On Church Goers

After last week’s broadcast, “The Jewish Problem,” in which I made some unflattering comments about churchgoers — I also referred to them as “hymn-singers” — several listeners suggested that I am anti-Christian. Others said that even if I’m not anti-Christian I shouldn’t criticize Christians,because we Whites need to stick together, and criticizing Christians is divisive.

I would now like to explain myself. First, let me assure you that I am not anti-Christian. I admire and respect many individuals from our people’s past who were Christians. And there are some people alive today who call themselves Christians whom I respect. But I must confess that I am not very favorably disposed toward most churchgoers today, because I believe that virtually all of the major Christian churches, the major denominations, have allied themselves with the enemies of our people. In saying this I am not being at all partisan. Although I was raised as a Presbyterian when I was a child, I am talking about the Protestant denominations as well as the Catholic Church when I say that the churches have turned against our people and allied themselves with our enemies.

And remember, I was talking specifically about 15,000 churchgoers in Switzerland who obediently demonstrated in favor of the Jews and against their own people when ordered to do so by their priests and ministers. I am sure that there are many individual Christians, in Switzerland and elsewhere, who are just as disgusted by this behavior as I am. But the fact is that the churches themselves, virtually all of them, have become hostile to the interests of our people; for all practical purposes, they have been taken over by our enemies.

Think for a moment about what happened in South Africa a few years ago. In South Africa the percentage of churchgoers among the Whites is much higher than in the United States. Practically all of the Boers — the Afrikaners, the Dutch-speaking Whites of South Africa — are churchgoers. The Dutch Reformed Church is the most important institution in their communities. And as long as their church remained faithful to them they remained strong and were able to deal with all outside forces. The Jews in South Africa, of course, were pushing for them to turn their country over to the Blacks, but they were able to ignore this Jewish pressure as long as their church stood with them.

But when their church turned against them and betrayed them, then they lost everything. When their ministers began saying to them, “Oh, we have looked at our Bibles again and we now realize that we made a mistake earlier, when we told you that it was good to defend yourselves against those who would destroy you. Now we realize that it is a sin for you not to turn your country over to the Blacks” — when their ministers began saying that, their will to preserve themselves collapsed.

And although the churches, fortunately, do not play as large a role in the lives of White Americans as they do in the lives of White South Africans, it is quite clear that the role they do play here in the United States is a destructive one. Think about almost any major issue involving the survival of our people, and the churches are on the wrong side of that issue: just as in Switzerland, just as in South Africa. Forced racial mixing, including interracial marriage: the churches are for it; cutting off non-White immigration: the churches are against it; the destruction of White Rhodesia and White South Africa: all of the churches were for it; opposing the Jews in any way: the churches are against it.

You know, it didn’t used to be that way. The churches in America used to be a bulwark of the community. It used to be that a man or a woman could be a Christian and a churchgoer and a patriot, and a person proud of his people and their heritage and concerned about their future. Why is that no longer true?

My Christian friends tell me that it’s because the churches have been subverted, that what the churches teach today is no longer Christianity but instead is a Judaized doctrine which is opposed to real Christianity. And, of course, the ministers and priests today say just the opposite: they say just what the South African ministers said when they betrayed their people. They say, “No, we’re preaching the real Christianity today. What used to be taught in our churches wasn’t the real Christianity, but today we understand better what real Christianity is. Real Christianity requires us to follow Jewish policies and to mix the races, etc.” And both sides will quote the Bible to prove the correctness of their position.

Now, I’m a scientist. I’m not a believer in miracles or in holy scriptures, and so I don’t get involved in arguments based on the Bible — although I do let myself be amused sometimes by the efforts of the new breed of preachers to make the Bible Politically Correct: to make it acceptable to the feminists, for example, by deleting all masculine pronouns, and to make the New Testament acceptable to the Jews by pretending that the account of the crucifixion, in which the Jews clearly are given the blame and in which they say, “His blood be on us and on our children,” doesn’t say what it seems to say.

As I said, I’m not very interested in what various verses in the Bible “really mean.” To me what is significant is that the bulk of our people who called themselves Christians in the past had an essentially healthy outlook. They believed in defending themselves and their race and their way of life. They were self-sufficient, self-reliant. They believed that God looks out for those who look out for themselves. They may have been a little superstitious about some things, but they understood the important things. They understood that there is no such thing under the sun as “equality.” They understood the concepts of personal honor and personal responsibility. They understood duty and discipline. They understood racial feeling and racial solidarity. And they understood that the Jews are profoundly different, profoundly alien.

Today the churches don’t understand any of those things, nor do the churchgoers, the hymnsingers. So when I criticize the churches and the churchgoers, it doesn’t mean that I’m antiChristian. It just means that I am opposed to what thechurches are teaching and opposed to what they are doing today. And as far as my being divisive goes, well, I’m afraid that most of the hymn-singers are already on the other side, and pointing that fact out to people is probably more useful than divisive. The question of what made the churches change is an interesting one, but I don’t want to get too deeply involved in that now, except to say that at least in part it was a matter of deliberate subversion, as my Christian friends claim. Since the Second World War the Jews have made a concentrated effort to gain control of the churches, and in many cases they have been largely successful. They have been able to get the Lutherans to denounce Luther, for example, for telling what he knew about the Jews in various of his writings.

But it’s also been a matter of simple human fallibility. Most churches are no longer led by zealots and martyrs and true believers, willing to die for the faith. They are led instead by people who are essentially businessmen, corporation executives: people more concerned with keeping their tax exemption than with doctrine, people more concerned about popularity and public relations than about theology. These people have been willing to yield to pressure, to go with the flow, to do whatever is expedient instead of what is right.

I’ll give just one example of this change. The Jews in Hollywood have been turning out a number of films which are very hostile to the Christian churches, their traditions, and doctrines; and the churches, instead of raising hell about these films and counterattacking, have just been grinning and bearing it for the most part. A fairly recent film of this sort is one called Priest, which was produced by the Miramax division of the Disney Company, an entirely Jewish operation. The Miramax division is headed by the Weinstein brothers, and Disney itself is headed by Michael Eisner. The film features two priests, one of them with a mulatto mistress and the other of them an active homosexual, whose activities are depicted quite graphically in the film, and the implication of the film is that these two priests are real Christians, whereas the Church hierarchy, which doesn’t approve of their behavior, consists of hypocrites. If the Jews had produced a film like Priest before the Second World War, the Pope would have preached a Crusade against them, and every theater which tried to show the film would have been burned by mobs of enraged Catholics. Today they just grin and bear it. They are much more concerned about pleasing the Jews and getting good press than they are about defending the faith.

But, you know, the real change, the significant change, that has taken place in the Western world, which makes it possible for me to respect many Christians of the past while having only contempt for most of today’s churchgoers, is not so much a change in doctrine or in the way some little piece of Holy Writ is interpreted: it’s a change in values. Basically what has happened is that the values of the Christian churches have become less aristocratic and more democratic, less masculine and more feminine. These changes actually have taken place in most of our society’s institutions, not just in our churches. Back in the days when failure at a major undertaking could and often did mean starvation and death, or at least disgrace, personal values were bound to be different than they are in a time when failure simply means heading down to the welfare office and signing up for a handout. Institutions were bound to be imbued with different values in the days when the men governing those institutions were much more conscious of differences in human quality, and when the institutions themselves — cultural and educational institutions as well as the churches — were much more closely geared to the needs and concerns and sensibilities of the most capable and successful elements in society than to the interests of the masses. When failure lost its teeth and survival became less demanding, there was a general slackening in values. And when institutions began catering more to the masses, there was again a shift in values.

Nobody really planned this shift in values. It was a consequence of changing life-styles. Not planned, but understood. We understand these things because they have happened to us before. Even the ancient Romans understood them. They understood that ease breeds decadence, that luxury leads to softness and indiscipline, and that indiscipline leads to ruin. We see these changes in our schools and universities, in our popular culture, and in our churches. Hard, strong men founded these churches. The Catholic Church was for more than 200 years led by men who risked being fed to the lions. Martin Luther was willing to risk being burned at the stake by defying the Pope and the emperor to do what he believed was right. Other Christian leaders actually were burned rather than recant their beliefs. Can you imagine any top church bureaucrat willing to do that today?

And so I say to my Christian friends: Don’t try to shush me when I criticize today’s churchgoers and hymn-singers. You should be even more concerned about their bad behavior than I. You should strive to regain control of your churches and to give them healthy values once again, to make them once again into bulwarks of the White community, to make them once again worthy of respect from all self-respecting White men. If you cannot do that, no one else will even try.
I say to all of my friends, to all self-respecting White men and women, Christian or not: Let’s not concern ourselves with doctrinal quibbles now. Let’s not concern ourselves with whether or not our neighbor believes in virgin birth and walking on water; let’s concern ourselves with whether or not he cares about the survival of his people and is willing to do something for that survival. If he or she does care, and if he or she is willing, then he is our brother, then she is our sister. And let us gather our brothers and our sisters to us; we need them all. We will judge our brothers and sisters, we will rank them, not by their belief or lack of belief in supernatural things, but by their character and their values and their ability. We will rank them according to their sense of duty and responsibility, according to their personal strength and self-discipline, according to their willingness to sacrifice for the common good of our people, and according to what they actually do accomplish for our people.

In fighting against the enemies whose aim is to destroy us all, we need to put religious differences and factional differences aside. We need to feel a sense of solidarity based on our common blood and our common purpose. But this solidarity, this common purpose, does not preclude us from speaking out about those things which need to be spoken about. And when 15,000 churchgoers in Switzerland demonstrate obediently against their own people and for the Jewish swindlers and extortionists who are stealing money from the pockets of the Swiss people, then we should speak out against them. We should separate ourselves from these renegades. We should let the world know that they are beyond the pale, that we disown them, not because of their religion, but regardless of their religion.

Speaking of the situation in Switzerland, I have been pleased to note during the past week that at least a few politicians and media people there have begun to show a little courage and a little honesty. While the church leaders and most of the top politicians and most of the mass media have either sided with the Jews, or at least have been afraid to oppose the Jews, a few have stood up for their own people. Last week one member of the Swiss parliament, Christoph Blocher, demanded to know why Swiss taxpayers should pay blackmail money to the Jews. And it only takes a few honest, courageous men to set the tone for others. Since Christoph Blocher spoke up, others also have expressed their outrage that the Swiss people’s money should be given to the Jews in response to the Jewish extortion effort. Even a major Swiss newspaper, Blick, stood up to the Jews last week and reported that the Swiss people are becoming exasperated by the Jewish campaign against their country.

In this country we have no politicians with Christoph Blocher’s courage and no major newspapers with Blick’s honesty. In this country we still have politicians like New York Senator Alphonse D’Amato, who might as well be the senator from Israel, still beating the drum for the Jews and demanding that the Swiss yield to their blackmail effort. You can be sure that Senator D’Amato is a faithful churchgoer.

I really hope that D’Amato and his Jewish controllers succeed in imposing a boycott on Switzerland. That will do wonders to wake up the Swiss people and persuade them to take a stand. It might even help a few people over here wake up. People need to realize that the Jews are at war against the world, the whole world, and have been for thousands of years. It’s about time to start fighting back.

In Switzerland, of course, they’ve been pushing their self-serving “Holocaust” propaganda for the past 50 years, just like they have over here and everywhere else, and I guess they figured they had the Swiss hypnotized to the point where they could just reach into the Swiss people’s pockets and steal $7 billion from them without a protest. Well, we’ll see about that. But if the Swiss do wake up and defend themselves, it will be without the help of their churchgoers, and we ought to think about the implications of that for our own fight over here.