web analytics

Tag: Christian problem (CP)

Categories
Democracy

Might is right, 12

Reverting, however, to Chicago’s reverend Utopia-constructor, thus waileth he with cajoling crudity:

The laws of social evolution, far from being the blind, barbarous, and brutal struggle for organic existence, consists in the physical, intellectual and moral wellbeing of all the members of society, so constituted that the politico-ethical principles of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity shall have the largest possible realization throughout the social organism. The main features of the condition of progress are Christian churches, Christian schools, Christian governments, Christian ethics and economics.

Another seductive but most malignant State Socialist (Henry George) roundly proclaims that ‘The salvation of society, the hope of the free, and full development of humanity, is in the gospel of brotherhood, the gospel of Christ,’ and thereupon he proposes to make politicians the national rent-tax collectors, administrators of everything in general, and all-round distributors of state pensions to ‘the poor and needy.’

Has not mankind had sufficient experience of what politicians are?—Those black-hearted creeping thieves and frauds. Their sting is deadlier than the bite of a cobra, and in the breath of their mouth there is—death. Curses be upon ye, O! ye politicians, and upon all who advocate increasing your prerogatives!

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: Emphasis added in bold. What Arthur Desmond wrote above reminds me of people like Nick Fuentes, and what he says below reminds me of the racialists who are currently talking about the upcoming elections in their country. Remember that a true priest of the holy words repudiates democracy as the worst of all possible political systems.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Presidential candidates, from Jefferson, to Lincoln, (also their apish imitators) have generally indulged in equally shallow rhodomontade, because it means votes, and for votes, office-seekers would dress up in glowing language, and ray forth any devilish deception.

For two thousand years these effeminate superlatives have been trumpeted to the remotest corner of every Christian land, and yet (while enervating the morale of people) they have dismally failed to inaugurate the much foretold earthly paradise. They were preached by bare-foot monks at the inauguration of the Dark Ages, in order that those saintly lovers of the common people might creep into the administration of co-operative wealth and power. Now, the same general ideas are revived and dressed up (this time in politico- economic garb) by the eloquent agitator, in order that he may rule and plunder in the future, through the agency of the State; just as the priest once ruled and plundered through the equally rapacious agency of the Church.

When the Church triumphed, the Dark Ages began, and when it is finally rooted out (together with all its social antenæ) the Heroic Age dawns once more. True heroes shall be born again as of old, for our women may yet be something more than rickety perambulating dolls and drug-stores in spectacles.

The ‘Church’ is the idol of the priestly parasite—the ‘State’ is the idol of the political parasite. Beware, O, America! that in escaping from the holy trickery of the monk, you fall not an easy prey to ‘the loving kindness’ of the politician. Even if the ‘reformer’ succeeds in re-establishing upon majority-votes, the dark tyranny of the ‘greatest number;’ we have this consolation to fall back upon, such organisation must ultimately tumble down of its own weight, and then re-divide up into warring fragments. Nothing that is unnatural can last for long.

The Universal Church is no more; all we see of it now is jealous remnants. And the Universal State, the Social Democracy, the Economic Republic, the Brotherhood of Man, should they take practical form, are pre-ordained to similar failure. All they could do, would be to postpone the operation of the survival of the fittest—drugging nations in temporary sedatives.

No matter how eagerly madmen may try to do it, there is no known process whereby they can jump out of their own skins. Christian or socialist churches, paternalisms, schools, governments, administrations, ethics, and moralisms (even if genuinely Christian and fraternal) would be wholly impotent to change the natural course of things and therefore powerless to command the survival of mental and physical cripples; even although those cripples were as canonized saints for ‘goodness,’ and as the sands of the sea shore for number. Shrieking sentimentalism is indeed a feeble lever wherewith to overturn the immutable order of the universe. It cannot do it. No! not if it were whooped till the crack of doom! Not even if it had a Lamb of God in every city, ready to be butchered each Friday afternoon, in order to make a Christian holiday.

Categories
Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books)

Christianity’s

Criminal History, 196

For the context of these translations click here.
PDFs of entries 1-183 (several of Karlheinz Deschner’s
books abridged into two) can be read here and here.

Arnulf of Carinthia.

Arnulf of Carinthia: East Franconia and the East

Arnulf of Carinthia (c. 850-899) was the eldest illegitimate offspring of the Bavarian king and king of Italy, Carloman, the eldest son of Louis the German and his mother Liutwind, apparently a Luitpoldinger. In addition to his lawful wife Ota, Arnulf had several concubines and had no shortage of children out of wedlock, which did not bother the clergy. On the contrary, the prince, who was thoroughly devout to the Church, was favoured by the community of saints just as much as he favoured them, even though he renounced an anointing.
 

‘Hail Arnolf, the great king’

From the very beginning, there was a close relationship between the bishops and the new lord, who once called himself the ‘most determined opponent’ of all enemies of the Church, in a document the ‘son and defender of the Catholic Church’, to which he also signalled his benevolence immediately after his elevation through donations and graces. He ‘conspicuously generously’ endowed the bishops with royal estates, forests, minting, market and customs rights with a ‘previously unknown frequency’ (Fried). He convened five synods during his reign of just over 12 years. The authority of the prelates was desirable to him against the rising particular powers. Moreover, it could sanction his illegitimate kingship.

The Church, on the other hand, benefited from the ruler’s power in the conflict with the dukes and the high hereditary nobility. For this reason it immediately supported him, had him prayed for from the outset and immediately interceded for his protection under threat of ecclesiastical punishment. But of course, it also made him aware of the duties of a Christian ruler. And by supporting him, the Church supported itself. Thus began a development that gave the church more say than ever before, with all the fatal consequences that this entailed, making it ‘the most powerful in the state’ (Mühlbacher).

While there is no evidence of counts in the king’s entourage for many years, a series of bishops, many of whom were favoured by the king, continued to tip the political balance. First Archbishop Thietmar of Salzburg, Arnulf’s arch chaplain, head of the court chapel and chancellery; later increasingly the chancellor and deacon Aspert, made bishop of Regensburg by Arnulf in 891, and his successor as chancellor (from 893), Bishop Wiching of Neutra. A key politician close to the ruler was the intelligent and cunning Hatto I of Mainz, whose death (913) was attributed by some to an avenging lightning bolt. Hatto came from a Swabian family, partisans of Charles, but immediately sided with Arnulf after the emperor’s fall and was rewarded by him with the abbeys of Reichenau, Ellwangen, Lorsch and Weissenburg, and in 891 with the archbishopric of Mainz. The prelate accompanied the king to Italy twice and intervened in all important public issues. The bishops Salomon III of Constance (notary since 884, chancellor of Charles III since 885, already Arnulf’s chaplain in 888), Waldo of Freising, Erchanbald of Eichstätt, Engilmar of Passau and the high noble Adalbero of Augsburg, whom Arnulf made his son’s tutor, also carried considerable political weight.

In May 895, at the imperial assembly at Tribur, the royal palace near Mainz, at one of the largest and most brilliant synods of the century, the unusually numerous East Frankish episcopate celebrated Arnulf effusively as the king, ‘whose heart’, according to the Synodal Acts, ‘the Holy Spirit inflamed with fire and kindled with the fervour of divine love so that the whole world might recognise that he was chosen not by man and through man, but by God himself’. Old sayings of the prelates. For whom they choose, whom they support, is always from God (i.e., from them)!

At the synod, which according to Regino von Prüm ‘was held against many secularists who endeavoured to diminish the authority of the bishops’, the bishops were all the more eager to increase their authority. They discussed in detail legal disputes between clergy and laity, the mistreatment of clerics, and their wounding or killing, which occurred more frequently than before—even a blinded priest was allowed to appear. One canon contains the king’s order to arrest those who despised the church, whereby the killing of rebels did not cost any defence money! Furthermore, complete submission to the papacy is demanded, ‘even if a hardly bearable yoke is imposed by the Holy See’! Several chapters are devoted to the most important things, money, property, tithes, and church robbers. According to chapter 7, stolen church property is to be replaced threefold, and this concerning the pseudo-Isidoric forgeries (which are also referred to in other canons, such as 8 and 9, but on the other hand orders that presenters of forged papal letters be taken into custody).

Naturally, the king approved the resolutions. Indeed, in response to the rhetorical question as to how much he ‘deigned to defend the Church of Christ and to extend and exalt her ministry’, he first encouraged the ‘shepherds’, also apostrophised as the ‘brightest lights of the world’, to take vigorous action themselves ‘be it in season or out of season, punish, rebuke, admonish with all patience and teaching, so that in watchful care and through unceasing admonition, you may drive the sheep of Christ to the door of eternal life’. But then he emphasised all his solidarity. ‘In me, you have the most determined opponent of all those who are hostile to the Church of Christ and rebellious to your priestly ministry.’ No wonder the venerable Council Fathers rose from their seats and, together with the surrounding clergy, shouted three or four times: ‘Christ, hear us, hail Arnolf, the great King’. (Doesn’t it remind us of the cry of salvation that still rings in our ears?) In addition, the ringing of bells, the Tedeum, all in praise of God, ‘who has deigned to give his holy church such a pious and mild comforter and such a valiant helper for the honour of his name’.

The ruler particularly venerated his patron saint, under whom he even rose to become the patron saint of the empire, a saint of the realm.

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: This is all background on how, over the centuries, the Aryan collective unconscious was forcibly implanted with the malware that has now mutated into a psychotic Wokism (cf. everything I have said on this site about Tom Holland’s work).

It is background because granting such a dimension of power to a human institution cannot but brainwash the white man through a ‘heard mentality’, ‘mass formation’ or whatever you want to call it.

Might is right, 11

Reverend Ferdinand M. Sprague, of Chicago (who may be taken as a common specimen of the priest-politician), in a little pamphlet lately published, entitled The Laws of Social Evolution, writes thus: ‘The sheet anchor of Socialism according to its ablest exponents, is the Holy Christian religion. Its motto founded on the precept “love thy neighbour as thyself” is—“each for all, and all for each.” Its working principle for the present is altruism.’ Nearly all the canonized ‘Fathers’ of the early Roman propaganda (most of whom, by the way, were slaves, freedmen, or eunuchs) advocated similar ideals.

Even now, the anointed and sanctified head of the Catholic Church resurrects the same hoary old ‘The ethics of Socialism are identical with the teachings of Christianity’ (Encyclopedia Brittanica): utopianism in a Jesuitic encyclical addressed to his flock! (how suggestive of being shorn and skinned, is that word ‘flock’).

Again, the Epistle of James has been reprinted and widely circulated by Socialists, in order to sow and broadcast their illogical theories of a universal brotherhood, founded upon enforced labour, regimentation of the herd, and majority votes.

Many modern cities are also infested with plausible epileptoid priestlings of unreason, like Dr. McGlynn, Professor Bemis, Hugh Price Hughes, W. T. Stead, Myron Reed, and Professor Herron of California. All these men are unrivalled masters in the art of persuasive declamation. They accept the New Testament as their text book and preach therefrom to morbid multitudes the atrocious and shallow gospel of equal rights, equal liberty, equal brotherhood, as the veritable omnific word, the newly discovered emancipating protocol of the Crucified.

A god begging his bread from door to door!—A god without a place to lay his head!—A god spiked to two pieces of crossed scantling!—A god stabbed to death by an hired officer!—A god executed by order of a stipendiary magistrate!

What an insane idea. Is it an idea or rather a wasting cranial disease? Talk about ‘the heathen in his blindness’ and superstitious madness in past ages!… The hysteric idolatry of today: the deification of a Jew.

Categories
Miscegenation Racial right

My gauntlet

According to my Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, arrogance is ‘a genuine or assumed feeling of superiority that shows itself in an overbearing manner or attitude or in excessive claims of position, dignity or power or that unduly exalts one´s own worth or importance’ (page 121 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica edition).

I confess that, when it comes to American white nationalism (WN), I have been very arrogant in recent years, even in what I have said recently on the comments section. But if you look closely at the definition above, it says ‘genuine or assumed’.

Virtually one hundred per cent of the usage of the word arrogance refers to an assumed stance, not a genuine one. That is, a superiority complex is not to be confused with a certainty of superiority. For example, white nationalists are right to be arrogant when they criticise liberals and conservatives because, compared to them, normies are stubbornly unwilling to see racial realism. One such example appeared in an article just yesterday: an author of Counter-Currents called Tim Pool ‘an idiot’, which, indeed, he is compared to American racialists.

Now, if I am even wiser than my colleagues on the racial right, in that unlike them I have crossed ‘The Wall’ (cf. the featured post), then my arrogance wouldn’t be a negative one (the superiority complex kind), but a positive arrogance. However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume for a moment that mine is negative. That is, let’s assume that Christian ethics is not the primary cause of white decline and, therefore, my sense of superiority is delusional: as delusional as the grandiosity of the narcissists studied by Richard Grannon (whom I mentioned in my midnight post). From this angle, poor narcissistic César, who thinks he is more enlightened than the nationalists when he is not, hasn’t been done a favour by the latter—trying to refute him!

Connoisseurs of chess know that, in general, there are king’s pawn players and queen’s pawn players. I am one of the former. And if we compare the moves with the ‘chess game’ I want to play with the nationalists, after my 1. e4 nobody wants to reply (whether playing an open game, a Sicilian Defence, a Caro-Kann, an Alekhine Defence or any other first move of Black). If poor César is a delusional narcissist suffering from a superiority complex, why not give him a lesson in humility, a real beating in a game of the chess of ideas?

Translated into the world of ideas, my 1. e4 is: If the JQ is the primary cause of white decline, how do you explain the mestizaje in Latin America that was consummated when the Inquisition of New Spain was keeping the Jews at bay? For me, it is very simple. I think the real perp was Christian ethics, which saw Amerindians as souls equal to the souls of Castilians. That’s what motivated the very Catholic Queen Isabella of Spain and the Pope himself to legalise, and even promote, intermarriage. (The Jewish subversion of later centuries is a secondary infection of that ethnosuicidal zeitgeist.)

That is my first move in the chess of ideas. No Judeo-reductionist WNst has picked up the gauntlet and played a game. My move 1.e4 is left hanging over the board and no Christian or neochristian WNst wants to play with me!

A Redenção de Cam by Brazilian Modesto Brocos y Gómez (1895): Black grand-mother, mulatto mother, Iberian ‘white’ husband and infant with mudblood
genes despite her early phenotype.

The alternative is that my arrogance is not the kind of malignant narcissism, but an arrogance like that of Andreas Vesalius: who mocked the scholars of his time who dogmatically followed Galen’s books, instead of opening a corpse to see if his anatomy was accurate. IMHO that’s why they don’t play with me: I’d beat them with that opening. Or will any of the WN pundits dare, in the future, pick up my gauntlet in a solid article on one of their webzines?

Categories
Racial right

Eat crow

Let’s expand a little on my post last Thursday, ‘Walsh’, in which I said that mental health matters (it was the subject of my books before I discovered white nationalism). I have already spoken on this site about so-called narcissism; Richard Grannon, who studies it, and yesterday I saw this ‘short’ by Grannon on YouTube.

The short reminds me not only of my parents’ folie à deux when they started scapegoating us because of the unprocessed traumas they carried from childhood, but also of the denial of data that the American racial right suffers from. What are they denying? Let’s compare the US and Canada with Latin America. On Sunday I told Gaedhal in the comments section:

These days I’ve been watching videos of Spanish and Latin American historians (all Iberian whites) trying to refute the Black Legend against Spain. I was very impressed that, despite these noble attempts, they all subscribe to the Christian commandment that we should love all races. They take this for granted even though they are on a crusade against leftists who hate the European conquest of the Americas.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Spanish speakers are completely addicted to the blue pill—even Pedro Varela, recently incarcerated in Spain because of WW2 revisionism!

The common denominator between North and South America is religion. The entire continent was conquered by Christianity. Just as the videos of intellectual Spanish speakers I’ve been watching reveal that they are all plugged into the matrix that controls them, we can say the same of the WASPs north of the Rio Grande. Because of their narcissism, they are incapable of seeing, say, the data we have been translating about the criminal history of Christianity. And not only that. Yesterday I reviewed the books that Counter-Currents publishes. I was disturbed that the first one they published, Michael O’Meara’s essays, no longer appears. Unlike the racial right in his country, O’Meara did not suffer from a jingoistic narcissism. He did see the flaws of the US (e.g. that capitalism is very toxic for whites).

Young Michael O’Meara

White nationalism is a new image of Rockwell’s National Socialism and Pierce’s racist avant-garde. Spencer’s Alt-Right was a new image of white nationalism. The America First movement is a new image of the far right. The dissident right, now that the term ‘Christian nationalism’ is fashionable in the US, is a new image of the extreme right. Why does this plant has to be renamed every few years and never bear fruit?

Because, just as Latin American narcissists have been unable to think in racial terms, so, similarly, because of Christian or ‘cultural Christian’ narcissism racialist Americans continue to deny data.

What we seek in The West’s Darkest Hour is that, through eating humble pie (i.e., our civilisation erred since Constantine) we swallow the pride that prevents the Aryan from healing.

Categories
Axiology Painting

Might is right, 10

by Ragnar Redbeard [1]

The Golden Rule by Norman Rockwell (oil on canvas). Fifteen years after WW2, The Saturday Evening Post relaxed its stance on the depictions of races other than white people. One of the first multiracial images to grace the cover of the Post was Rockwell’s The Golden Rule.

Is the Golden Rule a rational rule? — Is it not rather a menial rule — a coward rule — a best-policy rule? Why is it ‘right’ for one man to do unto others as he would have others do to him and, what is right? If ‘others’ are unable to injure him or ‘do good’ to him, why should he consider them at all? Why should he take any more notice of them than of so many worms? If they are endeavouring to injure him, and able to do it, why should he refrain from returning the compliment? Should he not combat them, does not that give them carte-blanche to injure and destroy him? May it not be ‘doing good’ to others, to war against them, to annihilate them? May it not also be ‘good’ for them to war against others? (Again, what is ‘good’?)

Is it reasonable to ask preying animals, to do unto others as they would be done by? — If they acted accordingly would they, could they survive? If some only accepted the Golden Rule as their guiding moral maxim, would they not become a prey to those who refused to abide thereby?

Upon what reasonable and abiding sanction does this ‘Rule’ rest? — Has it ever been in actual operation among men? — Can it ever be successfully practiced on earth — or anywhere else? — Did Jesus Christ practice it himself upon all occasions? — Did His apostles, his ‘sons of thunder’ practice it? — Did Peter the boaster do so, when he ‘denied Him’ for fear of arrest at the camp-fire? — Did Judas the financier, when he sold him for net cash? Also, how many of his modern lip-servants actually practice it in their daily business intercourse with each other? How Many?

These questions require no formal answering. They answer themselves in the asking. And here it must be remembered that the best test of a witness, is cross-examination. ‘Do unto others as you would have others do to you.’ No baser precept ever fell from the lips of a feeble Jew.

It is from alleged moralisms of this sort, and fabulous ‘principles’ that our mob orators, our communards, revivalists, anarchists, red-republicans, democrats, and other mob-worshippers in general derive the infernal inspiration that they are perpetually hissing forth. Even the subversive pyrotechnic watchwords of their mephisto-millennium, are to be found in the ‘holy gospels.’ Is it not written, ‘and God sendeth angels to destroy the people?’ — Behold! these men are the ‘angels’ that He sends: — politicians and reformers!

‘Love one another’ you say is the supreme law, but what power made it so? — Upon what rational authority does the Gospel of Love rest? — Is it even possible to practice, and what would result from its universal application to active affairs? Why should I not hate mine enemies, and hunt them down like the wild beasts that they are? Again I ask, why? If I ‘love’ them does that not place me at their mercy? Is it natural for enemies to ‘do good’ unto each other and, what is ‘good’? Can the torn and bloody victim ‘love’ the blood-splashed jaws that rend it limb from limb? Are we not all predatory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly from preying upon each other, could they continue to exist?

‘Love your enemies and do good to them that hate you and despitefully use you,’ is the despicable philosophy of the spaniel that rolls upon its back, when kicked. Obey it, O! reader, and you and all your posterity to the tenth generation shall be irretrievably and literally damned. They shall be hewers of wood, and carriers of water, degenerates, Gibeonites. But hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, smash him down; smite him hip and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest law.

He who turns the ‘other cheek’ is a cowardly dog — a Christian dog.

Give blow for blow, scorn for scorn, doom for doom, with compound interest liberally added thereunto. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, aye four-fold, a hundredfold. Make yourself a Terror to your adversary and when he goeth his way, he will possess much additional wisdom to ruminate over. Thus shall you make yourself respected in all the walks of life, and your spirit — your immortal spirit — shall live, not in an intangible paradise, but in the brains and thews of your aggressive and unconquerable sons. After all, the true proof of manhood is a splendid progeny; and it is a scientific axiom that the timid animal transmits timidity to its descendents.

If men lived ‘like brothers’ and had no powerful enemies (neighbors) to contend with and surpass, they would rapidly lose all their best qualities; like certain oceanic birds that lose the use of their wings, because they do not have to fly from pursuing beasts of prey. If all men had treated each other with brotherly love since the beginning, what would have been the result now? If there had been no wars, no rivalry, no competition, no kingship, no slavery, no survival of the Toughest, no racial extermination, truly what a festering ‘hell fenced in’ this old globe would be?

_____________

[1] According to Wikipedia it was Arthur Desmond (1859-1929) who wrote under the pen name ‘Ragnar Redbeard’.

Categories
Racial right Voltaire

NAXALT

I add the translations from Karlheinz Deschner’s books on the criminal history of Christianity or Eduardo Velasco’s essays; or the quotations already written in English from David Irving’s books on Himmler, Brendan Simms’ on Hitler, Savitri Devi’s magnum opus, the mysterious author of Might is Right or Goodrich’s Summer 1945 when the muses don’t come to me. But this morning a muse visited me.

I’d like to comment on the recent contest organised by Counter-Currents on the so-called NAXALT, about which several essays were published.

First of all, that little riddle of liberals against the racial right is only understandable under the skies of Christian ethics. In the video I embedded the day before yesterday, Tom Holland tells the fascinating story of a theologian from the first centuries of Christianity who was already promoting migration to our lands for humanitarian reasons! In other words, if we pull out the root, Christian ethics, NAXALT doesn’t even appear on the horizon. We can already imagine the Chinese or the Israelis agonising over coloured migration arguing ‘Not All Xs Are Like That’. Such malware didn’t exist in the Aryan collective unconscious before the advent of Christianity.

Jared Taylor, brought up very Christianly by his parents, argues exactly that ‘Not All Jews Are Like That’ when confronted with the JQ. That typical stance among normies and even some racialist neo-normies was refuted when anti-Christian William Pierce published ‘Seeing the Forest’ in 1999. If some quarters of the right wing still refuse to see the forest, it is because of the Christian morality that has enslaved the Aryan collective unconscious for centuries.

Mixing metaphors, The West’s Darkest Hour represents a few steps closer to crossing the psychological Rubicon than the mid-stream stagnation in which the American racial right finds itself. That is why, ideally for me, a new breed of racists who have crossed the Rubicon should emerge that differs from today’s racialists. Ideally, young males would understand this site and become intellectual guerrillas, disseminating our ideas in the forums of the stagnant.

I will allow myself a few autobiographical paragraphs.

My bellicose attitude in the secular arena is a legacy of the Catholic bellicosity of my father and the Jesuit who baptised me: my father’s protector before his marriage (the Wikipedia photo of this Jesuit is taken precisely from my First Communion).

Portrait de Voltaire (Musée Carnavalet).

Voltaire’s bellicose attitude was instilled by his early teachers: Jesuits. Ironically, the names Ignatius of Loyola and François-Marie Arouet go together! Speaking a little immodestly, my style is like that of Voltaire. It has two main qualities: clarity and brevity. Unlike the pundits of the racialist webzines, I avoid circumlocutions and don’t get bogged down in long arguments. I just show the absurd in a couple of strokes. And if there is one thing that should be preached with Jesuit zeal and crystal clarity, it is that the scale of values of both ‘atheists’ (in fact, secular Christians) and Christians is the factor that prevents us from seeing the forest.

‘If you could write lucidly, simply, euphoniously and yet with liveness you would write like Voltaire’. —Somerset Maugham

Categories
Axiology Christendom Tom Holland

Secular Christianity

On Friday I posted a 13-minute segment of a video under the title ‘Transvaluing Cross’ about a recent interview with Tom Holland. Now I’d like to embed the full interview, which lasts more than an hour:

At minute 11 Holland says something that explains secular Christianity:

‘If you are hostile to Christianity in the West, almost certainly you will be hostile to Christianity because of deeply Christian reasons’ (my emphasis).

Now that I’ve watched the full interview, I’ve noticed something that Holland fails to notice. When he talks about Roman sexuality during the Roman Empire he says that it was ruthless compared to our morality. But like any normie, Holland doesn’t know he’s talking about the decadent Roman Empire, not Republican Rome. Anyone who wants to learn about Aryan customs and habits when it comes to marriage should read what Tacitus said about the ancient Germans, or what Eduardo Velasco wrote about Spartan marriage.

Quite apart from that flaw, the interview is excellent for understanding the POV of this site, The West’s Darkest Hour. Holland explains admirably how Christian ethics transmuted into the civil rights preached by Martin Luther King, and the sexual ‘liberation’ that reigns today including the ‘rights’ of transgender people.

Nevertheless, ‘although progressives are deeply Christian’ says Holland, ‘for the first time in American history they are not acknowledging that’.

Categories
Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) Tree

Clarifications

I must clarify something about the hatnote I have been putting on the most recent instalments of Karlheinz Deschner’s books, Christianity’s Criminal History.

As I say in the hatnote, entries 1-183, which can be read in two PDFs (here and here), are a couple of abridged books in English. From entry 184 onwards, on the other hand, I am and will be posting the rest of Christianity’s Criminal History unabridged, except for the substantial endnotes to the books that can only be read in German.

I decided to do so because our first translations, which appear in the linked PDFs, are more than enough to understand that the official history of Christianity, written by Christians, conceals the crimes that religion committed against the white race. Everyone has heard of the witch burnings or the Inquisition of the second millennium c.e. But hardly anyone knows the Christian criminal history of the first millennium. An abridged translation was necessary to make the common reader aware of that reality.

But now that we are approaching the second millennium, the abridgement, which was purely for literary reasons (who will want to read the whole first 5 volumes?) is no longer necessary. With the readable basis of how Christianity destroyed the Aryan society from Constantine to Charlemagne, a basis which had to be summarised if I want my visitors to know about it, it is enough.

After Charlemagne’s successors, we can go into details that will be boring. But I will try to give them some life with my interpolated notes in my new series of entries, that I already started with instalment 184. I confess that I haven’t read the rest of Christianity’s Criminal History. But now that we are translating volumes 5-10, I am sure I will learn many facts about our parents’ religion that I was unaware of.

Those familiar with the POV of this site know that I am convinced that reclaiming History will cure the white man from the guilt that is killing him (guilt evident in the film Am I Racist? which is now being released in the US and Canada). The best way to do this is to realise that the stories we have been told about Christianity and the Second World War are astronomical lies.

As far as WW2 is concerned, the astronomical lie is noted in that the Allies perpetrated a real holocaust of Germans and blamed the Germans for what they did! That’s why I will be quoting the contents of Tom Goodrich’s book, Summer 1945, once a week (I told Goodrich I would).

Without reclaiming our history we will perish! That’s why, as my old visitors know, the symbol I like is that of Bran the Broken touching the Weirwood Tree to see the past as it happened.

Might is right, 9

All ye are brethren

Are all men really brethren?—Negro and Indian, Blackfellow, Kalmuck, and Coolie—the well-born, and the base-bred, beer-soaked loafer, and hero-hearted patriot, belted chieftain and ignoble mechanic-slave—pot of iron and pot of clay?

What proof is there that the brotherhood-of-man hypothesis is in accordance with nature? On what trustworthy biologic, historic or other evidence does it rest? If it is natural, then rivalry, competition, and strife are unnatural. And it is proposed to prove in this book that strife, competition, rivalry, and the wholesale destruction of feeble types of men, is not only natural, but highly necessary. [Emphasis by Editor!] Has ‘brotherhood’ ever been tried upon earth? Where, when and with what final result? Is not self-assertion nobler, grander and more truly heroic than self-denial? Is not self-abasement but another term for voluntary vassalage; voluntary burden-bearing?

Christ might well and truthfully have said unto his followers ‘Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden and I will bind you in unbreakable bonds, and load you down like an ass between two burdens.’

The ‘poor and ignorant’ were his first followers—the vagrants, the disinherited shiftless classes: and to this very day, the poorer and more ignorant men and women are, the more eager are they to follow his religious ideals, or the political millennialisms that are distilled out of his delusions.

‘If we only lived as Christ lived, what a beautiful world this would be,’ saith all thoughtless ones. If we lived as Christ lived, there would be none of us left to live. He begat no children; he laboured not for his bread; he possessed neither house nor home.[1] He merely talked.

Primitive Christianity cunningly appealed to the imagination of a world of superstitious slaves (eager for some mode of escape that meant not the giving and receiving of battle-strokes.) It organized them for the overthrow of Heroic Principles; and substituted, for a genuine nobility based on battle-selection, a crafty theocracy founded upon priest-craft, hell-craft, alms-giving, politicalisms, and all that is impure and subterranean. It is a doctrine at once disgraceful in its antecedents, its teachers, and in itself. Truly has it been called ‘the fatal dower of Constantine,’ for it has suffocated, or is suffocating the seeds of Heroism.

Both ancient and modern Christianism and all that has its root therein, is the negation of everything grand, noble, generous, heroic, and the glorification of everything feeble, atrocious, dishonourable, dastardly [e.g., the trans people that neochristians presently adore! —Editor]. The cross is now, and ever has been, an escutcheon of shame. It represents a gallows, and a Semite slave swinging thereon. For two thousand years it has absolutely overturned human reason, overthrown common sense, infected the world with madness, submissiveness, degeneracy.

Truly, there is a way which seemeth right unto a people, but the ends thereof are the ways of death.

Sound the loud timbrel, O’er lands and o’er waves; The Israelite triumphs! The nations are—graves!

_____________

[1] These terms are used in the strict Darwinian sense.