1546 Onze vrienden haten ons. Guyenot.

Ik heb het artikel nog niet gelezen, want totaal geen tijd.  Maar dat 'onze vrienden' ons haten, daarvan ben ik zeker.   Ik ga er van uit dat Guyenot dit beaamt. 

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Why do they hate us? Part 1 Is it about Christ, Whiteness, or Rome? Laurent Guyénot Oct 14   They hate us. If you haven’t figured it out yet, you are not paying attention, or are not good at pattern recognition. Pretty much everything that seems to be invented specifically to hurt us comes from them. There are exceptions, but the every-single-time rule applies almost every single time. Their hatred comes from the ancestral depth of their being. It is absolute, organized and persistent. They think it is divine. God himself, they are certain, loves them and hates us. Radbod's Lament is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. They are waging a total war, killing us at every level or our being. They flood our cities with mobs of downtrodden aliens, whom they train to hate us too. They hit us hard in our genetic heritage by their constant pro-miscegenation propaganda. They corrupt our youth with sexual liberation, feminism, pornography and gender ideology. They target our children, at an ever younger age. They tell us to kill our offspring in the wombs ourselves. They are so confident that they will finish us soon that they now spit their hatred in our face, but still demand that we call it love. Their hatred is ugly, and we’re rather not look at it. It’s an unpleasant and complicated subject, hard to comprehend. There is a bottomless quality to it, which reminds me of this remark by Eric Hoffer in The True Believer: “There is perhaps no surer way of infecting ourselves with virulent hatred toward a person than by doing him a grave injustice. That others have a just grievance against us is a more potent reason for hating them than that we have a just grievance against them.”[1] If we complain about their Goy-hatred, they call our complaints Jew-hatred. There is no more urgent task, however, than to analyze this hatred rationally, scientifically. We must study its historical origin, its cognitive patterns, its psychological mechanisms. We need to get to the bottom of it. This, or we let them destroy us, body and soul. Why do they hate us? What do they hate in us? Paradoxically, understanding how they see us can help us know who we are, who we were, and who we can be. If we understand why they hate us, we’ll learn something about them, but also something important about “us”. Of course, you may say that their hatred has nothing to do with us, and everything to do with their own collective sociopathy. It is a hatred written in their Holy Book. That’s true, and I’ve being saying it for a while. It is a hatred cut into the flesh of every of their newborn males. That’s also true, without any doubt. But why is this hatred directed at us? Who are we, in their eyes? Do Jews hate Christians? The Christian theory is that Jews hate us as Christians. What they hate in us is Christianity, because at a fundamental level, they hate Christ. Since Christ is God, hating Christ is like hating God. The corollary is that, if only Jews would accept Jesus in their heart, they would stop hating us. This theory is provably false. And it is about time that we realize it. Jews don’t hate Christ, for the simple reason that they don’t believe in the existence of Christ. In the mind of most Jews, Jesus is a Galilean Jew who mistakenly believed he was the Messiah. If Jesus was just a man who lived in troubled times and was executed by the Romans under the pressure of a corrupted priesthood, why would Jews harbor an eternal and infinite hatred for him? They don’t. Most Jews that I have ever heard talk about Jesus have no strong hostility to him, and will rather blame Paul for making up Christianity. Check out what Rabbi Shmuley, who hates us so much, says about Jesus the Jew. Christians make a big deal about the Talmudic passage which says that Jesus is punished in hell in boiling excrement, but the same passage explains that anyone who mocks the words of the sages is punished in the same way.[2] Jesus is not given a special treatment. In the same Talmud, Balaam, a seer mentioned in Numbers 22-24, is said to be “cooked in boiling semen.” (Some Christians claim that Balaam is a code-word for Jesus, but for no other reason that Balaam is said to have died around the same age.[3]) The idea that the Talmud is ripe with blasphemy against Christ is a Christian fantasy, just like the idea that Jews are consumed by their hatred of Christ. There are only seven passages in the two Talmuds that mention a Yeshu, and only two may be about Jesus. In the second one, Yeshu ha-Notzri—translated tentatively as Jesus the Nazarene—is stoned to death by a Jewish court, “because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray.”[4] This hardly reflects the Gospel narrative, and in any case doesn’t read like the expression of a deep, metaphysical hatred. You cannot hate something if you don’t believe it exists. A Christian would argue that, deep in their heart, they know that they rejected God and their own salvation, and are consumed by their repressed guilt. Hence their satanic hatred. But if you aren’t a Christian and don’t believe that Jesus was God, then you should understand that Jews, who don’t believe it either, simply don’t care that much about Christ. Even from the way some like to mock him, you can see that they don’t take him seriously. They’re just making fun of our religion. The Christian theory on the origin of Jewish hatred is like every Christian theory: pure nonsense. It is a self-serving means to reinforce the Christians’ own conviction that Jesus is the Son of God—whom Jews should have recognized although they had to not recognize him because if no crucifixion, then no resurrection, etc. The Christian theory is being proven false with the dechristianization of the West. If Jews hate us because we are Christians, why do they still hate us now that we have, massively, stopped being Christians? And again, why us, among Christians. There are today more Church-going Christians in sub-Saharan Africa than in Europe. Why are Jews so intent to flood our countries with them, and make us interbreed with them? It has nothing to do with destroying Christianity, and everything to do with destroying Whiteness. The only Christians they hate are White Christians. And when they hate White Christians, it is the “White” part that they hate. They hate Christianity only to the extent that—and as long as—Christianity is an essential part of being a White European. And have you noticed that, the less Christians we are, the more they start to like Christ and Christianity? They actually worry about the decline of Christianity in the West. Ben Shapiro is an Orthodox Jew who wrote: “Everybody who grew up in a Christian household and whose grandparents were Christian needs to go to church. Everyone.” Yoram Hazony, author of Zionist hasbara, laments that Gentiles don’t know their Old Testament anymore. Zionist stooge Mike Huckabee wants Americans to go back to Church to overcome their “biblical illiteracy.” France has no more enthusiastic defender of the Catholic faith than the (secretly Orthodox) Jew and presidential candidate Eric Zemmour: he too wrote a book calling the French to get in touch with their inner Jew by going back to Church. Do Jews hate Whites? I remember being puzzled, about a decade ago, when I read, in Nathan Abrams’s notorious 2004 article on “Jews in the American porn industry,” that Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, when asked why so many Jews are in the porn industry, replied: “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks.”[5] This statement by a Jewish pornographer is widely circulated by Christians as proof of their theory. But I wonder. How does pornography hurt Christ? Does pornography target Christians specifically? No. Arguably, Christian are better armed against it than atheists. Does pornography hurt Christianity? Not a bit. It may actually increase the number of devout Christians, as millions of porn-addicts find themselves in desperate need of salvation. Pornography is a weapon of mass moral destruction against Whites, not against Christians. Jewish hatred is not directed at Christians, but at Whites. As long as Whites were overwhelmingly Christians and Christianity was identified as the religion of Whites, the distinction was probably immaterial in the mind of some Jews like Al Goldstein. “Christ” was a metonymy for “Whiteness”—and an acceptable one. Now things have changed. Now they say the quiet part loud. You must have noticed that, in the last decade, Jews have ceased hating Christians. They might still complain, occasionally, about Christianity charging them with deicide. But that’s rhetorical. Now they are being honest: they hate Whites, regardless of religion. And what they hate in Whites is Whiteness. The trend is not totally new. It was in 1967 that Susan Sontag called the White race “the cancer of human history.”[6] But its seems that Jewish attacks on Whiteness have become more banal and mainstream in the 1990s. It was in 1993 that Harvard-educated professor Noel Ignatiev founded the journal Race Traitor, with the motto: “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” The opening editorial of the first issue, “Abolish the White Race—By Any Means Necessary,” hammered the point: “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive…” Some Christians will argue that the hatred of Whites is a cover for the hatred of Christianity. I argue the opposite theory. Jews, anyway, have an ethnic view of humanity, rather than a religious view. That is why Jews can become Christians—or Buddhist—without ceasing to be Jews. But how can Jews hate Whites when they are Whites themselves? That’s a more serious objection. Another objection is that “Whiteness” is a recent concept, and Jewish hatred is much older. It is biblical. Let’s take a closer look at this “White” concept, and try to make sense of what they really mean when Jews say “White”. Are Jews White? The Jews’ relationship with Whiteness is confusing. In a 2016 Washington Post article, Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner, former director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, wrote: “This year, when I search my soul, I’ll be focused on confronting my own white privilege.” But in another Washington Post article published the year before, Rabbi Gil Steinlauf, then the senior rabbi of Adas Israel Congregation in Washington, D.C., wrote: “We must cease to consider ourselves to be part of the social construct of whiteness…” The question of whether Jews are white is the subject of Cynthia Levine-Rasky’s article “White Privilege” published in the Journal of Modern Jewish Studies in 2008. Her argument is that Jewishness and Whiteness are unstable, context-dependent categories. So Jews themselves don’t seem to agree whether they are White or not. In fact, a Jew can have two opposite opinion on that subject. That’s because the question whether Jews are White or not is like the question whether Jewishness is an ethnicity or a religion. It depends on the context, which is to say that its depends on whom you’re speaking to. We must understand that, as a people dispersed in foreign nations while being instructed by their God to hate foreign nations, Jews have developed the habit of a dual identity and personality. They have a Gentile identity and personality for dealing with Gentiles, and a Jewish identity and personality for dealing with Jews. Their Jewish identity is their core identity. Their Gentile identity is mimetic, superficial and flexible. They can be white among white Gentiles, but their sense of belonging to Whiteness is circumstantial. Their sense of belonging to Jewishness will always be stronger. Their Jewish personality is committed to Jewish solidarity, while their Gentile personality will try to blend in but will, when possible, work on weakening the host nation. That is why their Gentile persona can be highly individualistic, subversive and revolutionary, while they remain conformist as Jews (I would call it the Zimmerman-Dylan principle). Jewish survival as a people depends on their capacity to keep those two identities functional and clearly separate. This sort of things explain why the same Jew can present himself as a white person beating his own breast for his white privilege, and the next day calmly say he is not white. On this website are listed examples of Jewish authors writing as Whites against Whiteness: Tim Wise (White Like Me), Jonathan Metzl (Dying of Whiteness), Paul Kivel (Uprooting Racism), Maurice Berger (White Lies: Myths of Whiteness), Michel Kimmel (Angry White Men), George Liptsitz (The Possessive Investment in Whiteness), Eric Kaufmann (Whiteshift), Paula Rothenberg (White Privilege), Barbara Appelbaum (Being White: Being Good). Here are Jews trying to teach their fellow whites to hate their own whiteness, but obviously immune from the pathology they are encouraging. Unlike us, Jews can at any time put on or take off—or even discard entirely—their White identity. Whiteness is for them optional, while Jewishness is essential. That’s why Jews can debate whether Jews are White, but would never ask whether “Whites are Jews.” What all this shows is that Whiteness is a concept that Jews will endorse when needed, and play against us when they can. The important conclusion is that Whiteness is still not the real object of their hatred. Liberal Jews can be self-hating Whites, but neoconservative (read pseudo-conservative) Jews can be pro-Whites. We are stuck at the same point as we were before, regarding Jews and Christianity: it is not really Whiteness that they hate in us, any more than it is Christianity. After all, whiteness is a skin color, and most Jews in the West are fully entitled to it. Most Gentiles—Christians or not—will actually agree that these Jews are whites. This is exactly what’s wrong with “white nationalists” such as Samuel Jared Taylor. Obviously, being white will not save us, if the Jews who hate us can be white too. “Jews hate Whites” is therefore another false lead. Some Jews do hate Whites, but what they mean by “White” is not a skin-color, not a genetic character, not even a common ancestry. It is a history. Jews are are not at war against Christians, or Whites. They are at war against Rome, whom the rabbis call Edom. In their eyes, we are still Romans, the destroyers of their Temple. That’s the way Netanyahu sees it. I’ll make sense of that in the second part of this article. But if you are willing to follow me down this path, I recommend my book: [1] Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, 1951, HarperPerennial, 2019, p. 118. [2] Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 57a. [3] Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 106b. [4] Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a. [5] Nathan Abrams, “Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American Porn Industry,” Jewish Quarterly, Winter 2004, saved on www.finalcall.com/docs/Jews_in_porn_abrams.pdf [6] Susan Sontag, “What’s Happening in America?,” Partisan Review 34, no. 1 (1967), pp. 57–58. Radbod's Lament is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.  ======================================== Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Rome vs. Rome What the Christians did to the Romans - Conclusion Laurent Guyénot Oct 5 ∙ Preview     READ IN APP   Hi there, My book is now available on Amazon. 406 pages. It is built from the material I posted in the last 12 months or so, plus a good amount of new research. Here is the concluding chapter, looping back to my previous book The Papal Curse. Conclusion “The papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof,” famously wrote Thomas Hobbes.[1] The metaphor is powerful, but slightly misleading. The Church was not the spirit of the Empire. It was a foreign body that the Empire had tried to expel from its own organism, most violently under Diocletian, only to surrender a generation later. The relationship between Church and Empire therefore has less to do with a ghostly apparition than with spirit possession. Rome did not merely survive in the Church after the Empire’s death; the Church entered the Roman body, transformed it from within, and eventually came to speak in the name of the civilization that had once sought to destroy it. Church and Empire were two profoundly different institutions. By the thirteenth century, however, the Church had acquired many of the attributes of an imperial power: a vast territorial domain, a sophisticated administrative appa­ratus, a universal political ambition, and a claim to authority that transcended kingdoms and frontiers. Innocent III (1198–1216) could even appear, in the eyes of his fellow cleric Gervase of Tilbury, as the verus imperator—the true emperor. Yet the Church was neither the Roman Empire nor its ghostly afterlife. It was a rival to the universal authority that Rome had once embodied. The relationship between Church and Empire was not one of succession, but of sustained struggle for power: two universal powers, each claiming a higher sovereignty, locked in a contest that would shape the political order of medieval Europe. For the Roman Empire was still there. Nineteenth-century historians taught us to regard the Roman Empire as having died in 476. To maintain that narrative, they had to give the surviving Eastern Roman Empire a new name—the “Byzantine Empire”—and to treat the Roman imperial revivals of the West, first under Charlemagne in 800 and then under Otto I in 962, as something less than a continuation of the Roman tradition: imitations, or new political constructions built upon the ruins of the original Empire. Leopold von Ranke, in particular, viewed the history of the Holy Roman Empire, abolished in 1806, as a story of failed nation building.[2] Recent historians increasingly reject this teleological framework. Rather than asking why the medieval Empire failed to become the German nation-state, they ask what it actually was—and why the Roman imperial idea proved so remarkably resilient. Robert Folz’s The Concept of Empire in Western Europe from the Fifth to the Fourteenth Century (1969) was a pioneering work in this reassessment. More recently, the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, in Falls Europa erwacht (If Europe Wakes Up), underlies the resilience of the idea of the Empire in the political imagination of Europe: The quintessential function of Europe’s constitution lies in a mechanism for the transfer of the Empire. Europe sets itself in motion and remains in motion to the extent that it succeeds in claiming the Empire that existed before it and transforming it. Europe is thus a stage for the metamorphoses of the Empire; the guiding principle of its political imagination is a sort of metempsychosis of the Roman Empire through the decisive European peoples capable of shaping history.[3] After repeated attempts to construct a pan-European imperial order, Europeans eventually redefined their political world as a collection of independent and sovereign nation-states, bound together by a common Catholic faith and by the dynastic ties of their ruling houses. By the eighteenth century, Europeans had been accus­tomed to regard the nation-state as the natural culmination of their political history. The great empires were consequently recast as obstacles to national self-determi­nation, and Euro­peans set about dismantling them and redistributing their territories in the name of the nation. The process began within Europe itself, with the dismemberment of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires, and extended far beyond it through the division and colonization of territories across Asia and Africa. Yet, as Sloterdijk observes, “European nationalism was the pluralism of imperialism. … because Europe is too small to sustainably accommodate several aggressive empires side by side, it was in the nature of things that the national-imperial rivalries among the major European nations would degenerate into what have been called the world wars.”[4] Even as they pretended to adhere to the Westphalian order of nation-states and spoke of “perpetual peace” in Kantian terms, the major European powers never ceased working for their own imperial ambitions. Europe had spent centuries struggling to construct a universal political order; having abandoned the imperial ideal, it settled for nationalism. But the nationalism of each of the great European powers hid within itself a simmering imperialism. The European powers no longer sought to unite the continent under a single empire. They sought, instead, to build empires of their own—and the resulting rivalry helped turn Europe’s internal competition into permanent conflicts of genuinely global scale. I discovered Sloterdijk’s book only after publishing The Papal Curse, and it was quite a satisfaction to find that I had arrived to the same conclusion. I believe there is a reason why only a German could have arrived at the clarity of vision that Sloterdijk demonstrates here. For geographical, historical, intellectual, and perhaps also sociological reasons, Germans have been the most Roman and the most imperial of European peoples—as well as the closest to the Greek spirit, according to some. Ernest Renan, himself both an admirer of Rome and a sympathetic observer of Germany, wrote about the new Prussian Empire, in the immediate aftermath of the French defeat of 1871: Here the individual is taken, raised, shaped, trained, disciplined, and constantly called upon by a society rooted in the past, molded by old institutions, and claiming authority over morality and reason. In this system, the individual gives enormously to the State; in exchange, the State provides him with a strong intellectual and moral culture, as well as the joy of participating in a great endeavor.[5] Some Fate, or Providence, seems to have entrusted the Germans with the Empire. As we saw in Chapters 6 and 7, the Goths were already great lovers of the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity. Alaric’s brother-in-law and successor Athaulf, according to Orosius, sought “the glory of restoring and increasing the renown of the Romans by the power of the Goths, wishing to be looked upon by posterity as the restorer of the Roman Empire.”[6] None worked harder for the preservation and prosperity of Roman Italy and for the unity of the Western mediterranean world than the Goth Theoderic the Great. The self-proclaimed Roman emperors of the Middle Ages were also German (Franks, Saxons, and Swabians). We have become accustomed to thinking that, because they were Germans, they could not really be Romans. But this is an anachronistic way of looking at the medieval Empire, based on a modern conception of nationality that would have been largely unintelligible to its rulers. To the Ottonian emperors of the tenth and eleventh centuries, Romanitas was not a matter of ethnicity. It was a political and civilizational inheritance, embodied in the imperial office itself. The Ottos’ ambition was to revive in the West the imperial institution that continued to flourish in Constanti­nople. While claiming the purple for the West, they recognized the ascendency of the Macedonian dynasty that ruled from Constantinople. In the Roman tradition of the fourth century CE, both families were united through marriage: Otto II married a niece of Emperor John Tzimiskes, and his son Otto III, raised under profound Byzantine influence, was to marry a niece of Emperor Basil II, when he died prematurely at 21 years old. Otto III wanted to make Rome his capital and “dreamed of reconstituting the ancient Roman Empire in the form of a supranational structure uniting all the Christian peoples of the Latin West.”[7] In its culture, its political ideology, and its state ceremo­nial, the Ottonian Empire was characteristically Roman. Naturally, it also possessed new traits partly of German origin. Most notably, the German princes elected the king, who bore the title King of the Romans and, once elected, was regarded as the legitimate candidate for the imperial dignity, awaiting coronation by the pope. Yet these new elements did not make the Empire any less Roman in the eyes of its contemporaries. It was still the Imperium Romanorum—the “Empire of the Romans.” Nor did the name necessarily sound old-fashioned to the peoples of Europe, for they still thought of themselves as living in Romano orbe, as we can read in the chronicle of Rodulfus Glaber, written in 1026-44.[8] As I argued in the first chapter of The Papal Curse, the imperial political structure created by the Ottos might well have continued to consolidate and, by the thirteenth century, drawn much of Europe—from France to Hungary and from England to Sicily—into its orbit, had the papacy not embarked upon a sustained struggle to subordinate the emperors, beginning with the Salian dynasty (1024–1125). This struggle emerged from what is known as the Gregorian Reform, named after Hildebrand, the monk who became Pope Gregory VII in 1073. Essentially, the Gregorian Reform was a long-standing imperial coup by which the popes made themselves the suzerains of European princes. They did so by mastering the art of the “two swords”: by the “spiritual sword,” the pope could excommunicate any rebellious prince, thereby nullifying all oaths of loyalty to him; by the “temporal sword,” the pope could mobilize the armies of other princes against the rebellious one. It is highly significant that the popes could invoke the forged Donation of Constantine in support of their imperial claims. Probably the most consequential political forgery in European history, the document purported to record an extraordinary act of imperial abdication. Constantine the Great was made to declare that he had ceded to Pope Sylvester and to all his successors “until the end of the world” the imperial insignia and “the glory of our power,” together with “both our palace and the city of Rome and all the provinces, localities and cities of Italy or of the Western regions.” The implications were breathtaking. If the document were genuine, the pope was not merely the spiritual head of Christendom: he was the lawful recipient of the imperial authority that Constantine had transferred from Rome to the East. The papacy could therefore present its temporal sovereignty not as an innovation, but as the restoration of an ancient imperial right. From the eleventh century onward, and with increasing force during the high Middle Ages, the Donation became one of the weapons in the papal arsenal for asserting authority over secular rulers and defining the limits of imperial power. It was, in other words, an extraordinary inversion of the Roman inheritance. The successor of Peter claimed to possess the authority of Caesar—not because he had conquered the Empire, but because, according to a document purporting to come from Constantine himself, Caesar had handed it to him... Keep reading with a 7-day free trial Subscribe to Radbod's Lament to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives. Start trial A subscription gets you: Subscriber-only posts and full archive Post comments and join the community   Like Comment Restack   © 2026 Laurent Guyénot 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Unsubscribe