The ancients believed in the unity of the world, in the dialectical intimacy of man with nature. Their natural philosophy was dominated by the ideas of becoming and alternation. The Greeks equated ethics with aesthetics, the kalôn with the agathôn, the good with beauty, and Renan rightly wrote: ‘A system in which the Venus de Milo is only an idol is a false system, or at least a partial one, because beauty is worth almost as much as goodness and truth. With such ideas, a decline in art is inevitable.’ (Les apótres, p. 372). The ‘new man’ of Christianity professed a very different vision of things. He carried within himself a conflict, not the everyday one that forms the fabric of life, but an eschatological, absolute conflict: the divorce from the world.
Early Christianity extends the messianic idea present in Judaism in an exacerbated form, due to a millennial expectation. In the words attributed to Jesus we find literal quotations from the visions of the Book of Enoch. For the first Christians, the world, a mere stage, a vale of tears, a place of unbearable difficulties and tensions, needed compensation, a radiant vision that would justify (morally speaking) the impotence of here below. That is why the earth appears as the field on which the forces of Evil and Good, the prince of this world and the heavenly Father, those possessed by the devil and the sons of God, confront each other: ‘And this is the victory that has overcome the world: our faith’ (I John V, 4). The idea that the world belongs to Evil, later characteristic of certain Gnostics (the Manicheans), appears frequently in the first writings of Christianity. Jesus himself affirmed: ‘I do not pray for the world…, as I am not of the world’ (John XVII, 9-14). St. John insists: ‘Do not love the world, nor the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world.’ (I John II, 15-16.) ‘Do not be surprised if the world hates you.’ (Ibid. III,13). ‘We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.’ (Ibid. V, 19.) Later, the Rule of St. Benedict will state as a precept that monks must ‘make themselves strangers to the things of the world’ (A saeculi actius se facere alienum). In the Imitation of Christ we read: ‘The truly wise man is he who, in order to gain Christ, considers all the things of the earth as rubbish and dung.’ (I, 3, 5).
In the midst of the great artistic and literary renaissance of the first two centuries, Christians, as outsiders who pleased to be so, remained indifferent or, more often, hostile. Biblical aesthetics rejected the representation of forms, the harmony of lines and volumes; consequently, they had only a disdainful look on the statues that adorned squares and monuments. For the rest, everything was an object of hatred. The colonnades of temples and covered walks, the gardens with their fountains and domestic altars where a sacred flame flickered, the rich mansions, the uniforms of the legions, the villas, the ships, the roads, the works, the conquests, the ideas: everywhere the Christian saw the mark of the Beast. The Fathers of the Church condemned not only luxury, but also any profane work of art, colourful clothing, musical instruments, white bread, foreign wines, feather pillows (had not Jacob rested his head on a stone?) and even the custom of cutting one’s beard, in which Tertullian sees ‘a lie against one´s own face’ and an impious attempt to improve the work of the Creator.
The rejection of the world became even more radical among the early Christians because they were convinced that the Parousia (the return of Jesus Christ at the end of time) was going to take place immediately. It was Jesus himself who had promised it to them: ‘Assuredly, I say to you, some who are standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.’ (Matthew XVI, 28). ‘Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened.’ (Matthew XXIV, 34). In view of this, they repeated the good news more and more. But the end of all things is at hand (I Peter IV, 7). ‘It is the last time’ (I John II, 18). Paul returns again and again to this idea. To the Hebrews: ‘Therefore cast not away your confidence, which has great reward… For yet a little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not delay’ (Hebrews X, 35-37). ‘Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together… but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching’ (Ibid., X, 25). To the Thessalonians: ‘Stand firm, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.’ To the Corinthians: ‘Brothers, the time is short; therefore let those who have wives be as though they had none…’ (I Cor. VII, 29). To the Philippians: ‘The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything…’ (Phil. IV, 5 and 6).
In his dialogue with Trypho, Justin affirms that Christians will soon be gathered in Jerusalem, and that it will be for a thousand years (LXXX – LXXXII). In the second century, the Phrygian Montanus declares that he foresees the imminence of the end of the world. In Pontus, Christian peasants abandon their fields to await the day of judgment. Tertullian prays pro mora fines, ‘that the end may be delayed.’ But time passed and nothing happened. Generations disappeared, one after another, without having seen the glorious advent; and faced with the continual delay of its eschatological hopes, the Church, giving proof of prudence, ended by resigning itself to placing the Parousia in an undetermined ‘beyond.’ Today only Jehovah’s Witnesses repeat on a fixed date: ‘Next year in the Jerusalem of heaven.’
A passage in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, ‘On Old and New Tablets’, inspires me for this post. But before I continue with the routine of this site (perhaps my next post will be one more passage from Irving’s book on Himmler), I would like to clarify something about today’s previous post.
The pair of four words, Gens alba conservanda est (White people must be preserved) and ¡Eliminad todo sufrimiento innecesario! (Let us eliminate all unnecessary suffering!), define the two commandments, or new conception of right and wrong, in our new Tablets of the Law.
The second commandment is given because of the colossal hells that some abusive humans inflict on their children, or the defenceless animals at their mercy.
That doesn’t mean that only those who already have these two commandments as their religion can be my comrades. Although Hitler was surprised when Himmler confessed to him that he still practised hunting with other Nazis, Uncle Adolf couldn’t have formed a political movement if he repudiated them. But it is obvious that a priest of the holy words has already taken his vows to fulfil both commandments (vows that non-priests aren’t yet capable of fulfilling because they lack the compassion we have developed).
Another thing I would like to say today is something else about my eternal quarrel with the American racial right. Yesterday I saw a video by Jared Taylor about the recent attacks in Germany perpetrated by a sandnigger. Taylor mocks the fact that the Eurocrats have been ‘speechless’ and ‘stunned’ after the massacre of civilian Germans. However, as a good Christian or secular neochristian (Taylor has never confessed whether he still believes in the religion of his parents) he fails to realise that these Eurocrats have taken Christian morality to its ultimate consequences (forgive your enemies, never allow yourself to hate them, turn the other cheek if they attack you, etc.).
While I watched the entire Taylor video, I didn’t read the recent Counter-Currents article on the massacre. I merely read the first two comments in that thread, where the first thing a couple of commenters did was say ‘Merry Christmas’.
Apparently, neither the commenters nor the author of that article are aware that it was precisely that Christianity that they still celebrate at Christmas that caused not only the massacre, but the previous massacres perpetrated by the jihadis that Taylor mentions in his video, and the massacres that other sandniggers will perpetrate in the future! Just as George Washington and the other Founding Cucks enabled Jewish infection in their brand new country, so the religion that conquered the Aryan soul has imposed on whites Semitic commandments diametrically opposed to the two commandments of our Tablets of the Law.
No, there was no point in reading either C-C’s article or the rest of the comments. The only thing to reiterate is that those on the racial right are neo-normies, not 21st-century National Socialists who have woken up to the real world.
I thought you might like to see some new paintings I’ve acquired over the last year. Two were at discount due to scuffs, scratches and dents on the canvas, and one due to a chipped frame (and the fourth frame missing altogether). I’m particularly pleased with the riverside scene, from a lesser known Barbizon School artist I enjoy, although I think the waves and sky on the fishing boat picture are particularly well-wrought, in subtle use of colour.
Yes, [responding to my previous mail — Editor] I really don’t know where the other good commenters have got to on your website. At least Berk and Robiul semi-regularly comment…
The Americans really did (and do) behave appallingly. They always have. They should never had have the arrogant fundamentalist disloyalty to leave England at all in my estimation, and consequently found a traitor nation, corrupted to the very stated core of its egalitarian constitution. I too don’t think one can merely place the decay in the 19th Century. Much as there is nothing to be patriotic about in my own country, I do not extend any strange, knee-jerk admiration overseas either. Thomas Goodrich’s paragraphs never fail to shock and distress me, no matter how many times I read them. The abject sadness of them is worthy only of a terrible focussed anger. I cannot imagine, had the Jews been their legitimate official enemy in this war, that the American armies would have treated their prisoners with such barbarity. And that goes back to the morals instilled in them from at least the founding of their country.
It upsets me to know that our race is so effortlessly suicidal, so lacking in racial loyalty. There are no ‘George Floyds’ among our own citizens, so regularly knifed to death, raped to bloody ruin, and, as of recently, torched in their sleep. Just flowers and condolences, and prayers for forgiveness and ‘peace’, if that even, forgotten by the day after so more signs can be held up for the cameras, ‘refugees welcome’, ‘say no to racism!’ and these febrile idiot golems can feel good about themselves, as they empty their nations out in inverted charity and misplaced love. I struggle to see how bad it will have to get for them to ‘wake up’. Part of me still fears even then that they will capitulate. Filing reverently into oblivion, cautious to be decent and welcoming and polite.
Hence why in my opinion most people do not deserve life – they can’t even protect their children. As I said to Abby not so long ago, “why are you a slave? When they’re lining you up next to me, ready to machine gun us into the flaming pit, will you be as you are now, telling me to keep my voice down in case I offend the authorities and turning to them with a meek apologetic smile, with their weapons drawn and pointed at you? When it is too late to do otherwise?” (again I was told to ‘stop being silly’ – I take it she took me in full imminent literality, missing my point).
Best regards,
Ben
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s 2 ¢
They should never had have the arrogant fundamentalist disloyalty to leave England at all in my estimation, and consequently found a traitor nation, corrupted to the very stated core of its egalitarian constitution.
Indeed, in fact, as you will see in my forthcoming post on uncle Adolf’s 1920 speech, Americans should invite the ghost of King George III to come back and resume the throne.
George’s ghost would dissolve the Union, arrest the pretender in the White House—whether Biden or Trump—, and round up the philo-Semitic ‘representatives’ in Congress.
In exchange for an apology and a promise to never misbehave again, Americans would get lower taxes, a less intrusive government, secure they borders with cartel-controlled Mexico, and above all end the madness that has flowed from the ‘self-evident’ Christian / neochristian idea that ‘all men are created equal’!
of Germanic racial care by medieval Christianity (3)
by Hans F. K. Günther
The most popular book of the Middle Ages. Note the devils behind the naked women and remember Nietzsche’s aphorism: ‘Christianity gave Eros poison to drink; he did not die of it, certainly, but degenerated to Vice’.
The church’s devaluation of all earthly life extends to all parts of the meaningful order. Sexual life was desecrated because it now belonged to the respected ‘flesh’. The woman, the mistress of the house as guardian of the racial heritage, became an object that could ignite carnal desires. This dissolved the order of procreation described above. Those who had become circumcised for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven were considered particularly pious (Matthew 19:127). Origen, the great teacher of the Church, had castrated himself. The degradation of the body, which was so contrary to the Indo-European veneration of the body, went so far that Athanastus (born around 297 in Alexandria) praised the Egyptian Antonius, a saint, because he no longer washed his feet, and Saint Agnes (in the 4th century) so disrespected her body for the sake of her soul striving for the afterlife that she no longer took a bath. The Indo-Europeans had always valued physical and mental health as a great asset. Wholeness, health and joy of life were wished for in the greeting: Heil (in English whole, entirely ‘vale’ or ‘chaire’). Saint Steronymus (340-420) taught: ‘One should conquer the flesh! A face radiant with health is the sign of a defiled soul. Health should be a danger to the soul, physical beauty, an expression of refined nature, a work of the devil to incite the flesh to fornication’.
Of course, such teachings never took hold of the entire Germanic people, as they were too deeply rooted in the aristocratic peasant nature and the everyday life of the peasant warrior. Only a few people completely fell for the church teachings, which always proclaimed a monastic life rather than a truly Christian life. But these teachings did dissolve the high-minded and ultimately ignoble beliefs of the Germanic people, so that some of the Germanic customs could only continue to exist as a tolerated secular tradition, while this customs before the conversion were actually an expression of Germanic piety. Nowadays, much of the tradition was considered ‘pagan and reprehensible’ and gradually dissolved in the course of the medieval centuries or became a class tradition of the nobility alone, which increasingly lost its original, biological meaning based on the laws of life.
The Midgard concept, which included the order of procreation that was so significant in terms of life law and race, and all the noble peasant values described by Neckel, was bound to be quickly disintegrated by the church teachings; the security of the world was bound to dissolve. This disintegration extended to the value of home, which was at the core of the Midgard idea. In his book Usketische Heimatlosigkeit (1930), Campenhaufen described the church value of xeniteia, the turning away from home and the holy emigration to foreign lands, which was opposed to the idea of home, the peregrinatio, as this turning away from home was called in the West. The value of homelessness as a means of healing the soul emerged above all in Irish-Anglo-Saxon Christianity. In the rest of the West this teaching later faded into the background, but peregrinatio was still practiced and practiced as a particularly sanctifying form of feudal conduct in the High Middle Ages. But the church’s devaluation of the homeland struck the heart of the Midgard concept. The monk Otfried von Weisenburg (in Elfass) wrote his Gbangelienbuch in 868, in which he explains (I, 18) that our homeland is paradise, that we humans live on this earth like outcasts in a foreign land because of our sins, and that only through repentance and turning away from the world can we regain our true homeland.
This was the exact opposite of Germanic belief – aversion to home and clan had become a sign of the greatest piety. For the Germanic people, maintaining clan ties was the safeguarding of peace that created prosperity. The word peace originally meant the prosperity of all growth in clan settlements through clan order. The most sinister thing for the Germanic people was clan division. Grönbech has convincingly demonstrated this. Therefore, even with the most appropriate interpretation, a word from Jesus such as that recorded in Matthew 10:35 must have seemed outrageous to the Germanic people, who still thought in terms of clanship: I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be his own household. For the church, such a word was confirmation of the spiritual value of turning away from the world. However, such a turning away from the world also meant a turning away from the idea of ancestry and clan care.
The idea of descent from noble peasant ancestors of one’s own tribe was further opposed as church teaching by the idea of a connection, at least of the souls, to the ancestors of the Jewish people. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians (3:27) it was taught: ‘But if you are Christ’s, you are Abraham’s seed. The Jews were now to be regarded as the chosen people from whom salvation comes’ (John 4:22), as the people chosen by God, because Old Testament terms such as Elohim or Jahn (ehoba), terms for the special god of the Hebrew tribes, were translated by the Holy Scripture, the Bulgata, as dominus or deus, as ‘lord’ or ‘god’, thus no longer with the designation as a special god, but as a one and only god and all-god who encompasses all peoples and obliges all to his commandments. It is precisely in this tacit equation of Hebrew names for gods with names for the all-god himself that the ‘great deception’ that was disastrous in the history of faith and to which Delitzsch has pointed out emphatically is touched upon.
Man is part and parcel of the animal kingdom and (not withstanding Jefferson, Franklin, and Lincoln—Karl Marx, La Salle, and Liebknecht—Christ, Robespierre, and Rousseau—Hyndman, Tennyson, and Mazzini—Dr Adler, Bebel, George and Isaiah—Bellamy, Gronlund, and W. T. Stead) he cannot escape from the draconic ordinances that despotically govern that kingdom and environ his being like an atmosphere on every side.
Altruism, meek and lowly self-abnegation, upon any extended scale is among predatory organisms (and all organisms are predatory) impossible of practice on pain of wholesale felo-de-se.
Every man is under an obligation to fight and bear his own burden. If he cannot do so, others cannot do his fighting or his burden-bearing and their own at the same time with reasonable safety to themselves. He therefore who finds it impossible to carry his own burden, had better sink down and die in his tracks than impose an additional load upon the shoulders of his kind-hearted fellow strugglers. For then, they would be overloaded and consequently unable to fight successfully; so all might perish together.
Practical fraternal sympathy (upon any universal scale) has always had in the end a most destructive effect upon the internal structure of communities. Men will always love and cherish those that are near and dear to them; but when it is proposed to extend the circle of their ‘near and dear ones’ to all mankind, that is going rather too far. Indeed all must perish ignominiously if that foolish idea prevails. ‘All’ are even now enervating themselves, undermining their strength, by futile overexertion in that very direction. They are straining themselves to death, by endeavouring to carry an impossible load. The majority of men are born far too weak constitutionally for their conditions; and the few who do possess the necessary stamina and grit, will have quite enough to do in proving by deeds their fitness to survive, propagate, and possess. Many are projected—few are selected.
Yet altruism, wholesale self-renunciation—wholesale burden-bearing, for the sake of ‘Outraged and Suffering Humanity,’ is the maddening basis upon which ‘our good Lord Jesus,’ and his demented imitators have erected their sporadic sociology.
Does not simple business acumen whisper to us that every man’s chief occupation upon earth is to sustain himself. ‘I mean subsist at any cost; you shall want ere I shall—business is business.’ If men had sufficient personal initiative to think along these stern lines, there would be little use on earth for the theologian and ‘the reformer;’ those twin Mephistos who find their renown and grandeur, in the abasement of mankind. The battle of life would then be so grim, terrible, and realistic (so Trojan in fact) that those holy dissimulators and crafty deceivers would rapidly die off or be eaten off; for in the clash of naked interests, the best and bravest only could possibly survive; and no one would ever dream of including them among the best or bravest.
Three recent comments by a commenter motivate me to quote, in a single post, all his comments since last year, including recent ones:
Eradicating non-Aryan elements from the planet is a legitimate, sensible and practical strategy for continued existence for Aryankind. People captured by Neo-Christian morality condemn such actions as evil. But what greater evil is the complete extinction of Aryankind and degeneration into an Untermenschen cesspool.
In any given future Aryan Ethno-state, societies or communities, Christian-related materials will be only be available to those who are extremely racially sound and immune to the Christian poison. Such materials are only to be used for historical or academic research or evaluation. Individuals who are able to access such materials should be as ruthless as Heinrich Himmler and fiercely racially loyal or unpolluted as SS members.
In Adolf Hitler: The Ultimate Avatar by Miguel Serrano, (Miguel Serrano was one of Savitri Devi’s companions and compatriots), it reveals that Yahweh and its supposed son Jesus are the demiurge. Yahweh is the evil “god” of the world and it is demonic. Whether this hypothesis is true or not, Aryans are the true stepping stone for the next stage in human evolution. As time and the Kali Yuga advances, the forces of decay and disintegration at work as described by Savitri will accelerate their actions against the true divine spark and chosen race of humanity which is the Aryan. The ultimate endgame is the devolution of humanity back to the ape and Neanderthals.
Yes, the Serpent, Molech, Baal, Satan and Yahweh are one and the same, this is true of all Semitic entities. Yahweh symbolizes the entirety of the forces of decay in our present age that bring Aryans to their final doom, it is the prime mover of the Kali Yuga. The day of salvation will finally arrive for the Aryan once Christian ethics are extirpated from the world forever. I am shocked that there are no rigorous and supportive reactions from Aryans to this post. [emphasis added by Ed.]
—posted in Ibid.
I just hope the seed planted will blossom into an even mightier tree than the poisonous weeds that are Christianity and Neo-Christianity. Racially healthy Aryans in any future Aryan civilization or society will look back on Christians and Christianity as abhorrent and ridiculous as dunking your face or body into a pool of pig swill. If all Aryans in the entire world start burning bibles in bonfires and smashing the last stones of these very last churches into the ground, we knew that we had finally won.
The near perfect comtemporary antithesis of the Christian poison are Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and members of the SS. The relentless and pathetic slander on Heinrich Himmler and the SS shows how afraid the racial enemies of the Aryan man are. It shows us a glimpse when Christian “values” and “ethics” (I would call that poison) are completely repudiated. Once the Christian poison is totally expunged from the soul of Aryan man, he is completely healthy again and it will be gameover for racial enemies, traitors and the world we known today.
This is the precise reason it requires a systemic collapse of such unprecedented severity to weed out unworthy Aryans that are still entrapped in the snare of Christian ethics. The present status quo and the “world” as we knew it not only reinforce Christian ethics, it rewards and incentivizes them. The entire ludicrous and ridiculous notion of “last shall be first, the first shall be the last” will be proven false and illusory once the iron law of racial survival is the only way.
—posted today in the thread ‘Christian nationalism’.
I would like to say that the Christian “god”, which is a virulent mental virus [emphasis added by Ed.], is solely responsible for the population explosion of the racially and genetically inferior in the past few hundred years. It paves the way for Aryan extinction and it requires Kalki or an exterminationist solution to remedy it.
—posted in Ibid.
You might have a better chance of convincing a clumsy bull to climb or fly up a high wall than convincing Christian nationalists the error of their ways.
A racially-sound Aryan child or youth raised in a racially-healthy Aryan collective can easily understand the obvious contradiction of trying to preserve the biological existence of the entire Aryan collective and embracing a foreign Semitic god created from the foul sands of Judea.
Useless to state it again, many Christian nationalists are suffering from psychotic and schizophrenic ambiguity.
by Revilo P. Oliver
Published by Liberty Bell Publications in 1980,
under Oliver’s nom de guerre Ralph Perier.
The doctrine
It remains for us to consider the consequences of Christianity, now restricting that term to the religion established by the Fathers of the Church. It has dominated and distorted the mind of our race for fifteen centuries—and it continues to do so.
We must first eliminate a potential ambiguity. Various investigations and estimates made a decade or more ago agree that about 10% to 15% of the members of our race (including about 90% of our “right wing”!) are Christians in the sense that they believe the tales in the “New Testament” to be historically true or at least accept as true the dogmas about the divinity of Jesus, etc. Although the percentages have probably been increased by the intensive promotion of Christianity in very recent years, the religion by this estimate controls only a minority of our race. When we estimate the influence of the religion in our world, however, we must not overlook Ersatz-Christianity. As a recent writer has pointed out, a very large number of our contemporaries, who call themselves “liberals,” “progressives,” and the like, pride themselves on having rejected the incredible tales about supernatural beings and the other trappings of Christian mythology, but retain an abiding faith in its social superstitions. As Nietzsche keenly observed, almost all of the persons who think they have freed themselves from Christianity disdain its creed but love its poison. If we include this Ersatz-Christianity, the Fathers of the Church established an enduring dominion over our race, to which at least 95% of our contemporaries are now subject. That is a datum to be remembered when you read the following outline.
It is obvious—obvious at least to everyone who has made even a cursory study of religion as an historical phenomenon—that Christian doctrine is a forced combination of three incompatible constituents: Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Judaism.
The first of these, which is probably the most important, is appropriately symbolised in the well-known myth that Zoroastrian priests (Magi) came to attend the nativity of Jesus. This component did come directly from Persia.
If one compares the Zoroastrian cult to the more healthy polytheisms of antiquity, one sees how bizarre and irrational it is, although Christianity has so accustomed us to it that few reflect on how pernicious is a belief in an evil god. No mental poison has been more deadly than the Zoroastrians’ great innovation, the basic tenet that the world is a battlefield on which two gods contend for mastery: a good god and an evil god, each of whom would be omnipotent, were it not for the other. For no intelligible reason, these two mighty supernatural beings, one of whom had the power to create the entire universe, have to recruit puny mortals for a war that is absurd anyway, since everyone knows that in the end the good god will overcome the evil god, take him captive, and settle down to torturing him for all eternity. In the meantime, however, all men must join one or the other army and fight desperately to destroy their enemies.
This fantastic notion has given rise to what may be the most pernicious idea in human history: a holy war, fought to destroy evil. Rational men go to war to extend their own dominion over other people or sometimes to maintain it against other nations that are trying to extend their own power, in conformity with what is the fixed and unalterable condition of human life. Under the Zoroastrian-Christian system, however, whole nations are subject to periodic fits of insanity. Crazed hordes imagine themselves chosen by the good god (Yahweh & Son, Inc.) to butcher and annihilate the diabolic minions of the evil god (Satan, alias Antichrist). Our civilisation has been repeatedly brought to the verge of destruction, and some of our greatest nations have in fact doomed themselves in such self-righteous paroxysms of homicidal mania, while their enemies watched happily, reaping both enormous profits and spiritual satisfaction from the disasters the maddened Aryans brought on themselves in their eagerness to slaughter one another to please the ferocious Asiatic god that had been foisted upon them. A few examples will suffice.
The Protestant Reformation (which, incidentally, was sparked and abetted by the Jews) precipitated the Wars of Religion, in just one of which two-thirds of the population of Germany perished. The crazed Aryans, highly resolved to extirpate the devil-possessed legions of the Antichrist in Rome or the devil-possessed legions of the Antichrist who had revolted from Rome, irreparably impoverished our race’s genetic heritage while they made wastelands of many of the most civilised and prosperous parts of Europe and blighted their own culture for almost two centuries. They fought valiantly on both sides, it is true, and equally mortgaged their lands to the Jews.
In America, the northern states effectively destroyed the American Constitution when they invaded the southern states in 1860 to deny them the rights the colonies had jointly won in 1781. Historians, to be sure, have identified economic causes, especially the greed of northern industrialists, but the crusade against the South was essentially a holy war to liberate savages from slavery, although the Christians’ holy book expressly sanctioned and authorised slavery (even of higher races) in passages that the howling dervishes in the pulpits conveniently forget. The genetic heritage of the Americans was impoverished, while Jews naturally cheered on both sides and, after the war, flocked into the South to batten on the devastated land and its ruined people, and in the North consolidated political corruption.
In 1917, a sleazy shyster, whom the Jews had cleverly installed in the White House, proclaimed a holy “war to end wars”! The witless Americans, maddened as their holy men howled for blood, as usual, stampeded into Europe, believing in their frenzy that the Antichrist had become incarnate in the German Kaiser and his nation. No one needs to be reminded what profits that jihad brought to the Jews.
Again, in August 1933, when the Germans were trying to make themselves independent of the aliens in their country, Samuel B. Untermeyer, as spokesman for his international race, declared a Holy War against the insubordinate nation. The Jews, however, did not invade Germany as their ancestors had invaded Canaan when they coveted that country. This was a Holy War for the Christianized Aryans in the rest of the world, who were easily incited to blind rage against the Satanic nation that dared not to venerate God’s Holy Race. In their fratricidal delirium, the hate-crazed Aryans consummated what is likely to have been the Suicide of the West and the irreversible doom of our race. And now, Yahweh’s Chosen Tribe happily control the economic life of the impoverished and stultified Aryans everywhere, demand that the cowering White men believe even such obscene fictions as the “Holocaust,” and ever more openly display their just contempt for brutes who can so easily be stampeded to their own destruction.
The Zoroastrian idea of a holy war is, of course, but one component of the poison that has made our race schizophrenic. In the intervals between the attacks of self-righteous insanity that makes them run amuck in holy wars, they do not become rational, even momentarily, but instead babble in the throes of another hallucination. They jabber about pacifism and, in a kind of delirium tremens, imagine they see such impossible things as “world (!) peace” cavorting just beyond their reach. So the lunatics try to run hard enough to overtake the ever-retreating phantom.
The Buddhist component of Christianity reached it indirectly, perhaps largely through the Essenes, and was considerably adulterated on the way.
The essential element is the gloomy and cowardly doctrine that human life is not worthwhile—that all the things dear to healthy men, such as health, strength, sexual love, beauty, culture, learning, intelligence, wealth, and even individuality, are merely “vanity of vanities,” empty illusions. (Christianity, of course, makes them evil illusions.) The proper attitude is that of a man hopelessly diseased and in pain: he longs for death. The cult, however, denies us a rational release from our misery in suicide, which it says is impossible, since some kind of ghost will survive the death of the body. What we can and should do, however, is to refrain absolutely from sexual intercourse, so that we will not engender fresh links in the chain of misery that is life on earth. Furthermore, some mysterious supernatural power has ordained that we can acquire post-mortem benefits for our souls by frustrating all the desires that healthy men feel, and even greater rewards by inflicting physical pain on ourselves. There is a heavenly bookkeeping machine which makes entries to our credit whenever we make ourselves suffer pain and enters debits against us whenever we yield to temptation and enjoy something, whether it be a woman’s love, the beauty of great art, the intellectual exhilaration of discovering a fact of nature, or any other pleasure. The balance of our account when we die determines the future of the soul. (Buddhism assumes that that future is reincarnation, but Christianity perverts and degrades that not implausible myth by adding the Zoroastrian notion of a final judgement: after our only life on earth, an angel will read the computer’s print-out and, if the amount of our debts has made us insolvent, will pitchfork us into Hell, where our impalpable and intangible souls will be roasted on hot coals and suffer all other imaginable bodily torments for all eternity—not a year or a century or a millennium or a billion years, but all the eternity of infinite time!)
The Christian tendency to devalue the body, exemplified here by medieval “flagellants” who whipped themselves bloody, is the opposite of the natural European attitude toward our physical being, which we can see expressed in the great works of Arno Breker, Praxiteles, and many others.
From this notion, corrupted by the addition of some of the sexual obsessions that seem to be an innate part of the Jews’ racial mentality, Christianity proclaimed the doctrine of race suicide for our people. Allowance was made, of course, for the men who did not have the fortitude to castrate themselves or otherwise frustrate the instincts of healthy men, but by a monstrously obscene transvaluation of rational values [emphasis added by Editor], disease was called “health” and strength was called “weakness.” Men too “weak” to be eunuchs were permitted the “sin” of having offspring to provide customers for the next generation of shamans, but it was the will of Christianity’s fearful god that our race be as celibate as possible. For fifteen centuries, enormous numbers of male Aryans were herded into the church, both as priests and as monastics, to blight their masculinity with homosexuality and perversion, mitigated only by the chance of furtive adulteries. And enormous numbers of our women were imprisoned in convents to become psychopathic or practise secret abortions.
It may seem to us now that the institutions for race suicide attracted, as today, only the misfits, the physically or psychically defective, who should always be prevented, so far as possible, from reproducing themselves. To some extent that was true, but for reasons which are historically obvious, some of the best blood of our race was irretrievably lost in mad efforts to curry favour with the god the Jews had exported to us. For century after century, the sexual superstitions of Christianity systematically weakened and impoverished our race. The Jews could have invented nothing better for their purposes.
The Jews despise our race for its gullibility, venality, and the debility of its racial instincts, but they also hate us, fearing that we may never become perfectly docile livestock on their world-wide plantation. The Jewish attitude toward us was somewhat indiscreetly revealed in English by Theodore Kaufmann in his Germany Must Perish! (Newark, 1941; recently reprinted).
Kaufmann demanded that every man, woman, and child in Germany be surgically sterilised to exterminate a people that had been guilty of insubordination to God’s Race. The rabid Jew realised that it would be premature to urge similar treatment of the Aryans in other nations, and, as things turned out, it proved not to be feasible to carry out the Jewish plan even in Germany at that time. In the United States and other countries once ruled by our race, the same end is to be achieved more gradually by mongrelisation and the incitation of a sexual mania, which, incidentally, is a revival of the early Christian sects that taught that Jesus had revealed that the only road to Salvation lay in male homosexuality or, conversely, in unlimited promiscuity and the abolition of families to liberate females for intense and indiscriminate copulation ad libitum.
Another derivative of the Buddhistic negation of the values of human life was also distorted and polluted in transmission. It is the mawkish sentimentality, the fatuous self-abasement, and the total repudiation of reason that appears in the so-called Sermon on the Mount, a concentrated poison for which Christians still have a morbid appetite. It is the essence of what Nietzsche called the “slave morality”—the morality of persons so degenerate or diseased that they are fit only for slavery. It is the negation of life itself. Glory is reserved for the meek and humble who take a masochistic delight in being trampled upon. They must be so abject and feeble-minded that they love their enemies. The dregs of human society are the “salt of the earth,” and they are promised the joy of seeing their betters suffer, when “the last shall be made first.” Nothing that makes life worth living is not evil, and the idiots are exhorted, “take no thought for your life”—indeed, to abstain totally from rational thought. The ideal mentality for Christians is that of vegetables, but since it is not quite feasible to attain that blessed state, Christians take pride in proclaiming they are sheep, the most stupid of all mammals, incapable of defending themselves, living only to feed, multiply, and be fleeced periodically. Christians even like to depict themselves as lambs that stare uncomprehendingly at the world about them. They recite with unction psalms that aver that they are mindless and will-less sheep, confident that the Jews’ god will herd them to “green pastures beside still waters,” where they may lie down to chew their cud in uninterrupted bliss.
Commanded to “take no thought for the morrow,” but to have bird-brains and be “like the fowls of the air” that “sow not, neither do they reap,” relying on their “heavenly Father” to feed them, Christians who actually believed the Drivel on the Mount would, if sufficiently numerous, simply precipitate the total breakdown of any civilised or even barbarous society—and would not even grow pelts for the Jews to fleece. Perhaps it is fortunate that Christians like to befuddle themselves with sentimental verbiage they do not understand and holy “mysteries” which they can contemplate with bovine incomprehension.
Christianity, indeed, enjoins pride in imbecility. Its god became incarnate to “make folly of the wisdom of this world.” Its votaries must have an unthinking faith in an incomprehensible farrago of patently false statements. To abjure the use of reason is the only path to Salvation and the animal-like joys of eternal idleness in Heaven. Learning and wisdom must be despised. Every effort of human reason to understand the world in which we live is a sin, an affront to a god who has given us the perfect model of righteous wisdom in an oyster.
The repudiation of reason and sanity was a particularly deadly poison to our race, which, as several writers on ethnology have recently pointed out, has in some of its members, at least, an innate capacity for the objective and philosophical thought by which alone our race attained a partial control over the forces of nature and the power to defend itself by imposing its will on other-races.
This power, which we have now fatuously surrendered, was won for us slowly and painfully by the often heroic efforts of a few men and only over the frantic opposition of the Christian witchdoctors. The debased superstition that insanely exalts ignorance over knowledge and faith over reason repressed and deformed for many centuries our race’s unique capacity for a rational and mighty civilisation.
Students of religion commonly deny originality to the Jews, because all of the cosmogonic tales in the “Old Testament” were lifted from the mythologies of more civilised peoples, especially the Babylonians, and only superficially Judaised. They thus overlook or ignore what is unique in the religion professed by the Jews, especially after they had the brilliant idea of converting their religion from a henotheism to a monotheism to imitate and appropriate the monotheism of Greek Stoicism.
It is true that the peculiarities of Jewish religion are not mere superstitions, such as other races may ignorantly accept, but spring from their innate certainty that their race is immeasurably and categorically superior to all others, an absolute certainty that is independent of any mythological explanation of it they may give to others or even to themselves. That poses a biological problem which we cannot consider here, but we must notice the specifically Jewish element that went into the Christian amalgam.
The Jews are, by nature, a proletarian people. It is a matter of common observation that when they invade a country, they infiltrate every prosperous city and set up their ghettos, in which they huddle together, like ants in their anthill, bees in the hive, or termites in their nest. Everyone has noticed that when a Jew or a few Jews associate with goyim, they successfully simulate the manners and culture of the people among whom they have planted themselves; but when Jews become a majority in any place, from a single room to a city, they become a swarm, a buzzing synagogue, an unmistakable alien species.
Some Jews, of course, become immensely wealthy, but they remain parts of the international swarm. According to a despatch in the Sunday Chronicle (the official Jewish newspaper in London), January 2, 1938, the Jews, incensed that the Germans should dare to be disrespectful to God’s Master Race, held a meeting near Geneva at which Jewish financiers promptly contributed £500,000,000 to a fund to punish the insubordinate goyim. The reader, especially if he has had experience of “right-wing” activity in any of our nations, can estimate for himself the chances that Aryan financiers would have given $2,433,250,000 in 1938 to preserve their own race, or would contribute (if asked) an equivalent sum today, say £20,000,000,000. If he thinks that unlikely, he has the measure of the difference between the Jewish race and ours.
The racial solidarity of the Jews makes them unique among the peoples of the world. We can only envy them a bond of cohesion that indissolubly unites the poor with the rich, subordinates personal greed and ambition, and even transcends religious differences. The professed beliefs of Talmudists, Kabbalists, and Jewish atheists seem irreconcilable to us, but they no more impede the race’s effective unity than the ferocious religious dissensions of the last centuries B.C. impeded the Jews’ exploitation of the gullible goyim, the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, and the Romans, whom the Jews adroitly played off against each other. Tacitus marvelled at the Jews’ “obstinate devotion to their own kind” coupled with “implacable hatred of the rest of mankind.” He wrote before the race’s solidarity was most impressively demonstrated by the Jewish outbreaks in many Roman provinces around A.D. 117. In Cyrenaica, for example, the Jews had naturally planted a huge ghetto in the provincial capital and controlled a large part of the trade on which the region’s prosperity depended. Many Jews must have been among the wealthiest inhabitants. But a christ named Andrew brought the glad tidings that Yahweh said it was time for his Chosen Race to put the goyim in their place. Filled with zeal for righteousness, the Jewish swarm caught the stupidly complacent Greeks and Romans off guard and slaughtered more than 200,000 men and women in various ingenious ways, such as sawing off their hands and feet and ripping out their intestines while they were still alive. God’s People then destroyed all the property in the city (including their own!), evidently burning all the buildings to the ground and levelling the ruins. Then they rushed out into the countryside to destroy the villages and uproot the crops. That done, the enthusiastic horde of nihilists descended on Egypt, leaving behind only a scorched desert and dismembered corpses.
This nihilism was vividly expressed in the Christians’ favourite horror story, the Jewish apocalypse that the Fathers of the Church selected for inclusion in their appendix to the “Old Testament.” The wild phantasmagoria describes in loving detail all the disasters and torments with which Jesus will afflict and destroy the civilised peoples of the earth when he returns in glory from the clouds with a squad of sadistic angels. One should note the characteristic provision that goyim are not to be merely killed outright: they are to be made to suffer exquisite agonies for five months first. But what Lloyd Graham has properly called the “diabolical savagery” of the Jew god is not satisfied with exterminating all the goyim with every kind of torture a lurid imagination could invent. He destroys the land, the mountains, the sea, the whole earth; he destroys the sun and the moon; and he rolls up the heavens like a scroll, presumably including even the most remote galaxies… Everything is annihilated. And all this for the sake of Jesus’s pets, an elite of 144,000 male Jews who despise women. For these, to be sure, he creates a New Jerusalem, in which they will loaf happily for a thousand years.
The Jews spiced Christianity with their rancour and nihilism. As Maurice Samuels said, with laudable candour, “We, the Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever… We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world.” And by inventing Christianity, they stopped credulous goyim from inquiring what kind of god their race created for itself.
I recently said that I don’t talk about news on this site unless we use a news story to discuss metapolitics. From this angle, I can use the recent American election to illustrate one of the ideological pillars of this site.
Everyone knows what Christianity is. But those who have read Tom Holland will understand what we mean by atheistic hyper-Christianity, which we sum up in one word: neochristianity. In short, all Western atheists are neochristians since Christianity has not only the dogmatic side but also an axiological side. To give just one example. In my previous post I mentioned The Turner Diaries: a novel that ends when the Aryans exterminate the non-Aryans on the whole planet. Since that novel is never mentioned on white nationalist sites as the blueprint for what needs to be done, we could label them all as Judeo-Christian or Neo-Judeochristian. Why? Because the proclamation of human rights in the time of the French Jacobins, as Holland saw in his book, is at heart a proclamation of Christian ethics, albeit stripped of its religious trappings.
In his book Dominion, Holland included this image that imitate Moses’ commandments.
So there are no authentic apostates from Christianity in the West, except those who think as the late William Pierce thought in his novel—and in his history of the white race, where he said that all Aryan conquests failed because they failed to exterminate the natives. (This Hitler, Himmler and Heydrich did plan with their Master Plan East because, unlike the American racialists, they did dare to cross the psychological Rubicon: transvalue all Christian values.)
Once the POV of this site is understood, it becomes clear that the recent American election was a contest between the basically Christian values of those who voted for Trump and the neochristian values of those who voted for the mulatta. The problem is that both factions are two sides of the same coin. It was clear from Biden’s inaugural speech, from the Woke vocabulary he used, that whoever wrote it had already left traditional Christianity behind in pursuit of neochristianity: which takes the principle of Christian equity to its ultimate consequence (those who have not yet read Dominion should read it, abridged by me here).
Which faction is worse, the new or the old? It is very common among the American racial right to say that the new one is worse, but an accelerationist who has in mind the metaphor of the frog gradually burning out without noticing it would reply that maybe the old one is worse.
I don’t know which is worse. It is irrelevant. What counts is that the Pauline principle that there will be no more distinction between Greeks—that is, whites—and Jews came, in its secular transmutation in the 1960s, to be metastasised so that we would see blacks as brothers and ‘liberate’ our women. In our century Wokism took that principle to its ultimate consequences with homo ‘marriage’ and transgender empowerment. The latter may seem grotesque but it is grounded in Christian ideals, as I said in my 2019 post ‘On empowering birds feeding on corpses’, where I talk about the Franciscans of the 14th century.
The conservative revolution that is causing so much excitement among those rejoicing at Trump’s victory has to be understood from this meta-political angle. It is not a genuine revolution, as was the German NS. Rather, it is two Christian factions fighting each other: one very liberal and the other conservative. But salvation lies in abandoning Christian ethics altogether: which is why I changed the subtitle of this blog today from ‘Gens alba conservanda est’ to ‘Post-1945 National Socialism’.
Unlike today’s racialists Hitler understood Xtianity.
Reverend Ferdinand M. Sprague, of Chicago (who may be taken as a common specimen of the priest-politician), in a little pamphlet lately published, entitled The Laws of Social Evolution, writes thus: ‘The sheet anchor of Socialism according to its ablest exponents, is the Holy Christian religion. Its motto founded on the precept “love thy neighbour as thyself” is—“each for all, and all for each.” Its working principle for the present is altruism.’ Nearly all the canonized ‘Fathers’ of the early Roman propaganda (most of whom, by the way, were slaves, freedmen, or eunuchs) advocated similar ideals.
Even now, the anointed and sanctified head of the Catholic Church resurrects the same hoary old ‘The ethics of Socialism are identical with the teachings of Christianity’ (Encyclopedia Brittanica): utopianism in a Jesuitic encyclical addressed to his flock! (how suggestive of being shorn and skinned, is that word ‘flock’).
Again, the Epistle of James has been reprinted and widely circulated by Socialists, in order to sow and broadcast their illogical theories of a universal brotherhood, founded upon enforced labour, regimentation of the herd, and majority votes.
Many modern cities are also infested with plausible epileptoid priestlings of unreason, like Dr. McGlynn, Professor Bemis, Hugh Price Hughes, W. T. Stead, Myron Reed, and Professor Herron of California. All these men are unrivalled masters in the art of persuasive declamation. They accept the New Testament as their text book and preach therefrom to morbid multitudes the atrocious and shallow gospel of equal rights, equal liberty, equal brotherhood, as the veritable omnific word, the newly discovered emancipating protocol of the Crucified.
A god begging his bread from door to door!—A god without a place to lay his head!—A god spiked to two pieces of crossed scantling!—A god stabbed to death by an hired officer!—A god executed by order of a stipendiary magistrate!
What an insane idea. Is it an idea or rather a wasting cranial disease? Talk about ‘the heathen in his blindness’ and superstitious madness in past ages!… The hysteric idolatry of today: the deification of a Jew.
The Golden Rule by Norman Rockwell (oil on canvas). Fifteen years after WW2, The Saturday Evening Post relaxed its stance on the depictions of races other than white people. One of the first multiracial images to grace the cover of the Post was Rockwell’s The Golden Rule.
Is the Golden Rule a rational rule? — Is it not rather a menial rule — a coward rule — a best-policy rule? Why is it ‘right’ for one man to do unto others as he would have others do to him and, what is right? If ‘others’ are unable to injure him or ‘do good’ to him, why should he consider them at all? Why should he take any more notice of them than of so many worms? If they are endeavouring to injure him, and able to do it, why should he refrain from returning the compliment? Should he not combat them, does not that give them carte-blanche to injure and destroy him? May it not be ‘doing good’ to others, to war against them, to annihilate them? May it not also be ‘good’ for them to war against others? (Again, what is ‘good’?)
Is it reasonable to ask preying animals, to do unto others as they would be done by? — If they acted accordingly would they, could they survive? If some only accepted the Golden Rule as their guiding moral maxim, would they not become a prey to those who refused to abide thereby?
Upon what reasonable and abiding sanction does this ‘Rule’ rest? — Has it ever been in actual operation among men? — Can it ever be successfully practiced on earth — or anywhere else? — Did Jesus Christ practice it himself upon all occasions? — Did His apostles, his ‘sons of thunder’ practice it? — Did Peter the boaster do so, when he ‘denied Him’ for fear of arrest at the camp-fire? — Did Judas the financier, when he sold him for net cash? Also, how many of his modern lip-servants actually practice it in their daily business intercourse with each other? How Many?
These questions require no formal answering. They answer themselves in the asking. And here it must be remembered that the best test of a witness, is cross-examination. ‘Do unto others as you would have others do to you.’ No baser precept ever fell from the lips of a feeble Jew.
It is from alleged moralisms of this sort, and fabulous ‘principles’ that our mob orators, our communards, revivalists, anarchists, red-republicans, democrats, and other mob-worshippers in general derive the infernal inspiration that they are perpetually hissing forth. Even the subversive pyrotechnic watchwords of their mephisto-millennium, are to be found in the ‘holy gospels.’ Is it not written, ‘and God sendeth angels to destroy the people?’ — Behold! these men are the ‘angels’ that He sends: — politicians and reformers!
‘Love one another’ you say is the supreme law, but what power made it so? — Upon what rational authority does the Gospel of Love rest? — Is it even possible to practice, and what would result from its universal application to active affairs? Why should I not hate mine enemies, and hunt them down like the wild beasts that they are? Again I ask, why? If I ‘love’ them does that not place me at their mercy? Is it natural for enemies to ‘do good’ unto each other and, what is ‘good’? Can the torn and bloody victim ‘love’ the blood-splashed jaws that rend it limb from limb? Are we not all predatory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly from preying upon each other, could they continue to exist?
‘Love your enemies and do good to them that hate you and despitefully use you,’ is the despicable philosophy of the spaniel that rolls upon its back, when kicked. Obey it, O! reader, and you and all your posterity to the tenth generation shall be irretrievably and literally damned. They shall be hewers of wood, and carriers of water, degenerates, Gibeonites. But hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, smash him down; smite him hip and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest law.
He who turns the ‘other cheek’ is a cowardly dog — a Christian dog.
Give blow for blow, scorn for scorn, doom for doom, with compound interest liberally added thereunto. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, aye four-fold, a hundredfold. Make yourself a Terror to your adversary and when he goeth his way, he will possess much additional wisdom to ruminate over. Thus shall you make yourself respected in all the walks of life, and your spirit — your immortal spirit — shall live, not in an intangible paradise, but in the brains and thews of your aggressive and unconquerable sons. After all, the true proof of manhood is a splendid progeny; and it is a scientific axiom that the timid animal transmits timidity to its descendents.
If men lived ‘like brothers’ and had no powerful enemies (neighbors) to contend with and surpass, they would rapidly lose all their best qualities; like certain oceanic birds that lose the use of their wings, because they do not have to fly from pursuing beasts of prey. If all men had treated each other with brotherly love since the beginning, what would have been the result now? If there had been no wars, no rivalry, no competition, no kingship, no slavery, no survival of the Toughest, no racial extermination, truly what a festering ‘hell fenced in’ this old globe would be?
_____________
[1] According to Wikipedia it was Arthur Desmond (1859-1929) who wrote under the pen name ‘Ragnar Redbeard’.
The ancients believed in the unity of the world, in the dialectical intimacy of man with nature. Their natural philosophy was dominated by the ideas of becoming and alternation. The Greeks equated ethics with aesthetics, the kalôn with the agathôn, the good with beauty, and Renan rightly wrote: ‘A system in which the Venus de Milo is only an idol is a false system, or at least a partial one, because beauty is worth almost as much as goodness and truth. With such ideas, a decline in art is inevitable.’ (Les apótres, p. 372). The ‘new man’ of Christianity professed a very different vision of things. He carried within himself a conflict, not the everyday one that forms the fabric of life, but an eschatological, absolute conflict: the divorce from the world.
Early Christianity extends the messianic idea present in Judaism in an exacerbated form, due to a millennial expectation. In the words attributed to Jesus we find literal quotations from the visions of the Book of Enoch. For the first Christians, the world, a mere stage, a vale of tears, a place of unbearable difficulties and tensions, needed compensation, a radiant vision that would justify (morally speaking) the impotence of here below. That is why the earth appears as the field on which the forces of Evil and Good, the prince of this world and the heavenly Father, those possessed by the devil and the sons of God, confront each other: ‘And this is the victory that has overcome the world: our faith’ (I John V, 4). The idea that the world belongs to Evil, later characteristic of certain Gnostics (the Manicheans), appears frequently in the first writings of Christianity. Jesus himself affirmed: ‘I do not pray for the world…, as I am not of the world’ (John XVII, 9-14). St. John insists: ‘Do not love the world, nor the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world.’ (I John II, 15-16.) ‘Do not be surprised if the world hates you.’ (Ibid. III,13). ‘We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.’ (Ibid. V, 19.) Later, the Rule of St. Benedict will state as a precept that monks must ‘make themselves strangers to the things of the world’ (A saeculi actius se facere alienum). In the Imitation of Christ we read: ‘The truly wise man is he who, in order to gain Christ, considers all the things of the earth as rubbish and dung.’ (I, 3, 5).
