The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRaches' Political Proems
Christianity Is Misogyny
—and feminism. And feminism is also misogyny.
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search TextOpen All Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

This is the head of a holy statue of Aphrodite, as desecrated by degenerate Christian blasphemers:

Aphrodite, the Goddess of Sex, was sometimes respectfully called by the epithet of Ἀφροδίτη Ἑταίρα, Aphrodite Hetaera, ‘Aphrodite the Courtesan’—or even called Ἀφροδίτη Πόρνη, Aphrodite Porne, ‘Aphrodite the Prostitute’ (e.g., Ath. XIII.31).  The Greek root πόρνη gives us the English word pornography, via French, < πορνογράφος, πορνεία ‘prostitution’ + γράφω ‘I depict’.

Andrew Anglin, a Christian par excellence, is an exemplary specimen of the Christian worldview and the Christian spirit:

[Andrew Anglin. “Further Proof That Women are Disgusting Sex Perverts Who Must be Sanctioned by the State”. (Archive.) Daily Stormer, September 6, 2017.]

All things women are involved in involve some kind of gross sexual perversion.


Even having been recently punished for her perverted ways, the woman sneaks down to the basement to her stash of electronic sex toys.

The biggest lie in the universe is that women are sexually innocent. They are biologically evolved to promote this image of themselves, specifically to hide the fact that they are twisted sex perverts, the lot of them. What’s more, men are evolved to be blind to this sexual sickness in women, because at one point in history it was beneficial for men to not have to think about just how sick these bitches actually are.

The entire existence of the human female revolves around sexual derangement.

The only thing that can control this is a strong state, or legalized beatings.


Even having been recently punished for her perverted ways, the woman peeks out the window to see if there is some twisted sex act she might engage in.

Christianity is the first and greatest Jewish controlled-opposition movement; in that aspect, it has thoroughly duped Mr. Anglin, and all Christian “antisemites”.  And considering Christianity in itself, Christian “antisemitism” is the final consequence of Judaism—not in a way that the Christians would like to admit; cf. Nietzsche’s The Antichrist, #24.

And the above juxtaposition of imagery is perfectly logical.  Christianity inherited from Judaism the misogyny best symbolized by the recycling of Adam’s rib, and exponentiates it through the Christian notion that said rib transmitted to all mankind the stain of Original Sin.  Even the Jews are not so hateful!  The Christians closed the trap in the moment they declared that the only sinless woman was conceived without sexual pleasure (!), and remained anatomically a virgin even after she gave birth (!!).  (N.b. that Protestants generally retain the latter doctrine—whilst increasing their misogyny from their obsession with the Jewish Bible, and by rejecting natively European “pagan” elements that the Catholics had absorbed.)  By iron logic, that line of thought leads here:

What else is woman but a foe to friendship, an unescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic danger, a delectable detriment, an evil of nature, painted with fair colors!

Christians who may claim that I chose a bad representative of their cult should perpend that that quote from the Malleus Maleficarum is the distilled essence of the creed first propounded a millennium earlier by Augustine, et al.—and even earlier in substantial parts of the Christian scriptures.  Do you really want to incite me to go about proving that the Fathers of the Church were Andrew Anglin in vulgar Latin, who essentially viewed women as evil witches?

Anyway, in evaluating not the minutia of theological abstractions, but people’s basic outlooks, methinks the above juxtaposition of pictures said more than the proverbial thousand words.

Equal and Opposite Errors • 600 Words

Ancient Greece was a strict family-values society, which regarded Hera, the goddess of marital fidelity, as the Queen of the Gods.  People whose minds have been rotted by over sixteen centuries of Christianity cannot comprehend a Weltanschauung so alien to them.  How could the highly cultured, conservative Greeks worship one of their other major goddesses by, in effect, respectfully calling her a whore?

Furthermore, Greek society was aristocratic, hierarchical, masculine, and patriarchal.  That last word, like the word “misogyny”, has been so distorted by feminists as to evoke misunderstandings; in effect, feminists use both words to mean “disagrees with feminists”.  I mean both words in their respective proper senses.  Misogyny is hatred of women—a crime committed by the feminists, who hate healthy, feminine women.  And as I will explain presently, patriarchy is not “oppression”.

The flipside of the Christians, their mirror image of equal and opposite errors, consists of the feminists, the left-wing “neopagan” hippies, and that pseudoscholarly fantasist Robert Graves and his disciples.  They would all suffer nervous breakdowns, if ever they were honestly to contemplate the attested goddesses of classical antiquity, rather than play make-believe about the times then and before.

Contrast the Homeric Weltanschauung.  The words that I have declared are “the ‘בראשית’ of Western literature”:  “μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ”—‘wrath, o goddess sing’.  Although that wrath is said to bring grief, it is the wrath of a great hero—a manly hero—and it is celebrated accordingly.  The story quickly finds a promise by a “blue-eyed” goddess, Athena Pallas, to Achilles, that he would be compensated for the wrongful seizure of his rightful war prize Briseis (Hom. Il. I.188 ff.), whom he had seized first fair and square.  This is followed by Achilles’ mother, a minor goddess, appealing to the King of the Olympian Gods to avenge her son for the same said injustice (Id., I.493 ff.).  Philologists should perpend the history of the word “rape”:  Its antecedents had subtly, but decisively different cultural implications compared to modern usage.

Equal and opposite errors make it difficult, and even dangerous to discuss these issues in public.  If you hail the goddesses of antiquity, hoi polloi will associate you with Graves’ feminist delusions of “Goddess religion”.  If you speak honestly of Aphrodite, hoi polloi will mistake you for a third-wave “sex-positive” feminist and/or a dirty Jew pervert.  If you dare to mention some of the politically incorrect facts about the rôles of women in the ancient world, hoi polloi will associate you with Anglin’s misogynist Christian delusions, and bin you as criminal-minded scum who wants to rape and beat women.  Every which way, I can only take it as proof that, as Nietzsche observed, “Every one being allowed to learn to read, ruineth in the long run not only writing but also thinking.”

These errors are systematic and endemic.  Cf. the infinite stupidity with which the Wikipravda perplexes itself over the Aryan Hindu Laws of Manu:  “Manusmriti offers an inconsistent and internally conflicting perspective on women’s rights.”  No, honey:  There only thing “inconsistent and internally conflicting” is you, who view other cultures through the distorted lens of your own Christianized worldview, the cultural residues of which produced the mental disease of feminism.

Christian Cultural Schizophrenia • 700 Words

For one who was born and raised in the modern world, the mind of antiquity is indeed alien.  So-called “Western culuture” does not have continuity between the Graeco-Roman world and the world of today.  For “Western culture” of today is a pseudomorphosis, the distortion of European culture by Christianity—by a death-cult which arose as proletarian agitation by the dregs of Jewish society, took the essential structure of a Judaized Zoroastrianism, rose to power amongst the decadent urban liberal classes, and devolved into a sui generis cult of hate which defies rational description.

To the extent that anything good came of “Christian” culture, it arose from the natively European cultural substrate on which Christianity was overlaid.  Observe that medieval Christian art was barely above the level of African tribal “art”—and that starting with the Renaissance, all of the best art was Graeco-Roman in form; much of it took as its subjects the gods and goddesses now called by the Christian slur-word “pagan”, and even nominally Christian art was Christian in name only.  Observe that much of the greatest “Christian” literature is essentially anti-Christian—an implicit, perhaps even a racially subconscious rebellion against Christianity; e.g., in Milton’s Paradise Lost, Satan has the soul of an ancient hero, corrupted in form into a Christian antihero and thus, a Christian villain.  Therein at the (in)famous I.253, is Milton making the character of a villain?  —Or is he expressing, perhaps subconsciously, his own tortured inner rebellion against the Christian Hell on Earth of his culture?

A mind not to be changed by place or time.
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less than he
Whom thunder hath made greater?  Here at least
We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure; and, in my choice,
To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

Ever since the days when Roman Christians smashed sacred statues (always a liberal obsession!), desecrated authentically Roman temples, scraped irreplaceable writings from vellum to replace them with drivel about Jesus (if they didn’t simply burn or trash them), showed the true meaning of Christian lovingkindness by scraping the living flesh from Hypatia’s body with oyster shells, Holohoaxed themselves into fits of righteousness with made-up stories about Christian martyrs, created prolific forgeries to support their lies (innumerable examples range from fake letters from Pontius Pilate, to fake correspondence between Seneca and Paul, et cetera, ad maximam nauseam), and otherwise behaved as the cultural inferiors of primaeval savages, European Christianity grew into a schizophrenic cultural mongrel of incompatible elements:  The truly Christian elements—which, with maybe one exception that is not hereby relevant, are despicable in total, without even the slightest hint of redeeming value—mixed with the Graeco-Roman and Germanic elements—which came before Christianity, which largely arise from racial instincts, and which are corrupted, distorted, suppressed, and in the long term, annihilated by Christianity.  Europeans are thus so muddled and befuddled that they cannot properly understand themselves in the present, let alone understand their distant ancestors.

Moreover, most of the ancient world is irretrievably lost—and as I have just noted, much of the destruction was deliberate.  The Christians memory-holed the world that came before them.  Contrary to popular misperceptions, all that we have now is a painstaking scholarly reconstruction from almost negligible remains.  The veracity of that reconstruction depends on the honesty of the scholars; verisimilitude is all too easy a substitute.  Whereas Professor Oliver frequently remarked, “Lying for the Lord is a normal exercise in piety.”

Westerners today tend to have the illusion—nay, the delusion—of cultural closeness with a world which is alien to their minds after more than sixteen centuries of intensive Christian brainwashing—which was almost entirely blotted out of existence—the remains of which are distorted through the Judaeo-Christian Pravda.

Apropos the subject hereof, Westerners cannot comprehend the deep respect, and even reverence with which ancient Western men treated the women whom they also tended to treat as possessable property.  Also, they cannot understand the following.

Make Love and War! • 500 Words

The aforementioned Athena Pallas was a war-goddess, whom one may expect to be harsh.  Lest you suppose that the winsome winner of the Golden Apple be any different in her attitude towards relationships, flip forward through the Graeco-Roman myths to find the most-beautiful Goddess of Sex, divine patroness of hetaerae and of prostitutes, blessing her mortal son to win himself a wife and a kingdom the old-fashioned way:  By waging war, killing his rival, and claiming the princess as his bride (Verg. A. VII–XII).

In the Iliad, Aphrodite personally intervened on the battlefield to protect her mortal son Aeneas.  In the Aeneid, Venus (= Aphrodite) seduced her husband Vulcan (= Hephaestus) (VIII.370–406), whom she had cuckolded with Aeneas’ mortal father, to make the armour that her bastard son needed so that he could better indulge his toxic masculine aggression.  Charms are her arms!  “Sensit laeta dolis et formae conscia coniunx.”  After trading amour for armour, of course, she must present the product of her husband’s hard labour to not-his-son:

Here, my son, my husband made this.  LOL.  Now, go forth and conquer to get the girl.  (Venus Presenting Aeneas with Armour Forged by Vulcan (1748), by Pompeo Batoni (1708–1787).  Liechtenstein, The Princely Collections, Inv.-No. GE163.  (I believe that this image is in the public domain in the United States, where The Unz Review is hosted.))

I have hereby moved from ancient art to post-Renaissance, pre-modern art, to show that the classical Weltanschauung did begin to revive from the Renaissance.  The revival was quite imperfect; it was undermined by the Christian fanaticism caused by the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Counter-Reformation, and the Wars of Religion; and it has been killed off by “modern ideas”.  But for awhile, the spirit of classical antiquity did begin to rise anew.

Now, let’s see what happens when the Goddess of Sex gives her blessing to toxic masculinity:

The Goddess of Sex loves violence. #ToxicMasculinity (Aeneas defeating Turnus (1688), by Luca Giordano (1634–1705).  Museo Nacional del Prado.)

Since the dear princess Lavinia would pretty much just have to marry the man who won this fight, that seems to be Venus’ idea of proper matchmaking.

Venus the Prostitute must have enjoyed quoting Nietzsche:

Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly.  [Thus Spake Zarathustra, “Old and Young Women”.]

According to the Romans’ foundational myths, the founder of Rome was descended from Venus via Aeneas, and was the son of Mars, the God of War—Mars, whom they worshipped as the patron god of Rome.

The same patterns are woven throughout the whole fabric of classical antiquity.

Contrary to the Jew-Freudian, Cultural Marxist Big Lie, a healthy, non-degenerate release of sexual repressions increases aggressiveness.  The organism is enervated by either of the equal and opposite errors of repression or perversion.

Contrary to the Christian moralists, it is not eroticism qua eroticism, but the misdirection thereof which ruins the individual and subverts society.

And contrary to the Cultural Marxist influenced hippies, from the Iliad to the Aeneid, the slogan of worshippers of Aphrodite-Venus must be:  “Make Love and War!”

Nietzsche the Atavism • 600 Words

In modern times, Nietzsche was the first philosopher to identify and attack fundamentally the general type of equal and opposite errors that I hereby examine.

Professor Nietzsche was a university Chair of Classical Philology.  He did most of his philosophical work after he retired.  His profound scholarship in the antiquities, which I can only envy, went beyond treating the subject as an abstract story—as something that was merely read in a book.  He understood the people of that world—his “inner experience” aligned with theirs; by the philosophy that he expressed, he himself became what he called “a species of atavism” [note 2 at link].  And thereupon, he turned his eyes not to the past, but to the future.

I am not a Nietzschean—to assume as much is almost as fallacious as would be interpreting my occasional quotations of Seneca, and my homages to Arria the Elder, as making of me a Stoic.  (Life is complicated:  Cicero was an Academic, not really a Stoic himself.)  I diverge much from Nietzsche, including in the instant essay.  I know Nietzsche’s writings well enough to suspect that he would probably disagree with some significant parts of what I have said here—possibly including the manner in which I quoted him in the preceding section; about that, I am not sure.

This is not to disclaim Nietzsche, whom I account as one of my major influences.  Rather, I explain this because I know Christian chutzpah.  The way that Christian argumentation stereotypically works, the Christians will knee-jerk dismiss what I have said as a “Nietzschean screed”—and then, they will turn around and blame Nietzsche for ideas that I did not learn from him, and even for ideas that are originally mine.

Nietzsche’s greatest influence influence on this essay is in itself hereby illustrative:  He inspired me to radical re-examination of the culturally alien antiquities.

When I first read Beyond Good and Evil, I was perplexed at #239–239.  In close juxtaposition, Nietzsche declares that women should be treated as “confinable property”—then turns around and accuses early feminists of “an almost masculine stupidity”—whereupon he extols women’s power:  “…the most powerful and influential women in the world (and lastly, the mother of Napoleon) had just to thank their force of will—and not their schoolmasters—for their power and ascendancy over men.  That which inspires respect in woman, and often enough fear also, is her nature, which is more ‘natural’ than that of man…”  Moreover, practically within the same breath, he says that women should fear men, and men should fear women.

How can this be?  One moment, he sounds like Anglin—the next, he may as well be from the Women’s Studies Department.  —Or so it may seem, to those who read superficially.

The key to the puzzle:  Nietzsche effectually rejected not only Christianity, but the whole Christian worldview, including all cultural residues thereof.  I learned the idea of Christian cultural residues from Professor Oliver.  Thereupon, I realized just how much I, who first rejected the Christian religion as a young child, still had within myself many cultural elements of Christianity.  By an introspective process of examining my own deepest assumptions, I believe that I have succeeded in ruthlessly extirpating from myself every last trace of Christianity.  It was, in effect, the process of curing myself of a mental disease.

The Diagonal Line of the Sexes • 600 Words

Thereupon, I understand that there is no contradiction between a patriarchal, authoritarian, masculine society, and cherishing womankind to the degree of worshipping goddesses who personify stereotypically feminine characteristics.  For healthy men love women!  Healthy men—strong men even have a taste for the female characteristics which cause men problems…

Too sweet fruits—these the warrior liketh not.  Therefore liketh he woman;—bitter is even the sweetest woman.  [Id.]

…and for those who are too weak to smile at that, my best advice is to ask your favorite local liberal how to convert to homosexuality.  Women are a joy unto the strong.  When they reject or even ruin weak-willed men, the result is eugenic; and since there obviously aren’t enough strong men to go around, the logical solution is that women should advocate polygamy in the manner of the ancient Aryan Hindus.  What man worth being called a man would be able to resist that proposition?

—Well.  Now that Christians, feminists, and other liberals all hate me, that frees me up to make a proposal for those who do not fit that description.

If you want a stable, orderly society in which human behavior matches the natural requirements of life on this Earth, then a radical re-evaluation is required.  Reject modern ideas.  Restore the natural balance of the sexes—not an illusory harmony, but the mutually beneficial antagonism which makes them work together because they work against each other.

If and when the sexes work together, it is a diagonal alliance that joins mutual interests and mutual desires across vast, sometimes seemingly irreconcilable differences.  In effect, it is a delicate dance; and in any dance, someone needs to lead.

When men are leaders worth following, which modern men are not, women love to follow men’s lead in their little dance, in their similar-but-very-different counterpart to how masculine religions worship goddesses together with their gods.  The result is patriarchy—I mean real patriarchy in the ancient sense, not feminist “patriarchal oppression”.  Alack, modern men are a mess; and the modern problems between the sexes are more or less all men’s fault.  Until men take responsibility for that and shape themselves up, they need to understand that women need to fend for themselves.

In the instant essay, I have barely even mentioned the manly Greek gods.  There is a reason for that:  Modern men are in no way godlike.  Women respond most to the heroic in man—not the “macho”:  The heroic.  Modernity is the effacement of the heroic in man.

Moreover, recognize that just as the social and family order symbolized to the Greeks by Hera is wise, good, and necessary, so are the feminine characteristics archetypally symbolized by Athena, the ever-virgin goddess of war and wisdom—by Aphrodite, who needs here no further description—and by others, even including such fearsome deities as Tyche, she whose fickle whims may set your destiny by a roll of the dice, and by Nemesis, who shall have her revenge.

And when you study the antiquities, immerse yourself not in words on a page, but in the inner experiences thus represented—not to live in a dead past, but to rebirth its best characteristics for a better future. ®

 
Hide 46 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Within living memory, there are those who have known Christianity as a civilization and a way of life. It is all so tiresome to keep repeating the same old slanders that now have reached the point they no longer do damage or do anything but strengthen the Christians. Christian peoples made our civilization. The Rothschild / Cleon Peterson art is what is advanced in the place of the art of Notre Dame, Notre Dame burns, while you talk about the vandalism of the Dark Ages and your favorite brain-rotted mental defective Nietzsche. “Great is Diana of the Ephesians” – your views of the classical world are laughable and incoherent.

  2. Truth says:

    Dayum, Wretched got his azz a column?

  3. I don’t really have time for this. I’ve been spending way too much time worrying about the impending collapse of civilization. Time for me to focus on what I can control. But this cries out for a rebuttal.

    “Christianity is Misogyny”

    Wrong.

    “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
    Galatians 3:28

    Anglin is being very deliberately outrageous in the excerpt above in order to “redpill” his readers to certain truths (and yes, they are truths). If his views were mainstream (they are definitely NOT) there would be no need for him to “redpill” anyone. On the contrary, the mainstream view is that “men are not worth following” because they all suck. I’ve been bombarded with that view since kindergarten, along with everyone else in this society.

    Since he seems to have caught your attention, why not read more of what he has to say? Sometimes he drops the invective and writes clearly and directly. I suppose I’m going to have to come back here with some examples of that. But not right now.

    You might ask, what truths? How about the truth that we would not be facing the impending collapse of civilization if it weren’t for female voting patterns? Sorry, I’ve had that on my mind lately. I don’t hate women because of this, and it saddens me that most women DO hate/despise men, mostly out of bigotry and an unwillingness to even try to be fair.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
  4. Raches, welcome to TUR.
    The last sentence under the subtitle Equal and Opposite Errors you wrote There in place of Their. Otherwise an interesting read. I too rejected Christianity (Catholicism) when I realized the Golden Rule covered just about everything, all the incense and iconography were nothing but a bunch of fluff.
    It did teach me that I should love you and I do. Keep up the writing and I look forward to reading more of your work. Thanks. Pancakes Please

    • Replies: @p4nc4k3s Pl34s3
  5. Just a quible: sex is the intention to produce children. Watch a David Attenborough documentary – when some male dolphins get high offa some sponge in the ocean and start frolicking, it doesn’t get called sex. Aphrodite was the goddess of the intention to use your reproductive organs for fun.

    (Yes, splitting action by intention…)

    Christianity, like all metaphysical faiths that I have studied, aims away from the materialistic, and treating a human like a meat lolipop is pretty materialistic. Such behaviour makes any intellectual or spiritual (psychological) connection weaker, and getting it back when the taste of the meat lolipop is dull is very difficult imo (but maybe (at least in my experience).

    Sex is different – the intention is, if not pure or some other high-minded word, a real adventure, with real unknowns, not just some friction of tissues as Marcus Aurelius bluntly described the act.

    And yes, women enjoy erotic play much more. A man is a rooster – 10 seconds in is enough fun for a couple of hours. Women have a much longer and louder experience (again to my knowledge, but I have always found the dials fairly obvious, if I can be that bold!), and so fall for that materialism much more, if actually available.

    But you could say the Bible et al are misandric too. “Turn the other cheek”: go to a construction site and ask the lads if they’d do that. Men are more prone to violence, again rarely for spiritual ends, so you could argue it and the texts of other faiths discriminate again man’s more materialistic nature.

    I’m not sure about your take on the Greeks, they fiddled with boys like the Taliban, and that puts them squarely into the horny monkey set for me, great thinkers though there were.

    Men are great when they don’t follow material things with their nose. Women are great when they don’t follow material things with their nose. Sadly we are in a negative metaphysics world “God does not exist”, and this tends to treasure this material world, as the thing the nihilists have faith in is something specifically not worth aiming for or treasuring.

    https://phys.org/news/2021-09-evidence-cosmic-impact-ancient-city.html

    So it was probably a meteorite impact into the Dead Sea, but you gotta love the story anyways, certainly poignant given where our society is heading. (Nowhere intentional, other than towards the next hit of some preferred soma)

    • Replies: @HallParvey
  6. JimDandy says:

    Merchants and charlatans gained control of Europe, calling their insidious gospel “The Enlightenment.” The day of the locust was at hand, but from the ashes of humanity there arose no Phoenix.

    • Agree: Tony massey
  7. Yevardian says:

    I think your attitude to Christianity is not too disimilar to Mr Anglin’s (or incels in general) attitude towards women actually, metaphorically speaking.
    What do I mean by this? Well, you’re awarding Christianity a centrality in both contemporary thought and world history an overwhelmingly centrality that’s hardly justified. Oliver Revilo and Nietzsche both wrote at a time when most Westerners/Europeans were at least nominally Christian. I can hardly think of a single intellectual figure of any international note who self-identified as a Christian (in a way that actually influenced their work) since Arnold Toynbee.

    Greco-Roman paganism had lost its vitality a long time before Christianity eventually replaced it as state-sponsored religion in the Roman Empire. Again, you (totally anachronistically) treat it as originating some sort of ‘Jewish mind-virus’, never mind the fact that the Hebrews were simply one of many minor subjugated peoples of the era, who differed very little from other levantine cultures. It’s doubtful that even most of them were truly monotheistic.

    Ideas of a god being killed, only to be ressurected to usher a new era of peace for mankind are hardly unique either, it’s seen time and time again in world myth, the Osiris/Isis cult, from Hindu reincarnation, to Greek (probably non-IE in origin) the cult of Dionysus, to (in the Norse) Loki’s murde of “gentle and meek” Baldr, which ushers in Ragnarok, after which, the world will be destroyed and made anew… there are countless other examples. All to say there’s nothing unique (good or bad) about Christianity in somehow “corrupting” Western thought to take directions it wouldn’t have otherwise. In differing circumstances Mithraism, neo-Platonism or even Buddhism could have become the dominant religion of Europeans, and so what? I doubt it would have made much material difference.

    The Mazdaic state-religion of the Sassanids had a completely native Indo-European origin, but this faith’s precious Aryan origins didn’t prevent extensive iconoclasm, or vicious sectarian infighting either.

    Besides, any modern characteristics of Jewish culture long post-date Christianity, Talmudic Judaism developed in an already Christianising Roman Empire and Sassanid Persia. All to say, you’re wasting time beating a long-dead horse.

    *yawn*

    • Agree: Barbarossa
    • Replies: @BlackFlag
  8. Scripture says that men are supposed to treat women with the same love and respect that Christ has for the Church.

    The Bible describes a place and role for men and women and for their respective relationships…..and the Bible is correct to indicate that there can be only one captain of the ship.

    I get tired of saying this, but Christianity worked just fine for us before the jewish subversion of the Scofield Bible…..and the infiltration and destruction of the Catholic Church.

    • Agree: Neuday, Anne Lid
  9. Alden says:

    Couldn’t understand a word of this nonsense other that author doesn’t like Christianity. Then the clip and paste hop skip and jump through Ancient Greek and Roman history. This is internet freshman term paper level idiocy. Kid who will grow up to be President Dwayne Elizondo Comacho ‘s Secretary of Education.

    Nietzsche was insane due to syphilis dementia.

  10. Dutch Boy says:

    Raches should crack a history book. Ancient Greece was characterized by purdah for women (except for the entertainers/prostitutes enjoyed by the elite), tolerance for homosexuality among men, infanticide (especially of female infants), vicious class conflicts, and internecine warfare. The whole mess was characterized by the historian Will Durant as the “suicide of Greece.” Their Roman successors were not much better, with a bit more freedom for non-slave women but all the other vices intact, plus female prostitution using slave women.

    • Agree: Yevardian
  11. songbird says:

    The story quickly finds a promise by a “blue-eyed” goddess, Athena Pallas

    Why do so many poets translate it to “gray-eyed?”

    Is there a reason for it? Or does it just sound better? Or is it supposed to be more romantic because it is rarer? I have noticed that there seems to be a penchant for giving powerful men gray eyes, like Tarzan, and by some tradition, Genghis Khan.

    • Replies: @Coconuts
    , @Raches
  12. BlackFlag says:
    @Yevardian

    I can hardly think of a single intellectual figure of any international note who self-identified as a Christian (in a way that actually influenced their work) since Arnold Toynbee.

    Raches and Oliver say that there is a Christian residue. Basically a weak, cowardly, escapist worldview that persists after you remove God. You see it in ideas of the Enlightenment, humanism, socialism, Unitarianism, swplism, etc.

    Yeah, it seems if the Roman and Greek religions had not lost their vitality, the population would not have gone for weak, corny, intellectually weak Christianity. https://www.revilo-oliver.com/news/2012/06/afterthoughts-on-afterlife/

    Peter Frost suggests that perhaps the Roman population had been domesticated which made them maybe more receptive to the Christian mindset. It explains why they couldn’t raise the measly troops to repel the Goths. Compare the fighting spirit they had back in the Punic Wars where they suffered massive casualties but kept coming back with fresh armies. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491000800306

    Same thing happening now with Europeans being receptive to the suicidal woke mindset. Burnham said liberalism was the rationalization of civilizational decline (like a mother’s soothing meaningless words to her dying child). Goes with what WD Hamilton said about domesticated populations needing fresh hero genes. We know this domestication has been occurring (e.g. capital punishment in the Middle Ages). So the problem is not Christianity per se.

    After all books like the Bible can be interpreted in pretty much any way the reader desires. Thus Spoke Zarathustra seems to be Nietzsche’s attempt to provide an alternative religious, mystical text. That’s why it’s written in such a vague way. What do you think?

    • Thanks: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
    , @Yevardian
  13. Coconuts says:

    The abuse of Christianity has some of the feel of the more intoxicated spergy wing of the old New Atheism. There was a character called StardustyPsyche who trolled and shitposted Christian philosophy blogs for years with this sort of thing.

    Westerners today tend to have the illusion—nay, the delusion—of cultural closeness with a world which is alien to their minds after more than sixteen centuries of intensive Christian brainwashing

    You could equally say that Westerners today tend to have an illusion of cultural closeness with the world of their great grandparents; ‘it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness’.

  14. Coconuts says:
    @songbird

    I have noticed that there seems to be a penchant for giving powerful men gray eyes, like Tarzan, and by some tradition, Genghis Khan.

    I didn’t know Tarzan had grey eyes before reading this, but once you think of it it is hard to imagine him having any other colour.

    • Replies: @songbird
  15. Raches says: • Website
    @songbird

    Why do so many poets translate it to “gray-eyed?”

    Good question.  I was quoting from Brandreth’s English (1816).  The relevant line, I.206, is at p. 8.  The corresponding Greek:

    τὸν δ᾽ αὖτε προσέειπε θεὰ γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη

    (Cf. γλαυκός.)

    Do any pedants want to take a crack at this?  If Brandreth’s translation is strictly inaccurate here, then I will correct my article appropriately.  I will consider marking out a correction anyway; it’s ambiguous at best, and I was just being a bit flippant in a way that is irrelevant to my point. ®

    • Thanks: songbird
  16. Trelane says:

    Extremely low quality content. Ron?

    • Agree: Catdog
  17. JimDandy says:
    @Raches

    The human desire for food and sex is relatively equal. If there are armed rapes, why should there not be armed hot dog thefts?

  18. Andrew Anglin, a Christian par excellence, is an exemplary specimen of the Christian worldview and the Christian spirit

    St. Andrew

  19. anonymous[391] • Disclaimer says:

    Mutilation of natural humanity, is explicitly at the core of the Jewish-Abrahamic religions

  20. His profound scholarship in the antiquities, which I can only envy,

    While I don’t see any content in your posts so far whatsoever, it would be less ridiculous if you dropped turns of phrase like the above. Need I explain why?

    Perhaps you might try to focus and write about what “heroic” is, rather than rambling pompously? I don’t think you understand it at all.

  21. songbird says:
    @Coconuts

    IIRC, PG Wodehouse endowed one of his formidable aunt characters with “gunmetal eyes.”

    • Replies: @Coconuts
  22. The veracity of that reconstruction depends on the honesty of the scholars

    That’s not all it depends on. It also depends on the interpretation the supposed scholars apply to the subject.

    Let’s face a fact. Everyone has a bias of one form or another. There are no experts on things so ancient there are no reliable records or documentation. History is just aged propaganda. History is always written by the winner in any contest.

    If one wants to dis christianity or any religion, one could simply ask for proof that any god exists or that their jesus exists. There’s no need to dredge up the fiction of ancient history since it’s just made up nonsense by scholars that have no proof for their opinions.

    All religions are a form of primitive government where one sociopath decided to declare himself a god or godlike to rule over the dolts that agreed with him. It’s the same today. Whether by religion or government, the majority want some jerk to lead them. That, in essence, is the world’s primary problem.

    • Agree: Realist
  23. Oops, a bit of a mistranslation there in the opening line of the Iliad. The three Greek words quoted (menin aiede thea) mean “Goddess illumine [my] mind”. The following words are “of [the] wrath of Peleus’ son Achilles.”

    The ancients believed women’s intuitive nature put them more in touch with the divine. The denial of the sacred feminine is among the most heinous crimes of Judaism and its bastard offspring Christianity and Islam. Christianity in particular is little more than a paganized version of the “hatred of mankind” that was second temple period Judaism, with virgin birth and sons o’ god and final judgment and life after death and all the rest, grafted on from other religions as the strange new cult spread in the eastern Roman world. Its greatest motif, of the hero redemptively returned to life after three days in the underworld, is no more than the primeval Winter Solstice cycle restated.

    • Disagree: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  24. Raches says: • Website
    @Observator

    Oops, a bit of a mistranslation there in the opening line of the Iliad. The three Greek words quoted (menin aiede thea) mean “Goddess illumine [my] mind”. The following words are “of [the] wrath of Peleus’ son Achilles.”

    You are stating misinformation about my correct information.  If you cadged that from an English translation without checking the Greek yourself, then please identify the translator so we can know which one is flat-out unambiguously wrong—and probably lying, to conceal the true nature of Western civilization from Christians and other tender-minded liberals.  It is a not infrequent occurrence; indeed, many Christian translations of this line translate θεὰ as “muse”, I presume to enforce the Christian ban on praying to a goddess outside the Yahweh & Son, Inc. monopoly.

    Il. 1.1:

    μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος

    Anyone who can’t make out those last three words without a dictionary does not have even what, by my own standards, is my kindergarten-level Greek, and therefore cannot properly engage in this discussion.

    I thereby provide a link for μῆνιν, the singular accusative of this (very) feminine noun:

    μῆνις

    English (LSJ)

    wrath; from Hom. downwds. freq. of the wrath of the gods, Il.5.34… …but also, generally, of the wrath of Achilles, Il.1.1

    Also, none of this has anything to do with “illumining” or any “mind”.  With accusative μῆνιν as its direct object, ἄειδε is the second-person imperative (addressed to vocative θεὰ) of this transitive verb:

    ἀείδω

    II trans., 1 c. acc. rei, sing of, chant, μῆνιν ἄειδε Il.1.1

    The phrase Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος is genitive, as to μῆνιν.

    Therefore, translating literally, we have:

    Wrath {of Achilles, son of Peleus}, sing, o goddess {←that braced text is from here}

    Or in sensible English, as I put it in the article:

    “μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ”—‘wrath, o goddess sing’.

    If I, of all people, were to know only one word in the whole of the Greek language, it would be the first word of the Iliadμῆνις—the true “בראשית” of Western literature, the beginning of Western culture, the seed whence grew the taproot of Western civilization:  Divine “wrath”, a word connoting the wrath of the gods, which Homer first applied to the wrath of Achilles. ®

  25. Raches says: • Website
    @BlackFlag

    Thanks for the Peter Frost paper.  I should like to see discussion thereof, so I gave it a thread:

    https://www.unz.com/proems/the-domestication-of-man/#the-domestication-of-the-romans

    You got my Oliverian argument about Christian cultural residues.  You may expect for cultural residues to be a regular topic in these pages.

    After all books like the Bible can be interpreted in pretty much any way the reader desires. Thus Spoke Zarathustra seems to be Nietzsche’s attempt to provide an alternative religious, mystical text. That’s why it’s written in such a vague way. What do you think?

    Although he was obviously mimicking (perhaps parodying) the Biblical style, I don’t think so.  That may also be the subject for a future blog post…  This seems to be working out already. ®

  26. @Ilya G Poimandres

    Just a quible: sex is the intention to produce children.

    Another quibble please. Children are a byproduct of satiated lust, regardless of intention.

  27. Anonymous[361] • Disclaimer says:

    One of the ways you can tell apart serious Christians from non-serious Christians is how they treat the various Christian denominations. A serious Christian thinks one denomination or family of denominations is right – full stop. A non-serious Christian takes the hippy-dippy “everyone is right” position. He isn’t interested in reading the bible, gets bored quickly when the partisans of Catholicism and Protestantism start arguing. He isn’t really interested in the theological aspects of Christianity, doesn’t want to hear about transubstantiation or infant baptism versus adult baptism. His attraction is to the socially conservative values associated with Christianity in parts of the West. He wants them back and the easiest way to get them back seems to be to pine for a return of Christianity. If he got what he wished for, if every atheist suddenly concluded Jesus Was God, he’d quickly have second thoughts as the “Christian unity” lasts like 5 seconds before splitting into warring factions, who wouldn’t take “I don’t actually care about that” for an answer.

    ~90% of the Christians here are non-serious Christians, more or less.

    • Replies: @joe862
  28. Coconuts says:
    @songbird

    I wonder which one it was? It would fit well with both Aunt Dahlia and Aunt Agatha.

    I was listening to one of the BBC radio dramatisations a couple of weeks ago, at one point Stiffy Bing memorably calls Jeeves a ‘specific dream rabbit’ as a term of endearment. Did Wodehouse make that one up or was it used IRL in the 1920s?

    • Replies: @songbird
  29. Funnily enough, I once attended a summer festival in honour of Jesus at a place called Christos Raches on the Greek island of Ikaria. It was easy to feel that the Christianity aspect was just a thin well-fitting mask over something more ancient. Ikaria is also the most communist island in Greece. Like Christianity, this is a case of a modern theory which fits still-running ancient practices. Other peoples have drifted too far and can just theorise, but in Raches they live it. I believe they are also the longest living people in Europe, with many people over 100.

  30. Raches: “… I believe that I have succeeded in ruthlessly extirpating from myself every last trace of Christianity.”

    A proud but comically mistaken boast, considering this whole essay is suffused with the residues of Christianity it claims to reject. For what is an indictment of misogyny other than the same rejection of Hate so typical of Christianity and its cultural excretions? What is your much-vaunted authoritarianism and love of hierarchy other than a transmogrified Christian worldview, which instead of God posits a man like Hitler as God, and substitutes the bureaucracy of his totalitarian state for angels? What is your purported love of eugenics and race purity other than a likewise transmogrified Christian attempt to purge man of his genetic sins?

    Christian sheep dream of Jesus ruling over them at the end of history, and instead you dream of Hitler. Two paths to get to the same anti-human place.

    Raches: “Reject modern ideas.”

    You can’t have technological civilization without modern ideas. The two go together, give rise to and support each other. To think that you can restore patriarchy without removing the “modern ideas” of scientific birth control and abortion, which together have done more to equalize the sexes than any amount of feminist blather, is folly.

    • Agree: Yevardian
    • Thanks: Tony massey
    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
  31. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Right or wrong — and I don’t feel inclined, and perhaps am even incompetent, to produce an analysis — I found your comment interesting. I have one quibble: abortion is not a modern idea. Some Brazilian tribes who live in the stone age practice abortion since times immemorial.

  32. Brás Cubas: “I have one quibble: abortion is not a modern idea. Some Brazilian tribes who live in the stone age practice abortion since times immemorial.”

    I wrote scientific birth control and abortion. Certainly it’s true that primitive, relatively ineffectual attempts at both have always existed. But nowadays, they’ve been perfected. No woman in a modern society needs to either get or stay pregnant if she doesn’t want to. Thus, she is free to have sex with the same abandon that up to now has only been an option for men. Equality!

    And what indeed is a “modern idea”? There is literally nothing new under the sun, except the implementation; the technique, which for us in our age is an outgrowth of science. Science in its concrete application as technology is what separates the modern world from the classical world. Those who want to reject “modern ideas” can start with science.

    • Agree: Tony massey
    • Disagree: Brás Cubas
    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  33. joe862 says:
    @Anonymous

    serious christian = navel gazer in your view. Preoccupation with minutia that has little to do with how you live your life. It’s usually born of a desperate, pathetic need to feel special. Just an endless attempt to be christianer than the next guy.

  34. Mike Tre says:

    Just based on the title of this blog post it’s clear this blogger is a master click baiter. Excuse me while I head to church to pray for more women to oppress, or something.

  35. songbird says:
    @Coconuts

    I’m leaning towards Aunt Dahlia, but I am afraid my efforts to trace it using clues from my fuzzy memory have come to naught.

    at one point Stiffy Bing memorably calls Jeeves a ‘specific dream rabbit’ as a term of endearment. Did Wodehouse make that one up or was it used IRL in the 1920s?

    I don’t know if there are any academics who study Wodehouse’s prose, but I feel like there should be, if there aren’t.

  36. Yevardian says:
    @BlackFlag

    Raches and Oliver say that there is a Christian residue. Basically a weak, cowardly, escapist worldview that persists after you remove God. You see it in ideas of the Enlightenment, humanism, socialism, Unitarianism, swplism, etc.

    Universalism, escapism or resignation to the world are hardly uniquely Christian concepts, previously unreplicated. Such intellectual movements always become popular in response to historical circumstances, it can easily be observed in the Hellenistic world, after Alexander’s conquests had destroyed the independence of the city-states, after which pessimistic or negativistic philosophies such as Epicureanism, Stoicism, Cynism and Skeptism emerged. You can also add practically the only (semi) original philosophical school that emerged, Neoplatonism.

    Raches seems to have a typical undergraduate worldview in which he only sees the classical world in terms of schoolboy heroes like Xenophon and Julius Caesar, to contrast with the sickly late Roman Empire, which incidentally, had become Christian. If Raches wanted to state his tired old argument, he could have at least graced us with quoting Gibbon, which as a double bonus, would have spared us his own pompous pontifications.
    Never mind serious structural problems like the fact that both the Hellenistic world or the Roman Empire were essentialy dependent on mass-slavery (of fellow caucasians!) in order for their economies to function, a universal scourge that continuously sapped the vitality of both civilisations.

    Peter Frost suggests that perhaps the Roman population had been domesticated which made them maybe more receptive to the Christian mindset. It explains why they couldn’t raise the measly troops to repel the Goths. Compare the fighting spirit they had back in the Punic Wars where they suffered massive casualties but kept coming back with fresh armies.

    That argument is rather seriously undermined by the fact that the Goths themselves were (Arian) Christians by the time they overwhelmed the Western Empire (mostly from within, after Adrianople). Eventually Theodoric’s Ostrogoths succeeded to govern Italy far better than any of the Western Roman Emperors themselves, with minimal destruction in the transition.

    The same goes for nearly all the other Germanic peoples who overran the area, with the exception of the pagan Angles/Saxons/Jutes in Britain, who notably plunged that region firmly into a real dark age (something generally that was much exaggerated in the rest of Western Europe during this time).

    It can be legitimately argued that the decline of traditional Roman values invited the rise of Christianity, but to claim that the latter caused the former is to put causation in reverse. As far back as Augustus’ reign there were worries about the core Roman population failing to reproduce itself, whilst the Emperor attempted to legislate against widespread infanticide and childlessness amongst the elite, to practically no effect.
    After the Judio-Claudian dynasty, precious few Emperors were of native Italian or Latin origin either, with nearly every other ethnicity and region being represented.

  37. @Jeff M. Smith

    I don’t really have time for this. I’ve been spending way too much time worrying about the impending collapse of civilization.

    That subject was covered in a brief pamphlet written in 1976 by Sir John Glubb. He examines many Western civilizations as far back as the Bronze Age, and finds that they tended to collapse after about 250 years. Civilization itself restarts – but in a different place. The only exception is Rome: when the Republic collapsed, the Empire arose and was glorious for another 250 years before entering irreversible decline. Glubb calls the stage of decline “the Age of Decadence”, which is characterized by defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners, the Welfare State, and a weakening of religion. He identifies the causes as too long a period of wealth and power, selfishness, the love of money, and the loss of a sense of duty.

    If these circumstances sound familiar, it is because our Western industrial civilization is close to the end of its life as the world’s dominant military and economic force. Its replacement will be capitalist China, which in turn will fall in about 2250, if we have not blown up the whole world by then. Europe and the USA might not emerge from their new Dark Ages for centuries – if ever.

    If there is one thing that we could do now to try to slow down the decline, it is to reduce the influx of foreigners, something that in democratic countries would be wildly popular. Yet somehow political elites conspire to prevent this. The purpose of mass immigration is to suppress wages so that the ultra-wealthy make even more money. See above under “causes”.

    But by and large the collapse is unstoppable. Every civilization has a trajectory, and ours has entered its downward phase.

    http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

    the mainstream view is that “men are not worth following” because they all suck. I’ve been bombarded with that view since kindergarten, along with everyone else in this society.

    The misandrists do not propose following anybody else instead – not women, who also suck, and not Jesus Christ, whom they despise.

    If the article has one thing right, it is that our current secular religion firmly believes that it has rejected Christianity, but it remains infused with a toxic residue, a grave heresy in which men are believed to be perfectible. I doubt we can restore Classical virtues: apart from the difficulty of understanding them, the rich and powerful have strong vested interests in not restoring them. Once again, see “causes” above. The problems are too deep to fix.

    • Thanks: Tony massey
  38. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    > “There is literally nothing new under the sun, except the implementation; the technique, which for us in our age is an outgrowth of science.”

    All that scientific birth control leads to is the proliferation of those genes and memes that reject it. Unfortunately, the main armed Aryan populations of the sort perished in 1945-91 (Germany and Russia), but even they existed. Now, however, the planet is set to be inherited by Asians (e.g., Turks and Koreans).

    If NA is not conquered by the Chinese, it will naturally come into the domain of the Mexica, who still cruelly beat their children and perform dreadful human sacrifices. Your error is in the underestimation of human ideological and biodiversity. If the big-endians’ path proves out the road to extinction, the little-endians will be there to overthrow them.

  39. Adûnâi: “All that scientific birth control leads to is the proliferation of those genes and memes that reject it.”

    No, not all. “Proliferation of those genes that reject it” might be one evolutionary consequence, but it also has the immediate cultural effect I mentioned. Women’s sexual liberation would be impossible without it, so it’s no coincidence that women’s lib really started to take off once “the pill” and abortion became widely and routinely available. Likewise, without these techniques women in the workforce would be made impossible, at least to the extent they are now, because a woman liable to become absent or disabled at work at any time due to unexpected pregnancy simply can’t be reliably counted upon to perform her job. This degrades overall efficiency — of corporations, and even of nations. The sexual liberation of women has very far-reaching consequences.

    Adûnâi: “Your error is in the underestimation of human ideological and biodiversity. ”

    Yours is in underestimating human lust and perversity, which is a universal characteristic of humans and always will win out over ideology in the long run. Because these techniques allow for unlimited sex, they’re very popular all over the world despite the problems they cause, with both men and women. And even this consequence has consequences, since once sex becomes a lifestyle choice, something done purely for pleasure instead of an act of reproduction, homosexuality and other forms of sex can more easily become legitimated. None of this was known or thought about in advance, of course. They’re all unintended consequences of “Progress”. It’s a paradigm case of how technological change shapes culture.

  40. jay says:

    For its misogyny. It certainly preserved many female babies from death. And even led to a population excess of women compared to the rest of the civilization.

  41. Anon[391] • Disclaimer says:

    Andrew Anglin, a Christian par excellence, is an exemplary specimen of the Christian worldview and the Christian spirit:

    Do you really want to incite me to go about proving that the Fathers of the Church were Andrew Anglin in vulgar Latin, who essentially viewed women as evil witches?

    Who says Anglin, or, though I would avoid likening them to Anglin at all, many Fathers of the Church were Christians (or Christians without faults?).

    Nietzsche said the only Christian had been Christ. That’s not the case, though experience of humankind may decidedly incline one to believe so, so rare Christians are.

    Christian are they who follow Christ and His Gospel.
    Is the Gospel misogynistic? The Gospel (and Christ maybe even more, not all has to have been reported) is unthinkably inclinded to see all humans as having the same dignity, including not only women (an absolute unthinkable for that time and many centuries to follow) but also small kids, who, if women were regarded as domestic animals, were regarded as non-living beings, objects.

    You cherry-pick the worst of Christianism, pretend (to yourself, not only your readers, I would assume) that that is Christianity, and unleash your derogation of it. Not a straw man, but a straw faith.

    ****

    Should we comment your allegation that Christianity is “Jewish”? You seem to have thumbed through all books on earth, and you haven’t seen the uncountable pages written by Jews where Christianity isn’t just a target of their rancour, but the select such target among all possible?

    Christianity stemmed from Israel, Jesus was a Jew and so many of the apostles, but it is the reverse of the Jewish faith — as you know no less well than I may know.

    ****

    As Paul said: in my weakness, there my strength is. The real strength, which is bundled with humility and peace. If you want it, you know what the path is, I wish you take it.

    Take this as a single comment, I won’t be around this blog to further comment.

  42. @Raches

    I am currently writing a book (The Historical Absence of Feminine Facial Morphology in European Art and Culture) in which I make the case that authentic female beauty did not exist, not in the arts and likely not in reality either, until the mid-20th century. It is close to 30,000 words at the moment. Perhaps you might find my thesis interesting. As I explain in great detail, even a cursory glance at Greco-Roman statuary reveals an astonishing lack of femininity. Large noses, large chins and small lips are the quintessential features. This morphology does not possess positive valence from a rational perspective, nor is it endocrinologically feminine. People continue to be awed by it, which is inexplicable to me, though perhaps this is feigned. But I am most surprised that white nationalists, of all people, are oblivious to the brutishness of the Greco-Roman canon, which dominated European culture until the early 20th century, despite being biologically impoverished.

    As to who I am, I used to talk with Cesar Tort on his blog, but he banned me after I challenged him to provide a non-selfish justification for bringing white children into a world where they are guaranteed to suffer and die. I have written a long essay about this issue, but he is not interested in reading it. I think I really put his back up. Contact me if you wish to discuss this further.

  43. Anonymous[208] • Disclaimer says:

    Why is Unz promoting this retard’s worthless drivel? Christianity was the result of the conflict between Israelites and jews. Christianity was the Israelite side, which opposed the jews. How dumb does someone have to be to believe that jews are Israelites, despite following absolutely nothing from the torah?

  44. SafeNow says:

    Raches, the tone of, and the very fact of, your referring to your deciding to turn on comments struck me as having a somewhat noblesse oblige implication of reluctant indulgence. A velleity. Dismissive. Aggressive apathy (an affront that I endure daily as a Californian). I would have hoped for a tone of extreme interest and enthusiasm. Not a gratuitous reminder that, hey, I could have shut you out, but OK, you’re here; count your blessings. For what it’s worth, my opinion is that the comments on Unz are superb.

    A related noblesse oblige point is that you have appended a circled “R” to your comments. I have seen hundreds of very creative, insightful, and poignant comments on this website that are apparently quite original, yet, I can’t recall anyone else using the circled R.

    I will abstain from substantive commentary, because during WW II my Dad was in the Army Air Corps and directly involved in bombing the Germans.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Moderated by Raches (Cancel Reply


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Raches Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Hidden Information in Our Government Archives