Completely alienating Christians isn't a wise move.

[SmokyMtn]

Originally Posted by Crowe

That might be the case in England, but I live in what they call the "Bible belt" in the USA. Its 95% Christian here. You know how nutty it is in my area? There is a Seventh Day Adventist Church 2 miles down the road from me. And another Church 10 miles the other way that are the Snake handling Xians.

"Argue for your limitations and sure enough they will be yours." - Anon.


I live not only in the Bible Belt, but right in the buckle of the Bible Belt. Seventh Day Adventist Church? Half mile down the road, same side of the street. Snake handlers? One mile away behind the local auto body shop. Right across the street is an historic Baptist church. I figure that there are six churches within one mile of me, may be more if I look hard enough. The only local radio station plays gospel music nearly 24/7. Damn near every business in the area has a praise Jeebus sign out front. Co-workers keep handing me CDs with the latest sermon to "save me."

And here is the remarkable part, many are well aware that my religion is Cosmotheism/Creativity and have no problem with it. The key is in how I present myself. Most of these Xtians are well aware of the hypocrisy that goes on within their churches, on the other hand, when they meet me, they see someone who always tells the truth, is honorable, and willing to help out a fellow White in need.

My ultimate goal for the Christian issue, is for this religion to eventually be accepted as a mythology, and it will go the way of Roman Paganism. Until then we should try to at least organize them to do more productive things.

Your goal is not very difficult to achieve once you realize that Jesus was Caesar. I started a thread on this topic here on VNN back in January 2011: http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.p...t=Jesus+Caesar

Again, I cannot stress this enough, ignore Akins, he will only get you going around in circles, leading to nowhere.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Crowe

Looking back in the past I see leaders like Hitler who managed to control the Christians or at least guide them in a positive direction. We can simply placate them and guide them down a path, which will eventually lead to this Jewish religion dying out in a generation or 2. Its a problem that can't be solved overnight. Do you think Hitler would have gotten as far as he did if he completely alienated Christians?

Hitler was in an extremely urgent situation. He planned ultimately to phase out christ-insanity, and he came down hard but not hard enough on christ-crank preachers. They still were undermining him every step of the way.

The Christians who are getting treated like shit, and are still pro-Jewish are the sheeple. There are some of these people who half way wise up, but still maintain their religion, and these should be the people we should seek to acquire in the movement.

Wrong. We should force the issue. Either you're with us, or you're against us. If men aren't strong enough to understand the inherent contradiction between the christian and racialist worldview, then they're not worth worrying about. Overlooking their jebus cult affiliation merely means it will emerge at the very worst time - when they come under pressure and are looking for somewhere to flee.

You should ask Rounder how many Christians he had in his ranks. He managed to guide them toward more positive goals. Do you think he would have gotten as many people as he did if he completely alienated their religious beliefs?

I'm not sure where you get the idea that being unprincipled and compromising attracts anyone worth having.

Christians aren't the cream of the crop or the sharpest tools in the shed, but if they are rallied toward more positive goals they go out in the street and support the cause, and can be good soldiers on the street. If we can get men out in the street representing the White race and its interests, I honestly couldn't care if they are Christians or not.

You don't care because you don't understand what you're doing. You think, like most, that ideas don't really matter. It is precisely thinking like yours that keeps our movement stillborn. WN = conservatism = Fox News = jebooism = why bother?

Linder, I can tell you right now, being from Kentucky that if a movement started in this area that was Anti-Christian, the crickets would be chirping, and you would likely be getting into fist fights with fellow Whites over the message. That kind of message, and that kind of movement, simply wouldn't work here. Something like what Rounder did might very well work here.

If that's the case, then we have no hope. Fortunately, it isn't.

[Hugh]

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=144171&page=2

Atheist WN who want political power need to adopt the approach of De Toqueville, who said that governments do not support religion because it is true, but because it is useful.

Faiths by definition are not provable, or they would not be called faiths. Whilst there are many posts criticising Christianity, I don't see posts on how atheists expect to become or remain the goverment in a White society where the majority of people are religious.

Atheist WN are not and never have been a factor anywhere in the world or in recorded history as far as creating or running White countries are concerned.

The real question is how atheist WN with no power, no money, no influence, no members and no structures expect to achieve anything without the support of the maority of Whites who are Christians, and why atheists think Christians won't kill them if they try to threaten Christians or their beliefs.

Christian WN created every White country and White nation that exists today.

As we speak, Christians and Jews together have killed around 4 million Iraquis, and around a million Afghans, and are involved in overthrowing several dozen other non Christian states governments.

Christians have fought wars in the Middle East for over 2000 years to gain control of the trade routes and minerals there.

Hitler was put into power by the Christian vote and by Christian money, and when he failed, Christians proceeded to rebuild Germany from the rubble into the superpower it is today.

The only organisations that own more property than churches are governments. Religious organisations are the largest global corporations, and have outlasted empires, countries and even nations.
Some have existed over 2000 years, and more churches get built all the time.

Whilst Christians no longer even need to go to church, since they have their own TV channels, own radio channels, they are now turning to small housemeetings, and hold intense bible study sessions, often several times per week, as they find church Christianity today too weak, and want a more fanatical religion .
Anyone who's ever actually gotten involved with mainstream activities involving large numbers of Whites knows Christians dominate just about every NGO and political party there is.

Christians at the moment in the US are fat, comfortable, and lazy. Take away their money and comfort, and they will simply take whatever they want and kill any who object.
They want Israel to exist, so Muslim Palestinians can't control Palestine, and from their financial and physical support, clearly support Jews driving out Palestinians, and support Jews calling for war against Muslims.

WN need to become relevant, and deal with the world as it really is.

Most people clearly need religion, and right or wrong, religion has been their guide for millenia.

The only way to stop Christianity is to replace it with another belief, as well as with another infrastructure that provides the same services it provides, from orphanages to retirement homes to schools to hospitals to charities. At this point, there aren't any, so any WN plan needs to include working with Christians.
Those that don't simply aren't relevant.

Christians are the most effective, ruthless killers on the planet, and have been for centuries.

Take a good, long, hard look at who is physically dropping the bombs and pulling the triggers in the Middle East. It's Christians. If atheist WN think Christians would not simply execute them if they become troublesome, then they are not living in the reality based community.

Do atheist WN seriously think that they will be able to govern any significant number of Whites without Christian support?
Not even the most stupid politicians try that for long, those that do, get removed by a panicked party leadership.

Jews in the USSR massacred Christians, confiscated their property, destroyed churches and tortured and killed priests for 7 decades. Those they didn't kill, they put into gulags.
How did that work out?

Putin Speaks About His Baptism [English Subtitles] - YouTube

Putin Speaks About His Baptism [English Subtitles] - YouTube

" 2012 : Putin Returns , the return of the Czar." - YouTube

" 2012 : Putin Returns , the return of the Czar." - YouTube

[Alex Linder]

How'd the christians fare in Russia against a tiny minority of atheist jews?

How do the christians fare as a 90% majority against jews in good ol' USA?

Nuff said.

[Rounder]

Originally Posted by Crowe

You should ask Rounder how many Christians he had in his ranks. He managed to guide them toward more positive goals. Do you think he would have gotten as many people as he did if he completely alienated their religious beliefs?

I should have avoided religion altogether, including saying prayers at meetings. The vast majority of WPP members would have understood why because I'd have explained that religion is too divisive - Baptists disagreeing with Methodists, Lutherans disagreeing with Adventists, etc, etc, etc. Squabble, squabble, squabble. I should have also explained that the WPP was a political party for all white people, regardless of their religious beliefs or their lack of any.

A few xian fanatics would have quit, but not many. And perhaps more would have joined when they learned there'd be no talk of religion during party gatherings.

Dr Pierce had the right idea about avoiding religious problems in active, membership organizations.

[Crowe]

Originally Posted by Rounder

I should have avoided religion altogether, including saying prayers at meetings. The vast majority of WPP members would have understood why because I'd have explained that religion is too divisive - Baptists disagreeing with Methodists, Lutherans disagreeing with Adventists, etc, etc, etc. Squabble, squabble, squabble. I should have also explained that the WPP was a political party for all white people, regardless of their religious beliefs or their lack of any.

A few xian fanatics would have quit, but not many. And perhaps more would have joined when they learned there'd be no talk of religion during party gatherings.

Dr Pierce had the right idea about avoiding religious problems in active, membership organizations.

I agree, but there is a difference in just not talking about religion and going out of your way to be as offensive as you can be to Christians. One will get you somewhere but the other will just make enemies out of people who could be your allies.

I feel like the tone on these forums toward Christians isn't productive. I have my own personal views about Christianity, which is mostly negative, but I wouldn't let that get in the way. Even though I think Christ was a Jew on a stick, I wouldn't go spouting that when trying to make friends and allies. The way I worded that might make it sound like I'm a hypocrite, but with me its about not letting your personal opinions get in the way of moving forward toward solutions for the bigger problems at hand. And that is the only reason I made this thread.

Christians can potentially be fanatically against anything Jewish, they have been in the past. Its a double edged sword, but I'd at least like to see them using the right edge, because we won't be rid of Christians any time soon.

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by Crowe

I agree, but there is a difference in just not talking about religion and going out of your way to be as offensive as you can be to Christians. One will get you somewhere but the other will just make enemies out of people who could be your allies.

I feel like the tone on these forums toward Christians isn't productive. I have my own personal views about Christianity, which is mostly negative, but I wouldn't let that get in the way. Even though I think Christ was a Jew on a stick, I wouldn't go spouting that when trying to make friends and allies. The way I worded that might make it sound like I'm a hypocrite, but with me its about not letting your personal opinions get in the way of moving forward toward solutions for the bigger problems at hand. And that is the only reason I made this thread.

Christians can potentially be fanatically against anything Jewish, they have been in the past. Its a double edged sword, but I'd at least like to see them using the right edge, because we won't be rid of Christians any time soon.

Anti-Jewish sentiment was mostly a Catholic phenomenon. Protestants have always been very pro-Jewish, always will be. Not only do Protestant Christians fervently believe that the Jews are "God's chosen people," historically they have sought to emulate the Jews, which is why Hebrew names have always been hugely popular with Protestants - Jacob, Elijah, Ezekiel, Levi, Ephiram, Ebenezer - the Protestants saw themselves as Israelites building a New Jerusalem.

If you can convince Protestants that the Jews are not "God's chosen people" then you can convince them there is no "God."

[brutus]

Why do so many want to put the cart before the horse?

Only with the jew gone will the Christian problem be solved.

However, and ironically so, the jew helps our cause everytime it defames Christianity. And to be sure it does so at least fifty percent of the time, when not leading the Christian preachers around by the nose, but by its relentless Christian bashing in its media organs.

.

[Nate Richards]

A few xian fanatics would have quit, but not many. And perhaps more would have joined when they learned there'd be no talk of religion during party gatherings.

Dr Pierce had the right idea about avoiding religious problems in active, membership organizations.

Agree with this.

[Alex Linder]

It's not a problem. The christians want much of what we want - the ordinary, everyday stuff. But the christians have proven they can't obtain it, they can't protect it. Anyone who wants a chance at regaining normalcy will have to come with us. And the price is absolutely no mention of your nutty cult. Absolutely no boozus in WN politics. If they don't agree to that, we don't want 'em. They're just problems waiting to happen.

[Breanna]

Originally Posted by Crowe

I'll admit that I'm not a Christian, nor do I believe in any of that nonsense personally. But we shouldn't be seeking to alienate them with our message. Last time I checked most White people are Christian, and if we tell their their religion sucks, even if its the truth, then that is just one more hurdle we have to climb over before we can get to the bottom of the real issues. As soon as you offend their religion, then they are going to be against whatever the rest of your message is.

Many of our predecessors who succeeded where we have failed have understood that you couldn't alienate a large % of the population, and expect to get positive results. Hitler sought to encourage "Positive Christianity", today I might classify that as someone who is Christian but is also against Jews.

We are better off just keeping religion out of the message.

I agree. My only friends in the world are women that are into the christian patriarchy movement. They homeschool, dont believe in race-mixing, have lots of kids, dress beautifully, are pretty and healthy, create beauty in handicraft, and obey and submit to their husbands as that is what rightfully happens in marriage.

Even though they believe in a kike-invented religion their culture is more Germanic than anything white nationalism has to offer.

Does white nationalism offer any alternatives? Is white nationalism even a movement? It is not.

Not everybody is an independent thinker. The vast majority are followers and this will never change. Movements with strong leaders will attract followers but those without them will not.

[Nate Richards]

Absolutely no boozus in WN politics.

Booze is inextricable, so I assume that is a pet name for our lord and saviour

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by Breanna

I agree. My only friends in the world are women that are into the christian patriarchy movement. They homeschool, dont believe in race-mixing, have lots of kids, dress beautifully, are pretty and healthy, create beauty in handicraft, and obey and submit to their husbands as that is what rightfully happens in marriage.

Even though they believe in a kike-invented religion their culture is more Germanic than anything white nationalism has to offer.

Does white nationalism offer any alternatives? Is white nationalism even a movement? It is not.

Not everybody is an independent thinker. The vast majority are followers and this will never change. Movements with strong leaders will attract followers but those without them will not.

I think the reason White Nationalism isn't a movement is because as a group, White Nationalists tend to be mostly independant thinkers, rather than followers. We seldom agree on anything other than the fact that we don't want to live amongst lesser races.

[luftwaffensoldat]

The Protestant church, before 1960, was an agency for communal good, reinforcing and preserving the social cohesion of white communities by providing a strong bulwark against obviously destructive, socially destabilizing forces such as massive 3rd world immigration, forced ethnic diversity, racial contamination through intermarriage and racial integration.

What undermined social cohesion was not Protestant Christianity (in reality, a racially unifying force despite the irrationality of its teachings), but the massive wave of immigration between 1880-1924. These immigrants were ethnically distinct from the original, mostly Protestant Anglo-Saxon colonists, hailing from southern and eastern Europe. Parenthetically speaking, when you change the ethnic composition of a nation, you alter the character of its civilization; this is because culture is rooted in biology; it is an "extended phenotype," an expression of the hereditary capabilities of its racial source. This influx of immigrants diluted Anglo-Saxon constitutional patriotism, with its emphasis on representative government and individual rights; it forced the nation to embrace a more universalizing, collectivist outlook. In 1965, it was the descendants of Catholic Irish and Jewish immigrants who freed the negro from Jim Crow (instituted precisely because the negro was an unassimilable racial element); they flung the doors wide open to 3rd world immigrants from radically dissimilar cultures.

And thus began the rapid downfall of a nation...

[Gordon Green]

What undermined social cohesion was not Protestant Christianity (in reality, a racially unifying force despite the irrationality of its teachings), but the massive wave of immigration between 1880-1924. These immigrants were ethnically distinct from the original, mostly Protestant Anglo-Saxon colonists, hailing from southern and eastern Europe. Parenthetically speaking, when you change the ethnic composition of a nation, you alter the character of its civilization; this is because culture is rooted in biology; it is an "extended phenotype," an expression of the hereditary capabilities of its racial source. This influx of immigrants diluted Anglo-Saxon constitutional patriotism, with its emphasis on representative government and individual rights; it forced the nation to embrace a more universalizing, collectivist outlook. In 1965, it was the descendants of Catholic Irish and Jewish immigrants who freed the negro from Jim Crow (instituted precisely because the negro was an unassimilable racial element); they flung the doors wide open to 3rd world immigrants from radically dissimilar cultures.

And thus began the rapid downfall of a nation...

Hi Hunter. You need to let go of that sock puppet account and know the fact that it's Eastearn Europeans being the most Jew wise today.

[strongwhite]

Originally Posted by Crowe

I'll admit that I'm not a Christian, nor do I believe in any of that nonsense personally. But we shouldn't be seeking to alienate them with our message. Last time I checked most White people are Christian, and if we tell their their religion sucks, even if its the truth, then that is just one more hurdle we have to climb over before we can get to the bottom of the real issues. As soon as you offend their religion, then they are going to be against whatever the rest of your message is.

Many of our predecessors who succeeded where we have failed have understood that you couldn't alienate a large % of the population, and expect to get positive results. Hitler sought to encourage "Positive Christianity", today I might classify that as someone who is Christian but is also against Jews.

We are better off just keeping religion out of the message.

This is true. People have all sorts of private beliefs that they can keep while advocating for a strong nation. Some people might believe in environmental conservation at all costs and others might believe in expanding the countries borders at all costs. Those issues can be dealt with as they come up instead of forcing everyone to become an enemy because of some trivial beliefs. Most people do not take their religion, dietary beliefs, musical tastes, outside of their private lives.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by luftwaffensoldat

The Protestant church, before 1960, was an agency for communal good, reinforcing and preserving the social cohesion of white communities by providing a strong bulwark against obviously destructive, socially destabilizing forces such as massive 3rd world immigration, forced ethnic diversity, racial contamination through intermarriage and racial integration.

What undermined social cohesion was not Protestant Christianity (in reality, a racially unifying force despite the irrationality of its teachings), but the massive wave of immigration between 1880-1924. These immigrants were ethnically distinct from the original, mostly Protestant Anglo-Saxon colonists, hailing from southern and eastern Europe. Parenthetically speaking, when you change the ethnic composition of a nation, you alter the character of its civilization; this is because culture is rooted in biology; it is an "extended phenotype," an expression of the hereditary capabilities of its racial source. This influx of immigrants diluted Anglo-Saxon constitutional patriotism, with its emphasis on representative government and individual rights; it forced the nation to embrace a more universalizing, collectivist outlook. In 1965, it was the descendants of Catholic Irish and Jewish immigrants who freed the negro from Jim Crow (instituted precisely because the negro was an unassimilable racial element); they flung the doors wide open to 3rd world immigrants from radically dissimilar cultures.

And thus began the rapid downfall of a nation...

I take it you've never heard of World Council of Churches. Look it up. It's why, for example, all my right-wing uncles (which is pretty much all of them) left the Methodist Church. Or dirt-eating Southern Baptists watching Pat Robertson in their trailers, nodding as he tells them that whites intermarrying with blacks and browns is the ultimate solution to America's social problems.

Protestants are terrible, from the top down. The high-end ones, the Unitarians and Episcopals are 'high-minded' 'beautiful-minded' one-worlders. Snotty, haughty, two-faced scum. Lower-end Protestants are ugly middle-aged women in caftans taking money from the State Department to resettle bongo boys in the middle of Flyover.

It was the Protestants who worked with the jews to destroy ethnic neighborhood around major cities - E. Michael Jones has written books on that. They slaughtered the ethnic parrishes and drove successful whites into the suburbs where everything was mixed.

[Aus Den Bergen]

If it hasn't already been said (I wont read every single post), then I will cover two main reasons.

First, Christians are christians first, and racial second. Christians will not waste two seconds to waste breath talking about how anyone who's not a white christian all need to die or be purged or what have you, etc etc.

Second, Christians have held the reins on the WNist movement for far too long and it has only turned into a globalist hippie love fest. It's time for them to hand them over. They've had their chance.

[luftwaffensoldat]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

I take it you've never heard of World Council of Churches. Look it up. It's why, for example, all my right-wing uncles (which is pretty much all of them) left the Methodist Church. Or dirt-eating Southern Baptists watching Pat Robertson in their trailers, nodding as he tells them that whites intermarrying with blacks and browns is the ultimate solution to America's social problems.

Protestants are terrible, from the top down. The high-end ones, the Unitarians and Episcopals are 'high-minded' 'beautiful-minded' one-worlders. Snotty, haughty, two-faced scum. Lower-end Protestants are ugly middle-aged women in caftans taking money from the State Department to resettle bongo boys in the middle of Flyover.

It was the Protestants who worked with the jews to destroy ethnic neighborhood around major cities - E. Michael Jones has written books on that. They slaughtered the ethnic parrishes and drove successful whites into the suburbs where everything was mixed.

My comments, of course, are only applicable to a certain period in American history when Christianity wasn't necessarily incompatible with white racial consciousness. For example, there were many Protestant ministers who actively supported and even participated in the clandestine activities of the KKK. The majority of southern Christians were (under the circumstances) racially aware; they were anti-communist, anti-jewish, anti-nigger and pro-segregation. If it wasn't for Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, this situation would have probably continued indefinitely.

Why was Protestantism so chauvinistic and racially intolerant during this period of American history?

This was because American Protestantism, at least before 1965, functioned as a white ethnic marker that distinguished the American Anglo-Saxon, the transplanted Englishman in the New World, from other European peoples; it's a mistake to look at the issue from a theological perspective. When understood as a defining feature of Anglo-Saxon ethnicity, the teachings of the Protestant church are immediately divested of their universalist character and seen for what function they perform as an ethnic marker, which is to strengthen group social cohesiveness by reinforcing American ethnic particularism. In other words, when the bible says we are to love our neighbors, it means that we are to love our white neighbors, especially those who are also Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. However, this left unresolved an underlying theoretical conflict between Protestant universalism and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity.

Of course, because of the liberalization of Christian teachings, American Protestantism can no longer be considered a white ethnic marker; it is now a dangerous threat to white racial survival. And it's certainly true that the typical Christian is an ignoramus of base and low-born character.

[Jim Harting]

Most White Americans are not devout, pious church-goers, who consult with Jesus before making every important decision. But most White Americans DO identify themselves as Christian, and even if they are not Christians is a meaningful religious sense, they ARE culturally Christian.

When they learn that some person or some movement is anti-Christian, they reflexively think to themselves, that that means they are anti-THEM.

Consequently, in terms of public outreach, it is important to stress that "anti-Christian" does not mean that we are against ordinary White Christians as people, but rather against Christianity as a belief system.

In this context, it is desirable to drive a wedge between Christian leaders and spokesmen who are openly Judeophile or pro-race-mixing, and the majority of White Christians who have healthy racial instincts, but who blindly follow their false misleaders.