Sign into an existing account

(1.) Though the message may have received words in the mouth of an ethnic Jew, the words that were spoken transcended Judaism and excluded Christianity from Judaism thereafter. The non-exclusivity of Christianity is what excludes it from Judaism. They are not the same. Does it make sense to refer to Americans as something distinct (as a people, a nation, and a place) from England? Furthermore, does it make sense if someone accuses American-ism of being a foreign entity, because the people who would become Americans originated ethnically in England? No.

If someone made this accusation, you would accuse them of a categorical error. America battled to distinguish its independence from England. Likewise, Christianity battled to distinguish itself from all of its points of origin.

"Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all." (Colossians 3:11)

(2.) The objects of religion, to which a true religion must point, are not creations of mankind. Pagans will protest that Christianity is not a product of Europe. "Look", they say, "there is no European to be found in Christian holy texts!" They surmise it is a grave concern, but, as we shall see, it is trivial.

Religion is not a clothing style. It is not a kind of cuisine, or a demographic item. The stuff of religion is the stuff of metaphysics, so it pertains to such concepts as: Being, essence, the nature of the world and of man, and to ultimate reality. If there is a truth about ultimate reality, then it is singular. There is only one way for a religion to be true, i.e. if it is true from the vantage of everything that exists.

From this we can derive three things. Any religion which is possibly a true religion and knows this about itself, must claim that it is the religion. Second, only one religion can actually make such a claim true. Third: religion is a oneness, not a plurality. Thus, any religion that claims to be true for a specific ethnic group, on the basis of its material connection to the history of said group, is claiming that truth about God is plural. For all men desire truth, therefore if a pagan claims the truth of his religion is contingently bound to his people's particular history, he has denied the truth of his God to others. But a God that is true for all is greater than a God that is true for some.

If a believer cannot say, "My religion is not my own, but is properly subordinated to the one, true God; it cannot fail to be true even for my enemy, though he does not know it", then his tradition is not the true religion.

(3.) Still, there is an undeniable repulsion in the White spirit when someone points out that the Torah was physically written down by the very people we consider our enemies.

This is an error of misattribution, for if the true enemy was understood, the claimant would grasp that the enemy is sin. The Jew is just one gatekeeper of this fundamental temptation.

Yet, imagine a world without any Jews! Do you suppose it would be a world with no strife, no backstabbing, no wars, no rat race, no resentment, no corruption? If you think so, then you have no claim to religion whatever, for you have failed to grasp it in its rudiments.

Since well after the days of Rome, the Jew has accomplished nothing militarily. The Jew has relied on permissions from the gentile at every step. Every machination is activated when and where we have said 'yes', where we have become lax, where our natural evils were prodded and we, as people of God, failed to resist temptation.

The pagan will look to the example of Nazi Germany and say, "Yes, but look at the monolithic unity of the inflamed white identity, how galvanized by this idea, we coalesced against the Jew." Does the pagan then also suppose that they were Norse gods who caused that unity? That the Norse gods were the fabric that united the White cloth?

No. This unified and radiant European identity was possible to concentrate in Germany because of the Jew. Could you imagine it the same way if no Jew had ever existed? Yet, before Weimar Germany, did the deities of the Druids unite all of White Europe into solidarity by themselves? They could not have, else the Jewish problem could have never become a problem!

The Jew is an ethnoreligious materialization of the common enemy of man, and the nature of the Jewish problem is similar to the nature of man's problem with infection. Wash your mouth out with antiseptic. Within seconds bacteria are repopulating. Bleach a surface. Return in an hour, and bacteria are flourishing. If man killed the Jew, the Jew would return in an even more concealed, cryptic form - as one of his own! When we feel unthreatened by our common enemy: sin (for example, when we identify it too strongly with something physical, and eradicate that thing), we grow weak, and the enemy's true self materializes more and more closely at our core.

In this way, ancient pagan tradition had no use for us. It might unite us ritually, but it cannot unite us in identifying our true metaphysical enemy. If we do think that enemy is the Jew, we ought to take seriously what the Jew says about the nature of ultimate reality. On the one hand, a person who does miraculous goods gives support to what he says about God. On the other hand, a person who does supernatural evil as successfully as the Jew does, must also know something truer about the nature of ultimate reality. To do good in the name of God is merely the opposite side of the coin from doing great evil against Him.

The Jew does not claim to do evil against Odin. The Jew gnashes his teeth and snarls at Christ.

(4.) If we believe that our enemy is evil, then the degree to which our faith and tradition can endure evil is a sign of its truth. Paganism could not survive in the presence of the Abrahamic faiths. It was overcome by Catholicism, but since your premise is that Catholicism is a Jewish invention to undermine paganism, pointing this out will not help me. I can also say with unshakeable confidence that Islam would have assimilated paganism equally, if not more forcibly. I can point to a religion I consider less true than my own, but truer generally, and say that my quasi-enemy would have also bowled over your pagan tribes.

Islam, too, is a great enemy of the Jews. Are we noticing a theme? The truest religions share in several key features: they identify the proper enemy, and they successfully unite people in a way that endures against that enemy.

Paganism could not do this. It couldn't then. It could not today.

(5.) Lest we forget, the absolute height (intellectually and culturally) of all pagan tradition was the Greeks. The pagan Greeks, from middle Platonism onward, recognized one God (The One). These pagans distinguished themselves from barbarian pagans to the north and west.

Catholicism did not erase the Greek tradition. It absorbed it. The Greeks prefigured and anticipated the Christian theology, and Catholicism merely united Platonism and Aristotelianism in a way that perfected the earlier pagan tradition. How quickly you forget that the Christian tradition was attacked because of its pagan origins!

Now look here, the Jew attacks Christ. The Germanic pagan attacks Christian's Jewish origins. The Protestant attacks Christianity's pagan origins and contents.

Hilariously, members of our community will attack groups like the Illuminati for their sun worship and pagan/occult aspects, then turn around and say Christianity is too Jewish, and so we must demand a return to paganism! Which is it?

Catholicism assimilated both the intellectual revelation (philosophy) of the Greek pagans together with the faith revelation of Jewish followers of Jesus Christ. It is something different from what it assimilated, and it transcends what it assimilated. Catholicism perfected the imperfections of its sources, which is just what we think proper progress does. To become more correct is to perfect one's previous errors.

Christianity is neither only Greek, or only Hebrew. Christianity is consummately Europe. It took the highest genius of the Greeks and united it to the interpretation of the most moral Being of the Hebrew world, Jesus (who reprimanded the Jewish people and stated explicitly that their religion had become the synagogue of Satan). There would be no Christianity without the Greek pagans.

"I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars - I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you." (Revelation 3:9)

(6.) If we consider why traditions in the Abrahamic category were vastly more successful than their pagan counterparts, we can point to how they ordered sexual dynamics by ordering the genders within society. How often is it remarked here that 'Islam was right about women'?

Contrast what Catholicism does in terms of civics/social order with what paganism does. No, you do not get to reverse-assimilate the benefits of Christianity to paganism! For the pagans, women were venerated, held on high with the same religious role as males in the priesthood. They were diviners who often engaged in group sex rituals in order to receive indications from God. This 'drawing down' of God into the world (really, a forcing) through her sexuality is a distinct part of the feminine aspects of occult belief, held in high esteem by Jewish esoteric groups such as the freemasons.

So you, modern pagan, observe the world and cry out "Look how the Jew confuses gender categories and blurs lines which have kept our society together!" Yet, your pagan tradition would have possessed no basis whatsoever for protesting such 'subversions'.

You want a Christian morality dressed in pagan clothes, because you wear your religion like a badge on your jacket. You'll unite nothing and nobody with these lukewarm principles. Christianity is not a foreign religion - it is Europe.