web analytics

Tag: Christian problem (CP)

Categories
Christendom Racial studies Vikings Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Vikings and Christianity (2)

Excerpted from the 21st article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:


Karl’s savagery reached a peak in the tenth year of the evangelism: in 782, at Verden on the Aller, with the blessing of the Church, he had 4,500 Saxon nobles beheaded. Twelve years later, in 794, he introduced a policy under which every third Saxon was uprooted from his land and forced to resettle among Franks or other Christianized tribes.

Fairly early in this campaign, in 777, one of the most prominent of the Saxon chieftains, Widukind, took shelter among the Danes and appealed to their king, Sigfred, for assistance against the Franks. Although the Danes were wary of becoming involved in a full-scale war against the formidable Karl, they and the other Northern peoples were put on their guard, and they became increasingly indignant over the Frankish suppression of the Saxons’ religion.

Karl’s brutal campaign against the Saxons undoubtedly helped raise a certain consciousness in the North of the spiritual and cultural differences which separated Scandinavia from those lands which had fallen under the yoke of the Christian Church.


Special Treatment

One manifestation of this consciousness was the erection of the Danevirke, an extensive system of defensive earthworks across the neck of the Danish peninsula, begun in 808.

Another was the special treatment which the Vikings customarily meted out to the Christian monks and priests who fell into their hands. The monasteries and churches, with their troves of treasure mulcted from superstitious citizens seeking to buy their way into heaven, were tempting targets to the raiders from the North anyway, but the element of revenge must have made them even more tempting, and it was for good reason that throughout the ninth century the daily prayer of every pious cleric was: A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine! (“From the fury of the Northmen deliver us, Lord!”).


Genetic Effects of Monkery

Another interesting eugenic contrast between North and South is provided by the Christian practice of clerical celibacy. Although there were many periods during the Middle Ages in which violations were commonplace, as early as the fourth century the Church began insisting on total celibacy for the higher clergy. With the growing incidence of monasticism after the sixth century, a greatly increased portion of the population of Christian Europe was subjected to the rule of celibacy.

In the Middle Ages the clerical life was not, as is often the case today, simply a refuge for those who could succeed at nothing else; it was usually the only route to scholarship—and often the only route to literacy as well—and it attracted many able and intelligent men, whose genes were then lost to their race. For a thousand years, until the Reformation, there was a selective draining away of Christian Europe’s intellectual vitality.


A Mighty Hive

The high birthrate among the most active and energetic elements of the population in the Northern countries led to land-hunger and the drive for external conquests. In the words of 17th-century English statesman and writer Sir William Temple: “Each of these countries was like a mighty hive, which, by the vigor of propagation and health of climate, growing too full of people, threw out some new swarm at certain periods of time that took wing and sought out some new abode, expelling or subduing the old inhabitants and seating themselves in their rooms.” This state of affairs also held long before the Viking Age, of course.

In addition to the generalized effects of a high birthrate, two other consequences of polygyny which bore on the rise of Viking as a way of life were the large numbers of second, third, fourth, and later sons in the families of Norse landholders—sons left without inheritance and without land, unless they could wrest it away from someone else—and a shortage of women.

The most popular way to solve the latter problem was to go on a raid and carry off women from Ireland, England, or France, although there was also a heavy traffic in Slav slave girls from the Rus realms. The Hrafnsmál tells of life in Harald Fairhair’s court: “Glorious is their way of life, those warriors who play chess in Harald’s court. They are made rich with money and fine swords, with metal of Hunaland and girls from the east.”


Victory at Hafrsfjord

The political consolidation which began taking place in Scandinavia in the ninth century served as an especially strong impetus to Viking colonizers. As mentioned earlier, the Vikings were extremely individualistic, extremely resentful of any encroachments on their freedom of action. After Harald Fairhair won a great sea victory at Hafrsfjord over the Viking chieftains of western Norway in 872, many of them left Norway with their households and their followers and settled in Iceland and the smaller islands of the North Atlantic rather than submit to Harald’s rule.

A century later, political consolidation having been achieved, Scandinavian monarchs began to realize the policy advantages in bringing their people into the same religious camp as their neighbors to the south. The first to take the step was Denmark’s Harald Bluetooth, son of King Gorm the Old. In 965, 15 years after Gorm’s death, Harald allowed himself to be baptized, and then he undertook the forcible conversion of the rest of the Danes: a move which did not sit well with many and led to further emigration and turmoil in the North. It also led eventually to Harald’s deposition and banishment.


The Viking Way to Immortality

The heroic ethos, the core of the Viking attitude toward life, of which the high value placed on fidelity is but one aspect, is probably stated best in the oft-repeated lines from Grettir’s saga:

Cattle die, and kinsmen die,
And so one dies oneself.
One thing I know that never dies:
The fame of a dead man’s deeds.

To the Viking immortality was not gained by being baptized, going to Mass every Sunday, and being openhanded when the collection plate came around; the only way he knew to overcome the annihilation which awaits every man in the grave was to live his life in such a way that other men would remember him and esteem his memory. The individual consciousness must die, but the consciousness of the community, the tribe, and the race lives on; and, to the extent that the individual has entered that collective consciousness, he becomes immortal.


The Last Viking

The coming of Christianity to the Viking world eventually meant the end of that world, but it did not change the Viking ethos immediately, as is evidenced by the life of a man who was certainly one of the most remarkable of all the Vikings, and the last of the truly great ones: Harald Sigurdsson, who, after he became king of Norway, was also known as Harald Hardraada (Hard Ruler) and Harald the Ruthless.

His deeds are the subject of one of the most fascinating of the Viking sagas (King Harald’s Saga), which we would be inclined to dismiss as an unusually imaginative work of heroic fiction, were it not solidly confirmed by the historical record.


Christian Terror

Olaf, like Denmark’s Harald Bluetooth before him, was deposed and chased out of his country after attempting to impose Christianity on his countrymen against their will. For two years Olaf had waged a campaign of Christian terror, burning the farms of all Norwegians who would not bow to the Church of Rome. Many of the stubborn traditionalists who fell into his hands he maimed or blinded.

Finally his subjects revolted, and he was forced to flee to Russia. When he returned with an army, including his half-brother Harald, in 1030 he was defeated and killed, and the wounded, 15- year-old Harald became a fugitive.

Olaf, despised by the Norwegians, was immediately made a saint by the Church, and today he is the patron saint of Norwegian Christians.

Categories
Charlemagne Christendom Individualism Racial studies Vikings Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Vikings and Christianity (1)

Excerpted from the 21st article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:


Called many names—Danes, Geats, Norsemen, Rus, Swedes, Varangers—they are best known to us by the name which is also used to characterize both the age in which they flourished and the way of life of many of them: Vikings. Like two great waves of raiders, conquerors, and colonizers before them, the Goths and the Anglo-Saxons, they came from the Nordic heartland: southern Sweden and Norway, the Danish peninsula, the adjoining portion of northern Germany, and the nearby North Sea and Baltic islands.

Essence of Whiteness

They are of special interest to us in our endeavor to understand who we are, not so much because most of us have Viking forebears (although a great many people with immediate roots in Ireland, Scotland, England, and northwestern France, as well as in Scandinavia, do), but because they give us a clearer, more detailed picture of that pure essence of Indo-Europeanism of Whiteness—which is the common heritage of all of us, whether our recent ancestors were Germans, Celts, Balts, or Slavs, than we can obtain from a study of any other European people.

German in language like the Goths and the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings retained other aspects of Germanic culture which those earlier emigrants from the Nordic heartland had already lost by the dawn of the Viking Age. In particular, the Vikings held to their Indo-European religion and worldview longer than any of the other Germanic peoples. They also remained hardier, fiercer in battle, and more venturesome than those who had been softened by the more civilized living to the south.

Best and Worst in Our Race

The Vikings not only serve us as an especially useful epitome of Whiteness at a time when our survival demands a renewal of the best of our old values and strengths, but they also provide us with a clear reminder of the danger inherent in one of our most lethal weaknesses: excessive individualism and lack of racial solidarity. A study of the Vikings acquaints us with both the best and the worst (or, in this age, the least affordable) of the characteristics of our race.

No Viking Democrats

The men who inhabited this region were necessarily self-reliant, tenacious, energetic, and resourceful. No anemic democrats these: the terrain was not suited to the placid, ant-heap mentality of lesser races to the south; it bred men with strong wills and stronger egos, a natural warrior aristocracy.

Cultural Unity

The isolation by terrain and climate of many Viking communities did not prevent the Vikings from having a remarkable unity of culture, language, and spirit but it certainly did not encourage political unity. Viking individualism seemed to be inimical to a sense of racial solidarity. While more subjective races to the south were often drawn together by the perceived need for mutual support in the face of a hostile world, Vikings were much more inclined to face the world as individuals.

Their loyalty and sense of community seldom extended beyond the fighting band to which they belonged or, at most, to that limited region of Norway or Denmark or whatever which they considered “home”. And they would as gladly—or almost as gladly—hew down the Vikings of a rival band as a monastery full of trembling priests in some southern land. Within the band, however, the Viking ethos demanded a solidarity as uncompromising as that of the other Germanic peoples of their time.

Ralph the Walker

Just as in England and Ireland, however, Vikings who at first came only to seize women and gold later came to seize land as well. This process reached its climax early in the 10th century when a Viking band wrested away from the West Franks a substantial piece of territory in northwestern France, south of the lower Seine.

First White American

A few years later another Greenland Viking, Thorfinn Karlsefni, made a determined effort to establish a permanent Viking presence in America. He fitted out three longships and recruited 160 men and women to accompany him on the westward voyage. They built a community in North America which they called Straumfjord, and in 1004 Thorfinn’s wife Gudrid bore him a son, Snorri, there: the first native White American.

Unrelenting attacks by Indians made life very difficult for Thorfinn’s American colonists, however, and after three years they abandoned their settlement and returned to Greenland.

Had the Vikings’ weapons been technologically superior to the bows and arrows of the [Amerinds]—as Columbus’ firearms were—then White history in America would have begun 500 years sooner than it did. As it was, the individual superiority of the Viking warriors in battle could not make up for the enormous numerical advantage enjoyed by the hordes of Red men who opposed them.

Purest Cultural Heritage

Today these North Atlantic islands, of which Iceland with its quarter-million inhabitants is the most significant, preserve the Viking cultural heritage in its purest form. The modern Icelandic and Faroese languages are nearly identical to the Old Norse spoken by the Vikings, while English and the other Germanic languages have undergone great changes during the last 1,000 years. In folkways as well, many Viking traits have been preserved in the islands, especially in Iceland and the Faroes. There has even been a return to the Viking religion by some Icelanders in recent years.

No Minorities

Iceland is outstanding in another respect as well: alone among the White nations of the world it does not bear the curse of non-White minorities; it has no Blacks, no Jews, no Vietnamese, no Mexicans. Iceland has not been invaded for the last 1,000 years, except during the Second World War, when the country was occupied by American troops. The bulk of the foreigners withdrew after the war, and Icelanders insisted that future U.S. troops sent to man the air base which the United States was allowed to maintain on the island include no non-Whites.

The greatest debt that the White race owes to Icelanders is for their preservation of the Norse literary heritage: the Viking sagas. While church officials in other European countries were rounding up and burning all the pre-Christian books they could lay their hands on during the Middle Ages, Icelandic scholars were busy writing down the sagas which still existed only in oral form and transcribing, annotating, and expanding those which had been put into writing earlier.

Genocidal Evangelism

Beginning in 772, a year after he became sole king of the Franks upon the death of his brother Carloman, Karl, later known to the French as Charlemagne, son of Pepin the Short and grandson of Karl the Hammer, waged a 32-year campaign of genocidal evangelism against the Saxons. The campaign began with Karl’s destruction of the Irminsul, or World Pillar, the Saxon equivalent of the Norse World Ash, Yggdrasil, located in the Saxons’ most sacred grove, at Eresburg (on the site of the present Marburg), and it became bloodier, crueler, and more intolerant as it wore on.

In 774, at Quierzy, Karl issued a proclamation that he would kill every Saxon who refused to accept the sweet yoke of Jesus. Henceforth a contingent of Christian priests accompanied the Frankish army on its expeditions against the Saxons, and in every Saxon village those who refused to be baptized by the priests were slaughtered on the spot.

Categories
Christendom Goths Inquisition Islam Miscegenation Racial studies Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Textbook case

Even if we omit what male Spaniards did with their genes in the Americas with countless Indian women and imported blacks, the sad history of Spain, racially a melting pot of Mediterranean Iberians, Phoenicians, Nordish Celts, Romans, Nordish Goths, Jews, and Moors, is a textbook case of white decline as the result of both ethno-suicide—Christianity—and Semitic genocide.

♣

Excerpted from the 19th article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:


Although King Wamba [a Visigothic king from 672 to 680] was a strong ruler, who successfully put down a Basque rebellion and maintained his frontiers against his Frankish neighbors to the north and Arab pirates raiding by sea from the south, prosperity had already begun taking its toll of Gothic vigor. It was Wamba’s immediate predecessor, Recesuinto, who, at the insistence of the Church, took the first direct step toward Gothic racial suicide (if we do not count as such Sisibert’s allowing baptized Jews to pass as Gentiles a few years earlier) when he abolished the longstanding ban against intermarriage.

Prior to Recesuinto’s reign, the racial pride of the Goths had remained intact. None but Goths might rule, and Goths might marry none but Goths. The penalty for violation of this ban was quite severe: both partners were burned at the stake. Thus, the blood of the Goths had remained unmixed with that of their Roman, Iberian, and Jewish subjects. Recesuinto allowed Goths to marry baptized Jews and anyone else who claimed Christian beliefs, and the nobility of Spain has since been tainted heavily with the Semitic blood of department-store heiresses, or the equivalent thereof in that pre-department-store era.

The Jews conspired all the more against the Goths, and the successors of Recesuinto and Wamba were obliged to take measures against them on a number of occasions. They failed, however, to rid their kingdom of the pestilence, because they did not apply the same measures against baptized Jews as against their unbaptized brethren. This shortsightedness finally led to the undoing of the Goths during the reign of Roderic, who took the throne in 709.

While the men of Roderic’s race had grown soft and indecisive over the course of the dozen generations which had passed since the time of Adolf, unable finally even to cope with a gaggle of money-hungry Semites in their midst, a new Semitic danger had begun to rise to the south of them.

Here Pierce describes how the Peninsula fell to Islamic invasion a few years later. Only in the mountains of the north, in Asturias, were the Nordish Goths able to hold back the Semitic tide permanently. Pierce adds:

Even today, 12 centuries after the fact, Jews still gather in their synagogues on holidays to gloat over their destruction of the Goths, and Jewish writers openly boast of their treachery. The popular Jewish author and lecturer, Max I. Dimont, has taken particular satisfaction in the fate of the Gothic women, both in Spain and in those areas of Gaul subject to Moorish raiding parties from the south. In his best-selling book, The Indestructible Jews, Dimont writes: “As blond Christian maidens fetched fancy prices in the slave markets, raids in Christian lands by Muslim private entrepreneurs became big business. Female captives were pedigreed like dogs. Their Christian antecedents, their genuine blondness, their virginity, and their ability to bear children were all ascertained and notarized before they were marketed.”

Dimont discreetly avoids mentioning that the slave merchants doing the pedigreeing and marketing of these White girls were, in most cases, Jews. What he does say is: “From the inception of Islam’s conquest, Spanish Jews had soared to the highest government posts. A series of brilliant Jewish viziers—viceroys—enriched the caliphate’s coffers and helped usher in an age of splendor and learning.”

Pierce proceeds to describe the heroic deeds of Charles Martell, who unlike the Goths was successful in repelling Muslim invasion. Then he says:

Though forced to retreat south of the Pyrenees, the Arabs and the other Muslim invaders of Spain remained in the peninsula for nearly 800 years, and the genetic damage they wrought there was great. Islam, like Christianity, makes no distinction of race; all that counts is religion, not blood. Thus, the interbreeding begun under Recesuinto to satisfy the demands of his bishops continued at an accelerated pace under Muslim rule, and, as mentioned by the Jewish writer Dimont, the Arabs and Moors were especially fond of mingling their genes with those of Spain’s blond Gothic nobility.

One indication of this lust is revealed by the terms imposed on the Goths who remained in the unconquered enclave in the northwest, which later grew into the Kingdom of Galicia: In order to keep the Semites at bay they were required to pay a tribute of 100 blond virgins each year. It was not until the reign of Alfonso II, which began in 791, that the Goths were again strong enough to put an end to this humiliating imposition.

After a few more paragraphs Pierce ends his chapter with these words:

Not until 1492 was the reconquest of the peninsula finally completed. In that year the unbaptized Jews were expelled en masse from the country they had betrayed eight centuries earlier, and the remaining pockets of Moors followed them ten years later. The Inquisition, which had been established in 1478, dealt to a limited extent with the baptized Jews.

Categories
Christendom Universalism

We’re definitively doing it to ourselves


A quotation from John Martínez’s:

“Why Christianity and not Judaism
is the Enemy #1 of the White Race”

(in Portuguese)


“Blaming Christianity is a sort of taboo topic in most of the English-speaking White Nationalist blogosphere.”

—Tom Sunic



It is a taboo topic in the whole WN blogosphere, Chechar.

These folks are ready to speak the unspeakable about race differences and the Jewish Problem. But they refuse to take the final step and face the fact that, if it was not for Christianity, perhaps we would not have to be discussing all of these problems now because they might not have happened in the first place.

How can someone advocate for the dignity and self-reliance of the White race while operating within a non-White, Levantine cult?

How can these people expose the Jews and their race supremacist cult while worshipping a Jew (!) and making extensive use of the Jewish mythology and the Jewish Weltanschauung?

It is mind-boggling…

My view about the core problems facing the White race today is that Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Communism are Semitic and therefore alien, extraneous ideologies that should be consigned to the trashcan of History. The differences I see among them nowadays are close to irrelevant as far as our interests are concerned.

Bluegrass comments here:

America was the preeminent racialist country before any European equivalent arose, but it was always held back from completely securing the existence of the European race by the mitigating power of our Christian foundation.

No Christianity means no Puritan proselytizing and universalism within the American psyche, which means no ideological foundation to tolerate the presence of Africans, Indians, or any non-White immigration.

Christianity always made it “uncouth” to be overly racialist. European America was able to implicitly secure the genetic stock through immigration restrictions, segregation, and what have you, but it was always a precarious position.

This semi-implicit racialism, always pervaded by the Christian sense that it was not necessarily the most dignified of ideologies, was easily destroyed by the Jewish culture of critique.

From then on, without the sounder minds to shepherd the flock our universalism (Coolidge etc) took hold and our religion became the realization of the proposition nation.

Of course, to realize that dream the destruction of White genetics has become a necessary sacrifice.

A personal note:

When I was translating to Spanish “Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy,” chapter 7 of Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, I suspended the translation when I hit this 1924 sentence about Israel Zangwill:

Mr. Zangwill spoke chiefly on the immigration question, declaring that if Jews persisted in a strenuous opposition to the restricted immigration there would be no restriction. “If you create enough fuss against this Nordic nonsense,” he said, “you will defeat this legislation. You must make a fight against this bill; tell them they are destroying American ideals. Most fortifications are of cardboard, and if you press against them, they give way.” [emphasis added]

If most fortifications in 1924, when supposedly American ethnocentricity was still very robust, were “of cardboard,” I told to myself, there must be an underlying factor that prevents us from defending our ethny, a primary infection.

Most nationalists act under the assumption that the Jewish Problem is the primary infection. My working hypothesis is that the JP, if compared to the most common HIV-related infections, is not the virus that is killing us but something like a bacterial disease such as tuberculosis, pneumonia or septicaemia: a deadly opportunistic infection that the HIV virus allowed to thrive.

Kill all the bacteria if you want. I have no problem with that. But if we want to save ourselves from extinction we really must go after the primary virus that weakened our defenses in the first place.

Jewry is Enemy #2.
For my collection of articles
dealing with Enemy #1 see here.

Categories
Christendom Judeo-reductionism Miscegenation

Are we doing it to ourselves?

The following are excerpted comments from:


Alex Linder said…

The problem is no one has ever demonstrated Whites feel guilt for no reason.

Lew said…

True enough. When the injustice aligns with Jewish interests, it gets different treatment in the media, and those are the injustices Whites do not seem to feel guilty about.

I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve clashed with White anti-Whites who cited Indians, slavery, Jim Crow, colonialism or the holocaust as reasons White should feel guilty. I’ve never had anyone bring up the Iraqi or Afghan civilian dead. I’ve never had anyone cite as reasons for guilt the cruel mistreatment of White indentured servants, or child laborers, or any other subset of the White population that has unfairly suffered.

If you go back a bit further, it also seems to be true that prior to the Jewish media takeover, Whites felt no unearned guilt at all about any event. Like every race/ethnic group, Whites have committed their fair share of actions that one could argue were injustices. But, prior to WW2, I know of no evidence Whites were collectively languishing with unearned guilt over Indians, slavery, and colonialism in the 1910s-1920s.

If you go back even further, I know of no major historical commentators who ever suggested Euro peoples like to claim unearned guilt. Who talked about this? Herodotus? Aristotle? Luther? Hume? Machiavelli? I don’t know that any of them ever did. If Whites have a guilt flaw, unless they discussed it and I missed it (possible), it seems that some of the most powerful minds to ever walk the Earth didn’t notice it.

So what we’re left with is this:

• Before the Jewish media takeover, unearned guilt seems to be non-existent among Whites.

• After the Jewish media takeover, unearned guilt has become pervasive among Whites. The exception is when events that you would expect to trigger guilt are aligned with Jewish interests.

So yeah, on reflection, I think you’re right: this inherent race-guilt argument quickly crumbles upon scrutiny. Not only is there no evidence Whites feel guilty for no reason, there is evidence the guilt perfectly aligns with Jewish media presentation, and Jewish presentation is the only explanation that makes sense.

Greg Johnson said…

Lew, Alex’s argument is specious. Of course Jews are manipulating white guilt to serve their interests. But that does not imply that white guilt is an entirely Jewish invention, that whites are merely passive and innocent victims of Jewish mental aggression. All the Jewish propaganda in the world couldn’t sell white guilt if white people were not willing to buy it. And as far as I know, whites are the only race weak and foolish enough to buy it.

Have you ever heard of Jesus? The core of Christianity is the doctrine that Jesus, who was without sin, took the sins of man upon himself and suffered our punishment for us, to square things with God. The whole doctrine is premised on the most primitive and absurd notion of justice, namely that justice can be done by punishing an innocent party in the place of the guilty party (which in turn is premised on the idea that punishment is first and foremost just a matter of animal sadism: the wounded animal lashes out in anger, and whether he lashes out at the innocent or the guilty does not really matter, because it feels the same to him). It is moral savagery wrapped up in religious sanctimony.

Modern white guilt is just a secularized version of Christian vicarious atonement: whites derive psychological gratification and social status from Jews, Christians, and liberals by assuming the unearned guilt of other whites and suffering for it. Or, better yet, making other whites who are not so enlightened suffer for it, by giving our countries away to non-whites and Jews.

Alex Linder said…

Encouraging whites to blame themselves isn’t fighting the enemy: it’s helping the enemy.

Greg Johnson said…

Revisionists don’t reject it head-on. They simply try to dispute the facts, as if our race really would have no right to exist if our people had committed various historical atrocities. Try that kind of reasoning on any other race. Do the Asians feel guilty about Genghis Khan? How about the Muslims about their conquests? Whites have become a morally sick, rotten race because of our acceptance of Christian morality and its secular offshoots, although it is an open question if whites have some deeper, biological propensity to accept such ideas. It would also be interesting to see biological studies that address the issue of whether other races have equal propensities. Based on anecdotal evidence and history, I think not.

Alex Linder said…

Do the Asians feel guilty about Genghis Khan? How about the Muslims about their conquests?

They would if they were being told to by authority 24 hours a day. Why do you think jews buy up media? And bribe polls? And train teachers? Does all that suddenly have no effect?…

I notice also this topic came up at OD [Occidental Dissent], and most agree with me that the “white guilt” thesis is a crock, although Brad Griffin does not.


At Occidental Dissent Brad Griffin (“Hunter Wallace”) said:

Alex Linder writes:

The problem is no one has ever demonstrated Whites feel guilt for no reason. Johnson and Taylor and others pushing this line ignore the media factor. White guilt, as with other attitudes, is simply a function of jews controlling the media and telling them how to feel. It’s no more complex than that.

No, it is a lot more complex than that.

Europeans have a long history of self-hatred and debasing themselves over their sinfulness to appease the Almighty. [White guilt] is a byproduct of certain formulations of Christianity and liberal republican ideology.

Everyone here knows that Yankee White guilt was a huge problem long before the Jews became powerful in America. [Cf.] Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, John Brown, William Lloyd Garrison, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Read Lincoln’s speeches about drenching battlefields in Southern blood to atone for the sins of slavery. Yankees were worshipping free negroes like Frederick Douglass before the WBTS [War Between the States]. Henry David Thoreau protested Indian Removal and the Mexican War. Lincoln also opposed the Mexican War.

Britain and France abolished slavery over White guilt. In France, the Jacobins in the French Revolution even went so far as to make blacks into citizens with equal rights, and dispatched troops to the Caribbean with guillotines to kill the White planters. Blacks were lionized as the saviors of the colonies and the only true republicans in the West Indies. King Leopold II was portrayed as a monster in Britain and was forced to turn over the Congo Free State to Belgium.

Jews are aggravating a preexisting problem for their own selfish purposes. If every Jew in America vanished tomorrow, there would be a lot less White guilt and our situation would markedly improve, but we would still be left with the self righteous hypocritical Yankee holier-than-thous in Congress. [The fact that] Jews control the media isn’t a sufficient explanation: the South opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only the North and West were for it.

While I agree that Jews promote White guilt through the mass media and universities, I disagree that White guilt would disappear if every Jew in America disappeared tomorrow. White guilt has deep roots in Christianity and liberal republican ideology. It goes back to the myth of the noble savage. Again, look up Uncle Tom’s Cabin. See also The Society of the Friends of the Blacks during the French Revolution.


[Back to:]

Alex Linder said…

I think Kevin MacDonald knows [that Holocaust] revisionism is basically right, and he respects the horrors the fact-finders have endured for their pains, but he doesn’t want any more notoriety for himself, so he’s avoiding the matter. And Jeeves Johnson is just following along behind him.

My interpolated comment for this blog:

I think Linder and other commenters at VNN are deceiving themselves on this issue. They simply cannot conceive that a new generation of nationalists might have good reasons for not taking revisionism seriously.

Lew said…

Quite frankly, I am troubled by the extent to which these “white guilt,” “we’re doing it to ourselves,” “Whites are the problem” memes have wormed their way into our conversations.

It’s not as if spreading this poisonous, noxious, ludicrously false idea is without consequences. New people are coming and going to our sites all the time. New people are hitting our sites all the time. The worse things get, the more people will look for answers. A percentage of them will find our communities.

It’s painful to think that new people are coming to our sites, breaking from the mainstream, only to “learn” we’re doing it to ourselves rather than the truth, that none of our problems can be solved because we’re under constant attack by the organized Jewish community.

I discovered Kevin MacDonald’s work because I ran across white nationalists discussing it in the comments on now some defunct forum 11-12 years ago. Today, people are likely to find comments about how we did it to ourselves due to guilt, Christianity, the Enlightenment, altruistic self-punishment, economic greed, comfort, consumerism, apathy or whatever. These people are taking a common sense idea—there are many reasons we are in this situation—and bending, warping and twisting it into an excuse to exonerate Jews, downplay the role of Jews, and put the primary blame on ourselves.


My comment:

Like Linder, Lew is misreading our minds. I for one have absolutely zero wish to “excuse” or “exonerate” the fucking tribe. My motivation is sheer curiosity of the rather complex etiology—a witches’ brew!—of the West’s darkest hour.

Recently I tried to engage Lew outside VNN, at Counter-Currents. Slightly edited, this is what I told him there:

Lew,

Are you aware that the Middle East, Egypt (with blond Pharaohs) and India once harbored considerable Indo-European (“Aryan”) populations; that Greece, Macedonia and Rome were infinitely more Nordish than today (especially Sparta); that the One Ring of greed and power (economics over race) made these Nordics and Mediterraneans misecgenate and eventually mongrelize their progeny with Semitic people, Numbians and other non-whites?

Are you aware that even Portugal was far more homogeneous (“Gothic” i.e. Scandinavian) than the racial mess we see today, with laws that forbade mixing marriages of the “blue blooded” blonds and that, after the Christian ethos took over, they finally mixed their blood with black slaves? Or that we cannot blame jews in a New Spain exclusively ruled by pure whites for the simplest reason that through three centuries jews were ruthlessly persecuted, and even burned at the stake, and that by their own volition the Spaniards—sans jews—ruined their genetic pool with the Indians in this part of America?

You say that “the primary blame” of our current predicament should be “uncontroversial” (the Jewish tribe). Really? It looks like most nationalists have not read Arthur Kemp’s 686-page history of the white race.

When [in a previous comment] I said that deracinated whites have been our worst enemy, I also had in mind the history of how they empowered the Jews in the first place, when dominion of the press by Jews was not complete. It is a textbook case of what William Pierce says:

The “White guilt” syndrome exploited so assiduously by America’s non-White minorities is a product of Christian teachings, as is the perverse reverence for “God’s chosen people” which has paralyzed so many Christians’ wills to resist Jewish depredations.

What bothered me the most while studying 19th century European history of Jewery is the timidity of white Europeans to see the threat that the Jews represented. Nineteenth century whites seemed psychically paralyzed by the new ideas of emancipation and the equality of men that resulted from the Revolution in the previous century.

So these deracinated whites have been Whites’ worst enemy in modern times (not to mention what happened since the Ancient World as I said above). You only have to look at the Constitution of the United States, directly inspired from French “Enlightenment” ideas, to see the damned thing in full light: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And for this egalitarian goals “Governments are instituted” in the pursue of “happiness”: exactly why the tribe has been empowered in modern times by deracinated whites, especially in the United States.

By the way, did you miss our little discussion on this topic at The Occidental Observer a couple of months ago (cf. these chosen comments)? If you click on that link you will see that Franklin Ryckaert summarized my current views better than what I could do at the time.

Categories
Alaric Ancient Rome Axiology Christendom Constantine Demography Emperor Julian Franks Goths Huns Racial studies Tacitus Universalism Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Germanics and Romans

Celtic buffer and Tacitus

Five decisive things

Alaric and the Fall of Rome

Christianity Spreads

The toll of Judeo-Christianity

 

Categories
Ancient Rome Axiology Christendom Hermann (Arminius) Who We Are (book) William Pierce

The toll of Judeo-Christianity

Excerpted from the 18th article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:


Christian ethics—the slave morality preached in the Roman catacombs—was like a time bomb ticking away in Europe—a Trojan horse brought inside the fortress, waiting for its season. That season came, and the damage was done. Today Christianity is one of the most active forces working from within to destroy the White race.

From the Christian churches came the notion of “the White man’s burden,” along with the missionaries who saw in every African cannibal or Chinese coolie a soul to be saved, of equal value in the eyes of Jehovah to any White soul. It is entirely a Christian impulse—at least, on the part of the average American voter, if not the government—which sends American food and medical supplies to keep alive swarming millions of Asiatics, Africans, and Latins every time they have a famine, so that they can continue to outbreed Whites.

The otherworldly emphasis on individual salvation, on an individual relationship between Creator and creature which relegates the relationship between individual and race, tribe, and community to insignificance; the inversion of natural values inherent in the exalting of the botched, the unclean, and the poor in spirit in the Sermon on the Mount, the injunction to “resist not evil” — all are prescriptions for racial suicide. Indeed, had a fiendishly clever enemy set out to concoct a set of doctrines intended to lead the White race to its destruction, he could hardly have done better.

The “White guilt” syndrome exploited so assiduously by America’s non-White minorities is a product of Christian teachings, as is the perverse reverence for “God’s chosen people” which has paralyzed so many Christians’ wills to resist Jewish depredations.

Moses Replaces Hermann

Not the least of the damage done by the Christianization of Europe was the gradual replacement of White tradition, legend, and imagery by that of the Jews. Instead of specifically Celtic or German or Slavic heroes, the Church’s saints, many of them Levantines, were held up to the young for emulation; instead of the feats of Hermann or Vercingetorix, children were taught of the doings of Moses and David.

Europeans’ artistic inspiration was turned away from the depiction of their own rich heritage and used to glorify that of an alien race; Semitic proverbs and figures of speech took precedence over those of Indo-European provenance; Europeans even abandoned the names of their ancestors and began giving Jewish names to their children: Samuel and Sarah, John and Joan, Michael and Mary, Daniel and Deborah.

Despite all these long-term consequences of Christianity, however, the immediate symptoms of the infection which the conquering Germans picked up from the defeated Romans were hardly noticeable. White morals and manners, motivations and behavior remained much as they had been, for they were rooted in the genes—but now they had a new rationale.

Today’s Christian Patriots

And it is only fair to note that even today a fairly substantial minority of White men and women who still think of themselves as Christians have not allowed their sounder instincts to be corrupted by doctrines suited to a following of mongrelized slaves. They ignore the Jewish origins of Christianity and justify their instinctive dislike and distrust of Jews with the fact that the Jews, in demanding that Jesus be killed, became a race forever accursed (“His blood be on us and on our children”).

They interpret the divine injunction of brotherhood as applying only to Whites. Like the Franks of the Middle Ages, they believe what suits them and conveniently forget or invent their own interpretation for the rest. Were they the Christian mainstream today, the religion would not be the racial menace that it is.

Unfortunately, however, they are not: virtually none are actively affiliated with any of the larger, established Christian churches.

♣

Pierce’s book continues for other eight chapters.
I am convinced that the white race won’t be saved
unless whites—agnostics and atheists included—
give up Christian axiology (see: here).

Categories
Ancient Rome Christendom Constantine Emperor Julian Franks Goths Universalism Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Germanic People and the Romans (4)

Christianity Spreads

Excerpted from the 18th article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:

During the turbulent and eventful fifth century the Germans largely completed their conquest of the West. In the early years of that century German tribesmen, who had been raiding the coast of Roman Britain for many years, began a permanent invasion of the southeastern portion of the island, a development which was eventually to lead to a Germanic Britain.

 

Oriental Infection

But the Germans did not make their conquest of the Roman world without becoming infected by some of the diseases which flourished so unwholesomely in Rome during her last days. Foremost among these was an infection which the Romans themselves had caught during the first century, a consequence of their own conquest of the Levant. It had begun as an offshoot of Judaism, had established itself in Jerusalem and a few other spots in the eastern Mediterranean area, and had traveled to Rome with Jewish merchants and speculators, who had long found that city an attractive center of operations.

It eventually became known to the world as Christianity, but for more than two centuries it festered in the sewers and catacombs of Rome, along with dozens of other alien religious sects from the Levant; its first adherents were Rome’s slaves, a cosmopolitan lot from all the lands conquered by the Romans. It was a religion designed to appeal to slaves: blessed are the poor, the meek, the wretched, the despised, it told them, for you shall inherit the earth from the strong, the brave, the proud, and the mighty; there will be pie in the sky for all believers, and the rest will suffer eternal torment. It appealed directly to a sense of envy and resentment of the weak against the strong.

The new religion spread from the slaves to the freedmen, that motley conglomeration of Syrians, Egyptians, Jews, Armenians, and members of a dozen other nations who made up Rome’s mercantile, petty entrepreneur, and free worker class. It even began to catch on in some of Rome’s legions.

 

Edict of Milan

By the end of the third century Christianity had become the most popular as well as the most militant of the Oriental sects flourishing among the largely non-Roman inhabitants of the decaying Roman Empire. Even as late as the first years of the fourth century, under Emperor Diocletian, the Roman government was still making efforts to keep the Christians under control, but in 313 a new emperor, Constantine, decided that, if you can’t lick ’em, join ’em, and he issued an imperial edict legitimizing Christianity.

Although one of Constantine’s successors, Julian, attempted to reverse the continuing Christianization of the Roman Empire a few years later, it was already too late: the Goths, who made up the bulk of Rome’s armies by this time, had caught the infection from one of their own slaves, a Christian captive whom they called Wulfila. Wulfila was a tireless and effective missionary, and the Goths were an uprooted and unsettled people, among whom the new religion took hold easily. Wulfila’s translation of the Bible into Gothic greatly speeded up the process.

 

Conversion of the Franks

Before the end of the fourth century Christianity had also spread to the Vandals, Burgundians, Lombards, Gepids, and several other German tribes. A little over a century later the powerful nation of the Franks was converted. By the beginning of the second quarter of the sixth century, the only non-Christian Whites left were the Bavarians, Thuringians, Saxons, Frisians, Danes, Swedes, and Norse among the Germans—and virtually all the Balts and Slavs.

 

Athanaric the Goth

The Christians had many individual opponents, of course: among the Romans several of the more responsible and civic-minded emperors, such as Diocletian, as well as what was left of the tradition-minded aristocracy; and among the Germans many farsighted leaders who resisted the imposition of an alien creed on their people and the abandonment of their ancient traditions. Athanaric, the great Gothic chieftain who led his people across the Danube in 376 to save them from the invading Huns, was notable in this regard.

Athanaric and the other traditionalists failed to halt the spread of Christianity, because they were only individuals. Although there were pagan priests, the traditional German religion never really had a church associated with it. It consisted in a body of beliefs, tales, and practices passed from generation to generation, but it had no centralized organization like Christianity.

Early Christianity, in contrast to German religion, was as utterly intolerant as the Judaism from which it sprang. Even Roman religion, which, as an official state religion, equated religious observance with patriotism, tolerated the existence of other sects, so long as they did not threaten the state. But the early Christians were inspired by a fanatical hatred of all opposing creeds.

Also in contrast to German and Roman religion, Christianity, despite its specifically Jewish roots, claimed to be a universal (i.e., “catholic”) creed, equally applicable to Germans, Romans, Jews, Huns, and Negroes.

As for the brotherhood of man and equality in the eyes of the Lord, the Germans had no time for such nonsense; when confronted with non-Whites, they instinctively reached for the nearest lethal weapon. They made mincemeat out of the Avars, who were cousins to the Huns, in the seventh century, and the Christianized Franks or Goths of that era would know exactly what to do with a few hundred thousand rioting American Blacks; they would, in fact, positively relish the opportunity to do what needed doing.

It could not have been expected to be otherwise. In the first place, a totally alien religion cannot be imposed on a spiritually healthy people—and the Germans were still essentially healthy, despite the dislocations caused by the Voelkerwanderung.

Categories
Axiology Catholic Church Christendom Judaism Kali Yuga Kevin MacDonald Liberalism Neanderthalism New Testament Old Testament Porphyry of Tyre Psychology Revilo Oliver Universalism

Gospel Fictions

It seems to me that the etiology of Western malaise is more complicated than what the average nationalist has imagined. While reading MacDonald’s first trilogy study on Jewry I thought that the etiology was, at least, threefold.

First: the hardware. As MacDonald and many others have pointed out, whites “have some unique characteristics such as individualism, abstract idealism and universal moralism” that are apparently genetic (precisely the characteristics that presently are being exploited by the tribe).

Second: the software. If the above is a problem in the hardware (something like whites being wired the wrong way when dealing with other races), these hardware characteristics were augumented after a Catholic cult, which means “universal” including all ethnic groups in the world, took over the Roman Empire.

Third: the virus. Paradoxically, once Christianity starts to be abandoned by the white people, our universalist-individualist-idealistic frame of mind, taken to its ultimate logic naturally results in liberalism, a “virus” of the mind operating within the white psyche.

If our diagnosis of the West’s darkest hour is correct, then the Jewish Problem is an epiphenomenon of the deranged altruism resulting from the secular fulfillment of universal Christian values. (Proof of it is that Muslims don’t allow the suicidal empowerment of Jews in their nations.) It also means that both our hardware wiring and our Judeo-Christian software must be understood before we can grasp the whys of the psycho-ethical structure that is preventing us from taking elemental action (e.g., disempowering the Jews). For the Christian that I was, and this is purely anecdotal (others may find different venues), the first step to understand the virus was starting to question the historicity of the gospel narratives.

Thus I typed many passages from Helms’ book in honor of Porphyry, the first man to write a prolegomena of what fifteen centuries later started to be called “higher criticism” of the Bible.

Categories
Bible Christendom Liberalism

Why America is the most serious enemy of the Anglo-Saxon race

Below, a section of Andrew Fraser’s “Natural Born Citizen? Obama and the Fourth American Revolution” published today at The Occidental Observer.


Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity

The constitutive principle of the First (Federal) Republic was liberty. But the festering contradiction between the progressive ideal of liberty and the reactionary realities of Negro slavery unleashed another wave of revolutionary dynamism, found in its most extreme form in the rise of the abolitionist movement.

Eventually, the First (Federal) Republic was overthrown. When the War for Southern Independence was lost, the federal principle which licensed the secession of the slave states was subordinated to the colour-blind ideal of personal liberty. It was clear that sovereign authority had passed from the citizens of the several states into a consolidated Union-dominated government under the direction of Northern commercial and industrial interests.

But formal legal recognition of the Second (Bourgeois) Republic required another constitutional coup d’état. The revolutionary Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by Radical Republicans to subordinate the states to the federal government and to create a uniform national citizenship.

According to Article V of the federal Constitution, however, amendments require the formal consent of three quarters of the states. The South was still under military occupation by Union troops. Fraud and coercion were employed freely to compel Southern legislatures to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. In effect, white Southerners were made an offer they could not refuse: ratify the Fourteenth Amendment or be denied re-admission to the Union.

The Second Republic was founded on the principle of equality. But it eventually foundered upon the multiplying contradictions between the formal legal ideal of equality and the substantive social realities of race, class, and gender.

Seventy years after the Civil War, the New Deal ushered in the Third (Managerial/Therapeutic) Republic which radically expanded the powers of the federal government. No effort was made to obtain the formal consent of the states to this constitutional revolution.

Indeed, in 1937, the Supreme Court, too, was compelled to abandon its early resistance to repeated and sweeping federal usurpations of state jurisdiction by making the famous “switch in time that saved nine.”  Faced with Roosevelt’s threat to pack the court, the judiciary simply turned a blind eye to the Article V amendment procedure, choosing instead to place its imprimatur on the Third American Revolution.

The Third Republic based itself upon the revolutionary ideal of fraternity among American citizens of every class, race, and gender. While allowing Congress a free hand to regulate the economy, the Supreme Court brought every so-called “discrete and insular minority” under its own wing. In the Forties and Fifties, the Court waged its own revolutionary war against discrimination in landmark cases such as Shelley v Kraemer and, most famously, Brown v Board of Education.

By the Sixties, it was obvious that the principle of fraternity stood in stark contradiction not just to individuals’ freedom of association but also to the exclusionary character of allegedly “racist” immigration laws. Accordingly, the progressive leaders of the Republic launched a demographic revolution which extended the blessings of American citizenship to millions of non-Whites drawn from every corner of the Third World.

As a consequence, the principle of fraternity quickly morphed into the celebration of diversity as an end in itself. But demographic diversity stands in clear contradiction to the ancient republican ideal of a body politic in which citizens unite in pursuit of the public interest and the common good.

Homo americanus long ago renounced his historic allegiance to throne and altar. Soon afterward, the blood faith that his colonial ancestors had shared with their kith and kin across the Atlantic was replaced by the civil religion of the Republic. Americans had also become hopelessly addicted to endless economic growth and territorial expansion. Within that future-oriented, novus ordo seclorum, it was impossible to define the constitutional abstraction known as the sovereign people-at-large in backward-looking, traditional terms of shared blood, language, and religion.

♣

A commenter said…

You state:

“Inspired by the secular humanist ideology of the European Enlightenment, America’s constitutional faith strove to incarnate the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, one after another, in a series of revolutionary republican moments.”


Wait, no mention of the influence of the Bible and the Ten Commandments? Yet, these leaders were overwhelmingly inspired by the Bible as evidenced by an army of relevant sources. Here’s a cursory list:

•  
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for a government of any other.” —John Adams, 1798 in letters to the Massachusetts Militia.

•  
“It is equally undeniable… that the Ten Commandments have had a significant impact on the development of secular legal codes of the Western World.” —U.S. Supreme Court, Stone v. Graham, (1980) (Justice Rehnquist, dissenting)

•  “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.” —Harry S. Truman, Feb. 15, 1950,
 Attorney General’s Conference.

Suggested Reading: The Ten Commandments & their Influence on American Law