A Facebook group called “European Traditionalism”

I happened upon a Facebook group called European Traditionalism recently. I quickly saw that what it offered was not at all an accurate presentation of European Traditionalism but rather a grossly extreme misrepresentation of European Traditionalism.

Whoever created that Facebook group is undoubtedly a hideous creature. Only an extremely degenerate or perverse being could present such a selectively false image of European Traditionalism.

First of all, the group description reads as follows: “If you like Plague, Trial by Ordeal and Crusades and are concerned about Cultural Decline, this is the group for you!” Let me deal with each of these four points:

The plagues that afflicted ancient and medieval Europe always came from the East; none of them originated in Europe. Although a lack of hygiene and sanitation may have contributed to the effect of these plagues, the fact is that Christian thinking (rather than European Traditionalism) has always tended to discourage people from paying too much attention to physical concerns, such as hygiene and sanitation, and has always encouraged people to trust God rather than deal with situations in real, effective ways, even if that means undergoing suffering, disease and death. Of course, suffering and death could be understood as leading to salvation in the Christian mind.

As for trial by ordeal, these have always been administered throughout the world; they are by no means restricted to Europe. Moreover, the notion of a trial by ordeal is actually an effective preliminary means of separating the guilty from the innocent because one who knows that he/she is guilty will likely object to the trial by ordeal, while an innocent person will believe that he/she has nothing to be afraid of. In practice, trial by ordeal was only rarely administered in medieval Europe, and it was effectively discontinued by the fifteenth century.

In my personal opinion, the Crusades were misguided adventures inasmuch as their ultimate aim was the reconquest of the so-called “Holy Land” (which I personally consider to be a most unholy land). I similarly disagree with the practice of using military force in order to impose any kind of religious conversion upon peoples (such as the Christian conquest of Saxony by Charlemagne, the conquest of the Baltic peoples by the Teutonic Knights, and (last but not least) the conquests of numerous territories by Islam). Yet, at the same time, I am in favor of the notion of a “holy war” when it is in the genuine defense of one’s values and beliefs, or for the purpose of expelling a fanatical invasion/occupation force (such as the campaigns of Charles Martel in the 8th century, or the campaigns against the Turks in the Balkans from the 16th century onwards). I must mention too that a warrior class is a normal and natural part of any healthy society, and that there must be legitimate military pursuits for a warrior class to undertake lest the warriors turn to pursuits that are detrimental to their own societies, effectively becoming a menace to their own people.

The last point – being “concerned about Cultural Decline” – is obviously disingenuous. What the hideous creature means to convey here is his belief that there is no cultural decline in this modern Western world. The hideous creature probably believes that there has never been any more beautiful culture than that which exists in this modern Western world. The hideous creature is therefore suggesting that whoever is “concerned about Cultural Decline” is absolutely wrong.

Now, turning to the content of this group, there are quite a number of images posted that can be considered offensive or disturbing in nature. To be fair, at least a few of these images do seem to be morally questionable (at least to sane and decent folks). Some others, on the other hand, are clearly being presented as questioning how well Christian morality was actually practiced in medieval Europe.

For example, there are at least two images from the medieval period that show a couple in bed. There is no nudity or other suggestion of any lewdness, but the intent is clearly to try to embarrass Christian sensibilities which apparently would prefer that medieval manuscripts not show couples in bed.

There are also at least two images of paintings showing black people in a European context (one as a Christian saint, and the other as a well-dressed gentleman). These are obviously intended as an argument that blacks have always been welcome in Europe, as well as a justification for the immigration of hordes of non-European peoples into Europe, and are therefore targeted against the natural and normal racial identity of Europeans and the natural and normal desire to keep Europe European. Of course, the tendency to be welcoming towards other races has a lot to do with Christian teaching.

The hideous creature has obviously made an effort in collecting and presenting these images. Unfortunately, the hideous creature doesn’t even come close to making its case in any real way. In fact, its Facebook group is a monumental failure (which may explain why it apparently gave up on it in June of last year).

The fact of the matter is that the realities and concepts represented by these images are only a very, very tiny part of what Europe has ever been. If the hideous creature were honest and truthful about European Traditionalism, the overwhelming majority – if not the near-totality – of the images presented would show realities and concepts that faithfully reflect the predominant historic essence of Europe. There would be images of excellent men, of great cities, of grand buildings and of beautiful works of art. There would be images that represent historic events, scientific achievements, philosophical developments and important discoveries.

No one has ever said that European Traditionalism was the means to produce a perfectly moral and righteous utopia. But only an idiot or a liar could ever argue that European Civilization is anything short of the greatest and best civilization in the history of the world, even despite its blemishes, and as I’ve written before, that greatness resulted from European Traditionalism (not Christianity, by the way).

If the creator of this Facebook group were an honest and decent person rather than a hideous creature, it would offer an honest and decent depiction of European Traditionalism. But the agenda of this hideous creature is totally opposed to such an honest and decent depiction. The blatant aim of this Facebook group is quite simply to attack European Traditionalism.

What this Facebook group really means is that at least one person in the world (there are actually over 1500 people who like this group) is extremely hateful – and probably quite fearful – of the very notion of European Traditionalism. Clearly, to such a hideous creature, the notion of European Traditionalism is a foremost threat, at least enough of a threat to warrant an extremely disparaging caricature of it. This to me is a strong confirmation of the genuine value of European Traditionalism.

Believing In and Believing Against

16298640_1808315089410018_5883158353805426945_n

One of my Facebook “friends” posted this image on Facebook recently. First, a couple of immediate observations are in order:

  • The left and right are labeled “Economic-left” and “Economic-right” – no mention of the political Left or Right.
  • Beyond the “Economic-right” is an image with the label “NOTHING” (an obvious falsehood), but there is no corresponding image beyond the “Economic-left”. I might suggest that an image of Hugo Chávez or Nicolás Maduro might be appropriate here, and that the label “NOTHING” would properly belong with this image rather than the one on the other side.

Having said that, what really prompted me to write this article is the statement my Facebook “friend” made when he shared it. He wrote: “Nihilists. They believe in nothing”. (Perhaps I should mention that this person is a hardcore Leftist who works for a reputable media organization.)

It seems that my extremely misguided “friend” hasn’t the foggiest idea how totally absurd his statement is – not in itself mind you, but related to the Right rather than the Left.

[Although I use traditional “left” and “right” designations in this article, I encourage the reader to consider my post called A Political Diagram, in which I offer a reevaluation of major political tendencies that redefines “left” and “right” in politics.]

Nihilism is, always has been and always will be a development of degenerate Leftist sympathies. Anyone who knows anything about Nihilism can’t honestly deny that. Only idiots and liars could ever fail to admit that the amorality, anomie, despair and general dissociation from reality that typify Nihilism result from the warped sensibilities of Leftist individuals.

One of the fundamental notions of Leftism is that everything should (at least theoretically) be permitted. This essentially means that nothing can ever really be important. Whenever liberal sentiments are espoused, and inasmuch as they are embraced, genuine meaning is utterly destroyed. Whatever is left instead is artificial, vain and worthless. An inane and insipid facsimile of existence replaces the real substance of life.

In effect, the only thing that Leftists really believe in is the idea that there is nothing that can really be believed in. For this reason, the only belief system that a Leftist can have is really an anti-belief system.

If there is anything that inspires people on the Right, it is a love of genuine meaning, of genuine purpose and of genuine life – with a corresponding disdain for all fake and worthless versions of these.

People on the Right certainly do not believe in nothing. In fact, people on the Right believe in the promotion of every excellent thing.

People on the Right believe that strength, health and beauty should be preeminently valued – even despite the resentful protests of the weak, the sick and the ugly.

People on the Right believe in reality, normalcy and nature, and that knowledge, understanding and wisdom must be founded on these. Any knowledge that is disconnected from or opposed to reality, normalcy and nature is not truly knowledge, but is instead more or less elaborate sophistry, deception and falsehood.

People on the Right believe that the purpose of a human being is to aim for all that is truly greater, truly higher and truly better, and that one should always use one’s intelligence, gifts and resources towards such aims. Doing otherwise is fundamentally failure, no matter how nicely decorated or seemingly justified it might be.

People on the Left, on the other hand, profoundly despise the beliefs of people on the Right. As mentioned above, this determined opposition to beliefs constitutes the only thing that Leftists really believe in.

Sometimes, Leftists will boldly express their hatred for the beliefs of the Right in an open and straightforward manner. But much more often, Leftists will dissemble their hatred for the beliefs of the Right by wrongly reevaluating or redefining terms.

For example, Leftists will routinely say that real beauty is some unseen, sentimental/spiritual kind of beauty, effectively confusing a pleasant disposition with actual beauty. Also, Leftists will assert that it is truly better to help degenerate and deviant individuals rather than good, decent people, and that a truly higher purpose in life means serving the purposes of the lowest, vilest and meanest beings.

It should be obvious by now, after so many decades of Leftist predominance in Western Civilization, that Leftism can only ever result in the disappearance of everything that is genuine, real and worthy and the concomitant prevalence of all that is contrived, artificial and worthless. The very essence of Leftism is an empty and desperate soul that does whatever it can to mask and dissimulate its true nature with every conceivable illusion, fantasy and deception.

Thankfully enough, the Leftist tendency towards the demented nothingness which is Nihilism is now effectively being challenged by a rising Alt Right. The recent growth and success of the Alt Right represent a strong resurgence of the values and beliefs that people on the Right have always embraced. At the same time, an irreversible decline of Leftism has already begun. Soon enough, as the decline of Leftism accelerates, the road to Nihilism will be decisively closed – hopefully forever.

What is Truly Best?

All people of good sense throughout history and throughout the world have recognized that which is truly best. Certain gifted men have even gone through the trouble of spelling it out for us (e.g. Aristotle’s Nicomachaean Ethics).

Unfortunately, certain forces unleashed by the French Revolution have gradually corrupted the ability of people to recognize that which is truly best. Throughout the Modern Age, the good sense of more and more people has been progressively eroded by the oh-so-lovely but false and illusory ideals of weak and sick individuals.

As I’ve indicated before, the progressive ideals of the Modern Age represent a resurgence of the ideals of the Primitive Christian movement. Any rational appraisal of the Christian Gospel must acknowledge the fact that it is fundamentally and fully anti-traditional. Primitive Christianity was nothing short of a revolution by resentful and shameful beings against the way things actually work best in reality. It is clearly the origin of all modern Leftism; Jesus Christ was the original Social Justice Warrior.

Some may point out that the leaders of the French Revolution tried to abolish Christianity. As I’ve endeavored to explain before, the Christianity that these and all other Leftists have always opposed was Traditional European Christianity, the true essence of which was not the Christian Gospel but the timeless European Tradition which has always valued strength over weakness, health over sickness, beauty over ugliness and intelligence over stupidity.

“But they tried to establish a Cult of Reason”, some may protest. The “reason” that Leftists have always worshipped is not anywhere near the good sense that is genuine reason, but is a demented, sophistic reason that spawns only glorified nonsense and elaborate delusion. It is a reason grounded not in the reality of things as they really are – which is real truth – but in sentiments, desires, fantasies and illusions.

“So what is truly best?”, one might ask. Well, if you’re a person of good sense, you can certainly find out easily enough if you don’t know already. Of course, you won’t find out from any source which is of a Leftist persuasion, and that includes the Christian Gospel. Leftists have never wanted what is truly best. In fact, they have always hated that which is truly best and have constantly worked to undermine and destroy that which is truly best.

If you’re not a person of good sense, you can’t really know what is truly best unless you can somehow become a person of good sense. This certainly is possible; I’ve done it.

And if you need to ask what good sense actually is, I’m afraid I have no hope for you. If you can’t intuitively understand what good sense is, I don’t think you’ll ever understand it.

 

 

The Reality-Denial of Fundamental Christianity

At the very foundation of Christianity is the belief that what is best for the human soul is not life in this world, but life in another world above and beyond this one. The ultimate goal of the Christian is to somehow attain to that other world which is far better than this one in every conceivable respect.

Another way of saying this is that the Christian believes that there is something above and beyond reality that is better than reality.

Christianity is essentially a glorified form of escapism. As I’ve written before, the earliest Christians were resentful and envious inferior types who just couldn’t live with the fact that there were better people in the world – successful, powerful and gifted people – who rightfully ruled over them.

Consumed by an overwhelming spite for all the better people of the world, they dreamed up a fantastic idea according to which they could actually seem to be even better than the better people of the world. They imagined that there was another reality above and beyond this reality, and that only those who believed in it could ever live in it. They preached that it was possible to be even better than the successful, the powerful and the gifted, and that one only had to have faith in order to be better than all the better people of the world.

In this way, the earliest Christians turned their profound disdain for reality into an utter denial of reality which was accompanied by an absurd tendency to believe in any miracle, no matter how unbelievable.

Armed with their sanctimonious belief system that squarely defied reality, these early Fundamentalist Christians found the courage to blatantly oppose all who were truly better than they were and to disparage everything that was truly noble and glorious. Having no regard for reality, they had no problem with the prospect of being violently expelled from reality by the sword, by the cross or by the lions in the Circus Maximus.

By the way, I find it interesting that a total disregard for reality can be considered courageous rather than insane.

Of course, the early Fundamentalist Christians couldn’t care less about attaining to any degree of real success in this world, or about obtaining any real wealth in this world, or about wielding any real power in this world. All of this was beneath them, their sights being squarely fixed on that which is above and beyond anything that could ever be gained in reality. They could insist that they were not at all hopeless defeatists by claiming that they would eventually have everything that was better than the best in the end.

Thankfully, the reality-denial of the early Fundamentalist Christians – and their absurd religious superiority complex accompanying it – never prevailed outside of their primitive Christian communities. By the third century AD, the demented extremism of Christian Fundamentalism was largely mitigated by forces of reality that would not be denied, including not only the sage policy of persecution by the Roman authorities, but more importantly by the sheer resilience of a sane and sound, reality-accepting European Tradition.

Unlike the reality-denying Christian Fundamentalists, European Traditionalists had always retained a good grasp on reality. Rather than obsessing endlessly over a world above and beyond this reality and essentially disregarding the reality of this world, the noble European was encouraged by his Tradition to aim to attain to that which was the best possible in this world, i.e. within the realm of reality. This is the essence of what is called the Faustian spirit of European man. It is a spirit that wants to become the master of reality as much as possible rather than despising this reality and hoping and praying to leave it in order to live in an unreal fantasy world.

After the Christian religion became an accepted (and eventually official) part of the reality of the Roman Empire, the Fundamentalist Christian rejection of reality took a back seat to a much saner view of existence. Most Christians were now decent people who accepted reality in this world as it really was rather than obsessing about a world that was above and beyond reality, although fantasizing about this other world was never entirely given up, especially among extremists such as Christian priests, monks and missionaries.

As long as the reality-accepting European Tradition has endured (even if under the name of Christianity), the better men among Europeans have continued always to strive for that which was best in this world, in this reality. This is why Europeans have excelled at everything that they have ever done. Important scientific advances, glorious architecture such as the Gothic cathedrals, great works of art and music, philosophical and intellectual genius, discovering the entire world and conquering most of it – all of this is due to European Tradition; none of it is due to Christian Fundamentalism. Europeans certainly would not have produced any such excellence if Christianity had truly prevailed over Europe.

Unfortunately, a new form of Fundamentalism has prevailed over Europeans in recent times; perhaps it could be called Leftist Fundamentalism. Unlike Christian Fundamentalism, this Leftist Fundamentalism doesn’t preach the “pie in the sky” belief of a world above and beyond this one. But it does share the same profound disdain for the reality of this world as it really is and this comes from the same profound resentment and envy of inferior types (Stoddard’s “Underman”) that gave rise to Christian Fundamentalism.

Taking Care of Business

During the American presidential campaign and since the election of Donald Trump, it has often been mentioned that Donald Trump has practically no political experience. Unlike many, I don’t view this as a problem at all. In fact, this is a good thing.

The fact that Donald Trump is a successful businessman rather than a career politician will be a defining aspect of his presidency and will undoubtedly have a beneficial effect on America over the next four to eight years.

It has been suggested that Donald Trump will run the American government as his own business. This may be a horrifying prospect to a lot of people, but this is due to a profound lack of understanding of the natural realities of good government and good leadership.

In chapter four (“Incentives in Democracy”) of his excellent book A Critique of Democracy: A Guide for Neoreactionaries, Michael Anissimov explains that a private government is naturally the right form of government, while a public government is quite simply a wrong form of government. Whereas a public government will always tend inexorably towards political, economic, social and cultural decline (even despite all machinations and artifices designed to counter such declines), a private government is naturally suited to produce real, sustained progress in every aspect of a country’s being.

The gist of this is that a private government is owned by the man who leads it, rather than being managed by someone on someone else’s behalf as is the case in public government. If the leader of a country is also its owner, that leader will naturally have a personal stake in its governance, and will naturally want to do what is necessary for the genuine wellbeing of his country.

A man who runs a successful business will not only focus on increasing his profits, but will also pay close attention to the proper management of his business and take proper care of all the people who work for it. He will naturally have a long-range view of things insofar as they concern his business as they also concern him and those who belong to him. By contrast, a manager may not personally care about the proper functioning of the business he works for, nor for the wellbeing of the employees under him. The only thing that really matters for him is getting his paycheck. Even if the business goes under, he can always just find another job.

The people who have led America over the past few decades (both Republicans and Democrats) have functioned as (mis)managers of America. Although they have presumably (mis)managed America on behalf of the American people, there is the real possibility that it is actually on behalf of (((a certain group of people))) (in which case, democracy is quite simply a deception). In either case, the people who have led America (and all other Western states) in the recent past have obviously had little real concern for the best management of their countries and the genuine wellbeing of their fellow citizens. I won’t bother listing all the ways that this is evident; President-elect Trump has pointed this out well enough over the past several months.

Many have remarked that elected officials in a democracy who are elected to limited terms will naturally tend to prioritize short-range concerns (such as getting re-elected) that are of little importance to the long-term wellbeing of the nation. This being said, it wouldn’t be true to say that elected officials won’t pay attention to any long-range concerns. But the long-range concerns that they work for are never in the best interests of the country or of its citizens. Again, whether they are acting as managers for “the people” or as managers for ((((someone else))), the best possible condition of the country and that which is genuinely best for its citizens is not their foremost consideration.

It has been suggested by some that “the people” simply can’t understand political and economic affairs on a national level well enough to make good decisions about them (“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” – Winston Churchill). This to me is obviously true, and is an important reason why public government (as in a democracy) can never really lead to the proper functioning of a country and the genuine wellbeing of its citizens.

The idea of a private government in which a leader is the owner of his country is reflected famously in the line attributed to French king Louis XIV: “L’état, c’est moi!” (“I am the state”). Like all absolute monarchs, Louis XIV considered his country as his own personal possession. He therefore had a vested interest in the growth and prosperity of his country, and the historical record clearly shows that he backed many economic initiatives that aimed to benefit his country (Louis XIV and Twenty Million Frenchmen by Pierre Goubert is an interesting read). Unfortunately, he had to compete with the much more dynamic economies of some of his neighbours such as Great Britain. And perhaps more importantly, his lust for glory and fame led him to provoke numerous wars during his reign that could only have a net detrimental effect on the wellbeing of France (this often being cited as an immediate factor leading to that most disastrous calamity called the French Revolution).

Some may compare Donald Trump with all the other wealthy élites who are routinely pointed out as extremely wicked people who enrich themselves at the people’s expense, who engage freely in corruption, bribery and fraud, and who thereby contribute to the growing destitution and despair of the people. I don’t believe this comparison holds. Not all successful businessmen are such wicked people, although some of them certainly are – especially those who belong to (((a certain group))).

Donald Trump has repeatedly demonstrated – especially through his speeches and interviews – that he understands that treating people fairly and decently is a crucial part of doing business. Accusations of him defrauding people undoubtedly come from the incompetent and the careless who didn’t deserve any pay or remuneration that they would have received if they had done their jobs properly.

Donald Trump is a strong, intelligent, no-nonsense kind of guy. He knows how to make good business decisions and he has the guts to stick to them. He knows that running a good business depends on keeping good people and getting rid of bad people. He is not afraid to do what it takes to make his business succeed and he won’t be bullied by people whose interests don’t correspond with his own. This is why the current American establishment hates Donald Trump so much. And this is why Donald Trump will Make America Great Again.

[Important note: (((The people who control the economy))) are all still in place. If they decide to crash the economy, there’s nothing Donald Trump can do about it. At least some economists are saying that a major economic event is just around the corner, maybe far worse than 2008. (((The people who control the economy))) have done this kind of thing many times before (in 1933, for example); there’s no reason that they wouldn’t do it again, especially soon after Trump’s victory.]

The Truth about Jesus Christ

The following are some arguments that suggest that Jesus Christ is not at all what he is said to be by those who believe in him. Much of Christian teaching is doublespeak and doublethink, and this is nowhere more so than in the Gospels which present the story and teachings of Jesus Christ. It is important to bear in mind that one may say one thing and at the same time suggest something quite opposite to what one is saying. There is an art to this type of deception (well known to the Jews), in which the real message that one wishes to convey is presented surreptitiously beneath a cover of superficial and even illusory statements…

Jesus loves whores (John 8:1-11 “he who among you is without sin”)

Mary Magdalene is prominent in the Gospel because she was Jesus’ favorite whore. The “woman caught in adultery” in John 8:1-11 has often been identified as Mary Magdalene. This passage teaches that no one should ever judge others, which means that every kind of sin is to be allowed. When Jesus says “go and sin no more”, what he really means is “from now on, don’t think of your sin as being sin”.

There are a number of passages in the Gospels where female followers of Jesus are mentioned by name, such as Luke 8:1-3. These women are said to have been “cured of evil spirits and infirmities”, which could well be a euphemistic way of saying that they had been “liberated” by Jesus. Luke 8:3 says that these women provided for Jesus and his apostles “out of their resources”; a likely explanation for this is that these experienced women freely gave their sexual services to Jesus and his apostles.

The Gospels say that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit of God. It’s a nice story, but it’s clearly a fiction. In fact, what is much more likely is that Jesus’ mother Mary was quite the opposite of a chaste maiden. I’m certainly not the first to suggest that Jesus was the bastard son of a whore.

Jesus loves queers

Jesus was a bisexual hedonist. The fact that Jesus never had a regular relationship with a woman is fairly indicative. As well as regularly enjoying the services of his favorite whore, Mary Magdalene, Jesus was regularly intimate with his favorite disciple John (“the disciple whom Jesus loved”).

In chapter 96 of Pistis Sophia, John is called “the virgin” (in this particular passage, both Mary Magdalene and John the virgin are said to be above all other disciples). It is unusual that a man be called a virgin. This appellation apparently indicates that John never had sex with a woman; he therefore was a virgin as far as women are concerned, but this wouldn’t necessarily exclude a homoerotic relationship. The Ancient Greek practice of pederasty was certainly not unknown among Jews like Jesus and his followers who rejected the strictures of Judaism.

It is interesting to note the term “Uranian” in connection to gender deviance and homosexuality. This use of a term meaning “heavenly” in relation to deviant sexual behavior casts a suggestive light on the pervasive emphasis in Christian scriptures on all that is “heavenly” (and the corresponding rejection of all that is “worldly” or “secular”, i.e. natural and normal).

Jesus is a proponent of victimization

Jesus wants you to let yourself be abused (“turn the other cheek” – Matthew 5:39) and even to rejoice in being abused (“blessed are you when they persecute you” – Matthew 5:11). Using victimhood as a means of morally elevating oneself above others is a well-known tactic among modern liberals (“Black Lives Matter”, for example); it is also one of the foremost strategies used by Jews throughout history (and exploited to the full in the enormous hoax called the “Holocaust”).

Jesus wants you to disadvantage yourself by giving more than necessary. In 5:40-41, Jesus says “if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well; and if someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two”. Note the terms “sue” and “forces”, both of which suggest coercion or compulsion. This clearly means that people should allow others to coerce or compel them to do what they don’t want to do, which effectively encourages wrongdoers rather than opposing them.

Jesus is an arrogant hypocrite (John 12:1-8)

When “some woman” anoints Jesus with expensive nard, Judas rightly points out the inappropriate nature of the act. (Queer John’s assertion that Judas was a thief is obviously an unsupported slander.) It is generally admitted that Jesus was right to justify this act because he was the Son of God, but in fact he simply felt that he deserved to receive special treatment for no good reason (i.e. that he was entitled to special treatment).

Jesus approves of feminism and is against traditional gender roles (Luke 10:38-42)

When Martha complains to Jesus that her sister Mary should perform her womanly duties, Jesus justifies Mary. This signifies that Jesus prefers that women should shun their traditional womanly duties.

Jesus is in favor of disregarding natural family relations (Matthew 12:46-50)

When Jesus’ mother and brothers wish to speak to him, Jesus refuses to see them, essentially saying that they are not righteous enough to be his family. This is a clear rejection of natural family relations. In Mark 13:12, Jesus says “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rise against their parents and have them put to death.” The fact of the matter is that those who are here portrayed as being betrayed are the ones who betrayed their own families, and their own traditions as well. This is an obvious instance of the culprit calling himself the victim – a classic Jewish tactic.

Jesus is an agent of division (Luke 12:51-53)

Jesus says that he has not come to bring peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34). Christian apologists insist that the division wrought by Jesus is between the good and the evil, between the righteous and the wrongdoers, but this is a false interpretation. The division that Jesus really intends to bring about is between those who hold to natural and traditional hierarchies, social structures, gender roles, and ethnic and racial distinctions, and those who reject them due to envy, resentment and spite. The subversive mission of Jesus and his followers has always been to destroy natural and traditional social groups by introducing unnatural concepts and deceptive ideas to divide their members.

Jesus is anti-authoritarian (Matthew 20:25-26)

A big part of Jesus’ mission consisted of challenging and defying traditional authorities and hierarchies. In the passage cited above, Jesus tells his followers that they should not recognize any rulers at all. This is in line with his admonition not to call anyone “father” except for God. It is also perfectly in line with the modern liberal notion of equality (or egalitarianism) as well as the fundamental ideal of Communism.

Jesus Christ is truly evil

In the foregoing, I have treated Jesus and his story as historical. But I don’t believe that Jesus existed as a historical person at all. Visit Kenneth Humphreys’ excellent site http://www.Jesusneverexisted.com for all the information that clearly shows that all New Testament history is nothing but fiction.

Yet, the myth of Jesus Christ has been very real for the past two millennia, and that myth has to be dealt with as a real historical phenomenon. Not only are the teachings of Jesus full of deception and lies, but the very way that Jesus has been depicted is also a work of deception and lies.

Jesus Christ has always been presented as a lovely, wonderful and righteous preacher who only wanted what was best for everyone and who wanted to save the world. But his teachings and his influence are all about disrupting natural and normal relationships and structures in order to “liberate” every kind of vile and base being. He is essentially opposed to all who are truly better human beings and on the side of those resentful and spiteful types who despise those who are truly better.

What I have presented above is the way Jesus Christ truly should be depicted according to the real nature of his teachings: as a subversive deviant who endeavors to disrupt and to destroy the natural and normal way of things. As I’ve indicated in a previous essay, Jesus Christ truly is the prototype of all modern liberal SJW’s who are possessed with an infernal obsession to annihilate everything which is normal, natural and traditional.

Jesus Christ is really the godfather of everything which threatens that which is good and right in human society. And this is exactly what the Jews who created Jesus have always wanted Jesus to be. (By the way, when it comes to the Jews’ relationship to Jesus, never underestimate the Jews’ ability to dissemble and deceive.) In fact, it has become my honest opinion that Jesus Christ is not at all the Son of God, but rather the Son of the Devil, and the foremost Deceiver in all of history, just as the Jews are not the Chosen People of God, but rather the Chosen People of the Devil, and the foremost Deceivers in all of history.

[N.B. As I typed this essay, I kept typing ‘Jewsus’ rather than ‘Jesus’. I think there may be something to that…]

The Need for Good, Strong Rulers

If there’s one conclusion that needs to be drawn about human beings in general, it’s that they will never learn. As long as human beings continue to seek the lovely, pleasant and wonderful ways that enthrall them, and to disregard the right, real and true ways that they don’t like, they constantly get themselves into all kinds of nonsense and trouble. The more human beings strive for the lovely, the pleasant and the wonderful, the more every conceivable ill, error and wrong eventually results. And yet, they just don’t get it; if they recognize it at all, they tend to think that it’s normal and natural that so much that they do leads to some kind of evil sooner or later (“it’s all good”).

The guiding idea of modern liberal democracy is that human beings should be allowed to freely abandon themselves to every decadent activity, every degenerate ideal and every diseased tendency. For this reason, the very purpose of modern liberal democracy is to gradually undermine the order and structure of society (especially by eradicating everything that is of a genuinely traditional nature) in order to maximize freedom. The result of this must necessarily be the reduction of everything in society to the lowest common denominator, which will necessarily bring about the destruction of civilization sooner or later. This may seem like an exaggerated or alarmist claim to most people, but to the few who truly understand how things really work in natural reality, the eventual consequences of all of the current trends in this modern world are obvious and undeniable.

(Another important thing to consider is the fact that business is really the single most important thing in modern liberal democracy. This doesn’t mean that business is wrong or bad, but many serious problems in society are obviously the result of business trumping moral and ethical considerations. Any order and structure that is retained in modern liberal society serves only to preserve and to increase the generation of revenue. As long as the money flows, anything goes.)

The preservation of a properly ordered and civilized society is why human beings need good, strong rulers, no matter how much they may not want them. Obviously, there is no such thing as a good, strong ruler in modern liberal democracy. Almost every leader in this modern world is really an evil, weak ruler rather than a good, strong ruler, including “Barack Obama” in the USA, Justin Trudeau in Canada, David Cameron in the UK, François Hollande in France and Angela Merkel in Germany. Even the Pinko Pope Francis is an evil, weak ruler (in fact, especially so).

All of the evil, weak rulers of this modern world consistently encourage people to embrace the illusions, deceptions and lies that promise them paradise but that ultimately create tragedy, devastation and chaos. By constantly promoting everyone’s favorite sentiments such as love, tolerance and hope, the evil, weak rulers of this modern world routinely set the people up to fall into all of their traps. As I’ve written before, all of this is essentially the triumph of the teachings of Jesus Christ and of the Christian religion.

Exceptions to this are Vladimir Putin in Russia, Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines. These three among others seem to be exactly the kind of good, strong ruler that human beings really need to keep them from getting themselves into every possible form of insanity, deviance and perversion. Such good, strong rulers are not afraid to insist on that which is right, real and true for the genuine welfare of their subjects, even despite their misguided wishes and desires. And this is precisely the reason why these three rulers and others like them are so greatly hated by the modern liberal democratic powers.

The foremost example of a good, strong ruler who defied the fraudulent evil of modern liberal democracy by making everything right under his rule is Adolf Hitler. This is why the forces of modern liberal democracy (the Americans and British) in association with their Communist partners (the Soviet Russians) did everything possible to annihilate Adolf Hitler, the National Socialist Party and the Third Reich. All of the propaganda lies against Hitler, the Nazis and the Third Reich that have been incessantly produced to this very day (including the Holocaust™ fabrication) are intended to demonize all good, strong rulers. Although all of this may not always keep good, strong rulers from gaining power, it at least ensures that they will be universally vilified by all lovers of modern liberal democracy.

What this world really needs is for good, strong rulers to take power in most (if not all) modern liberal democratic states, and to put an end once and for all to the deceptive fraud which is modern liberal democracy as well as the Christian religion that fundamentally enables it. By the way, leaders like Nigel Farage in the UK (who recently retired after the pseudo-victory of Brexit), Marine Le Pen in France and Norbert Hofer in Austria aren’t exactly the good, strong ruler type, and I have serious doubts about the true motivations of Donald Trump. (In fact, I have my doubts about Vladimir Putin too.) Most apparent opponents of the prevailing liberal democratic regimes in this modern world are not at all opposed to modern liberal democracy and are not genuinely of the good, strong ruler type. They are all essentially controlled opposition, merely puppets of modern liberal democracy.

Honestly, I don’t even believe that it’s actually possible for genuinely good, strong rulers to take power in this modern world. The forces of modern liberal democracy really do control everything, even their apparent opposition. It seems quite likely to me that things can’t truly get better until they finish getting worse, and we’re not even close to seeing the worst yet. So I’m not holding my breath. In the meantime, I’ll just keep watching all of the believing fools who glorify those puppets who pose as their saviors, and reminding myself that human beings will simply never learn.

 

 

More on Christianity

In my previous articles, I spoke about the fact that attacks on Christianity are essentially attacks on European Tradition. This is due to the fact that Traditional European Christianity is the vehicle through which European Tradition has historically maintained itself among European peoples.

Nevertheless, there are indeed many instances when the fundamental elements of Christianity themselves, including the Jesus Christ character, are directly targeted. Such attacks clearly directed at the heart of the Christian Gospel would seem to have nothing to do with European Tradition. But in fact, they do.

In one of my previous articles, I referred to Christianity as being like a Trojan Horse for the White Race. It could just as well be thought of as controlled opposition for the enemies of the White Race.

When someone attacks someone else’s strongly held cherished belief, that someone else will usually react by holding on even more strongly to their cherished belief. When someone attacks the core of the Christian Gospel, it usually serves to strengthen the faith of the devout Christian. The more Christianity is persecuted, the more devout Christians will cling to it. There are ample demonstrations of this in the first few centuries of the Christian movement.

Concerning the Jesus Christ character, the more a leader is targeted by his opponents, the more that leader gains legitimacy among his faithful followers. By denigrating and slandering the Jesus Christ character, his enemies guarantee that his faithful followers will fully believe in him, and will thus do everything that he requires them to do exactly as he told them to do.

The enemies of the White Race understand all of this completely, and this is precisely why they love to attack Christianity (or to encourage others to attack it). They know that their attacks on Christianity will practically guarantee that devout Christians will remain devout Christians, which means that they will remain devoutly enthralled to the Christian Gospel and will therefore fail to properly acknowledge their own European Tradition. In this way, attacks on Christianity itself are indirect actions against European Tradition.

One weapon used to attack Christianity is modern rationalistic scientism, which is the liberal promotion of rational science as a quasi-religion. Over the past few centuries, rationalistic scientism has waged a constant campaign against Christianity. It is no coincidence that the rise of rationalistic scientism has been paralleled by a resurgence of the original Christianity of the Gospel (i.e. Primitive Christianity). As a result, there has been a division of most White people in modern times into partisans of either rationalistic scientism or the original Christianity of the Gospel, both of which are in favor of modern liberal values such as tolerance, multiculturalism and globalism. In the process, the non-Christian European Tradition which properly belongs to White people has been increasingly disregarded and forsaken.

As I’ve mentioned before, the Christian Gospel is exactly the opposite of what White people need to defend and maintain themselves against all of their enemies. The teachings of the Christian Gospel are precisely designed to keep White people from fighting their enemies in any real way. The Christian Gospel would have White people remaining forever meek and mild, always turning the other cheek, obeying all authorities because they are appointed by God (Romans 13), persevering faithfully through all hardships and woes, enduring all persecution and tribulation with hope for their salvation from on high, until their very extinction.

European Tradition and Christianity

In my previous article, “Two Paganisms, Two Christianities”, I used the term “Paganism” for the religious traditions of our White European ancestors. In this article, I will drop the term “Paganism” (which necessarily does have derogatory connotations) in favor of “European Tradition”. “European Tradition” is a much more accurate and appropriate term because it clearly includes the values and beliefs which our White European ancestors truly held and excludes everything that was not actually found among them.

As I have mentioned before, it is a terrible shame that many racially-aware Whites today confuse European Tradition and Christianity. Pro-Christian racially-aware Whites fail to realize that most of the values and beliefs that they hold dear are really the values and beliefs of European Tradition and not Christian values and beliefs at all. They simply don’t understand how much they still retain the values and beliefs of their own pre-Christian European ancestors, and sadly enough, they are inclined to reject this very thought altogether.

(On the other hand, there are also many racially-aware Whites who generally attribute genuinely good values such as ethical holiness and moral righteousness exclusively to Christianity, and who therefore generally reject such good values. These anti-Christian racially-aware Whites consequently buy wholeheartedly into the Christian stereotype of the “Pagan” as an extremely vile, brutish and horrible type of demonic being.)

Whenever the enemies of the White Race attack Christianity, it is not Christianity per se that they are attacking. The enemies of the White Race – including the Jews above all – know perfectly well that the Christian Gospel (i.e. the Gospel of Primitive Christianity) is not a problem for them at all, but rather a blessing for them because it teaches people to be meek and mild (i.e. obedient and submissive), to turn the other cheek, and to trust God to save them from everything (if he wants, that is). (Perhaps the Jewish origin of Christianity should be reiterated here…) Whenever the enemies of the White Race attack Christianity, what they are really attacking is the European Tradition that Europeans have continued to hold under the name “Christianity”, and even despite the Christian Gospel.

The survival of elements of European Tradition throughout European history is well known and well documented. Historians of European culture know quite well how much European Tradition survived among the European peoples after the introduction of Christianity. Among the numerous examples of this are the use of Christmas trees and the celebration of May Day, as well as the establishment of Christian places of worship (churches and shrines) on the exact locations where Traditional Europeans had always worshipped, and the identification of some of the deities of European Tradition with Christian angels and saints (e.g. St. Michael continuing the Celtic Lugus under a different name).

It is understood by many that Christianity assimilated many elements of European Tradition in order to make Christianity acceptable to European folks. This does seem to be what happened on the surface. But the way I see it, what really happened was nothing less than the attribution of the Christian name to a largely uninterrupted European Tradition. This was accompanied by a subordination of the Primitive Christian Gospel – the fundamental essence of Christianity – to the renamed European Tradition. There was no real transformation from European Tradition to Traditional European “Christianity”; it was nothing more than a nominal and superficial change.

One remarkable instance of the survival of European Tradition in Medieval Europe is the division of the people into three classes: the Priests, the Nobles and the Peasants. The institution of the Estates General of medieval France clearly displays this aspect of European Tradition. This division of the people is the exact continuation of the prehistoric Indo-European division of the people into three classes as demonstrated by French researcher Georges Dumézil (the “trifunctional hypothesis”).

***

Perhaps nowhere is the discrepancy between European Tradition and Christianity greater than in the history of war in Europe. All of the victories of European peoples against foreign (mostly Islamic) invaders and occupiers are routinely credited to their Christian faith. This is simply and blatantly false. The will of the European peoples throughout history to defend and to protect themselves and their own from foreign invaders can’t possibly be due to the Christian faith. It is quite patently due to the survival of European Tradition.

If King Clovis of the Franks really did call on the Christian God to help him win his battle against the Alamanni around 496 AD (the story is possibly an invention by Gregory of Tours), it was certainly not because of the Christian Gospel at all. King Clovis’ acceptance of the God of Christianity is a clear indication that this God was already quite fully assimilated to the traditional European conception of a Supreme God like Zeus, Jupiter or Odin, rather than a God of Love, Guilt and Damnation like the God of the Christian Gospel.

Charles Martel and his Frankish warriors were not motivated by the Christian Gospel when they fought and defeated an Islamic invasion force near Poitiers in 732 AD. That which motivated them was obviously the retention of European Tradition, particularly in its warrior aspects. And the same goes for every engagement in which Europeans fought against non-European enemies (and also against other Europeans, unfortunately).

If one doubts this, one should seriously consider the substance and import of the Christian Gospel and ask oneself if it ever could have encouraged anyone to defend themselves against anything at all. The fact of the matter is that the Christian Gospel is practically opposed to the very concept of defending and protecting oneself against threats, whether militarily or otherwise, and this is clearly a fundamental element in the Christian Gospel. Whoever might actually believe otherwise certainly doesn’t know what the Christian Gospel is at all.

In modern times, the practically insane thinking of the Christian Gospel is brilliantly reflected in the statement by one of the most idiotic leaders in world history: “If you kill your enemies, they win”. Quite obviously, the almost total lack of opposition to the steady flooding of European countries with hordes of non-Whites in recent years has everything to do with the resurgence in modern times of values and beliefs that come straight from the Christian Gospel and with a concomitant disintegration and disappearance of European Tradition.

A clear indication of the resurgence of the Gospel of Primitive Christianity in modern times is the Pinko Pope Francis, whose messages of love, tolerance and pathological altruism are the result of an exact and perfectly faithful interpretation of the teachings of the Christian Gospel. For over a millennium, the Roman Catholic Church was the bastion of Traditional European “Christianity”, but that is obviously no longer the case. During the past half-century or so (more or less since Vatican II), the Roman Catholic Church has actively endeavored to eradicate every trace of European Tradition both within itself and without, and has wholeheartedly embraced the true Christian Gospel.

***

Like the successes of European armies in warfare, the intellectual developments of European history were in no way due to Christianity. The Christian Gospel consistently emphasizes mystical “spirituality” while denigrating genuine wisdom (“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight” 1 Corinthians 3:19). Christianity is fundamentally a mystical religion, and all mysticism has always been opposed to intelligent reason. Among other things, the Christian disdain for intelligence and reason is clearly reflected in the pathological Christian obsession for the miraculous (see the “Venerable” Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People, for a particularly mind-boggling example).

None of the advances of European science and technology would ever have been possible if Europe had truly been Christian. Although Aristotle and other Greek thinkers are usually credited as the Fathers of European Science, it was European Tradition generally that always compelled Europeans to learn and to know more and more, and to build and create ever more excellent things. The evidence for remarkable ingenuity and creativity among the ancient Celtic and Germanic folks is certainly not lacking (read The Celts by Peter Berresford Ellis).

It is interesting to note that Thomas Aquinas never could finish his work synthesizing Christian belief with intellectual philosophy – the Summa Theologica. Perhaps the real reason for this is that he finally recognized that his attempt to reconcile a mystical faith with genuine reason was profoundly illusory and necessarily deceptive.

***

The Jesus character of the Christian Gospel is clearly a Social Justice Warrior. Like all modern SJW’s, the Jesus character is clearly depicted as being on the side of all of the worst elements of society. The Jesus character is the friend of deviants and degenerates, including whores and thieves. He is always willing to defend and to justify people of questionable character (“Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her” John 8:7) and guarantees forgiveness for anyone. As the staunch ally of all of the less reputable elements of society, the Jesus character is also the sworn enemy of all of the best elements of society.

By pointing out that the Jesus character is depicted as being a friend of deviants and degenerates, I am not necessarily suggesting that Christianity encourages deviant and degenerate behavior (although it is no secret that religions like Christianity and Islam which are practically founded on guilt, shame and resentment will often foster secret tendencies towards deviance and perversion). What I am suggesting is that Christianity capitalizes on the bad feelings of deviants and degenerates (shame, guilt, envy, resentment, etc.) in order to turn them against all the better elements of society. This is precisely what modern Leftists do: win over all of the disadvantaged and disaffected scum of the earth in order to sic them on the better folks.

From the fourth century onwards, the Jesus character underwent a radical transformation. He tended to be seen less and less as a meek and mild preacher who loved sinners and more and more as a strong conquering hero. This clearly paralleled the subordination of the Christian Gospel to European Tradition. The process of evangelizing the “pagan” Germanic folks contributed greatly to this transformation: in the Old Saxon Hêliand, Jesus is depicted as a Germanic warlord (a drohtin). The Jesus of the Middle Ages was much closer to the traditional European idea of a Divine Lord like Lugus (Lugh) of the Celts than to the oh-so-lovable Jesus of the Christian Gospel.

***

European Tradition has always worked for the benefit of European folks. This is the very reason why it was retained throughout the Middle Ages despite the introduction of Christianity. If the Primitive Christianity of the Gospel had really become the religion of Europe during the first centuries AD, it certainly would have meant the total ruin of Europe, and it would have meant the extinction of the European peoples long before today, whether by the swords of the Huns in the fifth century, or those of the Muslims in the 8th century, or those of the Mongols in the 13th century, or those of the Ottoman Turks in the 16th century. Note well what is happening to the European peoples now, and recognize that it is due to the widespread adoption of the values and beliefs of the Christian Gospel in modern times (thanks to the Jews, of course).

The question may well be asked: “If European Tradition was everything that our European ancestors needed, why did they adopt Christianity at all, even if only nominally?” One possible answer, at least as far as the common folks are concerned, is that they were enticed with the false promise of salvation and/or coerced with the equally false threat of damnation. Another possible answer – which may well be related to the previous answer – is that some unscrupulous European leaders understood the potential value of Christianity as an “opiate of the masses”. Of course, there were also instances of Christianity being imposed by force, as Charlemagne did to the Saxons between 772 and 804, and as was done to the Baltic peoples a few centuries later during the “Northern Crusades”.

There is truly no good reason for a racially-aware White European to cling to any kind of Christianity. There is nothing whatsoever in the Christian Gospel which is truly beneficial for White European folks and a lot that is clearly detrimental to White European folks (such as the pathological altruism which patently allows for White Genocide). I honestly believe that all racially-aware White Europeans should embrace the European Tradition that truly belongs to them and reject everything that does not truly belong to European Tradition. This is the only way to bring about the genuine unity of all White Europeans against their common enemies.

Two Paganisms, Two Christianities

The age-old conflict between Christianity and Paganism has been a hotly-debated issue among racially-aware Whites, causing numerous heated arguments on many Pro-White websites. Many moderators of Pro-White websites have virtually banned religious discussion due to the fact that it seems to be impossible to resolve the religious issue.

Pro-White Christians assert that their religion is the only true religion for the White Race and that White people can only fall into every ill, evil and wrong without it, while Pro-White Pagans insist that the only form of religion that truly suits White people is their own ancestral religious tradition.

A big problem with this whole debate is that there are distinctions that must be made between two radically different kinds of Paganism and between two radically different kinds of Christianity.

Two Paganisms

First, it should be said that the term “Paganism” was first used in a derogatory sense by Christians to lump together all religions except for Christianity since Christians believed their own religion to be the only true religion (of course, exceptions were made for Judaism). This view is a direct continuation of the way Jews viewed their own religion, and Muslims also have the same view about their own religion.

The three Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – are closely related, particularly in being the only major religions to claim to be the only true religions. Because of their inherent exceptionalism, these three religions routinely display an obsessive hatred of all religions apart from their own and a deep-seated desire to annihilate all other religions (although only two of these religions have historically been open about it).

For these reasons, it is convenient to isolate these three religions as a distinct group apart from all other religions. Therefore, the term Paganism is useful to distinguish all non-Abrahamic religions from the three highly idiosyncratic Abrahamic religions.

(For a very interesting discussion of the Abrahamic religions, see Chapter 3 “Opposition to the Natural Way” of The Dharma Manifesto by Śri Dharma Pravartaka Ācharya.)

As I explained in my article entitled “What is Paganism?”, there is a big difference between the original Paganism of the tribal peoples of Europe and the civilized Paganism of the Greek and Roman Civilizations.

Although they were not fully civilized like the Greeks and the Romans, the tribal peoples of Europe (such as the Celtic and Germanic peoples) did have advanced cultures that were well-organized and relatively sophisticated. Tacitus in his Germania implicitly contrasts the laudable elements of Germanic society with the obviously despicable elements of the Roman society of his day. And an enlightened Roman like Cicero knew well enough that the Celtic Druids were not lacking in understanding and wisdom.

The Paganism found in these advanced tribal cultures was an honest and real religion. There was no place for deviance, debauchery and perversion in Pagan societies. Morality and ethics were most highly placed ideals. This certainly does not mean that the Pagans were inhibited like Christians, but it does mean that Pagans despised everything that was clearly abnormal and unnatural, including all deviance and perversion. Pagans were generally satisfied with enjoying normal indulgences naturally.

Two factors have historically clouded our view of the Paganism of our tribal European ancestors. First, some Roman propagandists were not averse to distorting information, or even inventing information, about the tribal peoples of Europe in order to disparage them. And it often happened that the only real contact that the Greeks and Romans had with tribal peoples was through their warriors. Warriors of any nation always have a natural tendency to be particularly uninhibited and usually tend to be somewhat peripheral to their societies; this is just a natural fact of being a warrior. But it was often assumed that the ways and mores of these warriors were representative of those of their entire societies.

In Oswald Spengler’s view (The Decline of the West), the beginning of a full-fledged civilization represents the end of a culture’s development. According to this view, from the time that a culture transitions into a civilization, its cultural (qualitative) development will – if it does not cease altogether – diminish in inverse proportion to the increase in its material (quantitative) development. This means that for as long as a civilization endures, it also inevitably declines culturally and spiritually to some extent, and this leads to the emergence and growth of countless ills, errors and wrongs.

All civilizations have a tendency to overextend themselves. This is seen especially in the singularly extensive conquests of Alexander the Great (who may be seen as a real life manifestation of Icarus and Phaethon of Greek myth). It was also the case with the Romans after they overcame Carthage as a result of the Punic Wars. In the modern period, it is seen with the era of immoderate Western imperialism during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (as opposed to the moderate colonization that had preceded this).

The Greek and Roman Civilizations that flourished so grandly on material levels also steadily declined in terms of culture and spirituality. Even before theses civilizations attained their zeniths, they had started to become decadent and corrupt, and as they waxed ever more greatly, their citizens became more and more demoralized, debauched and perverted. Like modern Western Civilization, these advanced civilizations of antiquity were increasingly liberal, hedonistic and multicultural.

Because of the undeniable cultural and spiritual decline of the Greek and Roman Civilizations, the once-healthy Paganism of the ancestors of the civilized Greeks and Romans rapidly became a degenerate and perverse Paganism. This is seen in many elements of Greco-Roman Paganism, such as the Roman Bacchanalia festival. And it explains why the Gods and Goddesses of the Greeks and Romans were portrayed as somewhat foolish beings indulging in various questionable deeds and behaviors.

The increasingly degenerate and perverse nature of Paganism encouraged many in the Greek and Roman Civilizations to turn to mystery cults, many of which originated in decadent Middle Eastern regions (such as Phrygia). The mystery cults of antiquity can be compared to modern deviant subcultures such as the homosexual subculture and the rave subculture. Mystery cults such as the Dionysian Mysteries first appeared in Greece; they subsequently appeared in Rome after the Roman Conquest of Greece in the second century BC. The growth of increasingly uninhibited mystery cults prompted reactions against their excesses and evils, including legislative attempts at restricting the mystery cults, or rational philosophies like Stoicism. Ultimately, Christianity appeared from this confused mess as an essentially anti-mystery-cult mystery cult i.e. an extremely inhibited mystery cult that opposed the extremely uninhibited nature of other mystery cults.

Unfortunately, this distorted and diseased Paganism with its mystery cults is the kind of Paganism that has always informed the classic Christian view of all Paganism. Christians have consistently refused to consider the healthy and normal Paganism of the tribal Europeans on its own merits. Since the beginning and to this day, the Christians have always insisted on viewing all non-Christian religions through the lens of the sick and twisted Greco-Roman Paganism.

[In a recent post on the Council of European Canadians website (http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2016/06/multiculturalism-idol-of-our-time.html), the “Rev. Russell Haynes” (lmao) expressed his belief that the modern evil of Multiculturalism is due to a resurgence of Paganism in association with Globalism and Cultural Marxism. He would have been right if he had specified “degenerate Greco-Roman Paganism”.]

Two Christianities

Primitive Christianity arose as a consequence of the shame, guilt and resentment of its earliest members, all of whom were disaffected Jews. The very essence of the Primitive Christian movement was an attempt to transform the shame, guilt and resentment of its practitioners into a form of redeeming spirituality, particularly through various kinds of mystical escapism and self-denial.

From the very beginning, Christianity was a movement intended to empower all pathetic, contemptible and inferior people. It was the religion of resentment par excellence against all who are truly noble, virtuous and superior.

Christianity was designed to attract all of the weak, the sick and the stupid by making them believe that their weakness, their sickness and their stupidity were blessings, and that God loved them and favored them because of their weakness, their sickness and their stupidity.

Christianity thus turned weakness, sickness and stupidity into practically virtuous attributes while redefining real strength, health and intelligence as essentially evil. At the same time, the weak, the sick and the stupid were practically guaranteed salvation and eternal life, while the strong, the healthy and the intelligent were generally considered damned and hell-bound.

The more a people are demoralized, the more they will tend to accept and embrace a foreign religion that differs from their own ancestral religion. This was the case in later Roman times, when Primitive Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire. It has also been the case in modern times, with the spread of Modernism.

The redemptive guise of Primitive Christianity made it very popular with the demoralized and disadvantaged masses of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was full of pathetic, contemptible and inferior people. There was certainly no shortage of such types who would be drawn to the Good News of salvation for the weak, the sick and the stupid. This explains the relatively rapid spread of Primitive Christianity among the masses. And as the higher classes became increasingly demoralized with the continued decay and decline of the Roman Empire, they too found Primitive Christianity increasingly acceptable.

There were also many cunning philosophers in the Roman Empire who profoundly despised the time-honored traditions of the Ancient World and who were only too keen to use their intellectual sophistry in the service of a religion that aimed to subvert the traditions of the Ancient World. These shrewd proponents of mystical delusion became what are called the Christian “Church Fathers”.

There have been some thinkers who believed that the spread and growth of Christianity was the principal cause of the decline of the Roman Empire. In fact, the spread and growth of Christianity was facilitated by the decline of the Roman Empire. As the Roman Empire became increasingly decadent, its growing weakness allowed the rapid infection of the Christian pathology to spread and eventually to flourish. If anything, Christianity only accelerated the already occurring process of the decline of the Roman Empire.

Yet, at the same time, the gradual adoption of Christianity by the Roman upper classes and its eventual legalization caused a significant degree of transformation in Christianity. Certainly by the time it became the official Roman state religion (in 392 AD), Christianity was no longer only an expression of the resentment of the weak, the sick and the stupid.

When it became the official Roman religion, Christianity necessarily accommodated the strong, the healthy and the intelligent, while also keeping the Gospel of the weak, the sick and the stupid to keep the masses content. This is how what had been Primitive Christianity was radically transformed into Traditional European Christianity.

Late Roman Christianity was further transformed in this direction in early medieval times when it incorporated the Germanic peoples into its fold. The proud Germanic peoples still had strong and healthy noble classes who could never be inclined to tolerate a morality based on the resentment of weak, sick and stupid people.

(On the transformation from Primitive Christianity to Traditional European Christianity, I highly recommend The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity by James C. Russell.)

The Traditional European Christianity that existed from Late Roman to Early Modern times may be described as a synthesis of the original Gospel of the weak, the sick and the stupid with the superior moral systems of the Romans and of the Germanic peoples. The former religion remained as a succor for all of the pathetic, contemptible and inferior peasants within Christendom, while the latter was indispensable for the noble classes.

Traditional European Christianity suited the White European peoples inasmuch as it corresponded with the Traditional European values found in the Pagan Religions of their pre-Christian tribal ancestors. Fortunately, it was the Traditional European elements in Traditional European Christianity which generally prevailed over the Primitive Christian elements that were retained. But the Primitive Christian elements could potentially always serve as a means to undermine Traditional European Christianity.

The Reformation in the 16th century represents the beginning of a resurgence of the original Christian Gospel of the weak, the sick and the stupid against the Traditional European values of the strong, the healthy and intelligent. The typically Protestant obsession with returning to the original values of Primitive Christianity is an expression of the desire of resentful people to restore the Gospel of the weak, the sick and the stupid and to eliminate the superior morality of the noble classes.

This resurgence of the original Christian Gospel influenced the Enlightenment, which eventually led to the French Revolution, this being the greatest single outbreak of anti-traditionalism in all of human history. Since then, the views and values of Primitive Christianity have increasingly prevailed in modern society. Every revolution from the French Revolution of 1789 through the Russian Revolution of 1917 to the NGO-sponsored color revolutions of recent years has been derived from the sore feelings of the disaffected and disadvantaged and has contributed to the growth and expansion of Modern Liberalism.

Modern Liberalism corresponds largely to a secular version of Primitive Christianity. Like Primitive Christianity, Modern Liberalism is based on an attempt to mitigate feelings of shame, guilt and resentment. The Primitive Christian origins of Modern Liberal values such as egalitarianism, tolerance, multiculturalism and globalism are plainly obvious (see Matthew 28:19 and Galatians 3:28). Modern Liberalism is truly the victory of Primitive Christianity.

Conclusion

Of the two forms of Paganism described above, the tribal Paganism of our pre-Roman and pre-Christian European ancestors is clearly the favorable one. Only modern deviants and degenerates who falsely claim to be Pagan could look with favor on the debauchery and perversion of Greco-Roman Paganism.

Of the two forms of Christianity, Traditional European Christianity is preferable inasmuch as it largely represents a continuation of pre-Christian European values even despite its retention of Primitive Christian elements. But it is and always has been compromised by these Primitive Christian elements.

Christianity truly is like a Trojan Horse for the White Race. It is my opinion that Christianity must be rejected altogether by racially-aware White people. Nothing that belongs particularly to Christianity is truly beneficial to the White Race. Everything in Christianity that is particularly Christian is favorable to all the worst kinds of people, and is therefore detrimental to the White Race, not to mention the fact that it is derived from Jewish thinking and is therefore especially favorable to the Jews.

The fact that Christianity is of Jewish origin should never be ignored or minimized. No one should ever dismiss the fact that the Christian Old Testament is the Jewish Bible. No one should ever deny the fact that all of the important (fictional) characters in the Christian New Testament are Jewish (as followers of Christian Identity actually do). The Jewish origin of Christianity is crucial to properly understanding the original nature and purpose of Christianity. Whether or not they recognize it, all who call themselves Christians are serving the Jewish agenda.

In my view, racially-aware Whites who cling to Christianity simply don’t properly understand what they’re clinging to. It’s quite understandable that they wish to retain something which they consider to be of crucial importance to their spiritual wellbeing. But what they fail to realize is that the values of the Traditional Christianity that they cherish so much are not specifically Christian values. In fact, they are either primarily Traditional European values or exclusively Traditional European values. It is a great shame that Traditional European values have been so thoroughly associated with the Christian name that people fail to recognize their true non-Christian origin.

The only religion that truly suits us as White people is the Traditional European religion of our tribal Pagan ancestors. Traditional European religion is the only religion that fully celebrates strength, health, beauty and intelligence and that fully encourages us to embrace these without shame, without guilt and without resentment. Traditional European religion is the only religion that can foster genuine morality, genuine ethics and genuine understanding in us. Traditional European religion is the only religion that will give us a proper sense of justice, a proper sense of honor and a proper sense of pride. And it is my contention that only Traditional European religion can save the White Race from the extinction that currently threatens it.