by Albus
‘We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children’.
It seems to be uncertain that David Lane coined this phrase, and when. If he was the one, maybe he took the inspiration from Ben Klassen who had written in the year 1973 in his book Nature’s Eternal Religion, the founding work for the race religion Creativity:
It is the highest right, the foremost law in Nature to fight for our survival at all costs. We must secure the existence of the White Race on the face of this planet for all time.
Klassen, again, who advocated not less than strict segregation of the races, had read Mein Kampf in German, and wanted all good parts of the world to be populated only by white people. Hitler‘s words had been:
What we have to fight for is to secure the existence and propagation of our race and our people, the feeding of its children and to keep pure its blood…
My translation; in German: „Für was wir zu kämpfen haben, ist die Sicherung des Bestehens und der Vermehrung unserer Rasse und unseres Volkes, die Ernährung seiner Kinder und Reinhaltung seines Blutes (…)“; Adolf Hitler: Mein Kampf, Zwei Bände in einem Band, 172.–173. Aufl., Zentralverlag der NSDAP Frz. Neher Nachf., 1936, Erster Band, S. 234.
Sounds pretty similar to The Fourteen Words, doesn’t it? So who is the spiritual father?
11 replies on “The Fourteen Words”
It’s not the words, but the thought that counts.
David Lane based the 14 words off of that passage from Mein Kampf. The paragraph it is taken from is 88 words long, which is part of the reason for the “88.”
Btw C.T. thanks for translating the Criminal History of Christianity and Apocalypse for Whites for us, it’s appreciated.
Welcome.
Apparently the Xtian commenters on The Occidental Observer of this thread think differently. I just posted this reply to one of those Christians—the very author—who said to me: “Um … no, I don’t follow your blog. Please let me know, however, if you supersede St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Aquinas…”
For the moment my comment awaits moderation at TOO.
All you need to do show how laughable Christcucks are is to do the following:
A. Ask if Jesus was a White Man.
B. If told yes, ask for evidence for this that stands under remotely scientifically acceptable scrutiny. If no, then ask what makes them how a Shitskin in such high regard.
For a killing stroke ask if they’d let their daughters marry a Nigger Christian over a White Atheist or Indigenous White Religion Follower.
In a thread about James Mason, you requested that C.T delete your comments because someone didn’t want that information to go public. Are you able to say now, or is it still redacted?
I cannot speak for him but the whole point is that Mason went astray with Xtianity after his NS stage. IMO that’s main reason why he quit.
Our parents’ religion is the worst enemy of whites, but they’re unaware of it (which is why this site will continue to expose the faith as our big enemy).
@Maldo
The evidence they give as to him being a White Man is that he is from Galilee, which sounds like Gaul. I am not joking, that is their main answer.
Another piece of evidence they tend to give is that there were Indo European tribes in Judea at the time of Jesus’s existence. Of course, the only piece of evidence for this is that the Philistines were an Indo-European tribe. Jesus was a Hebrew, though, not a Philistine, therefore there is no evidence that he was White.
Another that I have heard (this links with British Israelism) is that there are similarities in Hebrew words and Old English/Gaelic words. Of course, I shouldn’t need to explain to a grown man why this is insane and sad.
Your last question would really fuck their brains up.
According to a malicious, early Jewish story, Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Pantera. The name is so unusual that it was thought to be an invention until this first-century tombstone came to light in 1859; for the Latin inscription see below.
The inscription reads: “Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera of Sidon, aged 62, a soldier of 40 years’ service, of the 1st cohort of archers, lies here”; only “Abdes” is a Semitic name.
Even if that little piece of Jewish gossip was true (Mary having been raped by a Roman soldier), the historical Jesus would still be technically a Jew.
Mary was a Jewess, and Jewishness is matrilineal.
I think another rumour among the Jews was that Mary the mother of Jesus was a prostitute, as well as the Mary Magdalene whom Jesus would ‘recruit’ later in the bible.
If E.S is correct, king David himself would be Jesus’ father.
Evropa Soberana has not read the amount of literature about the (quixotic IMO) quest of the historical Jesus that I have. But yes: the historical Joseph could have been the father of the historical Jesus.
Here are a few points to consider:
(1) Jesus not only questioned and argued Temple law, he actually rescinded its legal dictates, as he did when he reversed the official proclamation of Lazarus’ death.
(2) For Jesus to do this, he would have to have held a high level of Temple authority, i.e. a priest. The Pharisee and Rabbis (teachers) had no such authority. While all teachers are called “rabbi,” this is not an exclusive position. Any learned Jew might be referred to as “rabbi.”
(3) The priesthood required a specific blood lineage for membership in its exalted ranks. Thus, Jesus would have to have held the proper blood lineage to be eligible for the priesthood. While modern Jews base their genetic heritage through the maternal line, this was not always the case. First century Jews used the father as the critical determinate for membership in their ranks. However, for priests the mother had to be of the “pure blood” as well. This is why Mariam’s blood line is carefully described in the gospels. This is also why Jews came up with the story of Jesus being the bastard son of a Roman. Were this the case, Jesus could not have been a member of the priesthood and would have had no legal authority to question the law. Essentially, the Jew’s claim for Jesus’ bastardized blood line allows them smug satisfaction that Jesus never had any power or authority over their system, thus relegating him to the role of persona non grata, as such a person could not have been a Jew, let alone a priest. Ostracizing is the Jews way of treating a member of their community whom they hate and reject. Note this single fact alone proves the existence of Jesus, as Jews do not hate fictional characters.
(4) The “Son of God” BS is clearly a Christian invention to deify Jesus. That leaves the question – who was Jesus’ father?
(5) The gospels describe Joseph as Jesus’ stepfather, but with no YHVH impregnation, that leaves Joseph as the likely candidate for paternity.
(6) This probability is further validated in the description of “Joseph of Arimathea”. This Joseph was in fact a wealthy influential Temple priest. Such a standing would have clearly provided the necessary blood lineage to enable Jesus to become a member of the priesthood.
(7) More tellingly, this Joseph claims the body of Jesus and has him entombed in the family sepulcher. This is where knowledge of Jewish culture is critical. No Jew, especially a wealthy member of the priesthood, would ever allow a non-family member, let alone a stranger to be interred in the family tomb – no way, no how. This is the most telling description in the gospel that indicates Joseph of Arimathea was in fact Jesus’ father or at the very least, a very close family member with blood ties. This would not have been the case with a stepson.
(8) Jesus did not die on the cross. The plan was to resurrect him. His father Joseph knew of the plan, that is why he made sure Jesus was entombed in the family sepulcher to insure outsiders would not interfere with the plan. It is notable that Joseph had a Roman soldier posted at the tomb, as this would insure even members of the priesthood could not bully their way into the tomb to interfere with the plan.
(9) Jesus was the final blood sacrifice, the “Paschal Lamb” of the Passover, whose blood would finally absolve the sins of the world; which in first century Judea, and to the puerile, narcissistic Jewish mind, were Temple Jews. That is why, counter to Roman SOP, they did not break Jesus’ legs. According to Torah law, this would have made him ineligible as the Passover sacrifice as the law specifically states the bones of the sacrifice must not be broken.
(10) However, once again knowledge of Jewish law is required to understand the significance of Jesus’ “resurrection”. According to the law, if the sacrificial animal does not die, then the sacrifice is invalid. Thus, when Jesus reappeared, he threw the entire Temple system into a frenzy, as the sins of Israel would not have been atoned and the Jews would have to stew in their filthy sins for a full year until the next Passover sacrifice. This error on the part of the priesthood would have called the entire sacrificial system into question. After all, if the priests cannot assure the proper forgiveness of sin for all Israel, then what good are they and what good is their Temple? This act began the final dissolution of the second Temple and its sacrificial system. After that, a number of different Jewish factions began challenging the Temple priests and their laws.
The non-Jew becomes increasingly appalled when learning the details of this story. Like most Jewish stories of this nature, e.g. the Hallowedhoax, it becomes sicker and more twisted than the average goyim mind can comprehend. That is why Christian goyim never suspect the real story of Jesus, despite the fact the details are laid out in plain sight. The story is simply too sick and twisted to align with Christian sensibilities. Mesoamericans notwithstanding, it takes the sick, twisted mind of the Jew to facilitate such mind-bending horror stories of tortured sacrifice to counter their murderously corrupt religion.