Log in

View Full Version : saved from the memory hole! pt. 1


Jack Napier
August 22nd, 2004, 07:01 PM
Dr. Pierce’s position on Christianity as printed in the 1993 membership handbook. I laboriously transcribed this from the unedited original for the benefit of non-members and new members alike. Enjoy.

2.d.vii. Christianity
The National Alliance is not a religious organization, in the ordinary sense of the term. It does, however, have to concern itself with religious matters, because religions influence the behavior of people, society, and governments. The doctrines of various religious groups – Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, et al. – deal with temporal as well as spiritual matters and therefore often conflict with National Alliance doctrine.

Christian doctrines are of much greater concern to the National Alliance than the doctrines of other large religious groups, because Christianity is the most influential religion in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the White world. Most members of the National Alliance come from families which are, or a generation ago were, at least nominally Christian, and very few come from families which practice, or practiced, Islam, Buddhism, or other religions. Furthermore, the history of our race for the last thousand years has been inextricably bound up with Christianity. The National Alliance really cannot avoid taking positions regarding Christian beliefs and practices, despite the complications this causes in our work.

The immediate and inevitable fact which forces us to come to grips with Christianity is that the mainstream Christian churches are all, without exception, preaching a doctrine of White racial extinction. They preach racial egalitarianism and racial mixing. They preach non-resistance to the takeover of our society by non-Whites. It was the Christian churches, more than any other institution, which paralyzed the will of White South Africans to survive. It is the Christian establishment in the United States which is preeminent in sapping the will of White Americans to resist being submerged in the non-White tide sweeping across the land. Most Christian authorities collaborate openly with the Jews, despite the contempt and abuse they receive in return, and the rest at least follow Jewish policies on the all-important matter of race. The occasional anomaly – a Catholic bishop in Poland speaking out angrily against Jewish arrogance, a few Protestant groups in the United States expressing sympathy for oppressed Palestinians – does not invalidate the rule.

We are obliged, therefore, to oppose the Christian churches and to speak out against their doctrines. But we do not, as some groups have done, accuse the Christians leaders of being false Christians. We do not say, “We are the real Christians, because we stand for the values which the mainstream churches stood for a century ago, before they were subverted.” We do not reach for our Bibles and point to verses which seem to be in accord with the policies of the National Alliance and contrary to the present policies of the Christian churches. A diligent Bible scholar can find in the Judeo-Christian scriptures support for – or ammunition against – virtually any policy whatsoever.

Beyond the immediate conflict between us and the Christian churches on racial matters there is a long-standing and quite fundamental ideological problem with Christianity. It is not an Aryan religion; like Judaism and Islam it is Semitic in origin, and all its centuries of partial adaptation to Aryan ways have not changed its basic flavor. It was carried by a Jew, Saul of Tarsus (later known as Paul), from the Levant to the Greco-Roman world. Its doctrines that the meek shall inherit the earth and that the last shall be first found fertile soil among the populous slave class in Rome. Centuries later, as Rome was succumbing to an internal rot in which Christianity played no small part, legions of Roman conscripts imposed the imported religion on the Celtic and Germanic tribes in the north.

Eventually Christianity became a unifying factor for Europe, and in the name of Jesus Europeans resisted the onslaught of Islamic Moors and Turks and expelled the “Christ-killing” Jews from one country after another. But the religion retained its alien mind-set; no matter how much some aspects of it were Europeanized. Its otherworldliness is fundamentally out of tune with the Aryan quest for knowledge and for progress; its universalism conflicts directly with Aryan striving for beauty and strength; its delineation of the roles of man and god offends the Aryan sense of honor and self-sufficiency.

Finally Christianity, like the other Semitic religions, is irredeemably primitive. Its deity is thoroughly anthropomorphic, and its “miracles” – raising the dead, walking on water, curing the lame and the blind with a word and a touch – are the crassest superstition.

We may have fond memories of the time before the Second World War when pretty, little girls in white dresses attended all-White Sunday schools, and Christianity seemed a bulwark of family values and a foe to degeneracy and indiscipline. We may cherish the tales of medieval valor, when Christian knights fought for god and king - if we can overlook the Christian church’s bloodthirsty intolerance, which stifled science and philosophy for centuries and sent tens of thousands of Europeans to the stake for heresy.

We may even find Christian ethics congenial, if we follow the standard Christian practice of interpreting many of its precepts – such as the one about turning the other cheek – in such a way that they do not interfere with our task. But we should remember that nothing essential in Christian ethics is specifically Christian. Any successful society must have rules of social conduct. Lying and stealing were shunned in every Aryan society long before Christianity appeared. Our pagan ancestors did not need Christian missionaries to tell them how to behave or to explain honor and decency to them – quite to the contrary!

Historians may argue the pros and cons of Christianity’s role in our race’s past: whether or not the unity it provided during a period of European consolidation outweighed the loss of good genes it caused in the Crusades and the bloody religious wars of the Middle Ages (and through the church’s policy of priestly celibacy); whether the splendid Gothic cathedrals which rose in Europe during four centuries and the magnificent religious music of the 18th century were essentially Christian or essentially Aryan in inspiration; whether Christianity’s stand against the evils of self-indulgence – against gluttony and drunkenness and greed – was worth its shackling of the human mind in superstition or not. One thing already is clear, however: Christianity is not a religion that we can wish on future generations of our race.

continued.....

Jack Napier
August 22nd, 2004, 07:11 PM
More uncensored Dr. Pierce with questions for discussion.

We need ethics; we need values and standards; we need a world view. And if one wants to call all of these things together a religion, then we need a religion. One might choose instead, however, to call them a philosophy of life. Whatever we call it, it must come from our own race soul: it must be an expression of the innate Aryan nature. And it must be conducive to our mission of racial progress. Christianity, as the word is commonly understood, meets neither of these criteria.

The fact is that, completely aside from the racial question, no person who whole heartedly believes Christian doctrine can share our values and goals, because Christian doctrine holds that this world is of little importance, being only a proving ground for the spiritual world which one enters after death. Christian doctrine also holds that the condition of the world is not man’s responsibility, because an omnipotent and omniscient deity alone has that responsibility.

Although some Christians do believe Christian doctrine wholeheartedly, however most do not. Most instinctively feel what we explicitly believe, even if they have repressed those feelings in an effort to be “good” Christians. Because of this many nominal Christians, even those affiliated with mainstream churches, can, under the right circumstances, be persuaded to work for the interests of their race. Other nominal Christians – especially those who stand apart from any of the mainstream churches – have interpreted Christian doctrine in such an idiosyncratic way that the contradictions between their beliefs and ours have been minimized.

For these reasons we want to avoid conflict with Christians to the extent that we can. We don’t want to give unnecessary offense, even when we speak out against the doctrines of their churches. We don’t want to ridicule their beliefs, which in some cases are sincerely held. Some of these people will later reject Christianity’s racial doctrines. Some will reject Christianity all together. We want to help them in their quest for truth when we can, and we want to keep the door open to them.

Members who want to study the subject of Christianity and its relationship to our task in depth should read Which Way Western Man?, by our late member William Simpson. The book’s initial chapters describe the spiritual odyssey of a man of exceptional spiritual sensitivity, who was far more intensely a Christian than nearly any Christian living today and who eventually understood the racially destructive nature of Christianity and rejected it.

A more concise study of the difference between the Christian world view and ours is given in Wulf Sorensen’s The Voice of Our Ancestors, which was reprinted in National Vanguard No. 107.



Questions for discussion:

1. Should Dr. Pierce’s unequivocal view of Christianity as an opposing ideology preclude committed, racially conscience Christians from membership in the National Alliance? Was this the policy of the NA when Dr. Pierce was alive?

2. It is the “new” NA’s policy to discourage public criticism of Christianity but not church policies and figures. In light of socio-political changes in the ten years since this article was written, does the new policy help or hinder the fulfillment of Pierce’s core goals and values?

3. Keeping in mind demographics and previous overt Western revolutions, such as the American colonies, National Socialism, Jewish Bolshevism, etc., as well as more covert revolutions; can a revolution be successful in the White-Western world while excluding Christians as members?

Fritz Kuhn
August 22nd, 2004, 10:01 PM
1. Should Dr. Pierce’s unequivocal view of Christianity as an opposing ideology preclude committed, racially conscience Christians from membership in the National Alliance? Was this the policy of the NA when Dr. Pierce was alive?

Your question includes a fallacy - Pierce wrote that "we want to keep the door open to [Christians]". And the reasons he gave was simple - most Aryans are raised and Christians and most continue to consider themselves to be Christian. Without Christians there could be no mass racialist movement.

2. It is the “new” NA’s policy to discourage public criticism of Christianity but not church policies and figures. In light of socio-political changes in the ten years since this article was written, does the new policy help or hinder the fulfillment of Pierce’s core goals and values?

Pierce wrote "we want to avoid conflict with Christians to the extent that we can". Nothing has happened during the last 10 years to invalidate his reasoning.

3. Keeping in mind demographics and previous overt Western revolutions, such as the American colonies, National Socialism, Jewish Bolshevism, etc., as well as more covert revolutions; can a revolution be successful in the White-Western world while excluding Christians as members?

No - but as the Doctor wrote, "many nominal Christians, even those affiliated with mainstream churches, can, under the right circumstances, be persuaded to work for the interests of their race. Other nominal Christians – especially those who stand apart from any of the mainstream churches – have interpreted Christian doctrine in such an idiosyncratic way that the contradictions between their beliefs and ours have been minimized."

FranzJoseph
August 22nd, 2004, 11:22 PM
Jack Napier,

Thanks for making this available. Most of what's in the memory hole stays there.

Sean Martin
August 22nd, 2004, 11:38 PM
Christian "White Nationalists" are philosophical cripples. Shackled to the Jewish Bible, they are lame, and cannot "move" with the same agility as non- and anti-Christian racialists. They must always consider, however subconsciously, their allegiance to "the Lord" vs. the Aryan Race. They dwell on "What Would Jesus Do?" as opposed to "What Would Hitler Do?"

.
Ok white man what are you doing for your race? Seems non-Christians haven't accomplished squat. What are you shackled to? What is holding you down?

It brings joy to me to see those atheists and pagans squirm knowing that David Duke is about to be instrumental in Christianizing the NA.

Sean Martin
August 23rd, 2004, 12:57 AM
Will the new "National Alliance" offer a casino and "massage parlor" to make him feel at home?
I don't gamble but I don't complain when my Old Lady gives me a massage. So it doesn’t matter to me in either of those areas.

White Will
August 28th, 2004, 12:17 PM
Jack Napier,

Thanks for posting this very interesting piece.

I have just posted Wulf Sorensen’s The Voice of Our Ancestors refered to by Dr. P in the History/Religion forum for any interested in reading it.

Link: http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=8730

I wish I had known you were working on this ... I could have saved you all that transcribing work.

Four days ago I posted this piece in the History/Religion forum under the title of William Pierce on Christianity (From the Membership Handbook)

I wonder if they are exactly the same text?

Link: http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=8517

Again Jack thanks.

.

Thank you, Jack AND Jarl. I just read Sorensen's The Voice of Our Ancestors. What inspiring words! No wonder Dr. Pierce recommended we read this to better understand his National Alliance's position on Xianity,

Only a blind fool could read Dr. Pierce's clearly stated position on Xianity then write this: " It brings joy to me to see those atheists and pagans squirm knowing that David Duke is about to be instrumental in Christianizing the NA."

David Duke is no Xian, yet he leads his supporters in prayers to the tribal god of the people of the Sinai. Those who were close to Dr. Pierce know what he thought of David Duke and what he'd think of Mr. Duke "Xianizing NA." I can't blame Duke for taking what Gliebe and Strom hand him on a silver platter.

This sort of polarization is good, I say. It separates those who understand Pierce from those who don't, who can't, or from those who can, but who dissemble his vision for the sake of expediency. Those in the former camp will find one another soon enough this way and we'll rally around the voice of our ancestors, the voice that the "new, Xianized" NA repudiates in favor of Jaysus.

Sorensen's Cosmotheist world view goes right over the heads of Gliebe and his "new" NA members such as Doc Martin, Ed Fields or the True Celtic Prophet, the Rev. Dr. Frank Weltner. I'm sort of surprised that Kevin Strom would go along with "Xianizing the NA." Oh, well, business is business...

Gods Gift 2 Women
August 28th, 2004, 12:47 PM
Speaking of Kevin Strom, I think he'd be a more credible WN if he shaved off his hair and got at least one swastika tattooed to his arm. And if he ditched those natty suits he wears in favor of a tank top and some thread-bare jeans.

MrOutis
August 29th, 2004, 09:21 AM
Most non-christer "White Nationalists" are ultimately just as "philosophically crippled" as christers, as shown by the label "White Nationalist". You can't set up or revive or defend a White Nation until the Jew is checked. Also, there's this "neo-folk" garbage that so many have latched onto as their 'philosophic' ground: phony and flattering 'esoteric' bilge for those incapable of cold political reasoning. There is one objective: eliminating the Jew. Anything else is self-indulgence that we, as a race and as rightful heirs to history, cannot afford. Yet they will never cease with their comforting -isms. The more one theorizes, the longer Jews dominate; there is no theory in the need to eliminate Jews; the theory has been set, we can read about it for ages to come, and the Jew will still be there holding us on a rope: at some point we must stand and wrap it around his neck. So Christian or no Christian, Radical Traditionalist or no Radical Traditionalist, Eurasian or no Eurasian, etc., etc., etc., the bottom line is very, very, very, very simple: ELIMINATE INFLUENTIAL AND POWERFUL JEWS. I don't mean to be "universalist" in saying that; I only mean that these petty wranglings are far below what should be our primary, immutable concern. The less one can dwell on the essential and that which is needful above all, that much less is one relevant to "our thing". Do christers value their miserable existence more than non-christers? I have not noticed it; we're all pretty smug about life and the comforts of 'kwa. They might take their own advice in Matthew 6:19, but Comfort forbid they become uncomfortable; same for the neo-folkies and those akin. Each must make a decision to jettison the superfluous, to sink down into deeper abysses so that the pressure pushes one to the extremity of which we are in dire need. Insomuch as Christianity is understood by our christers to be "combat" or "identity" Christianity, it is a conservative phenomenon, broadly speaking as a political stance, and subjectively as an excuse to live like a coward swathed in rhetoric and heimlichkeit. But this of course applies to the non-christers as well, who do not want to risk themselves in a greater bid against Jewry: flyering and tiny rallies are their mode of attack! Should we form a political party? Itz coming! Etc. Unfortunately for all of us, bigots won't get the job done. Men will.

Jack Napier
August 29th, 2004, 04:35 PM
Jack Napier,

Thanks for posting this very interesting piece.

I have just posted Wulf Sorensen’s The Voice of Our Ancestors refered to by Dr. P in the History/Religion forum for any interested in reading it.

Link: http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=8730

I wish I had known you were working on this ... I could have saved you all that transcribing work.

Four days ago I posted this piece in the History/Religion forum under the title of William Pierce on Christianity (From the Membership Handbook)

I wonder if they are exactly the same text?

Link: http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=8517

Again Jack thanks.

.

Thanks, Jarl. You did save me some work, as The Voice of Our Ancestors was to be my next project.

Thank you also for redirecting my attention to the religious forum. It had been some time since I looked there and have been missing out on some good posts.