web analytics

Tag: Christian problem (CP)

Categories
Christendom New Testament

Christianity:

The communism of antiquity, 4

by Alain de Benoist

 
The ancients believed in the unity of the world, in the dialectical intimacy of man with nature. Their natural philosophy was dominated by the ideas of becoming and alternation. The Greeks equated ethics with aesthetics, the kalôn with the agathôn, the good with beauty, and Renan rightly wrote: ‘A system in which the Venus de Milo is only an idol is a false system, or at least a partial one, because beauty is worth almost as much as goodness and truth. With such ideas, a decline in art is inevitable.’ (Les apótres, p. 372). The ‘new man’ of Christianity professed a very different vision of things. He carried within himself a conflict, not the everyday one that forms the fabric of life, but an eschatological, absolute conflict: the divorce from the world.

Early Christianity extends the messianic idea present in Judaism in an exacerbated form, due to a millennial expectation. In the words attributed to Jesus we find literal quotations from the visions of the Book of Enoch. For the first Christians, the world, a mere stage, a vale of tears, a place of unbearable difficulties and tensions, needed compensation, a radiant vision that would justify (morally speaking) the impotence of here below. That is why the earth appears as the field on which the forces of Evil and Good, the prince of this world and the heavenly Father, those possessed by the devil and the sons of God, confront each other: ‘And this is the victory that has overcome the world: our faith’ (I John V, 4). The idea that the world belongs to Evil, later characteristic of certain Gnostics (the Manicheans), appears frequently in the first writings of Christianity. Jesus himself affirmed: ‘I do not pray for the world…, as I am not of the world’ (John XVII, 9-14). St. John insists: ‘Do not love the world, nor the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world.’ (I John II, 15-16.) ‘Do not be surprised if the world hates you.’ (Ibid. III,13). ‘We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.’ (Ibid. V, 19.) Later, the Rule of St. Benedict will state as a precept that monks must ‘make themselves strangers to the things of the world’ (A saeculi actius se facere alienum). In the Imitation of Christ we read: ‘The truly wise man is he who, in order to gain Christ, considers all the things of the earth as rubbish and dung.’ (I, 3, 5).

In the midst of the great artistic and literary renaissance of the first two centuries, Christians, as outsiders who pleased to be so, remained indifferent or, more often, hostile. Biblical aesthetics rejected the representation of forms, the harmony of lines and volumes; consequently, they had only a disdainful look on the statues that adorned squares and monuments. For the rest, everything was an object of hatred. The colonnades of temples and covered walks, the gardens with their fountains and domestic altars where a sacred flame flickered, the rich mansions, the uniforms of the legions, the villas, the ships, the roads, the works, the conquests, the ideas: everywhere the Christian saw the mark of the Beast. The Fathers of the Church condemned not only luxury, but also any profane work of art, colourful clothing, musical instruments, white bread, foreign wines, feather pillows (had not Jacob rested his head on a stone?) and even the custom of cutting one’s beard, in which Tertullian sees ‘a lie against one´s own face’ and an impious attempt to improve the work of the Creator.

The rejection of the world became even more radical among the early Christians because they were convinced that the Parousia (the return of Jesus Christ at the end of time) was going to take place immediately. It was Jesus himself who had promised it to them: ‘Assuredly, I say to you, some who are standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.’ (Matthew XVI, 28). ‘Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened.’ (Matthew XXIV, 34). In view of this, they repeated the good news more and more. But the end of all things is at hand (I Peter IV, 7). ‘It is the last time’ (I John II, 18). Paul returns again and again to this idea. To the Hebrews: ‘Therefore cast not away your confidence, which has great reward… For yet a little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not delay’ (Hebrews X, 35-37). ‘Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together… but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching’ (Ibid., X, 25). To the Thessalonians: ‘Stand firm, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.’ To the Corinthians: ‘Brothers, the time is short; therefore let those who have wives be as though they had none…’ (I Cor. VII, 29). To the Philippians: ‘The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything…’ (Phil. IV, 5 and 6).

In his dialogue with Trypho, Justin affirms that Christians will soon be gathered in Jerusalem, and that it will be for a thousand years (LXXX – LXXXII). In the second century, the Phrygian Montanus declares that he foresees the imminence of the end of the world. In Pontus, Christian peasants abandon their fields to await the day of judgment. Tertullian prays pro mora fines, ‘that the end may be delayed.’ But time passed and nothing happened. Generations disappeared, one after another, without having seen the glorious advent; and faced with the continual delay of its eschatological hopes, the Church, giving proof of prudence, ended by resigning itself to placing the Parousia in an undetermined ‘beyond.’ Today only Jehovah’s Witnesses repeat on a fixed date: ‘Next year in the Jerusalem of heaven.’

Categories
Theology

Myth vision

Editor’s note: I feel compelled to include this recent communication from our friend Gaedhal because on this site, in promoting the work of Richard Miller, I have been using Derek Lambert’s interviews of Miller (Derek vlogs at MythVision Podcast). Miller’s New Testament scholarship is impeccable, but young Derek still has much to learn from the older folks. Gaedhal wrote:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
I include Derek from MythVision on this thread, although I removed him over the Robert Price thing. The Zionist video he released with his ex-military father in the wake of October 7th removed any doubt in my mind that this was the correct choice. Also, on MythVision, some theisms—i.e. The Orthodox Judaism of the likes of Tovia Singer—seem to be more equal than others. I think that even Kipp Davis—arguably an “apologist enabler” himself—recently called Tova Singer’s “scholarship” deplorable. I like Tovia, and, indeed, I learn a lot of Hebrew vocabulary from him, as he can slip seamlessly betwixt English and Ashkenzic Hebrew. Tovia will regularly, from memory, quote the Tenakh in Hebrew from memory. Although I like Tovia, nevertheless, orthodox Judaism is every bit as false and harmful as every other theism.

My view is that all apologists are cynical conmen. I would love to believe otherwise, though. I would love to believe that they were simply the other side of the argument; that there were good sensible reasons to believe in Classical Theism, even if I personally disbelieved in it; that there were good sensible reasons to believe in Christianity, even if I personally disbelieved in it.

However, this is not the case. Of all the theisms, Classical Theism is the most untenable. Of all the revealed religions, the claims of Christianity are extremely untennable indeed. At best, there is no better reason to believe that an Undead Jesus Christ floated off into the sky than that Mohommed flew to Jerusalem on a wingéd horse.

As Pocket locker 86, linked here, points out: there is no honest way to defend something that is untrue.

Thus the grifters, psychotics, psychopaths, morons and fraud-artists who make up the rogues gallery of Christian apologists. I do not, in the slightest, hate Christians or theists. Indeed, I remain a secular Catholic who is uncomfortable with the label: atheist.

Now, to be clear, one can be intelligent, empathetic, sincere, etc. and have a sincere religious faith. However, in my view, the field of apologetics itself being intrinsically fraudulent, it is impossible to be an honest apologist. An honest apologist is, to me at least, an oxymoron.

The fake credentials of some Christian apologists, such as “Doctor” Stephen Boyce—billed as a doctor by MythVision, in its description, at the time of writing!

I linked to Chrissy Hansen’s article questioning Boyce’s doctorate and my comment was deleted.

Pocket locker 86 would say: “whose side are you on!” i.e., are you on the side of us counter-apologists who wish to expose scam artists like Boyce, or are you on the side of the scam artists who are trying to conceal their scam?

And this brings me to another point that Pocket Locker 86 points out: Apologists will only pretend to be your friend, and will only agree to go on your channel, if you pull your punches, and play nice with them. If you point out that their credentials are at best dubious, they will probably demand that such a comment be deleted.

It is interesting that Hansen, a transgender Norse polytheist, has retreated from the limelight following the election of Trump.

Categories
Catholic Church Christendom

Christianity:

The communism of antiquity, 3

by Alain de Benoist

 
Christianity, ‘an Eastern religion by its origins and fundamental characteristics’ (Guignebert), infiltrated ancient Europe almost surreptitiously. The Roman Empire, tolerant by nature, paid no attention to it for a long time. In Suetonius’ Life of the Twelve Caesars, we read of an act of Claudius: ‘He expelled from Rome the Jews, who were in continual ferment at the instigation of a certain Chrestos’. On the whole, the Greco-Latin world remained at first closed to preaching. The praise of weakness, poverty, and ‘madness’, seemed to them foolish. Consequently, the first centres of Christian propaganda were set up in Antioch, Ephesus, Thessalonica and Corinth. It was in these great cities, where slaves, artisans and immigrants mingled with merchants, where everything was bought and sold, and where preachers and enlightened men, in ever-increasing numbers, vied to seduce motley and restless crowds, that the first apostles found fertile ground.

Causse, who was a professor at the Protestant theology faculty of the University of Strasbourg, writes: ‘If the apostles preached the Gospel in the village squares, it was not only because of a wise missionary policy, but because the new religion was more favourably received in these new surroundings than by the old races attached to their past and their soil. The true Greeks were to remain alien and hostile to Christianity for a long time. The Athenians had greeted Paul with ironical indifference: “You will tell us another day!” it was to be many years before the old Romans would abandon their aristocratic contempt for that detestable superstition. The early Church of Rome was very little Latin, and Greek was scarcely spoken in it. But the Syrians, the Asiatics and the whole crowd of the Graeculi received the Christian message with enthusiasm’ (Essai sur le conflit du christianisme primitif et de la civilisation, Ernest Leroux, 1920).

J.B.S. Haldane, who considered fanaticism as one of the ‘four truly important inventions made between 3000 B.C. and 1400’ (The Inequality of Man, Famous Books, New York, 1938), attributed its paternity to Judeo-Christianity. Yahweh, the god of the Arabian deserts, is a lonely and jealous god, exclusive and cruel, who advocates intolerance and hatred. ‘Do I not hate those who hate you, O Yahweh, and do I not rage against your enemies? I hate them and regard them as my enemies’ (Psalm 139:21 and 22). Jeremiah implores: ‘You will give them their due, O LORD, and your curse will be upon them! You will pursue them in anger and exterminate them from under heaven’ (Lamentations, 111, 64-66). ‘Surely, O God, you will surely put to death the wicked’ (Psalm 139:19). ‘And in Your mercy You will dispel my enemies, and destroy all the adversaries of my soul…’ (Psalm 143:12). Wisdom, who personifies the infinitely good, threatens: ‘I too will laugh at your misfortune, I will mock when your fear comes upon you’ (Prov. I, 26). Deuteronomy speaks of the fate that must be reserved for ‘idolaters’: ‘If your brother, your mother´s son, your daughter, or the woman who lies in your bosom, or your friend, who is like yourself, should incite you in secret, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods”, whom you do not know…, you shall first kill him; your hand shall be laid upon him first to put him to death, and then the hand of all the people shall be laid upon him. When you hear that in one of the cities which Yahweh grants you to dwell, it is said that unworthy men have arisen who have seduced their fellow citizens, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods!” which you do not know, you shall inquire, and if you see that such an abomination is true, you shall smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword; you shall consecrate it to extermination, as well as all that is in it. You shall gather all its spoil amid its streets, and burn the city and all its prey in the fire to the honour of the LORD your God. Thus it shall become a perpetual heap of ruins, and shall not be rebuilt…’ (Deut. XIII).

In the Gospel, Jesus says, when they come to arrest him: ‘…for all who take the sword will perish by the sword’ (Matthew XXVI, 52). But before that he had said: ‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man´s enemies will be those of his household’ (Matthew X, 34-36). He also pronounced the phrase that is the motto of all totalitarianism: ‘He who is not with me is against me’ (Matthew XII, 30).

The early Church will scrupulously apply such slogans. Unbelievers and pagans are subhumans in the eyes of the apostles. St. Peter compares them to ‘irrational animals, born to be taken and destroyed’ (2 Peter II, 12). Jerome advised the converted Christian to kick the body of his mother if she tried to prevent him from leaving her forever to follow the teachings of Christ. In 345, Fermicus Maternus made slaughter a duty: ‘The law forbids, most holy emperors, to spare either son or brother. It forces us to punish the woman we love tenderly and to plunge the iron into her breast. It puts weapons in our hands and orders us to turn them against our closest friends…’

From then on, the evangelical practice of charity will be strictly subordinated to the degree of adherence to mysteries and dogmas. Europe will be evangelized by iron and fire. Heretics, schismatics, freethinkers and pagans will be, renewing the gesture of Pontius Pilate, handed over to the secular arm to be subjected to torture and death. Denunciation will be rewarded with the attribution of the property of the victims and their families. Those who, ‘having understood the judgment of God,’ wrote St. Paul, ‘are worthy of death’ (Romans, I, 32). Thomas Aquinas specifies: ‘The heretic must be burned.’ One of the canons adopted at the Lateran Council declares: ‘They are not murderers who kill heretics’ (Homicidas non esse qui heretici trucidant). By the bull Ad extirpenda, the Church will authorize torture. And, in 1864, Pius IX proclaimed in the Syllabus: ‘Anathema be he who says that the Church has no right to use force, that it has no direct or indirect temporal power’ (XXIV).

Voltaire, who knew how to add up, had counted the victims of religious intolerance from the beginnings of Christianity to his time. Taking into account exaggerations and making a large allowance for the benefit of the doubt, he found a total of 9,718,000 people who had lost their lives ad majorem Dei gloriam. Compared to this figure, the number of Christians killed in Rome under the sign of the palm (a symbol of martyrdom and glorious resurrection in early Christianity) seems insignificant.

‘Gibbon believes he can affirm’ —writes Louis Rougier— ‘that the number of martyrs throughout the entire Roman Empire, over three centuries, did not reach that of Protestants executed in a single reign and exclusively in the provinces of the Netherlands, where, according to Grotius, more than one hundred thousand subjects of Charles V died at the hands of the executioner. However conjectural these calculations may be, it can be said that the number of Christian martyrs is small compared with the victims of the Church during the fifteen centuries: the destruction of paganism under the Christian emperors, the fight against the Arians, the Donatists, the Nestorians, the Monophysites, the Iconoclasts, the Manicheans, the Cathars and the Albigensians, the Spanish Inquisition, the wars of religion, the dragonads of Louis XIV, pogroms of the Jews… Faced with such excesses, we can ask ourselves, with Bouché-Leclercq, ‘whether the benefits of Christianity (however great) have not been more than compensated for by the religious intolerance which it borrowed from Judaism to spread throughout the world’… (Celse contre les chrétiens, Copernic, 1977).

Categories
Philosophy of history Racial right

Christianity:

The communism of antiquity, 2

by Alain de Benoist

Editor’s Note:

The epigraph to this February 1977 essay, originally published in French, appears here.

As can be seen in the hatnote that provisionally appears in the latest version of ‘The Wall’, unlike others, this racialist site has as its primary focus Christianity because to save the Aryan from the miscegenation that is destroying him, we must first identify the Enemy.

One of the reasons why the helicopter visitors never come down but leave me preaching in the desert is because I am like the child who says the king is naked.

‘Tell me what your holidays are and I’ll tell you who you really worship: the Aryan or the Jew’. When even white nationalists celebrate the birth of a Jew on December 25th, and also celebrate the year 2025 from the supposed birth of that kike instead of honouring the birth of our Aryan saviour on April 20th, it becomes clear that they are, ultimately, traitorous neonormies…[1]

What the racial right doesn’t yet understand is that it is impossible to avoid getting into trouble as long as we remain in trance with the religion of our parents. Those who believe that by celebrating the birth of the unhistorical Yeshu it is possible to save the Aryan, should ponder the words of their countryman Mark Twain: ‘It ain´t what you know that gets you into trouble. It´s what you know for sure that just ain´t so’.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
In his account of the wars against the Persians, Herodotus attributes the success of the small Greek cities against the mighty Iranian Empire to the ‘intellectual superiority’ of their compatriots. Would he also have explained their decline by their ‘inferiority’? The question of why cultures disappear and empires collapse has always preoccupied historians and philosophers. In 1441, Leonardo Bruni spoke of the vacillatio of the Roman Empire; his contradictor, Flavio Biondo, preferred the term inclinatio (which summed up, for Renaissance man, the abandonment of ancient customs). The debate was already set: was the Empire destroyed or collapsed on its own? For Spengler, the alternations that have occurred throughout history are the result of inevitability. The identifiable causes of a decline are only secondary causes. They accentuate, and accelerate a process, but they can only intervene when that process has begun. But it is also possible to think that no internal necessity fixes an end to cultures: when they die, it is because someone kills them. André Piganiol’s opinion is well known: ‘Roman civilisation did not die a natural death. It was assassinated’ (L’Empire chrétien,1947). In this case, the responsibility of the ‘assassins’ is complete. However, we can admit that only structures already very weakened, devoid of energy, abandon themselves to the blow that wounds them, to the enemy on the prowl. Voltaire, who was, after Machiavelli, one of the first to speak of historical cycles, said that the Roman Empire had fallen simply because it existed, ‘since everything must have an end’ (Philosophical Dictionary, 1764).

We will not attempt here to find out whether or not the fall of Rome was irremediable, or even to identify all the factors that contributed to its fall, but to examine what responsibility the nascent Christianity bears for its fall.

It is well known that it was the Briton Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) who first established that responsibility, in chapters XV and XVI of his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, six thick volumes of which appeared between 1776 and 1778. Before him, in 1576, Löwenklav had defended Emperor Julian, whose talent, temperance and generosity he praised, thus opening a breach in the doctrine which claimed that Christian emperors had been, by the privilege of their faith alone, superior to pagans. Shortly afterwards, the jurisconsult and diplomat Grotius (1583-1645) endorsed Erasmus’ thesis on the Germanic origin of the Neo-Latin aristocracies. Finally, in 1743, Montesquieu attributed the decline and fall of Rome to various factors, such as the extinction of the old families, the loss of civic spirit, the degeneration of institutions, the collusion between administrative power and business fortunes, the high birth rate of the foreign population, the wavering loyalty of the legions, and so on. Better documented than his predecessors, Gibbon took up all these elements anew, ready to write an ‘unbiased history’. His conclusions, tinged with an irony inherited from Pascal, remain essentially valid.

Portrait of Edward Gibbon (1737-1794).

In the 19th century, Otto Seeck (History of the Decline of the Ancient World, 1894), drawing on an idea of Montesquieu, as well as certain considerations of Burckhardt (in his Epoch of Constantine, 1852-1853) and Taine, insisted on a biological and demographic factor: the disappearance of the elites (Ausrottung der Besten), accompanied by the senescence of institutions and the importance gained by the plebs and the crowd of slaves, who constituted the first clientele of Christian preachers. This thesis was adopted by M.P. Nilsson (Imperial Rome, 1926), after having been confirmed by Tenney Frank, who, after examining some 13,900 funerary inscriptions, concluded that, from the 2nd century onwards, 90% of the population of Rome was of foreign origin (American Historical Review, XXI, 1916, p. 705).

In Marcus Aurelius (1895), Renan made his own one of Nietzsche’s formulas: ‘During the third century, Christianity sucks in ancient society like a vampire’. And he added this sentence, which echoes so many times today: ‘In the third century, the Church, by monopolising life, exhausted civil society, bled it, made it empty. Small societies killed big society’ (pp. 589 and 590). In 1901, Georges Sorel (1847-1922) published an essay on The Ruin of the Ancient World. ‘The action of Christian ideology,’ he argued, ‘broke down the structure of the ancient world like a mechanical force working from within. Far from being able to say that the new religion infused new lifeblood into an ageing organism, we might say that it left it exhausted. It severed the ties between the spirit and social life, and sowed everywhere the seeds of quietism, despair and death’.

For his part, Michael Rostovtzeff (Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 1926), opposing Seeck on certain points, and also Max Weber (Social Origins of the Decline of Ancient Civilisation, 1896), posed an essential question: ‘Is it possible to extend a high civilisation to the lower classes without lowering its level, without diluting its value to the point of making it disappear? Is not all civilisation, from the moment it begins to penetrate the masses, doomed to decadence?’ Ortega y Gasset was to answer him, in The Revolt of the Masses: ‘The history of the Roman Empire is also the history of subversion, of the empire of the masses, who absorb and annul the ruling minorities and take their place’.

This overview would be incomplete if we omitted to mention three works which appeared at the beginning of the century and which seem to us to herald the rise of modern criticism: L’intoleránce religieuse et la politique (Flammarion, 1911), by Bouché-Leclercq; La propagande chréthienne et les persecutions (Payot, 1915), by Henri-F. Secrétan, and Le christianisme antique (Flammarion, 1921) by Charles Guignebert.

_________

[1] Check out the April 20th posts on the major American racialist forums and webzines, and you’ll see that they don’t celebrate the birth of Uncle Adolf.

Categories
Axiology Racial right

Neonormies

Or:

On Old and New Tablets

A passage in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, ‘On Old and New Tablets’, inspires me for this post. But before I continue with the routine of this site (perhaps my next post will be one more passage from Irving’s book on Himmler), I would like to clarify something about today’s previous post.

The pair of four words, Gens alba conservanda est (White people must be preserved) and ¡Eliminad todo sufrimiento innecesario! (Let us eliminate all unnecessary suffering!), define the two commandments, or new conception of right and wrong, in our new Tablets of the Law.

The second commandment is given because of the colossal hells that some abusive humans inflict on their children, or the defenceless animals at their mercy.

That doesn’t mean that only those who already have these two commandments as their religion can be my comrades. Although Hitler was surprised when Himmler confessed to him that he still practised hunting with other Nazis, Uncle Adolf couldn’t have formed a political movement if he repudiated them. But it is obvious that a priest of the holy words has already taken his vows to fulfil both commandments (vows that non-priests aren’t yet capable of fulfilling because they lack the compassion we have developed).

Another thing I would like to say today is something else about my eternal quarrel with the American racial right. Yesterday I saw a video by Jared Taylor about the recent attacks in Germany perpetrated by a sandnigger. Taylor mocks the fact that the Eurocrats have been ‘speechless’ and ‘stunned’ after the massacre of civilian Germans. However, as a good Christian or secular neochristian (Taylor has never confessed whether he still believes in the religion of his parents) he fails to realise that these Eurocrats have taken Christian morality to its ultimate consequences (forgive your enemies, never allow yourself to hate them, turn the other cheek if they attack you, etc.).

While I watched the entire Taylor video, I didn’t read the recent Counter-Currents article on the massacre. I merely read the first two comments in that thread, where the first thing a couple of commenters did was say ‘Merry Christmas’.

Apparently, neither the commenters nor the author of that article are aware that it was precisely that Christianity that they still celebrate at Christmas that caused not only the massacre, but the previous massacres perpetrated by the jihadis that Taylor mentions in his video, and the massacres that other sandniggers will perpetrate in the future! Just as George Washington and the other Founding Cucks enabled Jewish infection in their brand new country, so the religion that conquered the Aryan soul has imposed on whites Semitic commandments diametrically opposed to the two commandments of our Tablets of the Law.

No, there was no point in reading either C-C’s article or the rest of the comments. The only thing to reiterate is that those on the racial right are neo-normies, not 21st-century National Socialists who have woken up to the real world.

Categories
Christendom

Apologetics

Excerpts from Gaedhal’s latest communication:

Apologetics is for Christians. It is a Christian product, and the target demographic is Christians—and, in particular, those Christians who have an IQ in excess of 90, who are beginning to doubt Christianity.

Apologetics is not for non-believers. To non-believers, Apologetics is a pseudo-discipline that merely serves to infuriate us and to confirm us in our disbelief. To a non-believer, Apologetics is every bit the pseudoscience that Astrology is. In the same way that Celestial bodies do not influence earthly events, dead Jewish carpenters usually stay dead—and certainly don’t float off into the sky. This is really the end of the matter for us non-believers. Apologetics is a product—it is intellectual property—and its consumer base is almost exclusively Christian…

Without the threat of Hell, then Christianity really does fall apart [emphasis added by Editor]…

If we heed William of Ockham and throw out God, Heaven, and inscrutable morally sufficient reasons [that try to solve the problem of evil—Ed.], then we are left with the vulgarity: “shit happens”. In a godless swirl of cause and effect, such as this planet seems to be, then we would expect to see the quantity of horrendous suffering that we do in fact see upon this planet.

Categories
Philosophy Racial right

Maesters

of the Citadel

Yesterday I alluded to American Renaissance and The Occidental Observer when I said that it was part of German decency in earlier centuries to know something about race realism and to be aware of the JQ. But there is another racialist webzine that has been publishing, rather, cultural articles since 2010. This month for example Counter-Currents finished, in a fifteen-part series, publishing a philosophical article on the problem of evil analysing the philosophies of Schelling and Heidegger.

As a teenager I was going to study philosophy. My plans were spoiled by a family tragedy that left me without an official degree, although I became a wandering philosopher. Perhaps I should say that Schelling and other German metaphysicians of his time helped me to realise that there was a new conception of God, pantheism; and in more recent times I was pleased that Heidegger had been a member of the National Socialist Party. Well: what about the recent article in Counter-Currents? The author wrote:

I have tried to argue that Schelling’s theory of evil was a major influence on Heidegger. Heidegger effectively adopts Schelling’s account of evil, but places its existence on philosophically surer footing. Whereas Schelling’s claims are metaphysical and often seem ad hoc, Heidegger’s account is phenomenological. In other words, Heidegger shows us that, if we are honest with ourselves – if we are, in other words true to the phenomena – we clearly do experience life as if we are in the grip of forces over which we have absolutely no control, regardless of whatever modern myths we may pay lip service to about how man is the author of his destiny. And, more specifically, it really does seem as if there is a force of evil loose in the world.

Following George R.R. Martin’s fiction, a wandering philosopher is someone who, unlike the Maesters—an order of scholars in the Seven Kingdoms who educate new students in the Citadel (see image above)—educates himself. Thus, unlike the academic author of Counter-Currents, I have approached the problem of evil from my peculiar point of view: exterminationism. See for example what Gaedhal and I say very briefly on the subject in ‘On solving the problem of evil’ (pp. 143-144 of On Exterminationism).[1]

But that is not what I wanted to talk about in this article. What caught my attention in the Counter-Currents article were these passages more or less sympathetic to Christianity:

One of the interesting aspects of today’s cultural scene is the plethora of conservative “influencers” who are flocking to Christianity. More and more, it seems, convert – or return – with each passing day. A frequent topic of discussion in our circles is whether such and such influencer seems to be tending towards Christianity and about to announce his conversion. “It’s going to happen any day now,” friends will say to me (Joe Rogan is the current topic of speculation). It is fascinating that what seems to have drawn them to religion is their confrontation with the political Left. The extraordinary indecency of the Left today does indeed often seem to be demonic. It is enough to drive one into the arms of the angels.

Of course, most so-called “conservatives,” especially those holding political office, are serving the same system and see nothing problematic at all about the commodification of beings and about an ideal of “freedom” that amounts to freedom to exploit and consume. Nevertheless, it is a fact that those locating themselves on the political Left present us with the most extreme examples of modern perversity – and the most extreme examples of malice. In the face of this overwhelming perversity, for many people – those aforementioned influencers, and others – Christianity has essentially morphed into “the decency party.”

For most of them, the details of Christian teaching, and the differences between denominations, seem to be largely unimportant. They see Christianity as something clean, decent, and untouched (so they imagine) by modern perversity; a refuge, in other words, from evil. It is a reaction with which we can sympathize – even if we cannot ultimately follow them. What is indisputably true, however, is that the religious and mythological traditions that personify evil may offer us invaluable insights into its nature. And it is to those that I plan to turn, if and when I decide to write about evil again.

Let there be no doubt: wandering philosophers like Gaedhal and I see things infinitely differently than the Maesters of the Citadel for the simple fact that we have suffered evil in the most direct and overwhelming way imaginable. Philosophising in an ivory tower (see an artistic representation of the Citadel tower here) isn’t the same to suffer evil in the most brutal way and in the naked world. For example, the Counter-Currents author’s paragraphs on Christianity sugar-coat the subject. Just compare those paragraphs with the series on the criminal history of Christianity that we have been translating into English, which will soon reach instalment #200!
 
_________

[1] In that 2022 article, I mentioned that I intended to call the whole of my series of autobiographical books From Jesus to Hitler. I have changed my mind, and the trilogy has three different titles (see here).

Categories
Goths Hans F. K. Günther Miscegenation

The dissolution

of Germanic racial care by medieval Christianity (5)

by Hans F. K. Günther

Jan Luyken’s 1698 engraving of the quintessential subversive Jew, Paul, dictating his famous Letter to the Romans to his scribe.

Baher also saw the price of poverty, which must have seemed to the hard-working German peasant the price of inability to work at a time when there was still enough free land to clear and cultivate. For him, poverty was the appropriate fate of the incapable, not the state in which a person was closer to the Kingdom of God. Baher is the price of the weak and sick, the suspicion found in appearance as a sign of spiritual contamination (see p. 377). In the Epistle to the Romans (12:16) Paul warns: Do not aim at high things, but lower yourselves to the lowly – this was the negation of Indo-Germanic values such as pride, the drive for power, the joy of owning land, of competing with all the forces of the region. The medieval pious person was led away from these Indo-Germanic values to values of courage, i.e. according to the root of the word (serve): of being a servile person, of being homeless, celibate and without possessions.

This transformation of values through the ecclesiastical teachings of the Middle Ages was characterized by one of the best experts on pagan Germanic culture, Andreas Heusler:

It is deeply unscriptural that one openly and joyfully admits to pride and the drive for power. Anyone who has what it takes should want to be the first in their region. The sentence that he who humbles himself finds no place in these hearts. The will to power has the affection of the narrator and the listener. With compassion one follows the self-confident man who is bowed down by fate. Something new in the Christian stories is the look of satisfaction that touches the fall of the powerful. To the extent that bias and malicious joy prevail in the sagas, it is directed less against the tyrant and oppressor than against the coward and the quiet, even against the upstart.

The teachings of the medieval church thus dissolved the Germanic focus on a human image of spiritual perfection and a noble lifestyle, and instead taught the characteristics of those who had been described by the Germanic people as litilmenn, as people with small souls. The new doctrine thus eliminated the original model of the volatile, noble and beautiful person. This had to have an effect over the centuries and, together with other historical forces, resulted in us Germans being racially and genetically different from the Germanic peoples.

The racial history of the Germanic people as such ends with the conversion of the Germanic people to Christianity. It begins with the period between the 9th and 11th centuries when the barrier between the free and the unfree, here earlier, there later, at the latest in Lower Saxony and in Scandinavia, there only completely in the 14th century, the mass history of the individual Germanic-speaking tribes, in Germany the racial history of the German people, fell. The German people of the later Middle Ages and the modern era already presents itself as a selection result of those centuries in which the racial breeding of the Germanic people, which had returned to Indo-Germanic roots of the Neolithic period, had been dissolved.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s 2 ¢

As far as the last paragraph is concerned, since I have Spanish ancestry it came to my attention in William Pierce’s Who We Are and Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans that the Visigoths of ancient Hispania only began to interbreed after the introduction of Christianity. A century before the Moors invaded the peninsula, these pure Aryans had terrible punishments for the mixed couple who dared to procreate a mongrel baby. Why are these historical facts that Hans Günther and others talked about not mentioned in the forums of the American racial right?

I think we already know the answer…

Categories
Hans F. K. Günther Metaphysics of race / sex Women

The dissolution

of Germanic racial care by medieval Christianity (4)

by Hans F. K. Günther

 
For the racial cultivation of the Germanic peoples, the medieval church teachings not only abolished the barrier of oppression between free and unfree, but above all degraded marriage, which had represented something particularly venerable within the divine order of Indo-European culture. According to Paul (1 Corinthians 7:2), marriage was there to help avoid the souring of people; but more sacred than married life was celibacy and mortification of the senses (1 Corinthians 7:1). This degradation of marriage can be traced from the early medieval church fathers through the entire Middle Ages. The rites of monks and nuns were considered the highest morality, and a doctrine of the ‘immaculate conception’ – even if this doctrine was not as easy to interpret as the layman thought it would be – could mean nothing other than that, conversely, every conception by a woman of his people was to be regarded as tainted. An exception in the evaluation of marriage is Clement of Alexandria (died around 220), who, for the first time after the spread of Christianity, again established marriage as a duty towards the people and state, as it was among the peoples of the Indo-European language, and who even saw the purpose of marriage as the procreation of well-behaved children, the euteknia. But here, and partly in Tertullian’s views on marriage, Indo-European thought still comes to the fore in an indirect and weakened form, the Hellenic and Hellenistic spirit of the Stoa and the writings of the Hellenic Plutarch, who was still essentially Indo-European in his views.

The degradation of marriage was logically linked to the degradation of women. It has often been claimed in the past that Christianity was the first to teach the Germanic peoples respect for women. In 1913, the church historian Boehmer attributed things to the Germanic peoples such as various kinds of fornication, respect and enslavement of the female sex and other shameful acts – all of which were traits of human behavior that were demonstrably only introduced into Germania from the south and east. An expert on the Germanic world such as Neckel was right to reject such opinions as untenable in his work Love and Marriage among the Pre-Christian Germanic Peoples (1934). In fact, medieval Christianity caused a wave of denigration of the female sex, while the woman as mistress of the house (déspoina, domina, matrona) had occupied a low position among all Indo-Europeans, as long as the Nordic racial soul was dominant in their peoples, in the reality of everyday life a much more respected position than the various legal records of the peoples of the Indo-European language would suggest. Among the Germanic peoples there was also the view that women had ‘something sacred and prescient’ (Tacitus: aliquid sanctum et providum). ‘They do not disdain their nature and pay attention to their answers,’ is how Tacilus (Germania, 8) describes the respect that Germanic men had for women.

In church doctrine, this is opposed by the mulier tacent in eeclessin (1 Corinthians 14:34/35) and the duty of women to cover their heads during church services, because otherwise they could arouse lust (1 Corinthians 11:5 and 6). For both church fathers, woman, to whom Paul (1 Timothy 2:14) had ascribed the origin of sin, appears as a templum aedificatum super oloacum, as the ‘mother of sin’ and ‘source of sin’, and the Council of Macon, which was held in the 7th century under the Merovingian Frankish kings, discussed whether woman should be regarded as a human being at all. How much abomination the counterhammer, judging according to medieval church doctrine, ascribes to the female sex can be read in this legal document.

The innate veneration of women by the descendants of the Germanic tribes of the early Middle Ages was able to have an impact in the High Middle Ages in the veneration of the Virgin Mary, and from such expressions of the veneration of women it found its way into lovemaking and into that dolce stil nuovo, of which Dante’s poem Vita Nuova may be the finest example. Here the blonde Dante sang of the blonde Beatrice out of a characteristically Nordic feeling of love. The veneration of women that broke through again could now hardly be expressed as simply and grandly as it had been among the Germanic tribes, but rather took on a more or less affected character or experienced a certain romantic exaggeration; but above all: this veneration of women was on the edge of an abyss, the aroused feeling of sin, the fear of the air of the flesh, which for church teachings constituted the essential aspect of the relationship between the sexes. Hence, among the minnesingers, who in their youth had sung of the joy of ‘this world’ and of love between the sexes, so often in all of them the fearful change to the rejection of ‘Lady World’. In church art, ‘Lady World’ was represented as a woman, alluring from the front, tempting to sin, and full of noble animals behind. When the world (for the Germanic people Midgard, the cultivated homeland, the field of all the nurturing industriousness of man and of all the national struggle with the god against Utgard, the epitome of everything anti-divine) as the world understood by the Germanic people as Midgard, was represented by the church as this ‘Lady World’, when Luther also saw in nature only a devilish power that seduces and mocks man, a ‘woman of honor who may bark against her god’, the source of that feeling of life from which the Germanic racial cultivation had sprung.

The Jewish-Christian world of faith thus attempted to separate the Germanic people from the context of the world order and relegated them to an afterlife in comparison to which ancestral ‘earthly values’ lost their meaning. Little by little, the whole attitude to life of the medieval West was thus reduced precisely in those who were capable of absorbing spiritual values and were willing to live according to these values. The coarser-minded people lived without deeper struggles of conscience in the various compromises between church doctrine and inherited nature that were possible and tolerated by the church. However, a decline in the overall attitude to life in the Middle Ages is undetectable and continues until, in the humanism of the Renaissance, the best of the Western peoples sensed the ancient Indo-European attitude to life again through the testimonies of Hellenic and Roman intellectual life, and until later, in the era of Winckelmann, Goethe, Schiller and Wilhelm von Humboldt, the Indo-European spirit was once again ignited by the great testimonies of the past, and until finally, with the Romantic era, native Germanic culture was rediscovered. But at the time of the revival, the Indo-Germanic and Germanic sense of what is humanly noble was no longer valid in the West, as a result of church teachings, no longer the focus on the noble, the will to improve life, to cultivate all growth values, but rather a tendency towards a stunted life prevailed in all spiritual expressions, precisely because a stunted life was a better preparation for the afterlife in this world of afflictions. According to such teachings, people should not feel at all secure in this world.

Categories
Deranged altruism Film Literature Videos

Turning the other cheek

In the excellent Russian film I saw based on this Dostoevsky novel, what stuck with me most was the slap given to the idiot prince (watch it here).