This entry has been moved: here.
Categories
Tag: Christian problem (CP)
Categories
Has Christianity…
been good for the White race?
1) No it hasn’t. It has been far from good for the white race.
Internal warfare and external threats to the White Race in Europe were not abated by Christianity. Some of Europe was converted by 5th century by the Roman Empire, which saw the enslavement and death of 3 million White Gauls, and then their slow spiritual degradation.
The rest of Europe was converted to Christianity circa 11th century (by the point of the sword I might add). Over the next millennium there was much internal warfare which led to the destruction of people, property and ideas. What’s more is that Christianity did a poor job of defending White Christendom from invaders. So not only did it cause internal warfare, but it failed to defend the Christians from external threats, thus it was a double-edged sword of evil against the white race.
Muslim Expansions in 7th & 8th Centuries
Auburn – Muhammad’s conquests, 622–632
Atomic tangerine – Rashidun Caliphate, 632–661
Amber – Umayyad Caliphate, 661–750
Remember that it was nationalists who defended White Europe from invaders. Not Christians but nationalists. Christians had no desire to help one another despite the pleas that were sent by Kings from the Balkans when the Muslim Turks were invading. Europe was defended by Stephen cel Mare of Moldavia, Vlad Tepes of Wallachia, Ivan the IV of Muscovy, Ferdinand of Spain, amongst others. These men were nationalist champions first and foremost. They fought for their kin, for their family. Nationalists were the ones who fended off the invaders, not Christians. Christianity has done nothing to give internal security, nor external security. It’s crap as a police force, and worse as a military force. It causes destruction of all those who believe it. Other races would be wise to give Christianity a wide birth also, as it would likely have the same effect on them.
2) Christianity left the White Race genetically impoverished (as it does to “all races” who believe it). The most intelligent men and women were sent off to monasteries and nunneries to study instead of raising families and being innovators (like Farnsworth, Darwin, who had families and children) which means that the race didn’t benefit from their excellent genes. Obviously a race that degrades is only going to get worse. Is that what God intended when he created the universe: That we all end up thick, and physically unfit? I doubt it.
3) Christianity has achieved next to nothing in technological terms. Compare the Christian Civilisation / Empires that sprouted circa 1500, to the Pagan Empires of the Middle-East. The Christian Empires were obsessed with “making money,” hence the phrase “the Protestant Work Ethic” which is about being nothing more than a money grubber. Here are some of the achievements of the Pagans: the library at Alexandria, the Pyramids, Agriculture, Metal working—from the R1b Hittites, and astronomy. Now what have the Christians added to that in the millennia that they’ve had cultural dominance? Where are the pyramids, where is the great library? There are none of these things. As Arthur Schopenhauer pointed out the achievements of Europe during the Enlightenment era were made “in spite” of the faith known as Christianity.
Your life and happiness will be better served by believing that which is true, and that which begets good works. You’ll get neither of these things from Christianity, but both from truth. Whether that truth lays solely in spiritual-paganism or hard-headed science I don’t know. Uppsala Online is an intelligent website that straddles both worlds: the world of science and the world of spirit, and shows that you don’t have to fudge words or babble in order to defend your position like so many Christians seem to do. The truth serves you well and is simple and crystal-clear.
Anonymous said…
Under Christianity Europe gave us modern firearms, Gothic Cathedrals, modern medicine (to be fair the Romans were far ahead of Medieval Europeans) and the printing press. Unless you’re referring to a time when Europe was 100 percent theocratic. In that case, Christianity achieved very little. The good in Christianity was put there by White men, as was the good in Paganism. Paganism, by being intrinsically ours, is the healthier/better fit.
AAB said…
Though all races adhere to similar laws (logical, physical, biological etc., we’ve all got to eat and sleep!), there are differences between the races, and those differences are best satisfied by a belief system that is unique to them. A belief system along the lines of the Proto-Indo-European religion will probably be best for the White race. hyperborearising.wordpress.com seems to have a good grasp on such matters.
Finally, here’s the quote from Schopenhauer on “Christianity and Civilization”:
The reason civilization is at its highest point among Christian peoples is not that Christianity is favourable to it but that Christianity is dead and no longer exercises much influence: as long as it did exercise influence, civilisation was at a very low point among Christian peoples. All “religion” is antagonistic towards culture.
(Essays and Aphorisms, Hollingdale translation.)
Kevin MacDonald’s first book of his trilogy opened the doors to my understanding of what the Christians call the “Old Testament,” the sacred book of the Jews. In a nutshell, the Old Testament message promises a strictly racial ethno-state for a Semitic tribe: a message by Semitic writers for a specific Semitic people.
In contrast, the New Testament message for the gentiles seems to say, also in a nutshell, An ethno-state for me but not for thee; your reign is not of this world.
Jesus (and by this I don’t mean the historical Jesus—whoever the hell he was, if he did exist after all—but the Jesus of the gospel) is presented to us as an universalist. At least that’s how the Jew Saul (the most influential author of the New Testament as far as the extent of his writing compared to the other apostles), called “Saint Paul” by the Christians, preached his good news. In Galatians for example he says: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
In other words, throughout the OT the Jews teach ethno-centricity for the Jewish people, but in the NT the Jew teaches universalism for us gentiles. Right? That’s the Holy Bible in a fucking little nutshell.
Below, a recent exchange on Christianity in a non-American, racialist blog:
Saint Paul delivering the Areopagus Sermon in Athens, by Raphael, 1515.
aijahlon68 says…
I was banned for life from Stormfront.org by a Christian Identity zealot / moderator, for having the audacity to write a post saying that Yeshua was a Jew.
Christian Identity, and Christianity as a whole, represents the biggest disadvantage the white race has in overcoming the Jewish problem. Christianity (in any form) is nothing more than self-inflicted Jewish Supremacy. As a race, we will never overcome the Jewish problem, until the Christian problem is solved first. How does one battle against emotions fueled by religious devotion, which is the most dangerous kind of devotion, because it leaves no room for questions or common sense, and is devoid of truth.
Waking a race of people up from a deep dream state based on Jewish lies would truly be a miracle, but impossible as it seems, there must be a way, and those of us who are fully awake need to find it.
mk8 says…
Attacking Christianity is a bad idea before every other problem has been dealt with. Even Hitler said so, and we all like Hitler, don’t we? There would just be some form of spiritual vacuum which would soon be filled by Islam and various other dangerous cults. As it stands now Christianity is actually the least of all evils.
Varg Vikernes says…
No it is not a bad idea at all. Christianity is the problem we have today. Christianity is not the least of all evils; it is the indirect cause of all evils. The Christians allow their “chosen people” special rights to destroy us all. If it hadn’t been for the Christians the Jews would not have been able to do anything to us at all. Go to Thulean Perspective for more on that, and search for posts about Christianity.
Christians even revolted against the NS regime, in 1942, causing instability and many other problems too, so maybe Hitler should have dealt with them first?
If Europe had been Pagan we would not have had any of the serious problems we have today in the first place.
mk8 says…
Varg, you are right that much of the resistance against the Third Reich was by Christians, and their grip on the churches was not tight enough. Hitler was not that wrong about leaving Christianity alone though, as he saw what happened to the Alldeutsche Vereinigung in Austria-Hungary (a political party supporting the Anschluss of the German part of Austria to Germany). The movement fell apart soon after they started to openly attack the church, failing to reach the common people and losing most of their followers. Even if it was the right thing to do, it was a very bad strategic move in hindsight.
On a smaller scale, I’ll just assume the same thing happens in places like Stormfront.org. It’s an American site after all, it must reek of Christians. Confronting them with the truth about their religion is like a cold shower for them. Maybe it’s not so bad to be banned from there after all…
Here in Mexico, a couple of days ago, after my family celebrated the Day of Independence, I caught my Catholic father and sister speaking in high terms about Miguel Hidalgo, the Catholic priest that in 1810 started the war of independence; and José María Morelos, the mulatto that continued Hidalgo’s anti-white wars. While father and daughter recognized that Hidalgo and Morelos killed lots of Iberian white civilians and “from 20,000 to 30,000 prisoners of war,” they, nonetheless, regard them as “heroes.” In the Mexican wars of independence from Spain of 1810 to 1821 my father and sister could have been confused with Spaniards and, still, like many other Mexicans who could pass as Mediterraneans, they side the crypto-Jew and the mulatto. Why?
The 19th century portraits of Hidalgo are fake. All of them used a man of Austrian origin who posed as the father of the independence. Original reports depict Hidalgo with hooked nose. The overwhelming majority of Mexicans ignore that the Catholic priest Hidalgo was probably the son of Jewish conversos. Even the Mexican Jews, no longer cryptos, acknowledge it: “Two genealogical studies of the eighteenth century, the Archivo General de la Nación de Mexico and the Ramo de la Inquisición, suggest that Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, the father of Mexican Independence, had a Converso background and that Bartolomé de las Casas, a Bishop who fought to free slaves in Nueva España, also had Jewish ancestors.” In case of my family, they are under the naïve impression that both Hidalgo and Las Casas were of pure Spanish origin.
But what about the mulatto Morelos? The 1944 edition of José Vasconcelos’ A Brief History of Mexico that my father read long ago, says (my translation):
For Morelos, for example, to be comparable to Washington, it must be assumed that Washington had decided to recruit blacks and mulattoes to kill the English. Instead, Washington disdained blacks and mulattoes and recruited the English of America, who did not commit the folly of killing their own brothers, uncles, and relatives, only because they were born in England. Quite the contrary, each participant of the American Revolution felt pride for his British ancestry and hoped for the betterment of the English. This should have been the sense of our own emancipation, to transform New Spain into an improved Spain, better than that of the peninsula but with its blood, our blood. The whole later disaster of Mexico is explained by the blind, criminal decision that emerged from the womb of Hidalgo’s mobs and is expressed in the suicidal cry: “Death to the Spaniards!”
So why many Mexicans who physiognomically could pass as southern Italians, Greeks or Spaniards side the mulatto against their blood? Recently, for example, my father’s orchestra composition, La Espada (The Sword), was a success in Mexico City: an homage to the mulatto Morelos (my father has zero black blood by the way).
The music is good—the first ten minutes can be listened in the above clip—, but the libretto is outrageous. The poet Carlos Pellicer (1897-1977) wrote it and my father adapted it for 150 voices and orchestra:
Tú fuiste una espada de Cristo,
que alguna vez, tal vez, tocó el demonio.
Gloria a ti por la tierra repartida.
Perdón a tu crueldad de mármol negro…
Gloria a ti al igualar indios, negros y blancos…
Gloria a ti que empobreciste a los ricos
Y te hiciste comer de los humildes,
Procurador de Cristo en el Magníficat.
My rough translation:
You [Morelos] were a sword of Christ,
once, perhaps, touched by the devil.
Glory to you for distributing the land.
Sorry for your cruelty of black marble…
Glory to you for equating indians, blacks and whites…
Glory to you that made the rich poor
And made the humble eat,
Attorney of Christ in the Magnificat.
When Pellicer said “touched by the devil” he meant the killings of unarmed Iberian whites that the mulatto ordered in cold blood. That’s why Pellicer said “black marble”: Morelos’ appearance was even darker than the Amerind skin! So much that, to avoid being called names, Morelos covered his curly hair—obvious black heritage—with the legendary bandana that adorns his head in every single picture that represents him.
The rest of my rough translation of the famed poet needs no explanation. However, as far as I know Catholic Pellicer (whom I met as a child when my family visited him at Tepoztlán) didn’t have black blood either. You can imagine where all of these ethno-suicidal ideas came from: the religion of the inversion of values of these Body-snatched Mexican Pods, my family included.
“In ancient Rome, as in modern America, the economic system and its imperatives are treated as absolute and fixed, whereas the people are treated as liquid and fungible.”
—Greg Johnson
“After all, the chief business of the American people is business.”
—President Calvin Coolidge
Yesterday I listened Tom Sunic’s interviews of Andrew Fraser, author of The WASP Question. Fraser is a Protestant and Sunic, of Catholic background, like me has given up Christianity. Although their very friendly discussion on the role that Calvinism and Puritanism may have played in today’s suicidal zeitgeist was fascinating, what piqued my interest was the view that both Sunic and Fraser share: how White Anglo-Saxon Protestants fell into the spell of the One Ring (economics-over-race policies).
Since the Jewish Question was almost absent in this two-part interview, it reminds me very strongly Michael O’Meara’s view that the JQ is secondary to America’s Low Church worship of Mammon. In the heated debate at Counter-Currents between O’Meara and the monocausalists (those who believe that whites are blameless), that I copied and pasted, O’Meara said:
Kevin MacDonald, unlike his epigones, knows how to make an argument and support it with substantiating evidence. Nevertheless, his argument proves nothing (except his own intelligence), for with the same methods but in reference to different facts, I could make an equally convincing argument to “prove” that corporate capitalism (or the Cold War state, Catholicism, Protestantism, or a half-dozen other factors) were far more influential in legalizing the formal de-Europeanization of the American people.
I think that Sunic, Fraser and O’Meara are right. In fact, the moral of the historical books by William Pierce and Arthur Kemp is that non-whites have always overwhelmed the white minority after some centuries. Pierce and Kemp have proven, to my satisfaction, that ever since the civilizations of the Ancient World to date, whites have been losing because they don’t follow the golden rule: total separation from non-whites. Instead, they have fallen, and still fall, in the temptation of trying to use non-whites as “capital”: whether slaves, servants, second-class citizens, or wet-backs in the US and elsewhere.
From this meta-perspective that reviews several millennia of history the culprits of the West’s darkest hour may be listed, in order of importance, thus:
1) The One Ring
2) The Christian Problem
3) The Jewish Problem
This blog has been focusing on the second etiological factor because other white nationalist blogs are reluctant to fully discuss it. Nonetheless, both the Christian and the Jewish problems are far from being the most influential factors, and it is a pity that nobody is sponsoring O’Meara because, in addition to his published articles, I believe that his thesis must be expanded as thoroughly as MacDonald has presented his views on Judaism. (But why does this movement have no wealthy sponsors…?)
“Every christian gets to be
a heroic mini-me jesus
in one way or another.”
—Alex Linder
I am moving this entry today (originally posted yesterday with only Linder’s quote) because, when starting to translate chapter 12 of the Sparta series, which incidentally I might finish tomorrow, I hit this sentence:
Religion in Sparta played a major role, far above any other Greek state. Spartan supremacy was not only physical, but spiritual. This apparent contradiction is explained by the Hellenic religion, drinking directly from the original Indo-European religion: a religion of the strong—not a religion of self-pity and worship of the sick, the weak, the downtrodden and unhappy. In Sparta, also, that religion had been placed at the service of a shield specifically designed to withstand the rigors of the Iron Age.
Never forget that the deranged out-group altruism that is destroying the West is a defense mechanism of those who resent their inferiority, or the inferiority of the downtrodden: what Nietzsche called slave morality, or ideological hatred.
Michael O’Meara, the first white nationalist author I ever read, has said that the United States, as the architect of the prevailing world system, is the source of all evil. But a humble book by Tomislav Sunić is even more focused on the subject. In fact, to me it is the key to understand the West’s darkest hour.
Here there are a few quotes:
♣
“America is the least homogeneous country in the Western hemisphere… But there is one common feature which is characteristic for all Americans, regardless of their social and racial background or status; namely their rejection of their previous roots.”
Homo Americanus, pages 1-2
“The American species, Homo americanus, exists all over Europe now…
Following the Second World War, hundreds of European and American authors were removed from library shelves on the basis of their allegedly extremist, racist and unscientific character.”
Homo Americanus, pages 5, 7
Lawrence R. Brown, in his magnum opus The Might of the West… acknowledges that the Declaration was a form of political theology, compatible with the spirit of the time of Enlightenment, and therefore replete with platitudes and “self-evident” truths. The Preamble of the Declaration could very well fit into the Middle Ages.
Homo Americanus, page 17
“Not a single politician will ever admit that America is a theocratic system with a peculiar political theology.”
Homo Americanus, page 3
“Ethnic or racial discrimination, let alone charges of anti-Semitism, are viewed in postmodern Americanism as the ultimate intellectual sin… Certain dogmatic views, particularly those regarding the sacred Jewish question and inherent goodness of non-European races, are imposed by force and must be accepted by all…”
Homo Americanus, page 14
“However, there seems to be a contradiction in their [white racialists] analyses regarding the waning of the Euro-American world. While they bewail the passing of the white race, they fail to critically examine the economic foundations of Americanism, i.e. an ideology that is fully propitious for low wage non-European immigrant workers… Why should one worry about the passage of the great white race if that race has only been involved in endless economic transactions? This seems to be a feature of many white American racialists who stubbornly refuse to criticize capitalism…”
Homo Americanus, page 23
“It must be recalled that the passionate American desire to make the world safer for democracy also led, after World War II, to the creation of the Nuremberg Tribunal whose legal structures make up the judicial framework of the postmodern European Union, including the European Criminal Code… They opened up, long ago, a Pandora Box.”
Homo Americanus, page 60
Both the American and the Soviet experiments were founded on the same principles of egalitarianism… At the beginning of the third millennium, the immense egalitarian meta-narrative, encapsulated in Americanism, is very much alive… Both Homo sovieticus and Homo americanus herald the slogan that all men are created equal… All academic discussions about genetic or racial differences are quickly neutralized by the all-encompassing words such as “racism” or “hate speech.”
Homo Americanus, pages 55-56
Below, translated excerpts from the first chapter of Karlheinz
Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums
(“Criminal History of Christianity”):
The ravages of David and the modern translators of the Bible
Samuel, the last judge and first prophet of Israel, fought against the Philistines and defeated them but then, feeling old, anointed Saul as army commander and ordered him in God’s name:
“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”
The Catholic encyclopedia of many volumes, Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche annotates that the prophet in question was a character “without blemish” and goes even further in praise of his successor: “A great effort in defending the theocracy, the law and the right, was the major garment of character in Saul.” And this king, the first of Israel (1020-1000 BCE) anointed by Samuel, figures typically as a “charismatic” who acted through “the spirit of the Lord” and yet, “was obviously a psychotic depressive, tormented by persecution” (Beck) who energetically continued the tradition of “holy wars.” As the Bible tells, Saul fought “many enemies around him”: Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, the kings of the Philistines and Amalekites. Of course, when according to superior orders they killed all the Amalekites including the infants, but kept the best cattle, he incurred in the wrath of both the Lord and the prophet Samuel, after which he suffered a tremendous defeat at the hands of the Philistines and committed suicide (by the way, this is the first act of this kind mentioned in the Bible).
His successor, David, name that means the chosen one (of God), who bought as wife Saul’s daughter, Michal, for the price of a hundred Philistine foreskins, towards the end of the millennium heralded the beginning of the national state, thus achieved the maximum period of splendor for Israel, which possessions came then from the middle Syria to the borders of Egypt and was the strongest nation among the great empires of Mesopotamia, Hamath and Egypt.
As had happened with Saul, David (1000-961 BCE) was also possessed by “the spirit of the Lord” and made a campaign after another, as many were “oppressors” from the north. And so David said in his hymn of thanksgiving: “I will pursue my enemies, exterminate them; will not turn my back until they are wiped out. I will consume and shatter them all, so they can no longer recover.” “But he never started a war”—St. Ambrose hastens to add, doctor of the Church—without first asking advice of the Lord.
David is admired not only in Jewish theology, but also in Christianity and Islam as a person of outstanding religious significance. “Whenever he went on campaign, David did not leave a man or woman alive… so did David when he dwelt in the land of Philistines.” Other customs of the Lord’s chosen included to cut off the horses’ tendons of the enemy; once he also cut the hands and feet of the enemies themselves. Another hobby of “the divine David, great and softest prophet” (according to bishop Theodoret, a Church historian) was to grind prisoners with saws and iron tongs and burn them in brick kilns, as he did to the people of all cities of the Ammonites.
It is relevant to remember that, in 1956, the Council of the German Evangelical Church and the Union of Evangelical Bible Society agreed in the publication of a Bible “according to the version of Martin Luther in German,” an authorized edition in 1964 and published in 1971, which reproduces as follows the passage just quoted thus: “to the people he brought them out, and put them into slave labor with saws and axes of iron, and brick kilns.”
However, Martin Luther had translated it thus:
“To the people he took away and commanded them to be sawn, passing iron drays, and butcher them with knives, and toss them in the brick kilns.”
This passage corresponds to one of the 1st Book of Chronicles (20,3), where the above Bible authorized by the Council of the German Evangelical Church, “according to the version of Martin Luther,” says, “whose inhabitants he took away, and put them down in labor servitude in the trails, saws and harrows.” But the words Luther chose were:
“Whose inhabitants he took out, and made that drag harrows and chariots armed with cutting scythes ran over them, so that they were made pieces and shattered.”
The approved Bible is a fabrication, and responds to a certain method.
In the course of the last hundred years, the Evangelical Church has proposed no less than three reviews of the Lutheran Bible. Luther did not suspect that his spiritual heirs would amend his words so flatly, so widely—he, whose motto as a translator was that “words must serve the cause, not the cause serve the words.”
When the Evangelical Church announces a Bible “according to the version of Martin Luther in German language,” it actually is selling a gross forgery. Anyway, if the ancients, being idolaters, had been made slaves surely they would not have run a more enviable fate, even the noncombatants as reported by the archaeologist Glueck, who excavated the ruins of Eilat. His report on the slaves who worked in brick kilns was that “the rate of mortality must have been terrific.”
In the Bible, a man named Shimei curses David calling him a “bloodthirsty” and throws stones upon him. Erich Brock and a few others have opined that the words were uttered “for good reason.” Even the Lord himself confirms it: “You have shed much blood, and done many wars.” But yes, it is always “with the Lord,” always moved “by the will of the Lord”; hence, no doubt, “pleased, the Lord watched David” for example after passing on the knife “twenty-two thousand Syrians” or after a massacre of “ eighteen thousand” Edomites. “Do whatever inspires your heart, for God is with you,” he says in another place.
But if God praised the “bloodthirsty” David for keeping his commandments and walk always in the shadow of the Lord, doing only what would please him, and if David praised himself, he is also praised forever, tireless, by the Christian clergy: a clergy that, as I will try to argue, in all ages has been in favor of the great criminals of history if they are useful to the Church. The same bloodthirsty king was the first to encourage the clergy as he could, and so he has set an example for millennia: for being faithful to the Lord, for making war in the name of the Lord, for sanctifying the loot destined to the construction of the Temple. (He who tried to hide the contribution was exposed to the extermination of his entire family, livestock included.)
Categories
Hunter – 3
This entry has been moved: here.