web analytics

Tag: Gaedhal (commenter)

Categories
Catholic Church Deranged altruism

Catechetical lunacy

by Gaedhal

According to Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), paragraph 1935:

The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: ‘Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.’

The above statement is as woke and as DIE [Diversity Equity and Inclusion] as one can get. Absent the talk concerning a mythical Jewish god, the above statement could easily be stated by Joe Biden, Alexandria Occasio Cortez, Michelle Obama or Kamala Harris.

The above statement does not merely seek to ‘eradicate’ inequalities in opportunity, but also inequalities in outcome. If we all had identical ‘social conditions’ then that is ‘equity’. If we all had identical ‘social conditions’ then that is ‘equality of outcome’.

In my view, depopulation and eugenics are a path, eventually, to all humans having prosperous and peaceful social conditions.

It is Christian axiology that renders so much of Western Society so crime-ridden and so needlessly miserable. Christianity is a sect of ‘the least of these’, and so it is anti-eugenic i.e. dysgenic in its foundations. As Saul puts it: Christianity is a sect of the foolish—i.e. those of low IQ—and not of the wise. Christianity is a sect of ‘the off-scourings of this earth’. As the parable says: the rich, and the well-educated did not want to attend Jesus’ wedding feast, so he brought in all the tramps and misfits from ‘the highways and byways’ instead. In its foundation, Christianity is a sect for the mob; for the rout; and not for the aristocrat, the gentleman, the man who is refined in his bearing. As Richard Carrier puts it: Saul does not want you to read Euclid’s Elements lest you deconvert from Saul’s utterly foolish cult.

An absolute equality in social conditions? That is madness. That is Bolshevism. And the funny thing is that the above statement, which anticipates the DIE of modern times, was written in 1992 by the ‘conservatives’ Ratzinger—later Benedict XVI—Schönborn and Saint John Paul II. One of the reasons why I converted to traditionalist Catholicism is because I quickly found out that there was really no such thing as conservative post-conciliar Catholicism. They were all sell-outs and lunatics.

In my view, belief in human ontological equality is a superstition inherited from Christianity. If the Christian god does not exist, then there is no god up there magically making us all equal.

The virus with shoes that is destroying the planet, and swiftly rendering it uninhabitable is of ‘infinite value’ according to the Catechism. And it is not just humanity in sum that has infinite value, but each individual also! You can’t get depopulation done with beliefs like that! In my view, Christian axiology—which carries over into many forms of atheism—is the number one existential threat that humanity faces. Humanity is a petard that can hoist itself through overpopulation, the carbonisation of our atmospheres and our seas, and other threats. If Humanity is a pest, then viewing each specimen of such a pest as ‘infinitely valuable’—as the Catholic Church does—is a harmful delusion.

Categories
On Exterminationism (book) Welfare of animals

Sociopathy or empathy?

by Gaedhal

As Aron Ra puts it: sociopathy and empathy are competing evolutionary strategies. Hence why we observe both in nature, and especially in man. My essay in César’s anthology, On Exterminationism, was about the problem of evil. I want to see a day when empathy reigns upon this planet…

However, in my view, empathy can only reign on this planet after we win the race war. The Chinese and the Japanese, for one thing, have no empathy for wildlife. The Chinese starve tigers to death for tiger meat, and the Japanese eat live octopuses and kill cetaceans for fun. Jews swing chickens and engage in Kosher slaughter. Halal slaughter is likewise barbaric and an affront to decency and empathy. A world that is empathetic to wildlife has to be a white world.

Categories
Homosexuality Sexual "liberation"

Pathological homosexuality

by Gaedhal

The radical trans-exclusionary feminists are usually full-throated supporters of homosexuality.

Again, it is not my intention to whip up violent hatred either against Trannies or homosexuals. We have had internet pornography launched at us—by Jews—as a psychological weapon for thirty years now. Trannies and homosexuals are victims of this. Trannies and homosexuals who mind their own business have my deep respect and sympathy. I wish them no harm or ill will.

Who voted for thirty years of internet pornography? Nobody did. Fuck democracy. Do you think that Hitler would allow this?

That being said, Gluck’s arguments that transanity is Pornogenic, i.e. a pathology created through porn use could easily be used with homosexuals. Pornography, as she says, is like heroin. You need harder and more concentrated doses of it to achieve the same effect. You start off with the nude women of Playboy. Before long, it is scat porn. It is lactation porn. It is gangbang porn. Some years go by, and then it is gay porn, then it is transexual porn. Some years go by and then it is so called “child porn”. Gluck is correct when she says that we live in a pornified culture. I remember remarking to myself that the early 2000s were disgustingly pornified. All the Jewish “entertainment” media was exceedingly pornified.

Trannies are at the stage in their porn addiction, according to Gluck, where they need trans porn to be sexually stimulated. Trannies aren’t quite at the “child porn” stage. In my view, though, homosexuals are only one stage behind the trannies, and only two stages behind the paedophiles.

If Gluck advances pornogenesis and the contagion model for transanity, then why cannot I advance pornogenesis and the contagion model for homosexuality? If Gluck says that Trannies are on a trajectory that leads inexorably to paedophilia, then why cannot I say that homosexuals are merely one step behind trannies on this same trajectory? If transanity spreads by social contagion, according to Gluck, then why cannot I say the same thing about homosexuality?

Categories
Christendom Psychology

‘You must learn…!’

by Gaedhal

I think that Richard Dawkins has been criticized in some quarters for calling religion a ‘memetic virus’. However, for me, it is a good analogy. Comparing a religion like evangelical Christianity to a virus is a good metaphor. Are there perhaps places where the metaphor breaks down? Perhaps. However, this is true of all metaphors.

As Darrel Ray points out in The God Virus (2009) some people have a higher amount of viral load than others. In my view, street preachers have the highest viral load of Christianity.

And the Christian virus is always trying to propagate itself. In Ancient Rome, there were many religions dedicated to many deities. However, Christianity was in a special class of religion. It was a superstition, a type of religious madness.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note:

As I said yesterday in the comments section, it’s not time for a revolution. For there to be a revolution we must know what we are fighting against.

Since we are far short of two per cent of male revolutionaries in a nation (now there are virtually zero per cent), we have no choice but internal jihad. Seeing the past through our training with the three-eyed raven in the cave beneath the Weirwood tree beyond the Wall is Bran’s only option, the one destined to rule the Seven Kingdoms. Eventually, he will emerge from the cave. But for now, he must learn how to see the real past of Christendom.

In other words, I know that these lessons from Deschner bore most of my visitors, but I will continue with the translations until I finish his ten books. Whoever stays until the end will be like Bran.

Categories
Theology

The Calvinist god

by Gaedhal

I am not overstating the case when I say that the Calvinist god hates you. It is a tenet of Calvinist theology that Yahweh is at enmity with his creation. We are born, children of wrath. Yahweh has us in his wrath scope from the moment that we are born. Calvinist idiots like Voddie Baucham speak of infants as ‘vipers in diapers’.

YouTuber Pinecreek (Doug) once said that he likes Voddie Baucham. I can honestly say that I like none of these people.

Why is Yahweh at enmity with his creation? Because he decreed this enmity with his creation even before the foundation of the world.

The stupidity and evilness of the Calvinist god! He decreed to be at enmity with his own creation instead of decreeing to be at peace and concord with his own creation.

Yahweh decreed the Fall, in Calvinism.

If a god is at enmity with you; if a god wants to damn you to hell forever, for his own sovereign glory, then, to me, this is the same thing as his hating you. The Calvinist god, although not real, might as well be, as he resides in the minds of millions of his deluded devotees, causing them to do some really harmful stuff. Thus, it is okay to hate the Calvinist god back.
 

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note:

As I recently said in the comments section of another article by Gaedhal, incredible as it may seem, the answer to all this could be found in my autobiography, on the page where I quote a Swiss writer who asks the question, ‘Why does mankind worship such horrible gods?’

The Swiss woman implies that it is precisely because we had horrible biological parents. Remember that the idea of divinity is nothing but a parental projection. If our parents behave well, we will have the gods of Olympus. But if they behave badly, as they have done since Constantine, the projection will be towards evil gods. Or hasn’t Gaedhal read what I wrote in Day of Wrath about psychohistory?

The key to all this is that white nationalists living in the US will never save their DNA as long as they continue to believe in and worship the Calvinist god.

Categories
Autobiography Deranged altruism Racial right Theology

I don’t think your Lord exists

by Gaedhal

Schopenhauer famously said that the sun sees so much carnage on its daily course that it were better if the earth, like the moon, were still in a crystalline state and not able to call forth the phenomenon of life.

I agree with the carnage bit. I disagree with the notion that a crystalline dead universe is superior to a universe with life in it.

Just personally I think that not existing forever is an unimaginable concept. Hitchens said that every attempt to imagine the extinction of our own personal consciousness fails. Alan Watts, a non theist, said that not existing forever is not an experience that you can have. The atheist Epicurus said that death does not concern us. Where we are, death is not; and where death is, we are not. Thus, as opposed to Benatar, I propose, instead, making the best of a bad situation. Existing on this Hell Planet of parasitism and predation is a bad situation.

However, Schopenhauer’s point that no decent God would claim this Hell Planet of predation and parasitism as his own handiwork still stands. The parasites and predators on this planet are no compliment to any decent God. By believing in this Lord of theirs, it sets you up to be duped in so many other ways. If you can buy that today with its rapes, murders, tortures, shootings, stabbings, car deaths, starvations, amputations, acts of paedophilia etc., was created by their Lord, then you can also buy Matt Chandler’s crocodile tears and his extremely sketchy outline of the events that transpired.

There is much more to this story than meets the eye.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Matt Chandler is a pastor of a church in Texas.

Gaedhal hit the nail on the head when he said ‘by believing in this Lord of theirs, it sets you up to be duped in so many other ways’. As long-time visitors to this site know, I only woke up to racial issues after I turned fifty springs in this world. Before that, I devoted myself to understanding a family tragedy caused, first and foremost, by my father.

After decades of thinking about it, I concluded that once you accept astronomical doublethink, as in Christianity with the doctrine of eternal damnation and the punisher being a god who supposedly loves us infinitely, you can believe anything.

I am not going to detail how Puebla Catholicism corrupted my father’s mind in the 1930s and how that is related to a tragedy that happened in the 1970s. Anyone who wants to know about that can read my autobiographical books. But after decades of pondering the subject I see clearly that the original sin lies in the religion of our parents.

That’s why I have hope…

If the original sin is Christianity, the white race can still be saved. Serious would be, as Kevin MacDonald seems to suggest, that universalist altruism is genetic among whites. I don’t think it is, because whites weren’t bananas before Christianity. It was Christianity that made them crazy, like methamphetamine makes crazy those drug addicts we see in the TV series Breaking Bad.

If deranged altruism is genetic, the Aryan is doomed to extinction. If instead it is malware that has taken hold of the Aryan psyche, it is possible to remove the malware from our souls through Nietzschean transvaluation (which includes ‘secular’ values back to Greco-Roman values). See why The West’s Darkest Hour is the only thing worthwhile among the racialist forums? No one but us is proposing the formula Umwertuung aller Werte as the salvation of our souls.

Nota bene: Today I won’t add another article on Deschner’s history of Christianity because I am still very busy correcting the syntax of the book Daybreak.

Comments

by Gaedhal & Adûnâi

America

The perfect, impregnable fortress, with oceans for moats. Colonised by the Anglo-Saxon stock at the peak of the European culture, during the Enlightenment era. Bestowed upon a century of peaceful expansion, of acquiring its own boundless Lebensraum in the West. Its tragedy, however, was in the total triumph of the Christian moral system in its midst, with not a single competing ideology in sight.

The first bell of impending doom was the American Civil War. No matter how modern racists may cope, it was neither a war about state rights, nor did any Jews give any recognisable impetus to the conflict. No, as Dr. Robert Morgan points out beautifully on the Unz Review, it was the first tangible sign of Christian dominance in the American cultural life. If the martial, pagan Romans had to wage a civil war not to grant citizenship rights to their traditional allies in war (the Social War, 91-87 BCE), the American Christians went on to bloody civil struggle in order to equalise the most debased foreigners with themselves—precisely the heart of the Christian message of love (‘the last shall become the first’, earthly strength is evil, Galatians 3:28, etc.).

My next bullet point will be about the conduct of the Americans in their colonies. In my view, an attentive observer would have been able to see already in the 1930s the ephemeral nature of the Western-style empires. Let’s take the Philippines, conquered by the Americans in 1898, and Poland, vanquished by the Germans in 1939.

• Philippine population (1903-1939) = 7.6 mil. > 16 mil. (+8.4 mil.)

• Polish population (1938-1946) = 34.8 mil. > 23.7 mil. (-11.1 mil.).

Thus, using this undisputed statistic, we can deduce that all the Christian American Empire has ever done is increase the population of foreign nations wherever it went. This same pattern would continue in Japan, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Sure, the initial conquest may employ excessive violence—after all, American military might is astronomically supreme. But during peace-time, the Christian mercy of the American culture will do its work, undoing all the visible successes of their material capability.

This, in a nutshell, is my view of the world and my response to anyone talking about ‘American interests’. Geopolitics is moot if a given subject of history does not act in its own self-interest—not merely making honest mistakes without a perfect knowledge of future outcomes, but with an outright sabotage of its place under the sun. Again, an intellectual experiment—would Adolf Hitler als Führer Amerikas have ever been able to lose world supremacy as America enjoyed it in 1945? Would America have allowed China to industrialise in the 1980s, at America’s cost? Hell, would America have allowed the Japanese to live on their archipelago, instead of colonising it for itself?

And so comes the end of the American Empire, the most illustrious one, quelled by its own hand.

______ 卐 ______

 

Read Adûnâi’s entire article: here.
Gaedhal’s text was sent by email:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

One thing that you might develop when contemplating the problem of evil is survivor’s guilt. Think of hens in battery cages. Think of donkeys in third world countries who are forced to carry heavy loads, even though maimed. This planet is a colossal engine of horrendous suffering. It is a pyramid scheme where only the organisms at the very top have a halfway decent time. I could have come into being as one of those hens! I could have come into being as one of those donkeys! I could have come into being as one of those billion people who are starving, but not to the extent that it kills them.

I find myself, somehow, as a white man in a first-world country, and I am extremely glad about this. I am having an extremely pleasant time. However, I do kinda feel guilty. I have survived this Hell Planet when most organisms do not. Man is a virus with shoes, as atheist comedian Bill Hicks once correctly said, and we make this planet intolerable for wild animals. We hunt them. We leave nets lying about. We send hounds after them. We shoot them. We eat octopuses alive. We starve tigers to death in Chinese tiger farms. We clutter up the oceans with plastic.

I know that my good pal, Cesar Tort, thinks a lot about stuff like this, as well. Cesar, although an atheist, (or ‘panentheist’ as he styles himself, these days, which is simply to say that reality itself is necessary, uncreated and self-existent, or, to put it a little more romantically: ‘numinous and transcendent’ as Christopher Hitchens might have it) says that the devils are real, and we, humans are they. Hell is real and this planet is it. We devilish humans torture the poor defenceless animals for sport.

Even though I am not a vegan, I kinda wish I was. Vegans, to their credit, are bravely attempting not to add to animal suffering.

Whenever the imago-dei delusion from Christianity dies out, and we realise that so far from being made in the image and likeness of God, humanity is, instead, a virus with shoes, ‘consuming and destroying everything in sight’[1], then we might attempt to make this planet a little more tolerable for the animals.

_________

[1] Atheist activist, Aron Ra.

Categories
Democracy Evil Theology

On solving the problem of evil

by Gaedhal

I get the ‘Hell Planet’ idea from Dr. Robert Morgan who is an explicit atheist and an explicit determinist and an explicit ‘eliminative materialist’. I on the other hand am a bit more of a Sheldrakean, on these points. Morgan has read Sheldrake and rejects him, which is his right so to do. He has also read the antinatalist pessimist atheists Benatar and Schoppenhauer more in-depthly than I have.

Pine Creek Doug once was asked that if an asteroid were inbound that would destroy the Earth, and if he could press a button to restart abiogenesis and evolution on another planet he would do so. He initially said: ‘yes’ but then said ‘no’. I would say ‘yes’… However, in so doing, I will be fully cognizant of my calling into being all manner of evils: plagues, famines, paedophilia etc.

However, I would hope, that at the end of it all, intelligent sentient beings might find a way to solve the problem of evil. Instead of antinatalism, solving the problem of evil is a better use of our time because, for all we know, the Cosmos might call forth the phenomenon of life somewhere else. Antinatalism doesn’t actually solve the problem of evil. It just turns this small corner of the Cosmos into a sterile place devoid of life. Benatar wants eventually for mankind to nuke itself out of existence. I hope that I am not misrepresenting his position. Type in ‘Alex O Connor / antinatalism’ into YouTube for a discussion between Benatar and O Connor. I would link to it but I don’t want to. Antinatalism terrifies me. I want to give it a wide berth.

I am not a classically theistic God, which is why it is okay for me to press the abiogenesis button on an Earth 2 somewhere in the Cosmos.

However, as Dr. Robert Morgan correctly points out: a classically theistic God who would use evolution to bring about life would be a sadist. Robert Morgan links people to videos of animals being eaten alive. This truly is a Hell Planet, and if a classically theistic God created it then He is evil by our reckoning; he is a sadist and a voyeur by our reckoning. With the misotheists, we should hate such a God.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note:

Sharp theological thoughts by Gaedhal! Regarding what he says, ‘Instead of antinatalism, solving the problem of evil is a better use of our time…’, I can’t help but remember how my religion of the four words, that dovetails perfectly with Hitler’s panentheism, is the solution to the problem of evil.

These days, as I said, I have been very lightly revising my Daybreak Press books to publish them as PDFs. But I will make an exception for most of what I have written in my mother tongue. For that, it will be necessary to obtain the printed volumes (fortunately they have not been censored, and I plan to translate them into English). It is the only way to understand how, in the end, we plan to solve the problem of evil, at least on Earth.

‘However, in so doing, I will be fully cognizant of my calling into being all manner of evils… I would hope, that at the end of it all, intelligent sentient beings might find a way to solve the problem of evil’, said Gaedhal above. I would add that, if there is one word that defines my religion, it is exterminationism but obviously we do not mean all creatures on Earth. Hence I prefer the term ‘panentheism’ to the term ‘pantheism’ that Weikart used in his books on Hitler.

Gaedhal now changes the subject to more mundane matters:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Jordan Peterson is a peculiar fellow. He is too intelligent to believe in the supernatural claims of Christianity himself; however it is extremely lucrative for him to give the impression that one day he might very well get down on his knees and start pleasing Jesus.

The Bible, which is, as Hector Avalos puts it, an outmoded obsolete worthless document, Peterson constantly pours praise on. I am sure that Peterson is intelligent enough to privately concur with Avalos in his heart as to the utter worthlessness of the Bible. However, heaping laud upon this outmoded and obsolete compendium of tawdry superstition is extremely lucrative. Peterson cynically praises the Bible for shekels. Sam Harris called Peterson out on this in one of his debates with him. What Peterson does for money Trump, Nixon and Reagan—crypto-atheists in my view—do for political power.

This is what makes Christianity so dangerous. Christians are self-avowed ‘fools for Christ’s sake’—and fools and their money are easily parted as Peterson has found out, to his profit. Christians are a self-avowed flock of sheep that cynical demagogues can easily stampede in whatever political direction they want their herd of voters to be stampeded into.

If you believe in democracy—and I don’t—then democracy cannot function properly when you have such a stupefying religion as Christianity poisoning and warping the minds of the electorate.

Categories
Welfare of animals

Anthropoid vermin

A comment by Gaedhal

You said, C.T., that mankind are the devils upon the earth who torture innocent animals. Watch the trailer of Seaspiracy. If Rosenberg had won the war, the animal and plant kingdom would be far less tortured and exploited than it is today.

From a theist’s perspective: the argument from animal suffering is a powerful argument for atheism. Thus Christianity creates to a large extent the atheism of our times. Why are we breeding up an infinite number of subhumans, ‘anthropoid vermin’—Revilo P. Oliver—, life unworthy of life, as the National Socialists rightly said. You breed up unfit featherless bipeds, who, because they are unfit, can only suffer.

Nature tells us that human life is verminous. Semitism tells us that human life is sacred.

Nature tells us that the supply of human life exceeds the demand for it. Semitism tells you to breed up an infinite number of subhuman souls to praise Yahweh in Heaven.

People become atheists… and yet they usually cling to the notion that human life is sacred.

I want the best of white mankind to flourish. I want the best of white mankind to eventually become the benefactors of animal and plant life and not their destroyers and implacable persecutors.

It is the Semitic axiology, the notion of ‘image-bearing’ and ‘souls of inestimable worth’ that is fuelling the population explosion and destruction of the natural world.

It is not just that the doctrines of orthodox Christianity are slightly wrong, slightly misguided and slightly mistaken—it is that they are diametrically opposite to the truth of the matter on many occasions… and cause huge destruction.

Christianity is not just a religion from the desert: it is a religion that creates deserts.—Acharya S.