Toward a New Barbarism, Part II

 

I said before that we need a new religion. I stick by this. Christianity is a clear problem for us in multiple ways. The most obvious is that it’s overly Semitized. The very blank criticism leveled at it as a desert Jewish religion is not entirely wrong. While it was to a degree Hellenized and Germanized in practice, we see it has been still entirely weak and subject to Jewish subversion in the course of the past hundred and some years.

The first Christian movements to be subverted were the obvious Judaizing movements, which were emulating Jews from the get-go or at a point when an influential church head decided to split with tradition. Most of the popular Judaizing movements in the English-speaking world and Western Europe as well really started in the past hundred and fifty years. Christian Zionism and the Scofield Bible were funded by Jews, epitomized by one Samuel Untermeyer but it was really a collection of New York banking Jews who bankrolled CI Scofield in the 1880s as Zionism was starting to get off the ground, because they (Theodor Herzl et al – early Zionist organizers) saw that organizing Jewry alone was not enough. They needed to undermine resistance to Zionism and, if possible, get gentiles on-board with the project.

If you go back further, the early enlightenment was filled with shitbirds. Freemasonry and the Illuminati were compromised from the start. They were always operating on behalf of Jewry, on Jewish principles, period end of story. There were good Freemasons; I’m not the type of person who believes all lodges and all members were initiated into subversion. Clearly that’s not the case. For a lot of members, it was basically just a social club, the type of thing you joined if you were ambitious or church didn’t appeal or was insufficient. Those people were the bottom four-fifths of the structure, loosely, and were occasionally tested, vetted, and pushed up the ranks if they were loyal into the subversive (upper) power structure.

If you have a society that organizes on that basis, you have completely undermined any reaction to Jewish power. At the end of the day, the most powerful lodges seek to be the queer modern Hiram Abiff, which means being the best Shabbos goys and sucking Jewish cock (because that is what is demanded implicitly by the whole ideology from the kabbalah to liberal enlightenment nonsense). As good, tolerant liberal enlightenment figures, they allowed Jews to infest all positions in society and impose Jewish rules wherever they went, which meant Jews started hiring each other and signal boosting each other. It was subtle at first until it wasn’t, but you couldn’t say anything. After all, we’re liberals and liberals don’t talk about shit like that. This has been a problem in the US since the 1910s, and in Britain since the 1850s and ‘60s. I’m sure France had a similar problem with Jews historically around the same time as Britain (i.e. before the Dreyfus Affair).

The other early Judaizing elements were outgrowths of Freemasonry and of the Second Great Awakening in the US. This includes both Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons (Latter Day Saints), both of which formed between the 1840s and 1860s. Mormonism is almost explicitly Masonic in nature, incorporating a wide range of Masonic symbols and overtures into its rituals and even including some of the Masonic legends into its own mythology. Seventh Day Adventists formed after the failure of an end-time prophecy. They joined a wave of Biblical fundamentalists who wanted to follow Mosaic Law to the extent that the Seventh Day Adventists changed their ‘Sabbath’ to Saturday and do the kashrut or kosher bit. The Unitarian church is almost not worth mentioning since they are ridiculously heretical, hardly Christian, and now don’t seem to believe anything.

How was Christianity so weak to this influence? Anything which isn’t guarded specifically against Jewish infiltration is potentially weak to it. One must spell it out in the words of the religion and its customs, lest one’s future children come under outsider spells; Jews are not to be trusted, outsiders are not to be trusted either. Both are to be looked upon wearily. Anti-Semitism is not a sin, and is not a meaningful term outside of that which is against Jewish interests. The problem is that our people lack esoteric initiation and deep understanding of these things and can be led by the nose by moral and social manipulations.

The other deep problem is the whole Semitic undercurrent of Christianity. You can’t get away from, as I discuss [later], the esoteric aspect of Judaism and of the Old Testament. So many of the characters in the Old Testament are basically stand-ins for Jewry and are shown prevailing against their enemy in spectacular fashion, or else subjugating gentiles. They’re not heroic tales like the great European canon. Those heroic tales spoke of race and blood to a degree but spoke more of great deeds, even if they were partly mythologized versions of something real. In contrast, the OT is a purely mythical telling, part instruction manual and part propaganda piece. If you take it to heart, you will want to become a Jew by the end of reading it, or at the least be a turbo-philosemite.

Given the past hundred years, this is the exact opposite of what we need. We don’t need more nebbishes or more Judaizing hogwash in our culture. You could purge all of the Judaizing shit with fire and nothing of value would be lost. If we were to include any aspects of Christianity other than icons, the vague trappings, and maybe aesthetics – it would be a few books like psalms, proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the synoptic gospels, Galatians, Corinthians, Colossians, John, Titus, and Revelation. You would have to stick the Protocols of Zion in there somewhere though*. You also have to stick the Eddas, Burgundian Saga (Nibelungenlied), Saxon Chronicle(s), and the Vedas in there.

* Addendum: I think that the conventional take on the Protocols is more or less true. They're forgeries or hoaxes, but it's probably based on something real. That is to say that a cabal formed from the representative heads of Eastern European Jewry probably did meet on some regular basis between at least 1700 and 1920. They might have never stopped. What they discussed is probably nothing that can be wrapped up as neatly as the Protocols, but the Protocols hits their broad strategic aims, some of their tactics, and their tone or how they view the world outside of the Jewish people. So while these minutes are not strictly accurate to what the cabal would have said, it condenses their meetings into a rough general picture that seems in retrospect to have been fairly accurate and probably too accurate to have been accidental.

I like this path personally. We can keep the Gothic, Baroque, and Neo-classical architecture. We can keep the stained glass and icons. We can do all that because the understanding of Jesus changes from a living being who was savior of the Jewish people first, then all man second, to a mythic archetype who represents God or if you like Brahman incarnate. Jesus is a great story but the historicity argument is entirely beside the point; read the New Testament and if you don’t feel something, I don’t know what to tell you. That isn’t the only path, but it is my preferred path. It keeps the stories of our people as canon, to be passed through the ages, and purges most of the Semitic propaganda elements which most hobble Christianity.

You have two alternatives to the philosemite’s interpretation. In its deep mythology, meaning, and especially when you consider the overlap between different fields of research like archaeology, genetics, and textual analysis like I’ll do here, the philosemite is correct on the face. That is a problem that is difficult to overcome on its face. The first alternative we could dub the Christian Identity one. They posit that Europeans were the real Jews, the real people chosen by God, and the Semitic rats who claim to be Jews are larping. It has all sorts of problems in terms of linguistics, textual analysis, and archaeology, but it’s a narrative that is basically foolproof to Jewish subversion. I firmly believe that victory is truth and that which helps our people is true as well, and if Christian Identity helps some of our people, I give it my blessing for whatever that counts.

The second alternative is the historical one, a variation of which most churches before modernity subscribed to – that is, Christendom is the new Israel, the Jews renounced God, and Israel is now basically an ideal or per Augustin a City on a Hill, but it is not an actual place tied to the present Jewish people. Most Churches softened on this, and softened on the Jews. Before 1800, it was common to see Churches hurl accusations of Judaizing at one another. The Lutherans accused the Catholics of it, and vice versa; both accused various splinter sects like Baptists and Quakers of Judaizing. At some point in the 1800s, all of that stops or begins to hush, the Churches began to soften on rhetoric against Jews, and between 1900 and 1950 a lot of churches were embracing dual covenant theology. The Lutheran Church and the Catholic Church were perhaps two of the longest holdouts other than the national Orthodox churches, but the Lutheran Church was broken after WW2 by the victors of the war, and the Catholic Church was hobbled by the Shoah narrative and by their own gradual softening that they too caved and basically have embraced dual covenant theology.

What is the lesson of the historical approach? Well, who runs the Churches matters quite a lot. The same as who runs states matters quite a lot. They were clearly all under pressure of various sorts – threats (legal or illegal), blackmail, bribes, and so forth – because you can’t really explain this united liberal front happening otherwise. Liberalism doesn’t just “happen.” There isn’t some great unified consciousness of humanity which grows closer toward plutocratic liberalism with every waking minute. What happens is that plutocratic power wraps its tools in liberal guises and everyone pretends as though we live in a free world of spontaneous action and the invisible hand. To wit, there is no underlying support for any of these reforms, there are no “grassroots” movements in the various Christian faiths and denominations to liberalize them. All of the movements which do come from below (i.e. from the bottom 90% of the power structure, AKA the heel of the boot) are agitating primarily to turn churches back to what they used to be.

There is a great sense of loss of tradition, and rather than even be allowed to organize small counter-liberal movements, most of those people are smeared in the press and anathematized. The Catholic Church of 1200 was probably almost as money-hungry as the Church of 200 years later, but at least that Church (of 1200) was concerned with its parishioners and their souls. They did enforce a great deal of uniformity of practice, and of thought or at least expression of thought, but they at least wanted the good of the flock. The same isn’t true of the plutocratic rulers of the Current Year, who want to degrade the masses whom they control, and their control is every bit as tight as the old Church if not more so; and by its bad faith and ill intent, arguably infinitely more odious. 

Turns out the invisible hand has puppeteers, and the puppeteers have hook noses.

 

American English is a pidgin dialect. It grew from a fusion of regional English dialects, which became separated in the colonial landscape, and then in the course of the 1900s it changed further as a result of power processes which integrated black Americans into the social mainstream. The primary regional dialects were East Anglian and Yorkshirer for the northern half of the country and mostly Ulster-Scots and Northumbrian for Southerners. Integrating black Americans into the social mainstream quickly, in the middle course of the century, led to increasing their social status to the point where by the 1970s and 1980s the media status balance had shifted, and within a generation the general socio-cultural balance had similarly shifted.

That is to say, as part of the course of the perverted Nietzschean transvaluation of all values niggers became the social betters to Europeans.

In this essay, I shall examine some of the words which have made their way into the American English pidgin as a result of this process. I shall also look into the exact manner in which this happened and the social consequences. I have consulted a wide array of experts – diviners, augurs, and philologists – to try to cut through the mysteries.

The first – “based.” Its use in the hypermodern niggerized sense first came up from the rapper Lil B, otherwise known as “Based God.” When it appears in the world of blacks, “base” and its varied forms are associated with cocaine, originally from the term “freebasing.” He claims he was reclaiming the word from its association with crack [citation needed]. In actual English, “based” would refer to the beginning or foundation of something, be it a story or structure (‘a tale based on a deeper truth’); “base” could also refer to alkali substances, something lowly or debauched, or a home or start point. (Appears first c. 2013)

The second – “lil” or “l’il.” This is a typical nigger slur where they struggle to pronounce the middle strong alveolar and so contract the word “little” which in American English is usually pronounced with the soft alveolar “li-ddle.” (Appears first c. 1880, in popular culture much later though around 1990)

The third – “jazz” and any phrase with it. Jazz is a clear example of a nigger word. The music itself was started by combining the phrasing of ragtime with the niggerish feel of blues, set in the backdrop of Prohibition-era America. There were battles between actual musicians and niggers high on heroin and other drugs; the former would pioneer swing, bebop, and fusion, and the latter would pioneer free jazz and so-called avant-garde and other nonsense. Good things can come out of this weird and degenerate tension. I would say that there is some worthwhile jazz and some worthwhile rock and metal music, but most of it could be thrown into the dustbin of history and our folk would not miss anything. (Appears first c. 1915)

The fourth – “bae.” “Bae” is the word a nigger high on lean utters instead of “babe” which was already something which began to be uttered among white couples under influence of the increasingly niggerized culture of the ‘20s, ‘30s, and ‘40s. Even the second weak affricative “b” sound becomes burdensome to the bestial negro who, uttering “bae” and sipping lean, has dragged white America into their pit of chthonic despair at the behest of the international Jew. (Appears first 2013)

The fifth – “twerk[ing]” and all similar negro sexual dance rituals. The word “twerk” like most of the names of negro dances is not something sensible or evocative, but a bastardized sound (or set of sounds) meant to convey the lowly and degenerate. Unlike ballroom dances which displayed baroque elegance, or jazz dancing which displayed a sort of manic energy, the modern dance, of which twerking is emblematic and perhaps the apex, devolves into an unveiled sexual ritual. Broads display their goods to the male nigger such that the male nigger is driven by the excitement of the overtly sexual tease into a higher energy state. This excitement demands that they must expend that energy either sexually or violently to get back to a lower energy equilibrium state. This type of ritual is completely alien to Europeans biologically and spiritually, but it has nonetheless manifest here in the Current Year. (Appear first in white West between 1990-2005)

The sixth – “woke” and “basic.” Rather than use these words in their normal, dare I say white sense, the nigger uses “woke” and “basic” to further black power. “Woke” means someone who is aware of and/or advancing black interests fundamentally. “Basic” means someone who is not adhering to the bylaws of nigger or Jew status games, be it aesthetically or what. (“Woke” first appears in 1942, doesn’t enter common currency until about 2008-2010; “basic” first appears 2013)

The seventh – “homegirl/homeboy.” As near as I can tell, this just means fellow blacks who aren’t in jail, or fellow gang members. As with much black speech, to use the word speech loosely, it has a very weird ambiguity to it. (Appears first in 1960s/’70s)

The eighth – “rap/hip-hop” and other latter day nigger music. Neither the word “rap” as applied to the music nor “hip-hop” nor any of their other musical terms make the slightest hint of sense. That isn’t really the point though, and most black culture is not intended to be highly intellectual or spiritually resplendent creations. They reflect the average black and to a large degree even the outlier black well; materialistic, vain, and fame-hungry for its own sake. (Most of these terms appear in 1960s-‘80s)

The ninth – “ho” – a niggerized slurring of “whore.” Saying the full word is challenging to the nigger tongue, as many words are; only the ascended ape in a suit can muster to the challenge of surpassing the hurdle of pronouncing such difficult words. The street ape says “ho” to refer to women generally, to his own [whore], or to actual whores. Only emphasis or context will belie the connotation.

The tenth – “finna” – a contraction of “going to” or its particular Southern variant, “fixin’ to” but without any grammatical structure. The American ‘groid dialect is based on Deep Southern dialects, regardless of whether they migrated in the course of the so-called Great [Ape] Migrations north- or westward.

I could go on, but I believe these suffice to show what I was trying to show – American English has had since the 1920s and ‘30s an increasing ingress of black words. Even if they are English root words, the nigger twists the known meaning into something alien and really retarded. Most of these terms entered common use between roughly 1985 and 2015. The Americans of even two generations ago spoke a far less bastardized, far less pidginized form of English than we do today – yet even then Knut Hamsun made his famous remarks vis-à-vis America being a stud farm for mulattoes in the 1880s and fled back to Norway due to the spiritual sickness of this place.

Compare the view of blacks in the early 1910s and ‘20s with the silent film, Birth of a Nation or even the ‘30s film, Gone with the Wind to the ‘40s film Casablanca. In Casablanca, a nevertheless good film, blacks and Arabs are depicted favorably as against the Aryan soldiers and political envoys of the Third Reich. This is striking. Even if the main baboon role is largely as a jazz nigger pianist, he is presented more favorably than Aryan soldiers! The Jew is presented as a poor victim as well, almost to presage muh holobunga. Of course it was war propaganda, but the hypermodern dipshit often can’t understand that.

You can observe decade-by-decade the sliding scale of influence. As the influence of capital grew – which is to say great plutocrats a disproportion of whom are Jewish, and the gentiles often operate as Shabbos-goys in Freemasonic lodges - you saw opinion on racial and cultural outsiders soften. Then as the influence of black entertainment in the form of jazz and films and plays with blacks in them surged in the ‘30s, ‘40s, and ‘50s, this opinion softened even further. This happened in the midst of a general campaign in the press and academy as the ‘30s wound down to discredit scientific racialism and tie it and the eugenics movement to the war-time enemies. The campaign then broadened to become a guilt campaign, to smear everyone in the West for alleged crimes in the so-called holocaust (!) and for other alleged historical failings.

The reality is that of all peoples, Aryans have arguably the most storied record. By contrast, the halls of the ancestors for the blacks echo with nothing (arguably they don’t even have halls to their ancestors). The stories of Jewish history are largely fabricated or exaggerated. A “holocaust” is a sacrificial offering, the esoteric implication being there that “six million Jews” were sacrificed to Molech to permit the creation of Zion. Nowhere in this reading do we find it necessarily true that all of these six million died; indeed, most of them did not. They simply left Europe, some of them losing their possessions in the process, which to the Jew is akin to a blood sacrifice.

Thus the “Shoah” is a modern myth; perhaps as many as 1.2 million Jews died in all, mostly of typhus and starvation, some of anti-partisan actions or during military actions to contain ghetto uprisings. It is likely that none were gassed, the so-called “extermination camps” in the east of Poland which came under Soviet control after the war did not exist or had functions other than exterminating prisoners, and of course we find repeated instances of the six million number invoked in the press as early as the 1880s referring to the peril of the Jewish people in what amounted to Zionist propaganda. Even if the Shoah were half-truth and three million were gassed or shot to death in murder camps, I would shout from the rooftops its falsity, because it is of critical importance to our history that we develop a historical narrative separate from the [Jewish-cosmopolitan] Western history canon of the past 50 years which is essentially a European demoralization project.

Why is this important? Politics are downstream from culture is a modern conservative or “right-wing” truism. I think it’s credited to Breitbart but it might predate him. It’s actually not true. Culture is downstream from power generally speaking in the Current Year. 300 years ago, you had organic low culture independent of power centers. Because of mass media and industrial society, that organic low culture is largely dead. When a cabal of Jews and a few Shabbos goys dictate that the popular culture is going to go some way, it’s going to go that way. Culture has gone exactly where they have decided for all of the past hundred years, in a slow erasure of European vitalism by injecting alien elements, largely by niggerizing and Judaizing it.

America was the cultural laboratory after the failure of Weimar Germany, if you like a second attempt at Weimar which so far has exceeded the first. It has been exported everywhere. Similar to how denazification started in post-war Germany and was exported everywhere else, or how the modern globohomo intelligence-social control apparatus came to be through the combination of post-war media control, kompromat rings, and experiments like MK ULTRA and the PHOENIX PROJECT. Those things also have been exported everywhere because these are tools of the domination of world Jewry.

The nigger is merely something used to degrade a target. When injected in cultural terms, the nigger drags one down from sunward striving to the earthbound. As I’ve said before, it’s the difference between the Apollonian and Chthonic, where the archetypal Aryan is the former and the archetypal nigger is the latter. Almost comedically so. When injected in physical terms, the nigger is an invader and destroyer, a looter and thief. They are actually not that frightening on their own and are easily quelled and controlled. But, as we can see from the past 80 years, we do not run our own societies, and thus we do not dictate what happens to us within our own lands, let alone what Ausländer – Outlanders – do in these lands, as that is in the hands of the plutocratic elite. The end is to degrade and destroy. Thus you have the nigger Outlander thrown into your midst while your hands are bound behind your back and your family are trained to see the nigger as something between an amusing minstrel, a tragic “just like you and me” every man, the cultural icon, and a vengeful god figure.

Tellingly, most Jews do not view blacks as cultural icons. Most elites period do not view blacks as cultural icons. This is for the sheep to degrade themselves. Ape a nigger long enough, and you will become an ape. You will become the sodomite apeling you long to be. If boomers were spiritual Jews, the hypermodern youth (millennials/gen Y, gen Z) are spiritual niggers. Boomers may have had some say in this, though their spiritual formation was still largely in the hands of their parents and the general cultural milieu, but the hypermodern youth are hopelessly adrift and many of them will not recover. They are essentially dead to the world.

How do we cure this? The first is to overcome any drive for a “world culture.” That drive is disease. All low culture is local or it is fake and the product of elite machinations. Of course by “low” culture I am not disparaging it, it is merely the culture of the bottom 75-80% of society in material and social terms. “High” culture is explicitly elite culture, it’s stuff either made by elites or by their patronage directly. 200 years ago, one could easily point to low and high culture, each with good or degenerate aspects. Now, pointing to either separately is harder, but the “low” culture now is basically mass consumer shit and “high” culture is mostly performance art and the exhibit pieces that are used for money laundering. It’s amusing that the modern plutocrat classes can’t separate art from market advantage and money, and much of the modern art landscape is a function of tasteless elites who need places to park money to hedge against inflation, launder money, and evade currency controls.