here and there, or piping up with more. I don’t personally know a huge deal about that point in history (though like to learn), and I don’t have an endless fascination with regurgitating facts one could find in a book if they wanted.

I think that’s the root of it, qualities versus facts-by-rote. It’s a hard situation to get around.

If I wanted endless Jew-bait, as I call it (a pun on click-bait), I’d just go to The Unz Review. Don’t get me wrong, I consider it a problem, but Jews don’t really play on my mind much these days, unlike Christianized whites. The more they look at Jews, the more excuse they have, and the less they see themselves. Only when they see themselves, and tackle themselves, can they mount any sensible attack on their enemies.

I hope you have some new blood soon. At one point there were over 40 people, right? I count loads of commenters, and I get frustrated when the ones I like drop away. They should understand, as you say, that yes, the Jewish Question is a given, and we’ve all done it to death (if not, the SS Pamphlets cover it pretty well) but the Christian Question encapsulates everything. If not for the latter, these ignorant mercantile commenters really are no different to Jews in my eyes. They worship and obey the principles of the same alien god.
 

Editor’s 2 ¢:

I think the Christian issue has really alienated the dissident right from this forum, and the fact that I barely mentions Jews.

The position of this site, following the four words, is: Be kind to abused animals and children, and tough on the exterminable Neanderthals who abuse them. Conversely, the WN position in general is based on Christian ethics: Love one another, and exterminationism is unthinkable anathema.

To the commenters:

I wonder, if Ben and I launched a podcast talking about all of this (a WDH transformed from written word to spoken word, inviting listeners to speak to the show), would you come back?

Categories
So-called saints Stefan Zweig

Augustine, 1

Augustine (354-430) was not only a man of his time like the previous ones in this series. Of the five mentioned, this African author had the most significant influence on the civilisation of the white man (he was, for example, the most widely read author in Spain). I will not speak here of his magnum opus, The City of God. His infernal doctrine, which wreaked so much havoc in my young life, is already denounced in several parts of my autobiography. I will confine myself to his most popular book.

It will be remembered that in my article on Goethe I said that Zweig had written about Augustine, but I omitted what he wrote about this so-called Father of the Church. Here is the full passage:

Classical antiquity had as yet no inkling of these mysterious paths. Caesar and Plutarch, the ancients who describe themselves, are content to deal with facts, with circumstantial happenings, and never dream of showing more than the surface of their hearts.

Before he can throw light into his soul, a man must be aware of its existence, and this awareness does not begin until after the rise of Christianity. St Augustine’s Confessions breaks a trail for inward contemplation. Yet the gaze of the famous divine was directed, not so much inward, as towards the congregation he hoped to edify by the example of his own conversion. His treatise was a confession to the community, a model Confession; it was purposeful, teleological; it was not an end in itself, comprising its own answer and its own meaning. Many centuries were to pass before Rousseau (that remarkable man who was a pioneer in so many fields) was to draw a self-portrait for its own sake.

But in previous pages Zweig had observed the obvious: Rousseau’s confessions were not honest either, since he never repented of his sin of having thrown all his children into the orphanage. Precisely because of this sort of thing Zweig said that autobiography is the most difficult of literary arts: one must betray oneself if one wants to tell the pure truth about one’s life, a truth that neither Augustine nor Rousseau really confessed for lack of insight, intellectual honesty and nobility of soul.

The biggest problem I see with the editions that have been made of the Confessions is that they have been prefaced by Christians, including Penguin Books. This bias makes the unsuspecting reader unaware that the accepted wisdom about the book is a myth. There was no such thing as his very famous conversion weeping in the garden of his house. He was always a Christian as I will demonstrate in this article divided into more than one blog posts.

By convention, the thirteen chapters of the Confessions are called books instead of chapters by the publishers:
 

BOOK I: Augustine’s childhood

In this first chapter Augustine mentions his wet nurses. It is pertinent to note that, in referring to his whining as an infant, he already sees it as sinful. The white man’s current seemingly terminal sense of guilt is due to having secularised the Christian notion of sin (now at ethnosuicidal levels throughout the West). Augustine speaks of ‘you’ to his god, which all editions capitalise, ‘God’; he doesn’t use the ‘thou’ when referring to this deity in the Confessions: a sort of epistle to the Christian providence by this Punic theologian.

‘Who shall make me understand the sin of my childhood, since before thee no man is without sin, even a child of a single day on earth?’ Three pages later he confesses: ‘I was still a boy when I began to invoke you as my help and refuge…, I was small, I begged you with no small affection that they wouldn’t whip me at school. Sometimes, for my own good, you didn’t listen to me, and I was laughed at not only by my elders but also by my parents’.

Augustine was unaware, as the vast majority of religious people still are, that the idea of ‘God’ is a sublimation of the parental image. In this anecdote we see that the child Augustine was the victim of beatings at school and of mockery of these beatings in his own home. Since the idea of the deity is a projection, it is not surprising that now, talking in written soliloquies to his parental introject, he tells this ‘deity’ that ‘for his own good’ he didn’t listen to his pleas. Alice Miller calls this poisonous pedagogy in one of her books, translated into English under the title For Your Own Good.

And why was he beaten? On the next page he tells us: ‘I was whipped because I played ball…’ Clearly, the teachers were childhood-breakers, but Augustine doesn’t identify with the wounded child inside him but with the perpetrator: ‘I sinned, Lord, by disobeying my parents and teachers’.[1] The religious introjects had begun in his early childhood:

I was still a child when I heard of the eternal life promised to us by our God, who humbled himself and came down to our pride. And from that time I was marked with the sign of the cross, and from my mother’s womb I was given a taste of his salt.

Then he writes: ‘With what fervour of spirit and with what faith I came to my mother and mother of us all, your Church’ (my emphasis: keep in mind that he is always writing to his god in this epistle-book called the Confessions). He continues:

In truth, I already believed, and my mother believed, and all the house believed, except my father, who, however, could never overcome in me the pious right my mother had over me that I shouldn’t cease to believe in Christ, in whom he didn’t yet believe. For my mother wanted you, my God, to be my father more than he did.

The next page already shows the enormous cognitive distortion that Christianity caused him from an early age: ‘Being such a small boy I was already a great sinner’, and shortly afterwards: ‘I still don´t fully understand today why I abhorred Greek literature’. As I read the following pages I couldn’t restrain myself from writing at the bottom of the page, ‘If what Augustine says is a sin, Tubby of Little Lulu is a sinner!’ Even common curiosity in the Greco-Roman world was sinful:

But my sin was to seek in myself and other creatures, not in him, pleasure, beauty, and truth, thus falling into pain, confusion.

 

____________

[1] What healed Alice Miller of her depressions, she confesses, was to identify with the wounded child inside her; not with the perp.

Categories
Autobiography Poetry

Dante

Like Cervantes and Goethe, Dante (1265-1321) was a ‘man of his time’, so much so that he was prior of Florence, i.e. one of its senators. So to understand the poet we must contextualise him in the Middle Ages.

In the century in which Dante was born, another Italian who would greatly influence Western civilisation, St Francis, whom my father taught me to admire in my adolescence, had founded an order of mendicant friars. On one occasion, speaking of the saint of Assisi, my father mentioned that in one town he had cast out demons. There are still people who believe that. My mother told an anecdote about some nuns in Coyoacán who said to her that the devil made noises in the convent, but that they laughed because they knew he wasn’t going to tempt them. My mother said this not as the nuns’ hallucination: she accepted their demonological interpretation of the noises.

Francis exorcises the demons at Arezzo, fresco by Giotto.

When Francis died, Thomas Aquinas was born, the Italian who fixed the doctrine of the Catholic Church to the extent that one pope called his theological legacy aeternis patris. We can already imagine Voltaire’s mockery of Aquinas in his Philosophical Dictionary. But from the point of view of the priest of the sacred words—a fancy way of referring to a contemporary National Socialist—Voltairean sarcasm is of little use if the Enlightenment bequeathed us the universal declaration of human rights: neochristianity. But let’s take it one step at a time.

In my article on Cervantes, I asked what was the point of the Golden Age of Castilian letters if the Church didn’t allow them to write freely. In Dante’s time there was already the University of Bologna, but what happened when someone wanted to philosophise free of the theological yoke? When Francis was alive, in Paris in 1210, several readers of Aristotle had concluded that there was no life after death. We can imagine how such ‘heresy’ would affect the control of the European population through the spiritual terror—fear of damnation—with which the Church controlled them. The reaction of the bishop of the city was not long in coming. Ten of the freethinkers were burned at the stake: a ‘hard totalitarianism’ compared to the ‘soft totalitarianism’ of today. (Nowadays they no longer burn the heretic, they only imprison him. Recall that two men who have commented on this site, Tyrone Joseph Walsh and Christopher Gibbons, are serving years in the UK for thoughtcrimes).

By Dante’s time, however, banking and the power of emperors were beginning to emerge, acting as counterweights to the once all-powerful Church, although Pope Boniface VIII tried to bring down that counterweight in Italy. Florence in particular felt the renaissance of the age: its arts were revived in that city with its characteristic tower houses, such as the one in the illustration above (even the tourist of our century can still appreciate something of the medieval air in some Florentine quarters).

Let us recall, in our abridgement of Karlheinz Deschner’s book, how the Church acted as the lobotomist of the Greco-Roman man since Constantine. Here we will only focus on one more example. Due to the translations of Aristotle and Galen, ancient medicine was already becoming accessible. But when, at the end of Dante’s life, a certain Mondino de Liuzzi began to dissect corpses, he came up against ecclesiastical authority. Pietro d’Abano, an illustrious physician, was even persecuted by the Inquisition and, after his death, his body was burned at the stake.

Fides (Faith) by Giotto. In the Middle Ages, Faith had the Aryan mind chained.

And the ‘men against their time’? In a world of hard totalitarianism they simply couldn’t flourish, although we must mention the English Franciscan Roger Bacon (1214-1292), who despite being persecuted attributed a new meaning to natural science and mathematics, which in centuries to come would become the foundation of experimental research. Nor should we fail to mention the Scotsman Duns Scotus (1263-1308), the only intellectual to question the doctrine of eternal damnation in a thousand years of Christendom! But this was the same century in which the Dominican order was founded: an order of learned theologians who were trained to fight the doctrines that the Newspeak of the time called ‘heretical’ (the term for social ostracism which in medieval times was equivalent to the ‘racist’ of our days). From this order came some of the greatest exponents of medieval thought, such as Aquinas.

The Militant Church and the Triumph of the Dominicans, fresco by Andrea Bonaiuti in Florence.

Parallel to this orthodoxy that forced an iron faith on the white man, a ‘little renaissance’ emerged at the time when Dante flourished. The liberal arts such as grammar and rhetoric, or geometry, music and astronomy (or rather astrology) were following their course. Secular music in particular, including troubadour music, moved away from Gregorian chant while retaining a liturgical stamp. Frederick II of Swabia encouraged intense cultural activity.

Compared to our ‘Empire of the yin’ in the 21st century West, the Aryan psyche, specifically the Italian one, was extremely quarrelsome. In paintings we can see crenellated city walls with men at arms. The clashing of swords was an almost daily occurrence in the tumultuous life of the communes. This balance between Yang and yin, militia and arts, also existed in Hitler’s Germany but unlike medieval society was on the verge of breaking with the Christian Era (and would have broken with it for the good had it not been for Anglo-American intervention).
 

Beatrice

Con Beatrice m’era m’suso in cielo
(With Beatrice I was enclosed in heaven).

Dante first met Beatrice in 1274, but it was not until 1283 that he received his first greeting from the lady, who died in 1290, the year Giotto painted the Cross of Santa Maria Novella. A quarter of a century after the death of his platonic love he began the Inferno, although he wrote the Divine Comedy in many different places during his troubled life. At the age of fifty-six, Dante died poor in Ravenna, but his poem was a spectacular success after his death. Only Renaissance ideals and the new tastes they brought would cause Dante’s fame to eclipse. The 19th century, despite its infatuation with the Middle Ages, was heir to this contempt for scholasticism and its theology.

The Comedy transports us, first, to an underground journey, then to the ascent of the mountain where sins are being purged, and finally to an interplanetary flight. Many years ago a friend I knew in a chess park gave me, in three volumes, the best translation of the Comedy into our native language. I lent the first volume, the one on hell, to a girlfriend of my brother’s who was studying Italian but she never returned it to me. I have only a few scraps left of the book of the Purgatorio and only the one on Paradiso I keep in its entirety.

The opening lines of the first song, which can be seen in this codex, are still the most famous: ‘Midway upon the journey of our life / I found myself within a forest dark / For the straightforward pathway had been lost’. In my books I have used them to describe how I was for decades after the tragedy of my adolescence which left me without a career, without a job and—for reasons confessed in those books—without a partner. Being lost in a dark forest is a splendid metaphor for how I was before a Beatrice rescued me: the books of Alice Miller on parental abuse, with whom I got to correspond before she died.

Before a Beatrice appeared in my life, at least on an intellectual level, I had tried to get out of the forest through neochristianity, specifically, a religious movement (‘Eschatology’) that emerged in the previous century, inspired by the New Testament: a movement I have already discussed on pages 11-26 of Daybreak. The medieval universe in which my father lived is evident in an anecdote from the early 1980s.

We were having a Sunday lunch at home with Uncle Beto when, for some reason, Eschatology came into the conversation. To scold me publicly my father, a traditional Catholic, alluded to a passage in the Inferno in which Dante had put heretics (Eschatology was schismatic, outside the Catholic Church) in a place where they were quartered. My father imitated with his hands a sort of scythe wielded by a devil to dismember them, in the belief that these heretics had ‘dismembered the Church’. There are many other symbolic passages in the Inferno, such as the twisted landscape and the twisted bodies in the jungle of the suicides (admirably recreated by Doré centuries later).

With apologies to the vox populi, it is a mistake to read the Inferno and stop there. For Salvatore Battaglia, ‘among the three cantigas of the Poem, this one of Purgatorio represents the most truthful presentation of the human condition’. The middle book is flanked by the books of the damned and the blessed. Purgatorio is the realm of poetry, and in my opinion, given that publishing a book in the vernacular language questioning the existence of hell was impossible in the Middle Ages, beauty was the most direct form of therapy against the fear of damnation, while the poet sublimates it in art and the dogma is no longer felt as it was before: it is ‘weathered’ with sublime lyricism (for example, each of the three books ends with the word stelle, stars). As a counterpoint, on 30 December 1995 I made a note in my copy:

I have barely read the summary and I think that the whole Dantean Comedy is bullshit. Why on earth build a beautiful cathedral on false principles? In other words, even supposing it is true what Octavio Paz says, that Dante is the poet of our Age, that is beside the point: what pisses me off is that the poet believed the Christian worldview. A contemporary of his, Duns Scotus, questioned the most psychotic doctrine of the universe; so there is no excuse ‘that at that time it couldn´t be broken’.

The Comedy is a triptych. In the final book, with Beatrice and Dante flying from planet to planet, the traveller enters from heaven to heaven, passing through the sky of Mars and then Saturn. There are very old paintings reflecting these Dantean passages. At the end he arrives at the empyrean, in the centre of which the poet looks face to face with the greatest of mysteries. In reality, this deity is ultimately the god of the Jews and what I wrote thirty years ago still holds: the freethinker cannot bear to be enraptured by the worldview of the Dark Ages.

Avete il Novo e ‘l Vecchio Testamento
e ‘l pastor della Chiesa che vi guida:
questo vi basti a vostro salvamento.

You have the New, the Old Testament
And the pastor of the Church is your guide:
This is enough to your salvation.

And even worse:

ond’ei credette in quella, e non sofferse
da indi il puzzo più del paganesmo;
e riprendíene le genti perverse.

that’s why he believed in her, and didn’t suffer from
the pestilence of paganism,
and reproved the wicked people.

This last passage appears in the song to the Heaven VI, where Dante speaks to those he considers to be righteous spirits. Obviously, the apologists of Christian doctrine had to reside in Dantean heaven.

Sometimes coffee conversations with friends are more profound than the musings of scholars. Many years ago the poet Carlos Mongar remarked to me that, much better than having written the Comedy, Dante would have had Beatrice in his arms and, in sexual intercourse, subject her ‘to the ultimate desecration’ implying that the lady would have been delighted to be possessed / desecrated by a Dante who would never have felt the need to become a poet.

Let us remember what happened to so many Werthers in real life. How many Christian prose and poetry would the white man have been spared if so many young men hadn’t been prevented by circumstances from marrying and procreating as the Gods command?

In the article on Goethe I also quoted an Austrian biographer who said that the most profound level of literary art is autobiography in which the artist betrays himself by daring to confess the truth about his life. Let us betray ourselves a little and confess that, precisely because the tragedy of my adolescence affected me to the extent that I was never able to hold a real Beatrice in my arms, I idealised the eternal feminine and that is what moves me to write.

Categories
Mexico City

Not

exactly Salzburg!

In the presentation of the book that I hold in my hand in my new room (on the wall we see some of Parrish’s paintings), María Teresa Franco, director of INBAL, informs us that since the times when it was an Aztec enclave ‘where the shoemakers, barnyard animal sellers, vegetable, plant and flower traders who came from Xochimilco prevailed’, the current Tepito neighbourhood in Mexico City is emblematic of the country. See some of the photographs that make up the book in this video.

Of course, the neochristian woman who wrote the prologue to the book praises what I consider nefarious. It was precisely the sight of such places in the heart of the capital that motivated me, since I was a child, to develop an exterminationist ideology.

Significantly, St Francis of Assisi is the patron saint of the Tepito neighbourhood: a saint whom, as an adolescent, I wanted to imitate (remember that I was raised in a fierce Catholicism). Who would have thought that, due to the abuse at home, I would transvalue my values from St Francis to Himmler…!

Not all the zones of the Mexican capital look like Tepito, which has such a bad reputation that people of my social class rarely dare to enter there. But I think it is impossible for an American racialist, whether Christian, or neochristian in the secular sense of accepting the Christian ethics of loving every wingless biped regardless of its appearance, to understand my exterminationism because he has not suffered such people over the decades. Asking Americans who advocate racism lite to revalue their values, to the point of loving Himmler and repudiating so-called Christian saints, is asking too much of them.

But the most paradoxical of all is that, as I said in my previous post, it is preferable to live in Mexico, or another third-world country, than in ethno-traitor Europe where the thoughtpolice literally breaks down doors, at night, to jail you if you say anything unkind about migrants. Those who know Spanish can watch, for example, this recent YouTube interview where Spain’s thoughtpolice dragged a blogger, who used to speak in a much softer tone than the hate-filled tone in which I speak, out of his home using SWAT forces.

Christian values ​​reign in the West and are implemented with the ferocity of a religious fanatic like the High Sparrow, and his Faith Militant, in Game of Thrones.

Categories
New Testament Richard Carrier

Richard

Carrier destroys the Resurrection argument

by Derek Lambert

William Lane Craig and Sean McDowell.

In this explosive episode of MythVision, Dr. Richard Carrier systematically dismantles Christian apologetics, exposing the logical flaws and historical distortions in arguments made by William Lane Craig and Sean McDowell.

With razor-sharp precision, Carrier debunks the claim that Jesus ever explicitly declared himself God, showing that only the latest Gospel—John—contains such statements, while Paul, our earliest Christian writer, never speaks of Jesus as divine. He shreds the resurrection argument, revealing how religions like Islam and Mormonism also spread rapidly through visions and reinterpretations of scripture, proving that growth does not equal truth. Carrier exposes the apologists’ double standards, showing how they dismiss Mormonism’s eyewitnesses but cling to Christianity’s unverifiable resurrection accounts. With unparalleled expertise, he reveals how faith-based reasoning distorts historical reality, making this a must-watch for anyone ready to break free from apologetic spin and embrace real historical inquiry.

Check out Dr. Richard Carrier’s website to subscribe to his blog & support him on Patreon.

Grab his books here.

Categories
Christendom

Christianity

is a trillion-dollar corporation

by Gaedhal

Martin Luther and the Scriptures

I find that oft I must needs remind myself of this: Christianity is a trillion-dollar corporation, or, rather, Christianity is a cluster of corporations whose aggregate sums to about 1 trillion dollars. Some of these component corporations, like the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are worth billions all by themselves. The Church of England were paid reparations when their slaves were set free. This debt contracted by the UK government to the Church of England was only paid off in the last few decades. It is ironic that slaveholders were paid reparations, but not the slaves themselves.

And so the Churches are vast storehouses of ill-gotten wealth. The Vatican was built on the backs of the purgatory scam. Christopher Hitchens mentions this as a reason why he never finds himself enjoying the splendid art and architecture of the Vatican: it was built on the backs of scamming peasants with Pugatory.

The corporate nature of Christianity must needs be remembered by us. Answers in Genesis, for instance, is not Ken Ham. When Ken Ham goes to be with the ground, AiG will be unaffected… because AiG is a corporation… and it is that corporation that demands that its employees adhere to a ridiculous Statement of Faith that includes inerrancy.

We could deconvert 99% of all Christians, and Christianity, as a corporation would hardly be affected by this at all. This is something that Cardinal Pell discovered. The Church in Australia was all but dead, which is why Pell schmoozed the politicians, and campaigned for the Roman Church to win government contracts. This, incidentally, is also why the Catholic Church is taking over the American Healthcare system. In Ireland, most schools and hospitals are still owned by the Catholic Church… but the government pay the salaries of the Catholic Church’s employees. I am amazed that outrages such as these are suffered to continue. One would think that in a Catholic theocracy like Ireland, that there would be a strong and vibrant secular movement. If there is, I haven’t run into it, yet.

I tell myself that long after I go to be with the ground, there will be psychotic lunatic apologists and clergy lying for Jesus.

We cannot decommission the good ship Christianity in our lifetime. No. The counterapologetic movement is more like a weak acid: like acid rain. Century after century we rain upon and wear away this edifice of fraud and cruelty.

We have achieved a lot, over the centuries. Europe is firmly post-christian. The United States of America will be majority atheist in the next century. However, it will take centuries. And this is where Stoic thinking comes in. I love my fate. I love that I have been fated to fight a battle that is ultimately unwinnable in my lifetime, but will, in about a thousand years, be firmly settled on the side of secularism.

Eventually, when we do get to a 99% deconversion rate, centuries into the future, then Christianity as a corporation would then need to be dealt with. Its ill-gotten assets ought to be seized and distributed amongst the people.

And we must also remember this when battling, in the field of ideas, with apologists such as Michael Jones: they are employees of a corporation. Their salary depends on their never ever ever conceding a single point!

What amazes me about this video is that Dr. Josh Bowen and Derek Lambert seem shocked—yes shocked!—(I’m not that shocked!) that apologists such as Jones and Manning act as they do! It is almost as though Christianity is a nasty totally intellectually bankrupt damnation cult; a nasty planetary-destruction cult; a nasty human-sacrifice cult; a nasty genital-mutilation-and-animal-abuse cult and that its cultists—its clergy and apologists—are, similarly, nasty people.

Now, again, there are plenty of salt-of-the-earth Christians with whom I have no problem. Their Christianity is a personal private thing, and with this, I have no issue.

However, evangelists and apologists are another thing entirely. They promote the lie that Christianity is veridical, and liars don’t tend to be nice people. As I said before: facility in lying is a symptom of sociopathy. This is why Pinecreek Doug is correct that neither money nor vulnerable people should be left alone with clergy or apologists.

This is why, these days, I simply ignore apologists. I have rooted them out of my YouTube algorithm. Go thou and do likewise!

Categories
Axiology Film

Iceberg

by Gaedhal

I watched the 2014 film, Still Alice, yesterday.

One of the things that I liked about it was its treatment of the stages of grief. The denial stage is well treated. Alec Baldwin just openly denies that Alice has Alzheimer’s. Alice is quick, almost immediate, to acknowledge verbally that she has Alzheimer’s, but she still lives in denial. She still believes that she can go running, go on holiday, lecture Linguistics at college etc. And also, we kinda get a subtle hint from a neurologist who looks uncannily like Lawrence Krauss that Alice was late in seeking a diagnosis. It was only really when Alice could no longer disguise her memory problems that she sought a diagnosis.

Alice has familial early-onset Alzheimer’s. This is caused by a mutation in the genome.

I remember, in the grand old days of yore, I used to install television satellite dishes with my father. The set-top box, for to decode and unencrypt the digital television signal had a forward error correction rate. The set top box had an algorithm that could correct some errors received from the Satellite. Do not ask me about the engineering wizardry behind this. To me, digital satellite television is a technology sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic.

However, where is the forward error correction in our genome? Unintelligent design strikes again. This is why, in my view, Paley’s watchmaker argument fails in our day. In Paley’s day, technology was still, very much, in a crude and primitive state. However, in our day, the process of technological manufacturing is so refined that the organs—organum in Latin means: ‘tool’ or ‘instrument’—produced by nature are wholly deficient when compared to the tools, and instruments produced by humans. We humans can contrive forward error correction, whereas biology and nature, thus far, cannot.

And this, incidentally, is why I am pro-abortion.

One of Alice’s children has the gene for early-onset Alzheimers. She swiftly conceives twins by IVF. The embryos in the petri dish are screened for the familial-Alzheimer’s disease, and the embryos containing this gene are destroyed, and only the healthy embryos are implanted. In essence, a woman’s uterus does the same thing: it screens sperm and embryos for nasty genetic material, and if it discovers any such nasty genetic material, then it either kills the sperm, or it kills the embryo or foetus. Thus, naturally, a woman’s uterus has its own contraception and abortion mechanisms. Contraception and abortion is merely the augmentation of a natural process. And if you believe in God, then God ultimately designed these contraceptive and abortifacient faculties that a woman contains in her uterus.

Evolution explains this. Evolution wants a woman to give birth to offspring that will reach adulthood, such that they too will either give birth to or sire offspring. Evolution does not want a woman to either accept defective sperm or to incubate defective embryos. Thus, evolutionarily speaking, the contraceptive and abortifacient faculties that a woman already possesses makes sense. And if you want to defy Ockham’s razor and add a god to the mix, then go ahead. If you do so, then contraception and abortion become divine.

Anyhow, another pro-death position that I hold is euthanasia. There is a scene where Alice tries to commit suicide by ingesting an overdose of Rohypnol. I, of course, was cheering her on, because Alzheimer’s is a fate worse than death. At this point of the film, she was only ½ Alice, by my reckoning. Unfortunately, Consuela from Family Guy, her nurse and housekeeper, gives her a jump-scare, knocking the tablets out of her hand, dooming her to become a human vegetable.

If I ever get diagnosed with dementia, I will book a trip to Switzerland and ingest some Pentobarbital at a Dignitas facility. However, such a service, ideally, ought to be available in Ireland. Evangelical Protestantism prevents euthanasia from being a reality in the North—although it is becoming a reality on the British mainland—and the vestiges of a Catholic theocracy prevent euthanasia from becoming a reality in the South. Again, why I am an antitheist. On the Island of Ireland, Roman Catholicism and Calvinism—the two biggest brands of Christianity, on this island—still have way, way, way too much power. There are no good secular arguments against euthanasia, just as there are no good secular arguments against abortion. Which is why the atheist British mainland is far in advance of Ireland, North and South on these issues.

My grandmother was not still my grandmother after about a year and a half of dementia. However, she lived on as a human potted plant—a mockery of her former form—for about two years after. I was glad, for her sake, when she died. In the words of Saint Thomas More, in his Utopia she outlived herself. Annie Bessant quotes the Utopia in her essay in favour of euthanasia.

 

______ 卐 ______
 

Editor’s 2 ¢

Since I studied the fraudulent profession called psychiatry in-depth, I realised, in reviewing its 19th-century origins, that psychiatrists were simply pathologizing behaviour such as suicide, a ‘sin’ considered lèse majesté divine, dogmatically declaring it to be a disease of unknown biomedical aetiology (and the same with the other diagnostic categories ‘of unknown aetiology’!).

Like me, Benjamin Power has spotted a tremendous error in the racial right, for example, in the comments sections where hundreds of commenters opine in The Unz Review. None of them seem to notice the pseudo-scientificity of psychiatry. Neochristianity, as we understand it on this site, means that the axiological tail of Christian morality persists, foolishly, in today’s secular world. What Gaedhal mentions above is only one example.

I would add that the negrolatry (BLM, mixed couples, etc.) that so afflicts today’s mad West is another example of Christian morality exponentially exacerbated in the secular world (from this site’s seminal essay, ‘The Red Giant’, a Swede noted that secularism exacerbates Christian morality big time).

White nationalists shouldn’t ignore us. They should realise that rather than our paradigm (CQ) competing with theirs (JQ), our POV expands the latter as with the iceberg metaphor. They only see the iceberg’s tip but we know that the Jewish Problem is supported by the huge mass of Christian ethics that lies underneath. Dr Robert Morgan agrees with us in the post from a couple of days ago.