by Eric Thomson
In blightwing circles, religious belief is deemed of utmost importance. Inexplicably, religious belief is associated with racial survival. Apparently, the blightwing deems it relevant whether Whites perish from the face of the earth as "Christians" or as "Pagans". In terms of racial survival, there can be only one valid religion: that which puts the survival of Our Race first and foremost. Any other order of priorities is irrelevant and pernicious.
Pagans and Christians have many things in common, as any rabbi can point out. Christianity is really Judeo-Paganism, a Pagan passion play with Jewish actors. The foremost Pagan tenets included in Christianity are the concepts of The Hanged God and universalism, rather than tribalism.
The Judaism of "The Old Testament" features an exclusive tribal god who forbids adulteration of tribal blood with that of non-Israelites. Thus, the contradictions between "Old" and "New" Testaments are as great as those between oil and water, when any mixture of both is attempted.
Judaism is bound up with the physical, earthly existence of the Jews, whereas Christianity is bound up with the individual's 'successful' passage into the "afterlife". Hence, Judaism is a much more effective creed for racial survival than Christianity.
Does belief affect behavior? It should, for anyone who claims to believe one thing, but does the opposite, is deemed hypocritical or insane. If I believe that it is raining, why would I go out for a stroll without my raincoat and/or umbrella? If I say that I believe in the spiritual over the material, why would I devote most of my lifetime exerting myself to acquire possessions "which thieves do steal and moths and rust do corrupt"" People could fairly call me a hypocrite, a nutbar or simply a televangelist.
How many people really believe what they claim to believe, and to what extent do they believe it? Bertrand Russell observed that most people partake of "the cake of convention", without question. Sociologists call that "situational ethics". If one is in the company of cannibals, one eats what they eat. If one is in the company of "Christians", one prates what they prate, matching sounds with sounds, without a care about the content or meaning of the words.
The majority, i.e., the herd, 'goes along to get along', and few of them take any belief so seriously that they would undergo danger and sacrifice on behalf of their purported creed. That is usually why behavior does not accord with 'belief'. Creeds come and go, but the human animal remains much the same.
My boss in Barcelona told me of his experience during the chaotic days at the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War. A group of armed men invaded his office and demanded to know which side he was on. Without hesitation he told them, "Yours, of course!" He never did find out which side THEY were on, because they left when shots were heard outside.
In the Mexican Revolution of 1910 to 1929, many nominal Christians became nominal atheists for the ruling party was anti-clerical in its political struggle with the Catholic Church. After a few compromises on both sides, the conflict died down and party members could go back to being nominal Christians.
Many Germans supported National Socialism because it made them feel good, not because they understood it and believed in it. When war brought suffering and occupation, such Germans were quick to disavow their purported beliefs, in order to please their now Zionist masters.
To the extent that purported Christians believe in universalism and 'miraculous rescues', and govern their behavior accordingly, White Christians do their race a disservice. To the extent that they recognize the laws of Nature by practicing racial exclusivity, they can serve Our Race, whatever they care to call themselves.
14 January 2001