web analytics

Tag: Christian problem (CP)

Categories
Axiology

Two factions

I recently said that I don’t talk about news on this site unless we use a news story to discuss metapolitics. From this angle, I can use the recent American election to illustrate one of the ideological pillars of this site.

Everyone knows what Christianity is. But those who have read Tom Holland will understand what we mean by atheistic hyper-Christianity, which we sum up in one word: neochristianity. In short, all Western atheists are neochristians since Christianity has not only the dogmatic side but also an axiological side. To give just one example. In my previous post I mentioned The Turner Diaries: a novel that ends when the Aryans exterminate the non-Aryans on the whole planet. Since that novel is never mentioned on white nationalist sites as the blueprint for what needs to be done, we could label them all as Judeo-Christian or Neo-Judeochristian. Why? Because the proclamation of human rights in the time of the French Jacobins, as Holland saw in his book, is at heart a proclamation of Christian ethics, albeit stripped of its religious trappings.

In his book Dominion, Holland included this image that imitate Moses’ commandments.

So there are no authentic apostates from Christianity in the West, except those who think as the late William Pierce thought in his novel—and in his history of the white race, where he said that all Aryan conquests failed because they failed to exterminate the natives. (This Hitler, Himmler and Heydrich did plan with their Master Plan East because, unlike the American racialists, they did dare to cross the psychological Rubicon: transvalue all Christian values.)

Once the POV of this site is understood, it becomes clear that the recent American election was a contest between the basically Christian values of those who voted for Trump and the neochristian values of those who voted for the mulatta. The problem is that both factions are two sides of the same coin. It was clear from Biden’s inaugural speech, from the Woke vocabulary he used, that whoever wrote it had already left traditional Christianity behind in pursuit of neochristianity: which takes the principle of Christian equity to its ultimate consequence (those who have not yet read Dominion should read it, abridged by me here).

Which faction is worse, the new or the old? It is very common among the American racial right to say that the new one is worse, but an accelerationist who has in mind the metaphor of the frog gradually burning out without noticing it would reply that maybe the old one is worse.

I don’t know which is worse. It is irrelevant. What counts is that the Pauline principle that there will be no more distinction between Greeks—that is, whites—and Jews came, in its secular transmutation in the 1960s, to be metastasised so that we would see blacks as brothers and ‘liberate’ our women. In our century Wokism took that principle to its ultimate consequences with homo ‘marriage’ and transgender empowerment. The latter may seem grotesque but it is grounded in Christian ideals, as I said in my 2019 post ‘On empowering birds feeding on corpses’, where I talk about the Franciscans of the 14th century.

The conservative revolution that is causing so much excitement among those rejoicing at Trump’s victory has to be understood from this meta-political angle. It is not a genuine revolution, as was the German NS. Rather, it is two Christian factions fighting each other: one very liberal and the other conservative. But salvation lies in abandoning Christian ethics altogether: which is why I changed the subtitle of this blog today from ‘Gens alba conservanda est’ to ‘Post-1945 National Socialism’.

Unlike today’s racialists Hitler understood Xtianity.

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald Miscegenation

Morgan’s postscript

Editor’s note: this is Robert Morgan’s reply
today about what I posted yesterday:

 

______ 卐 ______

 
Hola, amigo!

Once again, our thoughts overlap. I especially agree with this:

The orthodox interpretation of white nationalism is that Jewry is the primary cause of white decline and that traitorous white men are like poor Manchurian candidates whom evil Jews hypnotised with malicious propaganda.

Certainly this is an apt summation of Kevin MacDonald’s view too, stripped of its “evolutionary psychology” trappings. The message of his signature work The Culture of Critique is that the Jews’ victory over gentile culture was won through propaganda, which is seen by him as able to both initiate and steer various social movements among the gentiles, or in other words, to manipulate them as though they were puppets. In my view, this way of looking at matters is not only completely wrong, but also very damaging in that by its misdirection it leads people to regard effects as if they were causes. Ellul put it very well:

Propaganda must not only attach itself to what already exists in the individual, but also express the fundamental currents of the society it seeks to influence. Propaganda must be familiar with collective sociological presuppositions, spontaneous myths, and broad ideologies.

By this we do not mean political currents or temporary opinions that will change in a few months, but the fundamental psycho-sociological bases on which a whole society rests, the presuppositions and myths not just of individuals or of particular groups but those shared by all individuals in a society including men of opposite political inclinations and class loyalties. A propaganda pitting itself against this fundamental and accepted structure would have no chance of success.

Rather, all effective propaganda is based on these fundamental currents and expresses them. Only if it rests on the proper collective belief will it be understood and accepted. It is part of a complex of civilization, consisting of material elements, beliefs, ideas, and institutions, and it cannot be separated from them. No propaganda could succeed by going against these structural elements of society. But propaganda’s main task clearly is the psychological reflection of these structures. —Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, p. 38-9

Both the successes of the Jewish critiques of gentile culture and the Donald Trump phenomenon are better explained by Ellul’s view than MacDonald’s. For example, I would argue that America’s Christian heritage, and the very Christian commitment it had already made as a society to regard the negro as the white man’s equal following the Civil War, laid indispensable groundwork necessary for Boas’ views to be accepted. Because of this history, America needed to believe in racial equality as a biological fact, and Boas, the clever Jew, came along to take advantage of this. The gentile public was eager to buy what he was selling.

Conversely, propaganda failed to take down Donald Trump precisely because it went against some of America’s most deeply held beliefs. American culture respects a winner most of all, and he is the archetypal winner: a billionaire, a courageous fighter (his cry of “Fight! Fight! Fight!” after being shot was electrifying! LOL), a flagrant womanizer and a fucker of supermodels. The contrast between him and the effete, doddering Biden, Obama’s shoeshine boy, couldn’t have been greater or more sharply drawn.

Nevertheless though, MacDonald is wrong again in being encouraged by Trump’s victory. The decline of the white race will continue under Trump just as it has been, and likely even accelerate. It’s fitting that Trump’s a Zionist, because America is itself Zionist. His family is interbred with Jews, and his Veep is married to a street shitter [emphasis by Editor]. They set a fine example! We must reconcile ourselves to the fact that race mixing is the face of empire, and it would be crazy to expect less of it under Trump imperator.

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Kevin MacDonald

R. Morgan

As we know, this site is not about politics but about metapolitics. I will only talk about actual politics if something huge happens; for example, if a war of extermination of the Muslim world breaks out against Israel, or if Putin drops atomic bombs on Europe if NATO dares to bomb his mother Russia. From this angle, Trump’s victory is not important news. But I can use it to present a clear case of ‘metapolitics’ in the sense of paradigm-shifting for those of us who want to prevent whites from going extinct.

The orthodox interpretation of white nationalism is that Jewry is the primary cause of white decline and that traitorous white men are like poor Manchurian candidates whom evil Jews hypnotised with malicious propaganda.

Here at The West’s Darkest Hour we see reality from a different prism. We believe that Western history took a wrong turn with Constantine, who wanted to subjugate the white men of the Mediterranean by introducing ‘spiritual terror’ (Adolf Hitler’s term): Judeo-Christianity, which his successors succeeded in doing. The distortion produced by the inversion of Aryan values into Judeo-Christian values perfectly explains the scale of values that, in the modern world, has mutated into an atheistic hyper-Christianity, as the historian Tom Holland has seen.

Having laid the groundwork for a paradigm that competes with the Judeo-reductionism of the American racial right, it is good to hear what one American dissenter from that narrative, Dr Robert Morgan, has to say in response to Kevin MacDonald. I refer to the recent article published in The Occidental Observer, ‘The Trump Victory Is Huge!’, republished yesterday in The Unz Review. The first paragraph of Morgan’s comment is a quote from MacDonald’s article:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

The New York Times ran between 5-10 articles and op-eds every day hating on everything about Trump, including his family, and I am sure the same was true of MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, The Washington Post, The LA Times, etc. They have lost their credibility, spending their huge advantage in spreading propaganda on lies… No one with any brain believes a thing they say related to politics.

Surely if there is any lesson to be drawn from this it’s that propaganda’s power isn’t unlimited. We have just seen the result of eight years of constant anti-Trump propaganda. The full power of nearly all media in the country was turned on him in an effort to destroy the man. The full power of the deep state via lawfare was used against him, and academia was also against him. Assassins even tried to kill him. Every conceivable avenue of attack was tried, and yet they all failed. He’s a giant; an American Caesar.

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
– William Shakespeare Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene II

Unfortunately for MacDonald, once this is admitted, the validity of his entire body of work is called into question [emphasis by Ed.]. Unless I’m very gravely mistaken, it’s the thesis of his book The Culture of Critique that it was through their constant propaganda efforts that Jews succeeded in undermining gentile culture. For example, he attributes the success of Freud’s ideas to “brainwashing”.

Finally, it is reasonable to conclude that Freud’s real analysand was gentile culture, and that psychoanalysis was fundamentally an act of aggression toward that culture. The methodology and institutional structure of psychoanalysis may be viewed as attempts to brainwash gentile culture into passively accepting the radical criticism of gentile culture entailed by the fundamental postulates of psychoanalysis. – Kevin MacDonald,The Culture of Critique, p. 133

He employs similar reasoning to explain the success of Boasian anthropology, and the Frankfurt School. Propaganda is seen by him as a very important tool with which to undermine gentile culture; indeed, he says that Boasian anthropology and the ideas put forward in The Authoritarian Personality are in themselves prime examples of such Jewish propaganda. Thus, the “culture of critique” is just another way to phrase what he sees as the Jewish effort to undermine white civilizational confidence through constant propaganda. MacDonald quotes Ben Stein:

Television and the movies are America’s folk culture, and they have nothing but contempt for the way of life of a very large part of the folk. . . . People are told that their culture is, at its root, sick, violent, and depraved, and this message gives them little confidence in the future of that culture. It also leads them to feel ashamed of their country and to believe that if their society is in decline, it deserves to be. (Stein 1976, 22) – Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p. ix

But why did the propaganda fail in the case of Trump, but supposedly succeed in all those other cases? I know it’s a radical idea, but could it possibly be the case that people are not mere puppets, at the mercy of whatever propaganda they are subjected to, but instead have some moral agency of their own, an ability to discriminate and make their own decisions? I hesitate to suggest such an insane thing, but is it possible that instead of not having a brain, those 67 million Americans who voted for Harris actually think she was the better choice?

I believe that, as the good scientist MacDonald claims to be, he must admit the possibility. But if so, then it seems clear that, by the same logic, those gentiles who fell for Freudianism, Boasian anthropology, the ideas of the Frankfurt School, and the rest of the Jewish critique may also have had their reasons. They were not mere puppets. They not only had brains, but thought those critiques well made. In other words, they yielded to the propaganda because they wanted to.

Therefore if Trump’s victory shows anything, it shows they were equally capable of rejecting the propaganda, but didn’t.

Categories
Democracy Deranged altruism Might is right (book)

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.

Categories
Deranged altruism Might is right (book)

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
Michael O'Meara 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 Might is right (book) 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