The Bible in a nutshell

Kevin MacDonald’s first book of his trilogy opened the doors to my understanding of what the Christians call the “Old Testament,” the sacred book of the Jews. In a nutshell, the Old Testament message promises a strictly racial ethno-state for a Semitic tribe: a message by Semitic writers for a specific Semitic people.

In contrast, the New Testament message for the gentiles seems to say, also in a nutshell, An ethno-state for me but not for thee; your reign is not of this world.

Jesus (and by this I don’t mean the historical Jesus—whoever the hell he was, if he did exist after all—but the Jesus of the gospel) is presented to us as an universalist. At least that’s how the Jew Saul (the most influential author of the New Testament as far as the extent of his writing compared to the other apostles), called “Saint Paul” by the Christians, preached his good news. In Galatians for example he says: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

In other words, throughout the OT the Jews teach ethno-centricity for the Jewish people, but in the NT the Jew teaches universalism for us gentiles. Right? That’s the Holy Bible in a fucking little nutshell.

Below, a recent exchange on Christianity in a non-American, racialist blog:


Saint Paul delivering the Areopagus Sermon in Athens, by Raphael, 1515.

aijahlon68 says…

I was banned for life from by a Christian Identity zealot / moderator, for having the audacity to write a post saying that Yeshua was a Jew.

Christian Identity, and Christianity as a whole, represents the biggest disadvantage the white race has in overcoming the Jewish problem. Christianity (in any form) is nothing more than self-inflicted Jewish Supremacy. As a race, we will never overcome the Jewish problem, until the Christian problem is solved first. How does one battle against emotions fueled by religious devotion, which is the most dangerous kind of devotion, because it leaves no room for questions or common sense, and is devoid of truth.

Waking a race of people up from a deep dream state based on Jewish lies would truly be a miracle, but impossible as it seems, there must be a way, and those of us who are fully awake need to find it.

mk8 says…

Attacking Christianity is a bad idea before every other problem has been dealt with. Even Hitler said so, and we all like Hitler, don’t we? There would just be some form of spiritual vacuum which would soon be filled by Islam and various other dangerous cults. As it stands now Christianity is actually the least of all evils.

Varg Vikernes says…

No it is not a bad idea at all. Christianity is the problem we have today. Christianity is not the least of all evils; it is the indirect cause of all evils. The Christians allow their “chosen people” special rights to destroy us all. If it hadn’t been for the Christians the Jews would not have been able to do anything to us at all. Go to Thulean Perspective for more on that, and search for posts about Christianity.

Christians even revolted against the NS regime, in 1942, causing instability and many other problems too, so maybe Hitler should have dealt with them first?

If Europe had been Pagan we would not have had any of the serious problems we have today in the first place.

mk8 says…

Varg, you are right that much of the resistance against the Third Reich was by Christians, and their grip on the churches was not tight enough. Hitler was not that wrong about leaving Christianity alone though, as he saw what happened to the Alldeutsche Vereinigung in Austria-Hungary (a political party supporting the Anschluss of the German part of Austria to Germany). The movement fell apart soon after they started to openly attack the church, failing to reach the common people and losing most of their followers. Even if it was the right thing to do, it was a very bad strategic move in hindsight.

On a smaller scale, I’ll just assume the same thing happens in places like It’s an American site after all, it must reek of Christians. Confronting them with the truth about their religion is like a cold shower for them. Maybe it’s not so bad to be banned from there after all…


  1. The term “catholic” is derived from the Greek word καθολικός (katholikos) meaning “universal” and was first used to describe the Church in the early 2nd century.

    Universalism is the deadly poison that the Jew concocted for the white race.

  2. Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:

    Interesting discussion of an ethnic double standard.

  3. The problem with Christianity is that its the ‘default’ religion of Whites at the moment. The question then becomes, how many of these Christians are real believers? How many just go along for tradition’s sake? How many don’t believe at all, but just identify as Christian so people leave them alone? The political reality on the ground says we need to deal with Christianity in a way that is a positive for Whites, although I have no solution to offer on how to accomplish that miracle.

    Christianity was not imposed on Europeans overnight and we won’t be able to get rid of the damage “universalism” has caused overnight either. I’m just concerned that the clock already struck midnight long ago…

    • I consider the problem Humanism specifically, not some vague “universalism”. Kmac universalizes our method of analyzing non-humans by applying the principles of evolution to human populations, but he’s right to do so. Our enemies put all moral significance on the human species, which is then homogenized so as not to allow Humanism to become diluted.

      I believe Solzhenitsyn is correct in this regard, and agree with his analysis posted by Chechar.

      Most people (including Kmac himself, I believe) consider universalism and Humanism synonymous, but I think the distinction is actually an important one. “Man is the measure of all things” has reduced us to the lowest common denominator, and it will be impossible to grow so long as that axiom is internalized. We need to be willing to say “Man is something to be surpassed”, and that we’re willing to stand with the rest of the universe when “Man” becomes a plague.

      • Presently it’s a plague. That’s why I talk of exterminating most of it.

  4. I don’t think I fully agree with this analysis.

    “True” Christianity, based on the historical interpretation of the scripture, is non-racial but is anti-Jewish. You cannot go to heaven if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your savior, the (religious) Jews have rebelled against God and will be damned to hell. Africans and Mesoamericans can go to heaven if they accept Christianity, and so can racial Jews but they’d be forced to denounce the rest of their race for their apostasy. It’s basically what the Spanish had going.

    Modern “Christianity” is very philo-Semitic, and “tolerant” of other religions in general. Few Christians will actually say that all Muslims are damned for rejecting Jesus as the son of God (their historical position, supported by their scripture) and none will say that all Jews are damned for collectively declaring Jesus a faithless heretic and following the traditions of the Pharisees (again the historical position).

    This says to me that while Christianity might be a crappy religion in essence (New Spain), what is essentially Christian is no longer determining what self-identified Christians believe (“inter-faith dialogue”, Talmudic Jews beloved by God, etc). A Christian America might permit massive African immigration and oppose eugenics, but it wouldn’t permit atheism to be taught in schools or Muslims to construct mosques near the WTC ruins.

    Liberal Humanism certainly grabbed pieces of itself from Christianity, but some pieces weren’t from it at all. “Freedom of Religion”, for instance, is considered a moral imperative. That’s from decadent Greece and Rome. Modern Humanism keeps Christianity on a short leash, and needs to.

    We stand on the other side of Christianity. Our disagreements with it are almost a perfect inverse of theirs. But Christianity is pretty much a dead religion at this point, its “adherents” won’t stand up for even the most basic point of its doctrine (belief in the divinity of Christ a prerequisite for salvation, thus denied to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc). Christianity will necessarily be torn apart by Humanism and whatever comes next (Suprahumanism?). The parts of Christianity which are truly spiritual (“positive” – Rosenberg) will be those aligned with the new order, the rest will be destroyed.

    As a side note, Christian Identity is axiomatically quite a bit different from historical Christianity. The claim that they’re philo-Semitic because they claim to be ancient Judeans is silly, they hate modern Jews with no ground for compromise (and hey, if you think Ben Bernanke is actually an “Israelite” from the Torah I’ve got a bridge to sell you). I still think Christian Identity will fail because hardly anyone is going to believe its claims. That’s mostly a technical criticism though, not an ideological one.

    • I don’t think I fully agree with this analysis.
      “True” Christianity, based on the historical interpretation of the scripture, is non-racial but is anti-Jewish.

      But this post was not about Christianity but about the Bible.

      Or are you responding to Adit?

      • The commenters you quoted, and some commenters you didn’t quote, honestly I get kind of sloppy with saying who I disagree with. Take my disagreements with a grain of salt I guess, I might be misinterpreting what someone’s position is.

        But I do think the Bible is inherently anti-Jewish, insofar as the Jews practice their religion. Jesus seems pretty damn explicit:

        I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
        Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
        These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.
        Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
        Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.
        And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
        I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
        They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
        But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
        Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
        Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
        Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
        Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
        And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
        Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
        He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

        And their damnation would be implied anyway by the core rule of Christianity (Jesus was the son of God and only through belief in him can you have eternal life). Obviously there was some sort of religious schism going on, and the Christians weren’t about to extend their enemies special privileges. That might not be a good reason to be anti-Jewish, but at least it’s what the Bible implies.

        The huge degree of philo-Semitism (among other things) supported by the churches implies that modern ideology can run roughshod over the Bible in any case. Another example: Homosexuality is explicitly condemned as an abomination, in both testaments, but the churches are readily caving to the faggots.

      • But I do think the Bible is inherently anti-Jewish

        But what the Christians call the “Bible” is OT + NT, right? OT understood as the book of the tribe is not anti-Jewish. Only some passages of NT are.

      • P.S.

        Guessedworker’s last article is precisely about the subject you raise. He concludes:

        To be a nationalist in these end-times is to be a man of Athens and know that in the Christian life, in the Christian ontology, the motive power of the European identity is simply not affirmed or truly expressed, and that can be by no means sufficient.

      • But those passages establish that the Jews are damned to hell for rejecting Jesus as the messiah, and further claim that the Jews are not the true heirs of Abraham, but that the Christians are.

        It’s awkward to have so much of the Bible dedicated to a group of people who are basically discarded by the end, and frankly CI makes more sense in that regard. Still the traditional Christian line of succession goes Abraham -> Moses -> David -> Jesus -> St. Peter -> The Church, with everyone who didn’t accept Jesus as the messiah in revolt against God. Incidentally, going from the most exalted to the worst of traitors is the story of Satan in Christian mythology, so it’s not as though a “fall from grace” is hard for Christians to swallow.

        If you think there’s problems with that narrative though, try ascribing “Original Sin” to “Adam and Eve”, the two first humans who lived 6000 years ago and brought evil into the world by eating a magical fruit guarded by a talking snake. If that didn’t literally happen did Noah really put every animal on earth inside his ark? Did Moses really turn the Nile into blood? Did Jesus really raise people from the dead?

        Christians will make all sorts of concessions to stop atheists from bullying them about why their religion doesn’t make sense. I don’t think there’s a strong correlation between those concessions and some sort of scriptural basis; the Cult of Reason was established during the French revolution, by the same people who granted increased power to the Jews.

        I do think there is a major problem with historical Christianity, which does continue to the present day: the idea that every human has an equal human soul, and that nothing else in the world matters except his being able to wallow around praising The Lawd. Which of course becomes his special human body and human “freedoms”, once people stop believing in souls. It seems to me, though, that the classical world had already began this decline, from Greek metaphysics to Roman citizenship. The Laws of Manu by the ancient Aryans are a breath of fresh air in this regard, and really the only ancient religion I know of that was able to go beyond human vanity.

      • You overlook Sparta’s ethnocentric religion, and that of the Iberian Goths too (before their conversion to Christ).

      • How much of theirs was recorded though? That seems to be the main problem with trying to reconstruct the religions of northern Europe.

        Where the Laws of Lycurgus ever actually found?

      • No. It was forbidden to write them down (did you read the mini-book?). All we have is Plutarch, Xenophon and Plato’s recounts of Sparta. Of the Goths we don’t even have something like it…

      • Human Vanity:

        YouTube link

  5. I read part of the book but missed them not being written down. Sort of a common law thing I guess. Good for them maybe, but not as useful for us.

    I figured the Goths didn’t have anything in writing, records of the Germanics were usually Roman or something. The Christians probably destroyed most of the oral tradition.

  6. The essential problem with “modern” Christianity or “Judaeo-Christianity” as it is now referred to, is the total lack of understanding of the ancient Jewish religion and culture as well as the times and place in which it existed. Initially, non-Jewish Christian leaders had at least a working knowledge of Judaism and the issue it has with Christianity, which explains why Christianity originally considered itself in kind, antithetical to Judaism.

    Yeshu was intended to replace the leader of the priesthood, the Kohein Gadol, who held the power of the Jew’s personal god Yahweh as his personal messenger, an interpreter who divined God’s word though the casting of the Urim and Thummin. Therefore the idea was for Jesus to usurp this power and become Yahweh himself. This premise is not merely unfounded supposition, but one that has been researched and identified by the Biblical Temple Scholar, Margaret Barker (.com).

    Those who say Jesus wasn’t a Jew exhibit a profound ignorance of the subject. Maintaining that Jesus wasn’t a Jew is as absurd as claiming the Pope really isn’t Catholic. Had Yeshu not been a Jew, he could not have read from the Torah scrolls in the Synagogue, taught in the Temple or performed any of his so-called “miracles,” which by Jewish definition, are actually unintended outcomes to Jewish religious law. Most assuredly, had Yeshu not been a Jew, the Temple authorities would never have given him a second thought, let alone listen raptly to his discourse on their law at the tender age of thirteen. Anyone with even a scant understanding of Jewish culture and religion know this for fact. Jewish law, as well as their cultural clannishness, clearly delineates that had Jesus not been a Jew, Temple authorities would never have had a problem with him or vice versa.

    Like Christians themselves, people standing in opposition to Christianity invariably have little or no understanding of the belief system they oppose. I always welcome the opportunity to talk to Christians and discuss their Bible. Yet, when they hear what I have to say, they flee like Satan himself was talking. In fact metaphorically that is exactly what I am, quite literally opposition to their belief system. Ironically, that is exactly the manner in which Yeshu framed the Temple and its priesthood.

    I have been blacklisted by Mormon Elders for doing nothing more than welcoming them in to discuss their religion. (Mormons are among my favorite white people). I point out facts with which they are familiar, but in which they lack essential background information. When I reach a point in explaining this background information, they look at their watches, excuse themselves and leave. Thus, I have long told atheist and agnostics, if one truly desires Christians to leave them alone, tell them the facts behind their religion and they will hastily exit the room, never to darken one’s doorway again.

    As I have written so many times before, If one wants to deal with Christianity, how it came about and why, one must first understand its foundations i.e. Judaism’s history, culture and religion. Apparently however, everyone is preoccupied with whining, bitching and making erroneous claims about religion instead of working to understand the underpinning foundations of these beliefs. Orthodox Jews teach and maintain an excellent understanding of their history, culture and religion, which fully explains their beliefs and their actions. Outside this tiny minority, abysmal ignorance is the crux of the problem.

    • What Parrott and Heimbach don’t want to hear…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: