top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

Unnatural religion



*


Unnatural religions: Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Marxism. Man is nature knowing itself—and he is also the most plastic element in nature, hence he can denature himself. As with a balloon, you can force the air into a tiny pocket within the plastic but you can never extirpate the air from the intact balloon altogether—even if you have shaped it into a balloon animal, a balloon poodle.


You can tell that the four beliefs above are unnatural because each contains a hypocrisy: each claims to be a universal faith and yet it is known in implicit terms that each belongs to a particular race. It’s why black Americans often have names like Mumia Jamal. You can say to them, “Muslim Arabs enslaved black Africans on a wider scale than the Europeans, and still treat blacks as not fully human today—as Malcolm X himself discovered when he went on the hajj,” and, yet, that’s not the point—the point is that Islam is not the “white man’s religion”.


It’s a way to obliterate the slave names imposed on black Africans brought to the New World—names that, in effect, keep the black man in linguistic enchantment. It is the case that any black man with a European name still uses his slave-holder’s name—he is, in effect, still owned. Hence Islam—the substitute religion for the free black man.


“Christianity is for everyone”—and yet it is known, known better by some than others, that it is “the white man’s faith”. It was developed by white men—Augustine, Aquinas, Boethius (many more).


It takes a European view on spiritual affairs—hence for a European a saint must be perfect through and through, no hypocrisy and no deviation (untruthfulness); but for an Indian a saint can be a rogue—he can drive a Rolls-Royce, he can have lovers—and that’s because he has 5,000 lives to perfect himself not just one, so he can afford to be imperfect as he works on himself in this incarnation (but it’s also because the Indians, especially the Brahmans, are big hypocrites—just like the Chinese and the Jews, they’re not truthful people).


In the same way, Islam is for everyone—we are all brothers and sisters at the mosque; just like the Christians are “brothers in Christ”, and the Marxists are “comrades”. Yet the Koran is in Arabic—you must learn Arabic to learn the Koran, it can’t be translated like the Bible (and when rendered in English, in the KJV, the Bible means something different than it does in Greek or Aramaic anyway—translation is never perfect; traduttore, traditore). And Islam was spread by Arab warriors—and it splintered into Shia and Sunni due to a dispute within the prophet’s family; it was always about blood.


Even today to be “a Sharif” is a blood-borne mark that says “superiority” in the “religion for everyone”. That’s because Islam is really a religion for Arabs, who look down on blacks—mostly slaves, even into the 1970s, until the Christians persuaded the sheiks to stop, on “al-Jazeera” or the Arabian peninsula.


Then we have the Marxists—Marxism is a secular religion for Jews who have left Judaism but find that it is not possible to “integrate” into European societies; just as the saints of the Church are mostly European men, the intellectuals of Marxism are mostly Jews—there were a few Jews involved in Christianity’s infancy and there were a few Gentiles involved in Marxism, but on balance the faiths are for different races.


And Buddhism, less noticeable because it does not proselytise, so making it less hypocritical than the other faiths, really exists for Indians and Tibetans—its scriptures are in Sanskrit, its psychological presupposition is Oriental (the individual does not exist, should not exist—total submission to the collective, “the nail that sticks up is hammered down,” as the Chinese say). It is a prescription for a static life with no interest in nature.


**


The common hypocrisy—the common deviation from nature—found in each faith is that each faith claims to be “for all” and yet nature dictates that there cannot be such a thing as a “religion for all”, not anymore than I could declare a “global family” (as some cultists have done—indeed, to speak about “universal family” is always the mark of a wacky cult). Just as the Soviet Union always depended on a military and KGB organised along hierarchical and competitive lines and would resort, as in WWII, to religious and nationalist propaganda, so too the “global religions” always rely on a racial core to sustain themselves.


After all, what would Catholicism be without, without…Italians? Is not Catholicism a very Italian religion—a very, well, Roman religion? Not just European but Italian—and perhaps Irish as well (yet are not the Irish, in origin, a Mediterranean people, just like the other big-time Catholics—the Spanish).


For a religion to be unnatural does not mean that it must collapse all at once. Marxism is more unnatural than the other religions mentioned, pushes the idea that it is universal much further than the others—attenuates its already attenuated racial core, for secular Jews are already deracinated and without cohesion before they promulgate Marxism, a doctrine that asks them to dilute even more.

Yet the general trend in these religions is against nature, to become hypocrisies—“Islam is for all!”. But go as a white man to a mosque and you will discover you are not such a “brother” as you imagined you would be—that there are, in fact, mosques for Lebanese and Pakistani, for sub-branches of Pakistani (for sub-sub-branches).


The same can be said for the Christians—the pastors lament, “Our congregations still seem to be segregated,” for lo!, the Polish Catholic and the black baptist and the Church of England spinster might all be “Christians” but their relation to each other is the most theoretical

imaginable, just as a Chicago mosque is nothing like a mosque in Beirut.


And black American Islam is almost its own religion in itself, a folk religion spun together from second-hand copies of 1001 Nights and rough translations of the Koran and an Islam almost unimaginable in its exotic character, circa 1912, for a black man living in Chicago’s South Side (but still liberation from the hated white names).


Hence the venerable al-Shabazz proceeds down a Chicago thoroughfare in his little red fez (because that was what they wore in the Ottoman Empire in them days, in 1912—when we decided to be “a Moslem”) and he proceeds down the thoroughfare to rally “the Brothers”; and when people say “the black Muslims” they say it with a little smirk—because these are not Muslims (who are Arabs—of the noble line of the Sharifs, unspoiled by the blood of Nubian slaves thank you so very much).


***


In the long run, you cannot defy nature—man might be the most plastic animal but he is not exempt from nature. That was the message Jesus brought to the Jews—who had become too bookish. Subsequent to his message, other men turned his ministry into a universal faith; and that faith became the faith of the Roman Empire and of the Italians—until other nations chafed under the, by then corrupted, yoke of the pastafarians.

You can push it so far—but it always has its racial substrate. Catholicism—Italians; Church of England—English (obviously a contradiction, Christianity is for everyone but we have a separate church for our race); Islam—Arabs; Mormonism—English (that’s its chief racial composition—it’s why they’re so polite and are against that very American drink, coffee); Marxism—Jews; Nation of Islam—American blacks; Buddhism—Indians (latterly, Tibetans in certain branches).


If you cut away the racial root, you don’t have an operative faith—and even the faiths that claim to be universal, like Christianity and Islam, end up with sub-branches that are racial (so that it was once said by a Church of England divine that “God is an Englishman”—because the Reformation was a return to paganism, to reality, against the idea there was “one faith for mankind”, which even then just meant “Europeans” in the tattered remains of the Roman Empire).


Hence it seems to me best not to follow any faith that professes universal salvation, since you will find yourself engaged in hypocrisy in the end—the hypocrisy best exposed in secular religions like Marxism, since these rely on hierarchical and national structures to exist even as they claim that these structures will soon “cease to exist”.


Doubtless Muhammad, Jesus, and the Buddha communed with higher spiritual forces—and doubtless Marx was a ferocious intellect and visionary (who also used kabbalah, not being entirely secular). Yet there are many spiritual forces in the world, many ways to commune with them—and the people who claim to have founded “a faith for all mankind” are always exposed, in the end, as being caught up in lies and hypocrisy. And in some cases it is doubtful as to whether “a faith for all mankind” was what the founder intended in the first place.


In the end, these faiths fall apart under the strain, as happened to the USSR and the Catholic Church, and people revert to a particular religion for their race—even if disguised as “universal”, just as the English have “the Church of England” (which might as well be called “the Church of English”).


The same happened to the Russians: today they justify their nationalism, partly inflected through fascist ideas, per Ilyin, with watered-down Marxist points about “anti-imperialist, anti-Nazi operations in the Ukraine”. What has happened is that like the English with Christianity under Henry VIII they have “indigenised” a universal faith—so only Russians understand “the anti-fascist struggle, the struggle against nationalist intolerance” (it’s in their blood, you see—their “anti-nationalism”); and, in the same way, only the English understood Christ’s message of universal salvation (“And did those feet, in ancient times, walk on England’s mountains green?”)—just like the Mormons say Christ visited America.


You can’t fight nature, so you might as well work with the flow rather than against it—and that’s why I’m not a Christian or a Muslim or a Marxist or a Buddhist. All faiths have a racial substrate and people who claim to have adumbrated a universal faith end in hypocrisy and lies—the faith will be racial whatever you do about it. Of course, you can manipulate nature so long as you do not lose sight of the fact you rely on it for the manipulation—but when you start to delude yourself that you are independent of it altogether you will fly into catastrophe (the Anabaptists, Pol Pot etc).


As you know from your own life, what comes from within you is best—and what is adapted or copied from others is just show or an attempt to look good, vanity really (the vanity of universal religion). Hence, in religion, what comes out of your own blood is best.


In the long run, over thousands and thousands of years, this simple doctrine will prevail—Christianity lasted about 1500 years before it broke down, converted Northern Europe for less than that before the Reformation kicked in; and Marxism broke down long before that, being even more unnatural than Christianity and Islam. The Hindus understand best, since their religion is based in race (albeit decadent)—and their religion counts in millions upon millions of years (in line with what science tells us about reality), whereas these marginal desert religions like Christianity and Islam do not have that sophistication.


That’s because the ur-religion that once subsisted on this planet was very sophisticated indeed—and you can see intimations as to its nature in the pyramids (which still fascinate people today). It took that form because it was the religion that understood the mystery of blood—that is to say, it was the Hyperborean religion.




178 views

Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas

1 Comment


Unknown member
Jul 11, 2023

The universal and the particular exist together. All this talk about "Hyperborea" is only valid insofar as different races and cultures have their own divine properties. But they are always subsets of greater gods and lords, and when taken to extremes merely reflect a mere human attachment to seeing one's race and people do well (i.e. a kind of materialism). In general terms, what is material is yin as to the yang of spirit.

Like
Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page