“Liberalism, [Anthony Ludovici] avers, by exhausting itself on the least able and weakest, by elevating pity to a virtue out of envy for the able, had saddled the economy with a welfare state that encourages the proliferation of criminals and idle imbeciles…”
Tag: Transvaluation of all values
Categories
Homo Americanus, 9
Huxley noted that all actions of extraordinary men in the Americanized future—given that their acts do not fall into the egalitarian scheme—“will be regarded as a crime.” He wrote, “In this reversal of the old values, I see a real danger, a menace to all desirable progress.”
—Homo Americanus, chapter 2
Although it might be possible to develop a racist interpretation of Christianity (e.g., what the Nazis tried), I’ve never seen a convincing theological justification of it. The fact that all major churches and 99%+ of all who today call themselves Christians reject racism ought to tell you something… You probably want to hang on to most of Christianity as it has been “traditionally” practiced in relatively modern times, while discarding only the anti-racism. Everyone who ever tried that has failed, but I guess you don’t see that as a problem.
Then again, the cognitive dissonance issue is nearly as problematic. In order to accept being called a racist or a Nazi with equanimity, normal American whites would have to reconcile that with their country’s history of being violently opposed to racism of any kind, from the Civil War forward. They would have to admit to themselves and to others that all of that blood shed in trying to stamp out racism had been shed in vain, and in fact, worse than in vain, in an evil cause. They would have to admit that their ancestors were evil, and that they themselves had also been evil before they saw the light and became racists.
It’s safe to say the chances of that happening on a mass scale are almost zero.
Politics can change, certainly. But I would maintain that the Christian worldview, with the characteristics I listed below (a belief in universal brotherhood, free will, equality of sexes and races, life as fundamentally a moral contest between Good and Evil, and all the rest, such as the supposed value of repentance and forgiveness mentioned by Alain DeBenoist), hasn’t changed. You can find all of these ideas in the gospels, and they didn’t exist before Christianity.
Their implementation in politics is subject to change, but these changes will in most cases be only superficial. The implementation can in fact be quite different (for example, monarchy vs. democracy) without changing underlying beliefs. Even Hitler, who actually was a proponent of a radically different worldview, had to pretend to be a Christian. You might want to think about that and why it was necessary. If worldviews could change so easily, such subterfuge wouldn’t have been needed.
If the Third Reich had been victorious in WWII, it would have gone a long way towards fostering the rejection of Christianity and its associated worldview, and introducing a different one with quite different politics:
• It seems safe to say we would definitely have gotten rid of the extreme philo-semitism that is part of Christianity.
• A belief in free will would probably also have been a casualty (Darwinism is deterministic), and the Christian faith in universal brotherhood would have been completely abandoned.
• The Nazi belief in eugenics would have taken them in quite different directions.
That this Nazi worldview was rejected by the rest of the white race meant that the political trajectory would remain unchanged.
Categories
The New Covenant
On April 16, 2015 a commenter asked:
Jack Frost, on beliefs of the Church: Can you explain to me why the Bible includes the Old Testament at all?
Frost responded:
The Old Testament is included to provide context. Remember, according to the usual interpretation Jesus is supposed to be the Messiah foretold by the Jewish prophets.
Also, his message of love and universal brotherhood (i.e., anti-racism) is revolutionary precisely because it is a New Covenant that replaces the old one described at length in the Old Testament. To accept the New Covenant message is to deny the importance of race, and even family. All are one in Jesus (see Galatians 3:28).
Dr. Kevin MacDonald wrote this month within an article on The Occidental Observer:
The Jewish commitments and motivations of the main players were never a subject of discussion, and the movements themselves were presented as scientifically sound and morally superior to the traditional culture of the West.
On April 14, 2015 Jack Frost commented:
Deceptively phrased. Jews never oppose the “traditional culture” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) of the West directly by presenting an alternative that they claim is morally superior. Rather, they work within the traditional framework of moral values established by Christianity, the ultimate source of Western morality. Moral authority comes from the Bible, churches, and Jesus, not Freud or Karl Marx. Anti-racism and philo-Semitism are things already present within Christianity, and all the Jew does is draw them out. Any positive moral value ascribed to these things is only possible because Christianity already endorses them. The stress laid on universal brotherhood in the Bible is the source of communism’s attraction; and Freud’s message would have fallen on deaf ears in a non-Christian culture.
Frost’s comment was a mere comment within a threaded discussion. Perhaps if he was writing a more formal article he would have included other examples.
One example that comes to mind now that I’ve just added Hitler’s talk on how to deal with the conquered inhabitants of the Soviet Union, is the widespread dismay by virtually all white nationalists regarding such plans.
For genuine apostates of Christianity it goes without saying that a people that have surrendered their institutions to the Jews, as happened in the SU, deserve to be conquered by a healthier race. Presently that the US allowed the same, if a Reich was in charge of Europe and Russia the natural thing for a healthy white would be cheer about the conquest of America by these hypothetic Germans.
Let me convey my point in another way. Back in 2011 a well-known, neonazi commenter said that I was a “profoundly confused man” because I rejected abortion while, in cases of serious genetic flaws (e.g., Down syndrome), I accepted the Third Reich policy on euthanasia. Like those white nationalists who are extremely dismayed when reading the table talks and find passages like the one I quoted today about Hitler’s plans on Russia, nationalists are dismayed too when someone really breaks away from Christian axiology.
For a Greek or a Roman of ancient times it would have been unthinkable to raise a genetically-flawed baby. This is certainly a Christian value. If Hitler had won the war and in his empire from the Atlantic to the Urals the Germans behaved like the Spartans with their defective offspring, and the Russians became relegated to second-class citizens, a true Nietzschean would not shed a tear. The fact that even the editor of Ostara Publications has found necessary to add a disclaimer in the best edition of Hitler’s Table Talk that I know, claiming that the German leaders had to revise their opinions toward Russians, proves how Christian axiology has so shaped white culture that no one has been able to stand outside of it, not even racialists.
Exactly the same can be said of those who are dismayed by The Turner Diaries, and I am talking even of those who somehow like Pierce. Neochristians, white nationalists included, are morally incapable of accepting the view expressed in that novel that the “millions of White people who died, and who have yet to die before we are finished” are not really “innocents” because they allowed themselves to be subjugated by Jews in the first place.
The huge difference between Hitler and Pierce on the one hand, and white nationalists on the other, is that the latter cannot break away from the grip of Christian axiology, atheists included.
§ 1. sees all history and the world of ideas through the prism of Aryan preservation. It would be advisable if he becomes familiar with William Pierce’s Who We Are and the uttermost need to create the Aryan ecclesia;
§ 2. like Hitler, the priest of the fourteen words is aware of the Christian problem, the Jewish problem and does not worship Mammon;
§ 3. dreams about a 4th Reich, which means expelling all non-whites from the Reich independently of the cost of human lives that the implementation of such project would require.
Feminized western males in the pro-white movement freak out when confronted with what William Pierce called “The Day of the Rope.” But the absolute need for retribution is understood when pondering upon the history of the Iberian Peninsula: what happened when Gothic values were replaced by Christian values. It is impossible to understand the brutalities of this quotation from Pierce’s most famous book without knowing what happens to Aryan nations after allowing mestization or mongrelization.
In honor to what my Visigothic ancestors did with the miscegenators when they ruled Spain, after the anti-white System collapses I look forward for justice for sins against the Holy Ghost. But I insist that without knowledge of the history of the peninsula the linked quotation of my favorite novel won’t be appreciated, and both Pierce and I could be seen as monsters.
Excerpts from Roger Pearse’s review of Joseph Hoffmann’s Porphyry’s Against the Christians: The Literary Remains:
The sixteen-book work by the Neoplatonist Porphyry Against the Christians is lost. Constantine ordered that all copies should be destroyed; a century later Theodosius tacitly acknowledged that this had not occurred by issuing a similar edict.
Constantine burning Arian books
Porphyry adopted an “idiot-boy” literalism as his tool to debunk. Anything that could be made to sound discreditable, anything that did not fit with the tenor of contemporary prejudice, any statement that could be made to sound contradictory, could be presented as a reason to deride the Christians. However, such a approach is unimpressive to anyone except a believer. Such people could have their faith in anti-Christianism bolstered, and be encouraged to sneer and have gibes ready to throw. But the unconvinced reader would see easily that such statements can be made about anything, however worthy.
Instead, the essential argument is an appeal to the irrational herd-instinct of mankind and its need to conform. Many of Porphyry’s arguments consist simply of assertion that something is shameful or embarrassing, rather than rational discussion. This can only work if the flavour of the times is such that the subject is unfashionable. To look for a modern analogy, modern readers will be aware that “anti-racism” has not acquired the power it has in our society by rational argument. Instead it relies on repeated assertion and intimidation, to create a climate in which only certain ideas can be said. In the ancient world, likewise, certain ideas went without saying. The Christian ethos was not part of this; and indeed, as a novelty, was embarrassing. The idea that the poor might be important was disgusting. Porphyry simply harps on the subconscious need to the reader to conform to what he knows society expects, rather than reasoning objectively what is right.
But once the times changed, the approach worked in reverse. It was Porphyry’s ideas that went against the tenor of the times.
If, historically, the One Ring (greed) was the primary weakness for Western man, Christianity is also a major culprit. It is race-blind and compels us to navigate our passages favoring universalism. Based on theism, the belief in a personal, Hebraic god, it is hostile to “pagan” (Christian Newspeak for folkish) bonds for the supposed benefit of the “soul.” Our parents’ religion commands us to love our enemy (even Jews) and worship human weakness (including low-IQ negroes). Catholic and Protestant moral grammar goes at the very heart in today’s untamed equality: what Nietzsche called slave morality.
As Manu Rodríguez, a Nietzschean from Spain, said yesterday (my translation), “Christianity is the art of making wolves and bears into kids and lambs. It is the art of weakening, neutralizing and undermining the morale of the population, making even defense impossible.” Earlier this year another visitor of this blog sent me an email containing this paragraph:
Because of your blog I have ordered tons of books that you have read and thus gain the same insights that you do. I have Hellstorm on my shelf now; I have not read it yet. I am about to commence reading Porphyry’s Against the Christians. I can’t wait. The Bible is a book that has plagued me all my life. It is nice to finally read one of the original refutations of this Jewish nonsense.
A year ago I reposted excerpts of a chapter about the Gospels’ nativity fictions that I typed directly from a book authored by a secular scholar on the Bible. Porphyry (234-305 C.E.) was the forgotten pioneer in this field of research.
The reason white nationalists are uninterested in secular studies of the New Testament is the same they are so reluctant to assess the data about the subject that the dollar will crash. The double-helix of the US was precisely a structure intertweaving capitalism with Christianity. But American white nationalists want to save their race without destroying the One Ring wielded by the Kwa* and without dismissing their parents’ religion. They ignore that the nation of their founding fathers was hard-wired to become New Zion (click on the picture of Mammon on the sidebar).
Since this month we will celebrate Christmas with our families, I must say that an intellectual among those who blame Mammon also blames the other big factor. This is a translated quotation from “Rasse und Gestalt: unsere Identität,” a September 2013 speech by Tom Sunic:
The Christian teaching of equality and its contemporary offsprings, liberalism and Marxism is the main cause of so-called anti-racism and self-hatred as well as today’s mongrelized multicultural society. It’s futile to inspirit race consciousness or folk consciousness and to oppose mass immigration of non-Europeans, without first fighting and eliminating the legacy of Christianity.
I would go further and claim that the word “Christian” was 4th century Newspeak of the time. Translated back to Greco-Roman Oldspeak, we could say that Christian is a codeword for artificial Jew. What most significant can be that in this darkest hour of the West, on June 13 of this year in fact, Pope Francis said: “Inside every Christian is a Jew.”
Jorge Mario Bergoglio, whose mother language is Spanish, is the first one in history who has adopted the name of St Francis (Francisco I) when nominated Pope. In my compilation of several authors, The Fair Race, you’ll find much support of Sunic’s quote: a deranged Christian sense of compassion à la St Francis did transmute into secular, runaway liberalism.
Elsewhere I have mentioned the image that Kenneth Clark chose to depict St Francis in the 1969 TV series Civilisation: Hesdin’s The Fool. I added that in Erasmus’ most famous book, The Praise of Folly, women, “admittedly stupid and foolish creatures,” are Folly’s pride. Erasmus took a surprisingly modern, “liberal” position about the role of women in society. Since Folly praises ignorance and lunacy, Erasmus reasoned, women must be instrumental for the Christian cause. In his book Folly is only interested in following the steps of Jesus, the exemplar of charitable simplicity against the budding intellectualism of the 16th century. The fact that Erasmus took St Paul’s (a Jew) “praise of folly” against the best minds St Paul encountered in Athens (whites) speaks for itself and needs no further comment.
I must iterate I find it most significant that the current Pope is the first one to use the name of Francis: the feminine, Christian paradigm of charitable simplicity par excellence. Last month, Pope Francis addressed the European Parliament saying that no longer fertile Europe should accept immigrants.
Yes: I’ve put the Pope and all of his Cardinals in my black list for black sorcery…
But here I can only say that the saint of Assisi was one of the most venerated religious figures in history and my idol when, at sixteen, I was struggling with my internalized father. Unlike the current Pope, the medieval Church somehow knew that when the purest gospel reached mainstream Christianity it would be the end of civilization. See, for example, Umberto Eco’s depiction of the Fraticelli in The Name of the Rose, which chapter on Jorge de Burgos’ scary sermon about the coming of the Antichrist I reread a couple of days ago.
Online you can also see the final pages of The Antichrist. If Nietzsche were alive, wouldn’t he say that the suicidal folie en masse that in the 20th and 21st centuries affects westerners is but the culmination of the psyop started by St Paul?
______________
(*) Kwa means Amerikwa: a negative word used to describe the degenerate, racially destructive, Jewified, niggrified, pussified, and depressing place that America has become.
For the context of Sunic’s point of view see also “The Christian problem encompasses the Jewish problem”: perhaps the entry I’ve updated the most in this blog.
Like Sunic I believe that reading literature in traditional, printed books is important to understand the darkest hour. My favorite historical novels are precisely Julian (1964), which depicts 4th century Christianity after the death of Constantine and The Name of the Rose (1980), a complete immersion into the zeitgeist of Christendom a thousand years later. If you prefer non-fiction, remember the above-cited words about Porphyry’s Against the Christians (“It is nice to finally read one of the original refutations of this Jewish nonsense”).
Christmas gifts of Nietzsche’s The Antichrist would probably be a little rude, even though the philosopher tells the plain truth about how the authors behind the gospels inverted our Aryan values. But Julian and The Name of the Rose may appear innocuous enough as gifts for our family, at least at the time of delivering the presents.