(Robert Morgan’s most recent comments)
Johnny Rottenborough: “[MacDonald] considers Christianity’s role as a major source of Jewish hatred [for whites].”
Sadly, erroneous and ridiculous as it is, what you say is true. MacDonald the lapsed (?) Catholic does consider Christianity a source of white racial solidarity. Christianity, a doctrine created and spread among whites by Jews, which has convinced whites that one Jew in particular is God and that Jews are a special race “chosen” by God, and further teaches that all men are equally creations of God and equal before him; Christianity, whose doctrines and adherents vandalized and collapsed white civilization once before already—this is what MacDonald thinks defended whites, and can continue to defend them!
One would think that his scientific pretensions would require him to explain how this symbiosis came about, and when and how it ended, if it ended. Weren’t Jews in competition with whites then the same as they are today? Doesn’t early Christianity fit the prototype of what, in The Culture of Critique he identifies as a Jewish movements designed to subvert whites? It has all the features: a charismatic, authoritarian Jewish leader, some white figureheads, a “moral, intellectual, and social vision”, etc. How did this wonderful gift received from Jews end up collapsing white civilization in the ancient world, and should it really surprise anyone that its doctrinal features may collapse white civilization again? Not a word from MacDonald on any of this. And his followers are too stupid to notice the omission!
Johnny Rottenborough: “Whites offer Jews a home …”
Why do they do that? And doesn’t choosing to do that make whites responsible for the consequences? After all, if I invite a known arsonist to stay in my house, and he burns it down, it’s at least as much my fault as his.
At this point in the exchange, I suspect there is likely to be some babble about “pathological altruism”, “white guilt”, etc. But really, those aren’t very good excuses, both sickeningly self-laudatory and ad hoc, seemingly tailor-made to exonerate whites and paint them as helpless victims. If they do describe real phenomena though, and are not just figments of MacDonald’s imagination, it should be noted they are things that only developed post-Christianity. MacDonald however not only passes over in silence this connection to the Christian religion, but has been unable to point to even a single instance of white guilt or pathological altruism in white civilization before Christianity. So much for them being part of whites’ “evolutionary psychology!”
Anon: “He doesn’t talk about technology beyond dancing around it since like other ‘White Nationalist’ spokesman he has a narrative of ‘Whites’ as both masters of the world and also hapless victims of the Jews. He won’t talk about the disaster technology and other feats Whitey have wrought since he doesn’t want to consider that just maybe Whitey’s state is at least a bit self-inflicted.”
Yes, you’ve put it succinctly. As I see it, there are two fundamental problems with MacDonald’s attempts to apply evolutionary theory in the context of whites’ interactions with Jews.
- By failing to consider unintended consequences of technological development as a cause of white cultural and racial decline, and focusing exclusively on Jews and their alleged “group evolutionary strategy” to manipulate whites, MacDonald presents a worldview that leaves whites with no responsibility for their own actions; they become just “hapless victims” of Jewish machinations. On the other hand, when it comes to things of which he approves, such as whites building world empires or technological “progress” generally, then in his view whites suddenly become responsible for their own actions again. This applies to technological development of all kinds, so long as we are talking only about its “good” effects.
- The second problem is allied to the first. MacDonald simply doesn’t go back far enough in history and carry his theory to its logical conclusion. For example, his big book The Culture of Critique focuses only on the twentieth century. But if whites and Jews are in Darwinian competition with each other, then haven’t they always been so? And if so, what does that say about Christianity, whites’ adoption of it, and the liberal ideologies that later arose from it? Were whites’ responsible for their actions then, or were they just as much helpless victims of Jewish manipulation then as he claims they are now? Like the role unanticipated side effects of technological development have played in the white decline, MacDonald doesn’t really want to talk about Christianity’s role either. Nietzsche, Revilo Oliver, and others have put forward the theory that Christianity, a cult which arose from Hellenized Judaism, was developed with the specific intent to undermine white civilization. MacDonald has never addressed this issue as far as I know, and it’s fairly easy to see why. Adopting the pose of an impartial scientist, he claims that Christianity can’t be to blame for the white decline, since it was the religion of whites at what he sees as their peak. If he posits that Jews are responsible for “manipulating” whites into becoming Christian, his theory breaks down into incoherence. Having agreed that in the singular case of Christianity Jews and whites formed a symbiosis that was, in his view, to the great benefit of whites, would commit him to having to explain how that symbiosis broke down, or indeed, if it ever has broken down, and doesn’t still continue; and that, apparently, is something he has no wish to try to do.
Editor’s note: I omitted this comment. My only difference with Morgan is that, as I see it, Asians imitate westerners in everything decadent (technology, capitalism, etc.) but not in suicidal mass immigration. Obviously, the Asians are not infected with Christian and neo-Christian (i.e. secular) altruism, nor they have a Jewish problem. That’s why I focus more on axiology than on technology.
23 replies on “MacDonald the lapsed Catholic?”
You are TOTALLY OBSESSED with Kevin MacDonald, and even idolize him, for who knows what reason why. There really is no necessary reason for Aryans to read material by American scholars, who provide nothing more than a simplistic psychological background of National Socialist Germany.
Why promote the likes of MacDonald, Pierce and Kemp when you can just promote the writings of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, Julius Streicher and Robert Ley?
Anyone who has a profound background on Aryan Values and cultural sophistication would consider the works of MacDonald, Pierce, Kemp and related authors, or even someone like George Lincoln Rockwell to be total rubbish. These Men were nothing but business agents, always were, despite their staunch claim on defending the rights of White people. Even David Duke and John De Nugent are also a big joke.
Better to get everything straight from the horses mouth, rather than regurgitated views from some Pragmatic observers who found clever ways to capitalize on truthful propaganda. People can learn far more in a duration of even 6 months from the National Socialist Germans themselves, then they could from any American Authors. Considering that the National Socialist Germans were many centuries ahead of their time, so too were their methods of education and relaying information to educate others.
Even a quick glance at all these American authors shows that they have mental issues and are severely autistic and flaws and are not honorary figures. Both MacDonald and Pierce are obviously autistic.
Only a fool would ever trust and look up to them, putting faith / stock of any kind in American-based writers.
First, I am not ‘obsessed’ with MacDonald.
Second, what you say about Pierce and Rockwell is not only unfair: it’s false. I have learned more from Pierce than from any other writer of this continent.
And third, Kemp is not an American, nor he lives in the US.
Disclaimer: My contempt for America is practically unrivaled on this planet, so I don’t really take any pleasure in playing devil’s advocate here.
> There really is no necessary reason for Aryans to read material by American scholars, who provide nothing more than a simplistic psychological background of National Socialist Germany.
American scholars, despite their severe deficiencies, occasionally have merit, such as pointing out where omissions occur in Hitler’s table talks or by refuting myths like that of Hitler having a Jewish grandfather. Trevor-Roper was acknowledged by David Irving as the only historian who based his work on historical documents of the WW2 era. Trevor-Roper was also cautious enough not to wholeheartedly dismiss Hermann Rauschning’s work.
> Why promote the likes of MacDonald, Pierce and Kemp when you can just promote the writings of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, Julius Streicher and Robert Ley?
> Anyone who has a profound background on Aryan Values and cultural sophistication would consider the works of MacDonald, Pierce, Kemp and related authors, or even someone like George Lincoln Rockwell to be total rubbish.
George Lincoln Rockwell was acknowledged by Savitri Devi and distinguished himself from the other white nationalists of his time by factoring in the social aspect and American mentlaity.
> Better to get everything straight from the horses mouth, rather than regurgitated views from some Pragmatic observers who found clever ways to capitalize on truthful propaganda.
I concur with this sentiment, but then this should apply to all sources. Historians and revisionists are priests of the modern age. Both arrive at the same erroneous conclusion, that history can shed light on things and that the facts they’ve discovered are absolute.
> People can learn far more in a duration of even 6 months from the National Socialist Germans themselves, then they could from any American Authors. Considering that the National Socialist Germans were many centuries ahead of their time, so too were their methods of education and relaying information to educate others.
6 months is plenty of time for a highly cultivated individual, but not for the average reader. I’ve had 500 visitors on my site as of June 2019, but less than 10 have actually taken the time to go through everything I’ve prepared. Almost all of the quotations are taken directly from primary or secondary sources.
As vulgar as Pierce may come off with his one-sided racialism and his undesirable race war, at least he was astute enough to not appropriate and imitate NS, he admitted as much that they should be doing their own thing. I have yet to read up more on his cosmotheism, but it should be pointed out that the original pantheism has experienced subversion via Spinoza. It’s interesting to read up on what Schopenhauer had to say on that matter.
> Even a quick glance at all these American authors shows that they have mental issues and are severely autistic and flaws and are not honorary figures. Both MacDonald and Pierce are obviously autistic.
Johannes von Leers endorsed the writings of Earnest Sevier Cox and is said to have been surprised to read what he had been taught in the Waffen-SS in the works of an American writer.
> Only a fool would ever trust and look up to them, putting faith / stock of any kind in American-based writers.
What do you have to offer in their place then? I’ve encountered similar sentiment from someone who listed a dozen German books while belittling American interpreters, but none of them were translated, he didn’t even offer a summary of their contents. Several of his authors may have even been Jewish. He advocated the monist Arthur Drews, who was regarded as a fringe element in NS circles.
> One-sided racialism
What does it mean?
>Undesirable race war
You mean his Turner Diaries? What is exactly undesirable about it? When I listened it for the first time in 2011, narrated with Pierce’s own voice, I experienced a ‘satori’ in the sense that I knew that, finally, I was not alone in the planet with my exterminationist fantasies.
As to his Cosmotheism, it’s secondary. What matters is Pierce’s non-fiction book, Who We Are.
> What does it mean?
Too much neglect of the social question. Only reason why the early Christians triumphed over the racially conscious Romans was due to the former’s outward display of socialism.
> You mean his Turner Diaries? What is exactly undesirable about it? When I listened it for the first time in 2011, narrated with Pierce’s own voice, I experienced a ‘satori’ in the sense that I knew that, finally, I was not alone in the planet with my exterminationist fantasies.
I’ll admit that I’ve entertained the notion of eliminating human beings en masse to circumvent the rising overpopulation crisis.
But then I realized two things: #1: anyone could do that, it’s the easiest thing in the world, to take a life. That’s not why Hitler or Stalin were considered great men and why people try to denigrate them. It’s better to prove a point.
#2: it’s also better to systematically destroy ideologies for the triumph of one ideology, which will inevitably inflict harm psychologically. When people see their long cherished notions crumble, they will be thoroughly devastated. People die once, they’re not that afraid of dying, they’ll find it to be a relief. Recall that Jews willingly threw themselves into the fires of their burning temple. Their enemies mentioned in the Talmud (and also by Maimonides and Philo) are never described as threatening them physically, but as attempting to neutralize their laws. These cultural titans (who eventually come to be world orientated) are often referred to as “beasts” as opposed to the feeble “men” who want to destroy Jewry out of envy or for opportunism (such as the anti-Semitism of the Christian Socialists in Hitler’s Vienna days).
> As to his Cosmotheism, it’s secondary. What matters is Pierce’s non-fiction book, Who We Are.
I tend to place emphasis on religion (the question of substituting Christianity must always begin with the formulation for deity. If this is lacking, then the whole endeavor is fruitless. The New Order’s formulation for god is very similar to the Catholic Church and the Church of England, it does not inspire much reverence or praise), but I’ll make some time for the latter book.
The very concept of a single god (monotheism), at least in today’s theists, is of Semitic import.
The only religion for me is like a coin: the 4 words on one side (ethics) and the 14 words on the other (esthetics).
The rest follows from this.
Well, Julian acknowledged that there was one supervising deity which presided over the others, but accused the Jews of monopolizing this being without acknowledging the others. But yes, monotheism is an aberration, the number of gods had to be reduced to make it easier to control peoples. I’d argue that not even Akhenaten was monotheistic.
Please read well what I said above: ‘at least in today’s theists’ (emphasis added).
Hmm I forgot to answer to a point:
> Why promote the likes of MacDonald, Pierce and Kemp when you can just promote the writings of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, Julius Streicher and Robert Ley?
Most of those writings were addressed to Germans. On their own, they can only amount to producing parrots in foreign countries. But when coupled with the opinions and views of others, even if those interpreters are woefully lacking and often despicable people, then they gain their validity. I personally prefer writers from antiquity. You’d be surprised by how well Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, Nietzsche, and even Luther synchronize with Hitler’s ideology.
Martin Luther is antithetical to Hitlerism. Read what Nietzsche said about him.
Thanks! I didn’t know Nietzsche had commented on Luther. I’ll definitely be giving that one a read.
But one must also keep in mind that Nietzsche deviated from the foundation that he started off from (ancient pre-Socratic Greece), which explains the inconsistencies and contradictions found in his work (such as his views on women). IIRC the Jewish biographer Oscar Levy mentioned somewhere that Nietzsche was lacking a foundation for his ideas. Kant likewise lacked a suitable foundation, hence Schopenhauer’s critique of Kant’s philosophy as having no lotus without a stem. Whereas Schopenhauer built his ideas on Kant’s philosophy (after clearing it out) so he wasn’t as confused as the aforementioned two (although his pessimism was radically false).
Nietzsche is highly inconsistent, yes: but his critique of Luther is spot on from the POV of anti-Christianity. That German monk prevented the consummation of a revaluation of all values that had started in the 16th century.
>Nietzsche is highly inconsistent, yes: but his critique of Luther is spot on from the POV of anti-Christianity.
I gave it a read, meditated on it for the past hour, and it checks out as being “spot-on”.
What interests me is the most Nietzsche’s statement that “a religious man thinks only of himself” and that he had a vengeful priestly instinct. The prospect of reward/punishment must have played a role in Luther’s indignation.
Hitler is said to have remarked on him having spent too much time in the cloisters, too much studying ruined his vision. Otto Wagener described Hitler in this way in his memoirs, but I don’t completely agree with his assessment.
One-sided intellectuals have their instincts blunted, a category most white nationalist leaders fall under. Their evaluation of people’s character by their intellect is most unwise. In my correspondence with Carolyn Yeager, I noticed that she praised Ron Unz for being admirable, fair/open minded, linking it up with his sheer intelligence, remarking that he must be a fast reader for all the knowledge he digests.
We also got into a dispute over whether a Jew could be a decent German. I argued against it.
Not that I personally have anything against Unz, but she seemed to readily accept the claim that he had an IQ of over 200. Our intellectuals make a big deal out of IQ. What matters is their qualifications, their competence. Give a healthy man from the masses or plains/mountains some brains and he’ll be more capable of serving the national interest than a diseased know-it-all who thinks he can effect changes via a democracy.
Unz is a Jew, right?
I left one comment yesterday on Unz Review but added that it was probably the only comment I’ll contribute to that webzine.
> Unz is a Jew, right?
Yes.
> I left one comment yesterday on Unz Review but added that it was probably the only comment I’ll contribute to that webzine.
Huh, that’s pretty timely. I was debating with myself for a few days whether or not I should leave a post there.
*Tdlr warning. Also, I do not feel as though I stray “off topic” at all, & it is certainly not my intention to do so. Thanks!*
First off, to be clear, I agree that Kevin MacDonald overwhelmingly depicts Europeans as “‘hapless victims’ of Jewish machinations.” Yes, that is his overall message; however, just to be fair, I have seen one video wherein he spoke about how technology (whites invented & allowed the Jews to obtain, which they ultimately used against us) greatly empowered the Jews.
I believe it was at the Richard Spencer “hail Trump” NPI conference event shortly after Trump was elected as President that MacDonald spoke about technology. That said, I am not trying to be an apologist for MacDonald; I just want to share the fact he has spoken about this. I don’t have time to try to hunt down the vid, but if I stumble across it in the future I’ll share it on this thread if commenting is still allowed.
There were some white patriots who recognized that the Jews shouldn’t be allowed access to our technologies (too few though, as always, especially in America).
Thomas Edison apparently refused to allow Jews any involvement in his movie making operations. From what I understand, it was after Jews failed to muscle their way into Edison’s filming operations they migrated to California and created what became Hollywood.
To touch upon the issue of MacDonald and Christianity, you’re right. He either plays aloof for fear of alienating his audience; or, he may identify as a Christian himself.
As I think I’ve mentioned, I was raised as a (Roman Catholic) Christian, and was surrounded exclusively by fellow Catholics for over half my life (Catholic schools).
I ceased believing in “Christianity” at age 13, when a classmate made a generic rational argument against the Bible. I felt immense inner resistance, I felt a terrible pain in my gut; yet, my logical mind knew the Bible could not depict real events. I accepted that Christianity was a lie. Almost 10 years later, when I discovered the JQ, it all fit together all but instantly. “Christianity” was a sophisticated form of psychological warfare against Europeans.
Point of sharing all of that being; the central thesis/goal of this site seems to be to free whites from the Christianity cancer; and I am illustrating that it is possible. I am disgusted and awe struck as to how modern “anti-Jews,” who possess a high level of awareness of the Jews’ hyper hostile activities towards whites could possibly even fathom (*sincerely*) embracing Christianity!
For “anti Jews” who seem to sincerely embrace Christianity (like many commenters at the DS), it is ultimately because they are slaves to their emotions. I am convinced most of them know the truth deep in their hearts; Christianity is Jewish, but it ultimately doesn’t matter.
They are paralyzed by fear. Fear of the Jewish god (as was I, even for years after renouncing my former faith & knowing in my heart that it is a lie, yet my mind occasionally struck me with fearful thoughts of “what if it’s true tho!?”), and fear of being rejected by their brethren (not fitting in with the herd, basically).
There are lesser reasons as well. For many of them, a major reason they embrace Christianity is the fact they apply an overly simplistic, “black & white” thought process about Jewish behavior.
There are many Jews who *seem* to attack and hate Christianity (& who probably do truly hate it, Jews are hyper feminine, believe they are faultless demigods, & anything less than praise & adoration of them is considered a slight by them). For example, there was the Jew Al Goldstein, who said, “Jews make hardcore pornography because they think ‘Christ’ sucks!” Source:
[bare link removed by admin].For many white nationalists, they apply Goebbels’s quote/rule about “if the Jews are endorsing/praising someone, that person is an enemy (of whites), but people being attacked & denounced by Jews are righteous” (my paraphrase).
So, when the Babylonian Talmud says that Christianity was perceived as more of a threat to Jewry than “Paganism” (sic) and that “Jesus is boiling in a vat of excrement in ‘Hell,'” as it indeed does say, white nationalists blindly embrace Christianity as a result.
When a Jew posts a tweet celebrating the fire that all but destroyed Notre Dame, denouncing some aspect of the cathedral as having allegedly been “anti-Semitic,” (as a Jew actually did), that is “proof” to many anti Jews that Jewry must wholeheartedly oppose Christianity.
The same goes when Jews rail against the Crusades, as they frequently do; or, when Jews falsely depict Islam as a “religion of peace” when Muslims blow up a Christian church in the Phillipines as actually happened a few months ago.
[bare url removed by admin]Anti-Jews/white nationalists fail to recognize even the possibility Jewry may sometimes tactically/strategically only pretend to hate something, or that they may indeed hate & resent something, but not truly *oppose* it.
I think that a lot of the less devout anti-Jews/white nationalists embrace Christianity simply because they don’t understand that the Jews aren’t actually opposed to Christianity. They see a lot of hatred & resentment directed at Christianity by Jews; and they accept it as genuine opposition at face value, which it’s not.
They fail to consider Jews may only be feigning opposition to Christianity, same as Jews pretend to be mortal enemies of Muslims when they most likely also invented Islam to harm whites (to rally the Arabs against the Byzantine Empire)!
An excellent way to point out to pro-Christian anti Jews the truth that Jewry isn’t actually opposed to Christianity is to draw attention to the fact the Jews never speak about the atrocities the earliest Christians committed against Greco-Roman civilization (same as films & the media never draw serious widespread attention to the crimes done in the name of Bolshevism starting in 1917).
I have spoken with quite a lot of “white nationalists” who claim to be pro-Christianity *only* because they calculate in a Machiavellian way that Christianity is one of the only pragmatic options left to unite whites as an explicit in group. These people believe Christianity is too powerfully ingrained among the masses of whites for a new religion to replace it.
They advocate exploiting Christianity and the masses of Christian fanatics for the sake of uniting whites, winning power, and opposing the Jews.
I hope you don’t mind that I removed your bare URLs and some of your asterisks that I did not understand. But yes: in one of my old blogs in Spanish, I removed some criticism I had written about St Francis because, I believed in ca. 2009, that Christianity was good against the Islamization of Europe. Philo-Semitic conservatives in counter-jihad helped me in my first step through the Rubicon. After that I became an anti-Semite white nationalist. And after that an anti-Christian: and I reinstated those criticisms of St Francis in my later writings.
Exactly. It is true, as you say, that nationalists are paralyzed by fear of the Jewish god (‘as was I, even for years after renouncing my former faith & knowing in my heart that it is a lie, yet my mind occasionally struck me with fearful thoughts of “what if it’s true tho!?”’). I speak a lot about that fear in book 5 of my autobiographical series. My present conclusion is that I was not an apostate in my twenties. I thought I had abandoned Christianity at seventeen, but if fear lingers it means that the stage of apostasy is immature and incomplete.
The unconscious rules the conscious, and the only way to get rid of the residual Xtian malware is to evoke, in writing, the painful behaviour of our parents (as religion is nothing else than parental introjects).
No problem about removing urls. I only wish to contribute my part towards manifesting The 14 Words, to the absolute maximum extent I am capable of doing so (& consistently strive towards improving upon/hardening myself so I may contribute yet more of myself to manifesting The 14 Words).
As you said, “crossing the Rubicon (insofar as purging the unconscious of the Xtian malware)” can easily take many years. Christianity is a self-sustaining totalitarian mind control virus.
Fyi, I’ve been sharing the brilliant, masterpiece “Rome versus Judea; Judea versus Rome” as far & wide as has been possible for me; and I’ve also been sharing & recommending your site to many ppl as well.
I will continue doing so in the interim until I next post a comment here. I thank you very much for sharing this invaluable information and wish you well till then. Also, your article about Lincoln & Monocausalism and the long (Christian driven) tradition of anti-“racism in America has been a bitter pill to swallow. You’re correct. Take care!
Thanks for sharing the ‘Judea vs Rome’ essay!
Recently a blogger started to rephrase that essay and share it in a very abridged form. But I believe that the masthead of this site, as I link it in the sticky post, ought to be printed at home and read comfortably by every single advocate of the 14 words.
Thanks again for helping me in such endeavor. Giving up the religion of our parents—full apostasy, not a mere half apostasy—is a titanic task indeed.
@Psychelonb
Christianity never sat well with me because I noticed early on that its pillars of maintaining itself were based exclusively on getting the masses to have “faith” and belief” whereas sciences, history and accurate dates / story lines were completely removed.
In addition, hearing early on how the “Jews rejected Christ” but yet at the same time that we are calling ourselves “Christians” but are following a book and religion that is an offshoot of Judaism!? Even in my earliest of age, so many contradictions and nonsensical things kept popping up, and I would frustrate and anger the clergy and catechism teachers when I began getting into questions and pointing out hypocrisies. If something is true and clean, there should be no hesitation or fear behind it.
Although I want to add something onto your comment about the White Nationalists who embrace Christianity as being our only redemption. I think it’s a lot more than actually just their emotions.
The White Nationalists who are staunchly defending Christianity, typically come from very well privileged families (even if they aren’t privileged themselves) and a lot of times are either a part of a Nation or Family Dynasty that maintained wealth and status through the Christian Church dominating and enslaving Europe / Whites.
Because these Nations never developed sophisticated cultures, they refuse the notion of a Nationalistic / Racial State in which they lose their dominance of the Church’s influence to enslave others and extort money from, because a lot of the families which have held onto power even up to today, thanks to the Jew and Christianity, are unwilling to cope with the status quo of that model changing in which they might have to actually really fight for their existence and live a disciplined life.
For example, the Normans are particularly VERY defensive of religion [Christianity] being the core component of White Nationalism, and the Normans have always brought the Jews and/or Liberated them everywhere they conquered and and maintained relationships with Jews as their business agents. It’s also by no coincidence that Richard Spencer himself, is of Norman extraction.
I really don’t understand where Christian white nationalists get this idea that Christianity unites “us”. Christians have never been united in anything — well, aside from their extermination of whites and indigenous white cultures. The hundreds of different denominations and religious wars over 2000 years should be enough evidence of that, no?
To be honest, it’s not even that these people are Christians that bothers me but that they’re just so delusional and ignorant of their own religion. How is that possible?
Besides, I don’t think white people have ever really even united as “whites”.
This is a bit of an aside but I was watching a live stream debate between Mark Collett and five jews a few hours ago. There was also a “Christian supremacist Indian-Englishman” on board who was saying that the decline of the Church is the cause of white decline and whites should embrace jews as their friends — and saviours which I thought was implied. I found it most amusing. The video has already been taken down, though.
@Verdigris, it’s code-speak for uniting in extortion against White Europeans. The whole objective of Christianity and Freemasonry has been to eradicate all the valuable stocks of White Aryans and to maintain a financial hegemony over mixed mongrels in Europe and elsewhere.
It’s so obvious that the Christians or so-called “Christian WN’s” don’t want any kind of real unity, in the truest sense of the words.
We must constantly re-educate these jaboogies that you cannot be both a Christian and a Nationalist at the same time. They must come to reconcile with the fact that they must choose one side of the fence, and that being a Christian puts you in the same pigpen as the Communists.
It was even well established in National Socialist Germany that one was either a National Socialist, or a Christian but could not be both.