web analytics

Tag: Jewish Question (JQ)

Categories
Deranged altruism Israel / Palestine

The new subordinationists

This 13th-century fresco in a church in Perugia, Italy, depicts the Trinity
as a being with three faces representing Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 
One of the apparent mysteries of the anti-white religion today is Subordinationism.

Influenced by Stoic philosophy, the subordinationists held a Trinitarian doctrine according to which the Son, and sometimes also the Holy Spirit, were subordinate to the Father not only in submission and role but with actual ontological subordination in varying degrees. Many early Christian theologians postulated a hierarchical classification of the persons of the Trinity, although their position was later considered heretic at the Second Council of Constantinople.

Years before I discovered white nationalism, something funny happened to me with a beautiful, fully Aryan woman with whom I had a coffee in Mexico City together with her brother, a chess-playing friend. I told them that I had just seen a film shot in one of the Muslim countries, which ends with a pubescent girl being deflowered by her elderly husband. I intended to defend the girl.

The liberal woman jumped up in anger. She railed against the film and the message of the director of the Muslim country. I didn’t understand why, if she was more or less a feminist and I was defending a pubescent girl, this liberal woman was so furious. Once I discovered the white nationalist forums, I found the answer.

The point is that, for the new subordinationists, there is a hierarchy in their new Trinity: equality of race, gender and sexual identity. So if two persons of the trinity come into conflict (Muslims are sandniggers and at the same time they live under a patriarchy), the second or third persons of the trinity are subordinates to the father god, i.e. race (liberals see Muslims living in Europe as a noble race just because they aren’t white).

Unlike the Council of Constantinople which declared subordinationism heretical, the new religion of the West is subordinationist: first and foremost is the non-white race (God the Father) and gender equality and sexual identity are subordinated to this Father. This explains my confussion with that liberal woman many years ago. (Incidentally, her brother, a certain Demetrio, who sided with his sister during our argument, later committed suicide.)

With this in mind, let us now think of the grotesque phenomenon of the elites supporting Israel to such an extent that they are even beating and jailing non-whites who dare to support Palestine in some European cities! Why do they do that? Didn’t race—non-whites in Europe—take priority, and even more so if some Israelis are phenotypically whiter than Palestinians? True, but the fact is that, in the new subordinationist theology, there is hierarchy even among non-whites.

The anti-white religion that was created after the Second World War is an exact reverse of Hitlerism. So if Hitler and the Third Reich considered the Jews a subversive tribe, in the new religion they have literally become the chosen people. But the most sinister thing of all is that it is the Aryans themselves who have chosen kikes as the chosen ones, so much so that not even the brown migrants who support a people subjugated for decades by Israelis are now tolerated.

For these new heretics the slogan seems to be: Subordinationist hierarchy above all! In the new Aryan Trinity, the Jew has become the sacrificial Lamb whom we are all supposed to love including his new state, Israel. In his comment today, Gaedhal wrote:

I would rather not write about politics on this thread. There are much more profitable and productive things to write about, like programming. However, yet again, the world—thanks to the US and Israel—stands on the brink of another conflagration.

Megyn Kelly should have an entry in the Encyclopedia of American Loons. She is willing to waste America’s blood and treasure, defending Israel, of all places. She speaks about Israel’s right to exist. What about Irish Catholics’ right to exist? Do Jews and Israelis concede to us ethnically Irish people the exclusive right to the Island of Ireland, something clearly spelt out in the 1916 proclamation? Of course, Irish Protestants have the right to their own state, north of the border. I tend to lean Unionist, these days. Does Megyn Kelly’s Jewish friends concede this right to us?

Charity begins at home. If bad guys need to be killed, then there are plenty of bad guys to be killed on the North American continent. There are plenty of things that lethal martial force could accomplish on the North American Continent that would actually be in the interest of US citizens. I recently saw a video where an Army Vet encouraged white men not to join the US Army because, of course, none of these wars prosecuted by the US government and military is actually in our interest.

[Zionists] go so far as even wanting a war with Iran if that keeps Israel safe. How in the name of a metaphorical God is any of this in America’s interest? America has been at war, almost non-stop since Pearl Harbour. Is the world any safer, any more prosperous, any more secure from 80 years of war? Why is America full of insane pundits like Megyn Kelly?

The answer is simple. The country was founded by Christian fanatics who had to perceive themselves as the new Israelis to establish a city upon a hill. The American project has now become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and Kelly is just an aberration among millions of philo-Semitic Zionists: the basis of Jewish power. (Remember the POV of this site: the Jews didn’t take over the West by force: the Aryan traitors handed it over to the Jew, their new ‘God the Father’ after WW2. That’s why we focus on the CQ instead of the JQ.)

Categories
Mexico City Videos

What a quantity!

More than 3,000 Mexican Jews gathered on Sunday to send a message of solidarity to Israelis in response to the Hamas attack.

Mexico City is so big (I live in a suburb with no Jews at all) that these images really struck me. As far as I can remember, never have so many Jews gathered at once for a political statement in my town.

Categories
Israel / Palestine Liberalism

Lambert

On this site I have several times embedded videos of Derek Lambert interviewing New Testament critics such as Richard Carrier and Richard Miller, but I have also criticised Lambert for his Neo-Christian anti-racism.

There is something very striking about apostates from Christianity. They almost universally embrace a liberal and egalitarian faith even more extreme than the Christian universalist, something we knew from the first incarnation of The West’s Darkest Hour with the post ‘The Red Giant’, originally uploaded when Blogspot hosted my site (then we moved to WordPress and now to the present address).

In his correspondence today, our our learned friend Gaedhal tells us:

Lambert was on [redacted], and I even exchanged a few emails with him. However… I just don’t like him. I have always had an intuitive dislike of him. Now he introduces his father, a volunteer in US-instigated wars of plunder, adventure and regime change.

Again, my anti-war principles are informed by the far-left podcast Citations Needed. I am trying to be fair and balanced as I can. In the same way that I don’t respect the cops, I don’t respect the troops. As I said before, if these wars were in our interest, American troops would be fighting on the North American Continent. British troops would be fighting on the island of Great Britain to defend against the ongoing invasion of that island by ‘boat people’.

I don’t care, in the slightest about the deaths of 1,000 Israeli settlers on Palestinian land. The Jews are fucking around on Palestinian land. Every now and then, some of them are gonna find out. In retaliation, the Israelis have besieged the Palestinian territories, cutting off water and electricity, which is a war crime.

It is curious how the social media are mentioning this, which is true, while omitting that the Allies did exactly the same after 1945 with millions of Germans, who died like flies. Those who haven’t read Sexton’s review of Hellstorm should stop reading this post and read the review now!

They refuse to allow humanitarian channels for the likes of the UN or the Red Cross. If Israel is fighting a total war against the Palestinians, then we can expect, from time to time, the Palestinians to retaliate. If 1,000 Irish Catholics were murdered by Muslims, the Jews wouldn’t care. Indeed, they would immediately redirect and reframe the conversation to ‘I sure hope there isn’t a backlash against the Muslim community.’ When white people are murdered by Muslims in Europe, the Jews always derail the conversation to talk about the evils of Islamophobia. Tucker Carlson is a genius for using this tactic against them. Yeah, sure, the death of a thousand Israelis is tragic, and all, but what about all the Americans who are killed by our own ‘settlers’. As I said before: solidarity is a one-way street, and the Jews have zero solidarity with me, my people, my ethnicity, my country, my continent.

Again, being anti-war is both a right-wing thing and a left-wing thing. Saoradh, from the far left opposes the actions of Israel, and US-instigated wars and I from the radical right do so too. Israel is an abomination, and no real antitheist would shill for them. This is a point that Alan Green brings up: Lambert only seems to be antitheistic towards Christianity and Islam. Judaism—the source of the Abrahamic stream of pure poison—gets treated with kid gloves.

Philo-Semitism is due to the baleful influence that Christianity has had on the Western psyche. On the anti-Semitic right, it is very common for pundits to cherry-pick historical facts such as the expulsion of Jews from various reigns in Christendom. But they omit the main fact: Judaism was ultimately tolerated because the so-called Old Testament appears in both the Jewish and Christian bibles. What was never tolerated after Constantine and the following emperors—except Julian—were the 100% Aryan religions: whether they were the religions of the Greco-Roman world or, later with Charlemagne, of the Germanic world.

Lambert is a real ace at interviewing, say, Richard Miller, and in fact I bought and read Miller’s book thanks to Lambert’s interviews. But non-Nietzschean apostates become, axiologically, atheistic hyper-Christians and, worst of all, many like Lambert become openly philo-Semitic Zionists. That is why, we have said, atheists are even worse than Christians (the key to this apparent mystery is provided by Nietzsche’s epigraph to the post ‘The Red Giant’).

Categories
Free speech / association Kevin MacDonald Painting

Blood libel


In his post on Tuesday, Kevin MacDonald said: ‘The “blood libel” is a reasonable belief given Ariel Toaff’s book on medieval Ashkenazi practices.’

His words caught my attention enough to read the afterword Toaff wrote in the second edition of 2008 of his book that caused a stir the previous year: Paque di Sangue (Passovers of Blood).

Yesterday I read the whole afterword and it seemed to me that MacDonald is right to consider Toaff a sound scholar. However, what Toaff says is something much more nuanced than the cartoonish way of looking at the issue, inspired by Christian imagery (see e.g., Hieronymus Bosch’s painting).

But it did Toaff no good to be not only a sound scholar but the son of a highly respected rabbi of Rome. He was cancelled as the vilest Goyim by the same forces that cancel us.

The Toaff scandal reminded me of yesterday’s article by Gregory Hood in American Renaissance, which opens with the words ‘The single most important cultural change of the last 10 years is not transgenderism, Black Lives Matter, or even social media. It’s the end of free speech.’

What Hood omits is that there never was, really, freedom of speech in the West. Alexis de Tocqueville was right from the start: you are allowed to speak only if you refrain from breaking the taboos of the unwritten law, even in the land of the famous First Amendment. So-called freedom of speech has always been a hallucination of those who have been sailing strictly within the waters of accepted discourse.

Categories
Racial right Videos Vikings

Magnus v. Nosferatu

As I bathed in the morning, Keith Woods’ recent article in The Unz Review on Elon Musk’s reaction to ADL subversion got me thinking (Twitter, now dubbed ‘X’ by Musk, suffers from the ADL-orchestrated advertising takedown).

Nowhere on the racial right have I come across an explanation of why American society obeys the Jewish subversion group ADL. While there are countless articles on the internet exposing the ADL’s subversion of the First Amendment, there is, to my knowledge, no explanation of why American civil society and the American state blindly obey them.

That is typical of the racial right: they are anti-Semitic but not exactly Jew-wise, insofar as that would imply a clear, transparent, distinct and Apollonian explanation of why everyone seems to be obeying the whims of the biblically chosen people.

I’ve already written about Keith Woods on this site, whom I branded as an imbecilic Irish with no conscience whatsoever about the CQ, and I don’t want to link to that brief post I wrote about him years ago. I don’t want to do so because his blindness, presumably based on his Catholicism, is the same blindness that afflicts all other conservatives.

My question should be addressed until grasping the incredible phenomenon of the elites—including the companies that fund Twitter / X—obeying the demands of ‘Nosferatu.’ (Hunter Wallace has called Nosferatu the ADL director, whose face is so repulsive that unlike Wallace and The Unz Review, I dare not even post a picture of him.)

I believe that the blindness of the entire racial right in addressing something so obvious—why the American elites obey Nosferatu—is because they are unable to see themselves in the mirror. It was the historical reality that the US was founded by self-conscious Aryans who had to imagine they were Israelites to build a city upon a hill that is behind all this insane deference to the will of a powerful advocate of Israel.

Even the most famous American neo-Nazi suffered from this blindness. If one pays attention to the quote from George Lincoln Rockwell in the previous post, bearing in mind my footnote on page 90 of Savitri’s memoirs, it will become clear that Rockwell was trying to make a good impression on the Christians who funded his organisation.

But you cannot save the Aryan race and at the same time obey the commands of the god of the Jews to the Gentiles (actually, the commands of the rabbis who wrote the New Testament for Gentile consumption). Think, for example, of the countless times that, when he was on Fox News, Tucker Carlson talked about the equality of men, and that skin colour was absolutely irrelevant. Carlson even invoked the idea of ‘God’—that is: the god of the Jews—in his proclamations, and did so several times in his Fox career while talking about racial equality.

What I’m getting at is that all this discussion about Musk and the ADL misses the elephant in the room: Why do American elites obey Nosferatu? Or put in my language, if the anti-Christian Vikings had conquered the entire American continent—not the idiotic Spanish and Portuguese; not the idiotic English and French—, would they now be obeying Nosferatu?

Magnus: ‘I think our Faith should prevail. No doubt at all. Our Gods will ultimately triumph over the Christian god [contempt in Magnus’s voice] who is a usurper, who has no meaning; is not real. One day not so far away the name Jesus Christ will be utterly forgotten’ (emphasis in Magnus’ voice).

What if the Gods of the Anglo-Germans on the American continent were, every one of them, Aryans like those of the Greco-Roman Mount Olympus or the Germanic Valhalla? What if Vikings like Magnus, not the Judeo-Christian Charlemagne, had been victorious in the medieval wars in which Christianity was forcibly imposed?

So fundamental is what I am saying that what emerges is not only the great limitations of Rockwell—but of Hitler himself!

The subject is deep and complex and would involve reading what I say about Charlemagne in our translation of Deschner’s book. Fortunately, my post ‘Old Town’, which I uploaded the week before my mother’s passing, sums up what I mean.

Categories
Ancient Rome

Caligula, 5

Marble portrait bust of the emperor Gaius, known as Caligula, A.D. 37–41.

Ordinary people, moulded by Hollywood, have a lofty idea of the Roman Empire (as a child, for example, I was impressed by the scene in which Ben-Hur arrives in the triumphal chariot with Quintus Arrius, first consul of Rome, before the emperor Tiberius) and no idea of the Roman Republic, betrayed by Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius and Caligula. As we have seen, the subtitle of Roldán’s Calígula is ‘The Immature Autocrat.’ In the chapter ‘The First Crisis’ the author speaks of the tyrannical behaviour of the emperor and how, unlike in the times of the Roman Republic, in imperial times senators had to behave in the most crawling manner on pain of death. On page 222 we read:

A collective such as the senatorial one, torn by envy, jealousy, resentment and ambition, could only react with vileness to the challenge of imperial tyranny. Meeting the next day, now without Gaius [i.e., Caligula who was in his twenties], they found no other way out than to humiliate themselves lowly, pretending to regard him as a sincere and loyal prince, who had condescended to spare their lives and who, for that, deserved thanks expressed in the granting of new honours. Accordingly, they voted to offer annual sacrifices [of animals] in honour of his clementia, on the anniversary of the day on which he had addressed them, and, to celebrate it, a golden image of the emperor was carried in procession from the Palatine to the Capitol, accompanied by a choir of children from the noblest families, who sang commemorative hymns. [my translation]

Since the Principate was a de facto monarchy the senators could not counteract but react with creeping flattery. Then Roldán adds that Augustus and Tiberius had done the same, but with more hypocrisy: not as blatantly as Caligula did. Since Julius Caesar the Senate had been reduced to the role of a mere coryphaeus willing to endure the worst humiliations, although this situation only became obvious with Caligula’s so-called Principate. On page 131 we read:

The condemned, whose names Gaius took care that they should be publicly exposed, ended up either in prison or hurled down the rock of Tarpeia unless they tried to escape public shame by committing suicide. There were no guarantees even for those sent into exile, who could die en route or during the time of exile. Of the few known cases, one senator, Titius Rufus, was prosecuted for denigrating the Senate as an institution by accusing the House of thinking one way and acting another. Such statements were permitted only to the emperor. For the rest of the mortals it meant death, which Titius anticipated by committing suicide. [my translation]

Imperial Rome was a joke. From Julius Caesar onwards there were problems with Jewish empowerment, as William Pierce tells us. If we recall Eduardo Velasco’s masterful essay in The Fair Race on Judea’s surreptitious war against Rome, one Aulus Avilius Flaccus was appointed governor of Roman Egypt from 33 c.e. until the reign of Caligula (Flaccus grew up with the sons of Augustus’ daughters and was a friend of Tiberius). His rule coincided with the riots against the Jewish population of Alexandria and in Velasco’s essay he is portrayed as a hero. Although Caligula undertook anti-Semitic measures because of the tremendous problems caused by the Alexandrian Jewry, he finally consented to the killing of Flaccus. The Jew Philo portrays the execution this way (page 242 of the Roldán’s book):

The officers therefore pursued him without stopping to take breath and arrested him; and then immediately some of them dug a ditch, and the others dragged him on by force in spite of all his resistance and crying out and struggling, by which means his whole body was wounded like that of beasts that are despatched with a number of wounds; for he, turning round them and clinging to his executioners, who were hindered in their aims which they took at him with their swords, and who thus struck him with oblique blows, was the cause of his own sufferings being more severe; for he was in consequence mutilated and cut about the hands, and feet, and head, and breast, and sides, so that he was mangled like a victim, and thus he fell, justice righteously inflicting on his own body wounds equal in number to the murders of the Jews whom he had unlawfully put to death.

And the whole place flowed with blood which was shed from his numerous veins, which were cut in every part of his body, and which poured forth blood as from a fountain. And when the corpse was dragged into the trench which had been dug, the greater part of the limbs separated from the body, the sinews by which the whole of the body is kept together being all cut through.

Can you see why I say that the paradigm is Hitler’s Third Reich and not Rome? It was only until the 20th century that the Aryans became authentically Jew-wise, at least for a brief historical moment.

CQ v. JQ

The reason this site is hardly visited by white nationalists is simple: it represents a paradigm shift in terms of the primary cause of Aryan decline. They believe it is the Jews and I believe it is Christian ethics (which comprises the scale of values of the secular world in the West, as we are seeing with the Dominion series).

That doesn’t mean I’m not aware of the JQ. The only feature article I have published in The Occidental Observer (TOO) can be seen in this PDF which includes the comments. (TOO has been known to remove the comments after a few months of the essay being published, so it doesn’t hurt to upload a PDF.)

Categories
Dominion (book)

Dominion, 28

by Tom Holland

Friedrich Wilhelm had first travelled there in 1814. The highlight of the young crown prince’s journey had been a visit to Cologne. The city—unlike Berlin, an upstart capital far removed from the traditional heartlands of Christendom—was an ancient one. Its foundations reached back to the time of Augustus. Its archbishop had been one of the seven electors. Its cathedral, begun in 1248 and abandoned in 1473, had for centuries been left with a crane on the massive stump of its southern tower. Friedrich Wilhelm, visiting the half-completed building, had been enraptured. He had pledged himself there and then to finishing it. Now, two years after his accession to the Prussian throne, he was ready to fulfil his vow. That summer, he ordered builders back to work. On 4 September he dedicated a new cornerstone. Then, in a spontaneous and heartfelt address to the people of Cologne, he saluted their city. The cathedral, he declared, would rise as a monument to ‘the spirit of German unity’.

Startling evidence of this was to be found on the executive committee set up to supervise the project. Simon Oppenheim, a banker awarded a lifelong honorary membership of the board, was fabulously wealthy, highly cultured—and a Jew. Even within living memory his presence in Cologne would have been illegal. For almost four hundred years, Jews had been banned from the devoutly Catholic city. Only in 1798, following its occupation by the French, and the abolition of its ancient privileges, had they been allowed to settle there again. Oppenheim’s father had moved to Cologne in 1799, two years before its official absorption into the French Republic.

Satiric print about the emancipation
of the Jews of Westphalia—Ed.

Since France’s revolutionary government, faithful to the Declaration of Rights, had granted full citizenship to its Jews, the Oppenheims had been able to enjoy a civic equality with their Catholic neighbours. Not even a revision of this by Napoleon, who in 1808 had brought in a law expressly designed to discriminate against Jewish business interests, had dampened their sense of identification with Cologne—nor their ability to run a highly successful bank from the city. It helped as well that Prussia, by the time it came to annex the Rhineland, had already decreed that its Jewish subjects should rank as both ‘natives’ and ‘citizens’. That Napoleon’s discriminatory legislation remained on the statute book, and that the Prussian decree had continued to ban Jews from entering state employment, did nothing to diminish Oppenheim’s hopes for further progress. The cathedral was for him as a symbol not of the Christian past, but of a future in which Jews might be full and equal citizens of Germany. That was why he agreed to help fund it. Friedrich Wilhelm, rewarding him with a house call, certainly had no hesitation in saluting him as a patriot. A Jew, it seemed, might indeed be a German.

Except that the king, by visiting Oppenheim, was making a rather different point. To Friedrich Wilhelm, the status of Cologne Cathedral as an icon of the venerable Christian past was not some incidental detail, but utterly fundamental to his passion for seeing it finished. Half-convinced that the French Revolution had been a harbinger of the Apocalypse, he dreamed of restoring to monarchy the sacral quality that it had enjoyed back in the heyday of the Holy Roman Empire. That he himself was fat, balding and short-sighted in the extreme did nothing to diminish his enthusiasm for posing as a latter-day Charlemagne. ‘Fatty Flounder’, as he was nicknamed, had even renovated a ruined medieval castle, and inaugurated it with a torchlit procession in fancy dress.

Unsurprisingly, then, confronted by the challenge of integrating Jews into his plans for a shimmeringly Christian Prussia, he had groped after a solution that might as well have been conjured up from the Middle Ages. Only Christians, Friedrich Wilhelm argued, could be classed as Prussian. Jews should be organised into corporations. They would thereby be able to maintain their distinctive identity in an otherwise Christian realm. This was not at all what Oppenheim wished to hear. Shortly before the king’s arrival in Cologne, he had gone so far as to write an open protest. Others in the city rallied to the cause.

The regional government pushed for full emancipation. ‘The strained relationship between Christians and Jews,’ thundered Cologne’s leading newspaper, ‘can be resolved only through unconditional equalisation of status.’ The result was deadlock. Friedrich Wilhelm—channelling the spirit of a mail-clad medieval emperor—refused to back down. Prussia, he insisted, was Christian through and through. Its monarchy, its laws, its values—all derived from Christianity. That being so, there could be no place for Jews in its administration. If they wished to become properly Prussian, then they had a simple recourse: conversion. All a Jew had to do to be considered for public office was to make ‘confession of Christianity in public acts’. This was why Friedrich Wilhelm had been willing to pay a social call on Oppenheim. What was a Jew prepared to fund a cathedral, after all, if not one close to finding Christ?

But the king had been deluding himself. Oppenheim had no intention of finding Christ. Instead, he and his family continued with their campaign. It was not long before Cologne, previously renowned as a bastion of chauvinism, was serving as a trailblazer for Jewish emancipation. In 1845, Napoleon’s discriminatory legislation was definitively abolished. Time would see a sumptuous domed synagogue, designed by the architect responsible for the cathedral, and funded—inevitably—by the Oppenheims, rise up as one of the great landmarks of the city. Well before its construction, though, it was evident that Friedrich Wilhelm’s dreams of resurrecting a medieval model of Christianity were doomed. In 1847, one particularly waspish theologian portrayed the king as a modern-day Julian the Apostate, chasing after a world forever gone. Then, as though to set the seal on this portrait, revolution returned to Europe. History seemed to be repeating itself.

In February 1848, a French king was deposed. By March, protests and uprisings were flaring across Germany. Slogans familiar from the time of Robespierre could be heard on the streets of Berlin. The Prussian queen briefly dreaded that only the guillotine was lacking. Although, in the event, the insurrectionary mood was pacified, and the tottering Prussian monarchy stabilised, concessions offered by Friedrich Wilhelm would prove enduring. His kingdom emerged from the great crisis of 1848 as—for the first time—a state with a written constitution. The vast majority of its male inhabitants were now entitled to vote for a parliament. Among them, enrolled at last as equal citizens, were Prussia’s Jews. Friedrich Wilhelm, appalled by the threat to the divine order that he had always pledged himself to upheld, declared himself sick to the stomach. ‘If I were not a Christian I would take my own life.’

Nevertheless, as the king might justifiably have pointed out, it was not Judaism that had been emancipated, but only those who practised it. Supporters of the Declaration of Rights had always been explicit on that score. The shackles of superstition were forged in synagogues no less than in churches. ‘We must grant everything to Jews as individuals, but refuse to them everything as a nation!’ This was the slogan with which, late in 1789, proponents of Jewish emancipation in France had sought to reassure their fellow revolutionaries. ‘They must form neither a political body nor an order in the state, they must be citizens individually.’ And so it had come to pass. When the French Republic granted citizenship to Jews, it had done so on the understanding that they abandon any sense of themselves as a people set apart. No recognition or protection had been offered to the Mosaic law. The identity of Jews as a distinct community was tolerated only to the degree that it did not interfere with ‘the common good’.

Here—garlanded with the high-flown rhetoric of the Enlightenment though it might be—was a programme for civic self-improvement that aimed at transforming the very essence of Judaism. Heraclius, a millennium and more previously, had attempted something very similar. The dream that Jewish distinctiveness might be subsumed into an identity that the whole world could share—one in which the laws given by God to mark the Jews out from other peoples would cease to matter—reached all the way back to Paul. Artists in the early years of the French Revolution, commissioned to depict the Declaration of Rights, had not hesitated to represent it as a new covenant, chiselled onto stone tablets and delivered from a blaze of light. Jews could either sign up to this radiant vision, or else be banished into storm-swept darkness. If this seemed to some Jews a very familiar kind of ultimatum, then that was because it was. That the Declaration of Rights claimed an authority for itself more universal than that of Christianity only emphasised the degree to which, in the scale of its ambitions and the scope of its pretensions, it was profoundly Christian. [pages 421-425, bold added by Ed.]

Adam Green

I just received this comment on the previous post:

Cesar, have you watched Adam Green of Know More News’ takedowns on Christianity, arguing it’s a Jewish scam? He makes many of the same points you make but in video format, posting lots of video evidence as well. If you haven’t seen him I think you’ll like his stuff [two links].

On Adam Green’s Twitter account, I clicked on the video of the pinned tweet and I’m looking at this video. I am liking that Green sees Christianity as an extension of JQ (I wish white nationalists would pay attention to this guy).

I think tonight I’ll watch the rest of the video…

11:30 pm. I’ve watched it. In another of Green’s videos we can even see several rabbis confirming it!
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Update 18 January

See my exchange with JR1C in the comments section. I’ll be watching Green’s videos. As JR1C says: they are a perfect complement to what we’ve been saying here with purely Aryan sources (e.g. Evropa Soberana’s literary legacy).

But with this corroboration from the orthodox rabbis themselves of our thesis, that Christianity is a psyop created by 1st-century rabbis, the support for our main thesis has been strengthened.

For those unfamiliar with what we have said here on the subject, see my quotations from David Skrbina’s book.

Categories
Conservatism Feminism Metaphysics of race / sex Racial right

On silly Ann Coulter

A couple of days ago, on The Occidental Observer, Ann Coulter was annoyed by these words of Nick Fuentes: ‘Hitler is great, women should be forced to marry young and have children.’ Doesn’t Ann realise that in Jane Austen’s very decent world, women were forced to marry because they couldn’t inherit property? Doesn’t she realise that, by virtue of those values, the British Empire became so powerful?

Ann Coulter is certainly not a racist. She’s an asshole like the rest of the Republicans that ignore what Ludwig Klages said in Cosmogonic Reflections #25 about mankind and race: ‘We must draw a sharp distinction between the man who sees the world as divided between the “human” and the “non-human,” and the man who is most profoundly struck by the obvious racial groupings of mankind (Nietzsche’s “masters”). The bridge that connects us to the Cosmos does not originate in “man,” but in race.’

That is what I call genuine spirituality (in contrast to the ‘spirituality’ that the Jewish authors of the New Testament have drummed into our heads). In the second chapter of Savitri Devi’s book, which will be available as a PDF the next month, we read some prescient passages on how it is that the Christians of the 1930s had an intuitive knowledge that made them see that National Socialism was nothing less than the paradigm that replaces the old paradigm: the Jewish god by an Aryan God. Thanks to the Nick Fuentes / Ye scandal, nowadays we see some of that debate even in discussion threads among Christians, such as this Occidental Dissent thread, where a certain Dicarlo said:

I don’t agree with you, Brad [i.e., Hunter Wallace, who mocks Ye et al]. We’re losing because the jews have unlimited money, and control every platform where Whites need to get out the truth. They have shut down our ability to get out the truth. You might as well advise, never say “jew”. :rolleyes:
 
There’s nothing cartoonish about Adolph Hitler or the Third Reich. Their mortal enemy is the exact same enemy Whites face today, the jews. Of course there is a problem that most Whites have been lied to so much and drummed down to a point where the truth means nothing to them. We can only soldier on. George Lincoln Rockwell was right!
 
It doesn’t matter what you tell the normies—those who don’t want to think or know, the jews and their completely controlled media sources are going to lie, cover up, distort, over and over about any topic Whites bring up. Your criticism of praising Adolph Hitler, or the WW2 topic, is just a result of repetitive jew demonization of it [emphasis added]. There is no proper approach to wake up the White normies. All one can do is keep telling the truth about what the jews are doing and have been doing since Rome.

Since Rome… I wonder if Dicarlo has been reading this site, e.g. our excerpts from David Skrbina’s book?