Southern nationalist

“I have to do it. You [African Americans] rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go.”

—Dylann Storm Roof

 
killerRegarding yesterday’s Charleston, South Carolina shooting (pic of the perp, Dylann Storm Roof), southern nationalist Hunter Wallace has just said “We’re Christians. It’s not something we would ever do.”

What the hell is that supposed to mean? It was the American Christians the ones who committed the most serious crime of all history in the century when we were born: the Hellstorm Holocaust (see Tom Sunic’s “A war crime of the Bible”). Because of this Holocaust white people all over the world have been targeted for slow extermination since 1945—a sort of a Morgenthau Plan “lite” not only for Germany but for the whole West, the US included.

If Aryans go indeed extinct, future Chinese or Muslim historians will certainly blame Christian axiology as a major factor of white suicide.

________________

See update to Roof’s actions: here

The foundation

by Amasius

Christianity has no racial component. That wasn’t a problem a century ago, but it is now with our globalized multicultural world. With Christianity taking account only of faith and ignoring blood, it cannot help us in the situation we face. Those who profess Christianity and also have racial awareness possess the latter in spite of the former, not because of it. Christianity certainly isn’t helping now.

High_SparrowWe need to start with the foundation that race is everything: everything else grows out of it. We need a new religion that is tailored to this reality. It’s what William Luther Pierce and Alfred Rosenberg wrote about and they certainly weren’t Jews. It’s what I believe and neither am I.

Published in: on June 17, 2015 at 8:28 am  Comments (4)  
Tags:

Dying religion

by Franklin Ryckaert

Far from being a Jewish conspiracy to undermine European man, as some assert, Christianity has always been a source of moral strength for Western man, especially when it comes to family values.

However, when a religion is dying because its myth loses appeal, no amount of artificial propaganda can resurrect it. Family values can be successfully promoted entirely by secular means, as the short-lived fascist regimes of Italy and Germany demonstrate.

Published in: on June 12, 2015 at 12:23 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags:

Frost responds to MacDonald

I’m just saying that the source of the moral justification for the West’s immigration problem is to be found in its Christian past; that the entire worldview of life as some kind of moral contest is a Middle Eastern import that didn’t exist in whites before the coming of Christianity. Saying, as you did, that it has “nothing to do with Christianity” because the elites in Sweden are secular and have turned against the churches just makes me think you don’t see how two thousand years of Christianity have seeped into every atom of the white man’s bones. I’ll be convinced that the Swedish elites have turned against Christianity when you can show me they’ve turned their backs on the Christian ideals of universal brotherhood, peace, love, and charity.

Christian-problem

I find it extremely odd, to say the least, that I should be the one to have to point out to someone who is frequently considered to be one of the world’s foremost anti-Semites, that maybe, just maybe, trusting a moral system developed by Jews, and built around the idea that one Jewish rabbi in particular is God, is not the best of strategies for white people concerned about limiting Jewish influence.

Nevertheless, that’s the situation I find myself in. KMD [Kevin MacDonald] and many of his acolytes, who unabashedly here tout Christianity as good for whites, must also then be of the opinion that, in at least this one instance, whites benefited from their association with Jews; that the relationship was symbiotic, not parasitic in kind. How this relates to the central thesis of this site, which as I understand it is that the Jewish race is locked in a struggle with the white race and is attempting to dominate it, is unclear.

KMD appears to think this struggle only commenced in the twentieth century; that there’s no possibility that Christianity itself was developed as a weapon of interracial warfare to subvert whites. I don’t think that reconciles very well with sociobiological theory. If the races are at odds, then haven’t they always been at odds? Aren’t they, according to the principles of Darwin, necessarily at odds, since in a world of finite resources a win for one is a loss for the other? Why should that have only begun in the twentieth century? It would be interesting to see how he deals with that thesis, which is something that Nietzsche appeared to believe, and also Revilo Oliver. If KMD has set this out somewhere, I haven’t seen it.

Then we have these two rather threadbare arguments presented above, which I’ve seen many times before, and I’m sure others are equally familiar with. In the main, they are:

  1. Christianity was the religion of the West during the period of its expansion, therefore it can’t be something inherently wrong with Christianity that’s the source of the modern problem with whites.

This is supposed to be the strongest argument.

  1. There’s “real” Christianity (which is smuggled in here as “traditional” Christianity), and subverted Christianity. The former is A-okay for whites, the latter is poison.

The first doesn’t deal with the argument which compares Christianity to a cancer. Cancer, too, doesn’t necessarily kill immediately. You can have cancer for years until it suddenly metastasizes and kills you. You can have it and be apparently strong and have many accomplishments; but nevertheless, you have it, and it will eventually kill you. So this argument in favor of Christianity doesn’t actually come to grips with the charge against it. It’s not a strong argument at all.

The second argument is a confused muddle. “Traditional” Christianity is supposed to be good for whites, yet in the next breath, KMD says that throughout history, Christianity has been on both sides of every issue. So which side is “traditional”? In the American Civil War, was it the South or the North? Were the Puritans traditional, “real” Christians, or not? Since the term is never defined and no examples are ever given, it’s hard to avoid the impression that “traditional” Christianity is whatever the author approves of, and subverted Christianity is whatever the author disapproves of.

Of course, the implication is that “traditional” Christianity is not corrosive to white racial solidarity; that Christianity hasn’t always been universalistic and has at times been racial. But then, in the next breath, he refers to the early Church Fathers, who were anti-Semitic because the Jews weren’t good race mixers like they thought Christians were supposed to be. So it would appear that the early Church Fathers weren’t “traditional” either; and also that the race mixing proclivities of Christianity are of very ancient vintage.

How then can it be argued that there’s nothing inherent in Christianity that subverts race? Is KMD saying that the Christianity of the early Church Fathers had already been subverted? By whom? When? Some details would be nice.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 159

the-real-hitler

 

1st August 1942, evening

British lies—A comparison with America—The Church’s cunning wisdom—Exit the Pope.

Conversation turned to a book entitled Juan in America which Bormann had recently lent to the Fuehrer. In it the author paints a picture of the unbelievable conditions which reigned in the intellectual and political circles of the United States, and of the astonishing credulity of the American citizen. Hewel stated that this credulity was not an exclusively American characteristic, and that in Britain, too, the people swallowed everything they were told. Hitler said:

It is perfectly true that the British swallow everything they are told. At the moment, nevertheless, there is a certain amount of murmuring over faked reports. According to the Americans themselves, America has the finest, biggest and most efficient of everything in the wide world; and when one then reads a book like this about them, one sees that they have the brains of a hen! Well, the disillusionment will be all the more severe, and the consternation, when this house of cards collapses, will be enormous.

It is very difficult to argue with Americans. They immediately shout: “Say, take a look at what our workers earn!” True, but let us take a look at the shady side as well. The industrial worker earns his eighty dollars; but the man who is not in industry gets absolutely nothing. At one time they had no less than thirteen million unemployed. I have seen pictures of shelters built out of old kerosene tins which the unemployed had erected for themselves and which remind me of the holes of misery to be found in the Bolshevik industrial cities. I grant you that our standard of life is lower. But the German Reich has two hundred and seventy opera houses—a standard of cultural existence of which they over there have no conception.

To sum it up, the Americans live like sows in a most luxurious sty!

Reichsleiter Bormann drew attention to the gifts which France made almost every day to the Church, and on which the power of the Church was thriving mightily. The Fuehrer continues:

It was exactly the same in Bavaria! Held restored to the Church forest lands to the value of thirty or forty million marks, lands which by expropriation belonged to the State!

The Church has succeeded in striking a very pretty balance between life on earth and in the Hereafter. On earth, they say, the poor must remain poor and blessed, for in Heaven the earthly rich will get nothing; and the unfortunate poor on earth believe them!

It is only by keeping the masses ignorant that the existing social order of things can be maintained; in the eyes of the faithful, this is the justification for supreme Papal authority. Cramer-Klett told me one day that he had become a Catholic because he realised that Luther with his Reformation had completely destroyed authority as such.

Possibly—but I cannot help thinking that man has been endowed with a brain which he is intended to make use of, and that anything which is founded on a premise unacceptable to the human intellect cannot endure for ever. It is not possible to hold fast for very long to tenets which the progress of knowledge have proved to be false. I should be wrong if I condemned as a liar a man who believed firmly in the Aristotelean or Ptolemaic world, when he had no other alternative to choose from. But a man who still believes in this old conception of the world today certainly is a liar. No science remains stationary. In my eyes the ability of mankind to reject a proven untruth is one of its virtues. By the Church the Unknown is described and explained with precision, and if she advances with the times, the ground must inevitably be cut from under her feet. For this reason she is opposed to all progress. It adds little to our knowledge of the Creator when some parson presents to us an indifferent copy of a man as his conception of the Deity.

The most pressing danger, as I see it, is that Christianity, by adhering to a conception of the Beyond which is constantly exposed to the attacks of unceasing progress, and by binding it so closely to many of the trivialities of life which may at any moment collapse, is ripening mankind for conversion to materialistic Bolshevism. And that is a terrible tragedy. Man will lose all sense of proportion, and once he considers himself to be the lord of the universe, it will be the end of everything. And if the Church in Spain continues in the way it is doing, it will end on the refuse-heap.

In Venice, in 1934, the Duce once said to me: “One of these days the Pope will have to leave Italy; there is not room for two Masters!” The Church of today is nothing more than a hereditary joint stock company for the exploitation of human stupidity.


_____________________________

Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.

On Christian rock

by Roger

When I was doing a bit of research into Calvinism last year, and especially the state of Calvinism in North America, one of the funniest things I encountered was “holy hip-hop.” There are people out there who self-identify as Puritans and listen to this jungle drivel, referring to it as “lyrical preaching.” Have a quick look at this.

I’m not masochistic enough to watch the entire video, but how humiliating this must be for veteran Calvinists living through their twilight years! In the case of rock “music,” the apologists can at least argue that the music is melodic. It is still evil, but it is evil of a higher caste than rap. To go from Bach to this is the epitome of decadence. It is fitting, in a way, because the demographic future of Reform Christianity is going to be predominantly black, and there is no place for Bach in black societies. All universalistic churches are going to be wrecked by the darkies, and they deserve what is coming their way.

I still have respect for some of the Traditional Catholics, but they can never reconcile their universalism with the cause of true racial justice. When they end up with a black pope, how will they be able to justify wanting to deport niggers from their countries, or their opposition to miscegenation? The head of their own church will be a symbol of racial egalitarianism.

Published in: on May 13, 2015 at 9:42 am  Comments (3)  
Tags:

On secular Christianity

The Occidental Observer (TOO) has been publishing several articles on white pathology this week (this one on Sweden, only the latest). I feel that neither the editor of TOO nor the commenters have a grasp of what Secular Christianity is. For example, in the linked article Kevin MacDonald wrote:

It is vitally important that we come to grips with this suicidal phenomenon which is more common in Northern Europeans. It has nothing to do with Christianity. Sweden is the most secular country in the world, and its elites are hostile to Christianity and more than happy to donate Christian churches to the non-Christian newcomers, or destroying them to make housing for them.

Jack Frost commented:

“It has nothing to do with Christianity.”
I couldn’t disagree more. The striving after moral perfection you’re talking about is nothing if not Christian, as are the underlying ideals of charity and universal brotherhood. It’s inconceivable that any Jewish propaganda in that direction would have any appeal in the West if it hadn’t been so deeply Christian for so long. Christianity is where the West’s morality comes from, not propaganda. The sort of madness described above was unknown in whites of pre-Christian times.

MacDonald responded:

As an evolutionist, that is difficult to accept. You have to think that people can lose every aspect of Christian ideology except the ethics. Why keep that one and not, say, the doctrine of original sin or the idea of Hell? Why don’t we see Middle Eastern Christian groups with aggressively universalist ethics? Why has Christianity been compatible with slavery, Jim Crow, etc. in some times and places and with elite oppression during so much of Western history?

Besides my Tuesday entry where I quoted him I do not know well Frost’s point of view. Is he blaming Christianity for all our problems? I would disagree with such reductionism. In one of the recent TOO threads I quoted the formula that appears in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour: individualism, universalism, weak ethnocentrism (“hardwired” characteristics in the White psyche since prehistoric times) plus egalitarianism, liberalism, capitalism (cultural “software” after the Revolution which ironically strengthened Christian axiology) plus the empowerment of Jewry since the times of Napoleon has created a lethal brew for the white peoples. In other words: I don’t believe in a single cause of western decline, but in several etiological ingredients.

MacDonald does not believe that Christianity is a root cause of the problem. The questions he raises above can be explained if we introduce the notion of what in The Fair Race we call “Secular Christianity.”

Why keep that one and not, say, the doctrine of original sin or the idea of Hell?

Secular Christians—western atheists, agnostics or nihilists who subscribe liberalism—have not abandoned the idea of sin, only sublimated it. Post-Christian whites are supposed to be the “bad guys” of world history.

Regarding the idea of hell, this has been the most psychotic idea of all Western history. In my opinion, the doctrine of eternal damnation proves that whites were psychotic throughout Christendom. I have written extensively about this extremely disturbing doctrine in Spanish and only a little in English.

Suffice it to say that it was to be expected that when whites abandoned the idea of eternal torture that they allegedly deserved according to the monstrous god they used to worship, something would happen. The extreme self-harming violence of such idea had to find an outlet, an ogre of the superego so to speak: exactly what we may well be witnessing with these pious efforts to deliver the European soil to the downtrodden à la The Camp of the Saints.

Why don’t we see Middle Eastern Christian groups with aggressively universalist ethics?

Good question professor MacDonald. Here we can see that my “brew” metaphor is better than any of the monocausal explanations. Among whites universalism is hard wired since prehistory, which explains why sand niggers who have embraced Christianity are immune to it.

Why has Christianity been compatible with slavery, Jim Crow, etc. in some times and places and with elite oppression during so much of Western history?

And here we have the other major factor, capitalism, in action. The use of slaves was obviously motivated by economic interests. In the past greed trumped the compassionate message of the gospel. Let me put it in this way: in Yang times capitalism trumps Christian axiology, whereas in yin times like ours altruistic axiology trumps economic interests.

In one of the recent TOO threads I quoted the Swede from whom I learnt the term “Secular Christianity.” I tried to explain the TOO commentariat that Christianity is not only dogmatics, but axiology (moral grammar, ultimate ethics) as well. From this viewpoint modern liberals, however rabid anti-Christian may seem, have not really broken away from their grandparents’ religion.

The Swedes who have been the subject of a couple of recent articles at TOO are a good example. What’s the most classic Swedish film that comes to mind? Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal, which depicts a quixotic knight (played by Max von Sydow, pic below) and his pragmatic squire who return to Sweden after fighting in the Crusades. Saving the Holy Land from the infidels (a Yang goal) may no longer be fashionable, but fulfilling the promises of the Sermon of the Mount (a yin goal), which contains the central tenets of Christian discipleship, has become mandatory, especially the Beatitudes. As a TOO commenter put it, “The idea that deluded, race denying, libtard Swedes think that they are creating a humanitarian superpower by genetically obliterating themselves, is one of the most perverse forms of masochistic megalomania that I have ever heard of.” But this is only the modern equivalent of the quixotic, and therefore disastrous, Children’s Crusade of 1212 (which recent scholarship has revealed was conducted not exactly by children but by quixotic commoners).

Scandinavian Quixote

Presently whites are as religious Don Quixotes as they have always been, especially the pure Nordid atheists and secular humanists who claim to hate Christianity. But with honorable exceptions, like Alex Linder and company, MacDonald and most white nationalists ignore it.

I like to think of Christianity / Secular Christianity as a circle. Once you dismiss half of it, the dogma, the remaining axiological half metastasizes and tries to grow in the form of a circle again; this time without any need of gospel fictions. With due time dogmatics is thoroughly dismissed and the area of Secular Christianity becomes a full circle again. Every neo-Christian wants to be a quixotic knight in one way or another. The Swede wrote:

Our progressivist paradigm is based on Christian ethics. The Left is all about Christian ethics. What the left wing is doing is not destroying Western civilization, but completing and fulfilling it: what I call “The Finish of the West.” The current order is the last and terminal phase of Western Christian civilization.

It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes. So the Western Christian civilization is in fact the worst enemy of what I call European civilization: another reason for wanting the Western Christian civilization to go away. For the very same reason that Christian ethics abhors infanticide, [presently] it causes the population explosion in the world.

Christian ethics cannot stand the sight of little brown children dying. They must help them, or they will freak out. According to Christian ethics it is forbidden and unthinkable to think in terms of not saving every little brown child across the planet.

But the consequences of this mindset are catastrophic, not only to us but also to them, as I have already explained. But since people are so programmed according to Christian ethics, what I’m saying does not seem to enter their heads. The thought is too unthinkable to be absorbed. It’s an utter taboo.

This is derived from the deepest moral grammar of Christianity. The population explosion is not caused by liberalism, it is caused by Christianity in its most general form.

And not only the population explosion thanks to Western aid. Secular Christianity is behind the acceptance of those masses of non-white immigrants into our soils. Frost is right above that it is inconceivable that any Jewish propaganda in that direction would have any appeal in the West if it hadn’t been so deeply Christian for so long (my emphasis). Furthermore, the Swede claims, in my opinion accurately, that since in neo-Christianity there is no sacrificial Christ, we ourselves, the still guilty post-Christians, must do the sacrifice—what is happening in Sweden!

In the article about “Schweitzer’s niglets” which expands the above quote you will also surmise a possible reply to one of MacDonald’s critical statements of Frost’s views:

You have to think that people can lose every aspect of Christian ideology except the ethics.

Well, quixotic Albert Schweitzer exemplifies why once you lose the credibility in the gospels, Christian axiology is not only maintained but reinforced.

Apparently the concept of a witches’ brew containing several ingredients is too strong food for thought to be digested even by the best minds in white nationalism. I gave up trying to convey my complex ideas to the commenters of those TOO threads, and even the site admin removed a couple of my posts.

So I said “good bye” to The Occidental Observer. However, since MacDonald is still taking issue with Frost in today’s comments section, I’d love if someone posts a link to this article in that thread.

Christianity on the dock

franciscan-monk-with-amerind

The Franciscan and the Indian
(José Clemente Orozco)

 
In a recent thread on The Occidental Observer Jack Frost commented:

Very interesting talk by the professor referenced above. One thing that stood out for me was how, while he did spend a lot of time discussing Puritans and their universalistic outlook, he avoided the “C” word (Christianity) entirely. I’m with Sunic on this, and would even go him one better. I would venture to say you can’t hope to understand the origins of this white pathology without a full analysis of the way Christianity has shaped the culture of the West. Attempts to locate the source of the pathology in prehistoric times, as a response to severe environmental conditions, fail for at least a couple of reasons.

For one thing, if that were the case, wouldn’t individualism and pathological altruism also be found at similar latitudes all over the world? It isn’t. As KMD [Kevin MacDonald] himself acknowledges, whites were the only ones to develop in this way. Also, if the origins of individualism and pathological altruism were really that ancient, why didn’t it manifest itself in classical times?

Pre-Christian Roman society was decidedly un-altruistic, and un-empathetic. You can scour the history books all you want, and you will find no mention of Roman charity missions to help foreigners. They wouldn’t have understood that idea at all. Foreigners were taken to be useful as slaves and made into tributaries, but little else. Those who didn’t cooperate were put to the sword. And empathy? Forget it! The Romans were expert torturers and considered death an entertainment. On a typical weekend they’d watch gladiators hack each other to pieces just for fun! The excruciating and prolonged death by crucifixion was a Roman specialty of which they made frequent use. After the failed revolt of Spartacus they crucified the surviving rebels along a 300 mile stretch of roadway, about one every hundred yards or so. The bodies were left to rot, as a lesson to the rest.

All of this changed eventually only with the coming of Christianity. It is Christianity, in its manifold forms, and especially, in its cultural residue, which influences and shapes the perceptions of even non-believers, that is the source of the racial egalitarianism and philo-Semitism that rules modern life.

Christianity has even reshaped our genetics, as KMD has documented elsewhere in his paper that dealt with outbreeding as a policy promoted by the Catholic Church. Over time, it has become, in effect, a fully metastasized cultural and genetic cancer that has changed who we are.

There’s a tendency in our circles to think of Christianity as either completely good or completely bad. I would put forth the proposition—mind-blowing to some, no doubt—that it has both good and bad points; that as a means to an end it once offered advantages with respect to some ends, but that those advantages were obtained only at a tremendous cost. The consignment of the white race to oblivion may well be one such cost.

 

Tom Sunic also commented:

Thanks for starting up this subject. The same Swedish white guilt scenario is having its replica now all over EU chancelleries and ministries. The other day at the Brussels summit EU leaders agreed on “a joint effort to solve the humanitarian catastrophe,” following the African migrants drowning off the coast of Africa. Now all EU leaders are in the process of outbidding each other with lachrymal effusions, each promising big help, thus enticing more and more Africans to try their luck. A small very Catholic, very conservative Croatia, with its four million inhabitants, still a rare white enclave in the EU, sent yesterday a military frigate with a medical team to help those about to drown. (Many homeless and unemployed Whites in Croatia and elsewhere in the EU and the USA would be happy to receive such a first class maritime treatment.) The answer for such a mimicked Samaritan EU stint is obvious: it is considered a mortal sin in any EU country to be publicly branded with a shut-up word “fascism” and “racism.” The Merchant, the Commissar, the Cleric have all finally become part of this new multikulti Holy alliance.

EU white leftist MEPs, such as the good looking Swedish lady Cecilia Wikström, posturing now with the standard masochistic white antifa mea culpa, are not the only ones to be blamed. The Catholic Church has been for decades the ringleader in its public outcry over African migrants. Pope Francis with his incessant transracial homilies surpasses even the loudest leftist deputy in the German or French Parliament. The problem of immigration resides not at all at the institutional level of the Church. Rather it is the age-long ecumenical-multicolor Christian call to all races that lies at the very heart of the Christian Vulgate. We have to look at the Levantine Christian root causes of the unfolding cataclysm in Europe and the USA before rehashing its secular leftist side effects.

Kevin MacDonald: The issue of Christianity vs. non-European immigration is a tricky subject—starting with our Catholic relatives and colleagues both here in the EU and the USA. But we need to make an effort and look dispassionately at this matter. I have more troubles listening to multicultural sermons on “good Mexican illegal immigrants” by Cardinal Dolan in NY, or local bishops here in Europe, than watching Femen nudes. At least the Femen and their leftist acolytes are more explicit and therefore better visible as negative heralds of multiracialism and transgenderism.

We can endlessly argue about whether Christianity was more racially oriented in the medieval times in Europe and prior to the Second Vatican Council in 1965, or whether the Church is becoming today more transracially oriented due to its inherent dogma of equality of all souls. The fact is that the very teaching of Christianity excludes ethnic separatism—unlike ethnocentric Judaism.

St Paul (aka Saul), after converting to Christianity, in his Epistle to the Galatians 3:28 said those famed words we all know by heart now: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” How can then today any devout white Christian nationalist weaponize himself against floods of non-European immigrants when his own belief system contradicts his fears of non-European immigration in the first place? This is particularly true in the USA where the majority of immigrants are pious Catholic mestizos from Latin America. Of course, one can conveniently resort to anti-Muslim name calling, as many nationalists in Europe do, the reason being that they can more easily substitute the expression of “non-European immigration” with the word “Islam.” The vast majority of immigrants entering the EU are non-European, non-White Muslims.

The otherwise staunch anticommunist Pope Pius XI, did not hesitate in 1938 to draft a very strong encyclical disparaging all racial theories on differences between peoples and races. This theme merits a separate annotated piece of mine. Will do eventually.

Surely, we take Charles Martel and Charlemagne as our white icons who saved Europe from Islamic threat in the 8th ct. But Martel and Charlemagne were equally diligent to carry out, further to the east, mass killings and ethnic cleansings of pagan Frisians, Wends, Saxons, Pannonian Croats, etc., depleting substantially the European gene pool. St Boniface and hosts of other Martel-imported English and Irish missionary zealots into German lands of that time, were often viewed by German civilians during the Anglo-American aerial firebombing from 1940to 1945, as transposed imagery of earlier Charlemagne’s conversion exploits.

It is an error to assume that that Marxist Jews of the so-called Frankfurt School were the sole factor in intellectual brainwashing of Europe after 1945 to this day. Truckloads and planeloads of new democratic Bonifaces, i.e. many US evangelicals and Quakers and other Bible zealots were sent to Europe by President Trumann in order to spread the sacred word of democracy. Multiracial admixture via the Mediterranean now is just another cog in the transracial wheel largely abetted by all Christian denominations.

Unredeemable religion

In 2012 on The Occidental Observer Franklin Ryckaert answered this question: “Why can’t we have a Christianity that is compatible with some form of race realism?”:


That would indeed be desirable, especially for Christian America. Unfortunately Christianity has exactly the opposite qualities a “race realist” ideology would require. And what are those?

1) Taking the material world as real.

2) Thinking in terms of biological groups (“races”).

3) Seeing the human races as different and unequal.

4) Seeing the world as a battle field of competing biological groups.

5) Thinking in terms of the survival and flourishing of the own biological group.

6) Thinking in long terms (centuries, millennia).


Christianity has quite the opposite qualities. To wit:


1) Unlike the Indian religions Christianity doesn’t consider the material world as an illusion (“maya”) from which one has to be liberated, it sees the world as created by God but corrupted by man. Still it is wrong to strife for worldly advancement in this “fallen world” as long as it has not been redeemed by the “resurrection”, for which one has to wait.

2) Christianity doesn’t think in terms of groups, let alone biological groups; it thinks in terms of individuals whose souls have to be saved.

3) Human races may be outwardly different, but inwardly they have the same souls equally capable of salvation.

4) The world may seem to be a battlefield, but the task of man is not to win the battle on that battlefield but to bring “peace on earth”.

5) Moral is not what is good for the own group. It is exactly the opposite: what is good for the other. Christianity is therefore the most “other directed” ideology in the world.

As you see it would require an impossible juggling trick to change Christianity into a group evolutionary strategy for the white man, but that is what Judaism actually is for the Jews, as professor MacDonald has demonstrated so well.

Published in: on March 25, 2015 at 9:43 am  Comments (5)  
Tags:

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 192

the-real-hitler
Night of 29th-30th November 1944

Jesus and Saint Paul—Christianity, a Jewish manoeuvre—Christianity and Communism—National Socialism, the implacable enemy of everything Jewish.
 

Jesus was most certainly not a Jew. The Jews would never have handed one of their own people to the Roman courts; they would have condemned him themselves. It is quite probable that a large number of the descendants of the Roman legionaries, mostly Gauls, were living in Galilee, and Jesus was probably one of them. His mother may well have been a Jewess.

Jesus fought against the materialism of his age, and, therefore, against the Jews.

Paul of Tarsus, who was originally one of the most stubborn enemies of the Christians, suddenly realised the immense possibilities of using, intelligently and for other ends, an idea which was exercising such great powers of fascination. He realised that the judicious exploitation of this idea among non-Jews would give him far greater power in the world than would the promise of material profit to the Jews themselves. It was then that the future St. Paul distorted with diabolical cunning the Christian idea. Out of this idea, which was a declaration of war on the golden calf, on the egotism and the materialism of the Jews, he created a rallying point for slaves of all kinds against the elite, the masters and those in dominant authority.

The religion fabricated by Paul of Tarsus, which was later called Christianity, is nothing but the Communism of today.

Bormann intervened. Jewish methods, he said, have never varied in their essentials. Everywhere they have stirred up the plebs against the ruling classes. Everywhere they have fostered discontent against the established power. For these are the seeds which produce the crop they hope later to gather.

Everywhere they fan the flames of hatred between peoples of the same blood. It is they who invented class-warfare, and the repudiation of this theory must therefore always be an anti-Jewish measure. In the same way, any doctrine which is anti-Communist, any doctrine which is anti-Christian must, ipso facto, be anti-Jewish as well.

The National Socialist doctrine is therefore anti-Jewish in excelsis, for it is both anti-Communist and anti-Christian. National Socialism is solid to the core, and the whole of its strength is concentrated against the Jews, even in matters which appear to have a purely social aspect and are designed for the furtherance of the social amenities of our own people.

The Fuehrer concluded: Burgdorff has just given me a paper which deals with the relationship between Communism and Christianity. It is comforting to see how, even in these days, the fatal relationship between the two is daily becoming clearer to the human intelligence.

_____________________________

Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 291 other followers