Post New Thread Reply
 
Thread Tools Share
Old 06-16-2013, 05:04 AM   #21
Randolph Dilloway
 
Randolph Dilloway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,866
Rep Power: 0
Randolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations God
Default

We want to answer once and for all the question: Can Christianity help build a White racial movement (any White racial movement) or is it part of the problem?

In answering this question I am reminded of a country preacher who flatly stated that, "A religion without a hell ain't worth a damn." We CREATORS do not make any pretense of being without bias, and do not particularly agree with that assessment. Instead, we flatly state that: Any White racial movement that fails to confront and expose Judaic Christianity isn't worth a damn.

We further state that taking unreconstructed, "born again" Christians into our movement is not only counterproductive, but creates dissention and anarchy in our ranks; that Christianity is not just a problem among many, but is basically THE PROBLEM that has crippled the White Man's mind through the ages and prevented the White Race from ever developing a strong White Racial Religion of its own; that it is the most powerful weapon the Jew has forged throughout the ages in getting a grip on the White Man's mind and channeling it down the road to self destruction and genocide.

We further state that Christianity is the Jew's Maginot Line; that it must be cracked before we can get to the enemy and destroy him. (The French Maginot Line was breached and outflanked.) We further state that Christianity and the survival of the White Race are incompatible. Either one or the other will survive, but not both.


Ben Klassen, Racial Loyalty Issue 10 - March 1984, Who Needs Them? A Polyglot Mind and a Polyglot Society
Randolph Dilloway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 03:30 PM   #22
notmenomore
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: virginia
Posts: 96
Rep Power: 20
notmenomore has a brilliant futurenotmenomore has a brilliant futurenotmenomore has a brilliant futurenotmenomore has a brilliant futurenotmenomore has a brilliant futurenotmenomore has a brilliant futurenotmenomore has a brilliant futurenotmenomore has a brilliant futurenotmenomore has a brilliant futurenotmenomore has a brilliant futurenotmenomore has a brilliant future
Default

Quote: Originally Posted by Smoky View Post


We further state that Christianity is the Jew's Maginot Line; that it must be cracked before we can get to the enemy and destroy him. (The French Maginot Line was breached and outflanked.) We further state that Christianity and the survival of the White Race are incompatible. Either one or the other will survive, but not both.


Ben Klassen, Racial Loyalty Issue 10 - March 1984, Who Needs Them? A Polyglot Mind and a Polyglot Society


Although it's rare to find anything to disagree with in Klassen's writing, it may be worth considering that the notion of mutual exclusivity stated here is not necessarily complete. It may very well be that NEITHER the White Race nor Christianity will survive.

It's certainly not without possibility that the evolutionary processes may eventually cast BOTH of these on the "ash-heap of history."
notmenomore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 04:11 PM   #23
Fred O'Malley
I AM THE PALE HORSEMAN
 
Fred O'Malley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Revolutionary South, USA
Posts: 67,893
Rep Power: 50
Fred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations God
Default

Why "Survival of the Fittest" Is Wrong

Click the image to open in full size.

You've probably heard it a million times in descriptions of evolution and natural selection. Charles Darwin even liked to say it. But the phrase "survival of the fittest" is wrong, and understanding why can help us better understand what it means to be human.
Survival's Origins

Darwin uses the phrase "survival of the fittest" in chapter four of On the Origin of Species to describe the process of natural selection. But he did not coin the phrase. It was borrowed from English philosopher Herbert Spencer, who first talked about survival of the fittest in his Principles of Sociology. "The term 'natural selection,'" wrote Darwin in The Origin, "is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice." Referring to the process as "survival of the fittest," Darwin thought, helped clarify things. But the famed naturalist's appropriated turn of phrase turned out to be rather inappropriate, itself.

Princeton biological anthropologist Alan Mann told io9 that in most cases, "survival of the fittest" has been replaced by the term "reproduction of the fittest," or "differential selection." This holds particularly true in discussions concerning mammals — humans, especially. Mann says there are two main reasons for this.

One: for an organism to reproduce, it is implied that it must first live long enough (i.e. survive) to do so. And two: the phrase "survival of the fittest" paints a mental image of what Mann characterizes as "the tooth and claw of bloody nature" — as though every organism in a particular area is perpetually fighting for the ability to survive. In this context, "fitness" can be misinterpreted as an ideal evolutionary goal. "But Evolution acts to produce function, not perfection" says Mann. Moreover, "fitness" should properly refer not so much to characteristics like strength or speed, but rather an animal's ability to produce viable offspring.
On Fish and Humans

Where a phrase like "survival of the fittest" becomes relevant, says Mann, is in discussions about what is known in ecology as "selection theory," or ideas about the trade-off between the quantity and quality of an organism's offspring.

Fish, for example, can produce and fertilize thousands of eggs during a mating session; but the number of fertilized eggs that are eaten, killed, or die in some other way before reaching sexual maturity is huge. This "make as many as you can" reproductive strategy is called "r-selection." Large numbers of offspring are produced, but the vast majority of them perish. And this strategy, says Mann, does, in some ways, follow the concept of "survival" of the fittest.

Why "Survival of the Fittest" Is Wrong

Say you have a newborn fish that is a prey species to a larger, predacious fish. In most fish species, there is little-to-no parental care, so that animal has predator-avoidance behaviors built into its neurological system. When a young fish sees the shadow of predator nearby, or feels the water current of a larger fish, it begins to exhibit predator-avoidance behavior. For many fish, says Mann, this means either swimming very fast, or swimming in a zig-zag fashion. But of course, predacious fish have also evolved mechanisms to catch prey. He continues:

So if the prey fish is going zig zag zig zag zig zag, and the predator fish has evolved mechanisms to go zig zag zig zag zig zag, that particular prey becomes lunch. If however there is a biological variation, and instead of the prey fish join zig zag zig zag zig zag, it goes zig zag zig zag zig zig, it lives another day. So, on that level, survival of the fittest has some meaning.

Why "Survival of the Fittest" Is Wrong

But other animals, and mammals in particular, employ a reproductive strategy dubbed "K-selection." They produce fewer young, so their strategy is based on cultivating behaviors like postnatal protection and nurturing. These learned behaviors ensure their smaller number of offspring will reach reproductive maturity.
Human Behavior and Evolution

"Fitness" refers not to how long an organism lives, but how successful it is at reproducing. And "survival of the fittest" fails to encompass the subtleties of natural selection in mammals, which Mann points out often involve learned behaviors.

"One of the things that's happened in human evolution," he says, "is the time from birth to reproductive maturity and adulthood has been prolonged." This, he continues, probably holds true for most large-bodied mammals (think elephants, for example, or great apes). "When you think about that kind of biological change, it's really pretty difficult to understand, unless there is some adaptive advantage in allowing the young to internalize more behaviors."

Why "Survival of the Fittest" Is Wrong

In other words, increasing the age of sexual maturity makes little sense in the absence of some other evolutionary adaptation that makes it possible for offspring to develop safely over a longer period of time. This insight is crucial for understanding humans (and, arguably, mammals in general) not just in a biological light, but a cultural one, as well.

Consider, for example, that a typical pregnant human usually gives birth to just one child, occasionally two, and very rarely more than that. As a result, human parental investment in offspring is huge. An infant is raised, often by more than one family member, through a very long childhood development and dependency period. This not only ensures that the offspring will reach reproductive maturity, but that it has time to, as Mann puts it, "learn more appropriate behaviors, become better socialized into their society, and by this way become more successful and therefore capable of producing more offspring of their own."

It's therefore likely that the behavioral repertoires of humans, apes and other mammals have become remarkably complex because of the adaptive advantage they've provided as the time between birth and reproductive maturity has increased. On one hand, this allows for evolutionary fitness to be maintained. At the same time, however, it allows room for the possibility of sexually mature, adult animals (who have very clearly "survived," to reproductive age) who do not actually reproduce — once again highlighting the important distinction between "survival" of the fittest and "reproduction" of the fittest.

Among humans, not having children is often a culturally motivated choice, rather than a biological limitation (though both are often at play). People choose not to have children in order to pursue a career, or to raise only a small number of children. Others forego having children for so long that, when they finally decide to conceive, they encounter complications during childbirth. Despite a prolonged maturation period, these individuals are surviving to maturity without a problem. Evolved social mechanisms have played a large part in making that survival possible. But those same mechanisms can also lead to humans not reproducing, in which case their biological fitness would be considered to be very low.

Ultimately, "survival of the fittest" is necessary, but not always sufficient, for the survival of the species.

http://io9.com/5988401/why-survival-...ttest-is-wrong
__________________
Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said: "With such violence the great city of Babylon (Judaism) will be thrown down, never to be found again." Revelation 18:21
Fred O'Malley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 06:54 PM   #24
Randolph Dilloway
 
Randolph Dilloway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,866
Rep Power: 0
Randolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations God
Default

Quote: Originally Posted by notmenomore View Post

Although it's rare to find anything to disagree with in Klassen's writing, it may be worth considering that the notion of mutual exclusivity stated here is not necessarily complete. It may very well be that NEITHER the White Race nor Christianity will survive.

It's certainly not without possibility that the evolutionary processes may eventually cast BOTH of these on the "ash-heap of history."

The point Klassen was making is that Xtianity is The Problem, and if the White race is going to survive, Xtianity needs to be rejected and replaced with a genuine White man's religion. Klassen's Creativity and Dr. Pierce's Cosmotheism, lay a good foundation for a religion that the White race can call its own.

Fred, for the White race to move forward, it must begin to practice intelligent selection, because, as your article points out, natural selection no longer plays a significant role in the betterment of our race. Our modern industrial society now allows those who are unfit to not only survive, but out breed the more intelligent of our race.


The Future of Man, by Robert Klark Graham.
A LOOK AHEAD
“Man may he excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen... may give him hope for a still higher destiny....” —Charles Darwin
Pessimists might say we have only two alternatives. We can revert to the ice age form of natural selection which was so fatal to the unintelligent. This would mean a cataclysmic return to the hunting stages of our development. Or we can continue our present drift toward average dullness, so fatal to the intelligent.

However, there is a solution which is infinitely more humane and practical than the choices just given. No one man devised this solution, but many superior minds contributed to it. It is mankind's greatest cumulative discovery. It is only concealed from most eyes because it transforms gradually instead of swiftly. It can increase man's inner resources until he is not only equal to the gigantic biological tasks facing him, but is able to go on to better things. One of the several names for this solution, the logical successor to natural selection, is intelligent selection.

Man is young as species go. He doesn't have to accept senility and decline as inevitable. Already he has within his grasp the knowledge to make himself a better man than his forebears. Intelligent selection gives him the remarkable opportunity to control his own evolution. He may scorn to use the knowledge, even as the mighty Cro-Magnon hunters appear to have spurned the grubby techniques of stone-polishing and primitive agriculture. Or he may utilize the constructive evolutionary powers which great minds have placed in his hand. Whether he uses or rejects his new opportunities will determine whether his future trends upward or downward. It will be one or the other because change, sometimes swift, sometimes slow, is the first law of the high organic world of which he is a part.
"For the first time in the history of humanity a crumbling civilization is capable of discerning the causes of its decay. For the first time it has at its disposal the gigantic strength of science. Will we utilize this knowledge, this power? It is our only hope of escaping the fate common to all great civilizations of the past. Our destiny is in our hands. On the new road, we must now go forward." (Alexis Carrel, Man the Unknown, New York, Harper, 1939, pp. 321-22.)
For more than 10,000 years man has had cultural progress at the price of genetic stagnation or regression. No longer is it necessary for him to pay such a huge and intolerable price.

He can have both cultural and genetic progress.

Intelligent selection is neither new nor untried. Since man first domesticated plants and animals, he has used it with increasing effectiveness. He has taken the sour wild crabapple and transformed it into a sweet, delicious and much more nutritious fruit. He has taken wild chickens and doubled their size and increased their egg-laying capacity many times. He has taken wild dogs and created canines of greater strength, greater speed and quicker minds. Intelligent selection offers man an opportunity never given to any other species— a chance to transcend the limitations and cruelties of the natural selection which shaped his destiny for so long.

Intelligent selection is the means whereby the more intelligent people will bring more of their kind into the world. Instead of killing off the unfit at an early age, as primitive natural selection did, it would simply slow the rate at which the unintelligent breed, while encouraging the intelligent to breed at a higher rate. This is an elementary procedure in the science of husbandry, yet when humans seek to apply it to themselves, they are confronted by a mass of altruistic emotions and attitudes inherited from our distant past.

Intelligent selection need not be imposed. Like government with the consent of the governed, it may be employed voluntarily by any group concerned enough and enlightened enough to put it into effect. Man is self-domesticated. He can also be self-selecting. It is as though a beneficent Providence, seeing man faltering and beginning to retrogress, chose to reveal to him in his time of need certain secrets of his being, so he might save himself from the biological degradation brought about by his own indiscriminate breeding. Only lack of understanding or downright inertia prevents man from benefiting from his own greatest discovery.

We have seen how man has been able to control his environment to such an extent that it acts as a counterforce to natural selection. The stages in this control— weapons, tools, fire, agriculture, industrialization and science— pale in comparison to the potentialities of what now lies before him. The resources of intelligent selection, capably utilized, can enable him to
rise above the limitations, not only of himself and his environment, but of the evolutionary process itself. It will allow him to break the cycle of progression and regression which has been characteristic of all animal societies, including his own. It may stimulate his ascent toward a new level of being, of which his present organic status may be only the crude beginning.

He may become, not just the latest creature in a succession of dominant creatures, but the first to direct and shape the unfolding of his own biological makeup. The mastery of fire was man's first conquest of the forces of nature. The mastery of his own evolution would be his greatest. "When... we consider the logical consequences of the application of the science of genetics to man," H. J. Muller wrote, "we see progress of a hitherto inconceivable kind opening before us."

Intelligent selection would work much more rapidly and benignly than natural selection, while offering the greatest of all opportunities for human betterment.

"Man in this moment of his history has emerged in greater supremacy over the
forces of nature than has ever been dreamed of before. He has it in his power to solve quite easily the problems of material existence. He has conquered the wild beasts, and he has even conquered the insects and microbes. There lies before him, as he wishes, a golden age of peace and progress. All is in his hand. He has only to conquer his last and worst enemy— himself."
( Winston Churchill, March 28, 1950.)
If a major nation were to pursue intelligent selection diligently and have so much as a one generation lead over the rest of the world, no other nation would ever be able to catch up with it.

In this era of highly technical warfare it becomes ever more evident that the most critical and strategic commodity of all is brainpower. Great nations have fallen because of a small, relative deficiency of it. Others have won out despite severe shortages of men and materiel.

Today, defeat will come swiftly and surely to the nation which falls behind in brainpower.

Last edited by Randolph Dilloway; 06-16-2013 at 07:31 PM.
Randolph Dilloway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 07:56 PM   #25
Randolph Dilloway
 
Randolph Dilloway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,866
Rep Power: 0
Randolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations God
Default

Originally Posted by SmokyMtn on VNN, April 7, 2012.....

@Clytemnestra:
“As for the White Christians, again, all we need is a White Nationalist who is smart enough to incorporate the beliefs of a Ben Klassen into interpreting the Bible…a committed WNist with a strong theological background can change Christianity into a religion that can benefit Whites rather than harm them for a change.”


Will Williams' reply.....
In commenting on the futility of trying to adapt the Middle-Eastern yahwehist creed to the spiritual needs of European man, Ben Klassen, a smart man, indeed, said: “Why pick through a barrel of rotten apples for a bite or two that’s edible when Nature gives us bounteous orchards from which to pick fresh, delicious apples?” Klassen didn’t want gullible, suggestible, superstitious lambkin followers in his Church; he wanted wolves — ones smart enough to see that we can be both idealistic race thinkers and realistic. He valued common sense and logic; science and lessons from our history, but foremost, the eternal Laws of Nature.

Christianity is not grounded in reality. Fact! It’s escapist. It’s universalist. It does not serve the interests of the race. Read the Sermon on the Mount with a critical eye as Mr. Klassen did. Read his eye-opening interpretation of that suicidal “Lift up thine enemy” claptrap.
Randolph Dilloway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 09:06 PM   #26
Randolph Dilloway
 
Randolph Dilloway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,866
Rep Power: 0
Randolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations God
Default

Klassen Letters, Volume I, pages 73-84:

EXPLAN.: At this point Eleanor evidently felt she was somewhat out of her league. She therefore decided she would have another member of her group, a certain Prof. John R. Adams write me a letter and do a more professional job. This he did in a long rambling dissertation, contending how Christianity had historically been the "faith of our fathers", and suggesting that since I hadn't been snookered into accepting it like the rest of them, that, ipso facto, I must be a Jew, an accusation which, understandably, roused my ire. He concluded eloquently by quoting Rudyard Kipling's poem "Lest We Forget" in full.
Mr. John R. Adams, Ph. D.
St. Petersburg, Florida
January 10, 1972

My Dear Professor:

I had been on vacation to the state of Colorado for approximately three weeks during December and when I came back I found your most interesting letter on my desk, amongst much other mail, much of which was trivial. I appreciate your letter greatly, because embodied in it are so many ridiculous and confused arguments that I am sure I can use some of the material for the book I am writing.

I notice that your name is signed John R. Adams, Ph. D. I suppose I should be impressed by the Ph. D., but frankly I am not. On the contrary, since I have a few college degrees myself and have too long associated with people who have Ph. D.'s, I have no respect for them whatsoever. The fact is that some of the most confused and over-educated fools that I know are those that have a Ph. D. after their name. Although there are exceptions, it is my observation that their minds are something like concrete, all mixed up and hard set. Their main problem seems to be that after too many years of Jewish indoctrination of all the wrong ideas, it is extremely difficult, if not
impossible, for them to come up with some sensible conclusions. It is my further observation that the average working man has more common sense and a much healthier instinct than does the average Ph. D.

Your main charge, Professor, seems to be that I have changed my position regarding Christianity from what it was when I wrote the "Fifty Phoney Arguments" and the "B. K. Lettersw. You are right, I have. I'll admit to you freely and frankly that at one time I believed in Santa Claus, but when the evidence kept piling up that this was a fraud, I revised my position. Not too many years ago I also believed in Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. When I took a closer look at this operation and the evidence kept piling up that I had been snookered, I did the honest thing and reversed my position and exposed it for what it was. I also once had confidence in Barry Goldwater, and also in George Wallace, and contributed considerable time, money and effort towards the election of these impostors. As time passed on and evidence kept piling up that these people were deceiving me and millions of others. I again reversed my position and called a spade a spade.

Does this make me unusually naive and gullible? Not particularly. When I look around me I seem to be miles ahead of the average snookered goyim, including you. The Jewish network is so entrenched and has one layer of the conspiracy after another enmeshed throughout its apparatus that as you discover and expose one it takes awhile until you find there is another underlying layer of the conspiracy beneath. Most people haven't even uncovered layer number one. One big difference between you and myself seems to be that you have not the necessary mental capacity of reasoning and deduction to unravel the Jewish-Christian echelon of the conspiracy.
Another difference seems to be that when the evidence becomes overwhelming, my mind is not necessarily hard-set like concrete, as some
people I know.

However, when you brazenly accuse me of being in league with the Jews because I don't go along with your sick version of Christianity, then I'm going to give you the answer you deserve straight from the shoulder: you are nothing but a cheap unmitigated liar. You are lying through your filthy teeth, Professor, and you know it.

So you want to quit. That's fine with me. So quit. There is evidently a vast difference between your objectives and mine, between your loyalty and mine. It seems that your prime purpose is to perpetuate the ridiculous and idiotic, not to mention suicidal, teachings of a circumcised Jew, now long dead, if he ever lived at all. On the other hand I have no desire whatsoever to perpetuate this sick and dying creed, on the contrary it is my objective to expose it. But even a thousand times more important to me is the survival
of the White Race. While you are going around re-hashing old Jewish shibboleths, it is my purpose, in fact the greatest dedication of my life, to lay the foundations for a new creed or a new religion that will be instrumental in the future survival of the White Race. I am firmly convinced that the book that I am now writing contains more common sense, is more in harmony with the laws of nature; in harmony with the lessons of history; and constitutes a more ideal religion for the White Race than any book that has been written in the last five thousand years. It is based on a clear and simple creed: what is good for the White Race is the highest virtue; what is bad for the White Race is the ultimate evil. Had the Romans had such a religion two thousand years ago they would not have succumbed to the perfidious Jew, but instead we would be living in a beautiful bright world peopled by a race that would have reached heights of excellence yet undreamed of. Furthermore, I can tell you this: If only ten per cent of the time, energy and money were devoted to the of such a religion as is today wasted on keeping alive the sick and dying Christian creed, I guarantee you, it would spread like wildfire. If that task overwhelms your little professorial mind, and appears beyond your grasp, that is your problem, not mine. You can quit if you want to. That's always easy and cowardly. But I shall not, and nothing on the face of the earth is going to stop me.

Until about a year ago, like millions of other people, I was as confused and deceived by the "Christian" hoax as you now are, although I always did feel there was something queer, and much that was silly, about Christianity. Nevertheless, when I started to organize the new party, the N.W.P.. I found that not only did I get opposition from the Birchers, but my strongest opposition came from the "Born Again Christians, and even the "Unborn Again" Christians. (By the way. Professor, are you a "Born Again" Christian? If not, why not?) This, despite the fact that I wasn't particularly raising the issue of Christianity at all, in fact, was trying to leave religion out of the picture, arguing that this was a political issue. Notwithstanding my attempt
to avoid religious entanglement, I got nothing but opposition from these Jesus people. Continually the argument would come up "but isn't racial discrimination against our Christian principles?" "I can't be against the Jews. After all they are God's chosen people." "We shouldn't be against the Jews." The Bible says, "I shall bless them that bless thee and I shall curse them that curse thee." "I haven't got anything against the Jews. I have a very good Jewish friend who has just recently become a Christian." "We are all equal in the eyes of the Lord." (All except "the chosen", of course. Like
George Orwell's pigs in "Animal Farm", the Christians view the Jews "more equal" than the rest of us.) And so it went. Much to my surprise 1 found that the best protectors the Jews have are the Christians and none are more adamant and fanatic about it than the so called "Born Again" Christians.

After awhile this started me to thinking as to why this should be so. Although I had been fairly familiar with the Bible since my earliest childhood, I went back to the Bible itself to find out just what was the Christian Creed. To my surprise the most damaging indictments against Christianity itself did not come from reading any Communist literature, but came from reading the "Holy" Bible itself. I started with reading the much ballyhooed "Sermon on the Mount." As I took it piece by piece, I was overwhelmed at the stupid, idiotic, destructive, and suicidal advice that was contained in these pages.
It was fantastic. This was the most obvious collection of bad advice you could give anybody. "Love your enemies." 'Turn the other cheek." "Sell all thou hast and give it to the poor." "Resist not evil." "Judge not." If somebody borrows from you and refuses to repay you, loan them more. If somebody asks you for your coat, give it to him and give them your overcoat too. If some lousy Jew threatens to take you to court, don't contest him. And so on and on. On mulling this over I came to the conclusion that this was the most insipid garbage that anybody could possibly give you. Not only that, but if you followed it you'd destroy yourself, your family and your nation.

Then I investigated further as to who were these perpetrators and promotors of this so called "new teaching'? And I found all these disciples - Matthew, Mark, Peter and Paul, John, - almost unanimously - they were all Jews - headed up by that duly circumcised Jew himself by the name of Jesus Christ. With the Old Testament written by nothing but Jews (about Jews) and the New Testament written by the same breed, that should raise the red flag of suspicion in anybody's mind. It did for me.

The next stage I looked into was what happened to the great Roman civilization after they went Christian. Not much to my surprise I found that within six generations after Emperor Constantine proclaimed Christianity as the offlcial state religion of the Empire that Rome had completely disintegrated from the greatest civilization and power that the world had ever seen to a complete shambles, and in fact by 476 A.D. Rome was no more. Their fatal mistake was that they had bought this mess of garbage, and as could be predicted, they destroyed themselves.

I further studied the Old Testament to find out what the Bible said about all those "great" patriarchs and Jewish heroes, with whom, according to the Jewish script-writers, God made so many beautiful and far-reaching sweetheart arrangements. I studied what the Bible said about Judah, Abraham, Isaac, Lot, David, Solomon and all the rest of these scoundrels, and I found that by and large they were the most reprehensible bunch of murderers, whoremongers, and moral lepers that you could possibly all get
together in one book. In fact, the Old Testament is replete with nothing but Jews killing their enemies, of pornographic stories about Lot fornicating with his daughters; Abraham marrying his half sister Sarah and then pawning her off as a common prostitute to King Ahasuerus so that he could con him out of his cattle and goods; David fornicating with Bathsheba and then treacherously having her husband killed; of Solomon having a menagerie of seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, and so on and on. And these were the "great", "lofty" characters that we are supposed to be looking
up to as God's "chosen"; and from which you evidently get such great inspiration; characters about whom we are supposed to teach our children. What trash.

There is a lot more but I don't want to take the space in this letter to give you all the gory details. For your enlightenment, I am enclosing copies of my manuscript on an analysis of the Old Testament and the New Testament and I am sending them to Eleanor. This is, however, only a small part of my whole book, something like two chapters out of 25 or 30 chapters. Furthermore, this is only a rough draft as transcribed by my secretary from my dictation on tape, being unedited and basically uncorrected. I suggest you read them, Professor, and just for your own enlightenment find out how
little you really know about the Old Testament and the New Testament.
I believe you will find that for a book which is supposed to be just chock full of the wisdom of the ages, it is instead full of pornography, dirty stories about dirty Jews, killings, mostly by Jews, victoriously slaying and slaughtering the Gentiles, and above all just outright bad and stupid advice, some of which I have already noted in this letter. More of it is contained in the resumes of the Old and the New Testament that I just mentioned.

Surely, the White Race deserves a much, much better religion than that, and to this great cause I am going to dedicate the rest of my life.

Now, Professor, I have heard all kinds of attempted rationalizations of the impossibly bad advice dished out in the "Sermon on the Mount" and all of these explanations are of necessity highly contrived, tortured types of reasoning, as is yours. To say that the principles espoused in the Sermon on the Mount were addressed primarily to Christ's disciples and don't apply to the rest of the Christian followers is doing violence to fact and reason. It is as lame-brained an explanation as what Gen. del Valle came out with when he said that the principles were great two thousand years ago but were not meant for the present times, that we could dispense with them now. I want
to remind you that if they are no good now they were no good then and vice versa. They were bad two thousand years ago and they are in fact bad today. If they were good for the disciples, they are good for the followers, and vice versa. Nevertheless, there is no way in the world you can ever talk yourself out of the fact that these are the very essence of the "new teaching" of Christianity, these are the highly touted Christian principles everybody is supposed to think are so fantastic, and are basically the essence of the whole Christian program. Your further attempted explanation to rationalize "love your enemies" by suggesting that we distinguish between private and public enemies doesn't really make too much sense either. There is no reason why I should be foolish enough to love a single nigger that
attempted to murder my family or that I should love a whole horde of Chinese Communists that would invade our country and commit widespread slaughter. This is a pretty feeble attempt to rationalize the suicidal Sermon on the Mount. But even at that, you only scratch the surface by mentioning only one piece amongst a profusion of bad advice that is interlaced throughout the rest of the text of the New Testament. You don't attempt to answer the rest of them, because you can't, and nobody else that I have ever talked to, including a number of Reverends and Ministers, have come up with one single sensible answer to something that is completely too idiotic for
anybody to even try to rationalize.

No, my, dear Professor Mend, you don't really even believe such garbage yourself. I contend that you're lying to the world (and probably to yourself) when you say you believe something you have never practiced throughout your adult life, don't practice today, and have no intention of practicing in the future. If you really believe that Christianity is the answer. why would you even want to join or form a new party to combat the Jews? In fact. why would you want to do anything? Why not just sit back on your big fat harunka and wait for the second coming of Christ? Isn't he going to take care of everything anyway? And why, "lay up treasures on earth"? Christ
tells you not to. But you don't do any of these things, really, do you? On the contrary, you are pretty anxious to get your mitts on that next salary check each month, aren't you? And so it goes.

Any way you look at it you find yourself in the ridiculous position of hypocritically and stupidly espousing impossible ideas foisted upon you by a bunch of Jewish script-writers on the one hand and then disavowing them in your every act and deed in order to survive. When such behavior becomes habitual and chronic, I can only contend such a person is either a hypocrite, or a liar, or both, lacking the guts to admit he has been snookered.

The crux of the matter, my dear professor, is that Christianity not only is not the answer for the White Man's survival, but on the contrary is a major part of his problem.

Christianity is in complete conflict with the laws of nature. Every living creature in nature has been given an inborn instinct for its own self-preservation and above all for the survival of its own species. When Christianity teaches you to "turn the other cheek", "love your enemies". "resist not evil", and all that other suicidal gargage, it is in complete contradiction to what nature has told us over the last many millions of years. Furthermore, Christianity says that our creator has done a lousy job in designing us, the human race, that we are fundamentally bad, and that our every natural instinct is sinful, and that we must re-model ourselves and be "born again" in order to meet the approval of Christianity. It blunts and deadens the natural instincts nature gave us for our own survival.

The question therefore arises: either nature is awfully stupid or Christianity is awfully stupid. We have to choose between one or the other. You apparently think that Christianity is right and nature is wrong. On my part I would choose nature's natural laws in preference to Christ's unnatural (and therefore perverted) laws, one thousand times over. After all, nature's myriad of laws have been functioning smoothly from time eternal, long before this circumcised Jew appeared on the scene to perpetrate his suicidal advice and confuse and confound the Romans. Secondly, let me ask you, where has there ever been a society that has ever followed Christ's advice and survived? The Romans were gullible enough to try and they were utterly
demolished in short order. The Romans are no more. The White Race has only survived (barely) in so far as it has ignored this bad suicidal advice and has not survived because they have followed it. Let me repeat this because this is where you always seem to slide off the track: the White Race has survived despite Christianity, not because of it. It has done all the great things it has done because of its native inborn characteristics, because of its innate superior qualities generously endowed upon it by a bountiful nature, not because of any assistance that Christianity has given it. On the contrary, Christianity has suppressed, blunted and deadened the natural creative aggressive abilities with which the White Race has always been endowed.

Your argument to the contrary that the Spaniards drove out the Moors because Spain was Christian is completely without foundation and the weakest argument of all. The Spaniards drove them out because they had been invaded by a foreign hostile force and fought Christian or on-Christian. They fought the same way as when during the Hundred Years War (1337 - 1453) the French drove out the English when they were invaded by the English. There was no difference in religion. They were both "Christian" nations. The Spaniards were successful at the time of Queen lsabella because Queen Isabella was an outstanding White leader. Indeed, had she
invoked her "Christian principles" she would not have fought at all, but loved her enemies, turned the other cheek and let the Moors take over. It was the superb inbred fighting qualities of the White Race that came to the fore and impelled her to fight for survival and supremacy. Joan of Arc during the Hundred Years War was equally heroic, if not more so. Again, your insane penchant to give Christianity credit where none is due comes to the surface. To again credit Christianity where no credit is due is about as idiotic as giving credit to the disease instead of the man who has become a great poet despite the fact that he was afflicted with polio. Certainly the Romans without the benefit of the Jewish God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
had no great difficulty in subduing not only Spain but most of the Moorish areas of Africa as well, but lost all when the Christian plague hit them.

You are being shabbily dishonest when you say that I liken the accomplishments of the White Race in the latter years to tuberculosis, hepatitis and polio. I said no such thing, and you know it. My point was pretty clearly stated and there is no excuse for you pulling such a sleazy trick. What I said was pretty plain and you don't need a Ph. D. to understand it. I said that, true, Christianity had been "intertwined" with White civilization for the last two thousand years but so had tuberculosis, hepatitis and polio and that neither Christianity nor the White man's diseases had been responsible for creating the White man's civilization. The White Man has accomplished what he has despite disease, plague and Christianity, I have pointed this out before and I think it is a point well taken.

You make a great to do about whether or not the Greek civilization was superior to the Roman civilization and in your woolly-minded professorial thinking raise a side issue that has nothing to do with my statement about the suicidal effects of Christianity upon the great Roman civilization. If you believe the Greek civilization was superior be my guest. you will get no argument from me, but the point is this: at the time of Augustus Caesar the Roman civilization was supreme throughout the then known and worthwhile world. It was unchallenged and the White man was in charge of his own destiny. For two hundred years thereafter the White Roman world enjoyed Pax Romana, an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity that has
never again been equalled. There was no other force in the world that could challenge Rome, militarily or any other way. Nevertheless the Jews, dispersed like a virus throughout the Roman Empire, and being experts at manipulating other peoples minds, came out with this suicidal new teaching, successfully sold this mess of garbage to the Romans, and utterly destroyed them. Not only that but they therewith plunged the White Race into the devastating and dismal "Dark Ages" for the next one thousand years - a period during which all learning ceased, not only ceased but retrogressed, a period filled with superstition and fear and poverty. After one thousand years the White Race finally did extricate itself from this mess, partially at least and to the credit of the great Roman civilization, they built their foundations on the laws, the architecture, the literature and the learning
of what the Romans had already produced one thousand years earlier. But never again did the White Race shake off the control of the Jews. That is my point, Professor, and no amount of doubletalk can erase these facts from history.

I take further issue with you on your bizarre analysis of more recent history regarding Spain. Germany and Italy vs. "Western Civilization". Your analysis appears to be that Spain and Portugal are still Fascist today because they were in league with the Christian Church, whereas Mussolini and Hitler's "Fascist" regimes were destroyed because they "took repressive measures against it" (Christianity). In this fantastic analysis of recent history which only a woollyminded Ph. D. could contrive, you completely ignore the fact that in the last horrible holocaust instigated by the Jews, namely World
War II, the real victors were not even the "Western democracies", but Jew dominated Soviet Russia, a horrible slave labor camp. Now I suppose you're going to tell me that Soviet Russia won because they were more kindly dispossed and more benevolent to the Christian Church than were Germany and Italy, and that God was on the side of Soviet Russia. You completely ignore the fact that Spain would never have survived but for the overwhelming help that it received from Hitler's Germany. Without that help Spain would today be in the grip of Communism, and Portugal along with her.

In summation let me say that until about a year ago I was as confused about the "intertwining" of "Western Civilization", Christianity and the White Race as you still seem to be today. I too thought that the Jew was trying to destroy "Western Civilization" and Christianity. Upon deeper study and more deliberative reasoning it has become abundantly clear to me that these terms are not synonymous with the White Race, and that it is not at all Christianity that the Jew is trying to destroy. It is in fact a viciously powerful tool that he has himself invented in order to destroy, mongrelize and enslave the strongest living force in nature, namely the great White Race itself. They are in fact successfully rendering that destruction today
with the strongest weapons they have, which is the manipulation of the minds of other people. In this field, in mind manipulation, Christianity has been the biggest triumph the Jews have ever achieved.


The fact that the Jews are not trying to destroy Christianity, until, at least such time as they can dispense with this useful weapon, is abundantly clear all around us. You can go into any chain of motels or chain of hotels owned by Jews and in wery room you will find the Bible lying there open for you. You can be sure if these Jewish owners didn't want them there they wouldn't be there. You will find that Christian Churches (as other religious institutions) are exempt of property taxes, they are exempt of income taxes, and again you can be sure that this would not be so if the Jews did not want it to be so. You will find Christianity promotors like Billy Graham given
millions of dollars worth of free publicity on the Jewish TV networks, in the Jewish magazines and the Jewish news media in general. And don't tell me that his message isn't genuine. He is spouting the same suicidal messages you are, namely love your enemies, turn the other cheek, etc. He quotes from the same Jewish Bible that you do and which you think is so fantastic, the same Bible that has quotations such as Deuteronomy 20, v. 10: "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries (read
slaves) unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it; And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword". Now remember, I didn't make this up. It's right there for you to read and it is supposedly being spoken by the Jewish God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob which evidently is your God also, at least so the Jewish script-writers tell us. I can't think of anything more horrible and treacherous than passages such as these. I would enjoy hearing some of your woolly professorial double-talk for the next
half hour or so trying to explain such passages.

The fact of the matter is the Bible is a Jewish book, designed to unite and fortify the Jews on the one hand with the Old Testament, in conjunction with the Talmud, and to divide, confuse and confound and destroy the White Race with the New Testament on the other hand. Whereas the Old Testament advises the Jews that "Where there is no vision a people perish", it advises the White people in the New Testament to "think not of the morrow, behold the lily in the field, etc." I am not at all convinced that such a vast collection of bad advice in the New Testament was not deliberate.

No, the Jews are not trying to destroy Christianity at all. They invented it and they are using it as the most powerful weapon that they have ever molded, even more powerful than Communism. In fact, Communism could never have come about had the Jewish apparatus not first undermined the White man's mind with the false principles of Christianity. They will finally destroy Christianity when they have no further use for it, namely when they have established their ironclad dictatorship over the White man and enslaved him as they already have in Russia and elsewhere. Then they will cast aside Christianity just as they do away with Liberals and Communists who were useful to them along the way, but throw them to the wolves
as soon as their job is done.

It is rather passing strange that you should be so vituperative about the fact that I might be "divisive" when there are millions in this country and elsewhere whom you could more justifiably turn your attack upon. I suspect that the real purpose of your letter is revealed towards the end when you state "we hope that ... you will see fit to abandon it". Evidently you want to stop me from writing my book. And why do you want to stop me? Because it explodes some of the most cherished myths you have nurtured all these years and you can't answer the overwhelming evidence that I bring to bear. As the old saying goes, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make ye
mad". Like the little boy who has just been told (truthfully) that there is no Santa Claus, you are mad at the discovery itself. And like the little boy, instead of turning your wrath upon your deceivers, you stupidly chose to turn your wrath upon those that have exposed this farce. A common trait of human nature, but not too commendable.

I shall not stop writing my book, Professor. I am convinced that the implications of my book are overwhelming and that it will lay the foundations for the future White man's religion for his own salvation and ultimate triumph. I believe that I have achieved a devastating breakthrough, and the more I study the Jewish plague, Christianity, religion, and the laws of nature, the more compelling the solution thrust itself upon me that a new religion for the White Race was the greatest contribution any man could make to his own people. This I am laboring on and shall dedicate the rest of my life to this monumental task.

Speaking of sheer arrogance, you have colossal gall to tell me what I can write, or what I can think. Who do you think you are? Jesus Christ? Henry Kissinger?

I sense a hostile note in your letter toward Hitler, in my opinion the greatest White man that ever lived, and also hostility towards the White Race in general. I cannot believe that Eleanor and Rudy subscribe to this kind of treason. They have always impressed me with having good sense and healthy instincts. Eleanor has told me time and again that "Race is everything".

In conclusion, I want to ask you some serious questions: Of the hundreds of thousands of Christian churches in this country, can you name one that is really fighting the Jews? Is Christianity really even trying to stop the White Race from being mongrelized with the niggers? Aren't most of them promoting mongrelization with a vengeance? Where is there one single Christian church, not only in America, but in the world today that is dedicated to the preservation of the White Race? I contend that there is not one single such Christian church in the world today that is lifting a finger on behalf of the White Race itself. On the contrary, Christianity as embodied
in the Old Testament and in the New Testament is the worship of the Jew, which the Jewish script-writers claim are God's "Chosen". It was written by them, for their preservation and our destruction.

Besides quitting, wringing your hands, and "deploring the situation", what other brilliant solutions have you come up with? Do you have any?

I'd love to hear from you again, but please don't pull that sleazy trick again about quoting Ben Klassen before he saw through the hoax perpetrated by a bunch of Jewish script-writers. Instead, I would appreciate it if you would devote your next letter to explaining to me in greater detail the myriad of bad advise set forth in the Sermon on the Mount and interlarded throughout the New Testament. I am sure I should find it most interesting.

Yours for a greater White Race,
B. Klassen
CONCLUSION: The letter to Adams, copies of which I also sent to other members ofthe group, predictably, wrecked the NWP activity in the West Coast area for good. However, I was not too concerned. By this time I was convinced that because of the Christianity issue, I needed an agonizing new appraisal of the whole situation, and I had started putting my thoughts together about a new racial religion for the White Race. It was at this time I started wriffng the manuscript for NATURES ETERNAL RELIGION. As a postscript, almost ten years later Eleanor Kramer called mefrom an airport in Ft. Lauderdale. We had lunch together and a long friendly discussion. Although she admitted that she no longer had been attending any church for
many years and she was still fighting for the White Race, the original militancy for the cause was gone.
Randolph Dilloway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2013, 06:36 PM   #27
Randolph Dilloway
 
Randolph Dilloway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,866
Rep Power: 0
Randolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations God
Default

The Fat One's latest novel is now in print.

Quote:

Dr. Edward R. Fields
5 days ago
(Via snail mail)
Dear Harold:
Received Freedom’s Sons safely by priority mail. All I can say is WOW! This is tremendous, your best yet. The Northwest Republic is fighting for its its survival and the excitement is real. Despite its great length interest grows with each chapter. That is the key to producing a successful novel. This should be a major boost to your political work. Actually, I don’t know how you do it.
-Dr. Ed.

Dr. Ed Fields has confirmed to a third party this week that he did indeed write the above endorsement.

Quote:

Ron Doggett
5 days ago
Harold, what can I tell you? Freedom’s Sons is brilliant. You make me regret wasting all those lost years in the way I did. I wish to hell it was 1990 again.

It's a cinch that Ron didn't write that -- HAC was busted before for using Ron's name like that: http://noncounterproductive.blogspot...teal-your.html

Quote: Originally Posted by Smoky View Post

Click the image to open in full size.

Randolph Dilloway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2013, 07:42 PM   #28
Maxfield Parrish
Senior Graphics Designer
 
Maxfield Parrish's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 426
Rep Power: 30
Maxfield Parrish is a White Nations GodMaxfield Parrish is a White Nations GodMaxfield Parrish is a White Nations GodMaxfield Parrish is a White Nations GodMaxfield Parrish is a White Nations GodMaxfield Parrish is a White Nations GodMaxfield Parrish is a White Nations GodMaxfield Parrish is a White Nations GodMaxfield Parrish is a White Nations GodMaxfield Parrish is a White Nations GodMaxfield Parrish is a White Nations God
Default According To Some - BOTH!

Click the image to open in full size.
Maxfield Parrish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2013, 08:40 PM   #29
Lionel Mandrake
Senior Member
 
Lionel Mandrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 768
Rep Power: 23
Lionel Mandrake has a brilliant futureLionel Mandrake has a brilliant futureLionel Mandrake has a brilliant futureLionel Mandrake has a brilliant futureLionel Mandrake has a brilliant futureLionel Mandrake has a brilliant futureLionel Mandrake has a brilliant futureLionel Mandrake has a brilliant futureLionel Mandrake has a brilliant futureLionel Mandrake has a brilliant futureLionel Mandrake has a brilliant future
Default

Quote: Originally Posted by notmenomore View Post

Although it's rare to find anything to disagree with in Klassen's writing, it may be worth considering that the notion of mutual exclusivity stated here is not necessarily complete. It may very well be that NEITHER the White Race nor Christianity will survive.

It's certainly not without possibility that the evolutionary processes may eventually cast BOTH of these on the "ash-heap of history."

The Jews who invented Christianity to control non-Jews will keep Christianity alive to help them keep the muds subjugated once the White race has been miscegenated out of existence through "we are all one in Jesus" race-mixing.

Christianity never was a White man's religion, it will continue to keep the muds under Jewish subjugation long after we are all gone.
__________________
"The war we are fighting for our race is one that is being fought against our enemies over who will capture the hearts and the minds of our own people."

- Steven L. Akins

Lionel Mandrake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2013, 09:23 PM   #30
Randolph Dilloway
 
Randolph Dilloway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,866
Rep Power: 0
Randolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations GodRandolph Dilloway is a White Nations God
Default

Quote:

According to some - Both!

Good luck to them, I rather take advice from the greatest White leader of the 20th century, Adolf Hitler........

Quote: Originally Posted by Smoky View Post

Will we be a White Movement or Xtian one? We cannot be both.

This is the defining issue within the White Movement today, but before I get back to the main topic, I would like to address what seems to be the main argument against the exclusion of Xtianity or Xtians from the White Movement, unity.

If Mr. Hitler was alive today, he would label those behind the Big Tent, Rodney King's "Can't we all get along?" idea of white nationalism, political kleptomaniacs......


At that time there was not an idea or concept launched by other people which these political kleptomaniacs did not seize upon at once for the purpose of applying to their own base uses. Those who did this were the same people who subsequently, with tears in their eyes, profoundly deplored the 'patriotic disintegration' and spoke unceasingly about the 'necessity of unity'.
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, The Strong Is Strongest When Alone
"Unity", or what is a more correct term, coalitions, does not work, and has never successfully waged a successful revolution. Again, from Mr. Hitler....
It must never be forgotten that nothing really great in this world has ever been achieved through coalitions, but that such achievements have always been achieved through the triumph of the individual. Successes achieved through coalitions, owing to the very nature of their source, carry the germs of future disintegration in them from the very start; so much so that they have already forfeited what has been achieved. The great revolutions which have taken place in human thought and have veritably transformed the aspect of the world would have been inconceivable and impossible to carry out except through titanic struggles waged between individual natures, but never as the enterprises of coalitions.

And, above all things, the People's State will never be created by the desire for compromise inherent in a patriotic coalition, but only by the iron will of a single movement which has successfully come through in the struggle with all the others.
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, The Strong Is Strongest When Alone

Randolph Dilloway is offline   Reply With Quote
Post New Thread Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:56 PM.
© White Nations™ . All rights reserved.
No part of White Nations Forum may be reproduced without consent.
Design by Creative IT World
Creator Web Team: Creative IT World

Blue Eyed Devils - Beating & Kicking (MP3 Audio)
WN Forum Comment, Video & Lyrics