web analytics

Tag: Christian problem (CP)

Categories
Axiology Energy / peak oil Eschatology Real men Turner Diaries (novel)

Ostriches

In Sebastian Ronin’s recent retort to some comments by Matt Parrott here at WDH, this paragraph caught my attention:

Nothing is “free”, not even “virtually free”, especially not energy. No one, absolutely no one, gets to dodge the bullet of Post-Peak Oil energy devolution. A global civilization, to which Murka is the metaphorical Rome, collapses; it comes to an end… In historically relative terms, the current century will make the Black Death seem like a nose bleed.

Why most Murkan White Nationalists cannot see, will not see, or refuse to see how this most devastating of historical events will impact racial politics is simply mind-boggling. Wait! No, it’s not all that mind-boggling at all, but that is another matter, another day.

The reason why most white nationalists don’t want to look at the evidence of both, the coming collapse of the dollar and the apocalyptic energy devolution is easily explained when considering several posts in this blog where I have said that, unlike William Pierce, today’s nationalists still subscribe Christian axiology, even those who claim to be anti-Christian. See for example my extremely provocative entries, “Dies Irae” and its postscript “The depth of evil” linked at the sidebar.

Moderately edited, I would like to repost below a substantial part of what I said in an entry of almost a year ago, “On ostriches and real men”:

I must take issue with Greg Johnson’s “We believe that it can be achieved by peaceful territorial divisions and population transfers.” Besides the fact that lots of Jews were very probably murdered in the Second World War the following is what, like the ostriches, most nationalists are still unwilling to see:

1. The dollar will crash soon

2. With all probability the crash will cause high-rocketing unemployment, riots, and looting in the largest western cities

3. Unlike New Orleans after Katrina, the bullet won’t be dodged after the crash. On the contrary: racial tension in ethnically “enriched” cities will escalate throughout the West, insofar as presently all western currencies are fiat currencies

4. Later these socio-political crises will converge with a peak-oil devolution that, by the end of the century, will kill the surplus of worldwide population created as a result of quixotic Christian ethics (as Søren Renner put it, “Billions will die—we will win!”)

White nationalists’ reactionary, non-revolutionary stance hides the head in the sand. In the coming tribulation very few will care about “totalitarianism, imperialism or genocide” as Greg Johnson, editor-in-chief of Counter-Currents Publishing, cares. With all probability, during the convergence of catastrophes nationalists will be ruthless survivors á la Turner Diaries committed to the fourteen words and no more to Christian ethics. As I put it elsewhere, “the future belongs to the bloodthirsty, not to the Alt Righters.”

Granted: Johnson’s piece is otherwise excellent, a must-read for conservative nationalists who are still struggling with guilt and anti-white sentiments inculcated by the tribe. But unlike Johnson and the other ostriches I agree with Mark that the situation for whites is so dire that, with the help of Mother Nature, only a scorched-Earth policy has any chance of success.

Even those nationalists who very strongly disagree with me on moral grounds, like Franklin Ryckaert, ought to open their minds. You must open your minds about the coming collapse of the dollar and the subsequent energy devolution. Pull your heads off the sand! The convergence of catastrophes will mark “the metamorphic rebirth of Europe or its disappearance and transformation into a cosmopolitan and sterile Luna Park.”

The blogger whose “Red Giant” article is linked above in my words about quixotic Christian ethics once said that the white nationalist movement “is weak.” With the exception of William Pierce’s legacy I tend to agree with that statement. Virtually all of them are like the tender-hearted women who lie weeping and mourning, awaiting the results of the coming bloodshedding in Jacques-Louis David’s Oath of the Horatii:

We on the other hand are like the three brothers expressing loyalty and solidarity with their father and willing to sacrifice our lives, and billions of other lives if necessary, to fulfill the fourteen words.

Categories
Indo-European heritage Newspeak

Get rid of Christian newspeak

by Manu Rodríguez

 
Newspeak

It always seems to me that the words are to be used in a certain way. We must think the words. Before using a word we should weigh it, measure it, investigate it from the beginning and set certain (even personal) criteria for their use, and stick to these criteria. We must also notice the semantic versatility of the multiple uses of the terms of the language, their evolution, and possible manipulation.

The processes of acculturation and enculturation we suffered after the Christianization of our peoples also brought some semantic changes, and the reprocessing or re-interpretation of certain concepts (religion, sacred, profane, heathen).

We have, for example, centuries considering as secular the institutions and traditions that are not specifically Christian. The Christian priests applied, and taught us (forced us, rather) to apply the term “sacred” only to the Judeo-messianic tradition. Our traditions, institutions, and customs (Greek, Roman, Germanic, Celtic…) were disallowed, deconsecrated. Is not this a linguistic-cultural tort to be corrected, or straighten? How can we give the blind eye to this deception? It affects us, it’s about us, about our past.

Another change we had with the term “pagan,” which designates the customs and traditions of the peasants, and the peasants themselves. It came to refer to all non-Christian individuals, peoples, or cultures. This was a pejorative use of the term, since the term “pagan” had connotations with terms like uneducated, uncultured or uncivilized. This shift in meaning came to say that what was cultivated or civilized was on the Christian side, and that the pagan was the wild, the uneducated, the rustic, the unlearned…

We exclude, therefore, the word “pagan” from our vocabulary. We are not “pagans” or “neo-pagans” but Aryans and have (or had) our cultures: Greek, Roman, Germanic, Slavic, Celtic… Those are the derogatory terms that Jews, Christians, and Muslims have used or use to refer to the people who still have their own cultures and traditions; peoples not yet alienated or contaminated: those who do not follow the game.


_____________

See the rest of Manu’s entry, “Sobre el valor de las raíces culturales de los europeos” at his blog, where Manu mentions Guénon and Evola in negative terms.

Another provisional entry?

Yesterday I deleted an entry about Matt Heimbach because I couldn’t find actual sources for the words put into his mouth. Today I’d like to add another provisional entry that I’ll also delete if actual sources are not provided for the quotations mentioned below.

At the blog Destroy Zionism, Streicher’s Ghost wrote:

Matthew Heimbach, the founder of the “White Student Union” which has generated some controversy recently, has participated in a radio interview with a crack-smoking Negro. In it, Heimbach says: “if a Jew converted to Christianity, I would accept him as a brother in Christ.”

matthew-heimbach

This is in accordance with the words from Galatians 3:28—written by the Jew Paul (Saul)—in the New Testament: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Heimbach also says that he prefers Black Christians to White Pagans.

The radio show (Heimbach talks about 25 minutes into the show).

To be fair, the author of the above piece did provide a source: the radio show. But I don’t have the time or the patience to listen that long interview. If someone of my readers does, please provide the exact minute and approximate seconds when Heimbach said “if a Jew converted to Christianity, I would accept him as a brother in Christ” (that this is quite problematic is easily shown if we remember the late Larry Auster).

The other claim, that Heimbach prefers black Christians to white pagans, is more problematic because it’s not even stated in quotation marks. Did he really say it? I’ll need a source to allow this entry stay at WDH.

In the comment section Varg Vikernes said, “Actually, I think this [news about Heimbach] is good; it illustrates well the problem with Christians.” I would agree with Vikernes only if the two quotations are real.

Categories
Ethnic cleansing William Pierce

Heimbach still has to see the whole forest

At Occidental Dissent, Mark commented today:


Christianity has made Heimbach soft. He himself receives abuses from Jews firsthand, but wants to turn the other cheek. He correctly identifies many of the problems, but some of his conclusions are half-hearted.

They’re not our enemies? Really? Let’s shake hands and break bread with people who want to turn every White nation in the world into a miscegenated third-world hellhole? If that doesn’t qualify as an enemy then what the hell does?

I’m not Christian, but considering how Jews have historically been the biggest anti-Christians to ever exist, it’s really strange how so many Christians practically worship Jews. If anyone should hate Jews it should be Christians.

As far as the “right” to a homeland, there’s no such thing. What, if we want a White nation we must then fight for everyone else, we must compromise with every other group and capitulate to their demands and help them? Nonsense, they still have control over you, you’re still a slave. Israel only exists because of the help from Whites, the same people they exploit, abuse and refuse to allow to have an ethnostate of their own. Without foreign aid and political and military protection Israel would be overwhelmed.

If you think giving your enemies the white glove treatment that they’ll reciprocate, they won’t. Don’t be naïve. It’s a waste of time.

If you dislike the word enemy, then use competitor. Jews and all other non-Whites are the biological competitors of Whites, always have been and always will be. Their very presence lowers our fitness and reduces our resources.

Let’s assume the Jews are a problem. I think everyone here will agree that Jewish influence has been bad for us. What are we going to do about the problem?

The most practical and fair solution is to deport them to whatever country will take them, same as with all the other non-Whites. They would likely go to the remaining liberal states of the Union or Canada, rather than Israel.

Problem is, the same thing that happened to Germany, the liberal Allies, including Israel and Jews who some want to treat with a kind hand, would all attack the White ethnostate.

There is no peaceful resolution to the problem, because our enemies don’t want a fair and equitable solution, they want total power and control.

It’s not just that he’s [Heimbach] got Jesus, he admits to being philo-Semitic prior to his racial awakening. Perhaps some of that still lingers.

Anyway, he’s young, he’s still evolving and other than that he does good work.


MH
My comment:

Mark was referring to the article that Heimbach (photo) posted yesterday, which starts with the phrase, “Firstly we need to separate the issue of stereotyping the entire Jewish population.”

Like millions of Christians and secular liberals, Heimbach is myopic. The problem in the US is the whole Jewish population in the same way that the problem in Europe is the whole Muslim population, even when only a fraction of Muslims are actual jihadists.

The well-meaning myopia of my parents’ religion (stereotyping?—God forbid!) explains why I have been attacking Christianity in this blog. Today’s version of Christianity has produced a psycho-ethical structure that prevents decent, though myopic religionists from taking action against our ancient enemies: an action that will allow our civilization to save itself.

Heimbach obviously has not paid due attention to one of the best articles ever published on the Jewish question, “Seeing the Forest” authored by someone who, like me, left his parents’ religion behind: an article from which I’ll only quote the last two paragraphs:

You must back off a bit in order to see the forest rather than just the trees. The essential thing about the forest is that it is destroying our world. It is a parasitic forest. It is injecting spiritual and cultural poison into our civilization and into the life of our people and sucking up nutrients to enrich itself and grow even more destructive. Perhaps only 10 per cent of the trees in this Jewish forest have roots deep enough to inject their poison into us, and the other 90 per cent play only supporting roles of one sort or another. It is still the whole forest which is our problem [emphasis added]. If the forest were not here we would not have had to endure the curse of Bolshevism. If the forest were not here America would not be growing darker and more degenerate by the year. It is the whole forest, not just a few of the most poisonous trees in it, which must be uprooted and removed from our soil if we are to become healthy again.

The essential point again is this: not every Jew has a leading role in promoting the evils which are destroying us, and not every person is a Jew who is collaborating with the leading Jews who are promoting evil, but it is only because the Jews as a whole are among us that the evils they always promote are overwhelming us. If the Jews were not present we could overcome the evil men of our own race. The evil men of our own race may seek their own profit at the expense of the rest of us, but they do not seek to destroy our race. Only the Jews seek that.

Read it all. People who are not nearsighted can see the whole forest.

Categories
Julian (novel)

JVLIAN excerpts – IX

“Why were you so ungrateful to our gods
as to desert them for the Jews?”

—Julian, addressing the Christians

Julian

The Memoir of Julian Augustus

I liked the Armenian eunuch Eutherius as much as I disliked Nicocles. Eutherius taught me court ceremonial three times a week. He was a grave man of natural dignity who did not look or sound like a eunuch. His beard was normal. His voice was low. He had been cut at the age of twenty, so he had known what it was to be a man. He once told me in grisly detail how he had almost died during the operation, “from loss of blood, because the older you are, the more dangerous the operation is. But I have been happy. I have had an interesting life. And there is something to be said for not wasting one’s time in pursuit of sexual pleasure.” But though this was true of Eutherius, it was not true of all eunuchs, especially those at the palace. Despite their incapacity, eunuchs are capable of sexual activity, as I one day witnessed, in a scene I shall describe in its proper place.

Shortly after New Year 349 Eusebius agreed to let me go to Nicomedia on condition that I not attend the lectures of Libanius. As Nicocles put it, “Just as we protect our young from those who suffer from the fever, so we must protect them from dangerous ideas, not to mention poor rhetoric. As stylist, Libanius has a tendency to facetiousness which you would find most boring. As philosopher, he is dangerously committed to the foolish past.” To make sure that I would not cheat, Ecebolius was ordered to accompany me to Nicomedia.

Ecebolius and I arrived at Nicomedia in February 349. In enjoyed myself hugely that winter. I attended lectures. I listened to skilled Sophists debate. I met students of my own age. This was not always an easy matter, for they were terrified of me, while I hardly knew how to behave with them.

Oribasius took delight in showing me his city. He knew my interest in temples (though I was not yet consciously a Hellenist), and we spent several days prowling through the deserted temples on the acropolis and across the Selinos River, which divides the city. Even then, I was stuck by the sadness of once holy buildings now empty save for spiders and scorpions. Only the temple of Asklepion was kept up, and that was because the Asklepion is the center of the intellectual life of the city. It is a large enclave containing theatre, library, gymnasium, porticoes, gardens, and of course the circular temple to the god himself. Most of the buildings date from two centuries ago, when architecture was at its most splendid.

Priscus: From what I gather, Julian in those days was a highly intelligent youth who might have been “captured” for true philosophy. After all, he enjoyed learning. He was good at debate. Properly educated, he might have been another Porphyry or, taking into account his unfortunate birth, another Marcus Aurelius. But Maximus got to him first and exploited his one flaw: the craving for the vague and the incomprehensible which is essentially Asiatic. It is certainly not Greek, even though we Greeks are in a noticeable intellectual decline. Did you know that thanks to the presence of so many foreign students in Athens, our people no longer speak pure Attic but a sort of argot, imprecise and ugly?

Yet despite the barbarism which is slowly extinguishing “the light of the world,” we Athenians still pride ourselves on being able to see things as they are. Show us a stone and we see a stone, not the universe. But like so many others nowadays, poor Julian wanted to believe that man’s life is profoundly more significant than it is. His sickness was the sickness of our age. We want so much not to be extinguished at the end that we will go to any length to make conjurer-tricks for one another simply to obscure the bitter, secret knowledge that it is our fate not to be. If Maximus hadn’t stolen Julian to us, the bishops would have got him. I am sure of that. At heart he was a Christian mystic gone wrong.

Julian Augustus

“With the worship of the dead Jew, the poetry ceased. The Christians wish to replace our beautiful legends with the police record of a reformed Jewish rabbi. Out of this unlikely material they hope to make a final synthesis of all the religions ever known. They now appropriate our feast days. They transform local deities into saints. They borrow from our mystery rites, particularly those of Mithras. The priests of Mithras are called ‘fathers.’ So the Christians call their priests ‘fathers.’ They even imitate the tonsure, hoping to impress new converts with the familiar trappings of an older cult. Now they have started to call the Nazarene ‘savior’ and ‘healer.’ Why? Because one of the most beloved of our gods is Asklepios, whom we call ‘savior’ or ‘healer.’”

“But there is nothing in Mithras to equal the Christian mystery.” I argued for the devil. “What of the Eucharist, the taking of the bread and wine, when Christ said, ‘He who eats of my body and drinks of my blood shall have eternal life.’”

Maximus smiled. “I betray no secret of Mithras when I tell you that we, too, partake of a symbolic meal, recalling the words of the Persian prophet Zarathustra, who said to those who worshiped the One God—and Mithras, ‘He who eats of my body and drinks of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall know salvation.’ That was spoken six centuries before the birth of the Nazarene.”

I was stunned. “Zarathustra was a man…?”

“A prophet. He was stuck down in a temple by enemies. As he lay dying, he said, ‘May God forgive you even as I do.’ No, there is nothing sacred to us that the Galileans have not stolen. The main task of their innumerable councils is to try to make sense of all their borrowings. I don’t envy them.”

Priscus: Interesting to observe Maximus in action.

There is now no doubt in my mind that at this point in Julian’s life almost any of the mystery cults would have got him free of Christianity. He was eager to make the break. Yet it is hard to say quite why, since his mind tended to magic and superstition in precisely the same way the Christian mindset does. Of course, he claimed that Bishop George’s partisanship disgusted him as a boy, and that Porphyry and Plotinus opened his eyes to the absurdity of the Christian claims.

Well and good. But then why turn to something equally absurd? Granted, no educated man can accept the idea of a Jewish rebel as god. But having rejected that myth, how can one then believe that the Persian hero-god Mithras was born of light striking rock, on December 25th, with shepherds watching his birth? (I am told that the Christians have just added those shepherds to the birth of Jesus.)

Of course I am sympathetic to him. He dealt the Christians some good blows and that delighted me. But I cannot sympathize with his fear of extinction. Why is it so important to continue after death? I am in no hurry to depart. But I look on nothing as just that: no thing. How can one fear no thing?

Libanius: Like Julian, I was admitted to the Mithraic rites during my student days. But I had never been a Christian, so I was not making a dramatic and dangerous break with the world I belonged to. However, for Julian it was a brave thing to do. Had Constantius learned of what he had done, it might have cost him his life. Fortunately, Maximus managed the affair so skillfully that Constantius never knew that at the age of nineteen his cousin ceased to be a Christian, in a cave beneath Mount Pion.

Categories
Buddhism Christendom Hinduism Islam Liberalism Philosophy

On philosophical and religious quackery

and its dismal implications for the white race

by John Martínez


This is your best piece of writing in WDH up to now, Chechar—at least that I’m aware of. I don’t think this is the sort of article that will have much appeal to average White Nationalists, obsessed as they are with the Joooos, Niggers and other perceived threats, but until Whites grasp the deep mental roots of the their present malaise (specially as far as Christianity and its secular offshoot, Liberalism, are concerned) they will be like a man being attacked by a swarm of bees in the middle of a pitch-black night.

A couple of points.

First, you are right to be suspicious about “Philosophy”—have you ever considered how presumptuous (“love for wisdom”) the very name of this discipline is? I have my qualms about it too.

German-PhilosophyIn another post you mentioned the fact that not a single one of the supposedly greatest philosophers ever said something about the importance of race to the establishment of a great civilization like ours. That is to say, these guys have devoted millions of man-hours to discussing every single subject under the sun—except for what is perhaps the most important of them all from the point of view of our civilization: the fact that it is a White civilization and that these discussions are not taking place in Africa, Asia or what have you.

I have long thought about this glaring gap in their discussions too and it has made me conclude that by and large the field of the so called “Philosophy” is a Sahara of barren discussions—Steve Sailer apparently agrees with me—and the very fact that after thousands of years of endless discussions, unlike other hard fields like Physics of Chemistry, these guys have not reached any generally accepted conclusions at all, is a testimony to the frivolity of their activity.

It is true that fields like Literary Criticism, for example, are not “hard sciences” either, but even here, unlike the case of Philosophy, you have a number of generally accepted judgments—the centrality of Dante and Shakespeare in Western poetry and the aesthetic preeminence of Tolstoy and Proust in the Western prose fiction, for example, among many other generally accepted opinions—whereas you cannot find a single philosophic view that will be shared by all of the myriad philosophical schools and fashions that have sprouted in the past 2,500 years.

For my part, what I can say is that any occasional powerful insights I have seen coming from professional philosophers never are the results of any elaborate philosophical systems, but are instead simple products of common sense, and might very well have been uttered by any regular, intelligent people. So, why bother? You can learn much more about the human nature and the real world by reading the great classics of the Western Literature than by wading through infinitely boring volumes of pseudo “lovers of Wisdom”, as these guys pompously call themselves.

Second, what’s the point of leaving one superstition just to embrace another? Unfortunately, that’s what people normally do. Atheists normally leave Christianity just to immediately convert to Liberalism and vice versa, for example. What’s the point of looking skeptically at Western spirituality and revering its Eastern counterpart at the same time? That’s a non sequitur. I don’t buy Buddhism, Hinduism or what have you for the same reasons that I don’t take the Abrahamic doctrines seriously: for all their bombastic claims, their allegations are not empirically verifiable, period. If I am to embrace their patent absurdities in particular, why not embracing any other absurdities in general?

Third, what you said concerning the intrinsic despair and pessimism of Buddhism is also true, and again I had also noticed it. The reason why the doctrine of reincarnation is so fundamental to Buddhism is because if you were to embrace the horrifying view this religion has of life without any faith in a life after death, you would logically feel the urge to commit suicide. People who convert to Buddhism have to be convinced to stay alive by means of inculcating in them a belief in reincarnation; and in the hope of not reincarnating by means of following the eightfold path in order to reach Nirvana and not to reincarnate anymore.

Well, any non mentally deranged person can see the madness of such a set of ideas. But unfortunately, all religious systems are ultimately as crazy as Buddhism. All you have to do is to boil their pompous, self-righteous talk down to its bottom lines and you’ll see what their proponents are really talking about.

bosch_last-judgement

Christians, for example, love to say that “God has a plan for your life”. It seems all very fine, until you realize that this plan is that you worship the Jew Jesus. By doing so, you’ll be awarded the opportunity to worship him forever in an afterlife, in a place called Heaven (apparently, a supernatural version of North Korea, with the Christian God in the place of Kim Jong Il), whereas, by refusing to do it, you’ll be tortured forever, being burned in a superheated chamber called Hell. It doesn’t matter how convoluted their talk, how straight their faces while they preach their ideas, or under how many pages of supposedly profound wisdom the Christians try to bury this horrific picture. The fact of the matter is that their core beliefs are as stupid as any savage’s from the Bronze Age—and arguably more wicked at that.

In my humble opinion, Whites should flush such nonsense down the toilet and follow the example of healthier races like the Japanese, the Chinese and the kikes—pace the wickedness of the latter. Shintoism, Confucianism and Judaism are simple pseudo-religious casuistry aiming at preserving the temporal social order of their respective civilizations. To put it bluntly, the ultimate goal of these doctrines is the physical preservation and prosperity of their respective peoples, so much so that they don’t even waste time elaborating on a supposed afterlife, preferring instead to concentrate on the cult of the ancestors and on practical rules of public morality. In other words, we’re talking about racial-preservation cults here. Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, on the other hand, are universalistic ideologies that see this world as a distraction from transcendental truths around which we should build all whole lives.

I’m not suggesting that Whites should create a new religion in which they worship themselves instead of the Christian God or any other non-White deity or spiritual leader for that matter (Ben Klassen, for one, was of this persuasion). White Nationalists are an intellectual vanguard of the White race and they are simply too smart to start following a new religion. It takes idiots to found a new religion (illiterate fishermen in the case of Christianity, illiterate caravan robbers in the case of Islam) and I honestly don’t think we have enough of them in this movement—at least not in numbers big enough to reach a critical mass.

Unlike a number of “philosophers”, I do think we don’t need a supernatural worldview in order to establish and maintain a stable, healthy social order. I can envision the Chinese, the Japanese and the Jewish races living far away into the future under the auspices of down-to-earth, metaphysically unambitious doctrines such as Shintoism, Confucianism and Judaism. But can you picture racial stability for the populations leaving under universalistic creeds like Christianity, Islam or Buddhism, which only acknowledge the physical world in order to repudiate it to a bigger or lesser degree in exchange for an alleged post-mortem reward of some kind? To ask this question is to answer it.

Just one more observation:

Greg Johnson once noted apropos of a Michael O’Meara book he reviewed: “I look at Christian art as merely the ideological channel through which white genius was forced for a long time to flow”, and Johnson is right—as usual.

Look, philosophies and religions come and go. But the great White art, for example, like Literature that I mentioned above, is here to stay. And above all, the race that made the articulation of the three phenomena possible is what really matters.

At the end of the day, it is for the White race that one should fight for instead of religions or philosophies “A” or “B” or “Z”—especially when these philosophies and religions are not only dubious (to say the least) but were inflicted (or at least heavily influenced) upon Whites by folks who hate them and want to destroy them.

Categories
Christendom Emperor Julian Julian (novel) New Testament Porphyry of Tyre

JVLIAN excerpts – VII

“Why were you so ungrateful to our gods
as to desert them for the Jews?”

—Julian, addressing the Christians

Julian

The memoir of Julian Augustus


“Homoiousios. What does that mean?”

I knew. I rattled my answer like a crow taught to speak. “It means that Jesus the son is of similar substance to God the father.”

“Homoousios. What does that mean?”

“That Jesus the son is of one substance with God the father.”

“The difference?”

“In the first case, Jesus was created by the father before this world began. He is God’s son by grace but not by nature.”

“Why?”

“Because God is one. By definition singular. God cannot be many, as the late Presbyter Arius maintained at the council of Nicaea.”

“Excellent.” I received a series of finger-snappings as applause. “Now in the second case?”

“Homoousios is that pernicious doctrine”—I had been well-drilled by Eusebius—“which maintains that the father and the son and the holy spirit are one and the same.”

“Which cannot be!”

“Which cannot be,” I chirruped obediently.

“Despite what happened in Nicaea.”

“Where in the year 325 Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria…”

“A mere deacon at the time…”

“Opposed my cousin Bishop Eusebius as well as Presbyter Arius, and forced the council to accept the Athanasian doctrine that the father, son and holy spirit are one.”

“But the battle is far from over. We are gaining ground every year. Our wise Augustus believes as we believe, as the late Presbyter Arius believed. Two years ago at Antioch we Eastern bishops met to support the true doctrine. This year shall meet again at Sardica and, with the Emperor’s aid, the true believers shall once and for all destroy the doctrine of Athanasius. My son, you are to be a priest. I can tell. You have the mark. You will be a great force in the church. Tomorrow I shall send you one of my deacons. He will give you religious instruction, both of you.”

“But I’m to be a soldier,” said Gallus, alarmed.

“A God-fearing soldier has the strength of twenty,” said Bishop George automatically. “Besides, religious training will do you no harm.” And curiously enough, it was Gallus who became the devout Galilean while I, as the world knows, returned to the old ways.

But at that time I was hardly a philosopher. I studied what I was told to study. The deacon who gave me instruction was most complimentary. “You have an extraordinary gift for analysis,” he said one day when I was exploring with him John 14:24, the text on which the Arians base their case against Athanasius. “You will have a distinguished future, I am sure.”

“As a bishop?”

“Of course you will be a bishop since you are imperial. But there is something even more splendid than a bishop.”

“A martyr?”

“Martyr and saint. You have the look of one.”

I must say my boyish vanity was picked. Largely because of this flattery, for several months I was confident that I had been especially chosen to save the world from error. Which, in a way, turned out to be true, to the horror of my early teachers.

Bishop George was an arrogant and difficult man but I got on with him. Largely because he was interested in me. He was a devoted controversialist. Finding me passably intelligent, he saw his opportunity. If I could be turned into a bishop, I would be a powerful ally for the Arians, who were already outnumbered by the Athanasians, despite the considerable help given them by Constantius. Today, of course, the “pernicious” doctrine of the three-in-one God has almost entirely prevailed, due to the efforts of Bishop Athanasius. Constantius alone kept the two parties in any sort of balance. Now that he is dead the victory of Athanasius is only a matter of time. But today none of this matters since the Galileans are now but one of a number of religious sects, and by no means the largest. Their days of domination are over. Not only have I forbidden them to persecute us Hellenists; I have forbidden them to persecute one another. They find me intolerable cruel!

Was I a true Galilean in those years at Macellum? There has been much speculation about this. I often wonder myself. The answer is not clear even to me. For a long time I believed what I was taught. I accepted the Arian thesis that the One God (whose existence we all accept) mysteriously produced a sort of son who was born a Jew, became a teacher, and was finally executed by the state for reasons which were never entirely clear for me, despite the best efforts of Bishop George to instruct me. But while I was studying the life of the Galilean I was also reading Plato, who was far more to my taste. After all, I was something of a literary snob. I had been taught the best Greek by Mardonius. I could not help but compare the barbarous back-country language of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to the clear prose of Plato. Yet I accepted the Galilean legend as truth. After all, it was the religion of my family, and though I did not find it attractive, I was unaware of any alternative until one afternoon when I was fourteen.

I had been sitting for two hours listening to the deacon sing me the songs of Presbyter Arius… yes, that great religious thinker wrote popular songs in order to influence the illiterate. To this day I can recall the words of half a dozen of his inane ballads which “proved” that the son was the son and the father was the father. Finally, the deacon finished; I praised his singing.

“It is the spirit what matters, not the voice,” said the deacon, pleased with my compliment. Then—I don’t know how it happened—Plotinus was mentioned. He was only a name to me. He was anathema to the deacon. “A would-be philosopher of the last century. A follower of Plato, or so he claimed. An enemy of the church, though there are some Christians who are foolish enough to regard him highly. He lived at Rome. He was a favorite of the Emperor Gordian. He wrote six quite unintelligible works which his disciple Porphyry edited.”

“Porphyry?” As though it were yesterday, I can remember hearing that name for the first time, seated opposite the angular deacon on one of the gardens at Macellum, high summer flowering all about us and the day hazy with heat.

“Even worse than Plotinus! Porphyry came from Tyre. He studied at Athens. He called himself a philosopher but of course he was merely an atheist. He attacked the church in fifteen volumes.”

“On what grounds?”

“How should I know? I have never read his books. No Christian ought.” The deacon was firm.

“But surely this Porphyry must have had some cause…”

“The devil entered him. That is cause enough.”

By then I knew that I must read Plotinus and Porphyry. I wrote Bishop George a most politic letter, asking him to lend me the books of these “incorrigible” men. I wished to see, I said, the face of the enemy plain, and naturally I turned to the Bishop for guidance, not only because he was my religious mentor but because he had the best library in Cappadocia. I rather laid it on.

To my astonishment Bishop George immediately sent me the complete works of Plotinus as well as Porphyry’s attack on Christianity. “Young as you are, I am sure you will appreciate the folly of Porphyry. He was an intelligent man misled by a bad character. My predecessor, as bishop of Caesarea, wrote a splendid refutation of Porphyry, answering for all time the so-called ‘inconsistencies’ Porphyry claimed to have detected in scriptures. I am sending you the Bishop’s works too. I cannot tell you how pleased I am at the interest you are showing in sacred matters.” What the good Bishop did not know was that the arguments of Porphyry were to form the basis for my own rejection of the Nazarene.



_______________

My two ¢:

Porphyry was a thinker in real history—outside Vidal’s novel—; in my opinion, a thinker more important than Plato or Aristotle because, hadn’t Julian life been taken so early during his reign, Porphyry’s exegesis of the New Testament would have prevented the dark ages of Europe.

Alas, every singly copy of Porphyry’s book was destroyed by the triumphant Church, with only a few fragments being exegetically unearthed by Joseph Hoffmann as late as… 1994!

I have typed some of these fragments directly from Hoffmann’s book for WDH, here.

Categories
Ancient Rome Architecture Art Indo-European heritage

Why whites cannot reassert themselves?

In a recent discussion thread I said:

The Imperial Church started to destroy entire libraries and invaluable monuments of the classical world that represented the very soul of our Indo-European heritage and ancient wisdom.

Mister Deutsch, a commenter, responded:

Amen. And that’s why whites cannot reassert themselves; their foundations were destroyed and replaced with a Semitic god.

The core problem is a confused spiritual identity; all of the other issues, be it miscegenation, liberalism, capitalism, Marxism, scientism, the cult of the bourgeois consumer, etc., are all the by-product of de-Aryanization via Christianity.

See the posts of Manu Rodríguez that I have translated from Spanish to delve deeper into this subject.

♣

Below, the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina: a partial ruin that was turned into a church, but you can still make out the impressive front steps and portico today. At one time, it looked like the model below. It was built in 141 by the Emperor Antoninus and dedicated to his wife Faustina, who had died.

Temple of Antoninus and Faustina

In the Middle Ages the temple ruin was converted to the Church of San Lorenzo. Today, it is one of the strangest churches anywhere. On the forum side, the steps and columns are still visible, as is the inscription to Antoninus and Faustina, with a church roof and entry on the opposite side. During the Middle Ages the forum was all under 10-20 feet of earth, so today with the ground excavated you can see the church and what remains of the original structure.

Categories
Autobiography Axiology Christendom Deranged altruism Egalitarianism French Revolution Indo-European heritage Jesus Liberalism New Testament St Paul Tom Sunic Universalism

A response to Parrott

Or:

The self-defeating notion
of a “Christian” white nationalism

by John Martínez

So you can see that my position goes far beyond both Christian reductionism and Jewish reductionism. I believe that individualism, universalism, weak ethnocentrism (“hardwired” characteristics in the White psyche since prehistoric times) + egalitarianism, liberalism, capitalism (cultural “software” after the Revolution which ironically strengthened Christian axiology) + the Jewish culture of critique in the 20th century = a truly lethal brew for the White peoples.

Chechar, you pretty much summarized the “White Question” (so to say) in this single paragraph.

I have the utmost respect for Parrott—the guy is brilliant, and he is a real fighter for the White cause.

However, what he and other White nationalists regrettably fail to see is that a “Racialist Christianity” is an oxymoron.

Here’s Saint Paul to give the final word on the question (Galatians 3:28): “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 passages like this (not to mention many others throughout the New Testament, specially the several ones where Jesus violently attacks the rich in a way that would have made Karl Marx sound like an elitist) you have the real seeds of the French Revolution, Communism and modern Liberalism. For God’s sake, this is avant-garde Egalitarianism writ large!

I wonder what part our “Christian race realist” friends don’t understand in the sentence “There is neither Jew nor Gentile… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” After all, if we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, how can someone in his own mind argue against racial intermixing, for example?

Matt seems to claim that Medieval Christianity was not afflicted by the modern mainstream Christian attitude towards the racial question. That’s true, but the point is: was it so due to Christianity or in spite of it?

The fact of the matter is that the Christian ethos is so out of touch with reality, so fundamentally impractical that a number of compromises had to be made by the European peoples on which it was imposed over time so it could be rendered minimally functional.

judeocristianismoAny society that wished to take suicidal teachings like “Turn the other cheek” or “Resist not Evil” seriously would be enslaved overnight; a society that wished to take at face value teachings preaching that the rich will almost certainly be sentenced to Hell and that one should not worry about tomorrow but rather one should give everything away to the poor—a society that had gone insane enough to implement such ideas would implode almost immediately.

Therefore, it is obvious that a number of Christian tenets had to be simply ignored or rationalized into oblivion so that it could become a mainstream doctrine. Being the Europeans who they were and being surrounded by an ocean of hostile populations on all sides as it was the case, it is obvious that Christianity also had to be sort of “aryanized”—in other words, the notion of all humankind being one big family in Christ did not translate into Arabs, Blacks and Central Asians being invited to move en masse to Europe and being offered White maidens as brides.

The problem is that time passes and over time and with the help of improving life conditions, all of the radically liberal/egalitarian tenets of Christianity that could not be immediately put into practice by its adherents in the past eventually blossomed into reality.

[Chechar’s interpolated note: This is precisely what Conservative Swede argues in an entry I called “The Red Giant”. See my always-growing collection of similar articles: here.]

As I have pointed out in another thread, a number of philosophers and thinkers (e.g. Eric Voegelin) have established beyond the shadow of a doubt that the deep historical and ideological roots of the Left are to be found in certain Catholic heresies of the High Middle Ages. And it should come as no surprise if one seriously thinks about it for a minute. The leftist egalitarianism that has plagued the West ever since the French Revolution and that has gone into overdrive since the WW2 neither appeared nor has taken root anywhere outside of the realm of the Christian World. To their credit, it wasn’t the Muslim, the Chinese nor the Indian civilizations that invented this crap and in spite of the nominally Communist regime they have in China today, those folks couldn’t care less about any so-called “universal human rights” that have been the epicenter of all forms of Leftism since Rousseau.

Let’s face the fact, my race realist Christian friends: the pseudo-historical figure of Jesus was a typical liberal Jew. The egalitarian cancer that is at the base of the destruction of the White race is just the natural development of a number of elements that are part and parcel of the Christian ideology.

Please tell me how can you guys tell a Black man that although he is your brother in Christ you don’t want to him to live in the same society as you? Or rather, how can you say that with a straight face? And don’t get me wrong, I’m all for racial separation, but mind you, I am not a Christian. I don’t buy for a second the childish notion that we all belong to a big human family in Christ.

Like I have pointed out before on this blog, it puzzles me to see intelligent, well-informed White Nationalists, the overwhelming majority of whom are quite aware of the Jewish question… worshiping an avant la letter revolutionary Jew who owes nothing in terms of radicalism to a liberal Jew like the abominable talk-show host Alan Colmes!

Christian race realists should ponder on Tom Sunic’s brilliant articles on the paradox of a so-called “Christian White Nationalism” that are available both at The Occidental Observer and at The West Darkest Hour. This passage summarizes his view on the subject quite well:

How can a White nationalist, a racialist, or a traditionalist, or whatever he may call himself, and regardless of whether he lives in Europe or America, successfully combat hostile and alien worldviews and adopt different methods of conceptualisation, while at the same time revering these same alien referents and the same paradigms which are, ironically, part and parcel of the same non-European mindset he wishes to reject?

The matrix of the West, as [author] Krebs argues, is no longer territorial or political. It lies in the White man’s experiment with Christianity, which began as merely an obscure Oriental cult—a cult which has absolutely nothing in common with the spiritual homeland of the White man: ancient Greece.

The answer Krebs offers to intelligent White readers in America and Europe who are seeking an exit from the modern multicultural straitjacket and the conceptual mendacity of liberalism is simple, although it will require a great deal of courage: the return to our lost pre-Christian European roots. Novus rerum nascitur ordo.

[Source: here]

A Christian White Nationalism is a self-defeating ideology. You can’t fight the Jewish mental and material onslaught against the White race while you borrow their mythology at the same time. In fact, the situation is even worse than that: Judaism proper is a sadistic cult, whereas Christianity (the fake doctrine the kikes heaped upon you) is a masochistic one. Put gasoline and matches together and you have the picture of our current situation.

____________________

Chechar’s two cents:

Thanks, John.

In the previous post I said that I would read Parrott’s article. I have, and I find that this new sort of reductionism, although intriguing, is unconvincing.

A commenter in Parrott’s article just said, “Now that you have given us the definitive etiology, others don’t have excuses to keep them from devoting their energy towards treatment.” But if that reductionism was true, how would it explain the most extreme cases of self-hatred among whites? I have in mind, for instance, those gentile politicians who strenuously advocate non-white, mass immigration in their countries when such immigration is clearly counter-productive from a strictly economic, “plate tectonics” or “occult war” standpoint (Parrott’s imagery).

Parrott’s model just cannot explain individual pathology. For instance, I recently heard my father talking to my uncle, both in their eighties, in the highest terms about José María Morelos (1765-1815), the insurgent leader who led the Mexican War of Independence.

JOSE MARIA MORELOS Y PAVON

Well, Morelos had black ancestors, like his deputy, Vicente Guerrero. It is said that as a mulatto, to avoid being called names in certain circles, Morelos covered his black curly-hair—obvious black heritage—with the legendary bandana that adorns his head in every picture that represents him. How would Parrott explain my family’s pathology, taking into account that my father and my uncle have zero negro blood in their veins? (You would have to listen my father’s ecstatic panegyric of Morelos a couple of days ago…!)

He can’t. (Just as it is impossible to explain from Parrott’s model why so many whites in the US and in Europe are saying that the white race must disappear in the melting pot.) Instead of an “occult war” I would rather trace my family’s pathologies to their staunch Catholicism and their deranged Christian altruism.

To me, it’s obvious that all mono-reductionist models have holes, and that the best way to approach the subject of the West’s darkest hour is through the metaphor of a witches’ brew (the first quote in this very entry).

Categories
Axiology Constantinople Miscegenation Portugal Universalism

Parrott’s article: a clarification

I don’t claim to have studied carefully Matt Parrott’s, “The Causes of Causes, a Subterranean Perspective,” published yesterday at Youth Network. But after posting this reply here at WDH, which only deals with a few paragraphs where Matt mentions me, I’ll do it. Parrott said:

I believe that Chechar’s mistaken in identifying Christianity as the root cause, and I believe the examples from Byzantium and Medieval Europe, examples where the church’s true interests and influences could actually be observed, confirm that Nietzschean models of suicidal ressentiment and exegeses of multicultural humanist globalism are fundamentally flawed.

Two different places: Constantinople and Europe.

Byzantium cannot be fairly compared to Medieval Europe insofar as, by the time it fell in the 15th century, the city had already suffered a great deal of mongrelization—a mongrelization that undoubtedly contributed to its decline and eventual fall. (That Parrott puts the two together corroborates my view that white nationalists should read the two histories, by William Pierce and Arthur Kemp, that have been written about the white race.)

Medieval Europe is a more complex subject because, unlike Constantinople, it was not a mongrel empire. But even here Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents shows that the broadly positive role that the Church played by elaborating a collectivist defense mechanism to counter Jewish influence was not exactly the best way to do it. In that book MacDonald also says that National Socialism (a movement which left Christianity behind) was the most dangerous enemy that Judaism has confronted in its entire existence. In other words, from the point of view of ethno-preservation the German movement was an improvement over the defense mechanism elaborated by the Roman Catholic Church against Jewry. (See my review of MacDonald’s book here.)

I mention MacDonald’s second book of his trilogy because, even though I agree with him that Christendom more or less protected Europe from alien influence, the protection was not enough, not nearly enough, as shown in the fate of post-Christendom Europe and precisely because of the universalist ideals proclaimed by the Church.

Chechar’s also unconvinced by the Jews as Primary Cause model. Being a White Mexican, he perceives the problem from the vantage point of a White civilization which choked and died on introgression and decadence, largely devoid of Jewish influence. He’s settled on a Christianity as Primary Cause model, answering the question of suicide affirmatively.

I don’t say “Christianity as Primary Cause,” and my analysis goes beyond Mexico. Let’s talk about Europe and remind my readers that, during my previous debates with Pat Hannagan, he conceded that while the Iberian whites committed suicidal mestization in the Americas they remained genetically pure in the Iberian Peninsula itself. But my friend Pat was misinformed. The peninsular Portuguese violated the “One-drop Rule” to the point that contemporary genetic studies reveal a Negro gene in their blood absent in other Europeans (see e.g., the first comment after this post). In other words, even leaving Mexico and Latin America aside, many Iberian whites committed racial suicide within their homelands, and both Christianity and the “One Ring” (see below) are the culprits.

The Catholic Church that Chechar envisions destroying Latin America and the Protestant Yankees Hunter Wallace envisions destroying Dixie are merely the zombie carcasses of Christianity, spearheads of the capitalist impulse to expand into their respective societies and steamroll over all the institutional and ideological obstacles to the profit which feeds the power structure.

I agree with Parrot that the “economics over race policies” are a gigantic factor of white decline, perhaps as big as the axiological meme that’s killing both Mediterraneans and Nordics. Therefore, I am not an anti-Christian reductionist so to speak. Yes: I blame the egalitarian software that we may call the Christian / Secular Christian problem (liberalism run amok after the French Revolution) and, as I just said, the One Ring of greed and power (economics over race—again, see both Pierce’s and Kemp’s magnificent histories of the white race for an explanation of the “Ring”). These factors constitute part of the ingredients of the formula that’s killing us—plus the Jewish ingredient.

brew

From this point of view the Jewish problem would be a very strong catalyst that has accelerated the process in the last centuries since the emancipation of Jewry, but certainly not the “active ingredient” of the brew (what monocausalists believe).

So you can see that my position goes far beyond both Christian reductionism and Jewish reductionism. I believe that individualism, universalism, weak ethnocentrism (“hardwired” characteristics in the White psyche since prehistoric times) + egalitarianism, liberalism, capitalism (cultural “software” after the Revolution which ironically strengthened Christian axiology) + the Jewish culture of critique in the 20th century = a truly lethal brew for the White peoples.

By the way, Hunter Wallace has also responded to Parrott’s article, but he naturally focuses on other issues.