Read this site’s featured article.
Categories
Categories
Dear César,
I wanted to run something by you. Please tell me if you think I’m not thinking straight on this.
I was mulling over that article Grug shared a bit more.
Is it obtuse of me to say, in all honesty, that I don’t actually give that much of a shit about the Epstein issue, long term? Obviously I’m always glad when traitor politicians and wealthy influencers of an anti-white nature get dragged down a peg or two in public, and otherwise inconvenienced, but as for what they were doing, as I wrote to a gen-z leftist friend I had tonight to double check his own opinion on the matter also:
I make a firm distinction between him hosting what I have referred to in my journals as ‘trendy nymphet glamour parties for the super wealthy and corrupt’ and, say, the total non-white sexual torture-network degradation and abuse of the likes of Rotherham, Rochdale, and on and on from that. I see these Nationalists don’t seem able to make that distinction… I see a real gap between that horrible stuff and teenagers getting together with a man (or fellow teenager) for the purposes of new Aryan children, or indeed in this case, a pampered 17-year-old in the lap of luxury prostituting herself gracefully for more freebies and prestige and for the sake of horny middle-age billionaires.
I find myself wishing Kulak had not used Epstein for his title example (in relation to Jesus), and him and his rich pals throughout, many of whom appear to be white, and had instead referred to these brutal Pakistani rapists and individual Somali sexual muggers of Aryan women and young women. Surely the key issue across the Christian Problem front (and especially with the ‘token Christian’ Nationalists and Christian Nationalists we have discussed recently on WDH) —and this true as well historically across the fall of the West—is that of miscegenation, and of their being a firm set of racial enemies whom we are obliged to dispose of.
For the sake of lambasting but one powerful and connected (and dead!) Jew operative, who has performed the action the red-handed whites allowed him to do by their carelessness, Kulak (and the entire right wing internationally!) has obliterated a sensible analysis of this matter at the scale that is required. I would have said the reality of the long-term destruction of these British girls by painful forced miscegenation in conditions of squalor—which leaves them traumatised and wrecked for their own futures, and future partnerships with fellow Aryan men—was a matter of such horror, and such importance, that it frustrated me that—for all his stern anti-Christian sentiment—he had made an error of false equivalence.
I’m sorry, I’ve been very tired for nights now, so my syntax and grammar are very sloppy. I hope my perspective makes sense to you enough to understand my thinking, for your evaluation of it.
Best regards,
Ben
Categories
Kevin & Joel
Yesterday we saw Joel Webbon interview Jared Taylor. Now we’ll see that he interviewed Kevin MacDonald too.
In MacDonald’s panoramic account of the history of Jews in the West, the professor emeritus omits a crucial fact: the Judeo-Christians who wanted only the god of the Jews to be worshipped in the Mediterranean were involved in the fall of the Roman Empire.
Then MacDonald says that Christianity began as a very anti-Jewish ideology (for example, that the Jews killed Christ). This omits the level of subtlety with which Jews make their psyops: by the time of Emperor Theodosius, all worship of Aryan Gods was prohibited, and the empire imposed Christianity while tolerating Judaism (proof of this is that no temple to Jupiter, Zeus, Apollo, or Athena survived after Theodosius’s edicts: only churches and synagogues).
In other words, for white nationalists it’s easy to cherry-pick facts like the verse in the gospel that the Jews killed Christ, but the situation needs to be viewed in perspective. And from a historical meta-perspective spanning centuries, it’s clear that only two religions were de facto permitted after the first Christian emperors: Xtianity and Judaism.
Later, Webbon asks an interesting question: what is it about white people that makes them so gullible, so susceptible to believing the psyops of Jewry?
Neither of them blamed the Christian ethics that took hold of the Aryan collective unconscious. MacDonald argued that white people are individualistic, but I get the impression that, like Jared Taylor, MacDonald also lacks a clear vision of what the European zeitgeist was like before Constantine.
Webbon agrees with the professor and talks about how Scandinavians, who are now the most individualistic, founded Minnesota (the recent protests against ICE were mentioned). But as always, they’re telling the story from the perspective of Christendom (the Visigoths came from Scandinavia and saw themselves as a group before Catholicism conquered ancient Hispania).
Then MacDonald talks about the migrant gangs that are causing havoc in Sweden, and argues that the Swedes can’t do anything about it because they don’t dare to acknowledge the problem.
Neither of them is thinking clearly. Do they honestly believe that the Vikings wouldn’t have acted decisively against sandnigger migrants who raped their young? (The racial right’s blindness to the inversion of values caused by Christianity seems to be universal.)
Then MacDonald says something I agree with: “We lost control of our culture,” and whoever loses that battle, he added, loses “the evolutionary race.” He said this in the context of the media and academia, controlled by the Jews. But when he specifically spoke about who created the moral values of modern white men, he didn’t dare say it was the rabbis who wrote the New Testament. In other words, MacDonald can’t have it both ways: his theory has a solid scientific basis, but Christianity has exerted more influence on us than media and academia together given its existence over two thousand years.
MacDonald speaks of “moral communities” as a characteristic of white psychology, and mentions the American Puritans who were abolitionists and how, once the value of slavery being unjust was established, anyone who believed in its validity could get into serious trouble (alluding to the Civil War). But even here we see that there used to be Christians who didn’t share antiracist morality (just as Russians and other Eastern Europeans don’t share Wokism). To understand the dark hour, it is necessary to recognize that a faction of Christianity imposed itself on the entire West after World War II, and that this wouldn’t have happened with, say, what the Nazis called “positive Christianity.”
It’s now too late for Webbon’s dream of establishing a kind of “positive Christianity lite” in the US for the reason I mentioned yesterday. To expel over one hundred million non-whites and crucify the traitorous whites who brought them here, we need anti-Christian governments (only pagan Nazis would do things like what we read in The Turner Diaries).
I’d like to end this post with a reflection on what MacDonald said about Tucker Carlson, whom we all appreciate for bringing the JQ to public attention, at least when criticizing the Israeli government and its American lackeys. MacDonald is right about this, but he also points out that Tucker is allergic to Aryan identity.
What the professor omitted in his interview with Webbon is that Tucker has said many times that he is not a white identitarian because of the Christian religion he professes.
Categories
The Lightning
and the Sun, 14
Quote from Chapter XIV “The World Against its Saviour”, pages 271 & 275:
“Ribbentrop, bring me the English alliance!”[1] Sincerer words than these — the last Adolf Hitler addressed to the man whom he was sending to London, as Germany’s ambassador, in 1936, to sound once more all the possibilities that could lead to an understanding with England — were never uttered in the history of diplomatic relations.
Adolf Hitler had indeed been striving for “an understanding with England” nay, an “English alliance,” from the beginning of his public life. Already as early as 1924 he had, in his immortal book, Mein Kampf, clearly laid down the main lines of this new policy (“new,” at least after the first World War.) […]
Adolf Hitler repeatedly proclaimed his determination to respect the integrity of the British Empire. He repeatedly declared that the German National Socialist State was to look upon every manner of pre-1914 colonial policy, and every form of aggressive commercial competition with England as a thing of the past. And he fully meant what he said. He meant it because he saw, no doubt, in that “alliance with England” which he so eagerly urged J. von Ribbentrop to “bring him back,” a guarantee of peaceful development for Germany and of further unhindered evolution and expansion for National Socialism — Germany’s highest interest, immediately and in the long run. He meant it also because the friendly collaboration of the two leading nations of Nordic blood appeared to him, from a more-than-political standpoint, as the unmistakable dictate of sanity; as the course in harmony with the meaning of life (which should also be the meaning of “politics,” if the latter are to cease being mere business intrigues) and the policy which was, therefore, immediately and in the long run, in the interest of superior mankind in the biological sense of the word, and consequently, “in the interest of the Universe,” again to quote the old hallowed words of the Bhagavad-Gita. He held out his hand to England both as a wise, far-sighted statesman and as a “Man against Time.”
But England’s leading men — and number of men in high office in Germany — were not only short-sighted politicians but active agents of the everlasting Dark Forces.
__________
[1] Joachim von Ribbentrop, Zwischen London und Moskau (Leoni am Stranberger See: Druffel-Varlag, 1954), page 93.
______ 卐 ______
The Lightning & the Sun by Savitri Devi (Counter-Currents Publishing, 2014, unabridged edition) can be ordered here.
Categories
Jared v Joel
I don’t see Christianity as a big problem because our racially-conscious ancestors… had no illusion about race at all. They care very much about the salvation of the souls of their slaves… building Sunday schools for black people. —Joel Webbon
Since Jared Taylor is the son of pious Christians who tried to evangelize the Japanese, and Joel Webbon is a Christian Nationalist, after the twelfth minute of the interview (linked below) neither believes in the malice of politicians in recent decades for bringing millions of non-whites to the West. I, on the other hand, not only blame the politicians but also this pair for following the commandment to love your neighbour (for example: these politicians) instead of openly hating those who have brought the orcs to Nordid lands.
A couple of minutes later, Webbon asks Taylor why only whites are susceptible to bringing coloured people to their lands. What an incredible lack of insight: it’s your proclaimed Calvinist faith that originated the problem (I recently recommended Tom Holland’s Dominion and I recommend it again). It’s curious that Webbon uses the term “suicidal toxic empathy” without realizing that it comes directly from the gospel.
Taylor responds that a hundred years ago Americans weren’t ethno-suicidal. He thus ignores the fact that the cancer of Judeo-Christian values only metastasized after 1945. In his country, the process had already begun with Washington’s 18th-century presumption of not being anti-Semitic, and even more so with the Quaker ideology of the 19th century, which infected the American collective unconscious to such a degree that it led to the deaths of countless Southerners in a civil war in which the villains of our story triumphed.
In Taylor’s response, it’s also noticeable that—like everyone on the American racial right—he doesn’t talk about Latin America, even though they began their ethno-suicidal process on the Iberian Peninsula with Moors and converted Jews. And let’s not even mention how those peninsular Spaniards procreated with Indigenous women on the American continent (the case of the Portuguese was even worse: with Negroes in Lisbon itself). By focusing on the US, their view of the West is myopic.
Then Taylor begins to talk about democracy, the rights of the weak, respect for women, and freedom of speech as qualities exclusive to white people: another example of myopia. Once again, this pair is telling history from the perspective of Christendom, ignoring the Greco-Roman, Viking or Indo-European worlds. Taylor cites Angela Merkel’s decision to allow millions of Syrians into Europe as an example. I don’t want to repeat what Holland said on the subject and how he located the aetiology of Angela’s deed in Christianity (see pages 154-156 on Angela in Holland’s text in our abridged version of his book, Neo-Christianity, linked in our featured article).
Then Taylor mentions those who blame Christianity and intermarriage, adding: “All of this perversion of Christianity” referring to Woke culture. Note that although it is true that it is a perversion of traditional Christianity, it doesn’t answer the argument of Nietzsche, Holland and others: that Christianity gave birth to liberalism (which we call neochristianity).
Webbon replies that he’s pleased with what Taylor said because, as a Baptist Christian, he doesn’t believe we should blame his religion. He repeats the typical clichés of white nationalists: that if Christianity were guilty, how would we explain the Crusades? (Tip: the Crusades weren’t undertaken out of racial passion: a pope called the First Crusade to defend the interests of the Church.) Shortly after, he adds that Christians centuries ago recognized that peoples were different, but omits that the Church—unlike the Visigoths before their conversion—permitted mixed marriages. Even El Cid didn’t revert to the healthy racism of a millennium earlier, during the time of the Visigoths in Hispania: at one point in his life, El Cid even worked for a powerful Moor.
Then Webbon and Taylor discuss Hitler and the Holocaust in a way that could be called “fair enough.” But they should read Holland, who argues that the new axiology that demonizes Hitler is neochristian, albeit atheist (for those who are too lazy to read his book, there are a huge number of people interviewing Holland on YouTube).
After elaborating on the above, Webbon argues that Christianity would solve the guilt problem afflicting white men today. He doesn’t seem to realize that this guilt was precisely induced by Christian values, and this is especially evident in the post-WWII consensus. As our friend Joseph Walsh said, that consensus represented the ultimate triumph of gospel values, so much so that atheists especially embraced them with fierce fanaticism.
Then Taylor returns to the anti-Christian position that blames the religion of our forefathers and says that as the West becomes less Christian, it becomes more ethno-suicidal. This ignores two things: (1) before Constantine, ethno-suicide was accidental, for example, miscegenation in the late and decadent Roman Empire, not an explicitly anti-white ideology and (2) the same old story: he is ignorant of books like Dominion, which demonstrate how traditional Christianity metamorphosed into atheistic neochristianity.
Then Webbon says that in his American utopia, the government and voters could only be Christian. So, would people like William Pierce and Revilo Oliver be second-class citizens?
Elaborating on what Webbon calls Christian Nationalism, he says that whites are incapable of understanding themselves as a collective. He ignores (1) that in pre-Christian times, the pure Nordics who conquered India, Sparta, the early Romans and the Visigoths considered themselves a group, and that (2) it was precisely the threat of eternal damnation for those who didn’t worship the god of the Jews that fell upon the Aryan collective unconscious like an atomic bomb: it atomized it, turning whites into “individuals,” “souls” whose priority was to save themselves from the torments of hell.
The only good thing about Webbon’s American utopia is that he wants a return to traditional patriarchy. At a crucial moment, Taylor asks him if, in his ideal America, a morally upright black Christian could vote, but not a non-Christian white. Webbon replies that, indeed, only that black could vote.
Webbon then presents Taylor with a thought experiment: if one of them were king, how would the culture be better? But he cheats: because the thought experiment begins without specifying how one hundred million non-whites would be “deported” from the US to the point that only 20% of the population would remain non-white. Since the experiment begins this way, the dishonesty lies in Webbon’s avoidance of scenarios like The Turner Diaries, where an anti-Christian morality is needed to carry out such a massive deportation (or extermination, in the case of the novel).
This would be my response to the “If I Ran the Zoo” scenario. I would threaten that remaining 20% to leave within four months, or else every non-white man, woman and child seen on the street would be shot on the spot.
Simple.
However, Webbon understands better why feminism is so toxic than most of the racialists I’ve seen online (and Taylor more or less agrees with him on this). But shortly after, Webbon says it would be atrocious not to properly feed a quadriplegic child. My response: a society of exterminating soldiers would resemble that of the Spartans.
A few minutes later, Taylor again commits a fallacy that I had already detected before. He said that he focuses on race, and that’s why he doesn’t want to have other battlefronts like feminism, the JQ, or Christianity. The fallacy lies in the fact that all these issues are interconnected with preserving the race. Let’s remember the slogan “transvaluation of all values.” It’s impossible to focus exclusively on race without taking away the power of non-reproduction from women today. Without transvaluing that value to the patriarchy of the past, spoiled gals would continue to drive the Aryan race to extinction since they don’t want to have many children. The same could be said of Christianity, the idealization of homosexuality, the anti-Nordicism in vogue on the American racial right and so on. Only the dissident who realizes that all these are facets of the same geometric figure is ideologically cleansed of ethno-suicide.
In other words, Taylor claims he doesn’t want to antagonize so many whites because what we need most is to work together. But he doesn’t realize that even the racial right is ethno-suicidal, as I have shown on this site. More than once I have used the metaphor that the post-WWII zeitgeist is similar to a train with Jews and ultra-liberal whites in the two main driver’s seats, accelerating the train toward the precipice. American conservatives are like a secondary co-pilot who applies the brakes here and there, slowing the train down, but not stopping it. White nationalists have gotten off the train, but faithful to Christian morality, they continue along the same route, albeit on foot, toward the precipice. They will take longer than those on the train, but the neochristian mandate that everyone obeys is to head for the precipice (to understand my metaphor I would suggest reading my anthology, Daybreak).
Taylor assumes that his ideology is not headed for disaster. But it’s clearly headed there, since he has never repudiated the Christian ethics of his parents. Then he says he is against those racists who say that if someone is Christian, he “cannot run for office.” Once again: Taylor ignores the fact that a Christian would never dare to expel the Jews from their country, or even scare them into leaving by opening Auschwitz II. (Furthermore, to achieve this, Taylor would not only have to repudiate Christian morality, but also the ideology of the Founding Fathers he so admires.) With presidents who submit to Christian morality, the Jewish problem will never be solved. In fact, we could see Webbon as a traditional Christian and Taylor as what we call a neochristian.
Webbon then discusses the New Testament, and it’s clear his Protestantism is essentially fundamentalist: he takes all the great miracles as historical, such as the resurrection, Jesus’ ascension into the clouds, and the Great Commission (those who still believe all of that should read NT scholar Richard C. Miller).
Shortly after, Webbon says something that perfectly illustrates my point: that Christians who sympathize with racialism are headed for disaster. He says that in the society he envisions, there would be no laws against a Negro marrying a white woman!
Near the end of the interview, Webbon mentioned that an early Protestant theologian held Constantine in such high esteem that he invoked the biblical commandment to honour one’s parents and ancestors (that is, even the first Christian emperor). Compare this to what Karlheinz Deschner says about Constantine in the book we’ve summarized.
A few minutes later Taylor said he, too, would oppose banning interracial marriage!
Do you finally understand why the Führer’s way is the only way? And why, in practical terms, fundamentalist Christianity and secular neochristianity are two sides of the same coin?
I didn’t watch the rest of the program because Taylor very politely left shortly after saying that, and Webbon began discussing his interview with two professed Christians.
Categories
Funeral for
the dollar
Peter Schiff, global strategist at Euro Pacific Asset Management, warns that record gold and silver prices signal an imminent US dollar and sovereign debt crisis that will collapse the American economy while benefiting the rest of the world.
Categories
Webbon’s
interview – 5
Remember, there are ten episodes of this interview. This is the fifth.
At the beginning, Joel Webb quotes a text that blames only Judaism for liberalism. I call this self-righteous monocausalism, since it’s obvious that Christians are the biggest culprits (even early Church Fathers criticized Jews for their selective compassion, saying it wasn’t universalist but ethnocentric). As always, this pair seems to have no idea that the doctrines of the religion they profess have axiological consequences.
Later, Nick Fuentes says he believes in the historicity of Christian child sacrifices by Jews in the Middle Ages: something I don’t believe was historical. But Fuentes is right to criticize Napoleon for “emancipating” the Jews in Europe, something that didn’t happen in Russia (in my opinion, because the Russians didn’t go through a Renaissance and an Enlightenment that eventually transformed into neochristianity).
Webbon says: “All false religions lead to hell.”
That’s worse than any toxic message from Jews on Netflix or any other mass media outlet. I challenge anyone who doubts this to read my autobiography, Hojas Susurrantes, and still claim that the doctrine of eternal damnation wasn’t worse than Jewish subversion for the mental health of white men. The most ironic thing about this is that this pair ignores the fact that the core of the New Testament was written by Jews.
But shortly afterward, Fuentes said something very true: that the message of forgiveness is absent in the Old Testament, that it only appears in the Gospel (for example, with words like “forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing”), and that the Old Testament speaks more of exterminating enemy peoples.
What Fuentes ignores is that the Old Testament message is the right one if the Aryans were to adopt it (as Himmler’s SS did). This pair takes the out-group altruism inspired by Christianity for granted: it’s a morality that Christians don’t even question (nor do atheist neochristians).
In this fifth instalment of the interview, we again note what Gaedhal once said: the dissident right is more primitive than liberal Christians, insofar as they wholesale ignore academic studies of the New Testament that differ from fundamentalist dogma (for example, Webbon speaks of the Transfiguration as if it were a historical event).
The blatant dishonesty comes soon after, when Webbon says, “Christian faith and reason are not at odds with one another.” If they were honest, these Christians would be familiar with the critical literature on New Testament historicity written since the time of Reimarus.
I make these comments from that series to show how lost American white nationalism is, even though Webbon isn’t one of them (Fuentes does consider himself a white nationalist). This episode proves it.
Later, Webbon asks Fuentes what transformed the healthy antisemitism of yesteryear into today’s pathological philosemitism. Fuentes blames modernism and liberalism. I wonder if Nick knows that we call liberalism “neochristianity” on this site? (new visitors who haven’t read our quotes from Tom Holland’s book should read them now).
Shortly after, Webbon says: “The engine of liberalism is egalitarianism: the complete flattening of every natural distinction…” Although Webbon mentions race and gender, he sees the speck in someone else’s eye but not his own. Following the destruction of the Greco-Roman world, it was Judeo-Christians who introduced egalitarianism into European culture. (Although both detest the word “Judeo-Christian”, they also ignore that early Christians were mostly Semites from the Roman Empire: so the term is legitimate.)
Note that, when they later discuss Protestant currents like dispensationalism, some factions of that current accept the salvation of Jews—that is, no post-mortem damnation for the chosen people. However, they don’t extend this courtesy to so-called “pagans” (those who refuse to worship the god of the Jews). How can this pair not realise that this type of doctrine will sooner or later develop a philosemite theology (not only Protestant, but also Catholic after the Second Vatican Council)?
Fuentes then says that the foundation of liberalism and modernity is the concept of the human psyche as a tabula rasa, a “blank slate”: that we are all born as persons, and therefore equal. He fails to realise that this belief was spawned by elemental Christian teachings: that, unlike animals, all humans are born with a “soul”, and that “God” doesn’t distinguish between “souls”.
Do you see why we call liberalism neochristianity? Later, they both agree that we must wait for the Jews to convert to Christianity and that, in the meantime, Jews have rights and shouldn’t be mistreated. Compare this to the Germans of the last century, who transvalued Christian values into values similar to those of Titus and Hadrian during Rome’s wars against Judea.
Do you finally understand what our slogan means?
Umwertuung Aller Werte!
Transvaluation of all values!
Categories
Missiles
If a submarine with nuclear warheads were to fall into my hands, before the forces of evil could neutralize me, I would try to destroy the System by launching missiles at New York (especially where Jewish financial power is concentrated), Washington (whoever wins the elections always ends up being a lackey of Israel), Jerusalem (nothing I hate more than seeing Western leaders at the Wailing Wall with a kippah), Tel Aviv (so that Muslims can then commit a second holocaust when radiation clears), Los Angeles at Hollywood (so that they don’t poison white men any further with their movies), Moscow (as revenge for what the Russians and their Asian troops did during the Hellstorm Holocaust), Beijing (so that the Chinese don’t emerge victorious after the skirmish), Mecca (nor the Muslims), Berlin (with the American Diktat, after 1945 the Germans have been suffering from a Stockholm syndrome to the nth degree; nuking them at the seat of their anti-Nazi power would help them break the spell), Paris (they deserve it because that’s where atheist neochristianity arose), London (imperative to nuke the city that boasts the most billboards of English women with nigger partners in the streets), and finally the Vatican because of what Nietzsche says on the last page of The Antichrist.
by Gaedhal
I didn’t want to comment on the killing of Renée Nicole Good. First off, it has nothing to do with me. The only link Good has to Ireland, is that she was a missionary in Northern Ireland.
And the people who are shooting your ideological enemies in the face, today, are the same people who could very well be shooting you in the face tomorrow. Hence, the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis (R) actually came out against this shooting. As I said before: one probably has to have a personality disorder to join either the police or the army. Perhaps police forces and armies are necessary in this world; however, in my view they are necessary evils.
In Northern Ireland, we have an anomoly. We have a police force that is secret; we have a police force that is armed; we have a police force that allows its officers to carry weapons, whilst off duty.
Now the police service of Northern Ireland is not ICE, not by a long shot; however, there are parrallels. All of the other police forces in the British Isles are mostly unarmed.
However, the term “U.S. Citizen” has suffered from hyper-inflation, due, in large part to immigration. When the U.S. was a white racial republic, the term “US citizen” actually meant something. The founders were explicit: the republic was founded for their posterity. However, a citizenship that anyone can claim; well, that becomes sorta worthless. If anyone can become a U.S. citizen, then U.S. citizenship is sorta worthless.
Liberals—those to the right of Leftists, in this context—largely turned a blind eye to non-citizens being denied constitutional rights, even though the courts said that the norms of the U.S. constitution applied everywhere that the U.S. was the sovereign or de facto sovereign power. Obama never shut down the concentration camp at Guantanamo bay. Although he did attempt cosmetic changes in an attempt to bring some of what goes on there in line with constitutional norms.
Also, in a polarized society, one’s political opponents no longer inhabit the same moral universe. At the beginning, the Left and Right, in America, had a shared vision of what America is was and should be, however, they differed on the issue of federalism or antifederalism. Today, there is no agreement between Left and Right on just about anything. Thus appeals to Renée Good’s being a “U.S. citizen” from the Left are utterly worthless, given the polarisation of America.
I really only have an expressable opinion on this one aspect of this controversy: appeals by Liberals and Leftists to Renée Good’s being a U.S. citizen, and why they are likely to fall upon the radical right’s deaf ears.
In Ireland, “Irish citizen” is actually a sarcasm, describing some invader who was magically alchemised into his/her becoming Irish by way of a magical piece of paper, to wit, an Irish Passport.
And, of course, as my good friend Alex, who has since gone to be with the ground, “magic paper” such as passports are merely the secular version of “magic water”. Indeed, the idea of a birth certificate might have actually come from the Roman Catholic Baptismal certificate.
Catholics believed that magic water could turn the inhabitants of Africa into Christians—i.e. civilized white men, but with a different skin tone—and Liberals believe that the alchemy of magic documents, such as passports, can more or less accomplish the same thing. Catholics believed in the magic of catachesis, and, as Revilo P. Oliver points out: Liberals believe in the magic of education. Education, very often, to Liberals, is a snake oil that will cure whatever ails society.
Thus, we are still under the tyranny of Christian axiology; of Christian assumptions; or, as Oliver might have put it, the reformed Church of Marxianism has superceded the unreformed Catholic and Protestant Churches.
Categories
Booklets, 3
As I’ve already said, I originally didn’t want to post my private comments on some booklets published under the auspices of the Third Reich because I didn’t want to openly criticise National Socialism: I kept those criticisms to myself. Now that I better understand the dark times, and considering that my duty is to yearn for a dawn in the Aryan collective unconscious, I believe I must exhume my notes written on the blank pages of these booklets.
On July 19, 2021, for example, in the booklet shown in the image, I wrote:
I barely see the first paragraph and a problem arises.
Since I am a priest of the Fourteen Words and not a Nazi, the likely fact that this booklet won’t be anti-Christian (cf. also my fundamental difference with white nationalists) suddenly occurred to me.
The booklet is composed of ten articles by various authors. Then I read the following sentences from the first article, written by Erich Maschke. It doesn’t matter that the rest of the articles by the other nine authors didn’t contain passages I consider offensive. What I want to point out are the contradictions of National Socialism between those who represented its exoteric face and the more esoteric enlightenment on Christianity held by Hitler and his inner circle.
Erich Maschke wrote:
…the heathen Prussians. By force of arms must the Brothers subdue or drive out the heathen tribes… War against the heathen was the highest duty, the greatest sacrifice which a man could offer. [page 5]
…this forcible Christianizing of the Baltic countries of Prussia, Latvia and Estonia… The Prussian tribes were fought until they were subdued and accepted the Christian faith. [pages 6-7]
Maschke wrote these things apparently approving of the forced conversion of these Germanic pagans. On the blank page at the end of the booklet I wrote:
It’s worse than what I wrote inside the cover!
I was so surprised that it motivates me to start a new series for WDH, which we could begin with “Why Nazism Failed, Part 1.” And I would continue if I find this type of message in the other thirteen booklets I bought and will read (except for Sieg der Waffen which doesn’t have any bad messages).
I never expected this. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the priest is not a Nazi, although he still considers Hitler the man whose birth should replace that of the mythical Jew whom the fools of American racialism still worship.
Sometime later, I wrote on the back cover in black ink: “What I wrote in this booklet with blue ink [quoted above] is devastating. I’ll see now if I’ll report this to WDH…”
But I didn’t do it in 2021.
Categories
Groupthink
This is a response to Ben’s most recent comment.
Groupthink really shocks me. In private correspondence, Charles Darwin said that the Negroes would become extinct because, being inferior, white people would exterminate them. The opposite happened because he didn’t foresee how Christianity had conquered the Aryan collective unconscious.
The best example of monstrous groupthink that comes to mind is precisely that of Darwin’s wife, Emma. Like a typical stupid woman who conforms to the prevailing worldview, she once became upset about the criticism that the torture of hell wasn’t eternal (of course: she was taught the opposite as a child)!
The difference between Emma and Charles is fundamental to understanding what’s happening. The vast majority follow groupthink, whether it’s the aberrant theology of the past or the suicidal anti-racism of today. Modifying the archetype that possesses the collective unconscious is no small feat. And the sad thing is that no one is fighting it now except us. (White nationalists are still possessed by the current archetype, ortherwise they would become pragmatic exterminationists like Darwin.)
Incidentally, I was extremely bothered to see, on my last visit to the UK, how young whites fraternised with Negroes in restaurants and cafes.