The brilliant father of sociobiology, E. O. Wilson, spent a lifetime studying the psychobiological functions of human behavior, including religion. He and others in the field found that religions insure group cohesion by sanctifying ethical and moral codes, so that individuals may sacrifice narrow self-interest for the wider community, promoting the survival of the group.

Also, religions provide a mythological function. They give a story-explanation of how things began and how the community relates to the cosmos and to Godhood. Religions provide rituals which rejuvenate and reaffirm the morals and beliefs of the collective, as well as providing rites of passage, life crises, marriages, etc.

And religions provide a spiritual function, the perception of transcendent meaning, higher purpose above the personal ego, so that the collective feels that they are participating in the greater action of the cosmos.

Religions have always sanctified what they needed. If we have intellectual courage we can see that the real base of religious practice is genetic advantage to the practitioners. Our genes have been evolved to make us ready for accepting religion. There was a genetic advantage for both the individual and the group in giving self to group and religion.

The historical fact is that if religions weaken their societies they will initiate their own decline. If religions hurt societies during warfare, encourage the destruction of the environment, shorten lives, or interfere with procreation, they will decline---and they have done so in the past.

The core of religious practice, the consecration of the group, is well-suited to a religion that sanctifies the race. Christianity does not sanctify the race, without twisting itself beyond recognition away from it’s original, rather Buddhistic form, ie. rid yourself of all desires of the flesh to attain heaven. The white race is now declining on many cultural fronts and dying faster than it is being born. Christianity is not conserving the race and ethnostate.

Religions last long and bond deeper than political groups. We need a religion that provides the psychobiological functions required of religion, one that conserves and advances the race and ethnostate.

points worth considering. EO Wilson worth reading for sure.

not much is harder to discuss than religion. it is both so important and so powerful and so odd all at once, that our usual frames dont contain it.

if anything, our inability to discuss it effectively shows how atomized and degraded we have become.

on this board you have basically three views. The first I will call the scientific-athiest world view. I consider it essentially Aristotelian and a very understandable point of view for most americans. I held this point of view for a long time and appreciate it as the most sensible thing for many people.

The second I would call the CI view. I'm not going into that as it bores me. Essentially this is a literalist interpretation of the Bible which posits people of European descent as the "true" Israelites not the Jews. I dont take this view nor do I much care to discuss its intrigues.

The third is what I call Traditionalist a view I have tried to share. Here I dont mean the word as used by Evola and Guenon, although I do intend to evoke shades of that. What I mean more precisely however is essentially Catholicism and Orthodoxy and to some extent Anglicanism and Lutheranism. In the old time Christian world, a Jew was a cursed Christ killer and the non-White non-European racial other was to remain socially and nationally separate in this temporal sphere regardless of their particular religious beliefs. I think most of the snivel rights crap has emerged from Jews and the Judaizers the crazy protestant sects like Quakers Congregationalists Unitarians or even gasp Presbyterians. That is why I somewhat exclude them from this view, because in my mind the historic seeds of the current state of ethnic-national suicide attributed to "jewdeochristianity" lay in Cromwell's takeover and alliance with the Jews of the Netherlands. Anyhow, I think many people who have grown up thinking of themselves as Christian could easily be transitioned back to this world view. Moreover I think it's important to have some religious continuity with the past because something was definitely working for our Christian ancestors which is no longer working for us and we need to figger that out. Finally, women and children "need" religion in a way that the macho atheist male does not. If you want to fold women and children into our thing, its pretty difficult or perhaps impossible without "religion." And therein lies part of the inherent mystery of religion: seeminly irrational, apparently indispensible.

Antiochus Epiphanes, this is helpful information in navigating the forum. Thanks.

... I think many people who have grown up thinking of themselves as Christian could easily be transitioned back to this world view. Moreover I think it's important to have some religious continuity with the past because something was definitely working for our Christian ancestors which is no longer working for us and we need to figger that out. Finally, women and children "need" religion in a way that the macho atheist male does not. If you want to fold women and children into our thing, its pretty difficult or perhaps impossible without "religion." And therein lies part of the inherent mystery of religion: seeminly irrational, apparently indispensible.

I suppose I should have responded to your earlier comments, but I have been surprised at the level of discussion over Christianity on this forum, I thought we would have turned that corner and moved on to new religions, or at least moved back to Odinism; I am reluctant to get into the Christian battles.

I think it would require more effort to turn Christianity into a racial religion than it would to develop a new religion, assuming we would want to revive it, and I don’t think we should revive Christianity for the reasons I have been giving on this forum. Will it be difficult? It may be the end of our race. We picked the wrong religion to bond with and now we are paying the price.

Western culture was built upon pagan foundations. High technology cannot vanquish human nature any more than Judaeo-Christianity could vanquish the pagan nature of man. The White Temple will not deny our pagan foundations.

Order, stoicism and the Spartan existence have always characterized the warrior ethos, which was, among other things, designed to keep degeneration and decadence away. The non-warrior culture is more likely to perpetuate all the negative traits. Christian spiritualism and the otherworldly philosophers did not tame or “spiritualize” the warrior ethos, they nearly destroyed the warrior ethos, thus opening up civilization to disorder, hedonism and the weakening affects of luxury.

The White Temple believes that we can begin to save ourselves by returning to Nordic values, heroic values, and the warrior ethos. Our task is to replace the Judaeo-Christian-Humanist values of meekness, humility and universalism with the Nordic values of honor, courage, heroism and race.

We have gone from a conquering, creative and aristocratic people to a decadent nihilistic people. We have been taught to despise the very thing that made us great: our gene pool, our race.

The warrior ethos can be modernized rather than pulled up by its roots and thrown away. We still have human natures, we still require heroes. New technology has not in the least ended competition between races.

Inevitable problems that result from maintaining racial warrior values are fewer than the problems resulting from Christianity, liberal humanism and egalitarian democracy. We must, once again, affirm the Godhood destiny of our race and instill in our race the values of honor, courage and heroism; Christianity won’t do these things because it is not a racial religion, and not a religion that affirms the warrior ethos.

well the warrior ethos you correctly note informed all of Spartan society, was not invented by the Spartans nor forgotten by Christians. I would say that has been one of the defining streams of Aryan folk from long ago into the mists of time. You have in Aryan India the kshatriya caste and a lengthy discussion of their virtues in sacred texts and commentary and contemporary discussion of this by Julius Evola particularly in "Revolt against the Modern Wolrd." If you havent read that, you should. In print now easy to order from Amazon.

The warrior ethos however has an element of cross-cultural universal spiritual applicability which in my view is why it also appears in rigorous form in Islamic cultures of various times and places and also of course in the famed samurai of Japan. So when you talk about ethos you're getting to spiritual ideals that may take you outside of our particular tribal circumstances. There is nothing inherently wrong with that which is what I have been trying to illustrate in my conversation about Christianity, and any religion may encounter cross-cultural appeal. If you want your cult to appeal only to your co-ethnics, that is mere paganism or animism. Religion as such deals with universal spiritual ideas. Christianity is no different than Buddhism or Islam in that regard.

Nothing in a good traditional religion should NEGATE tribe or ethnicity or race. It should acknowledge material difference and complement natural organic tribal-ethnic identity. Christianity is now degenerate into a rootless comsmopolite Jewish golem that has taken the place of the true faith of our fathers if you will. That may sound like nonsense or trying to have it both ways but if you want to talk religion you better get used to dealing in the irrational.

Modern Whites are not going to buy into animism or the mere paganism of Asatro. I dont dislike Asatro in any way and I greatly enjoy Norse myth and studying the cult of the German tribes. Those figures hold great spiritual meaning to me today personally. I dont consider myself unique in that regard as clearly Wagner held both German paganism and Christianity in high regard. Of course Nietzche disagreed which is why he broke with Wagner over Parsifal.

anyways dont get me wrong, I encourage a discussion of warrior ethos, Spartans, aristocracy, all that. That is a part of our racial identity that has been foresaken and we need to get it back. Your efforts are valuable as are the critique of Christianity engaged in by Jarl and Dr A. I remember with fondness the first times I encountered that critique and how it set me to thinking about the many defects in my own "Christian upbringing." So our work is complementary. I recognize that I do not have control of Christianity from above and so my proposed changes are just that proposals. In the meantime please discuss warrior ethos and so forth and mythic heroes and all that wonderful, just remember that Christianity was not always so distinct from what you are talking about as it is now.

...The warrior ethos however has an element of cross-cultural universal spiritual applicability...

It is essentially religious to reject “cross-cultural appeal,” as you put it. Different races developing the warrior ethos doesn’t indicate cross-cultural appeal, these things often developed separately. But even if they did not, the warrior qualities were tied to their genetic qualities, which they religiously guarded against losing. This was not a “narrow appeal only to our co-ethnics,” this was an essential part of the religion, giving birth to the racialism in the original religions. The origin of almost all the central religions were based in warrior and racial values.

Our religious concern is to evolve all the way to Godhood. For that huge task we will require racialism, eugenics and genetic engineering, protected by the warrior ethos, which is the best way ever designed to advance and hold back the weakening of our people. We will need to compete all the way to Godhood to realize our destiny, and to fulfill God's purpose. This will require great religious bonding. Are these “universal spiritual ideals?” Christianity certainly does not have these ideals.

hmmm well I'll chew on that a while.

hmmm well I'll chew on that a while.

I’ll put this another way:

The early religions were tribal, racial, warrior religions, and natural selection was working well. We probably haven’t physically improved since the Cro-Magnons.

As living became easier people would rather sit around contemplating nirvana, like Buddha, or spreading universal love, like Jesus. The warrior ethos was less applied, as technology moved into overdrive, and as human evolution slowed or went backward.

The genetic leash, which ultimately controls the direction of culture, began to tighten when racial national movements developed in the 19th and 20th centuries. Racialism and the warrior ethos were reintroduced to stem the decline of our race and to restart evolution, and to make evolution conscious rather than unconscious. However, these were like future mutant movements. Our people are still living in a fool’s paradise.

As the undeclared racial civil war proceeds, and gets worse, we hope that our people will try to save themselves. We want to be there with a racial warrior religion, to restart evolution. I think religion is needed now more than another political group. I wonder if we would be better off today if the talented racialists of the 20th century had used their skills to develop a sort of quietist, yet warrior, religion. We might have had a powerful religion at this time.

that's interesting but there is a fundamental problem with eugenics as such and it concerns choosing what the good genes are or will be. Right now I often wish Whites were more a bit like non-Whites in that I believe we are orderly sheep lead to slaughter. But if we introduced an element of genetic intractability into Whites, would we be White anymore?

Or consider this. There are more intractable Whites out there and they are Meds. They are different than the Nords. Nords are superbly community oriented and Scandanavia is (or was) a living testament to White community altruism in action. But they are more easily lead by the nose as well. I would hate to see a bunch of self appointed eugenicists destroy the Nord subrace just to obtain more intractable squabbling famously disruptive Meds who probably are ten times more effective pound for pound in Jewfighting in a disorganized social environment like America than the more orderly and community conscious Nordlings.

So eugenics is a form of social engineering I would hesitate to embrace as a utopian scheme prone to misfire like every other crazy scheme westerners have embarked upon like egalitarianism. Now there is a very reasonable level of eugenics that even such a conservative approach would not really opposes like trying to avoid inheritable diseases or manipulate physical defect or illness causing genes but I dont want KAS deciding my genome needs manipulation any more than I want kikes doing so.

Years ago I read something by William Pierce about this where he said that a reasonable level of concern in choosing a White mate is 99% percent of the "eugenics" we need at this time, desperately need, and fussing over the possibilities offered by genetic engineering is counterproductive of that overwhelming need. I'm paraphrasing obviously. I thought that was a very wise approach and have always found "transhumanism" and the like very fishy.

that's interesting but there is a fundamental problem with eugenics as such and it concerns choosing what the good genes are or will be.

Sounds like a sensible attitude for now; what you suggest alone would be a vast help.

But we want to think beyond our present species, eg. Nietzsche’s overman as the bridge to the next level--and I am not talking about merely “spiritual” or “artistic” growth, as those who seek to weaken Nietzsche suggest. Also, we need to avail ourselves of the new sciences.

The very concept, or ideal, of evolving biologically to Godhood requires changing beyond our present level. These are religious ideals worthy of our race. Otherwise we stagnate. There will be intelligent ways to proceed. And we won’t be able to please everyone’s genome, or everyone’s personal social preference.

What we have now is destroying us.

I think biological development along with the other things is indeed a good ideal too but I dont call it towards godhood. Overman is good enough a term.

Carl Jung was one of the better psychologists, even if he took the standard dive away from biological imperatives. For example, he explained away racialism by saying that “collective man” was a “compensating regression,” which comes about as a consequence of an exaggerated individualistic trend.

Even so, Jung had some interesting things to say about the theme of this thread, Why religion?

Jung believed that our condition was perilous and that we were in danger of destroying all that centuries have built up. His therapy slogan was, “Become what you Are.”

Jung said that the main interest of his work was not the treatment of neuroses but the approach to Godhood (he used the term numinous.) He said the approach to Godhood was the real therapy because if you attain knowledge of Godhood you could be released from neuroses.

He said that with all his patients in the second half of life--say over 35-- their big problem was in finding a religious outlook on life.

“Becoming what we are” is becoming racialists, evolving on earth and into the cosmos. The race completes the individual. Healthy religion bonds these things over the long term.

The brilliant father of sociobiology, E. O. Wilson, spent a lifetime studying the psychobiological functions of human behavior, including religion. He and others in the field found that religions insure group cohesion by sanctifying ethical and moral codes, so that individuals may sacrifice narrow self-interest for the wider community, promoting the survival of the group.

EO Wilson's discipline, now renamed as the more PC "Evolutionary Psychology," is rather split on all this.

Richard Dawkins--religion as virus: http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=687&highlight=dawkins

vs:

DS Wilson--religion as group-level benefit: http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=2217&highlight=dawkins

Just a few points of my own:

1. Dawkins is a known leftist, probable atheist and highly controversial anti-zionist!

2. DS Wilson's entire argument pro-religion (so far as I can tell from just the review) is premised on the validity of group selection. From my own reading of his Unto Others, co-author (kike?) philosopher Eliott Sober, I find group selection in humans to be at the stage of (interesting) theoretical speculation. Dawkins rejects group selection in favor of a very narrow version of Hamiltonian kin selection.

3. At best, group selection, if correct, could IMO explain a evolved mechanism for religion generally (perhaps connected with susceptibility to other forms of indoctrination). Group selection (specifically, natural selection at the group level) would be hard-pressed to explain, let alone justify the details of any particular religion, which come and go much faster than natural selection (in humans) would predict.

4. For the particulars, then, one must turn to what is sometimes (IMO) misleadingly called cultural evolution, or as I prefer, simple cultural transmission or social learning. Thing to remember is, even if one strains the evolutionary metaphor, culture does not necessarily "select" for survival and reproduction the way nature does. It "selects" for whatever its purveyors want, which, these days, is painfully obvious.

5. So if the particular religion which is currently driving our folk toward extinction is a cultural product, we are back to square one. WN must, in the name of the folk, retake all the means of cultural and social control, beginning with the government, and then either reform (as Rosenberg wished to do) that religion, or destroy it.

[QUOTE=...WN must, in the name of the folk, retake all the means of cultural and social control, beginning with the government, and then either reform (as Rosenberg wished to do) that religion, or destroy it.[/QUOTE]


E. O. Wilson has had many lesser scholars disagreeing with him, and twisting his original perspective; and Wilson himself would be classified as a liberal. My point is that religions fall if they are not serving their practitioners in successful survival and reproduction, and rise if they do. Wilson used good science to show this.

Evolution happens at the group level, it is the breeding group and gene pool that transmits the mutations to future generations. The mutations of individuals must be carried forward in the group gene pool if they are to be transmitted into the future. This is the science behind racialism.

Advocating retaking the government first before the race is prepared is suicide. Our past mistakes may have even fatally ruined our present chances. This time it should be religion and culture first before politics---religions last long, political groups do not.

My point is that religions fall if they are not serving their practitioners in successful survival and reproduction, and rise if they do. Wilson used good science to show this.

EO Wilson is indeed a brilliant scientist, as demonstrated by his New Synthesis, but if you're referring to the religious speculations contained in On Human Nature, they may contribute to science if only in the (kike) Popperian sense of "conjecture," but they don't show (read: prove) to me what you claim. For one, no empirical evidence is adduced, for another, hard to see how (as per Popper) these notions can be "falsified" in any reasonable time frame. In sum, if we sit on our asses waiting for nature to "select" out a group-level maladaptive religion, it seems to me equally plausible that our folk will "fall" faster than said religion, with its firm basis among mestizos, many Afreakans and not a few gooks. The final victory of the Semitic G-d?

Evolution happens at the group level, it is the breeding group and gene pool that transmits the mutations to future generations. The mutations of individuals must be carried forward in the group gene pool if they are to be transmitted into the future. This is the science behind racialism.

We may be talking at cross purposes here, but strict group selection in the DS Wilson/Sober sense is by no means necessary or sufficient for Racism (as they would be the first to stress!). JP Rushton, the premier academic Racialist, works primarily in the canon of extended kin selection, though he does suggest that his Genetic Similarity Theory may enhance group selection.

Advocating retaking the government first before the race is prepared is suicide. Our past mistakes may have even fatally ruined our present chances. This time it should be religion and culture first before politics---religions last long, political groups do not.

Given proper leadership, the Race can be prepared for most anything. If Aryans have in a couple of decades been conditioned to worship Ariel Sharon, "accept" buggery and zone out on MTV, surely we are prepared for rapid deprogramming of a rather forceful nature. Religious faith is not susceptible of purely logical argumentation, but, initially at least, resultant conduct detrimental to the folk can be coerced out. And any true believer with a martyr complex can certainly be assisted to experience that particular fantasy.

...In sum, if we sit on our asses waiting for nature to "select" out a group-level maladaptive religion, it seems to me equally plausible that our folk will "fall" faster than said religion, with its firm basis among mestizos, many Afreakans and not a few gooks. The final victory of the Semitic G-d?...We may be talking at cross purposes here,

I was not suggesting that the idea of group selection is the only useful dynamic concerning racialism; it seems to me that you are unnecessarily splitting hairs about a scientific principle undergirding the racial view of history. I don’t understand what the motive would be for bothering to do that.

I think the academics you are using to question the concept of group selection have been running away from the racial implications of the idea, and that is the main reason why they try to poke holes in it.

I am not advocating sitting on anything and waiting. The religion can be built as fast and as powerfully (and as legally) as the talent available can build it--certainly with as much success at this time as any violent revolutionary group.

I think the academics you are using to question the concept of group selection have been running away from the racial implications of the idea, and that is the main reason why they try to poke holes in it.

Huh? Among those I've "used" is DS Wilson, who has tried mightily to support (or resurrect) group selection. All interested should read his work and judge for yourselves how well he (and Sober) have succeeded empirically (in humans). Note also the group-indeterminacy of the model. Then maybe you'll see why Rushton primarily uses GST to explain Racialism.

My link to Dawkins was not really to question group selection (though readers of this forum are certainly entitled to know how controversial an idea it remains), but to point out his questioning the evolutionary basis for religion itself. If he is right (which I can't say one way or another at this point), then building a new religion would be a diversion of resources at best. If he is wrong, and a religion is necessary, then there remain the questions of reform vs. build anew, and of timing. I have always presumed it is faster to modify conduct than conviction, and that is consistent with both the NS and Bolshevik experience, but not being a prisoner of history, feel free to work the religious angle as fast as you can.

...there remain the questions of reform vs. build anew, and of timing. I have always presumed it is faster to modify conduct than conviction, and that is consistent with both the NS and Bolshevik experience, but not being a prisoner of history, feel free to work the religious angle as fast as you can.

I must say that you have a good grasp of this subject.

E. O. Wilson is, of course, not a racialist, and even though his work has inadvertently helped our cause, he also is running away from the implications of his own work--(I’m thinking of how he suggested that class was more important than race)--but the backstepping is almost understandable---the fact that Racialism might have been right all along about human behavior and history is hard to take for academics.

It seems to me that we don’t have to disparage group selection to justify different cultural methods, you just have to disagree with my cultural method. Culture has been called Lamarckian---where acquired things are quickly picked up---and it is obviously very important, but culture is always tracked by genetic selection; I described it as culture on a leash, the way Wilson described it. This is pointed out not because I think culture is unimportant or because I don't think there should be debate on this difficult subject, but because the present culture gives no value to genetic evolution and concentrates only on cultural evolution.

What I have been saying in these posts is that I think it is a bigger task to adapt degenerate Christianity to race than to build a new religion. I am also saying that we have to accept that we are not strong enough to take part in politics now, we are in retreat---warriors yes, but in retreat to legally regroup---into a religion in my case. Politics is full of lies and compromises anyway.

A racial religion enlarges and deepens political racialism and provides more functions, eg. how the community relates to the cosmos and Godhood, also religion provides rituals which rejuvenate and reaffirm the morals and beliefs of the race.

The White Temple makes racialism a vital part of a warrior religion directed toward the evolution to overman and Godhood. It is a long, challenging road, but a good road to be on. How can a man live and die better than facing fearful odds?

FS has way more than a good grasp of the subject. He has a seasoned depth to his grasp of sociobiology and I'm still trying to catch up with some things he wrote her months ago. I'll have to chew these comments for a while.

Dr A comments on the OT. I have long thought that Christianity produced in its prime a golden mean because it retained the OT warrior-tribal ethos for the out-group and yet promulgated ingroup benevolence. I think a healthy successful ethnic group or race needs both. What in my opinion has occured is the threads of in-group benevolence have been perverted into a new cloth of deception which equates all mankind as one not merely in some abstract sense but in the material sense.

Hand in hand with this spiritual decadence goes the reconditioning of the mind via massmedia porn promoting indiscriminate sexual behavior, as a solvent for other social distinctions. ie, no male or female, no racial divisions, no divisions by marriage or caste or anything-- all just one big disgusting social orgy leading to an atomized human economic particles made up of very similar size ball bearings. ie, mass homogenization or the end of ethnic diversity and religious and national difference. that is where the evident social engineering seems to be aimed.

[QUOTE=Hallstatt]........
What I have been saying in these posts is that I think it is a bigger task to adapt degenerate Christianity to race than to build a new religion. .../QUOTE]

aye that is the question.

I disagree and think that with enough intellectual manpower, and enough material force applied in the right places, it would be faster to use Christianity. However, you are welcome to explore your idea and I consider that worthwhile. Let many experiments bloom.

My idea is that what our ancestors did with Christianity is something like what Antiochus did when he put a statute of Zeus in the Temple. He did not raze the Temple as the Babylonians did. That was easy for the Jews to overcome. They invented Talmudism. But when they rebuilt the Temple, and then had Talmudism plus the Temple, and then Antiochus suppressed Talmudism and put a statute of Zeus INSIDE THE TEMPLE-- that was subversive of EVERYTHING they had evolved to keep the idea of zion together. And in fact many Jews were "hellenized" and thier Jew identity lost. The Talmud after Christ identifies Him in that vein, as a Hellenizer and thus an Enemy of Jew identity.

And one can easily imagine how a statute of Zeus Olympios would be a more compelling Godhead than tribal Yahweh. And Antiochus injected Zeus like a virus right into the Holy of Holies, the heartchamber of the Jew. A meme that they greatly feared and still do, as they rebel against it ritually every Channukah. Isnt it significant Channukah was not a holiday until AFTER Jesus incident and the destruction of the Temple? I think they thought that in the long term, Zeus inside the Temple was more of a threat to Jewry than destruction of the Temple itself.

So I suggest that when Constantine adopted Christianity-- he did it again. He accepted "Christianity" as a type of new spiritual Temple; and injected Roman pagan ritual, hierarchy, symbol and content into the new carrier medium, which, once repeated by Charlemagne, fused a new thing out of the squabbling tribes-- Christendom, a proxy for Europa.

[QUOTE=Antiochus Epiphanes]...I disagree and think that with enough intellectual manpower, and enough material force applied in the right places, it would be faster to use Christianity. However, you are welcome to explore your idea and I consider that worthwhile. Let many experiments bloom."

Christianity is dying in the West, due mainly to its universalism. Our race is tied to Christianity like conjoined twins. If we don’t separate ourselves from Christianity we will die. If we do separate ourselves we may die anyway. A difficult but clear choice--we have to try to save ourselves.

When something ceases to function as designed, there are three solutions.
1.) Repair 2.) Replacement 3.) Learn to do without.

When something ceases to function as designed, there are three solutions.
1.) Repair 2.) Replacement 3.) Learn to do without.

“Learning to do without” seems to work fairly well until about age 35 when many people seek to find a religious outlook on life. Carl Jung found this to be true in his work. We may do without an approach to Godhood but we might feel disintegrated, or life seems not full or not total enough, and this can make us feel almost unwell.

Then there is the racial social bonding advantages etc. of religion, which we have been discussing here.

[Christianity is dying in the West, due mainly to its universalism. Our race is tied to Christianity like conjoined twins. If we don’t separate ourselves from Christianity we will die. If we do separate ourselves we may die anyway. A difficult but clear choice--we have to try to save ourselves.

This is an issue I thought about for a long time. But for me it was resolved by the realisation that Christianity wasn't the problem, but rather what so much of Christianity had become. I mean in the past Christianity was a great force for good, despite whatever failures of men, but what happened?

I mean, after I became a Christian, it seemed like one Christian denomination after another has capitulated to the Jews, sodomites, and/or multiculturalists. So I was left with either being a solitary believer with no church, or joining a church and being constantly irritated by liberalism or apostasy. I ended up in the Orthodox Church mainly because they resist change and have been least corrupted by the things which have compromised other denominations.

The point is that Christians must reclaim the churches from the Judaizers, liberals, and sodomites. We simply must stop with the constant retreat that essentially allows the enemies of good to takeover our institutions. We can't keep running or quitting in disgust, but rather we have to stand up against these destroyers.

I look at the Catholic church as a perfect example of the reluctance to confront evil. It seems like the sodomites have become intrenched in the clergy and been protected from criminal action for decades, but how did that happen? If I had been a Catholic priest and even suspected that another priest was involved in sexual abuse, I would have went to my bishop, and if he didn't act, confronted the pervert personally.

Christianity needs more men like St. Nicholas. When he came up against a heretic, he kicked his ass.

We need also to remember the great men of the Church who didn't cringe in fear of being politically incorrect, but denounced the Jews and their wicked chicanery in explicit terms.

This is the crisis in Christianity: not enough men willing to denounce evil when and where it occurs, not enough men to stand up against the enemies of our faith. Christianity fails only when men fail.

sodomites became entrenched after Vat 2 which marks a major change in Catholic attitudes towards modernism the intellectual spawn of Jewry. Not suprsingly Jews have done nothing but gain ground on Rome since then. It culminated in the humiliating apology of Karol at Yad Vashem. Then the Jewish reward for that was spit in the face in the form of endless media coverage of the abuse scandals. Somehow, the general attitudes towards homos went up during the pervert abuse scandal. How that happened I dont know.

About the only bright point was when a White nazi inmate stomped the guts out of faggot priest Geoghan and sent him to his hellish reward in oblivion.

And in fact that bright point marks how some of these problems will be solved. Sooner or later, the subversion of Christian churches by Jews and Jewdaizers will have to be dealt with by a widespread organized application of force. When we have the organization and will to do it, and it is complete, then we will have earned our patrimony. Until then "we" deserve the contempt of the pagan for our weakness, ineffectuality, and inaction.

I point to Charlemagne for a reason. That is how we need to deal with the Jewdaizers and Jews.

Hallstadt (sp?), well past 35. Maybe some of us are later coming around to honest spirituality. By that I mean I had disgarded christianity early on. Then you search for "the meaning of life". Start by studying religions that have passed. Which is the oldest? All familiar avenues. Then you realize that without YOU being here to witness, none of it exists! I have left it there feeling no need to invent a belief system. We have much to learn that religion gets in the way of. You claim religion is necessary for group cohesion, as does A.E. whom you are at odds with. How about the group cohesion of those who share in the search for truth?

... How about the group cohesion of those who share in the search for truth?

I think the search for truth takes us to religion, but a religion that respects and applies modern science, also a religion that sees that science cannot supply all things. Science lacks a place to go, it can explain religion but it can’t draw on the power of religion.

I think that science, philosophy, religion, art and even mysticism do not have to contradict one another, combined they create a fuller and healthier world.

This is an issue I thought about for a long time....in the past Christianity was a great force for good, despite whatever failures of men, but what happened?....Christianity fails only when men fail.

I’m sorry about all the people who have devoted their lives to Christianity, and those who have found personal salvation in their lives with help from this religion. However, if they cannot also see that this religion is not helping them in the long run---and hurting the lives of their grandchildren---and is bringing the race and culture down, then it must be just that---sad, and perhaps even tragic. We cannot let this religion destroy our future just because good men are trapped by it.

The global capitalists are doing even more damage to our race than the Christians (who allowed them in the first place) but that’s another thread.

Sounds like most on this thread believe there is and will always be a need for a religion. I personally have no such need, and have always been dubious of this notion, not unsympathetic to Marx's "opium of the masses" comment. Of course, what the cunning Marx omitted was that Marxism is the opium of the intellectuals. But I'll reserve further comment on this initial question until I've read the book whose review I linked, Darwin's Cathedral, which apparently argues that there is an evolutionary case for religions.

If that view is correct, turning to the reform vs. make anew issue, and being indifferent myself, my only concern is to avoid a Hobbesian war of all against all, which nobody wins, save the kike, who, as it took a slope to say out loud, fights only "by proxy." Obviously it is not so much a matter of the total number of White Christians as the depth of conviction. I know lots of people who go to Church for social hour. On the other hand there are those in Church (and on the streets) who talk to the Father of Jesus, and quite a few of those are convinced He is talking back to them! It seems to me that the proportions in these categories (however they might be estimated) would indicate how radical a solution might be feasible.

... my only concern is to avoid a Hobbesian war of all against all, which nobody wins, save the kike, who, as it took a slope to say out loud, fights only "by proxy."...

No internecine war. Remember, I’m advocating the legal way, building and bonding the healthy new alongside the crumbling old, for the long term...This is why I was reluctant to join the forum Christian battles.

“Sometime in the future” the racialists, and the new religion, will be stronger as well; it makes no sense to advocate action now---assuming dying Christianity can be brought to life. The Inquisition types are in the dangerous small minority. The new civil war would more likely be between competing races.

Vertical Expulsion Now! is beyond our present power. Politics is about over for us. We have to regroup into bonded religious groups to last through the coming tough times. Immature strategy is indeed the cause of grief.

I think one of the main reasons science can't explain all things is BECAUSE religious beliefs clash with inquiry. We are using outdated tools to solve a complex riddle. Computers are numbers crunchers. I don't think we have sufficient data to crunch yet. Stop testifying about seeing smoke and start looking for the fire. Many avenues to the future are not being explored because of the mental clash in people's minds between what they have been told, and what they see.

I think one of the main reasons science can't explain all things is BECAUSE religious beliefs clash with inquiry. We are using outdated tools to solve a complex riddle. Computers are numbers crunchers. I don't think we have sufficient data to crunch yet. Stop testifying about seeing smoke and start looking for the fire. Many avenues to the future are not being explored because of the mental clash in people's minds between what they have been told, and what they see.

Fascism grew during the intellectual realization of “the death of God’ and usually denied transcendental values; history and biology provided it’s main foundation.

The White Temple brings Godhood back, attached to history and evolution, a new theology for our time, exactly what our time needs.

Religion brings the deep appeal of emotions. Rational thinking is accessible only to a few and invites speculation and disagreement; feelings can be shared by all.

Although science is a great Western tool, and a favorite choice of ours, the “truth” may not be fully accessible through science.

If Asscrack convened an Inquisition, he should be the first one to go on the rack for his abject service of the Christ killing Jews and his shameless posing as a Christian and prayer meetings at work and all that crap. He's a cryptoJew and Judaizer of the first rank. Any idiot evangelicals reading this should consider what their poster boy has done to stop all the abortions. Zilch. Promises, no delivery, only suckassing it to the Jews with his rotten patriot act stuff. Oy vey the spooked the porn industry by doing one or two federal obscenity prosecutions and all your Judeo-Christlings said amen! and opened their pockets to the republicunt party.

The fact is most of what you guys complain about comes not from "Christianity" as a whole but from various sectors of Protestantism. Most of us here probably grew up Protestant including myself and I dont have anything against Protestants personally except that they remain in the thrall of a religious creed which is a degenerate offshoot of the main branch and has historically been the biggest blessing of the past 500 years for Jews allowing them to work their schemes to great effect in Europe through the Thirty years war in Germany and the whole Cromwell incident in Britain.

Your social engineering mischief, from slavery abolitionism, to suffrage for women, to "civil rights" for negroes, to modern day "immigrant worker relief efforts" have been chiefly planned and executed by various spawn of the Puritan fanatics. Quakers especially but also to some extent Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Reformed, Unitarians, Methodists. Your other somewhat closer-to-Catholicism Prots have recently jumped into the fray full force such as Lutherans and Anglicans. As of late even the Catholics rushing to join the social justice pissing and moaning. Although I believe this digression is temporary. Your Orthodox churches have generally remained stalwart against participation in utopian social schemes even where some of there members have not.

On the other hand, Jew-bootlicking Zionist crap and drum-banging has come from the whole Pat Robertson evanglical crowd which is indeed the growing aspect of Protestantism.

Take out the evagelical Jewservice and the social scheming of the Puritan's heirs, and Christianity looks far less destructive.

It amazes me that people are so willing to dismiss Christianity as a whole when the past 2000 years of European folk fighting the Jewish mischief have involved Christian belief and practice intimately. Geo Santayana's words come to mind. There's a long history of Jew-presence and Jew-fighting that is largely ignored by "the movement" for fear of being called a Christling. I think however there's much to be learned and even a complete total atheist should be familiar with the history of our forefathers efforts to control or eraditcate the Jew bacillus. You cant begin to understand that without some understanding of the positive role Christianity served in European society for a very long time.

example and it should be not a difficult one for some of our resident jewexperts. Who decreed Jews had to wear the badge?

I think I should make it clear here, I am a realist, I know that war never goes away, and that the warrior ethos is the best method ever invented to keep us from degenerating---the warrior ethos is central to The White Temple.

But the warrior ethos must be attached to race and religion if it is to have staying power, and we do not have this now. Racialism has little power today. We all know what our own people think of racists.

Democratic politics is over for us because we have all but lost the numbers game, we will be a minority race in only a few years, and we will have no control over our governments, other races will---they already do.

If we try to act out now we will be destroyed. So we have to admit our grave situation and retreat and regroup. But in our retreat we will be building the warrior traits of courage, heroism and honor, and developing a new religion for the centuries ahead.

I know that ideas have consequences when the people who hold them gain enough power to bring the ideas forward to society, but we are not there now, far from it. We have to build the values, legally, first, for the future.

Thanks for even cosidering my position. I think you may have made too little of my comment about science using out-dated tools. Religion typically is a brake on scientific investigation, if no other way than restricting those investigations to those deemed "official" by the church. We need new tools to deal with a laboratory that now includes DNA, and all it's implications.
As for the warrior ethos, I think the existence of this very board is proof enough that there are still those who will do the killing and dying as needed for our race.