Siege, 33

On the way into Poland in 1939

…or more accurately, on the way back into the Polish-occupied German territory at the outset of World War Two, Adolf Hitler told his troops, “Close your hearts to pity”.

A strange thing for a Nazi to be telling other Nazis. After all, that is supposed to be a foregone conclusion if we have been taught right. Didn’t Hitler start the war for the pure fun and brutality of it? We know otherwise but there is still a subtle message in what Hitler told his men in 1939. In spite of Polish occupation of German territories since 1918 and in spite of some of the worst outrages done against the German inhabitants by some over-zealous Poles, Hitler knew he had to spell out plainly to his men what the mission was if it was going to be done right.

It is part of the White Man’s makeup to forget, to know pity… it is found in no other race. And this trait has cost us plenty over the centuries because we have let so many enemies get away.

As we all too painfully know, THAT was the prime reason for the loss of World War Two: Hitler was not the bad guy he is made out to be. Had he been, the British Army at Dunkirk would have been annihilated; every Jew in Europe WOULD have been killed; and idealism would not have been so high as to prevent the immediate use of millions of Russians and Ukrainians in the fight against Marxist-Leninism.

But in a lot of respects, those German soldiers crashing their way back into their lost provinces had it a lot easier than we shall in closing our hearts to pity, for when an enemy is shooting at you, the instinct is to shoot back. And in the case of a war between European States, once the issue was settled on the field of honor, life could go on as before… not so at all for the United States in the civil war that is coming up.

One well-known Right Wing leader has already said that we must not neglect to assemble our own “lists” of enemy operatives and sympathizers in our own locales for quick reference later on. His argument—and he is correct—is that you know damned good and well that they certainly have us on their lists, in triplicate! On the surface this isn’t a bad idea but I know how lazy the Movement is.

It is by no means wishful thinking for me to draw you this picture: not many months ago I had regular occasion to screen people in their homes in the line of work. Conversation invariably drifted to the topic of the neighborhood. More than once I found myself standing in windows or yards being given a visual guided tour of where the race-mixers lived. At those times I could visualize myself in the same circumstances only this time in official capacity as a “Revolutionary Clean-Up Man”. And THAT is part of how the civil war is going to shape up.

The real White Americans who are left (and there are many) HATE the very sight of race-mixing even though they scarcely understand the larger, genetic meaning of it. They HATE those of their own race who are involved in it. Don’t you think they’d LOVE to come to us later on, after this existing race-mixing System has been smashed down by revolution, and “finger” every single race-mixer known to them, knowing fast action on our part will follow instantaneously? This sort of renders the need for “lists” unnecessary. As far as the System’s kingpins are concerned, everybody knows who they are. As far as the System Sucks are concerned, we here know ours by heart very well and you can and should be the same in your area.

The truth is that assembling and keeping these so-called “hit lists” for us at this time is a DANGER. Looks bad as hell in case of a raid and it is UNNECESSARY. Actual System bureaucrats will get it during the full-phase course of the revolution as we go about the real business of smashing the power of the System.

The larger “clean-up” phase during and after the civil war, which even then will be raging, is a different matter. As most of you have long ago noticed, a lot of the most rabid, sneering miscegenators are blond, blue-eyed doll babies. If you can’t close your heart to pity, if you couldn’t blast the head off of one or a thousand of these types, then you had better bow out right now.

War is war and it is something highly impersonal. But White renegades, be they government officials or plain bleeding hearts, are another matter. We must swear an oath to ourselves now—while we’re down, while things are tough, while the Enemy is in full power, while the vile race-mixers daily promenade openly in public protected by this evil System, now while it is easy to HATE—that for the United States there will be no need for concentration camps of any kind, for not a single transgressor will survive long enough to make it to that kind of haven.

Vol. IX, #6 – October, 1980

Published in: on May 31, 2018 at 6:50 pm  Comments (11)  

Führer quote

‘As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life’.

Hitler’s Table Talk, page 394

Published in: on May 31, 2018 at 1:37 pm  Comments (11)  

Siege, 32

Later on we’ll conspire

A comrade sent me a pamphlet issued by a bunch of idiots who happen to be the proud owners of some professional printing equipment and who thereby imagine themselves qualified to speak on the subject of revolution. In this pamphlet they darkly talk in grave tones about “conspiratorial activity”. At that point my suspicions of them which I’d had since the mid-70’s were confirmed: they are children playing with matches!

The term conspiracy is not now, and never has been, part of my vocabulary. It is DANGEROUS! I should say UNNECESSARILY DANGEROUS! For conspiracy means TALK and talk is counter-revolutionary. Talk is what the System and its pimps LOVE most of all. In case you didn’t know it already, you can do big. Federal time for merely “conspiring” to do something. You need not take any action, only TALK about it to a circle of three or more (including yourself), and THAT constitutes conspiracy! (And one of the favorites of the System is to charge people with “conspiring to violate civil rights” which sometimes doesn’t even require the discussion of any action.)

But of course you figure that you are too careful for that, eh? You think you know and can trust the people you deal with, right? Let me quickly relate the story of how two brothers were framed by the Feds and who are now serving a six-year term for conspiracy. A hired pimp was sent into their group in Columbus, Ohio, in 1977 to first gather information and, later, to act as agent provocateur. He spent two years building his credibility before he began to get a little bold with his suggestions. It doesn’t matter how “tight” your imagined security is if it includes one professional pimp. This agent kept bucking for some kind of “action”, something “solid” as a strike against forced bussing in Columbus. Finally he got around to the idea of bombing a school. Then came the brothers’ big mistake: they did not at that moment say to the pimp, “Get thee behind me!” They listened, they discussed the pros and cons. And later, in the Federal courtroom after their arrests by an army of FBI agents, they saw and heard themselves on wide-screen motion picture “conspiring” with police agents to bomb a school building! The all-White jury didn’t take even thirty minutes to return a verdict of “Guilty”!

Rockwell in 1965 conjured up that exact scene of one day having to sit in a court of law and watch yourself on film. Well, gang, “1984” arrived a long time ago. This Big Brother System is held in power largely through pimps—both professional and amateur. Actually it is a pimp system, a whole society of loose-lipped blabbermouths! Law enforcement would nearly shut down without its pimps, who are in most cases not even “agents” in the true sense—just babbling idiots.

The professional, hired pimps are one thing. Loose talk and stupidity are another. But they both lead to the same, disastrous result. And they both are defeated the same way: don’t conspire; don’t talk! In effect it’s only illegal to get caught, only illegal to trip up. You don’t NEED to ever enter into a conspiracy! You don’t NEED to ever deal with persons who might later let loose with fatal talk! We must have acts of revolution, the sooner the better, the more the merrier. But these are all of a nature that they can and MUST be carried out by INDIVIDUALS and that removes all requirement for talk, the possibility of “conspiracy”, and the danger of a leak! The lone wolf cannot be detected, cannot be prevented, and seldom can be traced.

For his choice of targets he needs little more than the daily newspaper for suggestions and tips galore. But it is necessary that NSLF begin again its program of systematic infiltration of the Reds, the unions, local Democrat and Republican cells, etc. (even the local NAACP… you need not be colored to join). We do have need of privileged information and will have greater need in the future. For his training the lone wolf needs only the U.S. military or any one of a hundred good manuals readily available through radical booksellers. Equipment is still easily available (and I caution against possessing illegal weapons as they aren’t necessary) and even though the System may be expected to enact more anti-gun laws, this will only serve to stimulate and ever-growing black market for armaments (thus producing an ever greater pool of human resources for us to recruit from). His greatest concern must be to pick his target well so that his act may speak so clearly for itself that no member of White America can mistake its message.

If you can’t do it, leave it alone. Forget it! Don’t try and talk someone else into doing it and ESPECIALLY don’t hear of anyone else trying to talk YOU into anything. Don’t talk, period! However it can’t hurt to begin now to learn, to train, and to have materials ready.

Vol. IX, #5 – September, 1980

Published in: on May 30, 2018 at 11:55 pm  Comments (7)  

The beginnings

What distinguishes me most from the forums of white nationalists is my ability to hate. It reminds me a little what I said to Jez Turner in one of the podcasts, referring to the nationalists in general, ‘Where’s your fucking hate?’ Turner did not seem to tune in to my emotions and commented that one should not ‘do something silly’, presumably referring to something illegal. But now the decent and law-abiding gentleman is keeping Tommy Robinson company in jail…

I currently barely visit the sites of white nationalists. I would do it again if they were able to feel, at least, some of the hatred I feel. This, for example, is Rudyard Kipling’s poem about the wrath of the awakened Saxon:

Published in: on May 30, 2018 at 9:14 am  Comments (21)  

Siege, 31

Longest sought after

A winning, successful course of action not dependent upon a central organization or a major leader figure. Between alpha and omega, not existing at extreme ends of the spectrum, will be found the answer. What does amount to suicide is going straight from doing nothing to taking on the entire System in direct, violent confrontation. There does not exist, and we cannot stand around and hope for, either the organization or the leader to “tell us what to do”.

That outfit or that man would be pounced upon and destroyed in an instant by the System. We have to think for ourselves first, and then we can go on to direct our own actions. The first step has got to be giving up all stupid and false notions. Those who are basic cowards or who are otherwise hopelessly inadequate to the task cannot and will not part with these notions, ever.

False ideas are any which stray from the ground zero reality that all evil springs from the System; the System will never correct itself; it will never permit anyone or anything to correct it; it will never tolerate or allow the development of any true, alternate system to compete legally against it; nothing of a positive or partial nature can be accomplished while the System stands; those who embark upon a course which runs contrary to that which the System has determined must understand that they embark on a life and death struggle. It is the one duty and one goal of the revolutionary to struggle for the death of the System.

So much is bound up in just realizing the totality of the situation that little else can be added to that except to say that once it has been comprehended, the person then at once begins to see everything, every situation, in a different light. Things are clearer. The course of action becomes obvious.

In the old revolutionary axiom, “Educate, Agitate, and Organize”, the term “education” is basic. Not the type of education as thought of by reactionaries, but the kind of information which provides years of revolutionary experience in a week or a month, without the necessity of having to live it over painful, dangerous, useless decades such as we have had to endure. To impart knowledge and expertise to our next wave, our next generation, in precisely the same manner and for precisely the same reasons as our former “institutes of higher learning” used to teach their students: to build upon a solid foundation, to increase the chances of and to hasten ever-greater achievements. It is a science, not a diversion or a money-making racket.

The Movement has GOT TO STOP PEDDLING GARBAGE and START INSTRUCTING IN REVOLUTION!

Next, to agitate. The problem becomes more complex as it leads out of the confines of home or hideaway and from the safety of the typewriter and the postal service. You are not out to sell a product, a gimmick, or a certain approach. You are not out to re-fight the Civil or the Second World War. You are not out to blow minds. Neither are you out to idly grumble or complain.

You are out to CLARIFY, to POLARIZE, and to INTENSIFY that which faces all of us, everyday. And it is to be directed, in every case, against the System itself, the ultimate culprit, never toward simply Blacks or Jews or liberals or anything else which skirts or evades the issue and which sounds like (and IS) reactionary and for which not even a fool nowadays will respond favorably or positively. A revolutionary comrade is one who leads. You lead by taking people over barriers of time and understanding toward ultimate confrontation with reality. And that reality is the best, most irritative source of agitation possible. Such is the rightness of our cause.

You do not “agitate” by placing yourself in the center of brawls. Lesser still by aiding the System in making people despise you. You do it anonymously, by making people know and hate the System.

Finally, to organize. That in which the Movement has consistently failed the worst. An organization does not exist for its own sake. Nothing ever starts out that way. The System, as have all such systems in the past, is ending up that way. To promote the “club”, the “leader”, the “name”, the “symbol” or the “approach” soon becomes everything.

In-fighting takes over. Petty competitions take care of the rest. Nothing is served. So it has always gone. To truly organize effectively means having someplace to hide on the other side of the country, anytime, for any reason. It means secrets being kept. It means material help when it is needed. It means a unified line and a unified response in the face of crises. It means respect and cooperation. It means loyalty. It means to multiply ourselves in a coordinated way to give the effect of a giant, a unit.

Organization—as opposed to “organizations”—does not give the effect of a lot of “duplicates” ignoring each other and getting into each other’s way. It means to effect hands and feet, arms and legs, eyes and ears everywhere, simultaneously. Acting in one common cause and one common interest, in iron discipline, ultimately to lead to one organism with a common intelligence, instinct, voice, and, above all, a common WILL!

How little does any of the above description resemble what has passed heretofore as these very things: Education, Agitation, and Organization.

Vol. XIV, #11 – November, 1985

Published in: on May 29, 2018 at 7:32 pm  Comments (15)  

Why I disagree

w/ Greg Johnson on Tommy Robinson

Listen, after about the first seven minutes that this
Southerner quoted from Greggy’s recent article.

Audio on The Right Stuff: here.

Published in: on May 29, 2018 at 9:41 am  Comments (6)  

Siege, 30

The hell of it is

…that we ourselves aren’t at all immune from the horrific things that are in store for the future. If we were somehow isolated or insulated from it then none of what is today bringing it on would bother or concern us. If that was the case, I doubt whether we’d be in the struggle at all. But this is not a laboratory experiment that we can shelve, lockup, and walk away from. This is a fight for survival and we are not immune from the hell that we must strive to see gets broken loose. Any halfway “normal” person might be expected to come up with a rejoinder like this: “Why do we do it?”

We do it because one thing is clear: the current deadlock must be broken at all cost. It is frighteningly obvious that nothing positive can be expected to happen with the way things are now. Therefore a different atmosphere must be created in which some kind of positive change can be effected. Again, the “normal” person might say that there is already enough disorder, enough hell and chaos going on right now without adding more. What they don’t see is that we have in this country is an “ordered disorder” which was made-to-order by, and for Big Brother. Don’t you believe they could stop crime, subversion, and anarchy if they really wanted to?

All the hell and disorder of the past, and the general crime wave today is the greatest help to Big Brother, his System and his Establishment. The Black riots gave the insurance companies carte blanche to remove the gloves and start extorting small businessmen and all the rest of us. The “limited anarchy” and the “limited insurrection” of the Blacks and the Reds just gives Big Brother more alibi to tighten the lid of the Electronic Surveillance Society, to stampede legislation to disarm the populace. All the runaway non-White crime merely gives cover and justification for the erection of a police state, the reins of power firmly in the hands of the Jews. They don’t want it stamped out; they need it for the completion of their plans.

What they fear most is total disorder which they can’t control. That which they can’t monitor or control doesn’t serve their interests. It’s been said that we don’t want to rock the boat, we want to sink it. When we succeed in blowing the bottom right out, we’re going to have to hurry topside, over the rail, and swim for life, leaving the rats to drown with the ship.

Vol. X, #4 – April, 1981

Published in: on May 28, 2018 at 11:35 am  Comments (28)  

On the Turin Shroud, 5

Note of July 25, 2020: I have removed this text because tonight I will reproduce it again, but in a better context.

Published in: on May 27, 2018 at 8:24 pm  Comments (1)  

Kriminalgeschichte, 67

Below, an abridged translation from the first volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity). For a comprehensive text that explains the absolute need to destroy Judeo-Christianity, see here. In a nutshell, any white person who worships the god of the Jews is, ultimately, ethnosuicidal.

 
Augustine’s campaign against the Donatists

To the Donatists, whom the African had never mentioned before, he finally paid attention when he was already a priest. Since then he fought them year after year, with greater fury than other ‘heretics’; he threw his contempt to their faces and expelled them from Hippo, their episcopal city. Because the Donatists had committed ‘the crime of schism’ they were nothing but ‘weeds’, animals: ‘these frogs sit in their pond and croak: “we are the only Christians!” but they are heading to hell without knowing it’.

What was a Donatist for Augustine? An alternative that was not presented to him, because, when he was elected bishop, the schism was already 85 years old. It was a local African issue, relatively small, though not divided into ‘countless crumbs’ as he claimed. Catholicism, on the other hand, absorbed the peoples; it had the emperor on his side, the masses, as Augustine blurts out, ‘the unity of the whole world’. Frequently and without hesitation Augustine insists on such demonstration of the majority, incapable of making the reflection that Schiller will later formulate: ‘What is the majority? Most is nonsense; intelligence has always been only in the minority’.

The Donatist was convinced of being a member of a brotherhood. Throughout their tragic history, they collaborated with a religious-revolutionary peasant movement, which inflicted vexations on the landowners: the Circumcellions or Agonistici—temporary workers of the countryside and at the same time the left wing of this Church, who first enjoyed the support of Donatus of Bagai and later that of Gildo.

According to his adversary, Augustine, who characterized them with the psalm of ‘rapids are their feet to shed blood’, they robbed, looted, set fire to the basilicas, threw lime and vinegar in the eyes of Catholics, claimed promissory notes and started with threats his emancipation. Often led by clerics, including bishops, ‘captains of the saints’, these Agonistici or milites Christi (followers of martyrs, hobby pilgrims, terrorists) beat the landowners and Catholic clerics with decks called ‘israels’ under the war cry of ‘Praise be to God’ (laus deo), the ‘trumpets of the massacre’ (Augustine). The Catholics ‘depended to a great extent on the support of the Roman Empire and the landlords, who guaranteed them economic privileges and material protection’ (Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum). It was also not uncommon for the exploited to kill themselves in order to reach paradise. As the Donatists said, because of the persecution they jumped from rocks, as for example the cliffs of Ain Mlila, or to mighty rivers, which for Augustine was not more than ‘a part of their habitual behaviour’.

The centre of their offices was the cult to the martyrs. Excavations carried out in the centre of Algeria, which was the bulwark of the Donatists, have brought to light innumerable chapels dedicated to the adoration of the martyrs and which undoubtedly belonged to the schismatics. Many carried biblical quotes or their currency, Deo laudes.

A Donatist bishop boasted that he had reduced four churches to ashes with his own hand. They, as so often emphasized, even by Augustine, could not be martyrs ‘because they did not live the life of Christ’. The true background of the Donatist problem, which not only led to the religious wars of the years 340, 347 and 361-363 but caused the great uprisings of 372 and 397-398, Augustine failed to understand or did not want to understand. He thought he could explain through a theological discussion what was less a confessional than a social problem: the deep social contrasts within North African Christianity, the abyss between a rich upper class and those who owned nothing; that they were not in any way just the ‘bands of Circumcellions’, but also the slaves and the free masses who hated the dominant ones.

Augustine did not know or did not want to see this. He defended with all tenacity the interests of the possessing and dominant class. For him the Donatists were never right: they simply defamed and lied. He maintained that they were looking for a lie, that their lie ‘fills all Africa’. Initially, Augustine was not in favour of violence. He questioned any attempt to use it. ‘I have no intention of forcing anyone against their will to the religious community with anyone’. Of course, when he learned about the wickedness of the ‘heretics’ and saw that they could be improved with some force, which the Government already commissioned in an increasing way from the year 405, he changed his mind.

The faith of the Donatists, no matter how similar it was—even, essentially, identical—was nothing but error and violence. Catholics, on the other hand, only acted out of pure compassion, out of love. ‘Understand what happens to you! God does not want you to sink into a sacrilegious disunity, separated from your mother, the Catholic Church’.

As the Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte says, or more precisely, the Catholic Baus, ‘here speaks the voice of a man who was so driven and encouraged by the religious responsibility to bring back to an ecclesia the lost brothers in the error, that all the other considerations remained for him in the background’. How typical! He must exonerate Augustine, make his thoughts and actions understandable. Thus, over the course of two millennia, the great crimes of history have been constantly apologised and exalted; they have been glorified. Only in the name of God can they always allow and commit certain crimes, the most atrocious, as will be demonstrated more clearly each time throughout this criminal history.

With an extensive series of astute sentences, without missing those corresponding to the Old and New Testaments, the great lover now demands coercive measures against all those who ‘must be saved’ (corrigendi atque sanandi). The coercion, Augustine teaches now, is sometimes inevitable, because although the best ones can be handled with love, to the majority, unfortunately, it is necessary to force them with fear.

‘He who spares the rod hates his son’ he says, quoting the Bible. ‘A spoiled man is not corrected with words’. And did not Sara chase Hagar? And what did Elijah do with the priests of Baal? For many years Augustine had justified the brutalities of the Old Testament against the Manichaeans, from whom came that book of princes of darkness.

The New Testament could also be used. Did not Paul also give some people to Satan? ‘You know?’, Augustine says to bishop Vixens, explaining the Gospel—:

no one can be forced to justice when you read how the head of the family spoke to his servants: ‘Whoever finds them compels them to enter!’

—which Augustine translates most effectively as ‘force them’ (cogitere intrare). Resistance only demonstrates irrationality. Do not the feverish patients, in their delirium, also revolt against their doctors? Augustine calls tolerance (toleratio) ‘fruitless and vain’ (infructuosa et vana) and is excited by the conversion of many ‘through healthy coercion’ (terrore perculsi). It was nothing else than the program of Firmicus Maternus, ‘the program of a general declaration of war’ (Hoheisel), whether Augustine had read it or not.

‘Under extreme coercion’, the ‘professional speaker’ preaches, rich in tricks, ‘the inner will is realised’, referring to the Acts of the Apostles, 9,4, to John, 6,44, and finally, starting from the year 416-417, to Luke, 14, 23—the Gospel of love! In proceeding against his enemies, he gave the impression that he was also ‘sometimes a little nervous’ (Thomas), although what seemed to be persecution, in reality, was only love, ‘always only love and exclusively love’ (Marrou).

‘The Church presses them against their hearts and surrounds them with motherly tenderness to save them’—through forced labour, fustigations, confiscation of property, elimination of the right of inheritance. However, the only thing that Augustine wants again is to ‘impose’ on the Donatists ‘the advantages of peace, unity and love’:

That is why I have been presented to you as your enemy. You say you want to kill me, although I only tell you the truth and, as far as I’m concerned, I will not let you get lost. God would avenge from you and kill, in you, the error.

God would take revenge on you! The bishop does not consider himself by any means an inciter. But, yes, when it seemed appropriate, he demanded to apply the full weight of the law to the recalcitrant, not granting them ‘grace or forgiveness’. Better said, he authorized torture!

The most famous saint of the ancient Church, perhaps of the whole Church, a ‘so affable person’ (Hendrikx), the father of ‘infinite kindness’ (Grabmann) ‘and generosity ‘(Kotting), who against the Donatists ‘he constantly practiced the sweet behaviour’ (Espenberger), which against them does not formulate ‘any hurtful word’ (Baus), which tries to ‘preserve from the harsh penalties of Roman law’ even ‘the guilty’ (Hümmeler)—in short, the man who becomes spokesman of the mansuetudo catholica, of Catholic benevolence, allows torture…

The thing was not so bad after all! ‘Remember all the possible martyrdoms’, Augustine consoles us:

Compare them with hell and you can imagine everything easily. The torturer and the tortured are here ephemeral, eternal there… We have to fear those pains as we fear God. What the human being suffers here supposes a cure (emendatio) if it is corrected.

Catholics could thus abuse as much as they liked, it was unimportant compared to hell, with that horror that God would impose upon them for all eternity. The earthly torture was ‘light’, ‘transient’, just a ‘cure’!

A theologian is never disconcerted! That’s why he does not know shame either.

In the Christian Empire of those times there prevailed everything except liberality and personal freedom. What prevailed was slavery, children were chained instead of the parents, everywhere there was secret police, ‘and every day could be heard the cries of those whom the court tortured and could be seen the gates with the whimsically executed’ (Chadwick). The emperor’s assassins automatically liquidated the Donatists who had mutilated Catholic priests or who had destroyed churches. Augustine endorsed in practice the death penalty. ‘The greater the hardness with which the State acts, the more Augustine applauds’ (Aland).

Here we see the celebrated father of the Church in all its magnitude: as a desk author and hypocrite; as a bishop who not only exerted a terrible influence during his life, but who was the initiator of political Augustinism: the archetype of all the bloody inquisitors of so many centuries, of their cruelty, perfidy, prudishness, and a precursor of horror: of the medieval relations between Church and State. Augustine’s example allowed the ‘secular arm’ to throw millions of human beings, including children and the elderly, dying and disabled, to the cells of torture, to the night of the dungeons, to the flames of the fire—and then hypocritically ask the State to respect their lives! All the henchmen and ruffians, princes and monks, bishops and popes who from now on would hunt martyrs and burn ‘heretics’, could lean on Augustine, and in fact they did it; and also the reformers.

When in 420 the state minions persecuted the bishop of Ta-mugadi, Gaudentius, he fled to his beautiful basilica; fortified himself there and threatened to burn himself along with his community. The chief of the officials, a pious Christian, who nevertheless persecuted people of his own faith, did not know what party to take and consulted Augustine. The saint, inventor of the sui generis doctrine of predestination, replied:

But since God, according to secret but just will, has predestined some of them to eternal punishment, without a doubt it is better that, although some are lost in their own fire, the vastly greater majority is gathered and recovered from that pernicious division and dispersion, instead of all together be burned in the eternal fire deserved by the sacrilegious division.

Once again Augustine was himself, ‘of course the first theoretician of the Inquisition’, who wrote ‘the only complete justification in the history of the ancient Church’ about ‘the right of the State to repress non-Catholics’ (Brown). In the application of violence, the saint only saw a ‘process of debilitation’, a ‘conversion by oppression’ (per molestias eruditio), a ‘controlled catastrophe’ and compared it to a father ‘who punishes the son who loves’ and that every Saturday night, ‘as a precaution’ beats his family.

The ‘edict of the unit’ of 405 followed other state decrees in the years 407, 408, 409, 412 and 414. The obligatory withdrawal of the Donatists was ordered, their Church was relegated more or less to the underground and they started pogroms that would last several years. The Donatist Church was forbidden; its followers forced to convert to Catholicism. ‘The Lord has shattered the teeth of the lion’ (Augustine). Entire cities, hitherto convinced Donatists, became Catholic out of fear of sorrow and violence, such as the episcopal city of Augustine, where once the ovens could not bake bread for Catholics. Finally, he himself expelled the Donatists. However, when the State tolerated them temporarily during the invasion of Alaric and they returned, for the great saint they seemed ‘wolves to whom it would be necessary to kill with blows’. Only by chance did he escape from an ambush that the Circumcellions had laid out for him.

The masses of slaves and settlers, of whom only their labour force was of any use, were to be maintained within the Catholic Church, through forced labour and the lash of their lords, for the maintenance of ‘Catholic peace’. In the year 414 the Donatists were deprived of all their civil rights and the death penalty was threatened to those who celebrated their religious services. ‘Where there is love, there is peace’ (Augustine). Or as our bishop later declared triumphantly: Quodvult deus de Cartago: the viper has been crushed, or better still: it has been devoured.

After the year 418, the theme of the Donatists disappears for decades from the debates held in the synods of the North African bishops. In 420 it appears the last anti-Donatist writing of Augustine: Contra Gaudentium. In 429, with the invasion of the Vandals, the anti-Donatist imperial edicts also ended, which continued to call for annihilation. However, the schism lasted until the 6th century, although very weakened.

The sad remains that managed to escape the constant persecutions were destroyed a century later, along with Catholics, by Islam. African Christianity was undermined, bankrupt; finally, completely separated from Europe in the religious aspect, and escaped from its area of influence to fall into that of the Near East.

The most important ancient of the Christian churches, the only one in the Mediterranean, disappeared without a trace. There was nothing left of her. ‘But it was not due to Islam but to the persecutions against the Donatists, which made North Africa hate the Catholic Church so much that the Donatists received Islam as a liberation and converted to it’ (Kawerau).

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support The West’s Darkest Hour.

Pierce’s stance on Christianity

Editor’s note: Will Williams responds to an article published on Counter-Currents:

 
1st comment:

Greg Johnson says: I was unaware the religion was one of the issues of contention in the fracturing of the National Alliance after Pierce’s death.

Will Williams replies: Greg, reading what Dr. Pierce, Founder of Cosmotheism, wrote to his members in 1982, shows that he had no intention of compromising with Xians. He wanted to disentangle our race from the clutches of this Abrahamic slave creed and strike out on a higher path.

Most Alliance members realized there was a spiritual aspect to the National Alliance, and that we took a decidedly dim view of Xianity. There were never any prayers at our meetings, or any other Xian trappings like that. To some of us the Alliance was our Church, grounded in reality and Nature, and race-centered.

Imagine how many Pierce loyalists who had dedicated their lives and fortunes to Alliance-building must have felt when Gliebe and Walker & Co. removed the entire following section from the second printing of the National Alliance Membership Handbook.

All else aside, that one ill-advised blunder could arguably be what did the Alliance in once and for all. Gliebe had gone big tent—for expediency and short term gains—and drove the Alliance into the ground from then on.

2.d. OPPOSED IDEOLOGIES (written in 1992)

2d.vii. Christianity

The National Alliance is not a religious organization, in the ordinary sense of the term. It does, however, have to concern itself with religious matters, because religions influence the behavior of people, society, and governments. The doctrines of various religious groups—Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, et al.—deal with the temporal as well as spiritual matters and therefore often conflict with National Alliance doctrine.

Christian doctrines are of much greater concern to the National Alliance than the doctrines of other large religious groups, because Christianity is the most influential religion in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the White world. Most members of the National Alliance come from families which are, or a generation ago were, at least nominally Christian, and very few come from families which practice or practiced, Islam, Buddhism, or other religions. Furthermore, the history of our race for the last thousand years has been inextricably bound up with Christianity. The National Alliance really cannot avoid taking positions regarding Christian beliefs and practices, despite the complications this causes our work.

The immediate and inevitable fact which forces us to come to grips with Christianity is that the mainstream Christian churches are all, without exception, preaching a doctrine of White racial extinction. They preach racial egalitarianism and racial mixing. They preach non-resistance to the takeover of our society by non-Whites. It was the Christian churches, more than any other institution, which paralyzed the will of White South Africans to survive. It is the Christian establishment in the United States which is preeminent in sapping the will of White Americans to resist being submerged in the non-White tide sweeping across the land. Most Christian authorities collaborate openly with the Jews, despite the contempt and abuse they receive in return, and the rest at least follow Jewish policies on the all-important matter of race. The occasional anomaly—a Catholic bishop in Poland speaking out angrily against Jewish arrogance, a few Protestant groups in the United States expressing sympathy for oppressed Palestinians—does not invalidate the rule.

We are obliged, therefore, to oppose the Christians churches and to speak out against their doctrines. But we do not, as some groups have done, accuse the Christian leaders of being false Christians. We do not say, “We are the real Christians, because we stand for the values which the mainstream churches stood for a century ago, before they were subverted.” We do not reach for our Bibles and point to verses which seem to be in accord with the policies of the National Alliance and contrary to the present policies of the Christian churches. A diligent Bible scholar can find in the Judeo-Christian scriptures support for—or ammunition against—virtually any policy whatsoever.

Beyond the immediate conflict between us and the Christian churches on racial matters there is a long-standing and quite fundamental ideological problem with Christianity. It is not an Aryan religion; like Judaism and Islam it is Semitic in origin, and all its centuries of partial adaptation to Aryan ways have not changed its basic flavor. It was carried by a Jew, Saul of Tarsus (later known as Paul), from the Levant to the Greco-Roman world. Its doctrines that the meek shall inherit the earth and that the last shall be the first found fertile soil among the populous slave class in Rome. Centuries later, as Rome was succumbing to an internal rot in which Christianity played no small part, legions of Roman conscripts imposed the imported religion on the Celtic and Germanic tribes to the north.

Eventually Christianity became a unifying factor for Europe, and in the name of Jesus Europeans resisted the onslaught of Islamic Moors and Turks and expelled the “Christ-killing” Jews from one country after another. But the religion retained its alien mind-set, no matter how much some aspects of it were Europeanized. Its otherworldliness is fundamentally out of tune with the Aryan quest for knowledge and for progress; its universalism conflicts directly with Aryan striving for beauty and strength; its delineation of the roles of man and god offends the Aryan sense of honor and self-sufficiency.

Finally Christianity, like the other Semitic religions, is irredeemably primitive. Its deity is thoroughly anthropomorphic, and its “miracles”—raising the dead, walking on water, curing the lame and the blind with a word and a touch—are the crassest superstition.

We may have fond memories of the time before the Second World War when pretty, little girls in white dresses attended all-White Sunday schools, and Christianity seemed a bulwark of family values and a foe to degeneracy and indiscipline. We may cherish the tales of medieval valor, when Christian knights fought for god and king—if we can overlook the Christian church’s bloodthirsty intolerance, which stifled science and philosophy for centuries and sent tens of thousands of Europeans to the stake for heresy.

We may even find Christian ethics congenial, if we follow the standard Christian practice of interpreting many of its precepts—such as the one about turning the other cheek—in such a way that they do not interfere with our task. But we should remember that nothing essential in Christian ethics is specifically Christian. Any successful society must have rules of social conduct. Lying and stealing were shunned in every Aryan society long before Christianity appeared. Our pagan ancestors did not need Christian missionaries to tell them how to behave or to explain honor and decency to them—quite the contrary!

Historians may argue the pros and cons of Christianity’s role in our race’s past: whether or not the unity it provided during a period of European consolidation outweighed the loss of good genes it caused in the Crusades and the bloody religious wars of the Middle Ages (and through the Church’s policy of priestly celibacy); whether the splendid Gothic cathedrals which rose in Europe during the four centuries and the magnificent religious music of the 18th century were essentially Christian or essentially Aryan in inspiration; whether Christianity’s stand against the evils of self-indulgence—against gluttony and drunkenness and greed—was worth its shackling of the human mind in superstition or not. One thing already is clear, however: Christianity is not a religion that we can wish on future generations of our race.

We need ethics; we need values and standards; we need a world view. And if one wants to call all of these things together a religion, then we need a religion. One might choose instead, however, to call them a philosophy of life. Whatever we call it, it must come from our own race soul; it must be an expression of the innate Aryan nature. And it must be conducive to our mission of racial progress. Christianity, as the word is commonly understood, meets neither of these criteria.

The fact is that, completely aside from the racial question, no person who wholeheartedly believes Christian doctrine can share our values and goals, because Christian doctrine holds that this world is of little importance, being only a proving ground for the spiritual world which one enters after death. Christian doctrine also holds that the condition of this world is not man’s responsibility, because an omnipotent and omniscient deity alone has that responsibility.

Although some Christians do believe Christian doctrine wholeheartedly, however, most do not. Most instinctively feel what we explicitly believe, even if they have repressed those feelings in an effort to be “good” Christians. Because of this many nominal Christians, even those affiliated with mainstream churches, can, under the right circumstances, be persuaded to work for the interests of their race. Other nominal Christians—especially those who stand apart from any of the mainstream churches—have interpreted Christian doctrine in such an idiosyncratic way that the contradictions between their beliefs and ours have been minimized.

For these reasons we want to avoid conflict with Christians to the extent that we can. We don’t want to give unnecessary offense, even when we speak out against the doctrines of these churches. We don’t want to ridicule their beliefs, which in some cases are sincerely held. Some of these people later will reject Christianity’s racial doctrines. Some will reject Christianity altogether. We want to help them in their quest for truth when we can, and we want to keep the door open to them.

Members who want to study the subject of Christianity and its relationship to our task in depth should read Which Way Western Man? by our late member William Simpson. The book’s initial chapters describe the spiritual odyssey of a man of exceptional spiritual sensitivity, who was far more intensely a Christian than nearly any Christian living today and who eventually understood the racially destructive nature of Christianity and rejected it.

A more concise study of the difference between the Christian world view and ours is given in Wulf Sörensen’s The Voice of Our Ancestors, which was reprinted in National Vanguard No.107.

 
2nd comment:

Back in the late 1980s, before we had the Internet, I was editor of the Racial Loyalty tabloid, the monthly newspaper for Ben Klassen’s Church or the Creator (COTC). I recently found RL #52, July ’89, and saw in it a letter to the editor I published from a National Alliance member which included the following quote from Dr. Pierce from his February ’89 National Alliance Members Bulletin:

The greatest obstacle to the survival of our race is Christianity. Even with all their malice and cunning, the Jews would pose no real threat to the race were it not for their Christian collaborators. In the U.S. just as in South Africa, the Jews may be pulling a lot of strings behind the scenes, but the troops in the war against the White Race are mainly White Christians filled with religious guilt and obsessed with the need to expiate that guilt by sacrificing their own race on the altar of ‘equality’…

Let us never forget… that Christianity itself is an alien, hostile, racially destructive creed of Jewish origin, and in the future most of those who have fallen under its spell will continue to be our enemies and the enemies of our race.

A couple of years after Dr. Pierce wrote those words to his Alliance members in the internal NA Members Bulletin, and I republished them for Creators in Racial Loyalty, he invited me to come work with him in WV as the Alliance’s first Membership Coordinator.

The COTC self-destructed around 1992 and many Creators, knowing Dr. Pierce’s world view, naturally gravitated to the National Alliance (especially after he purchased the COTC headquarters property from Mr. Klassen), so it doesn’t take a great leap of imagination for some of the more activist-minded former Alliance members to want to help rebuild a viable Creativity Alliance. Erich Gliebe’s “new & improved” National Alliance is unrecognizable to them compared to the Alliance they had been a part of under Dr. Pierce.
 

3rd comment:

That essay by Dr. Pierce was his editorial for the monthly internal National Alliance Members Bulletin 28 years ago. Dr. Pierce’s intellectual honesty should have been apparent to anyone reading this statement:

Any Alliance member who is also a member of a church or other Christian organization which supports racial mixing or Zionism should decide now where he stands, and he should then resign either from his church or from the Alliance.

I sure remember how that sentence grabbed me on first reading. I must have distributed hundreds of copies of that editorial to others who I thought those words by Dr. Pierce’s would resonate.

It was an effective Alliance recruiting tool, until, that is, The Alliance went “big tent” after Dr. Pierce’s death, and the policy procribing Xianity as an opposed ideology to that of the Alliance was reversed. It was all downhill for the NA from then on. What had set it apart from the other big tent organizations was jettisoned.

Published in: on May 25, 2018 at 9:45 pm  Comments (6)