communism is neo-christianity

7/17/2019 Communism is Neo-Christianity

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communism-is-neo-christianity 1/238

10/12/2015 Communism is neo-Christianity

https://www.facebook.com/notes/wesley-lysander/communism-is-neo-christianity/835356356562639?pnref=lhc 1/16

"The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern

working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of

oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor

people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity

and the workers' socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery;

Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in

this world, in a transformation of society. And in spite of all persecution, nay, even spurred

on by it, they forge victoriously, irresistibly ahead. Three hundred years after its appearance

Christianity was the recognized state religion in the Roman World Empire."

-- Frederick Engels

"Marxism borrows some deep assumptions from theology, especially its prophetic criticism

of the present world order (capitalism) and its eschatological projection of a future world that

is qualitatively diff erent.

It is not so well known that when Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto of the Communist

Party they did so at the request of a group that had not long beforehand been known as the

League of the Just. The curious thing about the League of the Just, which had been formed by

German workers in Paris in 1836, was that it was an organisation with a substantial religious

flavour, propagating utopian socialist and communist ideas and practices on the basis of the

Bible. Some of the leading figures of the old League of the Just argued for a violent

communist revolution and pictured not merely Christ as the fore-runner of communism, but

communism as Christianity without all its later developments.

If a religious person declared she or he had become a socialist, then the assumption is that

that person had lost his or her faith. It doesn’t help matters when the major churches also

declared communism to be ‘God-less’. But these are, or at least should be things of the past."

-- Roland Boer

WESLEY LYSANDER · SUNDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2015

Communism is neo-Christianity

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002648463969

https://www.facebook.com/notes/wesley-lysander/communism-is-neo-christianity/835356356562639

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002648463969

https://www.facebook.com/notes/wesley-lysander/communism-is-neo-christianity/835356356562639





"Just as for postmillennial Christians, man, led by God’s prophets and saints, will establish a

Kingdom of God on Earth, so, for Marx and other schools of communists, mankind, led by a

vanguard of secular saints, will establish a secularized Kingdom of Heaven on earth. Private

property is eliminated, individualism goes by the board, individuality is flattened, all

property is owned and controlled communally, and the individual units of the new collective

organism are in some way made 'equal' to one another.

Marxism is a religious creed:

This statement has been common among critics of Marx, and since Marxism is an explicit

enemy of religion, such a seeming paradox would offend many Marxists. One obvious way in

which Marxism functions as a religion is the lengths to which Marxists will go to preserve

their system against obvious errors or fallacies. Marx was to assert that labor hours embed

some sort of mystically inherent 'values' into goods. Perhaps the mistake the world and most

of the critics have made is just that they have not sufficiently regarded Marx as a prophet — a

man above logic, uttering cryptic and incomprehensible words.

The crucial goal — communism — is an atheized version of a certain type of religious

eschatology; the alleged inevitable process of getting there — the dialectic — is an atheistic

form of the same religious laws of history; and the supposedly central problem of capitalism

as perceived by 'humanist' Marxists, the problem of 'alienation,' is an atheistic version of the

selfsame religion’s metaphysical grievance at the entire created universe. Creation, instead of

being wondrous and good, is essentially and metaphysically evil. Separateness thereby cuts

off man from his beloved cosmic union with God. Man is now permanently 'alienated' from

God, the fundamental alienation; and also from other men, and from nature. It is this cosmic

metaphysical separateness that lies at the heart of the Marxian concept of 'alienation,' and

not, as we might now think, personal griping about not controlling the operation of one’s

factory.





Communism as the goal of history:

Stage One is the original state of the pre-creation cosmic blob, with man and God in happy

and harmonious unity, but each rather undeveloped. Then, the magic dialectic does its work,

Stage Two occurs, and God creates man and the universe. But then, finally, when the

development of man and God is completed, Stage Two creates its own aufhebung, its

transcendence into its opposite or negation: in short, Stage Three, the reunion of God and

man in an 'ecstasy of union,' and the end of history.

Gerrard Winstanley, in early 1649, had a mystical vision of the ideal communist world of the

future. Originally, according to this vision, a version of God had created the universe; but the

spirit of 'selfishness,' the Devil itself, had entered into man and brought about private

property and a market economy. Soon, declared Winstanley, universal 'love' would eliminate

private property, and would thus restore the earth to 'a common property as it was in the

beginning … making the earth one storehouse, and every man and woman to live … as

members of one household.'

Soon, however, he realized, in the completed draft of his utopia, that all wage labor and all

commerce would have to be prohibited on the penalty of death. Winstanley was quite willingto go this far with his program. Everyone was to contribute to, and take from, the common

storehouse, and the death penalty was to be levied on all use of money, and on any buying or

selling. The 'sin' of idleness would of course be combated by forced labor for the benefit of the

communist community.

'All punishments that are to be inflicted … are only such as to make the offender … to live in

the community of the righteous law of love one with another.' Education in 'love' was to be

insured by free and compulsory schooling conducted by the state. The stage was set for Karl

Marx.

To the extent that we know its operations at all, 'the Kingdom of God on Earth' is depicted as

a communist society, lacking work, private property, or the division of labor. In short,

something like the Marxian communist utopia, except run by a cadre, not of the vanguard of

the proletariat, but of theocratic saints. This gospel of total rule went hand in hand with the

social doctrine of many of the 14th-century: a communistic assault on the institution of

private property. In a sense, communism was merely a thinly camouflaged cover for the right

to commit theft at will.

The 14th century brought the first attempt to initiate the Kingdom of God on Earth, the first

brief experiment in totalitarian theocratic communism. For the Last Days are coming, and

the Elect must go forth and stamp out sin by exterminating all sinners. Those notorious

centers of luxury and avarice, must be exterminated. The Elect must impose communism (a

society lacking the sin of private property) on the rest of the world. At night, they raided the

mainland — in forays they called a 'Holy War' — to rob everything they could lay their hands

on and to exterminate their victims.

The monasteries of Muhlhausen were seized, and all property was declared to be in common;

as a consequence, a contemporary observer noted, the regime 'so affected the folk that no one

wanted to work.' As under the Taborites, the regime of communism and love soon became, in

practice, a systemic excuse for theft: when anyone needed food or clothing he went to a rich





man and demanded it of him in Christ’s name, for Christ had commanded that all should

share with the needy. And what was not given freely was taken by force.

The ruling clergy of the state exempted themselves from taxation, while imposing heavy taxes

on the rest of the populace. With every person in the city drafted for siege work, Jan Matthys

launched his totalitarian-communist social revolution. The first step was to confiscate the

property of the expellees. All their worldly goods were placed in central depots, and the poor

were encouraged to take 'according to their needs,' the 'needs' to be interpreted by seven

appointed 'deacons' chosen by Matthys. Wages were doled out in kind by the only employer:

the theocratic Anabaptist State.

Food was confiscated from private homes, and rationed according to the will of government

deacons. Also, to accommodate the host of immigrants, all private homes were effectively

communized, with everyone permitted to quarter themselves everywhere. Compulsory

communal dining halls were established, where people ate together to the readings from the

Old Testament.

The wives of the expellees became fair game, and they were forced to 'marry' good

Anabaptists. The confiscated gold and silver was now minted into ornamental coins in honorof the new king. All horses were confiscated for the king’s armed squadron. Names in

revolutionary Münster were also transformed; all the streets were renamed; Sundays and

feast days were abolished; and all newborn children were named personally by the king in

accordance with a special pattern.

At all times throughout the siege the king and his court managed to eat and drink well, while

famine and devastation swept through the town , and the masses ate literally anything, even

inedible, they could lay their hands on.

The first secularized communists appeared in mid-18th-century France. The major focus was

to insist that all men are 'perfectly' equal and uniform, one and the same everywhere.

Children are to be brought up communally, and absolutely identically in food, clothing, and

training. Philosophic and religious doctrines are to be absolutely prescribed; no differences

are to be tolerated; and children are not to be corrupted by any 'fable, story, or ridiculous

fictions.' All trade or barter is to be forbidden by 'inviolable law.' Occupations are to be

limited and strictly assigned by the State.

It should be clear that these are debased, secularized versions of the visions of the Christian

millennialists. Carl von Eckartshausen developed the idea that the inner church of the Elect

had existed backward in time to Abraham and then went forward to a world government

ruled by these keepers of the divine light. Saint-Martin was also influential through his

leadership of the Scottish Rite Masonry in Lyons, and was the major figure in what might be

called the apocalyptic-Christian wing of the Masonic movement. The point was that the

people are incapable either of regeneration by themselves or of designating the people who

should direct the regeneration.

While the Welshman Robert Owen was the first to use the word 'socialist' in print in 1827,

and also toyed with 'communionist,' the word 'communist' finally caught on as the most

popular label for the new system ...neo-Christian messianism.





Karl Marx was born in Trier, a venerable city in Rhineland Prussia, in 1818, son of a

distinguished jurist, and grandson of a rabbi. Indeed, both of Marx’s parents were descended

from rabbis. Marx’s father Heinrich was a liberal rationalist who felt no great qualms about

his forced conversion to official Lutheranism in 1816. What is little known is that, in his early

years, the baptized Karl was a dedicated Christian. Going first to the University of Bonn and

then off to the prestigious new University of Berlin to study law, Marx converted to militant

atheism, and shifted his major to philosophy.

Marx thundered in the fourth of his 'theses on Feuerbach,' 'One must proceed to destroy the

‘earthly family’ as it is both ‘in theory and in practice.' In particular, declared Marx, true man,

as Feuerbach had argued, is a 'communal being' (Gemeinwesen) or 'species being'

(Gattungswesen): 'In the same way as woman is to abandon marriage for general [i.e.,

universal] prostitution, so the whole world of wealth, that is, the objective being of man, is to

abandon the relation of exclusive marriage with the private property owner for the relation of

general prostitution with the community.'

In short, in the stage of communalization of private property, what Marx himself considers

the worst features of private property will be maximized. Not only that, but Marx concedes

the truth of the charge of anticommunists then and now that communism andcommunization is but the expression, in Marx’s words, of 'envy and a desire to reduce all to a

common level.' Far from leading to a flowering of human personality, as Marx is supposed to

claim, he admits that communism will negate that personality totally. Thus Marx wrote: 'In

completely negating the personality of man, this type of communism is really nothing but the

logical expression of private property. General envy, constituting itself as a power, is the

disguise in which greed reestablishes itself and satisfies itself, only in another way…. In the

approach to woman as the spoil and handmaid of communal lust is expressed the infinite

degradation in which man exists for himself.' The triumph of unity over diversity means that,

for the utopians, including Marx, 'civil society, with its disturbing diversity, can be abolished.'

Finally, at the apex of Marxian messianic communism is a man who fuses all the tendencies

and strands analyzed thus far. A blend of Christian messianist and devoted Marxist-Leninist-

Stalinist, the 20th-century German Marxist Ernst Bloch set forth his vision in his recently

translated three-volume phantasmagoria The Principle of Hope. As J.P. Stern writes, Bloch’s

Principle of Hope contains such remarkable declarations as 'Ubi Lenin, ibi Jerusalem'

[Where Lenin is, there is Jerusalem], and that 'the Bolshevist fulfillment of Communism' is

part of 'the age-old fight for God.'"

-- Murray N. Rothbard





"That is what puzzles and amuses and sometimes exasperates us about your game of Jew-

baiting: It sounds so portentous. You go about whispering terrifyingly of the Jew in this and

that and the other thing. It makes us quake. We are conscious of the injury we did you when

we imposed upon you our alien faith and traditions. Suppose, we say trembling, you should

wake up to the fact that your religion, your education, your morals, your social, governmental

and legal systems are fundamentally of our making! And then you specify, and talk vaguely of

Jewish financiers and Jewish motion-picture promoters, and our terror dissolves in laughter.

The Goi, we see with relief, will never know the real blackness of our crimes.

Either you do not know or you have not the courage to charge us with those deeds for which

there is at least a shadow of evidence and which an intelligent judge and jury could examine

without impatience. Why bandy about unconvincing trifles when you might so easily indict

us for serious and provable offences? Why throw up to us a patent and a clumsy forgery such

as the Protocols of the Elders Zion when you might as well confront us with the Revelation of

St. John? Why talk about Marx and Trotski when you have Jesus of Nazereth and Paul of

Tarsus to confound us with?

The great conspiracy which we engineered at the beginning of this era was destined to make

the creed of a Jewish sect the religion of the Western world. The Reformation was not

designed in malice purely. It squared us with an ancient enemy and restored our Bible to it's

place of honour in Christendom, The Republican revolutions of the Eighteenth century freed

us of our age-long political and social disabilities. They benefited us, but they did you no





harm. On the contrary, they prospered and expanded you. You owe your pre-eminence in the

world to them. But the upheaval which brought Christianity into Europe was - or at least may

easily be shown to have been - planned and executed by Jews as an act revenge against a

great Gentile state. And when you talk about Jewish conspiracies I cannot for the world

understand why you do not mention the destruction of Rome and the whole civilization of

antiquity concentrated under her banners, at the hands of Jewish Christianity.

It is unbelievable, but you Christians do not seem to know where your religion came from,

nor how, nor why. Your historians, with one great exception, do not tell you. Your Bible, you

chant over but do not read. We have done our work too thoroughly; you believe our

propaganda too implicitly. The coming of Christianity is to you not an ordinary historical

event growing out of other events of the time, it is the fulfilment of a divine Jewish prophecy

- with suitable amendments of your own. It did not, as you see it, destroy a great Gentile

civilization and a great Gentile empire with which Jewry was at war; it did not plunge

mankind into barbarism and darkness for a thousand years; it came to bring salvation to the

Gentile world!

Yet here, if ever, was a great subversive movement, hatched in Palestine, spread by Jewish

agitators, financed by Jewish money, taught in Jewish pamphlets and broadsides, at a time when Jewry and Rome were in a death struggle, and ending in the collapse of the great

Gentile empire. You do not even see it, though an intelligent child, unfuddled by theological

magic, could tell you what it is all about after a hasty reading of the simple record.

Let me in very brief recount the tale, un-embroidered by miracle, prophecy or magic. The

time is roughly 65 B.C. Up to the present the two states have had little or no contact with one

another. Then without solicitation on her part Rome was suddenly asked take a hand in

Judean affairs. A dispute had arisen between two brothers over the succession to the petty

throne, and the Roman general Pompey, who happened to be in Damascus winding up bigger

matters, was called upon to arbitrate between the claimants. With the simple directness of a

republican soldier, Pompey exiled one of the brothers, tossed the chief priesthood to his rival,

and abolished the kingly dignity altogether. Not to put too fine a point on it, Pompey's

mediation amounted in effect to making Judea a Roman dependency. The Jews, not

unnaturally, objected; and Rome appointed a king of her own choosing. He was the son of an

excise-man, an Idumean by race, named Herod. But the Jews were not placated, and

continued making trouble. Rome thought it very ungrateful of them. Above all, they wanted

back a king of their own royal line.

Among the masses the rebellion took the form of a revival of the old belief in a Messiah, a

divinely appointed savior who was to redeem his people from the foreign yoke and make

Judea supreme among the nations. Claimants to the mission were not wanting. In Galilee,

one Judas led a rather formidable insurrection, which enlisted much popular support. John,

called the Baptist, operated in the Jordan country. He was followed by another north-country

man, Jesus of Nazareth. All three were masters of the technique of couching incendiary

political sedition in harmless theological phrases. All three used the same signal of revolt -

'the time is at hand'. And three were speedily apprehended and executed, both Galileans, by

crucifixion.

Personal qualities aside, Jesus of Nazareth was, like his predecessors, a political agitator. He

began preaching a primitive form of populism, socialism and pacifism. The effect of this





change in his program was to gain him the hostility of the substantial, propertied classes, the

priest and patriots generally, and to reduce his following to the poor, labouring mass and the

slaves.

After his death these lowly disciples formed themselves into a communistic brotherhood. A

sermon their late leader had once delivered upon a hillside summed up for them the essence

of his teachings, and they made it their rule of life. It was a philosophy calculated to appeal

profoundly to humble people. It comforted those who suffered here on Earth with promised

rewards beyond the grave. Men without hope in the future were admonished to take no

thought for the morrow. Men condemned to lifelong drudgery and indigence were assured of

the dignity of labour and of poverty. The meek, the despised, the disinherited, the

downtrodden, were - in the hereafter - to be the elect and favored of God. The worldly, the

ambitious, the rich and powerful, were to be denied admission to heaven.

With the country in the midst of a struggle with a foreign foe, the unworldly philosophy took

on a dangerous aspect. It was a creed of disillusion, resignation and defeat. It threatened to

undermine the morale of the nation's fighting men in time of war. This blessing of the

peacemakers, this turning of the other cheek, this non-resistance, this love your enemy,

looked like a deliberate attempt to paralyze the national will in a crisis and assure victory tothe foe.

A native of Tarsus and thus a man of some education in Greek culture, Saul despised the new

teachings for their unworldliness and their remoteness from life. A patriotic Jew, he dreaded

their effect on the national cause. A traveled man, versed in several languages, he was ideally

suited for the task of going about among the scattered Jewish communities to counteract the

spread of their socialistic pacifistic doctrines. The leaders in Jerusalem appointed him chief

persecutor to the Ebionim.

He was on his way to Damascus one day to arrest a group of the sectaries when a novel idea

came to him. In the quaint phrase of the book of Acts he saw a vision. He saw as a matter of

fact, two. He perceived, to begin with, how utterly hopeless were the chances of little Judea

winning out in an armed conflict against the greatest military power in the world. Second,

and more important, it came to him that the vagabond creed which he had been repressing

might be forged into an irresistible weapon against the formidable foe. Pacifism, non-

resistance, resignation, love, were dangerous teachings at home. Spread among the enemy's

legions, they might brake down their discipline and thus yet bring victory to Jerusalem. Saul,

in a word, was probably the first man to see the possibilities of conducting war by

propaganda.

And so Saul, the fiercest persecutor of Jesus' followers, became Paul, the Apostle to the

Gentiles. And so, incidentally, began the spread into pagan lands of the West, an entirely new

Oriental religion. His revamped and rather alluring theology made converts faster than he

had dared hope, or than he even wished. His idea, it should be kept in mind, was at this stage

purely defensive.

The historians of the time leave us in no doubt as to the aims of Rome. They tell us that Nero

sent Vespasian and his son Titus with definite and explicit orders to annihilate Palestine and

Christianity together. To the Romans, Christianity meant nothing more than militant

Judaism. As to Nero's wish, he had at least half of it realized for him. Palestine was so





thoroughly annihilated that it has remained a political ruin to this day. But Christianity was

not so easily destroyed.

Indeed, it was only after the fall of Jerusalem that Paul's program developed to the full. The

goal now was nothing less than to humble Rome as she had humbled Jerusalem, to wipe her

off the map as she had wiped out Judea.

'Revelation' is, in truth, a revelation of what the whole astonishing business is about. Rome,

fancifully called Babylon, is minutely described in the language of sputtering hate. An Angel

triumphantly cries, 'Babylon the great is fallen!' Then follows an orgiastic picture of ruin.

Commerce and industry and maritime trade are at an end. Art and music and 'the voice of the

bridegroom and of the bride' are silenced. The gentle Christian conquerors wallow in blood

up to the bridles of their horses. 'Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and

prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.'

John closes his pious prophecy with a vision of the glories of the new - that is, the restored -

Jerusalem: not any allegorical fantasy, I pray you, but literally Jerusalem, the capital of a

great reunited kingdom of 'the twelve tribes of the children of Israel'. Could any one ask for

anything plainer?

...

You have not begun to appreciate the real depth of our guilt. We are intruders. We are

disturbers. We are subverters. We have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny,

and played havoc with them. We have been at the bottom not merely of the latest great war

but of nearly all your wars, not only of the Russian but of every other major revolution in

your history. We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal and

public life. We are still doing it. No one can tell how long we shall go on doing it.

We took you in hand and pulled down the beautiful and generous structure you had reared,

and changed the whole course of your history. We did it solely by the irresistible might of our

spirit, with ideas, with propaganda.

A Jewish rebel-prophet is the central figure in your religious worship. We have pulled down

your idols, cast aside your racial inheritance, and substituted for them our God and our

traditions. No conquest in history can even remotely compare with this clean sweep of our

conquest over you."

-- Marcus Eli Ravage





"In Christianity, as the art of holy lying, the whole of Judaism, a schooling and technique

pursued with the utmost seriousness for hundreds of years, attains its ultimate perfection...

Ultimately the point is the poisoning, slandering, and denying of life."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

6 million crucifixions to guilt trip the goyim with...

"To hear the kosher konservatives tell it, a fierce, intensive battle is raging today between the

evil forces of communism and the sacred forces of Christianity. We are led to believe that it is

an all out battle between good and evil. We are told that these two forces are the very essence

of two poles of opposition — in complete and diametrical conflict. It is a sham battle. The fact

is they are both degenerate products of the collective Jewish mind, designed to do one and

the same thing: to destroy the white race. If we take a closer look at these two evil forces that

have bedeviled and tormented the minds of the white race for all these years, we find that

they are not on opposite sides at all. We find that they are both on the side of international





Jewry, doing the job they were designed to do, namely: confuse and confound the white

man's intelligence so that he himself will help the Jew in destroying the white race.

In comparing the two we find that they are strikingly similar, and not opposites. In fact, there

are so many similarities in the two programs and in the philosophy of these two creeds that

the hand of the same author can easily be detected. That author is the international Jewish

network. They and they alone wrote both the creed of Christianity and the creed of

communism. Both communism and Christianity preach against materialism. Communism

designates those productive and creative forces of our society to which we owe in such large

part the benefits of a productive white civilization, as 'bourgeois.' It then lashes out with

unparalleled fury at the bourgeois and tells us over and over again that they must be

destroyed. Instead of giving credit where credit is due, it slanders and vilifies these

constructive and productive elements, namely the bourgeois or the capitalists, as the ultimate

in evil. Christianity tells us basically the same thing. It tells us that it will be more difficult for

a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven. It tells us

that we should 'sell all thou hast and give it to the poor': an insidious piece of advice that, if

followed, would make us all a pack of roving bums and beggars. It would most surely cause

the breakdown of our society. Christianity further tells us 'lay not up treasures on earth, but

lay up treasures in heaven.' Throughout, the implication is clear. Don't accumulate unto yourself any of the good things in life. If, through hard work, you've already managed to

accumulate some wealth, get rid of it, give it away, give it to the poor, above all, give it to the

Church, they'll take it, with relish. The net result of this fantastically bad advice, of course, is

that it will more easily pass into the hands of the Jews, who do not subscribe to such

foolishness. They hope to make fools of us, knowing very well the old saying 'A fool and his

money are soon parted' is only too true.

The other side of the coin is that the leaders of both Christianity and communism themselves

are fantastically materialistic. When we look at the Catholic Church on down through the

ages, we find that whereas they were extracting the last mite from the poor widow, the church

itself was gathering up and hoarding gold, silver and precious gems in unbelievable

quantities. Not only was it taking in and gathering all the gold, silver and precious stones that

it could, but it acquired huge amounts of real estate, and the Catholic Church today is

undoubtedly the most fantastically wealthy institution on the face of the earth. Even through

the Dark Ages when poverty was widespread, mostly because of Christianity itself, we find

these huge and fabulously rich cathedrals, built in the midst of poverty, with gold encrusted

altars and apses and vaults and columns and walls. The leadership of the Church caused to be

built huge and great Basilicas, Cathedrals, Abbeys, Baptisteries, Mausoleums, Convents, and

Churches. Practically all of these were so lavish and so huge in comparison with the meager

surroundings of the times, that they flamboyantly stood out as the main repository of all the

material wealth — gold, silver and architectural lavishness — of both their era and their

geographical location. The church never has bothered to explain why it was so necessary to

have such lavish wealth on display to the worshipping faithful, who were told time and again

that it was evil to 'lay up treasures.' Unto this day, churches are built to be flamboyant, garish

and bizarre. Money seems to be no object.

The Vatican, that citadel of 'spiritual' leadership, which also preaches, 'lay not up treasures

on earth,' does not practice what it preaches. On the contrary, what it practices is indeed the

height of hypocrisy, and the antithesis of spirituality. It goes all out for laying up treasures on

earth. It has amassed unto itself a portfolio of 5.6 billion dollars in stocks alone, not to





mention all of its real estate, art treasures and other valuables. It enjoys an annual income of

1.5 billion dollars, much of it undoubtedly collected from the widow's last mite, as well as its

vast holdings. The United States religious establishment as a whole is valued at 102 billion

dollars. In 1969, of the 17.6 billion dollars United States individuals contributed to charity, 45

percent, or 7.9 billion dollars was earmarked for religious purposes. Pretty materialistic for a

religion that 'shuns' earthly treasures and preaches 'my kingdom is not of this world.'

Likewise, the communist bosses in Russia, practically all of which are Jews, have

accumulated unto themselves all the riches of the countryside. While the communist slave

laborer is toiling away twelve hours a day and then comes home to a dingy, dirty, filthy,

crowded little apartment shared with other families, his Jewish bosses have opulent palaces

spread all over the countryside. They drive the best of cars, chauffeur driven, of course, and

eat the best of foods. Not only that, but they have the best of planes at their disposal to fly

wherever they see fit to govern their slave laborers. These Jewish communist bosses usually

also have at their disposal imported clothes and tailors and a galaxy of servants. When they

need a rest from running their slave empire, they have private villas on the Black Sea or other

choice vacation spots at their beck and call. And so it goes in the Proletarian Worker's

Paradise.

Let us pass on to the next similarity. Both communism and Christianity make extensive use

of the weapons of terror, both psychological and real. Undoubtedly the most ghoulish and

vicious concept ever contrived by the depraved and collective mind of Jewry is the concept of

Hell. Can you think of anything more horrible than placing millions of people in confinement

in a superheated torture chamber and then burning them forever and ever without even the

mitigating mercy of allowing them to die? With this piece of 'Good News' and 'Joyful Tidings'

Christianity set out to conquer the minds of its superstitious and unreasoning victims. The

fact that such a torture chamber was non-existent did not at all detract from the fact that it

was a real threat to those who were made to believe that it was real. To a child, for instance, if

you tell him that the Boogieman is going to get him, and he innocently believes you, then the

threat is just as real as if a Boogieman actually existed. And so it is with Hell. To those that

have become convinced that it exists, this horrible threat is just as real as if it did exist.

However, Christianity did not stop with using psychological terror alone. Those who deviated

from the official Church line were declared as heretics and forthwith burned at the stake. The

idea of using fire in one form or another as a means of torturing their opponents seems to

have obsessed these 'loving' Christians' minds. Some 33,000 Christians were put to death by

other so-called Christians by means of burning at the stake, a grizzly type of revenge. Among

my ancestors alone (who were of the Mennonite faith) some 2,000 martyrs were burned at

the stake by these ever-loving Christians. One outstanding feature about this burning at the

stake business was that they were always white people who were being burned. Never have I

ever heard of a Jew being burned at the stake for not believing precisely along specified lines

of Judaism, even though they did not believe in Christ at all. Burning at the stake wasn't the

only means of torture and death used by these love-dispensing Christians who were so eager

to spread their message of love.

During the Inquisition, and other times, all the beastly refinements of torture that the

depraved human mind could devise were used to extort confessions and whip the unbelievers

or heretics into line. The thumb-screw, water-dip, the iron corset, drawn and quartered,

gouging out one's eyes with hot irons, and the rack (slowly tearing limb from body by means

of stretching) were but some of the devices used by these ever-loving Christians to spread





their gospel of Love. When the communists came along and used physical torture as one of

their instruments of conquest, they had very little left to invent but what the Christians had

already utilized before them. And this is as can be expected, since it was Jewish fiendishness

that designed the means of torture for both. Nor did the Church hesitate to use wholesale

warfare to batter down whole nations that did not submit to their religious dictation. In fact

during the 16th, 17th and 18th century the main causes of war were religious dissentions in

which one religious group sought to force their beliefs on their opposites by wholesale

warfare and slaughter. The communist record of using wholesale terror, both psychological

and physical, is so recent, so widespread and so well known that we need hardly review it

here.

In Russia alone the Jewish communist regime used terror on a scale unknown before in the

annals of history. In order to exterminate the best of the white race in Russia, namely the

white Russians, the Jews slaughtered some 20,000,000. The terror, the killings, the murders

defy the imagination of the average white man's mind. In any case, both communism and

Christianity are using, and have used, terror extensively, both psychological and physical, to

subjugate their victims. Whereas the Christians excelled in psychological terror, the

communists excel in physical terror. But in both cases the Jews were experts in using

whatever type of terror best accomplished their ends. Both communism and Christianityhave a book that presumably lays down the creed of their movement. Christianity has the

Jewish bible which was written by Jews, mostly about Jews, for the purpose of uniting the

Jewish race and for destroying the white race.

The communist bible is Karl Marx's Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto, written by

Karl Marx in conjunction with Friedrich Engels, both of whom were Jews. Both of these

Jewish creeds, communism and Christianity, are highly destructive, and when followed, tear

down the fabric of the society that has fallen victim to them. Christianity teaches the evilness

of man, that he is a no-good, unworthy sinner, that he is born in sin and that his every

instinct is evil. Communism preaches that the productive, creative element of our society,

namely the 'bourgeois' as they call them, is rotten and evil, and must be destroyed. It can be

safely said that any sound, healthy society that turned either to complete Christianity and

practiced all of its principles, or any society that practiced pure communism, would soon

destroy itself. Again we want to vigorously point out that contrary to what these kosher

konservatives are always telling us, communism is by no means the same as socialism or

collectivism. The latter are basic constructive elements of any healthy society, but

communism is an undisguised Jewish slave-labor camp. Both communism and Christianity

preach the equality of man. Christianity preaches that we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord,

whereas the communists preach that we all must become equal in the communist society.

The white race will be leveled down to where they are all equal to a horde of miserable slaves,

whereas every Jew, on the other hand, will be a king. Not only do both communism and

Christianity preach the equality of the individual, but they also preach the equality of races,

another vicious lie thrown in the face of Nature. Christianity and communism both have had

their schisms. In the case of Christianity, the followers that differed were called heretics and

in the case of communism, those that stray from the official line are called deviationists. In

the case of Christianity, the Great Schism, of course, was during the Reformation when the

Protestant segment developed and broke away from the Catholic Church. It then proceeded

to split and splinter in a thousand different directions from there on out, all to the detriment

and destruction of the white race.





Among the communists there were a number of schisms such as the Mensheviks and the

Bolsheviks, and a number of other schisms, before the communists ever came to power. After

they did come to power, there were the Stalinist communists and the Trotskyite communists,

the latter being vigorously pursued and purged from the ranks. Now we presumably have the

Mao wing of the communist party and for a while we had the Tito deviationists, and so on. In

any case, the main idea in Christianity and communism is the same: On top of a confusing

and impossible dogma sits a tight powerful hierarchy which dictates and interprets what the

line of its followers must be, and terror and reprisal are the consequences to those who dare

to think for themselves. It is not at all surprising that the arch-enemy of both these Jewish

creeds is Adolf Hitler, because he dared to come out with a healthy, natural social structure

that embodied those principles that were in harmony with the natural laws, and with the

healthy instincts for the preservation of the white race. We, therefore, find the Jewish press,

the communist press, and Christianity, all in chorus, denouncing Adolf Hitler, and telling us

what a terrible, terrible man he was. All perpetrate and repeat over and over again the same

Jewish lies about Hitler that the Jews themselves have dreamed up and supplied to their

toadying stooges. The similarities between these creeds go on and on. Both preach the

destruction of the present society. They especially zero in on the destruction and

downgrading of the more creative and productive elements of society as a whole.

The Jews, who are the perpetrators of communism, envision the United Nations

headquarters to finally rest in Israel and in particular, in Jerusalem. Christianity too,

continuously keeps talking about Zion, the New Jerusalem, and looks to Jerusalem as the

Holy Land, its origin and spiritual headquarters. Both of these Jewish creeds consistently

follow policies which are disastrous to the welfare of the white race. Another similarity that

manifests itself in both of these Jewish creeds is that both have an incurable ability to put

forth a profuseness of verbiage that is extremely vague and beclouded with confusion. Not

only is the verbiage profuse, but incredibly lacking in substance. This is an old Jewish trick to

confuse and confound the minds of their opposition, the latter being deceived into thinking

that all this vast collection of words must have some higher meaning beyond their

comprehension.

If the similarities between Christianity and communism seem rather striking, there is a very

good reason for their parallel ideology. That reason is, of course, they were both concocted by

the Jewish power structure for the common objective of destroying the white race.

Unfortunately, up to this point, both their ideologies have been devastatingly effective.

Furthermore, I am firmly convinced, and it is my measured conclusion, that the Jews could

never have foisted modern communism on a long suffering humanity, had they not first

softened up, unhinged and confused the intellect of the white race with the fallacious snares

of Christianity. Expunge both of these twin Jewish scourges from the face of this planet."

-- Ben Klassen

Search Facebook Benjamin Home 1

https://www.facebook.com/ben.steigmann

https://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn

https://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo

https://www.facebook.com/editaccount.php?ref=mb&drop





"America's problem with race has deep roots, with the country's foundation tied to

the near extermination of one race of people and the enslavement of another.

Racism is truly our nation's original sin. It's time we right this unacceptable wrong,

says bestselling author and leading Christian activist Jim Wallis..."

https://www.facebook.com/messages/1032810661




































About Create Ad Create Page Developers Careers Privacy Cookies Terms Help

Facebook © 2015

English (US)

Unlike · Comment · Share

You and 3 others like this.

21 shares

Donatien LeBlanc

Like · Reply · 1 · 23 hours ago

Danny Kriegzahn Will read it all eventually. Good stuff!

Honestly, I dont think humanity can ever be truly atheist, since many beliefs become near religious in it's goals and

scope, such as communism

Like · Reply · 21 hours ago

Write a comment...

Ad Choices

https://www.facebook.com/help/568137493302217

https://www.facebook.com/policies/?ref=pf

https://www.facebook.com/help/?ref=pf

https://www.facebook.com/notes/wesley-lysander/communism-is-neo-christianity/835356356562639?comment_id=835413529890255&offset=0&total_comments=2&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D

https://www.facebook.com/help/cookies/?ref=sitefooter

https://www.facebook.com/careers/?ref=pf

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009018524320&fref=ufi

https://www.facebook.com/settings

https://www.facebook.com/notes/wesley-lysander/communism-is-neo-christianity/835356356562639?comment_id=835366623228279&offset=0&total_comments=2&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R0%22%7D

https://www.facebook.com/browse/likes?id=835356356562639&actorid=100002648463969

https://developers.facebook.com/?ref=pf

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009018524320&fref=ufi

https://www.facebook.com/danny.wartooth?fref=ufi

https://www.facebook.com/browse/likes?id=835366623228279

https://www.facebook.com/shares/view?id=835356356562639

https://www.facebook.com/shares/view?id=835356356562639

https://www.facebook.com/ben.steigmann/allactivity?privacy_source=activity_log_top_menu

https://www.facebook.com/danny.wartooth?fref=ufi

https://www.facebook.com/privacy/explanation

https://www.facebook.com/campaign/landing.php?placement=pf&campaign_id=466780656697650&extra_1=auto

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1508740739436529&set=p.1508740739436529&type=3

https://www.facebook.com/pages/create/?ref_type=sitefooter

https://www.facebook.com/facebook



Home Texts Next Chapter

Typos — p. 37: Contributon [= Contribution]; p. 47: psycho-analyists [=psycho-analysts]; p. 49: ill-favourd [=ill-favoured]; p. 50: uniniated [=uninitiated]; p. 61: Puritnaism [= Puritanism]; p. 70: emanicipated [=

emancipated]; p. 99: phychological [= psychological] p. 103: tenour [=tenor]; p. 106: perseverence [= perseverance]; p. 117: favouritsm [=favouritism]; p. 119: auhorized [= authorized]; p. 122: Scopenhauer [=Schopenhauer]

- p. 36 -Chapter III

Christianity Not the Thoughtful Man's Religion — I

When examining the answers Christianity gives to the questions manincessantly asks about himself, life and the Universe, it is essential toremember that these answers were made for a remote generation of menwhose knowledge, credulity, capacity for criticism and tendency tosuperstition, bear little resemblance to those of modern civilized people.Satisfying and meaningful as the myths and doctrines of Christianity mayhave proved to the populace in the early centuries of our era, it would beunrealistic to expect them to be accepted now with the same meek,unquestioning faith.

A generation that no longer believes in devils, demons and thedemoniacal etiology of disease; that has difficulty in imagining the transferof devils from two men into a herd of swine, and even more difficulty inbelieving that these very devils pleaded to be so transferred; a generationthat doubts the possibility of parthenogenesis in human beings, and haslong ago dropped the practice of "whipping boys", cannot see any sensein vicarious punishment, and is therefore unable to take on trust the storyof an Omnipotent Deity who could feel appeased and propitiated for thesins committed by beings he has himself created, by the death in agony of

his own beloved and only-begotten son — to such a generation, hardlyone aspect of the Christian mythology and the supernatural events itincludes appears to have even tolerable plausibility, let alone cogency. It would, therefore, be most astonishing if Christianity, instead ofbeing, as Professor A. N. Whitehead declares "in decay" (R.I.M. Chap. I, 7and IV, 3), were repeating the giant strides which marked its progressthroughout the Middle Ages. "Whence does ecclesiastical authority," Professor McDougalI asks,"derive the views it seeks to impose? — the answer is that they are

founded upon alleged historical events of a remote age,

- p. 37 -events of just such a nature as psychical research is concerned toinvestigate at first hand as contemporaneous events. However we regardthe evidence of these remote events, we can hardly claim that the lapse of



two thousand years has made the evidence of them less disputable, and inany case it is clear that mankind in general is ceasing to find that evidencesufficient". (R.S.L. Chap. V). This sums up the position very well and, in view of the vast library thatnow exists on the reasons for Unbelief — books which, from the works ofIngersoll to those of J. M. Robertson and Bertrand Russell, are easilyaccessible in most of our large towns — it seems unnecessary to dwell onthis aspect of the question. The intell igent reader who wishes to becomeacquainted with the attitude to Christianity of the Rationalists and

Agnostics, must however be warned against two forms of attack to whicheveryone embarking on a course of this kind lays himself open. The first,from the quarter of all Christians, no matter what their denomination, is tocharge the budding or accomplished Rationalist with hostility to all religionand with a total lack of any religious feeling whatsoever, as if to be anti-Christian must mean that a man rejects everything that the word "religion"suggests — a charge as impudent and absurd as to accuse a hostile criticof abstract and ultra-modern art of being inaccessible to the appeal of anyart at all. An example of this sort of charge may be found to be at least

implied in Mr. B. Lund Yates' article on Dr. Buchman's "Contributon toContemporary Thought" in H. October 1958. The second usually hails from the quarter of highbrow philosophicapologists of Christianity, who are wont to dwell voluptuously on theadmitted limitations of scientific knowledge and on all the latestinconclusive researches of scientists into the most obscure problems oflife, whether in the realms of physics, astronomy, geophysics, biology orgenetics; and who argue as if every scientific failure to reach certainty,which is honestly acknowledged by the scientists themselves, necessarily

adds to the score of Christian truths. This form of attack is admirablydenounced by Professor J. B. Pratt as follows: "Nor should we easily bedriven, by the temporary failure of science, into the arms of thesupernatural. . . . So great have been the achievements of science in thepast, so repeatedly has she brought forward explanations of the seeminglyinexplicable for those who

- p. 38 -waited patiently upon her, that the burden of proof is certainty on those

who urge us to flee to the supernatural — the burden, namely, of showingus that no scientific explanation is possible" (T.R.C. Chap. XX. See alsoS.A.R. Chap. I, where Sir J. Arthur Thomson makes a similar attack onthose who would make the limitations of science an argument for God). Meanwhile, these same apologists do everything possible and useevery debating room device, to obfuscate and bewilder the aspiringRationalist by means of torrents of more or less incomprehensibleverbiage, aimed at discrediting scientific discoveries and theories, anddefending the more obscure and more assailable tenets of the faith. Take, for instance, the churchmen's defence of the doctrine ofAtonement. I have already indicated the incredible features of this doctrinewhich today seems even more extravagantly fantastic than it did in 1889,when Bishop Lyttleton tried by the sweat of his brow to make it look likesense (see L.M.). For to us of the twentieth century, removed by well overtwo thousand years from the age when the ancient Israelites, believing inthe principle of vicarious suffering, practised animal sacrifice to propitiate



God for their sins, there is something so alien to common sense in thenotion of an all-powerful deity being able to derive any satisfaction fromwhipping-boy blood rites of this kind, and above all in his feeling placatedby them, that, not our reason alone, but every one of our sentiments ascivilized moderners, revolts against the whole conception of theAtonement as a relic of savage superstition. We even wonder whether aman like St. Paul, in the first century of our era, could have been altogethersane when, addressing the Romans, he said: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being

justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:whom God hath sent to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, todeclare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, throughthe forebearance of God". (Romans ii i, 23–26). This extraordinary doctrine is more lucidly and succinctly stated in thelatter part of the second of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of Englandas follows: "Christ, very God, and very man, who truly suffered, was crucifieddead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to

- p. 39 -be a sacrifice not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men." It is referred to again in Article XV, where we read of Jesus: "He cameto be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made,should take away the sins of the world." In Article XXVIII, we read that theLord's Supper is a sacrament "of our redemption by Christ's death", whilstin Article XXXI we are told that "The offering of Christ once made is thatperfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the

whole world both original and actual". The fact that this doctrine has been embarrassing churchmen moreand more with every fresh advance, however slight, of that enlightenmentwhich has been one of the few real blessings of the last hundred years,may be gathered from the spate of treatises which, ever since the middle oflast century, have been produced to defend and rationalize it where itclashes most violently with modern conceptions. Of these defences, it would be impossible here to sketch even thebarest summary; but the book by the Right Rev. A. C. Headlam, late

Bishop of Gloucester (The Atonement , 1935), is worth reading asexemplifying the extreme difficulty modern theologians obviouslyexperience in trying to explain away the redemption of human sin astraditionally related by St. Paul and the Church, and also their habit ofbaffling the potential Rationalist with reams of more or less relevantverbiage in defence of their doctrines. "It seems very difficult to accept a theory", says Bishop Headlam,"which seems to represent the loving kindness of the Son appeasing byhis sacrifice the wrath of the Father" (Chap. II, 1). Yes, indeed! though whatthe Bishop really means is that whereas centuries ago it was child's playto gain acceptance for such a theory, today it is not so easy; and he admitsthat "there have been more theological differences" on this matter "than onany other Christian doctrine" (Introduction). Yet, in spite of 191 pages ofthe most painstaking and tortuous pleading, it cannot be said that the LordBishop extricates himself with much success from the awkward net ofimprobabili ties. He never attains to the straightforward clarity of F. J.



Sheed, for instance, who, in Theology and Society (1947, Chap. XVIII, 1),says outright that Jesus "offered himself as a sacrifice to God for the sins ofthe race"; and after reading and rereading the more important

- p. 40 -passages of the book, especially the last chapter, it is still difficult tounderstand how he can feel sufficiently satisfied with his explanation toconclude as follows: "The Atonement through Christ was the revelation through the cross,

and in no other way could it be accomplished save by the sacrifice of loveand obedience as revelation of the nature of God; it was the only powerthrough which sin could be taken away and therefore it was propitiation forsin, and therefore Christ died for our sins and bore the whole weight of oursins upon the cross" (Chap. III, 5). I hope many, more acute and intellectual than I can claim to be, wil lalso find it hard to grasp the logical justification of these two "therefores".Surely it is this sort of vague, confusing verbiage that has done most todiscredit theology in the minds of sensible folk. The fact of the crucifixion is

not disputed, the further fact that it was a propitiation for sin is also notcontested by the learned prelate. The logical conclusion must therefore bewhat Bishop Headlam and others like him do their utmost to circumvent —namely, that some authority, presumably God the Father, required to beappeased and propitiated for the sins of man by the death of his belovedand only-begotten son on an ancient Roman torture machine. ProfessorW. H. Griffith Thomas, D.D., for instance, in a chapter on the second of theThirty-nine Articles, acknowledges that "expiation" seems "to be decidedlytruer to the Biblical conception" of the crucifixion than mere communion

(The Principles of Theology , 1930). But if this is so, some authority musthave required expiation for men's sins. Who was this authority? And howdid Christ's death constitute the expiation, unless it was a vicarious form ofpunishment that was thought necessary? Is not the straightforward answerto this that God himself required the expiation and consequently it was topropitiate him that it was done? Why not admit it? Because thesetheologians know that modern thought can no longer accept it — that'swhat explains their tortuous, prolix and mostly obscure spates of verbiage. Another typical instance of the same kind is an earlier work by Canon

B. H. Streeter, called Reality (1929). He, too, tried to explain away thepalpably incredible aspects — to the modern mind at least — of Christ'sdeath on the cross to save mankind from the consequences of their sin.Evidently aware of the great difficulty intelligent contemporaries must havein accepting the

- p. 41 -idea of a loving god whose wrath over the sins of his own creatures couldbe appeased by the cruel death of his son. Canon Streeter takes eightpages to try to accomplish what Bishop Headlam attempted to do in awhole book. But, apart from its commendable brevity, it cannot be said thathis explanation is more satisfactory than the Bishop's. After wanderingaimlessly and with unflinching prolixity over wholly irrelevant side-issues,and expatiating upon matters which only an indulgent chairman of debatewould allow to pass, he leaves the reader, now tapping both feet withimpatience, without any frank and unequivocal answer to the one most



pressing question: "Was the crucifixion a means of propitiating God for hisown creatures' sins?" Unless the frank answer is felt by modernchurchmen to be damaging to the credibility, and hence to the prestige, oftheir religion, why do they thus hesitate to give it? Finally, after having reached no conclusion which a fair mindedreader could reasonably judge as at all illuminating, Canon Streetermakes the very self-revelatory and, I submit, significant statement: "The simple Christian", he says, "who is content to look on thesacrifice of Christ as just a 'mystery' is here wiser than the theologian who

insists on analysing its intellectual content. Such a conception, if true at all,is so because of the truth of quality it represents; and the more it isenvisaged, not as logic, but as a picture, the richer the truth it will convey"(Chap. VIII). It is very sensible of this divine, to leave the matter unsolved in thehands of the "simple Christian". It was certainly the best escape, althoughit wil l be noted that even to the very end, when he has contrived thisrelease for himself, he is still incapable of clear unequivocal language. No reader who turns to the books I have quoted wil l, I believe, find that

I have misrepresented them; and anyone who ventures, as I have done, toconsult other cognate works, will I think discover little to modify in the claimI have made that today churchmen are not only deeply embarrassed by thetraditional view of the Atonement as set forth by St. Paul and the second ofthe Church of England's Thirty-nine Articles; but, despite the moststrenuous efforts, are also at a complete loss to make any sense of it, or atleast to make it appear sensible to the modern enlightened mind. Thus, when St. Paul told the Romans: "God commendeth his

- p. 42 -love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved fromwrath through him" (Romans v. 8 and 9), he hardly foresaw the manydifficulties he was preparing for twentieth-century divines. For, when weask, "Whose wrath is here meant?" and, "How are we justified by hisblood?" we receive no plain, straightforward and satisfying answer fromthe modern theologian, but merely involved make-believe explanationswhich rather obscure than shed light on the problem.

When with deep disappointment we turn the pages of the learnedtreatises where the Christian myths and doctrines, which once seemedunobjectionable and eminently credible, are polished up, refitted andchastened by skilful experts to attract a more enlightened and criticalgeneration, we have the uncomfortable feeling that, instead of aconspiracy of silence, a conspiracy of noise and blustering verbosity isunder way, and that its object is less to illuminate, elucidate and explain,than to give the impression that such is being done; for, to the simple manand woman. Canon Streeter's "simple Christian" in fact, it must seem thatsuch volumes of verbiage cannot possibly be without substantial content.Even when they fail to see it, they feel persuaded that some unmistakableand satisfying conclusion must be lurking somewhere amid all thosewords, and therefore that none of their confidence need be forfeited. This is the snare against which aspiring Rationalists have to bewarned. Not that one fails to sympathize with these desperate apologistsof a creed which, according to B. Lund Yates, is "crumbling" (H. October



1958. Article: Dr. Buchman's "Contribution to Contemporary Thought"). Onthe contrary! As one reads these panting paragraphs, in whichtheologians, on the point of exhaustion from their fruitless labours, try bypiling up words and endlessly analysing side issues to give theimpression that they are offering a plain answer to a plain question, it isimpossible not to feel rather sorry for them. Nevertheless, when we compare the "explanation" of the Atonementby a divine, such as the Rev. and Hon. Arthur Lyttelton, which coversthirty-nine pages of (L.M. Chap. VII), with the later and more sophisticated

explanations just examined, we are at once struck by the greater naïvetéand frankness of the former — probably an indication of the fact that thewriter in Lux Mundi , some seventy years ago, was less acutely aware thanare our

- p. 43 -modern divines of the revolt felt by modern minds at the idea of anomnipotent God's being propitiated by the blood of his only-begotten sonfor the sins of his own creatures.

Thus the Rev. Arthur Lyttelton openly acknowledges the connectionbetween Christ's sacrifice on the cross and "the ideas inspired by the[Mosaic] law" — i.e. "the sacrificial system of the Old Testament". He alsoacknowledges its propitiatory character. But because for some reasonwhich he does not clarify, "as propitiation, therefore, and as reunion [withGod] the Atonement must come from without and cannot be accomplishedby those who themselves have need of it", the sacrifice must be vicarious.The propitiatory sacrifice", he says, "which is to effect our reunion must, forwe are powerless to offer it, come from without."

Then he adds, "If the redemptive work of Christ satisfies theseconditions it is evident that it is not a simple but a very complex fact." Verytrue! And he honestly concludes, "that of this complex fact no adequateexplanation can be given". Nevertheless, he makes no attempt to dodge the issue. He admits that"The death of Christ is, in the first place to be regarded as propitiatory"."On the one hand", he says, "there is man's desire, natural and almostinstinctive, to make expiation for his guilt [is this instinctive in Man? Surelyonly in a few men in the civil ization of the West!]: on the other, there is the

tremendous fact of the wrath of God against sin. The death of Christ is theexpiation for those past sins which have laid the burden of guilt upon thehuman soul and it is also the propitiation of the wrath of God." So here we have a full and complete admission by an eminentChurch of England divine, writing in 1889, of all I have claimed about theAtonement, and what follows in his argument really does not alter thematter. It is merely the usual rather lame, circumlocutionary rigmarole withwhich theologians try to make the Atonement appear sensible. Stil l, thecontrast between the Rev. Arthur Lyttelton's frank admissions in 1889 andthe wriggling and writhing apologetics of more modern divines who areprobably more alive to the revolt felt by twentieth-century minds against thewhole idea of an omnipotent God needing, and being propitiated by, avicarious sacrifice for human sin — surely this contrast is very revealing. Meanwhile, those members of the public who are still faithful

- p. 44 -



to the Church, continue to believe that "through Christ crucified, Christianshave found peace with God" and "have tasted the joy of forgiveness forpast sin" (E. J. Bicknell: A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-nine

Articles of the Church of England , 1925, Section on Article II), and stillupholding what Bishop Headlam stigmatizes (by means of invertedcommas) as the "orthodox" view of the Atonement (op. cit., Introduction) —namely the view that the Rev. Arthur Lyttelton accepts — those samemembers of the general public continue, according to Professor W. H.Griffith Thomas, to lift up their voices and persist in saying and singing: "In

the cross of Christ I glory!" The more vulgar, though not the less ardent believers in the"orthodox" view, sing with louder voices:

"Whiter than the snow! Whiter than the snow! Wash me in the blood of the Lamb And I shall be whiter than the snow."

Be this as it may, my object in making this long digression on the

subject of the Atonement was less to expose the doubtful aspects of thedoctrine in question, than to show by means of a striking example the wayin which the pleadings of modern theologians may baffle and bewilder thepotential Rationalist by the sheer weight of words alone, and give him atleast the impression of having been offered a satisfying answer to his moreawkward questions.

* * * *

There is, however, no need to dwell on the more palpableimprobabili ties of the faith in order to be convinced, in the first place, thatChristianity cannot have been revealed by an omnipotent deity. Creator ofAll that is; secondly, that it has not that authenticity, that dateless, enduringvalidity which would have made it hold good for all time and proveacceptable to the men of all ages. For, not only are the canonical books ofthe holy scriptures, which constitute its authority, riddled with examples ofsuperstitious beliefs, exploded theories about natural phenomena, andfalse psychology, inconsistent with divine knowledge and wisdom andtherefore also with the alleged supernatural provenance of the sacredliterature; but all of them, full of errors as they are, also at once reveal thekind of audience to which they were suited and to whose standards ofcriticism,

- p. 45 -knowledge and enlightenment, they were adjusted — an audience, that isto say, less civilized and less cultivated than were the educated minorityeven in the early eighteenth century. These features alone, by dating much of the appeal of these "sacred

writings" and restricting their credibility to an age much more primitive thanour own, seem to dispose at once of the claim that they have divineauthority; and that this claim is indeed made, is shown by the Church'sdenial of this authority to the so-called "apocryphal" books. In view of the many treatises, including above all Bertrand Russell 'sWhy I Am Not a Christian , in which the innumerable Biblical errors,



whether in astronomy, geophysics, biology or physiology, are exposed,further examples of the kind seem unnecessary here. But the sort ofhowlers that are much less often exposed by Rationalists — if at all — arethe more interesting and, as reflecting on the alleged divine provenance ofthe Bible, more damaging psychological ones, which recent discoverieshave helped to reveal, but which are glaring enough to have struckintelligent readers at any time. It is indeed surprising that thinkers likeMontaigne and Voltaire should have failed to notice this kind of Biblicalerror, especially as the major instances of it are allegedly perpetrated by

God the Father and his Son. To save time and space I shall confine myselfto these. Their importance will relieve me of the necessity of dwelling onthe discrepancies usually adduced by Rationalists. The first important instance occurs in the fifth commandment: "Honourthy father and thy mother that thy days may be long in the land which theLord thy God giveth thee." Here the howler consists in ascribing to volition an attitude of mindunamenable to the will and only the reaction to a suitable stimulus. Honourcan no more be summoned at will than admiration or respect. One may

pretend to comply with the command and go through the motionsdisplaying admiration or respect; but the effort is only histrionic, and thesame may be said of honour. Thus, in order to ensure the end this commandment contemplated, itshould read, "Parents make yourselves honourable in the sight of yourchildren, that they may honour you." Difficult as this achievement may be,it is at least possible, whereas the other behest cannot possibly be obeyedwhen its appropriate stimulus is lacking. If, therefore, the commandmentwas accurately reported by Moses (which Christians may say is not

- p. 46 -certain) the God of the Old Testament must be charged with an elementaryhowler in psychology. The same comment applies to God's commandment to the Israelitesin Deuteronomy vi. 5, which reads, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God withall thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Now, in Markxii. 30 and 31, Jesus, in what he calls the "first commandment of all",repeats his father's psychological error and, in his second commandment,

adds an error of his own, which I shall explain in a moment. But, beforedoing so, it is essential to discuss the error common to both of thesecommandments. I have commented on the error of supposing that people can becommanded to honour a fellow-being. But in the case of love, theinefficacy of any command to generate the required feeling must be evenmore apparent. For, besides embodying honour, love is a feeling of muchgreater depth and range. It involves above all a sense of attachment, ofdevotion, reciprocity and warmth, of which honour may be destitute withoutinjury. Therefore, to assume that it can be evoked by a behest is apsychological error even more elementary than that already noted inregard to honour; and it at once disposes of any attempt to establish thedivinity of him who could be guilty of it. But what is not so immediatelyapparent is the tragic amount of misery and misunderstanding which thismajor error in psychology has been causing ever since it was firstpreached to Europeans, stamped with the exalted authority of their God.



For, when once we are told that love is volitional, we naturally regardany diminution, any cooling off, and above all any cessation of it, in afriend, relative, or spouse — which, especially in married couples owing tothe normal abatement of passion, is the inevitable sequel to extravagantlyoverrated attachment — as a deliberate act, as an intentional withholdingof a feeling which, if the inconstant person liked , could be continued atwhite heat. Very naturally, therefore, it is interpreted as a wanton insult, apersonal injury, the outcome of malice prepense. And that is precisely howtoday every Western man and woman regards any decline in love which

may unwittingly occur even in wholly admirable and normal folk. Nor, iflove is thought of as a product of the will, is it anything but understandablethat any sudden or insensible abatement of it, should seem an affront anda heartless attempt to wound the once loved fellow-being.

- p. 47 - It would be impossible to compute the number of tragedies, divorces,separations, family feuds, and poisoned lives, that have resulted from thewidespread inculcation of this one fundamental error in psychology, to

which Christianity gave currency throughout the civilized world —especially as St. Paul thought fit to aggravate the Lord's error by saying tothe unfortunate Colossians and Ephesians, "Husbands, love your wives"(Colossians ii. 19; Ephesians v. 25). It is moreover typical of Christianity'sfalsification of human psychology that, commenting on this passage, theRev. Hubert Northcott should remark: "It is the advice of a wisepsychologist. If it had been always followed the psycho-analyists wouldhave had empty consulting-rooms" (V.O.P. Chap. VI). The very converse istrue!

Average men and women cannot be expected to judge matters ofpsychology accurately, let alone objectively, and if from childhood theyhave been led to believe on the highest authority of all that love is anemotion that can be conjured up at wil l, they are unlikely to view withcomplacency its gradual or sudden withdrawal by one who has hithertoprofessed it for them. As that astute psychologist, Stendhal, so aptly observed, "L'amour

nait et s'éteint sans que la volonté y ait la moindre part" (De l'Amour , 1822,Chap. I. "Love is born and dies without the will playing the smallest part in

the matter"); and thirty years later, Proudhon echoed the point of viewwhen he said, "L'amour est entièrement soustrait à la volonté de celui qui

l'éprouve" (Amour et Mariage , 1860, Chap. II. ix. "Love is whollyindependent of the will of him who feels it"). Less explicitly, but issuingfrom the same idea, Shakespeare makes Julia remark that "love will not bespurn'd to what it loathes" (The Two Gentlemen of Verona , Act V. Sc. II).But it would be unfair to expect commonplace folk so completely toovercome what they have imbibed about will and love at Sunday school,as to reach similarly sound conclusions. This does not mean, however,that it would be unfair to expect a deity to arrive at them. But Jesus's second commandment — "Thou shalt love thy neighbouras thyself" — is open to a further criticism; for it assumes that the love ofself may be postulated of everyone, which is quite untrue. Indeed in timeswhen much defectiveness, morbidity, deformity and failing stamina is rife,self love is extremely rare; and it might well be argued that misanthropy



- p. 48 -has its origin in self-hatred. Hence, if a happy world is the object to beachieved, the first prerequisite would be the breeding of a people free fromall possible causes of self-hatred and self-contempt — or from what Adlercalled "inferiority feelings", which I think he rightly maintained were alwaysthe outcome of a sense of organic inferiority. The alert observer of mankind knows that what causes the cripple, theincurable invalid, and all defective and very ugly people, to feel bitterabout humankind, to be difficult to live with, and to burst with resentment at

the slightest provocation, is at bottom their invincible dissatisfaction withthemselves. Bacon was aware of this; but by applying his observationsonly to the deformed he appears to limit them only to extreme examples ofsubnormality, although we know that to a lesser degree resentment of akind is likely to be felt even by less ill-favoured creatures (see his essay onDeformity ). His accurate reading of the mind of the deformed, however,shows him as belonging to an age of far deeper psychological insight thanour nineteenth century, in which a Charlotte M. Yonge had the intellectualperfidy to depict her defectives and incurables as saints (see, for instance,

her Pillars of the House and other novels). The heartache felt by the afflicted, even when they are most cultivatedpeople, inevitably generates feelings of envy if not always of resentment,and as they are denied self-contentment and self-love, it is difficult for themto feel benevolent to others. De Quincey was well aware of this, for heremarked of Gifford, "a deformed man with the spiteful nature sometimestoo developed in the deformed" (Posthumous Works , 1891, XIII). Indeference to popular sentiment, he is careful to say "sometimes"; but, hadhe known Adler's thesis, he would probably have omitted it. Thus, by

neglecting human biological realities and thereby promoting themultiplication of the ill-favoured, the beliefs that have governed Europeanconduct for two millenniums have created conditions which deprive man ofthe capacity for self-love and hence of the very velleity to the love of hisneighbour. Goethe knew this and, referring to the European's general lack ofgoodwill towards his neighbour, and of love and kindliness in socialintercourse, he said, "How can anyone have kindly feelings for others andbehave kindly to them when he is il l at ease with himself?" (G.G. 12.3.

1828. "Wie soll einer gegen andere Wohl-

- p. 49 -fallen empfinden und ausüben wenn es ihm selber nicht wohl ist?" ).Will iam Hazlitt, a year earlier, had expressed the same idea when hewrote, "Those people who are uncomfortable in themselves aredisagreeable to others" (Essays, On Disagreeable People , 1827). In short,no good psychologist can doubt that the ill-favoured, who incessantlyresent their wretched plight, never cease to whisper in their hearts: "II me

faut prendre ma revanche sur ma honte" (Le Roman Inachevé , by M.Aragon, 1958. "I must avenge myself for my shame"), and cannot thereforefeel even goodwill, much less love, for their better conditioned neighbours.That great realist, Aristotle, implied much the same idea when he said, "Aperson is incapable of happiness if he is absolutely ugly in appearance orlow-born" (Nicomachean Ethics , trans. by J. E. C. Welldon. Book I. Chap.IX).



Thus, apart from the misery Western beliefs have caused, by thelegion of defectives they have fostered and bred, we have to reckon withthe misery resulting from the malaise every ill-favourd creature inevitablyfeels. When, therefore, Jesus said, "Love thy neighbour as thyself", he notonly failed to appreciate that love cannot be enjoined, but also failed toforesee that, by linking this teaching with the racially lethal precepts of thedecadent Greek, Socrates, his followers would one day make hiscommand doubly unrealizable by debilitating the creatures to whom it was

addressed. In this way the religion that enjoined love of the neighbourupon its believers, ended in ensuring nothing but hate. This, however, in no way completes the charge of deficientpsychological insight against the holy family; for we have yet to considerJesus's attitude to the child. Indeed, for many years it has been my privateopinion that most of the mischief due to excessive child adulation andchild spoiling, which has at last culminated in well-nigh suppressingdiscipline in all Christian communities, has sprung from Jesus' allegedremark in Matthew xix. 14: "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to

come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." To the faithful, who could hardly be expected to dismiss it as a young,inexperienced bachelor's shot in the dark, this remark has meant centuriesof the most disastrous misunderstandings and distortions of juvenilepsychology. Narrowly scrutinized by anyone with a tolerably retentivememory, it reveals itself at once as an amiable fiction; for, if the traditionalview of the

- p. 50 -

kingdom of heaven be accepted as correct and the years of childhood areaccurately remembered, it is obvious that the child, even the most normaland civilized, would be quite out of place in it. Thus the human world could only accept Jesus's statement aboutchildren as true, if it had utterly forgotten the period of its immaturity. Given some knowledge of the new psychology and the presentscientific view of children, we must conclude that when Jesus spoke aboutchildren's fitness for the kingdom of heaven, he was either utterly ignorantof children's true nature, or else had in mind a region completely

abandoned to amorality — i.e. where everyone displayed habitualaggressiveness, sadism, duplicity, cunning, obscenity, sexual curiosityand play, hate, vindictiveness and homicidal jealousy, compounded withegoism, egotism, mendacity and the reckless exercise of the will to power-not to mention coprophil ia, coprolangia and other strange traits, all ofwhich normal (not merely average) children are known to display. Nor am I here referring to mere infants, but to children up to seven oreight years of age, in whom scientific psychology has found all the above-mentioned traits more or less conspicuously manifested. (For abundantscientific documentation of these statements which, to the uniniatedEnglish reader will seem at least startling, if not actually malicious, see myThe Child: An Adult's Problem , 1948.) We have therefore to choose between accepting the view of akingdom of heaven as a repository of souls anathematized by all we knowof traditional Christian morality, in which case Matthew xix. 14 has somevalidity; or else as a place fit only for the haute volée of Christian "good



people", in which case Matthew xix. 14 is nonsense. Unfortunately for the Christian world, it appears from the earliest daysnever to have understood Jesus as holding the first view, which is the onlyone that would have made sense of his remark. On the contrary, inferringfrom the fact that Satan had been fired from the kingdom of heaven, that itcould be no place for creatures anything like him, Christians everywherefavoured the second view and consequently concluded that children must

be, if not actually saints, at least angelic enough to be candidates forcanonization.

- p. 51 - We have but to read the Apocalypse of Peter , of the year A.D. 170, tofind that this was so even at that early date. Heaven is there described asa place where, apart from its divine hosts, only such souls as hadbelonged to "high priests" and "righteous men" could be encountered. Nordid St. Paul, or the Church Fathers, from Clement to Augustine, hold anyother view. It is true that Augustine in his Confessions admits having seen some

disquieting traits in children, incompatible with Jesus's estimate of them.He therefore tries to smooth over the difficulty by suggesting that thepopular idea that children are "innocent" was to be understood, not as adisinclination to hurt and harm, but as a physical, or merely muscular,inability to implement the inclination to hurt and harm. And he supports thissuggestion with evidence that might have been lifted almost word for wordout of works by Aichhorn, Miss Susan Isaacs, or Freud himself (seetranslation by William Watts, 1912 Loeb Classical Library, Book I. Chap.VII).

But St. Augustine is an exception among the Church Fathers andeven among Christians in general, and we can only assume that hissurprising honesty accounted for unguarded remarks of the kind I havequoted. In any case, the Christian world that has had access to the HolyScriptures very naturally argued as follows: "As heaven is a place whitheronly the pure and the rigid observers of Christian morals can expect to go,children who, according to Jesus, are its natural personae gratae , must bespotless and innocent." This conclusion was certainly contingent on completely forgetting

one's own childhood and one's childhood's contemporaries. But badmemory for unpleasant truths is not uncommon and, as psychologicalinsight is a rare gift, it is not astonishing that Jesus's remark about childrenshould have grown by tradition into meaning that children are morallysuperior to adults — a belief still widely held by English spinsters inparticular (unconsciously revealed by the awed tones with which theyusually address young children) and by all puritans. For Jesus's statementappears to such people to be abundantly borne out by the single fact thatchildren are supposed to know nothing of our "dirty secrets". In any case, Wordsworth, like the whole of his generation, wascompletely hoodwinked by Jesus's remark and, in his Intimations of

Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood (1806),

- p. 52 -which, if we forget its false psychology, must strike us as one of the finestpoems in the English language, assured his generation that, "Heaven lies



about us in our infancy", and that as children we "trail clouds of glory" from"God who is our home". But, in addressing his fellow men and women withthis poem, he was preaching to the converted; for hardly anyone inEngland in those days doubted the truth of Jesus's pronouncement. Thirty-three years before Wordsworth's famous poem was published.Dr. Johnson, thanks probably to his prodigious memory, had all in vainflatly contradicted Jesus's dictum and thus, by anticipation, denied theWordsworthian view of children (B. 14.9.1773). But, for some reason orother, nobody appears to have taken the slightest notice of Johnson's

remark. It is even possible that, when he made it, even he himself wasunaware of having joined issue with the founder of his religion. Not untilsome threescore years after Johnson's death did a shrewder reader of thehuman, and above all of the child's, heart than ever Wordsworth was,openly contradict the latter, although he too did so in vain; for the readingpublic in every age asks only for the confirmation of its many illusions andsuperstitions. Thus, when Browning published his Soul's Tragedy , eventhe bare handful of English readers of poetry were not moved to modifytheir assumptions about children. Besides, how in 1846 could Browning,

unsupported by the scientific psychology that has since established hispoint of view, avail against Wordsworth standing on the New Testament?Spencer in 1861, in Chapter III of his Education , certainly lent Browningpowerful support; but at a time when psychological insight was perhaps atits lowest ebb, what could he do against Jesus and Wordsworth? It was probably about the same time, or only a very little later, thatEugène Delacroix in Paris, voiced much the same view as Johnson,Browning and Spencer about children and, although we know the Frenchto be gifted psychologists, Delacroix no doubt owed much of his

psychological flair to his father, Talleyrand, just as Browning probablyowed his to his German mother. At all events, Baudelaire quotes the famous French painter as saying:"Je me souviens fort bien que quand j'étais enfant j'étais un monstre . . . ce

n'est que par la douleur, le châtiment, et par l'exercice progressif de la

raison que l'homme diminue peu à peu sa méchanceté naturelle"

(L'Oeuvre et la vie d'Eugène

- p. 53 -

Delacroix , 1863. "I remember very well that, as a child, I was a monster . . .only through suffering, through being punished for one's trespasses, andthrough the exercise of reason, does man reduce by little and li ttle hisnatural wickedness"). Commenting on this passage, Baudelaire says, "ainsi, par le simple

bon sens, il faisait un retour sur l'idée catholique, car on peut dire que

l'enfant en général est relativement à l'homme en général, beaucoup plus

rapproché du péché original" (Ibid . "Thus, by sheer common sense, he[i.e., Delacroix] reverted to the Catholic point of view; for it may well besaid that children in general, compared with men in general, stand muchcloser to Original Sin"). It is impossible now to dwell on the enormous amount of injury thedivine error in psychology which we have been considering has done tosocial l ife, especially in England and America. Suffice it to say that, bymaking children sacrosanct and representing them as morally superior toadults, whereby the adult's sense of authority has been undermined, it has



led to scandalous excesses in paedolatry and child-spoiling, with theresult that an end has been put to all proper discipl ine both in the homeand elsewhere. For the discoveries and doctrines of modern psychology,with their confirmation of Johnson, Browning, Spencer, Delacroix andBaudelaire, and their refutation of Wordsworth, have not yet spreadbeyond a limited circle; and meanwhile every puritan in England andAmerica, like every ignoramus elsewhere, continues to look on Jesus'smisleading view of the matter as final and conclusive. Perhaps the oddestfeature of at least the English situation in regard to this capital error about

the child, is the fact that Wordsworth actually described his great butwholly mistaken poem as written "From Recollections of Early Childhood";so that he added the faults of a feeble memory to the cardinalpsychological fault of his deity. Be this as it may, it can hardly be claimed that psychological insight isa strong point with the Holy Family, and although this aspect of Christianmyth and teaching is never dwelt upon by Rationalists and Agnostics, itsurely cannot be denied that the few grave errors in psychology which Ihave shown to have been committed by the Christian gods constitute,

apart from any other considerations, a serious objection to the claim thatChristianity has been supernaturally revealed.

- p. 54 - Referring to the Bible, Will iam James suggests that it would bepossible in the light of one theory of revelation to "allow that a book maywell be a revelation in spite of errors and passions and deliberate humancomposition, if only it be a true record of the inner experiences of great-souled persons wrestling with the crises of their fate" (V.R.E. Lecture I).

But, however ready we might be to concede this point when the errorsin question are traceable to human ignorance, we surely cannot do sowhen these errors are, as I have shown, not only those of the divine sourceof the alleged revelation itself, but have also formed an essential andprecious part of the very teaching peculiar to the religion founded by thatdivine source. To this the reader may object that even the errors which Ihave here attributed to the deity and his putative son, might also be humanin origin and result from either false reporting or inaccurate transcriptionsof reports. True enough! But, in that case, there is an end to scriptural

authority for any doctrine whatsoever, and we can no longer rely on theaccuracy of any statement attributed to the deity himself, whethercompatible or not with modern knowledge; and the claim that our religionand the scriptures constituting its authority are revealed ceases to haveany validity. Since, moreover, James never specifies the sort of errors thatfall short of discrediting the claim that a book has been supernaturallyrevealed, and certainly makes no allusion to the psychological errors onthe part of the Holy Family, to which I have called attention, his plea maysafely be dismissed as unimportant except as it relates to the kind of errorsin Holy Writ to which Rationalists chiefly allude.

- p. 55 -Chapter IV

Christianity Not the Thoughtful Man's Religion — II



In Chapter II it was shown how falsely restricted is that view of religionwhich identifies it with a particular code of morals and thereby overlooksits essential feature — man's relationship to the power or powers behindphenomena; and the implication was that the mind capable of holding thisfalse view must be unable to imagine the awfulness of the invisibleinfluences at work in the wings, as it were, of the world stage. Yet, no onewho has lived in a Protestant country can fail to have noticed theimpressive regularity with which people adopt this view, especially if they

are Nonconformists, among whom its popularity is due, in addition to thesources already suggested, probably to some extent to their Puritanism,their tendency to use morality as a means of hindering the expression ofevery normal human passion and the satisfaction of every normal humanappetite. A long acquaintance with such people who, nowadays in England atleast, are preponderatingly "lower middle class", compels the conclusionthat with them, as with the sophist, Socrates, morality is an obsession. Itprovides them with an ideal cathartic for relieving their unconscious, pent-

up hatred and envy of their fellow-men; a weapon with which to tormentthem without incurring the risk of retaliation. For even at the hands of anonlooking crowd, a moral persecutor of his neighbour runs little risk ofeither censure or abuse. Thus Puritans can bask securely in the glow ofsocial approbation whilst freely venting man's common but secret hatred ofmankind. For, as Pascal once observed: "Tous les hommes se haïssent

naturellement" (P. Ière Partie, Article IX. ix), and many years later Humeremarked, "In general i t may be affirm'd that there is no such passion inhuman minds as the love of mankind" (A Treatise of Human Nature , Book

III, Part II, Sect. I). No wonder Puritans

- p. 56 -revere morality with fervour and set it above what is the major factor in alltrue religion. Aware of this unpleasant feature of Puritanism, Macaulay denied thatPuritan wrath at bear-baiting was prompted by humanitarian feeling.Puritans hated it, he says, "not because i t gave pain to the bear, butbecause it gave pleasure to the spectators". (History of England , Ed. 1849,

Vol. I. Chap. II). Despite what has often been alleged about Puritan hypocrisy andinsincerity, moreover, Puritans as a body were not invariably two-faced intheir insistence on their self-denying moral code. Apart from a fewTartuffes, on the whole they practised what they preached and were aspainstaking in blighting their own as other people's lives. And this is stillso, as may be seen, above all, in their own sex-relations. For the fact that,in their restrictive lusts as occult misanthropists, they naturally pay mostheed to man's deepest and most urgent passion, cannot have escapedanyone familiar with their character. Indeed, the very word "Puritan" hasnow come to bear a chiefly sex-phobic connotation. Seizing on those features of Christianity which suggest hostility tosex, they use them to thwart and harass their fellows where they knowfrustration most hurts, and in this they usually exceed the severity withwhich they restrict gastronomical and other pleasures. Yet when we studytheir own way of life we have to acknowledge that, in the choice of their



partners in sexual pastimes and in the choice and preparation of their food,they spare themselves as little as they do their fellow-men. From the time of Cromwell the inferiority of their culinary arts has beenproverbial (see A Short History of Social Life in England , by M. B. Synge,1906, Chap. XVI), and the Englishwoman's black record as a cook mayperhaps with justice be ascribed to the fact that in England the moralclimate has for centuries, independently of denominational differences,been tainted with Puritanism. The self-denial in venery, which the Puritan tries to force on his fellow-

men, however, he imposes no less rigorously on himself. Indeed, few whohave lived among low church. Nonconformist and dissenting communitiesin England, can have failed to notice the painful regularity with which themen choose their spouses less for their sex-appeal than for theirqualification to wean them from venery altogether. It is as if the Puritan,obsessed with the Lord's disapproval of sexual intercourse, hoped

- p. 57 -to mitigate his Maker's wrath by demonstrating beyond a doubt that he had

done all he could reasonably be expected to do to make his carnalsatisfactions as unpleasant as possible. For, when we see the kind ofwomen whom, especially in rural areas, he is wont to take to his bosomand make the mother of his children, we hardly know which to admire themore, the intensity of his religious zeal or the courage of his carnal lust. Be this as it may, whilst Christian doctrine, except according toJames, the Jansenists and Protestants in general, can hardly be helddirectly responsible for the prevalent view, in countries professing theReformed Faith, that religion is only morality, no doubt whatsoever exists

about the deep Christian roots of the sex-phobia that has polluted Westerncivilization for the last two thousand years. Indeed, this charge is amongthe more prominent that modern historians and sociologists usually bringagainst the religion; and although, as we shall see, it may not be thegravest, it is sufficiently important and peculiar to Christianity to justify, byitself alone, serious doubts concerning the alleged supernaturalprovenance of the religion. When Nietzsche declared that Christianity had "made somethingimpure of sexuality and defiled the very source and quintessential

condition of our life" (The Twilight of the Idols , Sect. 10, 4), he said nomore than the plain truth. Bertrand Russell, referring to the consequencesof Christianity's sex-phobia, observes, "Almost every adult in a Christiancommunity is more or less diseased nervously as a result of the taboos onsex knowledge when he or she is young" (Rationalist Annual , 1930).Heine, from whom Nietzsche undoubtedly obtained many a valuable hintconcerning this and other aspects of Christianity, says of it: "Being unableto do away altogether with material and earthly things, Christianity haseverywhere tarnished and defiled them. It has disparaged and slanderedthe noblest pleasures, so that mankind's sensuality, obliged to dissemble,led to the birth of falsehood and sin. . . . According to the Christianstandpoint the material side of life is evil per se , which, after all, is veritablynot only slander but hideous blasphemy" (D. Buch II: "Das Christentum,

unfähig die Materie zu vernichten, hat sie überall fletriert, es hat die

adelsten Genüsse herabgewürdigt, und die Sinne müssten heucheln, und

es entstand Lüge und Sünde. . . . Nach ihrer Weltanschauung ist die



Materie an und für sich böse, was doch wahrlich eine Verleumdung ist,

eine entsetzliche

- p. 58 -Gotteslästerung" ). In an earlier work, Heine, speaking of Christianity, says,"in one of its first dogmata, there is a damnation of all flesh; and it not onlygrants the spirit supremacy over the flesh, but would also fain deaden theflesh altogether in order to exalt the spirit" (Die Romantische Schule , 1833:"Ich spreche von jener Religion, in deren ersten Dogmen eine Verdamnis

alles Fleisches enthalten ist, und die dem Geiste nicht bloss eine

Obermacht über das Fleisch zugesteht, sondern auch dieses abtödten

will, um den Geist zu verherrlichen" ). But the witnesses to this prurient and negative character ofChristianity are legion and the charge they make now is a commonplace.Yet many English divines and Christian apologists, staking on theignorance and gullibili ty of the majority, have in recent years strivenanxiously to defend Christianity against the charge. Aware of the markedchange that has come over public opinion during the last few decades,

precisely on the proper attitude to the sexual l ife — a change to no smallextent due to the wide dissemination of the new psychology, supported bya general revolt against the Puritanism of Victorian England — thesedivines and Christian apologists, wishing to shield the Church and its faithfrom the unpopularity likely to be incurred by a continued enforcement ofChristianity's traditional sex-phobia, have for many years now had thedisingenuousness to maintain that no religion on earth has been moreconsistently broadminded and liberal concerning sexuality thanChristianity itself.

A typical example of these intrepid, last-minute efforts to rescue thefaith is Christopher Dawson's Christianity and Sex (1930), where thechampionship of Christianity against Bertrand Russell 's attacks, thoughunlikely to impress anyone except a fanatical partisan, is undertaken withall the resources of a skilled debater, conscious of addressing a none toolearned or critical audience. Another is G. W. Coutts's The Church and the

Sex Question (1926), in which the author tries to dodge the whole issue byconcentrating on Jesus's ipsissima verbs alone. But even were we ready to debate the point with Mr. Coutts on his

own chosen ground and abide strictly by what Jesus is reported to havesaid, the argument in his book would receive but scant support; for, on theauthority of St. Matthew (xix. 12), we are assured that Jesus once said,"There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for thekingdom of heaven's sake."

- p. 59 - Assuming that he ever said something of the kind, we naturally askhow could he have admitted such a possibility unless it had seemed tohim at least feasible? Like most Christians in a similar dilemma, Mr. Couttstries to burke the issue by pleading that the words do not mean what theyread as meaning. But, apart from the fact that, on that principle, any specialpleader is at liberty to put whatever interpretation he fancies, however far-fetched, on every passage in the Bible, who is likely to be least mistakenin this matter, Mr. Coutts, desperately holding on to a position he knows tobe sapped by the ceaseless flow of well-documented criticism, or St.



Cyprian who, far from being on the defensive, felt secure in his orthodoxy?At all events it was the saint who took every word of Jesus's statement asreported in Matthew xix. 12 so literally that upon it he based his plea forcelibacy and rigid continency (see Treatise of St. Cyprian on the Dress of

Virgins , trans. by Rev. Ch. Thornton, p. 118). Dr. Cyril Alington is another who labours to persuade us thatChristianity beams benignly on human sexuality, and, in replying to thecharge of sex-phobia against his religion, says in effect: "Nonsense! Thatis all vieux jeu. Christianity now takes a wholly different view." Then, rather

disingenuously, he sums up his denial by saying, "No sane Christiantoday shares the horror of any sexual relationship" (The Fool Hath Said ,1933, pp. 124–125). Then are we to assume that most, if not all, Christian missionaries areinsane? For we should have liked to ask Dr. Alington when this allegedChristian volte-face took place and on whose authority it was performed.Turn to the reports about missionaries now engaged in spreading the verycreed your Alingtons, Inges, Couttses and Dawsons try to defend, and youfind that no matter what may be the attitude of apologists arduously striving

to acquit their religion of the charge of sex-phobia, their attitude is certainlynot shared by their representatives abroad, who still cling fanatically to atleast that aspect of sex phobia made up of an abhorrence of the organs ofsex. They still teach the innocent savage to feel ashamed of theprocreative organs given him by the God he is invited to worship. They stillteach the women of Africa, Melanesia and Polynesia to conceal thebreasts given them by the Christian God to suckle their offspring —"Cachez ce sein que je ne saurais voir. Cela fait venir de coupables

pensées!" And this teaching is so consistent that,

- p. 60 -even in the tropics, their efforts to make the savage shroud his nakedness,and the diseases this causes, are a constant source of complaint on thepart of explorers, anthropologists and ethnologists. Is this perhaps whyMary Kingsley "was convinced that the teaching of the missionaries [inAfrica] did more harm than good"? (See Oliver Campbell's Mary Kingsley ,1957, especially Chap. VI. See also: Felix Bryk, Neger Eros , 1928, pp. 6,51–52; J. R. Baker, Depopulation in Espirita Santo, New Hebrides , Journ.

Roy. Anthrop. Inst. VIII. p. 79; the Rev. W. J. Durrad's Essays on the Depopulation of Melanesia , 1922, pp. 8–10; and W. A. Robinson's Deep

Water and Shoal , 1932, Chap. XVIII; and many besides.) More recent testimony to the same effect wil l be found in Blackwood's

Magazine for October 1958, where in an article entitled "The Fort", bySurgeon Commander A. G. Bee, we are told that, "Missions are horrifiedby nakedness." The author says, "I do not know why"; but if he had studiedChurch history and its long record of sex-phobia, he would haveunderstood. Referring to the mission of Iambi, he says, "One day themissionaries sent word to the chiefs that every adult, male and female,must buy a yard of 'Americani', American cloth, and wear it in Christiandecency. The chiefs took necessary action, and everyone bought a lengthof cloth. Coming proudly to the mission upon occasions, each wore asmart turban and every part except the head was bare, every charmexposed both fore and aft, jingling with rings to give them emphasis." This testimony, read in conjunction with Dr. Alington's cry of "vieux



jeu!" shows to what desperate shifts Christian apologists are driven, evenbefore an ill-informed gallery, when trying to exculpate their faith of thecharge of sex-phobia. If capable of thought at all, theirs could be butslovenly; but if capable of anything better, they must deserve a moredamaging charge; because, apart from the evidence of the Scriptures,even a superficial acquaintance with European history can leave no one inany doubt that Christianity has always frowned on sex and sexualintercourse. From the story of the Fall of Man to the idea of the ImmaculateConception as related in the New Testament, we are repeatedly made to

feel that sexual intercourse is rather disreputable, impure, not to betolerated for the procreation of any creature reputed to be holy. As Dr. J. F.Hecker remarks, There can be no doubt that organized religion knowsitself to

- p. 61 -be on the defensive" (R.A.C. Chap. IV); and only this fact can account forthe frequently disingenuous efforts of modern churchmen to repudiateperfectly legitimate charges made against their religion. Their denial of

Christian sex-phobia is only one among many such repudiations. "Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceiveme" (Psalm li. 5). Whether David wrote this or not is immaterial, for whatconcerns us is to note the strong strain of sex-phobia that informs thepassage. But if David did write it, it is such a gratuitous vilification ofhuman procreation — because as far as we know David was the childneither of a common prostitute nor of a debauchee father — as to compelthe inference that Puritnaism was an early manifestation among thepeople from whom the Founder of Christianity derived. Nor can the fact

that Christianity ultimately inherited this Semitic Puritanism be denied byany candid churchman. John Cowper Powys maintains that the OldTestament "suggests no ascetic implication that the pleasures of sex areunlawful" (P.O.L. Chap. "The Bible as Literature"). He evidently hadforgotten both the story of the Fall and Psalm 51, to mention no otherpassages. Logan Pearsall Smith records that his great-great grandmother, whohad nine children, wrote in her diary in the years 1760–62: "If it is a sin toget children, how comes so much of it is done? It is a great mystery to me"

(Reperusals and Recollections , 1936, Chap. VIII). Her hardly surprisingperplexity reveals the extent to which verse 5 of Psalm 51 expresses asentiment evidently widely inculcated in Christian England of theeighteenth century. "It is good for a man not to touch a woman", said one of Christianity'searliest saints; "it is good for a man to remain a virgin", and "he who givesa woman in marriage does well; but he who gives her not in marriage doesbetter". (I Corinthians vii. i, 26, 32). St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (A.D.340–397), solemnly declared that, "Every married woman knows she hascause to blush with shame" (quoted in P. J. Proudhon's Amour et Mariage ,1860, Dixième Étude, Chap. V. XLV). So deep is Christianity's sex-phobia,that even the custom of eating fish on holy days and fast days owes itsexistence to the fact that, as fish do not copulate, they are held to be freefrom the foulness that pollutes all animals quae copulatione generantur.

Thousands of early Christians, moreover, who took Jesus's



- p. 62 -words in Matthew XIX. 12 quite literally (as they were perfectly entitled todo when there were no Couttses, Dr. Alingtons, and Dean Inges to tellthem that Jesus did not mean them to be taken literally), proceededwithout delay to carry them into practice and, among the leaders of theChurch, Origen (A.D. 185–253) was the first to castrate himself for thekingdom of heaven's sake. Indeed, such was the enthusiasm of thesevolunteer eunuchs that it actually became necessary to forbid theirextreme application of Christ's words, lest the Church's congregation

should wholly disappear. But this did not prevent sex-phobia fromcontinuing to infect the faith and, according to the Christian Fathers,original sin was declared to be nothing more or less than concupiscence,or carnal passion. Methodus of Olympus, who came after Origen, taughtthat the cunning serpent had excited man to the sin of concupiscence, andhe gave no other account of original sin (Otten: Manual of the History of the

Dogmas , Vol. I, p. 360). Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Pation of Barcelona — allregarded St. Paul's sentiments in Romans viii. 6 and 8, as essential to a

proper Christian attitude of mind. Sextus Philosophus, of the third century,openly recommended castration to everybody, and as late as the twelfthcentury, Robert Pulleyn, Peter Lombard and Pope Innocent II followedAugustine in holding that concupiscence was the root of all evil. TheCouncil of Trent (1545–63) settled the matter for the whole future of theCatholic Church when it set virginity and celibacy above matrimony (seeCanon X). Nor did Protestantism improve the position. On the contrary, it made itworse; for, in its ugliest creation, the Puritans, it produced a sect whose

most bitter regret was that, at the creation, they had not been at God's sideto suggest a more drawing-roomy method of propagating species than theone he proposed to use. Indeed, Martin Luther's poor opinion of this aspectof the creation found emphatic expression, for on one occasion, he said,"Had God consulted me in the matter [of human procreation] I should haveadvised him to continue the generation of the species by fashioning themwith clay in the way Adam was fashioned" (T.T. DCCL. II. p. 307). This one feature of Christianity, as Bertrand Russell implies, wroughtuntold havoc in the Western world. Besides causing widespread individual

misery and frustration, it has filled our

- p. 63 -asylums, multiplied the occasions for domestic strife and incompatibility,branded with shame and infamy the exercise of a natural andindispensable function, together with the normal passions that promoteand accompany it; and, what is perhaps worst of all, supplied the enemiesof their species with the means both subtle and ruthless wherewith tooppress and torment their fellows without any risk of incurring condignretribution. Although it may not, as we shall see, constitute the gravamenof the enlightened man's charge against Christianity, it would aloneabundantly justify his gravest doubts concerning the claim advanced bychurchmen that their religion was supernaturally revealed and is stilldivinely led.



- p. 64 -Chapter V

Christianity Not the Thoughtful Man's Religion — III

In the previous chapter it was suggested that the most serious chargeagainst Christianity still remained to be stated and in this and the ensuingchapters a summary will be made of the modern thinker's conclusivereasons for rejecting the old religion both as an interpretation of the

unseen powers behind phenomena, as a description of our relation withthem and as a guide to mankind's way of life. As many of the reasons advanced to support this most serious chargemay strike the average reader as strange and not even adumbrated by thegenerally familiar attacks made by the Rationalists, the present argumentmay suffer from all the drawbacks which naturally attend the uncustomaryand unprecedented. For, in the history of anti-Christian thought, variousforms of hostile criticism are found, not all of which have reached thegeneral public of any civil ized country, and some of which appear for the

first time in these pages, or in works of mine already published (see, forinstance, my Choice of a Mate , 1935; and Enemies of Women , 1948). The best-known form of attack, popularized in innumerablepublications throughout the nineteenth century, especially during its latterhalf and after, is that adopted by Thomas Huxley in his controversy withDr. Wace. It confines itself to casting doubt on the authenticity of theScriptures, on Christian dogma and legends, and concludes by statingwhy Agnosticism is the only honest and tenable attitude towardstranscendental problems. Incidentally, it denies the divinity of Jesus (some

Rationalists, including J. M. Robertson, deny even his historicity) without,however, adducing many of the compelling reasons which I have alreadystated in Chapter III supra; and questions all the alleged miraculous eventsconnected with his name, including, of course, his birth and resurrection.

- p. 65 - It is essential, however, to note the significant fact that none of theseRationalist attacks ever go beyond questioning the supernatural claims ofthe religion. They never impugn its morality. On the contrary, afterdemolishing all the mythical and metaphysical ground-work of the religion,they not only leave Christian morals unassailed, but also usually advocatethem and endeavour to establish them on a sounder and morephilosophical foundation than that of their alleged divine provenance. Inpursuing this end, moreover, they resort to every possible device, andwhilst some have tried to prove the validity of these morals by ascribingthem to an innate "moral sense", or to expediency and utility, others havetried to base them upon a so-called "categorical imperative", or on theneeds created by man's social existence. But all, without exception,endeavour, as the Rev. the Right Hon. Professor R. Corkey expresses it,

"to discover sure foundations for our ethical principles ". (H. Oct. 1958). In other words, despite their unbelief, Rationalists, like churchmen,take the morality of Christianity for granted as the only morality. So deeplyingrained have become the impulses, judgments and prejudicesconditioned by two millenniums of Christian indoctrination, that they tendto infer from their subconscious readiness to think and feel in a Christianly



moral manner that Christian morality is self-evident and needs only to beplaced, as Professor Corkey says, on "sure foundations" in order tobecome acceptable to all mankind. To this extent was Macaulay justifiedwhen he said, "To almost all men the state of things under which theyhave been used to live seems to be the necessary state of things". (Essayon Southey's Colloquies on Society , 1830). But the reader may object that, if Macaulay is right in this, why wereeven the supernatural and mythical aspects of Christianity assailed? Thiswas most probably owing to the fact that whereas recent scientific

discoveries, popularized in thousands of publications, have informedmodern mankind of the increasing incredibility of the lore and myth ofChristianity, no equivalent scientific discoveries have so plainly exposedthe doubtfulness of either the authority, validity, or desirability of Christianmorals. Thus the task of recognizing and upholding this form of scepticismwas necessarily left to thinkers penetrating and independent enough toapproach Christian morals, unin-

- p. 66 -

fluenced by the forces to which Macaulay called our attention. But suchmen are inevitably rare and unlikely to be popular; or, if popular, liable toforfeit public esteem when they question what their fellow-men regard ashallowed by custom and tradition. The few, however, who did have thecourage to incur this kind of unpopularity reasoned more or less asfollows: "It was unlikely that much harm could overtake people who cared tobelieve in fairy-tales. Provided they could keep sane, where was thedanger in believing — say, in a Holy Ghost, in the Holy Trinity, in Jesus's

virgin birth, in his divinity and resurrection, and in an almighty, all-knowingGod, whose anger over the sins of his own creatures could be appeasedby the death after prolonged torture of his beloved and only-begotten son?If they did not adversely affect his conduct, what harm could such beliefspossibly do a man?" "But was the case the same with Christian morals? Could mankindwith the same impunity believe in and practise them? Were these moralsconducive to human prosperity and to the perpetuation of humanity in adesirable form? Or did they affect humanity unfavourably? If they did, then

all the pother about the supernatural aspects of the creed was insignificantcompared with the more vital question concerning the wisdom and safetyof continuing to believe in and practise Christian morality." Among the first to argue in this way was Heinrich Heine, and althoughhe never stated it as explicitly as it is stated in the foregoing paragraphs,he set forth its essentials plainly enough to enable others to follow hislead. (see D. Erstes Buch , where he animadverts on the unwholesomestress Christianity lays on the attributes of the "soul", its correspondingneglect of bodily considerations, and the general "hospital atmosphere" —Lazarethluft — it has consequently spread throughout Europe). What, above all, he placed on record as early as 1834 was hisdiscovery that the Rationalists were really barking up the wrong tree and,whilst busily discarding one transcendental feature of Christianity afteranother, continued to cling tenaciously to its least desirable aspect — itsmorality. (D. zweites Buch , where in discussing Christianity and theRationalist attitude to it, he says: "Zuerst wurde ihr [i.e., Christianity] zur



Ader gelassen, alles abergläubische Blut wurde ihr langsam abgezapt; um

mich bildlos auszudrücken, es wurde der Versuch gemacht, allen

historischen Inhalt aus dem Christentume heraus-

- p. 67 -zunehmen und nur den moralischen Teil zu bewahren." "At firstChristianity was bled and all its superstitious blood was slowly drainedaway. In fact, to drop metaphor, the attempt was made to rid it of all itshistorical content and to retain only its morals.")

These pioneer criticisms of the Rationalist attitude on Heine's part areworthy of the highest praise; for he blazed a trail which it would have beenwell for Europe and, above all, for England to have followed.Unfortunately, it was not until Spencer (who as far as I know had neverread Heine) appeared in England, and Nietzsche (who had both readHeine and pillaged him without acknowledgment) appeared in Germany,some forty to fifty years later, that Heine's valuable hints bore any fruit. Spencer was certainly the first Englishman who, whilst undoubtedlybelonging to the Rationalist school, yet had enough originality to question

those elements in Christian morality which, by neglecting biologicalconsiderations, placed those ulteriorly endowed on an equal footing, asregards worthiness, with the superiorly endowed, and thus inaugurated theprinciple of sacrificing the greater to the less. Because, in the end, thispolicy did in fact burden the biologically superior with the dead weight ofhuman defectives and unfortunates of all kinds. In addition, by elevating,promoting and cherishing them at the cost of the sound and biologicallydesirable, this policy naturally helped the undesirable to survive andmultiply.

Perceiving this deplorable consequence of Christian morality, whichthe Rationalists, far from recognizing and condemning, actually defended.Spencer at least sounded a warning note. It was not a rousing call,calculated to summon his generation to reluctant but instant attention, andits importance has not been appreciated by the majority even to this day.But, considering the age in which it was uttered, it was a courageouspronouncement and may account for his not having been buried inWestminster Abbey. That it was allowed to pass unnoticed shows howdeeply subconscious two thousand years of Christian indoctrination had

caused Christian modes of reasoning and judging to become in the peopleof the Western world. So spontaneous and impulsive are such modes ofreasoning and judging in modern men and women, that when anunusually profound anti-Christian note happens to be struck, hardlyanyone ever catches, understands, or attempts to act upon it. In the 'seventies of last century. Spencer wrote: "Any arrange-

- p. 68 -ments which in a considerable degree prevent superiority from profiting bythe rewards of superiority, or shield inferiority from the evils it entails —any arrangements which tend to make it as well to be inferior as to besuperior, are arrangements diametrically opposed to the progress oforganization and the reaching of a higher life" (Data of Ethics , 1879, Chap.XI). In a later work, he wrote: "A society which takes for its maxim, 'It shallbe as well for you to be inferior as to be superior', wil l inevitablydegenerate and die away in long-drawn miseries" (Principles of Ethics ,



1891–92, Vol. II. p. 281). The fact that the maxim Spencer here condemns is now put intopractice by all societies observing Christian morals, and nowhere withgreater recklessness than in present-day England, and the fact that thesource of the said maxim lies in the over-emphasis Christianity lays on"soul", at the cost of body attributes, makes this passage in the SyntheticPhilosophy one of the boldest pioneer assaults on Christian morality. For,in applying the principle of disregarding bodily attributes in assessinghuman worth, Christianity tends to promote policies which, by furthering

the welfare and multiplication of the biologically ill-favoured and unsound,in the end cause the deterioration of human stocks. Because, even if thepresence of the army of defectives does not contaminate and infect thesounder elements (which is doubtful), it handicaps them, imposes limits ontheir capacity to multiply, and thus jeopardizes their survival. Theinsensible decline of Christianity as a living faith, into a mere moralinfluence signalized chiefly by exorbitant benevolence towards thebungled and the botched, is probably what Macneile Dixon had in mindwhen he wrote: "Christianity or what remains of it . . . is fast melting, if it

has not wholly evaporated, into humanitarianism." (T.H.S. Chap. II). Spencer recognized this evil and tried in vain to rouse indignationabout it. As this was a century ago, and its effect on the thought andsentiment of the English people has to this day remained undetectable, weobtain some idea of the grip one of the most harmful of Christianinfluences has fastened on the minds of civilized mankind. For, in thisconnection, it is important to remember that millions of the very people whotoday may be classed as unbelievers, nevertheless profess their whole-hearted approval of the maxim Spencer selects for his particular

reprobation. To this extent have the morals of Christianity

- p. 69 -survived its metaphysics and legends in the hearts of modern Europeans.John Cowper Powys is one of the few Englishmen who seems to beaware of this fact. Speaking of the "undertones and overtones" of PaulineChristianity, in which "all we Western nations are, willy-nilly, soaked", headds that this is true of "unbelievers often more completely than believers".(P.O.L. Chap. VII).

By diverting the eye and the taste of mankind from the visibleattributes of a fellow-being, and by minimizing the significance of thesevisible attributes, the insistence on soul qualities alone necessarilyprotected the ill constituted from the aloofness, not to say the repudiation,which, both in ordinary human intercourse and, above all, in matrimony,would otherwise have caused them to be eschewed as procreators of therace. One has but to observe the marked frequency with which "love"today stages dysgenic and obviously undesirable matings, in order toappreciate the extent to which the undue stress on soul qualities numbsmodern people's sensibilities towards all those physical stigmata,blemishes, defects, which, under a wholesome regimentation of taste and

judgment, would provoke aversion and repugnance. Among the most disastrous results of Christianity's disregard ofbiological attributes in the estimation of human worth, has been Westernmankind's adoption of the exact converse of the farmer's point of view andpractice. Instead of uprooting and discouraging the weeds and noxious



growths in order to spare, protect, and avoid the sacrifice of the noblermore valuable plants, we allow the weeds to flourish and multiply, alwaysat the cost of the more desirable and more promising denizens of thehuman garden. We have conditioned our natures to react compassionatelyto what is misshapen, inferior and defective. Never do we dream ofextending "pity" to those fast-diminishing stocks in the population, which,owing to their biological superiority, constitute the only guarantee we haveof our race being able to survive in a desirable form. The very idea ofchampioning these all-too-rare superior stocks as the husbandman

champions his more valuable plants, because of the dangers and burdensthreatening them from the quarter of weeds and fungi, would evoke nomore than a puzzled stare, even if it did not actually provoke a laugh. Yet ifwe ask why, by what sophisticated reasoning on justice, it should havebecome an accepted

- p. 70 -convention to confine solicitude to the ill-favoured, the unsound and thesuperfluous, even when biologically superior stock are diminishing in our

society, there is but one answer, which is that Christianity enjoins thispractice. John Cowper Powys candidly admits this; yet such is hisunconscious acceptance of the morals of Christianity that he says, the"only real progress our Western humanity has made" has been in thedirection of "pity and sympathy". Never does he appear to see anyanomaly in the fact that this "pity and sympathy" should be concentratedon the sickly, the misshapen and the defective. The same remarks apply to the principle of sacrifice. Why should it beregarded as right and de rigueur always to sacrifice the greater and more

precious to the less, rather than the other way round? Can it be thatChristianity's most sacred symbol — the god nailed to the cross for thesake of the mob — has, as a spectacle contemplated for twenty centuries,at last made Western humanity accept as incontrovertible and self-evidentthe principle i t thus gruesomely illustrates? In his essay (E.E.) Thomas Huxley asks: "What would become of thegarden if the gardener (acting on the 'golden rule', Do as you would bedone by) treated all the weeds and slugs and birds and trespassers as hewould like to be treated if he were in their place?" (Prolegomena, IX). But,

in replying to his own question, as we shall see, he displays so limited anunderstanding of the means whereby, in our advanced civilization, thehusbandman's and the gardener's solicitude for their nobler plants mightbe applied to humanity without any of the violence which he thinksindispensable to such a policy, that he hardly rises above the level of theclassical Rationalist, of whose restricted vision enough has been saidalready. Deeply absorbed by the purely economic condition of the population,and the charitable and legislative measures adopted to allay distress —measures admittedly due to Christian agitators and reformers — themodern world, although emanicipated by Science and Rationalism fromthe thraldom of superstition, never thought of that other form of charitywhich would have consisted in relieving posterity of the burdens,unwholesome influence, and depressing spectacle, of human morbidity,defectiveness and ugliness, which every generation now shamelesslybequeaths to its successors. Even the thought that this duty entails



preventing sound and desirable people from being

- p. 71 -sacrificed to their ill -favoured contemporaries; purging the white races oftheir present biological depravities, and framing measures for theirregeneration — even this thought seems never to have struck the vastmajority, whether in England, France or the United States. The very factthat in England a minute minority movement like that of the Eugenistsmakes no headway and is as good as unknown by the masses, indicates

the extent of public indifference to the kind of charity I have described. I have already mentioned that it was only with the appearance ofNietzsche's works that, after a time-lag of some forty-five years, Heine'svaluable hints concerning the danger of Christian morals were effectivelytaken up; for even if we must deny Nietzsche originality in this matter, itwas he, more than any other European, who clearly perceived the seriousmenace to humanity which, as Heine had pointed out, lurkedunrecognized by the modern world in the morality of Christianity. With extraordinary vividness he grasped that when once unseen and

often merely presumed attributes are allowed to eclipse and supersedevisible attributes in assessing the worth of a human being, the doors wereopened wide to every possible deterioration of human stocks.Henceforward all the tainted, the unwholesome and morbid of the worldwould be held equal or actually superior to the sound and biologicallydesirable. Henceforward the measure of a man's worth would not be thepromise he gave of being able to perpetuate the race in a form desirablefrom both the mental and physical point of view, but the degree of hisconformity to certain "soul" standards, arbitrarily established without any

reference to biological quality. In stirring language, Nietzsche denounced this topsyturvification of allmankind's healthiest instincts and impulses, and with exceptionalbrilliance and an un-German absence of sentimentality, he called Europe'sattention to the danger of a morality consistent with, if not authorized by, St.Paul's ill-considered utterance in Chapter IV of the Second Epistle to theCorinthians: "We [i.e., the Christians] look not at the things which are seen, but atthe things which are unseen; for the things which are seen are temporal;

but the things which are not seen are eternal." Although conditions in respect of health and stamina were alreadyalarming enough in his day, Nietzsche did not live to see the highincidence of morbidity, physical defect and insanity now

- p. 72 -reached in every European country and, above all, in England. He did notknow as we do the endless queues waiting in all the large towns ofWestern Europe for accommodation in hospitals and lunatic asylums. Buthe knew, like Heine, that Lazarethluft would inevitably spread whereverthe morals of Christianity prevailed, and he prophesied that very soon allthe people of the West would be either invalids or invalid-attendants. "We must not embellish or deck out our Christianity," he exclaimed, "ithas waged a deadly war against the higher type of man; it has set a banupon all the fundamental instincts of this type. . . . Christianity has takenthe pan of everything weak, low and ill-favoured; it has made an ideal out



of antagonism to all the self-preservative impulses and promptings ofvigorous, healthy life" (The Antichrist , 5). Elsewhere he says: "The sickly are the great danger of man: not thewicked, not the beasts of prey. They who are ill-shaped, prostrated andwrecked from birth, they, the weakest , are the people who most underminehuman life, who most dangerously poison and question our confidence inlife, in man, in ourselves" (Genealogy of Morals , III, 14). In Thus Spake Zarathustra (XVI; Neighbour Love), the thought of whatmankind's future must be if Christian morals were to continue dominating

us, he expressed as follows: "Do I advise you to love your neighbour? . . . Higher than love for yourneighbour is love of the most remote man of the future; "It is the more distant (your children and your children's children) whohave to pay for your love of your neighbour!" And he concludes his long indictment of the old religion by declaring:"this eternal accusation of Christianity I would fain write on all walls,wherever there are walls. I call Christianity the one great curse, the oneenormous and quintessential perversion. . . . I call it the one immortal

blemish on mankind" (The Antichrist , 62). But it would be a grave error to suppose that Nietzsche's luciddemonstration of Christianity's rôle in favouring the multiplication of the illfavoured and biologically corrupt, and in thus plotting the deterioration ofall human stocks, was taken up with any eagerness — at least in England.Sentimentality, the power of the churches, the indoctrination of centuries,and the influence of the sickly and defective themselves, were tooformidable. The

- p. 73 -very fact that thirty years and more ago, a Church of England prelate wastolerated at the council table of the Eugenic Society, shows, how, even incircles well informed enough to see the need of eugenic propaganda,there was still no understanding of the essentials of the problem. Incidentally, I may mention that when, some three or four decadesago, I was invited to join the society in question and I declined, I gave asmy reason that I saw no chance of realizing the society's aims so long asits council could retain Dean Inge on its board.

Here and there, thinkers have appeared far-seeing enough torecognize the urgency of questioning Christian morals; but they have beentoo few to make much impression, and, except for Bradley, their protestshave been too timid and lacking in candour. Margaret Mead, for instance, in Male and Female (1949, Part II, Chap.IV), acknowledges that "We are trained by our society to keep our bodiesout of our minds". But it is significant that she should say "by our society"and does not dare to mention the exalted religious source and authority forthis training. Dr. G. A. Dorsey is certainly a little more outspoken; for, thirtyone years after Nietzsche's death and a century after Heine published hisDeutschland , he said of the Christians: "their religion was incompatiblewith mens sana in corpore sano. They exalted faith in God above suchhuman qualities as health, loveableness, etc." (C. Chap. IX, v). But by far the most remarkable and penetrating attack on Christianmorals was that made as long ago as 1894 by that most brilliant of Englishphilosophers, F. H. Bradley.



"When we modify and depart from the workings of natural selection,"he said, "I urge that we ought at least to proceed on some kind of principle.. . . The laws of past progress must, I admit, be qualified through progressitself, but it is not likely that these laws have become wholly invalid. And,at any rate, to assume this without grounds seems plainly absurd. But inour morals and politics this absurdity is dominant. . . . We compel thehigher type to stand by helpless and to be outbred by the weaker and thelower, and we force it to contribute itself to the process of its own extrusion. . . on the main point, the suppression of undesirable types, we appear

ready to entrust our destinies to Providence. . . . And we ourselvesdeliberately, we know, may

- p. 74 -frustrate the old providential working . . . if so, in perhaps the supremeproblem of politics, our general frame of mind must be called deplorable. Itis full of blindness, cowardice, superstition and confusion unspeakable. . . .I am disgusted at the inviolable sanctity of the noxious lunatic. The right ofthe individual to spawn without restriction his diseased offspring on the

community, the duty of the State to rear wholesale and without limit anunselected progeny-such duties and rights are to my mind a sheer outrageon Providence. A society that can endorse such things will merit thedegeneracy which it courts". (S.R.P.). When we reflect that this was written by an erudite Englishman who,as far as I am aware, had never heard of Nietzsche's expression of thesame sentiments in similar language, it seems incredible that today, sixtyfour years after Bradley wrote this notable essay, the vast majority of eveneducated English people should still feel no misgivings about the dangers

of Christian morality. For — to single out but one of the old religion'sdisastrous features — the cruelty perpetrated against posterity and thebiologically superior that still manage to survive, by Christian pity for thedefective, the biologically shoddy of all kinds and the demented; surelythis cruelty should suffice to make all rational humanitarians at leastdubious about the religion. There have of course been others who have voiced views similar toBradley's; but none who has equalled, much less surpassed, the cogencyand passion of his protest. The nearest approach to his sentiments is to be

found in Professor William McDougall 's R.S.L. written exactly forty yearsafter the essay on Punishment. In Chapter IX of this book McDougall says:"At the present time the State not only does nothing to promote a relativelyrapid multiplication of the intrinsically superior elements of the population,but it actually maintains an extensive and unjust system by which itrestricts the multiplication of these elements." It is, however, typical of modern scientific publicists that even whenthey are in favour of reforms antagonistic to the sentiments established byChristian morals, and even when their erudition leaves us in no doubtconcerning their awareness of the source of the evils they expose, they areusually scrupulously careful to avoid any direct allusion to it. In regard tothe foregoing quotation from McDougaIl, for instance, it will be noticed that,

just as

- p. 75 -Margaret Mead speaks of our being trained "by our society" to neglect our



bodies, and never so much as whispers the word "Christianity" in thisconnection, so also does McDougall speak of "the State" as restricting themultiplication of the biologically desirable, without ever hinting thatChristian morality and not the State is chiefly responsible for this practice. The objection usually raised, especially by Englishwomen of allclasses, to any eugenic policy or any suggested modification of thepresent practice of favouring the biologically unsound at the cost of thesound and promising, is generally expressed by exclaiming, "Ah, poorthings! They can't help it!" So often have I had this plea addressed to me

when I have been lecturing on the physical deterioration of the Englishpeople, and it is so likely to be on the tip of many of my readers' tongues,that it cannot be left unnoticed, especially as it reflects in a striking manneron the character of our present-day morality. The objection, framed more carefully, is as follows: "Although it isadmitted that the diseased, defective, demented and deformed are now asevere burden on the sane, hale and hearty in the nation, gravely depletethe latter's resources, restrict their ability to multiply and to regenerate thecountry's population, and, by constituting foci of further racial pollution and

corruption, exercise a twofold dysgenic influence on society, it mustnevertheless be conceded in all fairness that, after all, it is not the fault ofthese unfortunates that they are thus ill-favoured. They cannot help beingbiologically shoddy and depraved." Now the remarkable and arresting feature of this objection, with itsimplied defence of a form of parasitism which presents the gravestproblems for the future, is that in our civilization it is raised only and

exclusively in respect of the sickly, the degenerate and the physiologicallybungled and botched. It is never even whispered in any other connection.

One never sees the members of any women's organization, chainingthemselves to railings, destroying old masters in the National Gallery,stopping Royal horses at the Derby, or heckling and assaulting CabinetMinisters (after the manner of the Suffragettes fighting for the futile Vote), inorder to call Government attention to the appalling loss of child life on ourroads every year. One never hears such women protesting that littlechildren cannot help being little children and that therefore it is inhuman toallow lethal machines like modern road vehicles to

- p. 76 -mow them down, especially as they are presumably normal children, or atleast not asylum or hospital cases. One never hears anyone, man or woman, protesting that lambs,sheep, pigs and bullocks cannot help being what they are and shouldtherefore be accommodated on our hearth-rugs as pets, instead of beingwantonly butchered. Nor, during the two world wars, did I ever hear anyEnglishwoman, however sentimental, protest that our sound and healthyyoung men could not help being what they were, and therefore it wasunfair to pack them off to the Front to face the enemy's light and heavyartillery. Indeed, during World War I, despite the appalling loss of youngmale life, the women of England, as I have already shown in many of mymost unpopular publications, were, to the astonishment of men like JohnCowper Powys, Norwood Young and Arnold Bennett, not only busypressing their men friends to get into khaki, but were actually unanimous inwishing to prolong the war "to the last young man". The most egregious of



these ardent sacrificers of sound young men was Christabel Pankhurstand the disgraceful audiences she used to address every week at thePavilion in Piccadilly. When did anyone during World War I hear the sort of woman whomost vociferously champions what Bradley called "lower human types",express the kind of horror felt by Bertrand Russell at the slaughter ofsound, healthy English youth on the Western Front? "I used to watch," hesays, "young men embarking in troop trains to be slaughtered on theSomme because Generals were stupid. I felt an aching compassion for the

young men" (H. Oct. 1958). I never heard any such remark from a woman during the whole ofWorld War I. Yet, when it is a matter of sacrificing the unsound, the tainted,the sickly, the defective and the deformed, for the good of those of theircontemporaries who in their persons present some promise ofperpetuating the race in a desirable form, there is not a woman in thewhole length and breadth of the land, and not a man debilitated by femaleinfluence, who, in anguished tones will not expostulate: "Ah! poor things!They can't help it!"

The gratuitous and arbitrary reservation of this compassionate plea forthe least precious specimens in the nation, is surely suspicious, andshould open the eyes of impartial judges to the powerful hold Christianmorality has fastened on the impulses

- p. 77 -and sentiments of modern people. It is all the more suspicious because, asa plea, it implies a disregard of the claims of all those members of thecommunity who are daily being sacrificed and exploited in order to

preserve and protect their psycho-physical inferiors.

- p. 78 -Chapter VI

Christianity Not the Thoughtful Man's Religion — IV

To all but unobservant people, unused to a courageous and realisticattitude to life, it should now be painfully clear that, if we are to avert thefate foretold by seers like Heine, Nietzsche and Bradley, the time is ripe fora radical change in our outlook and in the rules that govern our lives. Thatwe should waste no time in spreading, especially throughout the ignorantmasses, a more wholesome and, above al l, more fastidious taste in theassessment of human worth than that now prevailing, is indicated by somany ominous warnings, that only wilful blindness would seem to accountfor the present culpable postponement of this urgent duty. We have but to look at the present cost of our National Health Servicewhich, in the twelvemonth 1957–58 amounted to £585,000,000, i.e.

£50,000,000 more than the previous year (B.M.J. 23.8.58), and to learnthat even twelve years ago it was already dispensing 228,879,170prescriptions, whilst its dentists, in the five years between 1947 and 1952,distributed 10,500,000 dentures; in order to appreciate the magnitude ofthe morbidity we have now reached. With about 280,000,000 work dayslost every year through illness (The Times , 6.9.57), and the incidence of



sickness increasing every year, the question arises whether, apart from thematter of our future as a race, we shall be able to carry on at all in a fewyears time. We are told, for instance, that the number of patients treated inhospital rose by some 54,000 to 3,793,000 in 1957, and yet by the end ofthe year about 490,000 — 9,000 more than in the previous year — wereawaiting admission. The question regarding the future is all the more pressing, seeing thatthe figures quoted not only exclude the vast population of defectives,cripples, incurables and insane now housed in private institutions, but also

give no complete idea of the total

- p. 79 -amount of illness and defect in the nation. Recent surveys covering theyears 1943–52 and 1944–47, carried out by Dr. W. P. D. Logan, Mr. E. M.Brooke and Dr. Percy Stokes, show "the large amount of ill-health whichpeople suffer but which does not lead them to seek medical advice, or atany rate not frequently. . . . At any age and in any month, at least 50 percent of adults who were asked about their health complained of an illness

of some kind or another. Amongst the elderly the proportion was at least75 per cent ". And Dr. Logan and Mr. Brooke conclude by saying, "Thesefigures cannot be dismissed as unimportant, and represent a problem thatrequires investigation and a challenge that will in due course have to bemet." In Dr. Stokes's survey, it was found "that but of 100 personscomplaining of some illness during an average month, 77 of them did notvisit a doctor. "It is evident," he concludes, "that with less than a quarter ofsick persons visiting their doctor in a month, only an incomplete picture of

total morbidity can be obtained from medical records" (Studies in Medical Population Subjects : Study No. 12, 1957, and Study No. 2, 1942). But when we reflect on the chronic invalidism and morbidity hiddenaway in private houses, in nursing homes and similar places, weappreciate that official records of illness and defect furnished by the HealthService, even when the picture they present is amplified by such surveysas those above-mentioned, still give us only an inadequate idea of thenation's total ill health and biological abnormality. We know that blindness, deaf-mutism and mental defect are

everywhere increasing; whilst downright dementia, even if only of atemporary kind, is becoming every day more general. Over twenty yearsago. Dr. Frances Harding declared that "if the growth of insanity continuesat its present rate every man, woman and child will probably be mad by theyear 2039" (Daily Press , 8.11.36); whilst Dr. A. J. B. Griffin, the Officer ofHealth of Worcester, in his report of 23rd September 1958, said that soon"it will be a distinction not to have at any time been an in-patient in amental hospital" (i.e., the modern euphemism for a "lunatic asylum"adopted in order to spare the tender feelings of our gullible masses, highand low). In view of these and many similar facts that could be adduced, is notthe complacency of the authorities and the general public astonishing?How is it to be explained? For we surely need little

- p. 80 -further evidence officially furnished to feel persuaded that the eleventh



hour for drastic action has long since struck. I speak of evidence officially furnished, but which of us who keeps hiseyes and ears alert requires documentary proof of our deplorablecondition? Do we need more than a few minutes of careful attentionwherever our fellow men and women congregate, in order at once to beconvinced that sickness, disease, defect and deformity today pass for theordinary, customary — aye! expected , lot of all human beings? Withendless queues waiting for beds at all our hospitals and with our lunaticasylums scandalously overcrowded, who can doubt our parlous

condition? "At present," Allendale Sanderson writes, "there are 20,000more patients in mental hospitals than they should hold," and, as onesmall fact illustrating the burden now thrust on the sound and healthy bythe biological scum of our society, he mentions that the present cost ofcaring for 150,000 mental patients and 60,000 mental defectives in the 400mental hospitals in the United Kingdom, is £1,000,000 per week (T.M. May1956; article: Mournful Numbers). Nor is there much of a prospect of anyalleviation of this burden; for, according to R. C. Cook (Human Fertility:

The Modern Dilemma , 1951, Chap. XII), "The present pattern of

reproduction, if continued for another generation, may halve the number ofscholarship ability and double the number of feeble-minded." The talk of every couple, of every group, in train, coaches, buses,streets, halls and private houses, is always about the illness, operation,defect, or at least hospitalization, of some relative, friend, acquaintance, orof the speaker him- or herself. Yet nobody turns a hair! It is all taken forgranted. Least of all is it ever felt as shameful, or nauseating. How many ofus can truthfully claim that we know one — only one — thoroughly healthyperson, including ourselves? According to the B.M.J. (29.2.36), the

Pioneer Health Centre at Peckham, carried out a survey which revealedthat 90 per cent of persons over 25 years of age in the families of theartisan class investigated, had some physical defect. Yet, very seldom does any leading politician or scientist commithimself to a public expression of his alarm at this state of affairs. Evenwhen he does, however, his remarks are so temperate and indicative ofhis "sense of humour", that they leave things as they are and confirm thepublic in their comfortable blindness. Is this craven restraint deliberate? Anexample of it is to be found

- p. 81 -in Dr. William McDougall's R.S.L. (Chap. VII), where he says, "We, thehuman race, are very ill-bred when compared either with the races ofanimals that live in a state of nature, or with those which man hasdomesticated and modified for his own purposes. Among them oneseldom sees a creature that is not graceful, healthy, efficient in allrespects, full of vigour and vitality, beautiful according to its own type. Howdifferent is the lot of the human race. In every civilized land one seesamong all classes a large proportion of men, women, and childrenburdened with defects of nature that derogate from their humanity; defectsranging from mere clumsiness of l imbs or disharmony of features to grossdeformities of structure." —Yes! But there follows no hint about the moral doctrines fostering allthis human uncomeliness and defect; nor, in view of the urgency ofreforming our sentiments, can Dr. McDougall 's statement be regarded as



very challenging. What can explain this relative equanimity among ourleaders and the masses, high and low, and the unshaken self-esteem ofthe English generally, in the presence of all this visible, audible andimportunate human morbidity and abnormality, unless it be the habit ofmind inculcated upon all by centuries of Christian teaching, that the bodyand its conditions matter so little compared with the soul, that all of us havebecome insensitive, indifferent, to human repulsiveness and biologicaldepravity? "D'où vient qu'un boiteux ne nous irrite pas," Pascal asked,

somewhere about the middle of the seventeenth century, "et qu'un esprit

boiteux nous irrite?" (P. Ière Partie, Article VIII, ix: "How is it that the haltand the lame do not annoy us, and that the halting and lamed minddoes"?). Pascal's answer is fanciful; for the truth is that even in his time, threecenturies ago, the European's habit of mind had already been conditionedto take human physical defects, however repulsive, for granted, and toregard only so-called "spiritual" ones as worthy of censure. It is conceivable, apart from the prevalence today of what might be

termed merely "medicated survival", that one of the more important factors,next to centuries of Christian indoctrination, which may account to someextent at least for the strange indifference of the British public towards theirprevailing morbidity and abnormality, is the prominent rôle that improvedtransport facilities have played in the last century and a half throughout

- p. 82 -the civilized world. As long as freedom of movement remained contingenton physical soundness and the capacity to endure prolonged exertion and

fatigue, people were naturally made more immediately and dramaticallyaware of any bodily defects which hampered independent locomotion,especially over what were formerly considered long distances. In the course of hardly a century and a half, however, such markedand steady progress has occurred in all kinds of mechanical transport, andthe present age has seen such a spectacular and wide distribution of bothpublic and private conveyances that enable the feeble, the decrepit, andeven the incapacitated, to travel at speeds which, little more than half acentury ago, were confined to the railways, that the inevitable result has

been a successful, but nevertheless insidious, masking of most physicalfailings, feebleness or bodily flabbiness. And this mitigation ofsubnormality or morbidity, which formerly hampered mobility and could notescape attention, is nowhere more effectual and more deceptive than inthe use of the "internal combustion engine"; for here, the dizzy speedswhich can be attained even by the most debilitated and cachectic ofdrivers, merely by pressing the accelerator, gives the person at the wheela sense of power and efficiency so illusory, so spurious, that a totally falsepicture of his or her condition is impressively and constantly presented. The high speeds attainable in a car may be the principal factor, notonly in masking the prevailing morbidity, but also in relieving thepullulating feelings of inferiority which naturally afflict a people riddled withorganic defects. This was certainly the view of Dr. Lampériere who, in adiscussion with other doctors, said that the desire for speed was amongother things "a compensation for feelings of inferiority and of inadequacy inadults" (B.M.J. 8.9.56); whilst Mr. Malcolm Muggeridge, speaking of the



modern man and his car, says, "With such power at his disposal, theweakest feel strong, and the poorest-spirited, formidable" (T.T. Chap. IV,vii). Thus, it seems legitimate to conclude that, among the less thoughtfulmembers of the populations of the West, which are the great majority, afalse sense of self-satisfaction arises. At the very least, they have theirattention powerfully and constantly diverted from their physicalshortcomings, including their failing stamina, by the profusion ofmechanical aids now put at their

- p. 83 -service; whilst some of these, like the motor-car, give them in addition, afactitious sense of strength and efficiency, which dissipates any doubtsthey might entertain about their bodily condition. "Then what is your remedy?" the reader asks; and, in the defiance ofhis tone, I sense his assumption that he knows my answer and has theappropriate retort ready. What he expects me to say is, "A lethal chamberfor the human rubbish we are salvaging at the cost of the dwindling

minority of the sound and promising," and if I hint at such a thing, he isprepared at once to retort that the decent English public would nevertolerate such "Nazi" or "fascist sadism". Incidentally, it should be noted that when the average personformulates this sort of reply, he not only shows himself incapable of goingfurther back in history than World War II — as if thought on this questionbegan then — but also betrays his expectation of immediate applausefrom every moron in the nation, whose alleged inability to suffer the violentelimination of even selected lower-grade defectives, is compounded with

the patient, not to say, cheerful, endurance of the death of thousands ofquite unselected and presumably sound adults and children on ourhighways every year. — No wonder a thinker like Macneile Dixon, comparing thesuspicious fortitude of the public in regard to the slaughter on our roadswith the hysterical fuss made over the deaths due to war, felt compelled toexclaim, "Will someone be good enough to tell me why the one kind ofkill ing is condoned, the other condemned?" (T.H.S. Chap. IX). But let that pass, for I have no intention of proposing to the English

public, corrupted by centuries of Christian sophistries, anything so painfulto their tender sensibilities and so welcome to their dialectical powers, asa lethal chamber for the most hopeless of our hospitalized population. I amtoo well aware that if this were the only alternative to their present policy oflaisser aller , it would but rivet them more tightly to their determinationindefinitely to postpone all attempts at grappling with the problem,especially along such lines as the compassionate farmer follows to protecthis more precious plants. It is, therefore all the more surprising that thinkers like Thomas Huxleyand F. H. Bradley should both have had only some such remedy in mindwhen, confronted with the mounting

- p. 84 -incidence of disease, defect, dementia and deformity, and the crushingburdens it imposes on the vanishing remnant of sound and promisingstocks, they began to think of practical methods of dealing with it. This is



the more regrettable in Huxley's case, because it made him reject a priori

any solution involving the violence which the remedy in question implies;and, by his rejection, associated him with the vast body of modern Englishpeople who would gladly put off, if possible for good, any inquiry into themeans whereby present-day biological corruption may be combated. Thus, in discussing the conflict of Christian morality with Nature'swholesome practice of sloughing off from the main body any diseased orrotten member, Huxley had to face the question how the present tendencyto preserve and foster the defective and ill-favoured may now be corrected.

Unable to grasp the iniquity of withholding all pity and protection from themeagre minority of the sound and promising, whose multiplication andvery existence are imperilled by the soaring claims of the biologicallydepraved, he plunges immediately into a discussion of the possible moralconsequences and repercussions of such a method, as they would affectthe character and the domestic and social virtues of any population thatadopted it. "I do not see," he says, "how such selection could be practisedwithout a serious weakening, it may be the destruction, of the bonds whichhold society together. It strikes me that men who are accustomed to

contemplate the active or passive extirpation of the weak, the unfortunate,and the superfluous; who justify that conduct on the ground that it has thesanctity of the cosmic process, and is the only way of ensuring theprogress of the race [why did he not say, "the preservation of the race"?] . .. on whose matrimonial undertakings the principles of the stud have thechief influence; whose lives, therefore, are an education in the noble art ofsuppressing material affection and sympathy, are not likely to have anylarge stock of these commodities left" (E.E. Prolegomena, XII). The argument against the violent extirpation of tainted, defective and

ill-bred human beings, including monsters and raving maniacs, couldhardly be stated with more vigour and less judicial impartiality; for, apartfrom the fact that Huxley adduces no evidence to show that sympathy andthe bonds holding society together were destroyed by the ancient Spartancustom of hurling ill-favoured infants into the place called Apothetae , adeep

- p. 85 -cavern near Mount Taygetus, or by the ancient Roman custom of hurling

similarly i ll-favoured infants over the side of the Tarpeian Rock, there isnothing in the passage quoted to indicate that he ever paused to think ofthe suppression of affection and sympathy which our morality imposestowards those few remaining human specimens who are still capable ofperpetuating the race in a desirable form. Yet, if we are not to continue

jeopardizing posterity's happiness and health, let alone survival, byfostering the tainted and defective and allowing them to multiply, it wouldseem imperative to kindle compassion for those who still give promise of avigorous and comely progeny. Nor is it either fair, realistic, or even logical, to assume that because acouple marry only after careful enquiry and scrutiny have shown them tobe sound and free from defect, that therefore their union must of necessitybe destitute of affection and mutual devotion. Such expressions as"principles of the stud", which, as Huxley well knew, suggest the breedingof pigs and kine, when applied to the wise and prudent selection of a goodmate, may be relied upon to arouse indignation in the ignorant, the



thoughtless and the sentimental; but they are surely unworthy of a socialphilosopher, earnestly concerned about the future well-being of his fellowmen. When we read that the ancient Hindu legislator, Manu, insisted on allblemishes being declared before marriage, and on the infliction of suitablepenalties if this were not done (Laws , VIII, 8), are we to infer that there wasnever any affection between the couples who complied with this ruling? According to an ancient Jewish law, "If some previously unknowndefect was found in the wife after marriage, she was divorced without

receiving back her marriage settlement," which implies that defects had tobe revealed in advance; whilst people "with an hereditary taint in thefamily are discouraged from marrying". (Talmud , Kethuboth, 92b and 75a).Are we to assume on Huxley's authority that this law destroyed all thenatural affection felt for each other by young Jewish couples? An oldIcelandic law obliged the giver in marriage to hand over the bride "freefrom all physical blemish" (Das Weib in der Natur und Völkerkunde , byDrs. A. Ploss and M. P. Bartels, 1927, Vol. II, p. 229); whilst the Burmeselaw "compelled the father of the bride to call the bridegroom's attention to

any blemish in the maiden, and the marriage contract was cancelled ifimportant

- p. 86 -defects had been concealed at the time of the betrothal" (Ibid .). According to an interesting Jewish provision made by the Talmudsages, a husband was not allowed to repudiate his wife for a hidden bodilyblemish, unless there was no bathing establishment in the town where thecouple belonged. For if such an establishment existed, the husband

"would be able to have her seen there by his (female) relatives beforemarriage" (Talmud , Kethuboth, 75r, p. 242). It was probably with the sameintention that in former times in Russia, "a girl, about to be married,exhibited herself naked to her future husband's friends" (E. P. deSénancourt: De L'Amour , 1805, p. 182, note: "jadis, en Russie, une fille,

au moment de se marier, se montrait nue aux amis de celui qui devout

l'épouser" ). The Jewish people are alleged (very sensibly!) to have included evenfoul breath among 145 defects disqualifying a woman from marriage (The

Jewish Child , by Dr. W. M. Feldman, 1917, p. 44). Would Huxley havebeen justified, had he inferred from these facts that all Icelandic, Burmeseand Jewish couples married without any affection, or with feelings ofaffection less ardent than those possessed by that gangrenous couple ofconsumptives described by Lytton in Pilgrims of the Rhine ? Do themarriages of our diseased, tainted, defective and neurotic couples inEngland today, none of whom have been married according to the"principles of the stud", turn out happier and more lasting than those ofcouples whose families have observed these principles? If so, is not ourpresent average annual total of 32,757 marriage failures rather strange? It seems, therefore, highly probable that, in the passage quoted fromHuxley's Evolution and Ethics , he was not so much playing to thesentimental gallery which, in the England of his day, as in ours at thepresent time, was packed to suffocation-for I consider him above trying toappeal to popular prejudice — as unconsciously expressing that deeply-rooted European hatred of taking physical attributes into account in



assessing human worth; a hatred conditioned by centuries of Christianindoctrination. For, as Canon Oliver Chase Quick so ingenuouslyconfesses: "True Christian faith always puts the health of the spirit first"(Christian Beliefs and Modern Questions , 1924, Lecture VII). Huxley wastoo intelligent and well informed really to believe that what he called "theprinciples of the stud" applied to matrimony, would inevitably destroyaffection. But fundamentally these principles

- p. 87 -

deviated from what his Christian instincts told him was right, and thisirrational and deeply ingrained bias dominated his judgment. Thus,despite his Rationalism and Agnosticism, he voiced the sentiments of theChristianity-infected crowd who would gladly postpone sine die thesolution of the problem of Western man's degeneracy, and, through theirreluctance to grapple with it, cling stubbornly to the assumption that violentextirpation is the only means of solving it; for they know that with thisscarecrow they can be sure of scattering any group displaying alarm at thesoaring incidence of human rottenness and the burdens it imposes.

F. H. Bradley, like Huxley and most modern people, could also seebut one solution — violent extirpation. But, unlike the sentimental mob,high and low, which remains callously indifferent to the injustices andcruelties inflicted on the sound by the hosts of human defectives, he doesnot cling to this solution in the hope of indefinitely postponing all attemptsto apply a remedy. On the contrary, he accepts the consequences of thisdrastic solution with a clean conscience; calls it "moral surgery", andcannot understand why it should not be applied forthwith. Far from sharingHuxley's qualms about emulating the farmer's policy of ruthlessly

preventing the weeds from choking the more precious plants, he believesthat this would have only favourable results. "Against the unlimited right ofthe moral organism," he says, "to dispose of its members, is there anythingto be set? There is nothing so far as I see, but superstition and prejudice,"and he stresses the need of what he terms "ethical surgery". "Our remedy",he declares, "would have to utter and enforce the sentences, 'You and youare dangerous specimens, you must depart in peace.' It would probablyadd, "There are some children here over and above what we want, andtheir origin, to say the least, is suspicious. We utterly decline to rear these

children at the public cost and, so far as we can judge, to the public injury;"and his freedom from any subconscious Christian promptings is shown byhis denial of the Christian principle of "the sacredness of human life" whenit is but Biological Brummagem (S.R.P.). Now, F. H. Bradley is acknowledged to have been one of the greatestEnglish philosophers of the late nineteenth century. But he was Huxley's

junior by twenty-one years, and this altered his outlook. Huxley was stillunaware of his powerful Christian bias; whilst Bradley had so successfullypurged his system of it as to

- p. 88 -feel able to question the very sacredness of human life when it was fouland jeopardized posterity. Another courageous advocate of extirpation is the Americanpsychiatrist. Dr. Cole Davis. Addressing the Rotary Club, Atlantic City, in1934, he said: "We probably wil l not live to see the day, but it is coming. It



wil l become necessary both to protect society and ease the burden whichis threatening to swamp us. . . . Incurables and idiots should berecommended for destruction by the superintendents of institutions afterlong observation and with the consent of families, then examined byboards of psychiatrists." Then speaking of the insane, he added, "Theincrease of such persons is at the rate of 10,000 a year; a few years ago itwas only 3,000 a year" (Daily Mail , 1.1.34). In his Theory of Morals (1928, Chap. III), E. F. Carritt says of thevirtues of the superior man that "he wil l be more just, more merciful and

more self-sacrificing" than other men. William James also observes, "Aman is nothing unless he is capable of sacrifices." Here again, werecognize a powerful unconscious Christian strain; for, unless we knowwhat sort of sacrifice is meant, these statements lie under the suspicion ofbeing merely the Christian principle of expecting the sacrifice of thegreater for the less; particularly as it is here demanded of the superior man.Yet, the very last thing a world disinfected of Christian influence wouldrequire, would be the sacrifice of the superior man. Why is it always assumed by Christians that if sacrifice is demanded

at all, it must always be of the greater for the less? Has the duty of self-sacrifice ever been preached to the biologically hopeless? I believe not.But if that is so and we have no record of their refusal to perform it, why is italways gratuitously assumed that they are quite incapable of it and,provided that they were mentally capable of reasoning at all, woulddecline to exercise it if exhorted to do so; whilst, on the contrary, thebiologically superior are always assumed to be ready and eager self-sacrificers? It has certainly never been satisfactorily explained why thefastening of the duty of self-sacrifice upon the desirable and the promising

alone, was thought to be a more lofty moral principle than its converse. Noris it easy to understand how the general public can continue to be blind tothe state of biological emergency to which this policy has led. In war-time we make it a matter of glory and nobility to

- p. 89 -sacrifice our healthiest and best youths for the nation's safety and survival.Can it, therefore, be so extraordinarily inhuman to sacrifice our "lowertypes", à la Bradley , in peace-time, so that the nation may continue to

flourish in a desirable form? Can it be so very heartless to wish to relievethe best and most promising stocks of the crushing burdens, let alone theracial dangers, which the multiplication of human biological inferiorityinflicts upon them? We raise the cross displaying a god immolated for the mob andexclaim, "In hoc signo vinces!"; and the masses high and low do notunderstand that the sign spells, not conquest for all that a tasteful peopleshould hold most high, but victory for pollution and purulence. So that evenif there were no other remedy than Bradley's for the scourge of humandecay and degeneracy, we should agree with him that there is nothing tobe said against it. Nevertheless, we are no more ready to accept it for ridding our worldof its rotten elements than we are ready to agree with Huxley's reasons forrejecting it. Nor should we be inclined to favour even the method known as"Voluntary Sterilization", recommended by the Departmental Committeeon Sterilization, by which mental and physical defectives could be



deprived of their capacity for parenthood, although this does not mean thatwe agree with Dr. H. P. Newsholme's far-fetched, romantic and whollyunconvincing reasons for disapproving of it (C.E. Chap. VIII). For there liesto hand a more effective, more certain, though perhaps slower, remedy inthe method advocated in masterly fashion by Nietzsche. I refer to The

Transvaluation of Values , which has not yet been understood by threegenerations of Nietzsche-readers, and which I shall try to explain oncemore in the next chapter.

* * * *

In conclusion, a word must be said about the incidence of morbidity andphysical defect in our modern world and the amount of suffering it causes,both among the ill-favoured themselves, and those connected or in contactwith them. The Rationalists claim that all this suffering is incompatible withthe Christian concept of a Creator who is a God of Love, a Loving Father. To this churchmen reply that as man's suffering is always due

- p. 90 -to his own or someone else's sin, the suffering in the world is punishmentfor sin and therefore not incompatible with the concept of the deity as aGod of Love. Thus, the Rev. J. R. Illingworth says of the "Problem of Pain"(L.M. III), "To begin with its simplest if lowest aspect, pain is punishment . .. without committing ourselves to the statement that suffering wasintroduced into the world by sin, which is not a Christian dogma, though itis often thought to be so, a vast amount of the suffering in the world isobviously punishment."

When, against this, the Rationalists argue that punishment seems tofall on the innocents just as much as on the guilty, all he can say is, "it maybe the call to higher things". Besides, it is not accurate to say that "the statement that suffering wasintroduced into the world by sin is not a Christian dogma", seeing thatevery child in a Christian country is taught about the Fall of Man and God'ssharp rebuke to Adam and Eve after their sin, and his promise of harshtribulation to both of them on account of it (Genesis iii . 16–19). It istherefore difficult to avoid the inference that sin did introduce suffering intothe world. The Rev. Harold Anson does not attempt to hedge. He says outright,"if we knew all the circumstances which surround every case of suffering,we should always be able to point to the sin which caused it. . . . If sin wereto cease today, suffering would also cease. . . . It is wrong anddishonouring to God to say that it is His will that there should be sufferingin the world". (C.P. Chap. XI). There is undoubtedly much truth in this Christian retort to theRationalists. Every day we see some form of human suffering that is theresult of an error of judgment or behaviour. But, if we are to be fair in

allotting the blame, we must distinguish between what in the Christiansense is "sin", and what is merely an ignorant breach of a natural law, orthe outcome of obeying some mistaken, but superior authority. When, in the old days, the father of a family squandered his earningson drink and deprived his wife and children of sustenance so that they alldied of the consequences of starvation (tuberculosis, for instance), that



was clearly innocent suffering through guilt and sin. When he himselfsubsequently died of General Paralysis of the Insane, his was clearly acase of suffering through sin; for he would not have contacted G.P.I. hadhe

- p. 91 -not indulged in unwise fornication. When, on the other hand, a group ofchildren die through eating deadly-nightshade berries, the case is merelyone of sinless ignorance.

But when the whole of a Christian people, as I have shown, grow evermore and more tainted, diseased and defective, through too faithfullyfollowing the Socratic precepts implicit in Christianity, which lead everygeneration, when assessing human worth, to consider only invisiblequalities, this is surely sinning, and the biological corruption that ensues isclearly condign punishment for sin. But it is certainly not sinning from theChristian point of view. On the contrary, it is no more than the practicalapplication of the rule laid down by St. Paul in Chapter 4 of the SecondEpistle to the Corinthians.

Even in the case of the drunken syphilitic father aforesaid, however,the Rationalists might still discern factors conflicting with the hypothesis ofa God of Love; for they might argue that although the father's dipsomaniawas a sin, had the micro-organisms of disease not existed in the creation,neither his children nor he himself would have suffered the punishments Ihave described. Nevertheless, I think we may safely grant the Christians' claim that asubstantial amount of human suffering is the outcome of either deliberateor careless violations of a natural law; although, even if it were possible to

multiply the instances of breaches a thousandfold, they would still notabsolve the Creator of his responsibility for an enormous amount of humansuffering unearned by sin. It would be impossible, for instance, to compute the enormous amountof suffering, unprovoked by either sin or even ignorance (culpable orotherwise), that humanity has undergone and in some parts of the world isstill undergoing, from the attacks of wild animals-the carnivores, reptilesand rodents; of insects, poisonous or disease-bearing; of parasites,whether internal or external, and the micro-organisms of lethal il lnesses.

Nor can we form any adequate estimate of the pain and mortality causedby such natural calamities as floods, droughts, volcanic eruptions,earthquakes and tempests. The terrible earthquake of Messina in 1908, forinstance, which caused the deaths of 77,283 people, led many so-called"simple" Christians to question their faith in the Almighty's benevolence.The devastations of insect and other pests, alone, must be accountable inthe history of mankind for

- p. 92 -the deaths of vast multitudes from starvation and want. Even the crueltiesperpetrated against their fellow-beings by men themselves, mayreasonably be ascribed in ultimate analysis to the propensity to crueltyimplanted in their nature; nor do we need to be acquainted with more factsthan we may cull from Gibbon's Decline and Fall , or Winwood Reade'sMartyrdom of Man , in order to be persuaded of the reality of this propensityin the average human being.



It would be difficult by any process of reasoning, however subtle, toattribute the pain and mortality which have been the outcome of thesevarious agencies, to the deliberate sinfulness of those who were theirvictims, and the Rev. Harold Anson's statement to the effect that "if sinwere to cease today, suffering would also cease", cannot therefore besustained. Moreover, when we come to consider the essential rôle playedin the formation of character and in the determination of behaviour, by ahuman being's endocrine glands and his particular genes, we may oftenseriously hesitate about whom to blame, man or his Maker, for even the

most revolting of human actions. Thus, Macneile Dixon, speaking of Dante's assigning "humancreatures to heaven or hell for their behaviour in this life", and implying thatthe great Italian poet was ignorant of the influence of endocrine glands andof hereditary genes on mankind's conduct, exclaims: "Eternal damnation following upon deficiency in phosphorus oriodine, upon some hereditary twist!" (T.H.S. Chap. II). The argument against the Rev. Anson's claim, however, acquiresmuch added strength when it is extended to the suffering of animals;

because here there can be no question of sin, retribution and punishment,and the agonies daily endured by countless creatures of all kinds, whetherfrom the quarter of predatory foes or from that of parasites and insects,since the moment when sentient beings first began to inhabit our earth,must be as far beyond our power to imagine as they are whollyunaccountable. From prehistoric times to the present day, the number andvariety of diabolical monsters that have been ruthlessly preying on more orless defenceless species, and the toll of terror, torture and violent deathsfor which they have been answerable are quite incalculable. All we know

for certain is that, from the first moment of organic life on earth, slaughterand mutilation under the cruellest conditions and often without

- p. 93 -even the motive of hunger — as with ferrets and cats — have been thegrim order of the day in the animal world. "To believe in the carnivorous reptiles of geologic times," saysWill iam James, "is hard for our imagination. Yet there is no tooth in anyone of those museum skulls that did not daily throughout long years of the

foretime hold fast to the body struggling in despair of some fated livingvictim. Forms of horror just as dreadful to their victims, if on a smallerscale, fill the world about us today. Here on our very hearths and in ourgardens the infernal cat plays with the panting mouse, or holds the hot birdfluttering in her jaws. Crocodiles and rattlesnakes and pythons are at thismoment vessels of life as real as we are . . . and wherever they or otherwild beasts clutch their living prey, the deadly horror which an agitatedmelancholiac feels is the literally right reaction on the situation" (V.R.E.Lectures VI and VII). Evidently pondering the same facts as these, Bertrand Russell ,commenting on Hugh Miller's Testimony of the Rocks , says, "Hugh Millerdescribes vividly, with a certain horror, the instruments of death and evenof torture employed against each other by species of animals which wereextinct before man existed . . . a benevolent Creator could not havecreated such monsters" (R.S. Chap. III); and, referring to this world, hesays (W. Chap. 4), "if it is the outcome of deliberate purpose, the purpose



must have been that of a fiend". In a like vein, Macneile Dixon, referring to Nature, exclaims, "Youcannot instruct her in any of the torturer's or the executioner's arts. There isno benevolence in the forest. If you complain that men are a cruel breed,you need not inquire whence they derive the propensity. It is inherited, andfrom the mother's side" (T.H.S. Chap. IV). John Cowper Powys takes much the same view. He says, "Let us beless cruel than God," and in the following chapter, he exclaims, "Deep,deep in the heart of God, must be implanted the love of causing suffering"

(D.S. Chap. VI). These are not the idle jibes of frivolous voluptuaries; but, as we knowfrom their work and lives, the ripe judgments of profound and soberthinkers who, not in the impulsive ardour of rebellious youth, but in thecalm autumn of their years, thus summed up their views about the sufferingwhich they found so prominent a feature of existence. Nor do I think thatany satis-

- p. 94 -

factory reply can be made on behalf of Christianity's "God of Love" whichwould invalidate what they jointly claim. Powys put their point of view vividly before us when he wrote: "Theworld we live in is so full of appalling cruelties and oppressions . . . that theidea of a loving Father being behind all this and responsible for all this,strikes an unobsequious and healthy mind as a horrible and evil mockery.. . . The excuse for God usually put up by believers is the excuse used byZeus in Homer, namely that all the evil in the world is due to the free will ofman. But this excuse hardly applies to the abominable sufferings of the

animal world or even to the decidedly unpleasant things that go on in thevegetable world" (P.O.L. Chap. "The Bible as Literature"). There is, I fear, no answer to this, and it would seem as if only thewilfully blind could refuse to see its implication, which is once more thatthe Christian "God of Love" cannot be accepted as a possibility by thethoughtful man. Even Joad, in his vindication of Christianity, says of thesufferings of animals, "The problem is for me unresolved" (R.O.B. Chap. I). Churchmen have tried their utmost to counter the argument of theRationalists against a Loving Creator; but hardly with success; and to have

to resort at this time of day to the escapist ruse of invoking a bogey in theform of an evil spirit contending with a benevolent deity, is surely evidencerather of desperation than of calm reflection. Canon B. H. Streeter, for instance, discussing "God and the World'sPain", says, "God is able to bring good out of evil, but to see the hand ofGod in evil itself is an error. . . . If men are taught to see the hand of Godwhen they ought to see the power of Satan, they inevitably form a falseconception of the nature and character of God — and to worship Godunder a false conception, is the same thing as to worship a false God"(C.P. Chap. 1). We ought perhaps to remember in reading such a passage that it waswritten in 1916; but after all this was far from being the Middle Ages. WorldWar I was already in its second year; Victoria had been dead fifteen years;Oscar Wilde, Lewis Carroll, Nietzsche and Van Gogh had been deadsixteen years; Bernard Shaw, Conrad and Thomas Hardy were already intheir dotage, and Victoria's grandson was already on the throne.



But perhaps the least sincere, least convincing and mostdisingenuous clerical reply to Powys's charge of cruelty against the

- p. 95 -Christian God, comes from the Rev. J. R. Illingworth, whose viewsregarding suffering and sin have already been quoted. Faced with theawkward fact of appalling suffering in the animal world, which noconvenient appeal to sin and punishment can possibly explain, he says,"No reasonable man doubts that they suffer. But the degree and intensity

of their suffering is almost entirely a matter of conjecture. We speak of, andare affected by the mass of animal suffering; but we must remember that itis felt distributively. No one animal suffers more because a million sufferlikewise" (L.M. III). — No! But a million animals dying in agony surely adds up to morepain and anguish than one animal who so dies. Nor can it be any solace toa particular animal, borne off in the jaws of some carnivore, to know that amillion other defenceless fellow-creatures have suffered similarly. The reverend gentleman then argues that, since the amount of

suffering animals undergo is only a matter of conjecture and "apresumption of the imagination" for "the nature of the case cannot possiblybe verified" and such presumptions "admit of being met by as probablepresumptions on the other side we decline to arraign our Creator for adeed which we have not even the means of knowing that he has done"(L.M.). So it amounts to this: because we cannot get under the skin of ananimal on the point of being devoured by a beast of prey, and because weare able only to infer from our own experience of violent handling and from

the signs of anguish and pain in the victim — not to mention the fact thatwe know it to be equipped with a complicated nervous system not verydifferent from our own — that suffering of an acute kind is being endured,we are, according to the Rev. J. R. Illingworth guilty of a "presumption ofthe imagination" in assuming that there is suffering of a terrible kind in theanimal world and that this suffering cannot be regarded as punishment. We can understand the Christian's dilemma about the Evil in Creationand can sympathise with his perplexity when faced with the problem ofdemonstrating that his God of Love who is all goodness cannot have been

responsible for it. But, before reading the Rev. Illingworth's defence of theLoving Father, we had no idea that Christian apologists could findthemselves in such dire straits as to have to resort to the sophistries weare offered in the chapter on pain in Lux Mundi ; and we can hardly wonderif,

- p. 96 -under the protection of such feeble and bankrupt advocates, beside whomDickens's Serjeant Buzfuz is a dialectical genius, the Church should havewilted and declined. No less ardent a Christian than Pascal had the wisdom frankly toapprove of Antonin Diana's dictum that "tout mal excepté le péché est

envoyé de Dieu" (Lettres Provinciales , 10th Letter: "All evil except sin hasbeen sent by God"); and it is more consonant with the dignity and prestigeof a great Faith for its believers, even whilst professing mystification, toacknowledge the justice of a well-grounded and yet damaging charge



against it, than to descend to such shifts as those with which this Church ofEngland cleric tries to defend his God of Love. No profound thinker, confronted by the seamy side of the Creation andthe character attributed to its Creator by Christianity, has ever failed todiscern a discordant note. Goethe himself refers to a distinguished lawyer,Hofrat Hüsgen, whom he very much admired and who one day admitted tohim that "even in God he discovered faults" (Auch in Gott entdeck ich

Fehler" : A.M.L. Erster Teil, Viertes Buch ); whilst Goethe acknowledgesthat he too was "daring enough to believe that there were things in God

which he felt he must forgive" (Ibid. Zweiter Teil, Achtes Buch : "ich war

kühn genug zu glauben dass ich ihm einiges zu verzeihen hätte" ). We must remember that these views were expressed before sciencehad done much to shake the foundations of the Faith; but today fewthoughtful people wil l feel much astonishment at these relatively mildadmissions. They sense a fatal antinomy in the postulation of a LovingGod who is the embodiment of goodness, as the Creator of a world suchas the realist recognizes this one to be; and in once more rejecting theChristian religion as a proposed solution of the riddle of the Universe, they

wil l feel more than ever persuaded that only a deep subconsciouscomplex, strong enough to overpower the intellect, can possibly accountfor the many men of unquestionably high intell igence who, their goodbrains notwithstanding, have professed a belief in the guesses Christianityoffers about the mystery of life and the Universe. It is this consideration thatlends the colour of probability to the claims of investigators like ProfessorLeuba and his fellow-psychoanalysts, who see in the impulse to religionan unconscious urge deriving its dynamism from the deeper instincts of thehuman organism and owing nothing to any supernatural agency.

- p. 97 -Chapter VII

Christianity Not the Thoughtful Man's Religion — V

Nietzsche's proposed correction of the wrongs Christian doctrine hasinflicted on mankind, can only be understood when we have examined thesource of that part of Christian doctrine responsible for the biologicaldamage the religion has wrought among civilized human stocks. In Chapter V it was shown how Heine had been one of the first torecognize that the most dangerous feature of Christianity was its exorbitantemphasis on the soul and the soul's attributes (assumed, objectivelydetermined, or merely professed) and its corresponding neglect, not to saycontempt, of the body. This deliberate and unwarranted division of man'spsycho-physical organism into two parts, which Christianity declared so farindependent of each other as to justify the exaltation of the one and thedisparagement of the other, no matter how commendable any particular

body might be biologically, inevitably led, as I have sufficiently shown, todeplorable abuses. For, besides making the mere profession of belief, faithor piety, without the necessity of any accompanying biological excellence,a passport into the élite , this gratuitous and pretentious dualism by onestroke confined the estimation of human worthiness to invisible attributesalone — a method of appraisement highly advantageous to all ill-favoured,



tainted, repulsive and defective creatures. By means of it, every kind ofhuman biological trash, all the psycho-physical riff raff of our homes fordefectives, maniacs and monsters, acquired parity with the highestexamples of the species, a parity in which lurked the direst peril formankind, if only because of its deleterious effect on the taste and judgmentof both male and female in their choice of a mate. In fact, as thatincorrigible romantic, Edward Carpenter, madly and gladly proclaimed:"To be ungainly or deformed shall after all be no hindrance". (Towards

Democracy , 1892, Chap. LXIII). No wonder a

- p. 98 -modern philosopher like C. E. M. Joad, speaking of the "dysgenicinfluences" of our civilization, felt entitled to say, "we may, therefore,ultimately see our civil ization go the way of its predecessors through thedeterioration of the biological quality of its members" (Guide to Modern

Wickedness , 1939, Part III, Chap. 12). It is, however, typical of even theboldest among modern publicists that he should speak of "our civilization"and not of "our Christian morality" in this connection, thus displaying the

proverbial timidity of most latter-day English thinkers vis-à-vis of theChurch, the dissenting bodies, and more or less earnest Christians all overthe country. Now, how did this extraordinarily corrupt doctrine arise? For it ispossible to place a finger on the very moment in European history when itfirst took shape. In order to grasp the full enormity of the innovation — for it was acomplete innovation — we must glance at Greece of the fifth century B.C.which, according to Edward Freeman and Findlay, was already in a state

of rapid decline (The Chief Periods of European History , 1886, p. 21). It iswell to bear this in mind, because otherwise we cannot understand how adoctrine so alien to the best and healthiest Hellenic instincts was firstpromulgated and subsequently allowed to take root in the ancient world. Decadent as the ancient Greeks may have been at the close of thefifth century B.C., they still held to certain traditional beliefs protecting themfrom the worst ravages of their decaying culture. For instance, they couldnot grant that the worth of men and women could be assessed on thescore of their psychological or invisible attributes alone. They believed

man was one, an indivisible whole, and that his visible and invisibleattributes were inseparable and interdependent. To estimate the worth of ahuman being chiefly, let alone solely, from his invisible attributes, was apractice either unknown to them, or, where known, condemned as absurd.And here they resembled the whole of the known world of the period. Modern science has wholly vindicated this ancient Greek attitude, andwil l not countenance any gratuitous and imaginary division of a humanbeing into soul or mind, and body or physique. In An Introduction to Personality (1950, Chap. IX, 6), ProfessorRaymond B. Cattell observes that "Personality can

- p. 99 -definitely be shown to be related to physique". In his Rede Lecture for1952, Sir W. Russell Brain, speaking on the "contribution of medicine to

our idea of the mind" , said, "There can hardly be any body state whichdoes not to a greater or less extent influence the mind, and there can



hardly be any state of mind which does not in turn influence in somedegree the functions of the body." Dr. Franz Boas, in Race, Language and

Culture (1940, p. 8), says, "There is no doubt in my mind that there is avery definite association between the biological make-up of the individualand the physiological and psychological functioning of his body. . . . Thereare organic reasons why individuals differ in their mental behaviour." In hisbook entitled What I Believe (1925), Bertrand Russell showed himself wellaware of Christianity's fatal error in separating the body and soul [mind] ofman, which he stigmatized as a "metaphysical superstition". In Why I Am

Not a Christian , he returns to the question and again repudiates Christiandualism. F. H. Bradley, in Appearance and Reality (1920, Chap. XXIII),demonstrates the inseparability of body and "soul" (mind); and ProfessorG. A. Dorsey (C. Chap. XIII) argues with equal cogency against thegratuitous separation of psychology and physiology. Professor F. H.Hankins, in the Racial Basis of Civilization (1926, p. 291), declares that "Ifthere are physical differences [between men] we seem on safe ground ininferring that there must be mental differences also"; whilst A. E. Taylor,throughout his book, The Problem of Conduct (1901), speaks of man as "a

psycho-physical organism". Over a century ago, moreover, in his essay onPersonal Beauty (1854), Herbert Spencer implied a similar rejection of theChristian belief in the independence and separateness of man's body and"soul" (mind). We have also the testimony of that able and distinguished Frenchpsychologist. Dr. Roland Dalbiez, who, in his scholarly treatise, La

Méthode Psychoanalytique et la Doctrine Freudienne (1936, Vol. II, Chap.V, i), observes that "Il est impossible d'admettre l'existence chez l'homme

de phénomènes psychologiques sans conditions physiologiques" . (It is

impossible to admit the existence in man of phychological, withoutcorresponding physiological, phenomena.") Centuries before this was written, however, that amazing Frenchwizard, Montaigne, whose genius anticipated many of the psychologicaldiscoveries of modern times, observed: "Ce n'est pas une âme, ce n'est

pas un corps qu'on dresse, c'est un

- p. 100 -homme, il n'en faut pas faire à deux." (Essais , Livre I, Chap. XXVI. "It is not

a soul, nor is it a body that we train, but a man. There is no question ofdealing with two entities.") No wonder Pascal thought poorly ofMontaigne's piety! But the very fact that I should think it necessary, for the benefit ofmodern English readers, to quote all these authorities, in order to reestablish what any ancient Athenian, or any sensible man of antiquity,would quite properly have regarded as a ridiculous platitude hardly worthstating — namely, that man is a whole, indivisible into body and "soul"(mind) — proves how deeply we have become influenced by Christianity'sbequest to posterity of the misleading and unrealistic psychologicalconclusions of Socrates. At any rate, the reunion of body and soul into one single unity, has atlast become a commonplace even of modern medicine, and as early as1937, we find a medical man stating that the human organism "isdescribable only in terms of function as 'body-mind' or 'mind-body'." Hethen adds, "This definition is generally accepted. . . . Thus there is no



longer any way of distinguishing a category of human distress or mat-adjustments which is spiritual . . . and there is no sort of physical disorderwithout some psychological concomitant or effect" (L. 31.7.37). It has taken us over two thousand years to get back to this positionand to restore the ancient Greek's sane and wholesome view of man as apsychosome, whose visible and invisible attributes cannot be judgedapart. Meanwhile, such is the havoc that has been wrought by the falsedualistic teaching of Christianity that, could an ancient Greek-saySophocles, or even Aristophanes — be placed at some vantage point in

the main shopping centre of any one of our modern cities, he would hardlybelieve his eyes when, gazing in astonishment at the milling crowds, hewas solemnly assured that they were in fact not only human beings, butalso creatures who believed themselves to be the dernier cri of CosmicEvolution. Although the rigid monism of the ancient Greek world is now generallyaccepted as valid by modern science, it is very far from having reached theteeming crowds just referred to. Probably not more than two or threeEuropeans per mill ion have as yet purged themselves of the corrupt habit

of overlooking and condoning "merely" physical defect, deformity,sickliness and the taint of disease, and of remaining unshocked byhereditary and

- p. 101 -actually visible afflictions and blemishes even in their prospective mates,provided always that the young person in question is a "good sport",believes in no colour bar and in democracy, has pinkish leanings and,above all, has a "sense of humour".

Thus, to maintain that good taste in the assessment of humanworthiness, even in mating, has, through two millenniums of Christianinfluence, become extinct, is simply to record a fact that must be patent toall. At what time then, and by what concatenation of regrettablecircumstances, did the sane and wholesome Greek concept of man as anindivisible whole, whose visible and invisible attributes were equallyimportant and interdependent — at what time and how did this wise andsanitary attitude make way for the morbid dualism of Christianity?

Strange to relate, long before Christianity was known, the tendency toassess human value merely from invisible attributes, to regard these asunrelated to visible attributes, and to hold the visible as negligiblecompared with the invisible — this tendency permeated the degenerateancient Greeks and most of the people inhabiting the region whichbecame the cradle of the Christian religion. Indeed, it was in ancientGreece itself that man's good taste and discrimination in judging hisfellows' worthiness veered irrevocably to the attitude now almost universalin the Western world, which either wholly ignores, or else depreciates,biological and aesthetic attributes in favour of "soul" or invisible qualitiesthat can be verified by no objective standards. How did this deplorable change come about? — Various attempts had been made by some of the more decadentGreeks, even as early as the seven century B.C., to supplant the oldMonism by a thoroughgoing dualism. Xenophanes was one of the earliestagitators in favour of this reform. The Orphic cults (never too respectable),



Pythagoras and Empedocles, had also tried to exalt "soul" above bodyattributes; and these tendencies were rooted in an ancient Animism, theconnection of which with nascent Greek dualism it would take too long,under the guidance of a scholar like Rhode, to examine. At any rate, untilthe end of the fifth century B.C., this dualism never really "got across". Themajority of Hellenes were still too healthy to accept it, and continued tobelieve that a good, desirable human being must be one whose visible,were as commendable as his invisible, qualities. Thus no one could passas desirable who was not bio-

- p. 102 -logically and aesthetically so. Hence, the old Greek expression for a goodman was "good-looking and good". The good as a classwere the "the good-looking and the good", and this principleendured among the majority of Hellenes until the end of the fifth centuryB.C. But, about 428 B.C., there suddenly appeared among these people, aman much more highly endowed as a canvasser of public support for his

personal views than ever Xenophanes had been. Unfortunately, hehappened to be so ungainly that friends, when introducing him, felt obligedto apologise for him; and he was naturally subjected to much contemptand ridicule on that account. Although possessed of some noble qualitiesand known to have an excellent military record, he was too exorbitantlyconcerned about safeguarding his self-esteem to accept with equanimitythe situation his physical shortcomings created. When, however, we bearin mind the tremendous store the Greeks of his day set by personal, andindeed al l forms of, beauty; when moreover we remember how inextricably

they connected personal comeliness with general desirability, it willperhaps strike us as less odd that a man with his forbidding appearanceshould have felt uneasy, not to say, afflicted. If even in our own day, whenpersonal looks are far from being as highly valued as they were in ancientGreece, men like Walter Pater and Tolstoy could feel downcast owing totheir excessive plainness, how much more must Socrates have felthumiliated in late fifth-century Athens by his unattractive exterior. Inaddition, he by no means belonged to the haute volée of the city; he wasalso steeped in many of the unhealthy elements of Greek thought, and is

said to have been the catamite of Archelaus. In a city, renowned throughout the ancient world for its transcendentbeauty, and thronged with people who held good looks, especially in themale, in the highest esteem (for their love of male beauty, see Plato'sCharmides , Chap. 3, p. 154; Lysis , Chap. 2, p. 204; and Protagoras , Chap1, p. 309a), Socrates naturally felt at a grave disadvantage. Judgedaccording to prevailing standards, he was condemned at sight. It is almostimpossible for modern Europeans to understand this; for today their worldso pullulates with ungainly people that to take exception to this fact would

argue cranky eccentricity. At all events, Socrates appears to have been unwilling to submit insilence to his unhappy destiny — at least, such is the infer-

- p. 103 -ence I venture to draw from some of the principal doctrines he ultimatelytried to propagate. He was determined, if possible to rescue his ill-



favoured personality from the censure it everywhere provoked. Impelled byhis inferiority feelings, he therefore set to work à la Adler to improvisemeans of making his invisible attributes redeem his visible ones. Nay,more-he threw an even wider net; for what he ultimately aspired to was toconvince his contemporaries that, after all, visible attributes were of much

less value and significance in estimating human worth than Hellenictradition held them to be. On the basis of Adler's penetrating findings, we need not assume thatSocrates was conscious either of the deeper motives for his procedure, or

for its apologetic character; for the will to power operates largely in thedark. Be this as it may, he certainly lighted with extraordinary precision onthe means best calculated to effect his self-vindication, and, withunparalleled brill iance, he proceeded to apply them. Appreciating that thefundamental belief damaging to his prestige and good repute, was theHellenic view of the oneness of man, he imagined, probably quitesincerely, that this belief must be fake and untenable. We have no reasonto suppose that he was aware of hoodwinking his fellow men when hetried to persuade them in and out of season that appearance counted for

nothing in estimating human worth. Such subjective forms of reasoning arecommon even among enlightened moderns; then why should we deny himthis infirmity? Those Greeks who valued the traditional Hellenic monism — men likeAristophanes — despised him for his newfangled doctrines. The merelyconventional hated his heterodoxy. Hence ultimately the charge ofcorrupting the nation's youth and perverting their faith, was brought againsthim, and he was condemned to death. Unhappily for posterity, however, two of his apprentices, Xenophon

and Plato, survived him. Both had been impressed by his arguments, andunder their spell had come to believe that the old wholesome Greekteaching of the oneness of man was false. Worse still, both of them had aproselytizing mania that induced them to hand on to following generationsthe full tenour of their master's doctrines. What, in fact, were the positions Socrates ultimately seems to haveestablished in the minds of these two disciples? They were:

- p. 104 -

(a ) The duality of man — i.e., his bodily aspect ( ) on the one hand,and his "soul" or mind aspect ( ) on the other. (b ) The complete independence of these two aspects of man. (c ) The superiority of the "soul", over the body, aspect. (d ) The despicableness of the body. (e ) The immortality of the soul. Where does Plato enunciate these five positions of Socrates? First ofall in the Apology , where he makes Socrates say: "I spend my whole life ingoing about and persuading you all to give your first and chiefest care to

the perfection of your souls, and not till you have done that to think of yourbodies" (Trans. by F. J. Church, 30, AB.). In the Symposium Plato alsomakes Socrates pay grudging lip-service to bodily beauty and condemnugliness; but shows that he looks on this attitude as low and transitory, andthen makes him quote with approval Diotima's words: "But man's next advance will be to set a higher value on the beauty ofsouls than on that of the body, so that however little grace that may bloom



in any likely soul, it shall suffice him for loving and caring . . . that finally hemay be constrained to contemplate the beautiful as in the observance ofour laws, and to behold it all bound together in kinship and so estimate thebody's beauty as a slight affair" (Trans. by W. R. M. Lamb, 210, B and C). How plainly the reasoning of an ugly man, striving to rid himself of thestigma of ungainliness, is displayed in this passage! Yet, strange as it mayseem — and I assure the reader unfamiliar with the relevant literature thatthis is no idle boast — as far as I am aware, I am the only student ofSocratic doctrine who has ever pointed out the probable connection

between his forbidding appearance and his philosophy. I can only assumethat the modern scholar, inured to the ugliness of modern people andunable to transport himself in imagination to an environment like that ofancient Athens, where bodily beauty was regarded as essential to goodrepute, has been unable to appreciate the pressing private motivesSocrates had for teaching his contemporaries that bodily beauty was of noconsequence. At the same banquet as that already mentioned, when Alcibiades triesto praise his bosom friend Socrates, he confirms his master's principles as

follows:

- p. 105 - "I tell you all the beauty a man may have is nothing to Socrates; hedespises it more than any of you can believe" (Trans. by W. R. M. Lamb,216, B.D. and E.). How vividly this recalls Gibbon's penetrating remark onbeauty when, after referring to Mahomet's personal comeliness, he says, itis "an outward gift which is seldom despised except by those to whom ithas been refused" (Decline and Fall , Chap. L).

We also have the very self-revelatory dialogue in which Socratespersuades Alcibiades that his love for him is deep and true: " "If anyone", says Socrates, "has fallen in love with the person ofAlcibiades, he loves not Alcibiades, but the belongings of Alcibiades. . . .But he who loves his soul is the true lover. The lover of the body goesaway when the flower falls. But he who loves the soul goes not away. . . . Iloved you for your own sake, when other men loved what belongs to you;and your beauty, which is not you, is fading away, just as your true self isbeginning to bloom" (Alcibiades , Trans. by Jowett, 131).

Thus did Socrates try to prove the complete separation of man'svisible and invisible components — as if the two really could be separated — and always emphasized the superiority and greater importance of theinvisible or "soul" attributes. Finally, in the Phaedo , he reaches the logicaloutcome of all his reasoning and, summoning to his aid his emotionalrepugnance to the wholesome Greek attitude to the body, he says: "If we are ever to do anything purely, we must be separated from thebody . . . and thus being pure and separated from the body, we shall knowthe whole real essence and that is probably the truth. . . . For purificationconsists in this, in separating as much as possible the soul from the body. .. . And does not holding the passions in contempt and keeping them insubjection — does not this belong to those only who must despise thebody?" (Trans. by Henry Carey, 66D, 67A and 68C). It would be difficult to find in pre-Reformation literature, ancient andmodern, a more eloquent statement of extreme Puritanism. Yet we areconcerned with a man and his faithful Boswell, who existed over four



hundred years before St. Paul echoed his sentiments. (See the passagefrom the Second Epistle to the Corinthians , Chap. 4, quoted in Chap. Vante .) Thus, not only were bodily attributes and their differences in differentpeople, to be held of no account — a useful view for all

- p. 106 -ill-favoured people, but the whole of the bodily side of life was also to bedespised. The perseverence with which Socrates laboured to establish

these principles in order to vindicate himself in the eyes of hiscontemporaries, can be appreciated only by those who are familiar withPlato's dialogues. Thenceforward, not only was Socrates no longer to bescorned and disparaged, but all his like, all the ill-favoured, sickly, andphysiologically bungled and botched, all Nature's lame and uglyducklings, were promoted to equality with, if not actually superiority over,her more desirable biological specimens, provided their assumed "soul"attributes were judged more holy, more "pure", or more orthodox. Indeed,bodily defects actually imparted a certain respectability and even sanctity

to those who were afflicted with them; for Socrates, addressing Glaucon,declared, "If there be any merely bodily defect in another," he said, "we willbe patient of it and will love the same" (Republic , Trans. by Jowett, 11,402). The reader's attention is called to the significant word "merely" in thiscontext. It is not surprising that when once these doctrines came to beaccepted, man's visible aspects, his body, should have fallen under a ban.These were the disreputable components of his personality.Thenceforward a "pure soul" was to justify even foul breath, and a

biological assessment of human quality ceased to be regarded asrelevant. Low-bred defectives became as desirable as creatures offlourishing life. For on Socratic principles, it could always be argued —and of course was argued — that physical stigmata, the blemishes ofdisease and hereditary taints, were not the individual man himself, andthat his real self, his "soul", more than redeemed these merely bodilyshortcomings. This was wonderful for Socrates and his like. But for the biologicalélite of mankind — ultimate pollution! Can one wonder that William James

felt able to inform us that the lives of certain Christian Saints "are full of asort of revelling in hospital purulence"? (V.R.E. Lectures XI, XII, and XIII).But how many people who have read this passage in James's famouswork, see the connection between the sentiment it describes and Socrates'remark to Glaucon, which I have quoted? What evidence have we that Socrates was the original broadcaster ofthese parlous doctrines? There are three witnesses in the case ofSocrates versus Wholesome, Comely Manhood — Plato, Xenophon andAristophanes; and Mr. St. George Stock

- p. 107 -tells us that "Widely different as these three pictures are, they have yet nounlikeness which is fatal to the genuineness of any" (Introduction to theApology , 1907, p. 7). But Grote, our greatest authority on Socrates, calls Xenophon "thebest witness about his master" (History of Greece , 1854, Vol. VIII, p. 262,



Note 1); and of the Platonic dialogues, he says, "The Apology, Crito andPhaedo appear to be examples of what can safely be accepted as arecord of Socrates' opinions". (Ibid. Vol. VII, p. 84). This is importantbecause of the passages from Plato which I have quoted, the Apology andPhaedo constitute the chief sources. Of supreme importance in thisquestion, however, is the fact that, concerning Socrates' insistence on adualistic view of man, on the disparagement of the body and its beauty,and on exalting the "soul" above the body — all cardinal points in hisdoctrine — Xenophon, "this best witness about his master", wholly bears

Plato out. In Xenophon's Symposium , for instance, Socrates tells Antisthenes: "Ifear you are not enamoured with [sic ] the beauty of my soul, but with that ofmy body" (Trans. by J. Welwood, 1913). Further, he says, "The vulgarinspires mankind with the love of the body only, but the celestial fires themind with the love of the soul." Then again, in reply to a remark byHermogenes, he says: "I will endeavour to prove that the love of the soul isincomparably preferable to that of the body," which he proceeds to do(Ibid .).

— So much for the first-hand witnesses. But in the ancient andmodern authorities on the period under notice, we find abundantconfirmation of our belief that Socrates and not Plato, was the originaladvocate of the exclusively spiritual approach to man's worth. To beginwith, it cannot have escaped the reader's notice that the positions I havedescribed as established by Socrates, all became fundamental inChristianity. — Nay more, the attentive reader must have observed howrepeatedly, as I enumerated these positions, he himself felt, as if byinstinct, that my quotations of Socrates' own words evoked more

agreement than opposition in him, and how often he began wonderingwhether it was not I rather than Socrates who was perverse. Nor is itunlikely that in thus reacting to my thesis, the reader in question may havefelt himself all the while fancying that the Socratic views I condemned, andof which he (the reader) approved, represented his own original opinions,the children of his own independent

- p. 108 -thought and judgment. To this extent have Socratic attitudes of mind

become inveterate and spontaneous in all modern people, especiallywomen. If what I suspect did happen, and the reader knows it happened, hehas further proof of the thoroughness with which European man, during thelast two thousand years, has become conditioned to accept Socraticdoctrines as axiomatic. It cannot surprise us that the five principal positions, includingdualism, which Socrates established, should have become basic inChristianity; for most of the leading early Fathers of the Church-men likeClement and Origen were Alexandrians, schooled in Greek philosophy;and they wholly confirm my claim that Socrates was their doctrinal master. In Justin Martyr's Apology , the fact that Socrates and the Socraticswere Christians before Christ is constantly implied. In the Stromateis ofClement of Alexandria, there is the same implication. Among the moderns the Socratic influence on Christian doctrine isopenly acknowledged. Dr. C. E. Robinson says: "The creed of the



Christian Church was formulated in terms drawn from the Greekphilosophers". (Everyday Life in Ancient Greece , 1933, Conclusion).Marsilio Ficino, writing in 1479 about Christianity, said, "The life ofSocrates is a continued symbol of the life of Jesus," so that "the doctrinesof the one are identical with those of the other". In his Table Talk (1830)Coleridge is reported to have remarked to Crabb Robinson, "Jesus was aPlatonic philosopher"; whilst Professor A. E. Taylor, one of the leadingauthorities on Socrates, says, "Socrates created the intellectual and moraltradition by which Europe has ever since existed. . . . It was Socrates who .

. . created the conception of the soul , which has ever since dominatedEuropean thinking . . . the direct influence, indeed, which has done most tomake the doctrine of Socrates familiar to ourselves is that of Christianity"(Socrates , 1922, pp. 132, 133). Dean Inge, in his essay on religion in The

Legacy of Greece (1924, p. 31), went so far as to declare that "Socratesshould be reckoned as a Christian". Finally, the most conclusive moderntestimony to Socrates' rôle as the founder of dualism, is Professor J.Burnet's The Socratic Doctrine of the Soul (1916). There, he showsbeyond any reasonable doubt that Socrates was the first who succeeded

in establishing this new belief. But, strange to say, even Professor Burnet,throughout

- p. 109 -his scholarly monograph, never hints at the subconscious and personalmotives that most probably prompted Socrates to perform this feat. In this,however, he resembles all those, even Nietzsche, who have dealtexhaustively with the problem of Socrates. From what has been said, we ought now easily to understand how the

Socratic attitude to the body and its beauty, to disease and defect, and toall i ll-favoured humanity in general, came to be universally accepted asaxiomatic by the people of Western civilization. Even our tendency to exalt"soul" above bodily attributes and thus to incline to the practice ofsacrificing the sound to the unsound, becomes comprehensible whenonce we grasp what Socrates achieved in reversing mankind's oldest andmost wholesome standards of judgment. And when we reflect that thistremendous upheaval in the moral sphere, was in all probability but theoutcome of inferiority feelings in the person of one of the most resourceful

and able propagandists of history, we feel compelled to acknowledge thatif only his achievement had been less injurious to humanity, it woulddeserve to rank among the loftiest performances of human genius. Any suggestion that Socrates was a conscious humbug in inculcatinghis dangerous credo , has already been disclaimed. But that he wascertainly capable, whether consciously or not, of giving his morehumiliating experiences a twist which made them seem triumphs ratherthan routs, is suggested by various anecdotes concerning him. For instance, everybody knows that he made a disastrous choicewhen he married Xantippe. Like many a man before him, he committed abad blunder. She used to nag him unmercifully, humiliate him in public,drench him with water; and once, in full view of the crowd in the marketplace, she tore off his coat (Diogenes Laertius , II, 36, 37). Now any ordinary man, similarly situated, would have franklyacknowledged his mistake and deplored it. Not so Socrates. Where hisself-esteem was involved, he was a genius at making the inferior appear



the superior plight, and he actually tried to persuade his friends that he haddeliberately chosen a virago and a shrew in order to promote his ownmoral edification. Thus, he told Antisthenes that he had set his heart onXantippe so that her shocking temper might make him more easily put upwith all sorts and conditions of men (Xenophon: Symposium , 11, 10).

- p. 110 -He also tried to convince people that just as horsemen prefer spiritedsteeds because, having mastered them, they can more easily cope with

others, so he had purposely chosen Xantippe for wife (Diogenes Laertes ,11, 37). — Unless we can believe in the genuineness of these pleas, theysurely lend much colour to my interpretation of the motives impelling him toattack and finally to overthrow the ancient Greek belief in the oneness ofman. Nor is it unimportant, in forming an estimate of his character and therevolution he inaugurated, to remember his mistaken judgment in thechoice of a mate, his apparent lack of psychological insight, and his

inability to stand up to a termagant like Xantippe and to stop her hen-pecking. It is therefore perhaps no coincidence that, under the sway of hisfalse views about humanity, the sudden resurgence of his influence afterthe Reformation (see on this Chap. VIII infra ) should have led to the rise offeminism, which has been chiefly instrumental in shattering the lastvestiges of ancient wisdom in our civilization, and in spreading anarchywherever the influence of the Western European and Christian hasreached. (For the connection between the Socratic doctrines andfeminism, see my Enemies of Women , 1948.)

- p. 111 -Chapter VIII

Christianity Not the Thoughtful Man's Religion — VI

Speaking of the "House of Socrates" (Domus Socratica , according toHorace), composed of the "old gentleman himself" and Plato andXenophon, de Quincey says, "We acknowledge a sneaking hatredtowards the whole household, founded chiefly on the intense feeling weentertain that all three were humbugs" (Collected Writings , Vol. X, pp.180–181). This interesting condemnation of Socrates as a humbug is only aremote echo of the hostili ty he aroused among the wiser members of hisnation and the more enlightened among later generations. Among themost formidable of his opponents was his spiritual grandchild, Aristotle.Besides attacking Plato's Communism, Aristotle insisted on restoring tocredit the ancient Greek belief in the oneness of man, and in the

impossibility of assessing his worth except by judging both his visible andinvisible attributes. Thus, in flat contradiction of the "Christian beforeChrist", he said, "It appears to me that the soul and the body sympathisewith each other; and when the habit of the soul suffers a mutation inquality, it also changes the form of the body. Again, the form ( ) of thebody, when changed in quality, changes also the habit of the soul"



(Physiognomy , Trans. by T. Taylor, Chap. VI). Earlier in the same book,Aristotle says, "An animal is never so generated as to have the form of oneanimal and the soul of another; but it has always the body and soul of thesame animal; so that a particular disposition must necessarily follow aparticular body" (Ibid. Chap. 1). He again displayed his marked differencefrom Socrates when he observed (Politics , Book VIII, 1334b), "The bodynecessarily demands our care before the soul, next the appetite for thesake of the mind, the body for the sake of the soul." It is a proof of Aristotle's great genius that, in the second part of this

last passage, he should have anticipated Freud's dis-

- p. 112 -coveries concerning the injurious effect of sex-repression on the mind; buteven more important to us is the principle enunciated in the first and thirdclauses of the passage; because, lucidly for Catholic Europe, it was thisaspect of Aristotle's teaching that saved medieval people from at least themore damaging effects of Socrates' attack on old Greek Monism. For,when Aristotle's influence, which steadily increased throughout the youth

of the Church, finally achieved complete dominion over her doctrines earlyin the thirteenth century, a saner, more wholesome and more paganattitude to the human body contrived to survive in Catholic Europe, in spiteof the Socratic elements tincturing the faith. When therefore we find Montaigne, in the late sixteenth centurysaying: "J' approuve celui qui ayme moins son enfant d'autant qu'il soit

teigneux ou bossu, et non settlement malicieux, mais aussi quand i l est

malheureux et mal nay" (Essais, Livre troisième , Chap. IV: "I approve ofhim who loves his child less if it be either scrofulitic and scabby or

hunchback, and not only malicious, but also ill-favoured and ill-constituted."); and when we find a Frenchman like Vauvenarguesdeclaring as late as the first half of the eighteenth century: that "Il faut

entretenir la vigueur du corps pour conserver celle de l'esprit" (Pensées et

Maximes , 1746, LXXIX: "We must maintain the body's vigour in order topreserve that of the mind"), we have but two latter-day reverberations ofAristotle's beneficent influence on the Holy Catholic Church during theMiddle Ages. Regarding the nature of this influence which, through the Church,

affected the thought and feeling of all Europeans in medieval times, it isinteresting to quote a passage from Edwin Wallace (O.P.A. p. 39) whichstates clearly what Aristotle's position was. "Soul", says Wallace, "isdefined by Aristotle as the perfect expression or realization of a naturalbody — a realization further, which is in its first stage, and which istherefore explicit. It follows that there is the closest connection betweenpsychical state and physiological processes — we need no more askwhether the soul and body are one, than whether the wax and theimpression stamped upon it are so; the very error of the pre-Aristotelianpsychologists [Socrates and his dupes] lay in discussing the soulabstractedly without any regard to the bodily environment." This passage explains sufficiently for the present purpose the

- p. 113 -most important distinction between Aristotle and his spiritual grandfather. Itreinstates the wholesome ancient Greek view of the oneness of man, and



enables us to understand how, despite her morbid Socratic heritage,Europe contrived — certainly up to the Reformation — to act and thinkwholesomely enough to be capable, as we shall see, of many a wisemeasure in regard to the human body, recalling the best of the old paganbeliefs. Even if she was not wholly and universally successful in this, andSocratic influence continued here and there, to percolate poisonously intothe social organism, it is nevertheless true to say that medieval, was muchmore successful than post-Reformation, Europe in resisting Socraticinfluences. For, at bottom, the Reformation, besides constituting a revival

of many primitive Christian features, also staged a re-enthronement ofSocrates and a corresponding revolt against Aristotle. This explains why, after the Reformation, there should have arisen,not only Puritanism, together with an increasing tendency among bothhigh and low to neglect bodily considerations, but also a steady andsubstantial decline in the beauty and stamina of Europeans and their kinall over the world. For, thanks to the keen rivalry between the old universalChurch and the various reformed sects, there came about, as is usualwhen large organizations engage in a struggle for power, a habit of mutual

imitation, together with exaggerated divergence, which, although notthoroughgoing, was at least persevering enough to effect someapproximations and some wide deviations in the doctrines and moral toneof the two sides. In this way, even the Holy Catholic Church, to thedisadvantage of the regions where it held its sway, forfeited a certainamount of its Aristotelian outlook and temper; whilst, on the side of theReformers, there was a trend towards ever fiercer forms of Socraticism, inorder to emphasize their estrangement from the original Church. "At the time of the Protestant Reformation", says Edwin Wallace, "it

[i.e. Aristotelianism] was subjected to much violent depreciation" (Op. cit.,p. 5). Luther said of Aristotle, "If Aristotle had not been of flesh, I should nothesitate to affirm him to have been truly a devil" (Aristotle and the Christian

Church , by Azarius, 1888, p. 14); he also called him "a hypocrite, aslanderer, a damned pagan, a leisured donkey, a heathen beast, a vicioustrickster, and a poisonous and deadly destroyer of piety" (Luther and

Aristotle , by Dr. Fr. Nitzsch, 1883, Sec. I); whilst, in his

- p. 114 -

Table Talk (LIX) we find Aristotle spoken of as a "heathen". Lutherdeclared that no man could be well-versed in the school of Aristotle and atthe same time a follower of Christ; and Zwingli, Bucer, Peter Martyr andCalvin concurred. This was only the beginning; but it inaugurated a fundamental changein the religious attitude towards Greek philosophy; and, to the misfortune ofthe Western world, Protestantism re-established the authority of Socrates,who thenceforward prevailed throughout all those areas where theReformation had found acceptance, and to some extent even where theHoly Catholic Church still held sway. In view of what has been said, we cannot be surprised at finding muchevidence in the life of the Middle Ages and even later, of an attitudetowards the body, which Socrates would have profoundly deprecated andfor which only the benign influence of Aristotle was responsible. We have seen that, by his contempt for the body and his exaltation ofdisease to an object of love, Socrates created the morbid Christian



sentiment which ultimately made it good form, if not de rigueur , not only tocondone defect, deformity, disease and morbidity in man, but also, andconsequently, to commend the sacrifice of the healthy, sound andpromising, for the sake of the ill-constituted and tainted — in short, thegreater for the less. As for a policy of protection for the sound,safeguarding them from the purulence of the polluted, and above all, fromlimitations scandalously imposed on their multiplication and welfare by thesacrifices forced upon them by the unsound — such an idea ceased tohave any currency in Europe, and, from the dawn of the Reformation

became extinct in England. Incidentally, so general and deep-rooted, particularly in the BritishIsles, was the morbid Christian sentiment we are examining, that in manya lecture I delivered in the interval between the two world wars, I felt ableto prophesy with complete confidence that, if ever another war were tobreak out and there arose a shortage of milk or any other vital commodity,the authorities would not hesitate to force back the multitude of sound andpromising elements in the population, whilst lorries under military escortbore the milk and other precious supplies to the hospitals, and the homes

for defectives, half-wits and maniacs. Indeed, in a book published in 1927,I described this sort of action as indicated by both official and publicsentiment. (See my

- p. 115 -Man: An Indictment , Chap. VI.) And, if the reader is old enough toremember, this is exactly what did happen the moment war broke out inSeptember 1939. Any newspaper of that period will bear this out. But the like could not have happened in the Europe, or even in the

England, of pre-Reformation days, when Aristotle's influence stillprevailed. And, as a proof of how the Christian point of view remainedwholesome and sanitary before the influence of Socrates was revived, wemay instance the many acts performed by medieval authorities, throughoutCatholic Europe, which the people and particularly the women of modernEngland would condemn out of hand as thoroughly "un-Christian". Acts of a similar kind, as we shall see, were committed much laterthan the Middle Ages, especially in areas still dominated by Aristotle'sinfluence. But, in due course, such acts grew ever more and more scarce.

It is true that, apart from the beneficial effects of Aristotle's restorationof the pre-Socratic Greek attitude to defect and deformity, there were othersources from which Europeans of the post-Hellenic period could havederived confirmation of humanity's natural healthy aversion from its ill-favoured and diseased specimens — an aversion mingled with a sense ofthe shamefulness and disreputability of biological trash. The fact that thisaversion has now so completely disappeared that, today, all Europeansand their kin overseas, including even royalty and the nobili ty, vie witheach in honouring and smarming over the biologically worthless and insacrificing everything to them, is a recent and tasteless development forwhich a much crueller penalty will one day be exacted than any which ourpresent perverted charity now inflicts on the hale and sound of our society. In the ancient laws of the Israelites, for instance, we find the followingmost revealing passage, the pre-Socratic spirit of which was neverallowed, after the rise of Christianity, to influence Western man's conduct.Indeed, the passage itself is often found to be unfamiliar to many life-long



practising Christians: "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. Speak unto Aaron, saying.Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generation that hath any blemish, lethim not approach to offer the bread of his God.

- p. 116 - "For whosoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach;a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or anything superfluous, "Or a man that is broken-footed, or broken-handed,

"Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or bescurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; "No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shallcome nigh to offer the bread of his God . . . "He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, becausehe hath a blemish, that he profane not my sanctuaries, for I the Lord dosanctify them" (Leviticus xxi, 16–23). The staggering un-English, non-European wholesomeness of thispassage is something so alien to our culture that the average modern

reader will wonder what God could possibly have meant by the words,"that he profane not my sanctuaries"; and I can hear him and especially hiswomenfolk exclaiming in utter perplexity, "How can people with bodilyblemishes profane anything?" Yet this is a sentiment so universal in a tastefully healthy people thatwe find it displayed even in ancient Peru, where, in the fourteenth century,when the Inca, Jahurai Huacoe attended the feast of Citua, "all citizenswho were sick, hunchback or in any way abnormal, were driven from thecapital (Cuzeo) so as not to offend the goddess by the sight of them" (Inca

Adventure , by Bertrand Flornoy, 1956, Part II, Chap. VIII). Even as late as the sixteenth century in England, this same feelingstill survived — the Reformation being only a few decades old — andElizabeth I refused "the place of a gentleman usher to an unexceptionalperson for no other objection than the lack of one tooth, and whenever shewent abroad, all ugly, deformed and diseased persons were thrust out ofher way by certain officers . . . at Kenilworth in 1575, she refused to look ata bridal dance because the bride was ugly" and "seldom could be inducedto bestow an appointment, either civil or ecclesiastical on a mean-looking

person" (The Queens of England , by Agnes Strickland, 1868, Chap. VIand VIII). Two hundred years later, much the same feeling still survived incertain quarters of Europe, for Goethe, describing the arrival of MarieAntoinette at Strassburg in 1770, to become the wife of the Dauphin,observes: "Before the arrival of the Queen [sic ] the authorities had quitereasonably arranged that no deformed

- p. 117 -people, no cripples and no victims of any loathsome diseases should beallowed to show themselves along her route." (A.M.L. 2ter Teil, Neuntes

Buch : "Vor Ankunft der Königin hatte man die ganz vernünftige Anordnung

gemacht dass sich keine missgestaltetten Personen, keine Krüppel und

ekelhafte Kranke auf ihrem Wege zeigen sollten."

Today, as everybody knows, the first thing royalty would do onarriving in a strange foreign city would be to pay their respects precisely to



the biological inferiors and the defectives of the place. It will, however, benoticed that Goethe reveals his own good taste in this matter by referring tothe regulation in question as "quite reasonable". But what he adds to thepassage also shows that he actually anticipated Heine in recognizingChristianity's reversal of the old wholesome attitude towards deformity,disease and defect; for he says of the Strassburg town council 's"reasonable" measure, "People joked about it, and I wrote a short Frenchpoem in which I compared the advent of Christ who appears to have cometo this world chiefly for the sake of the sick, the halt and the lame, with the

arrival of the Queen, who scared these unfortunates from her path." [Ibid :"Man scherzt hierüber, und ich machte ein kleines französischess Gedicht

worin ich die Ankunft Christi, welcher besonders der Kranken und Lahmen

wegen auf der Welt zu wandeln schien, und die Ankunft der Königin,

welche diese Unglücklichen verscheuchte, in Vergleichung brachte." ) As to the policy of protecting the sound and promising from theparasitism, contamination and depressing ugliness of the unsound, thesickly and the defective, the people of the Middle Ages were also verymuch more humane and compassionate than are the people of the

Western world today. Owing doubtless to the benign influence Aristotle exerted through theChurch, and probably, too, to the fact that medieval populations wereengaged chiefly in agriculture and horticulture and therefore knew theessential needs of flourishing life and the dangers threatening it from allsides, a widespread realism prevailed which forbade all sentimental,unreasoning and callous favouritsm being shown to anything that wasdefective and biologically depraved. It was, for instance, well recognizedthat, in times of famine and epidemics, the sound had to be considered

first. If sacrifice was called for, it was the unsound and those who could give no promise of perpetuating the race in a desirable

- p. 118 -form , who were regarded as the obvious victims. Thus, in periods ofdistress, the populace would clamour for the extirpation of useless mouths

— that is to say, all lepers, cretins and idiots (Paul Lacroix: Science et

Lettres au Moyen Age et à L'époque de la Renaissance , 1877, p. 178); sothat there should be enough to sustain the sound and all those biologically

precious to the community. Superstition admittedly too often played a partin these outbreaks, and when an epidemic was ascribed to the presenceof the ill-constituted in the community, the charge was often groundless.But at least the superstition worked to the advantage of the race and wasalways prompted by compassion for the sound and valuable elements inthe population, rather than for those who could with profit be spared. Nor were medieval people quite as blindly superstitious as manybelieve; for we should remember that it was the princes of the Middle Ageswho, without our medical knowledge and our repertory of therapeutics andprophylactics, extirpated leprosy in Europe. The measures they applied,because inspired by compassion for the sound, were often of a kind whichwe, with our ingrained callousness towards the sound, would considerharsh and cruel; but they were effective and triumphantly successful; for,by the end of the sixteenth century, leprosy had died out, at least innorthern Europe. Not only were lepers proscribed from society, but whenever they



trespassed on an inhabited area they were obliged to give warning of theirapproach by ringing bells or brandishing rattles. It was a sensible rule, forit enabled mothers to snatch their children from the infected people's path,and other adults the chance of giving them a wide berth. In England andWales a law was promulgated in 1346, compelling lepers, within fifteendays of contracting the disease, to isolate themselves in some remote ruralarea, away from cities. Inspired by the Mosaic laws, the authorities in factcast the leper out of society and, wherever possible, confined him in alazaretto. Attired in a distinctive garb and a voluminous cloak, he was

forbidden to mix in crowds and, as one modern authority declares(obviously with a lump in his throat) "he was excluded even from church",or, if admitted, "a special seat and basin of holy water" were assigned tohim. But, once more, what could possibly have been more sensible?Would it have been fair to the rest of the congregation to allow him tomingle freely with them?

- p. 119 - When we learn that at one time in France there were some twenty

thousand lepers, or one to every two hundred of the population, and that inthe end leprosy was to all intents and purposes extirpated in Europe by theend of the sixteenth century, we can but feel grateful to these remoteancestors of ours for having been so "uncharitable" and so "inhuman" tothe contaminated and polluted as to free us from the scourge of theirdisease. For, as I need hardly mention, every modern historian whoreports these facts about medieval leprosy, recoils in horror; from the"cruelty" of the kind of regulations I have enumerated, although in his verynext breath, he may admit that they effectively rid Europe of the disease.

(See, for instance: Man Against Microbe , by Dr. Jas. W. Bigger, 1939, PartIII, Chap. XIX; The Control of Communicable Diseases , by Dr. Hugh Parel,1952, Chap. 38; Pomp and Pestilence , by Dr. Donald Hare, 1954, Chap.V; and A Short History of Medicine , by Dr. Charles Singer, 1928, Chap. III,para. 6; from which the above-mentioned facts were taken.) Furthermore, inhuman as it may sound to our modern ears, attunedonly to the merciless sacrifice of the healthy and promising, there was inmedieval England a regulation to the effect that an almoner who, after acoronation or any other important celebration, had the duty of distributing

alms to the crowd, was auhorized to burn alive any leper who, in hiscupidity, not only dared to force himself into a crowd of sound people, butwent so far as "to raise a knife against a neighbour" (Mediaeval England ,by Mary Bateson, 1903, Part II, Chap. VII). Unlike our present perverse and callous practice of reserving all thatis best for the sickly, the defective and the insane, and leaving what isinferior for the sound and promising in the community; when, in medievaltimes, market inspectors condemned any meat, it was, as a matter ofcourse, consigned to the asylums and the lazarettos. There is a ScottishAct of Parliament of 1386 containing the following passage: "Gif ony manbrings to the market corrupt swine or salmond to be sould, they sall betaken to the bail ie, and incontinent, without any question sall be sent to thelepper folke, and gif there be no lepper folke, they sail be destroyedutterlie." There was a similar regulation at Oxford in the fifteenth century.No wonder that, although a few cases of leprosy still occurred in thefifteenth century, the disease had by then considerably declined. (See



Chaucer and His England , by

- p. 120 -G. G. Coulton, 1921, Chap. X, and English Life and Manners in the Late

Middle Ages , by A. Abram, 1913, Chap. XIV.) Now if we turn from these medieval customs to the spirit that animatedthem, it should at once be clear that they represent no wanton display ofbrutality, as many otherwise sane historians would have us believe, butmerely a view of charity and of its appropriate object, wholly different from

our own. Only centuries of Christian indoctrination under the spell ofSocrates rather than of Aristotle, could bl ind us to this fact. For againstevery act allegedly "uncharitable" towards the lepers, our forebearsshowed themselves compassionate and charitable towards thebiologically precious. In observing their behaviour, we see no gratuitousacts of ruthlessness but only the inevitable consequences of their charitytowards those in the community they deemed fit to perpetuate their kind ina desirable form. Their choice was, therefore, not between charity or nocharity, but only between the objects to which charity should in wisdom be

shown. This, although palpably obvious, is so persistently misunderstoodby every modern publicist, that we are forced to conclude that even themost wide-awake of our contemporaries are made unamenable to reasonby a wholly uncontrolled orientation towards Socratic morality. Incidentally, it is this state of modern man's mind that accounts for thefact that Nietzsche's condemnation of Christian pity has everywhere beenunderstood and denounced as an attack on pity per se.

It was really only the unfortunate resurrection by the Reformation ofthe influence of Socrates, that led to the reversal of the husbandman's

attitude to life, especially in Protestant Europe; hence Nietzsche'sreiterated assertion that only the pre-Socratic Greeks, to whom Aristotlewas in some respects a throwback, were worthy of our admiration. JohnCowper Powys, independently I believe, came to the same conclusion; forhe says: "The only wise human philosophers are the early pre-SocraticGreeks" (D.S. Chap. IV). What then caused this change from a tasteful, discriminating exerciseof charity, to its converse — i.e., charity shown only to the least admirable,least promising and, from the point of view of posterity, most dangerous

elements in the population? — Undoubtedly the morbid, unaesthetic and perverted Socraticprinciples deeply rooted in Christianity, with their predilection

- p. 121 -for the foetid air of hospitals (Heine's Lazarethluft ), and their weakness forthe bitter taste of corpses. Only rarely do we hear a modern voice raised against this state ofaffairs. As we have seen, F. H. Bradley, over sixty years ago, was one ofthe few whom it roused to indignant protest. A little later on, W. Cecil D.Whetham and C. D. Whetham admitted that "Of late years, the duty of thestate to support the falling and the fallen has been so much emphasizedthat its still more important duty to the able and the competent has beenobscured" (The Family and the Nation , 1909, Conclusion). Themoderation observed in making this important admission over fifty yearsago and the fact that the policy it condemns has meanwhile only been



intensified, shows how hopeless the practice of understatement can bewhen advocating urgently needed reforms. Not more than six years ago, asimilar protest came from Professor D. W. Harding. In his Social

Psychology and Individual Values (1953, Chap. XIII), he says: "We arestruck with the vast amount of psychological knowledge, advice, andtrained personnel that are available for aiding the mentally or physicallyhandicapped child compared with the meagreness of the interest taken inthe exceptionally able. For one thing, there is no doubt that in our culturemost people's sentiments are organized in a way that makes it easier to

lavish attention on the unfortunate than to help the gifted to make the mostof themselves. Either effort requires great emotional discipline . . . but ourculture gives more encouragement to the effort towards helping theunfortunate." This important and courageous statement by a Professor ofPsychology at London University, ought to have been given wide publicity;because, although in milder terms, it exactly echoes Nietzsche's andBradley's charge against modern moral valuations and refers to modernerrors of judgment not even mentioned by Bradley, its purely English

provenance robs both churchmen and unconsciously Christian-feelingRationalists of the easy and ready retort that, after all, "only a mad Germanis speaking". Yet, had I not read Harding's book, I should never haveknown that he had made any such remark — to this extent are establishedmorbid prejudices protected by our Press from any attack, howeverauthoritative and well deserved. I have suggested the resurrection of the Socratic spirit as the probablecause of the reversal of the husbandman's policy towards humanbiological inferiority, especially in North-Western

- p. 122 -Europe after the Reformation. But another possible factor is that meantendency latent in all human breasts, but particularly in the breasts of theill-favoured, to feel humiliated by the spectacle of any form of superiorityand, above all, by what is popularly called "physical" superiority. Coleridge once said to Hazlitt, "It is a tax upon people's good natureto admit superiority of any kind, even when there is the most evident proofof it" (Table-Talk , W. Hazlitt, 1921 Ed. Chap.: On the Disadvantages of

Intellectual Superiority. It would have been more accurate to say"especially when there is the most evident proof of it"). Johnson alsospeaks of "That natural jealousy which makes every man unwilling toallow much excellence in another". (Life of Edmund Waller ). Crabbe expressed much the same idea when he wrote:

"I have heard of some, Who, if unnoticed, grew perversely dumb, Nay, different talents would their envy raise: Poets have sickened at a dancer's praise; And one, the happiest writer of his time, Grew pale at hearing Reynolds was sublime." (Tales V , "The Patron")

The allusions here are doubtless to Goldsmith. (See StephenGwynn's Oliver Goldsmith , 1935, Chap. XI, and Crabbe's Works edited by



his son.) Goethe also believed that it was natural to humanity to feelreluctant to praise a fellow-being; for he declared that "When we honourother people we necessarily dishonour ourselves." ("Wenn wir Andern

Ehre geben, Müssen wir uns selbst entadeln." West-Oestliche Divan:

Rendsch Nameh, Buch des Unmuts .) Scopenhauer took a similar view;for, besides claiming that envy is natural to man, and that no one is freefrom it, he maintained that "Humanity is not in the least disposed to praiseand extol; but rather to blame and find fault; by which means it indirectlyexalts itself." (Parerga und Paralipomena , Vol. I, Aphorismen Zur

Lebensweisheit , Chap. V, 10: "Neid ist dem Menschen natürlich" ; and Vol.II, Chap. VIII, "Zür Ethik" , where he says of envy, "ich befürchte dass

keiner ganz frei davon befunden werden wird ". Finally, in Vol. II, Chap.XX, "Ueber Urtheil, Kritik, Beifall u. Ruhm," he says, "Die Menschen sind

zum Loben und Rühmen gar nicht geneigt und angelegt, wohl

- p. 123 -aber zum Tadeln und Lastern, als durch welches sie indirekt sich selbst

loben." )

Byron wholly agrees. He denied by implication that even friendshipprevented envy, and he refers to it as "an universal passion" (Letters toMurray on Boules's Strictures on the Life and Writings of Pope , 2ndFebruary 1821). The Rev. C. C. Colton, in Lacon and Sheridan in The

Critic both appear to sympathise with this view of mankind — a viewalready familiar to classical antiquity. (See Tacitus: History , Book II.) It may very well be, therefore, that even if Socrates had never existed,and Christianity never been preached, the reluctance with which themajority of men acknowledge superiority and their corresponding

readiness to see it either reduced, humbled or even destroyed, would inany case have exposed humanity to the sort of mass conspiracy in favourof inferiority (which arouses no envy and wounds no vanities) that hasculminated in our present plight — at least in the biological sphere.Besides, are we not all too familiar with the kind of person who feelsirresistibly drawn to invalids and small children because they are theeasiest human creatures to acquire power over? In a chapter on Shakespeare, John Cowper Powys ascribes the manyattempts made by critics to deprive Shakespeare of the glory of having

written the plays, precisely to the human intolerance of superiority in afellow being. He speaks of "a curious subterranean jealousy getting itsmorbid pleasure in a devastating iconoclasm". He refers to it again as"jealous scepticism" (P.O.L. Chap. on Shakespeare); whilst ProfessorLouis Schneider remarks of Western man that, harassed by his feelings ofinferiority, he suffers from "an incapacity of tolerating signs of excellence inothers" (The Freudian Psychology and Veblen's Social Theory , 1948,Chap. 6, iii). Is it possible therefore, that in the mass movement in favour of all thatis il l-constituted and ill-favoured, we have a post-Reformation expressionof a tendency much more congenial and natural to humanity than is thatother tendency peculiar to the pre-Socratic Greeks and, to some extent tothe Europe presided over by Aristotle, and that the rôle of Socrates andChristianity was less that of originating, than of sanctioning and liberating,a passion that had long been straining at the leash? Can it be that allSocrates and Christianity did, was to give men a clean conscience in



favouring the less superior and the frankly inferior, a

- p. 124 -practice which otherwise they might have indulged only with misgivingand a sense of guilt? In other words, may we assume that what the ancientIsraelites, the Egyptians, the pre-Socratic Greeks, and their late heir — theStagyrite — did, was rather to curb the low, envy-inspired denigrators ofhuman biological and aesthetic superiority, than to give rein to afundamentally human preference for psycho-physical excellence in their

fellow creatures? If we did assume this, we should be at pains to account for thewidespread existence of biological and aesthetic superiority ininnumerable primitive races all the world over, and our difficulty would notbe diminished by the fact that we could hardly expect mere savages orbarbarians to be moved by nobler, more magnanimous and more civilizedsentiments than we ourselves are (although this is by no meansnecessarily inconceivable). If, therefore, we tend to leap at opportunitiesfor scorning and neglecting biological excellence in our fellow-men, and

for pampering and pandering to the biological inferior, we mightlegitimately expect primitive people to do likewise. As we do not findamong primitive people this enhanced form of superiority-disdain,especially in connection with biological and aesthetic excellence, is itpossible that the failing to which Coleridge alludes, which wouldabundantly account for our own tendency to sacrifice the biologicallygreater to the less (especially now that Christianity has given us carte-

blanche in the practice), is not a fundamental human infirmity, but ispeculiar only to modern civilized man?

Before concluding from the historical, anthropological andethnological evidence that it cannot be a basic human infirmity, but merelya late manifestation of civil ization, it is, however, important to rememberthe vis major which works in favour of human biological excellence inprimitive races and even among the peoples of early forms of civilization,who are unequipped with those lethal weapons of warfare which minimizethe dependence upon bodily vigour and excellence. Physicalfaultlessness in such circumstances is esteemed as the indispensableinsurance against extermination, and a powerful motive for stifling man's

instinctive reluctance to acknowledge superiority in another consequentlydominates the judgment of the population. The moment, however, that adequate protection ceased to be

- p. 125 -merely a matter of biological quality — a change which set in soon afterthe invention of firearms insensibly reduced the demand for fine powerfulbodies — it is conceivable that the brake theretofore exerted upon man'smeanest passion, by being first slackened and later so completelywithheld that even women could usefully function as mechanics behindlethal engines, led to a complete release of that rancour and uneasinessnaturally felt in the presence of biological excellence, which finds itsdeepest solace in fostering, pampering and generally championing thephysically or mentally handicapped and ill-constituted. Coupled with theultimate reinstatement of Socrates and the dethronement of Aristotle, it isnot, therefore, surprising that, today, the duties of charity and pity,



conceived as exclusively reserved for the ill-favoured, should havebecome standardized throughout all Anglo-Saxon and Lutherancommunities, and, by imitation and emulation, though never with equalvirulence, have been spread even to those countries still to some extentunder the sway of Aristotle.

* * * *

Churchmen have, of course, done their best to try to refute these

allegations. Most disingenuously, for instance, Dean Inge denied thatChristianity had been instrumental in causing any deterioration in thequality of human stocks. Well aware though he was of the data adduced inthese latter chapters, he tried to make the English public believe thatChristianity was the eugenic religion par excellence (Christian Ethics and

Modern Problems , 1930, Chap. V). Nowhere does he attempt to show that Christianity teaches any otherpolicy than the sacrifice of the greater to the less; or to contest the claimthat his religion teaches the converse of the farmer's form of pity and trains

its converts to keep their bodies "out of their minds" as Margaret Mead soaptly remarks (Male and Female , 1949, Part II, Chap. IV). Nor does heonce try to convince us that no consequences adverse to flourishinghuman life could result from St. John's and St. Paul's doctrines in I John ii,15–16 and Romans viii, 6–13. It will be remembered that St. John, orwhoever wrote in his name, says, "Love not the world, neither the thingsthat are in the world. If any man love the world the love of the Father is notin him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of theeyes, and the

- p. 126 -pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world"; whilst St. Paul,addressing the Romans, said: "Flesh is death. Spirit is life and peace. Thebody is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortifythe deeds of the body ye shall live." Dean Inge does not attempt to argue that these doctrines have had noinfluence on Christian peoples. Yet, the very fact that in verse 13 of the 8thchapter of Romans , "body" has a small "b", whilst "spirit" has a capital "S",shows how even the translators accepted and sensed the implications ofthe text, with its denigration of the physical side of man; for there is noindication in the Greek that spirit should be thus distinguished. But even without the typographical honour paid to spirit, these textssufficiently emphasize the immense superiority of the Spirit over the body,a valuation Christianity inherited from Socrates; and it is impossible not togain the impression that the burden of the message contained in the texts Ihave quoted, is that people afflicted with bodies which render themincapable of loving the world and feeling the lust of the flesh and, above

all, the pride of life, are nearer to the Christian ideal than those morenormally and vigorously endowed. But Dean Inge eschews the dangerous ground he would have to treadif he tried to dissuade us from reaching this conclusion. He does notventure to persuade us that the Christian attitude towards the body,inculcated upon scores of generations, has not had the results we suggest.



Nor does he once endeavour to explain how St. Paul's statement to theCorinthians (I Corinthians i, 20 et seq.) could avoid giving at least theimpression that human rubbish is more pleasing to the deity thanthoroughbred stock. It wil l be remembered that St. Paul said: "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the thingsthat are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which aredespised hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to

nought things that are, that no flesh should glory in his presence." Could anyone, least of all Dean Inge, be so naïf as to suppose that thebiologically inferior would for a moment hesitate to apply the moral ofthese doctrines to themselves, or that even the

- p. 127 -biologically superior would doubt that these texts from Holy Writ enjoineda policy of protection, preservation and preference towards the ill-favoured,the defective and the insane?

As a single conclusive proof of this, he might have pondered thesignificance of the epithet "un-Christian" as used by every modern personin condemnation of any policy akin, however remotely, to thehusbandman's form of pity. Then how does he pretend to be able tosupport his claim that Christianity is the eugenic religion par excellence ? — He does so by quoting the three following Gospel texts, which aregiven the whole burden of proving his case: "Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" (Matthew vii. 16). "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree

bring forth good fruit" (Ibid. 18). "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and castinto the fire" (Ibid. 19). Now, apart from the fact, perfectly familiar to Dean Inge, that thesestatements did not even refer to the arts of forestry or arboriculture, letalone to animal or human breeding, but were intended to warn Jesus'sfollowers against false prophets and their "fruits", i.e. corrupt doctrines, afact well understood by all those to whom the words were addressed, thereis in the whole chapter of St. Matthew and in the four gospels no indication

that Jesus either wished or intended the rules he thus laid down to bearany relation to human breeding or to selection in human mating. Nowherein the gospels, in fact, do we find any pronouncement as biologicallysound in its bearing or eugenics as that I have quoted from Leviticus xxi.16–23; nor do we find any warning against the danger to the race ofalways neglecting the body in order to concentrate upon and exalt thesoul. Moreover, Dean Inge never attempts to support his claim, as he mightreasonably be expected to do, by exonerating his religion of allresponsibil ity for the widespread morbidity and defectiveness of modernhumanity. He evidently hoped that the texts he quoted would make hisclaim appear sufficiently plausible to satisfy at least the converted. How much more candid and therefore respectable is the attitude of theRev. A. R. Osborne, the minister of one of the large New York Citychurches. Speaking of the conditions prevail ing in a former Age, in respectof humanity's subnormals, defectives



- p. 128 -and victims of mental instability, and stigmatizing the present multiplicationof the ill-favoured as "a social evil" which "has become serious", he says:"In former times many of these unfit died through neglect, physicalweakness, and improper or insufficient food"; now they are protected andpreserved. "It would be distinctly contrary to the principles of Christianethics to return to the old state of affairs. Yet there is a certain irony in thefact that our very altruism is causing race deterioration, and that we arediscriminating against the fit in favour of the unfit" (Christian Ethics , 1940,

Part II, Chap. II). This is the plain honest truth, and this recent admission by a Christianpriest of New York, makes one wonder whether, owing to our senility, ourlong subjection to feminine dominion, our decadence, or all these threeinfluences together, we of the old Mother Country, may not have grown toomealy-mouthed, too cravenly mendacious, and too unmanly to be accurateand capable of facing and acknowledging awkward and unpleasant facts.

* * * *

Having tried to the best of my ability, and as briefly as possible, tomake clear the complicated position regarding modern psycho physicaldecay, and the conditions — particularly those of Christian origin —favouring and promoting it, I can now return to the question that made thislengthy digression necessary, and again ask, in what way doesNietzsche's suggestion for remedying the present state of affairs differ fromother suggested remedies, particularly those involving violent interferencewith l ife, and thus rise superior to them.

It wil l be remembered that, as the "lethal chamber" solution is the onlyone popularly conceived as possible for relieving society of the crushingburden consisting of its biological trash and dregs, and of cleansing thenational stock and protecting it from further contamination, nothingwhatsoever is done about it, and for the simple reason that modernsensibil ities, although able with unwavering fortitude to tolerate the massslaughter of chiefly sound adults and children on our roads, cannot endurethe thought of sacrificing so much as a single hair of a raving maniac'shead. Thus the problem of purifying our stock and relieving the preciousminority of the sound, of the crippling burdens imposed on them by theprevalence of sickness, defect,

- p. 129 -incapacity, deformity and dementia, through which their own desirablemultiplication and survival are imperilled — this problem remains unsolvedand, year after year, the task of dealing with it continues to be postponedsine die.

In facing this problem Nietzsche saw that at bottom it was one ofvalues. What had happened was that the pre-Socratic and wholesome

values relating to man had been reversed, turned upside down, and thatalthough, as we have seen, other influences may have contributed to thisvolte-face , the principal present agency causing these topsy-turvy valuesstill to exert their sway, was Christianity with its baneful Socratic heritageconcerning body and soul, health and sickness, pity and altruism. Thus Nietzsche proposed, as the most practical non-violent means



modern legislators can command for recovering a sane and sanitaryattitude, what he termed A Transvaluation of Values — i.e., the restorationof the pre-Socratic view of man as a psycho-physical whole, and of thepre-Socratic criteria for assessing his worth. No longer should commonplace folk be taught that the body is inferiorto the "soul", and that its condition and appearance are unimportant inassessing a person's worth. On the contrary, their taste in appraisinghumanity should be purged of this depraved Socratic influence and theyshould hold no human being as desirable on the score of his invisible

aspects alone, least of all for matrimony. No longer should we be eager — aye, impatient — to sacrifice thegreater to the less. On the contrary, at every moment of our lives we shouldschool ourselves to sacrifice the less to the greater. The policy ofpenalizing the sound and biologically superior for the support andpreservation of those whose debility, defect, or dementia, was more thantransitory, should be looked upon as cruel, sadistic and odious. Pity andcharity should therefore no longer be blindly restricted to the wasteproducts of every generation. This bottomless sack into which all our

magnanimity, vigour and health have hitherto been poured, must belooked upon as a criminal device. Men must learn again to feel in their hearts contempt and repugnancefor biological depravity; and when this lesson has been learnt and thetaste displayed in mating has been correspondingly chastened, there willbe no need to quarrel over the pros and cons of a lethal chamber forhuman rubbish, for mor-

- p. 130 -

bidity and defect will insensibly and inevitably diminish to the extent ofceasing to be a social problem. A few generations reared on these pre-Socratic values would greatlyimprove the quality of Western man and, with the permanent dominion ofthe new morality, mankind would slowly and surely acquire a differentmien. Moreover, as three-quarters at least of both public and domesticstrife and friction arises from feelings of inferiority in the parties concerned,the ultimate supersession of health and biological excellent would put anend to much of the conflict and discord which today are the outcome of bad

health and failing stamina, conditions which contribute substantially to theruin of social and international relations. The one formidable obstacle to this urgently needed non violentmeans of combating degeneracy is Christianity, with its malignant core ofSocratic uncharitableness towards everything beautiful, sound, sweet,wholesome and clean; and until we rid our world of this two thousand-year-old pestilence, there can be no hope, much less any guarantee, ofour regeneration. But the hostility of Christianity to any such reform asNietzsche's Transvaluation of Values, is certain to be bitter, desperate anddetermined; nor will it be any less implacable for having on its side all themassed legions of the sickly, the purulent and the gangrenous; all theuncomely, misshapen and ill-favoured, who will fight tooth and nail andwithout mercy in order to preserve their present parasitical dominion overcivilized societies; whilst the fact that they will most certainly be backed bythe whole vast personnel running our present Health Service, a personnelwhich today makes disease a vested interest, wil l by no means facilitate



the task of any reformers aiming at effecting the transvaluation in question. The reader may object, "But since, as is alleged by Professor A. N.Whitehead, "far less than one-fifth of the population are in any senseChristians today" (A.I. Chap. XVIII), what does the hostility of Christianity tothe proposed reform matter? — This objection seems reasonable only if we forget the argumentadvanced in Chapter V ante , where it was pointed out that, prone asmodern people may be to reject the myths and supernatural claims ofChristianity and to declare themselves Rationalists, Agnostics, Free

Thinkers, or even Atheists, acknowledging allegiance to no denominationof the Christian faith, deep down in their instincts and the emotionsresulting from them, Christian

- p. 131 -morality still dominates their impulses. Very rarely do we meet a man orwoman who, whilst emphatically repudiating every tenet of the old religionalso impugns its morality; for the majority of these professedlyemancipated Christians are still subconscious champions of at least the

most deleterious of Christian moral precepts. They still believe in findingevery possible excuse for human biological trash and shoddy; they stilldeprecate the practice of drawing any adverse inferences from deplorablevisible attributes, and still show no understanding of what is meant by"Charity for the sound and promising". All of them, without exception,would resist any attempt to instal the husbandman's conception of pity inthe place of that which they make it their pride to practise. Thus, despite the probable truth of Professor Whitehead's estimate ofthe proportion of Christians in our midst, the opposition to any reform along

the lines I have suggested, which is likely to come from the quarter ofconscious Christians, would most probably be multiplied a thousandfoldfrom the ranks of those moderns who are unwittingly Christians at heart.

Home Texts Next Chapter



pdfcrowd.comn in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

All Christians are Cucks April 16, 2016 Axe of Perun 106 Comments

Mike

Walsh

Kyle

Hunt Sinead

Digger

for

Truth

Axe

of

Perun

Aria

Whitebeam

Robert

Heimdal

Sacred

Runes Patrick

Top Authors

SECTIONS AUTHOR REGISTRATION CONTACT LOG IN

http://www.renegadetribune.com/









http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/mwalsh/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/Kyle/







http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/digger/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/Axe%20of%20Perun/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/holycuck.png




http://pdfcrowd.com/

http://pdfcrowd.com/redirect/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.renegadetribune.com%2fall-christians-are-cucks%2f&id=ma-170305162139-418a1fde

http://pdfcrowd.com/customize/

http://pdfcrowd.com/html-to-pdf-api/?ref=pdf


http://www.renegadetribune.com/all-christians-are-cucks/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/axe-of-perun/



http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/Sinead/



http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/Aria%20Whitebeam/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/heimdaller/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/SacredRunes/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/Patrick88/



http://www.renegadetribune.com/author-registration/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/contact/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/




I am sick and tired of Christians. Let me repeat that – I am sick and

tired of Christians. How someone can be so blind, is beyond me. I can

understand the idiocy of people a thousand years ago – they saw their

neighbors being slaughtered in the name of Jesus and God and simply

had to convert. Eventually, others followed up and literally “believed”,

because they were not allowed to possess or read the Bible

themselves.

You could only “hear about Christianity” directly from a Priest. Theyhad total control over their “religion”. No one forced them to tell

the people the “nice stuff”. And, if you haven’t noticed – they need to

“convert you”. They have to wash away (baptize) your European self

and then call upon you the Jewish entity. The Symbolism is self-

evident. Anyway, people were not reading the Bible at all – they didn’t

know how to read, there were no books, they didn’t know Latin or

Greek. Only in 1454, with the invention of the press, did the idea of

reading the Bible en masse become possible and it wouldn’t become a

universal reality until 1611 with the “authorized” King James Bible. So,

Christians have had the chance to actually read the Bible for only

approximately 400 years. None of them even knew what the god

damn Bible says in its entirety.

Now we know – and people like us – who had the nerve to go through

that piece of shit – are telling you – look! – it is a piece of shit. You can

NewsletterSubscription

Email *

Select list(s):

New Article Updates

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe!

Book Promotion

Your support is needed! Click

here to contribute and

receive a gift.







http://www.renegadetribune.com/promotion





read it now everywhere, you can read it on your phone while sitting on

the toilet. You can read it on your tablet, on your PC, buy it as a book –

and yet – people don’t do it. I have met so many Christians who

simply tell me that they “believe in Jesus” and have never read a single

page of the Bible. This is the situation we find ourselves in – we are

operating with mindless drones who do not wish to know – they only

wish to have an opinion which is still regarded as generally good by

the public – they do not wish to lose this image of theirs, so they cling

to belief rather than knowledge, because they would have to

eventually challenge their own belief.

With the Internet, the Awareness of the Holocaust Lie has also grown.

In the very same way is the Awareness of the Bible Lie growing. We are

literally dismantling every single Jewish Lie. And the same way Jews

wish to prevent the Truth about the Holohoax from leaking out to the

public, they also wish to prevent us from destroying the Bible. They

This also means that with the rise of the

Internet, the Insight into the Bible has

also grown.









intentionally “hate Jesus”, so that you may protect him and love him

more. And, you have these Shabbos Goy agents infiltrating the White

movement who are, surprisingly and ironically, suddenly the biggest

Christians ever – you must not touch Christianity!, they say. We are the

true Israelites!, they say. It is the same Jewish Lie over and over and

over – again.

Enough. It is enough. I will now, within this one article, give you the

basic points of the Biblical Lie and Idiocy – I will also add, but not gointo detail about that here – the fact that Jews stole not only almost

everything within the Old Testament, but also within the New

Testament – from other people. The New Testament character of

“Christ” has certain “proverbs” which can be found in ancient Egyptian

teachings, Hindu references, even in Druid-like perspectives. It is the

idea of Consciousness and “Knowing Thyself” that is “hidden” within

those proverbs. The rest is utter horseshit. Whatever the Jew infiltrates

becomes degenerate as he transforms it to his own liking. In that

same way are they, the Jews – that is to say “God” – creating you

Gentiles into their own liking. Be as it may, let us begin with the basic

question of “what was Jesus”:













Both his parents were Jews because they were observing the Torah.

His parents observed the Passover :

All of his disciples were Jews, he was a Jew, they even called him a

Rabbi :

Luke 2:39 – So when they had done

everything according to the Torah of the

Lord, they returned to the Galilee, to

their own city of Nazareth

Luke 2:41 – His parents went to

Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the

Passover.













He didn’t come to destroy the Law (Torah) or End it :

He went to synagogues :

Contribute at least the

amount listed below:

United States

$20 for 1 DVD or $60 for 4

DVDs

International


DVDs

–

the other side of the lake, they said to

Him, “Rabbi, when did You come here?”

John 4:9 – Then the woman of Samaria

said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, a Samaritan

woman?”…

Matthew 5:17 – Do not think that I cameto destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did

not come to destroy but to fulfill.





https://buynowplus.com/checkout/57363b13bef93f0300d373ce




He wore the Jewish tassle (The Hebrew noun tzitzit is the name for

specially knotted ritual fringes, or tassels, worn in antiquity by

Israelites and today by observant Jews and Samaritans) :

Recent Posts

Blackbird9’s

Breakfast

Club: The US

Uncivil War

Pt4

Frederick does an "ad hoc" show,

skipping pt3 of the series for the

time …

Ancient

Aryans of

China

The Chinese

mummies

present a unique problem to thosewho assume that the Chinese …

Sinead’s

Kosher Food

Experiment

Sinead heard

Luke 4:16 – So he came to Nazareth,

where He had been brought up. And as

His custom was, He went into the

synagogue on the Sabbath day, and

stood up to read.

Luke 21:37 – And in the daytime He was

teaching in the Temple, but at night He

went out and stayed on the mountain

called Olivet.





http://www.renegadetribune.com/blackbird9s-breakfast-club-us-uncivil-war-pt4/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/ancient-aryans-china/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/sineads-kosher-food-experiment/




He observed the Passover (The Jewish people celebrate Passover as a

commemoration of their liberation by God from slavery in Egypt and

their freedom as a nation under the leadership of Moses) :

He observed the Succot (in traditional Ashkenazi pronunciation Sukkos

or Succos, literally Feast of Booths, is commonly translated to English

as Feast of Tabernacles, sometimes also as Feast of the Ingathering)

and taught in the temple again :

is the only food that is safe to eat, …

All Christians

are Cucks #7

We shall analyze

words of Jesus

and his

connection to the Jewish Law and …

Andrey R.

Bens: Sinead

McCarthy –

Genocide in

South Africa

Sinead talks about her work

exposing the ongoing genocide in

South Africa, which she …

MaraSalvatrucha

(MS-13)

Gang: Major

Players in

Sex-Slave Trafficking and

More

Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) is a

Matthew 14:36 – (They) begged Him that

they might only touch the tassle of His

garment. And as many as touched it

were made perfectly well.

John 2:13 – Now the Jewish Passover

was at hand, and Yeshua (“Jesus”) went

up to Jerusalem.





http://www.renegadetribune.com/christians-cucks-7/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/andrey-r-bens-sinead-mccarthy-genocide-south-africa/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/mara-salvatrucha-ms-13-gang-major-players-sex-slave-trafficking/




He observed the Hanukah (a Jewish holiday commemorating the

rededication of the Holy Temple (the Second Temple) in Jerusalem at

the time of the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid Empire.

Hanukkah is observed for eight nights and days, starting on the 25th

day of Kislev according to the Hebrew calendar, which may occur at

any time from late November to late December in the Gregorian

calendar. It is also known as the Festival of Lights and the Feast of Dedication) :

trans-national criminal gang that

originated in El Salvador that …

California

Department

of Public

Health Hid

This Warning

on Cell Phone Radiation for

Years

The California Department of Public

Health had hidden a document

drafted years ago that …

Adolf Hitler’s

Economic

Reform

The charging of

interest on loans

was considered immoral and by

forcing banks to …

Sacred

Womanhood

Western man

can have a

John 7:2,10,14 – Now the Jewish Feast of

Succot (“Tabernacles”) was at hand. But

when His brothers had gone up, then He

also went up to the Feast… Now about

the midst of the feast Jesus went up into

the temple, and taught.

John 10:22,23 – Now it was the Feast of

Dedication in Jerusalem and it was





http://www.renegadetribune.com/california-department-public-health-hid-warning-cell-phone-radiation-years/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/adolf-hitlers-economic-reform/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/sacred-womanhood/




He was a god damn Jew, alright. There is also one other, crucial point

here – the supposed Messiah has to come from the bloodline of David

and Solomon – yet another bunch of Jews. So, he must be part of an

ancient Jewish ancestry – you can’t go around this. He was a Jew, bothracially and religiously. He might as well have looked like this Jew :

It is interesting to note that the idea of a Messiah does not exist in the

future Western

man must do his part Honoring his

…

US

Congresswoman: To Solve

Refugee Crisis, Stop Funding

Terrorism

Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi

Gabbard is still calling on the U.S.

government to stop its …

The Nine

Worlds

The Asa-gods

built for

themselves

Asgard, the celestial city, which is

set high above …

UnSpun: Keys

to Critical

Thinkin

winter, and Yeshua (“Jesus”) walked in

the temple…





http://www.renegadetribune.com/us-congresswoman-solve-refugee-crisis-stop-funding-terrorism/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-nine-worlds/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/unspun-keys-critical-thinking/




Torah – the five books. It was added later on, or to say it more

precisely – it was invented later on. Be as it may, you cannot randomly

talk about Jesus as a “Christian concept of the Messiah” without

knowing what the fuck the Jewish Messiah is supposed to be. Get it?

You must first look back and understand what this Jewish Messiah

is supposed to represent, what his Purpose was supposed to be,

why the Jews are waiting for such a guy and what he was supposed

to do.

Once you know what the Jewish Messiah is, then you can continue to

look into Jesus and see if he fits the description – and if he does – you

believe that this Messiah is supposed to fulfill the concept and idea

behind the definition of a “Jewish Messiah”. You must look at the linear

development of Judaism and Judaism 2.0, which is Christianity.

Therefore, the Jews, the Bible and their other scriptures, say the

following about the Messiah :

Jan and Joe

discuss how our

critical thinking abilities have been

under attack and …

#Pizzagate

Declared a

‘Debunked

Conspiracy

Theory’ by

Wikipedia Disinfo Agent

This “pizzagate conspiracy theory”

debunking work is carried by a

prolific Wikipedia “user” who …

Trapped in

the World

Wide Web

The Internet has

quickly become

a massive surveillance network, but

it's something that most …

Rene ade Re ort

He will bring about the political and

spiritual redemption of the Jewish

people by bringing us back to Israel and

restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12,







http://www.renegadetribune.com/pizzagate-declared-debunked-conspiracy-theory-wikipedia-disinfo-agent/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/trapped-world-wide-web/




Tweets by @RadioRenegades

RenegadeBroadcasting

The latest radio shows from

our sister site.

Renegade

Roundtable: Kyle

Hosts (3-4-17)

Circus Maximus:

Hebraic Chutzpah

at the Hippodrome

(3-3-17)

Truth Hertz: The

Buried Book of

Enoch (3-3-17)

Weekly Dossier:

Mother Revisited

3-2-17

Jeremiah 23:8, 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will

establish a government in Israel that will

be the center of all world government,

both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4;

11:10, 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple

and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah

33:18). He will restore the religious court

system of Israel and establish Jewish

law as the law of the land (Jeremiah

33:15).

In the Olam Ha-Ba (The Messianic Age),

the whole world will recognize the Jewish G-d as the only true G-d, and the

Jewish religion as the only true religion

(Isaiah 2:3, 11:10, Micah 4:2-3;

Zechariach 14:9). One day there will

arise a dynamic Jewish leader, a direct





https://twitter.com/RadioRenegades

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/renegade-roundtable-kyle-hosts-3-4-17/

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/circus-maximus-hebraic-chutzpah-hippodrome-3-3-17/

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/truth-hertz-buried-book-enoch-3-3-17/

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/weekly-dossier-mother-revisited-3-2-17/




Truth Hertz: The

Amazing Ant (3-2-

17)

Brigid’s Readings

from the Tribune

(3-1-17)

Truth Hertz:

Freeloading on the

Fauna (3-1-17)

descendant of the Davidic dynasty, who

will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, and

gather Jews from all over the world and

bring them back to the Land of Israel. All

the nations of the world will recognize

Moshiach (Messiah) to be a world

leader, and will accept his dominion. The

Jewish nation will be preoccupied with

learning Torah and fathoming its

secrets.







http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/truth-hertz-amazing-ant-3-2-17/

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/brigids-readings-tribune-3-1-17/

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/truth-hertz-freeloading-fauna-3-1-17/




In Deuteronomy 30:1 Moses prophesies

that, after the Jews have been scattered

to the four corners of the earth, there

will come a time when they will repent

and return to Israel, where they will

fulfill all the commandments of the

Torah. It is interesting to note that the

wall of the United Nations Building in

New York is inscribed with the quote

from Isaiah (11:6) – “And the wolf shall

lie with the lamb.” Furthermore, it is

clear from the prophets, when studied

in their original Hebrew, that Moshiach

is a Jewish concept, and his coming willentail a return to Torah law, firmly ruling

out any “other” messianic belief.








So, there you have it – this is what the Jewish Messiah is supposed to

be. Someone who will create the Jew World Order, put everyone under

absolute submission to Jews and their God and make Israel the World

Government. And you, Christians, are cheering on for that. You believe

Moshiach will be a man who possesses

extraordinary qualities. He will be

proficient in both the written and oral

Torah traditions. He will incessantly

campaign for Torah observance among

Jews, and observance of the seven

universal Noahide laws by non-Jews.

Moshiach will be heralded as a true

Jewish king, a person who leads the way

in the service of G-d, totally humble yet

enormously inspiring. Initially, there will

be no change in the world order, other

than its readiness to accept messianic

rule. All the nations of the world will

strive to create a new world order.








that Jesus is the “Messiah” who is supposed to fulfill this. If anyone

who supports Israel or the Jew World Order is a Cuck, then every

single Christian on this planet is also a Cuck.

Nevertheless, the Jews also have a limited time to accomplish this – at

least this is what they have made it up to be in order to “motivate” their

own people more to finish and succeed in the creation of a “New World

Order”. We find this motivation within this concept :

According to classical Jewish sources,

the Hebrew year 6000 (Gregorian year

2239) marks the latest time for the

initiation of the Messianic Age. The

Talmud, the Midrash, and the

Kabbalistic work, the Zohar, state thatthe ‘deadline’ by which the Messiah

must appear is 6,000 years from

creation. According to tradition, the

Hebrew calendar started at the time of

Creation, placed at 3761 BC. The current








So, we got about 200 years left before the Jews finish their shit. By the

year 2100 they plan to completely erase the White race from the

face of the Earth and will afterwards ruin the Chinese, Japanese and

Indian people completely. They are already populating certain areas in

China with exclusively Black populations, which by some strange

miracle have money as if they are born with it – wink, wink – race-

mixing.

There is, however, another group of people that believes that the Earth

is 6000 years old – that is to say – they follow the same timeline as the

Jews do, and they are waiting for that Messiah to fulfill that number

6000 – Freemasons. Why should it surprise you? They also have the

Jewish Bible inside their Lodge. Every single ritual, every single

password, every story, every character inside Freemasonry is Jewish

and based on the Bible. Everything they do is Kosher – and they also

can’t wait to rebuild the Temple – perhaps they even believe that the

(2015/2016) Hebrew year is 5776. The

Lubavitcher Rebbe, as others, maintains

that the Messiah must arrive at, or

before, the onset of the Shabbat, the

year 6000.








Messiah will be someone who is a Mason! You can read all the rituals

on this link. Anyways, did Jesus do anything of the above? Did he

completely fulfill the Messianic prophecies? No. He didn’t even fulfill

this basic one :

First and foremost “almah” doesn’t mean virgin – it means young

woman – also the masculine form for “almah” is “elem” which means

young man, not virgin. Virgin in Hebrew is “Betulah”. Furthermore, we

see that the child should be called Immanuel, which means “God with

Us”. How then is our protagonist called Jesus Christ, where Jesusmeans “The Lord is Salvation”, while Christ means “The Anointed One”?

In Hebrew Jesus is Yehoshua – what has any of this got to do with

“Immanuel”? But, you see – all the Christian nations – for some idiotic

reason – adopted this saying “God with Us”.

There is another interesting piece of information here. Since we know

that Jews used Christianity to brainwash us, it shouldn’t surprise us

Isaiah 7:14 – The almah (virgin) shall be

with child and his name shall beImmanuel.





http://www.stichtingargus.nl/vrijmetselarij/ritualen_en.html




that “almah” in greek is “Parthenos”. Now, why is that important?

Because Parthenos was the daughter of Apollo and Chrysothemis, who

died a maiden – she died a virgin – and became the constellation

Virgo, Virgin.

Be as it may, the Jews are using the tale of Jesus to actually make him

appear as a Messiah. Since the inception of Christianity, Jews have

managed to rule the World. Without Christianity they were like the

Aboriginals – a random tribe which had basically nothing to offer

and were of no real interest to anyone. You have to understand that

with the rise of both Christianity and Islam, Judaism and Jews became a

very important factor in the World, if not the Authority of Religion,

because these 2 branches of the Bible were linked to their Source – the

Jews and Judaism. So, the Jews have managed to grow in power

through others and finally will attempt to consume everyone else.

Now that you understand the Jewish plan, you can also understand

that the Jews had to influence the Gentile population through a new

version of religion, which would essentially lead to the growth of their

own power. If you can’t grasp this concept, you haven’t really done








your research about Jewish power in the world at the moment and the

massive, unnatural help that they are getting from all Christian

Churches and even the Muslim people. Sure, some may yell, scream

and shout and pretend to hate the Jews, but I don’t see anyone really

targeting them and making sure they go to the abyss, do you?

On a side note – this is also the reason why Orthodox Jews are against

“Zionism” – the Messiah is supposed to create Israel. But all Jews want

Zionism in the end – they all want to rule the world. The only thingthese Orthodox guys are against is the current state of Israel – no

Messiah showed up and created it. This is also why this whole religious

bullshit is simply that – bullshit. The religion is simply a cover up for

the one and only truth – the Protocols of Zion.








Notice – only “their sins”. And who are “His people”?

I wonder why Israel, through Jesus, is prospering so much these days.

Matthew 1:21 – She will bear a Son; and

you shall call His name Jesus, for He will

save His people from their sins.

Matthew 15:24 – But He answered and

said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of

the house of Israel.”

Luke 1:33 – and He will reign over the

house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom

will have no end.








Jesus will reign over the house of Jacob. Now, what exactly is the house

of Jacob?

It’s like Jews made a bet with someone – you got 6000 years to rule the

Planet and kill the White Race – are they playing Risk? Anyway, the

“house of Jacob” therefore refers to Israelites, that is to say Jews, who

are direct descendants of the sons of Jacob. There are 12 sub-houses of

this house : Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher,

Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin. We continue :

While thus engaged, there appeared one

in the form of a man who wrestled with

him. In this mysterious contest Jacobprevailed, and as a memorial of it his

name was changed to Israel (wrestler

with God); and the place where this

occured he called Peniel, “for”, said he, “I

have seen God face to face, and my life

is preserved”.








The major theme of the Hebrew Bible’s

narrative is the loyalty of Judah, and

especially its kings, to Yahweh, which it

states is the God of Israel. Accordingly,

all the kings of Israel and almost all the

kings of Judah were “bad”, which in

terms of Biblical narrative means that

they failed to enforce worship of

Yahweh alone. Of the “good” kings,

Hezekiah (727–698 BCE) is noted for his

efforts at stamping out idolatry (in this

case, the worship of Baal and Asherah,

among other traditional Near Easterndivinities), but his successors, Manasseh

of Judah (698–642 BCE) and Amon (642–

640 BCE), revived idolatry, drawing down

on the kingdom the anger of Yahweh.

King Josiah (640–609 BCE) returned to








Ironically, the Jewish Orthodox version says the following :

the worship of Yahweh alone, but his

efforts were too late and Israel’s

unfaithfulness caused God to permit the

kingdom’s destruction by the

Babylonians in c. 587/586 BCE.

Matthew 1:21 – And she shall bear BEN

(Son) and you will call SHMO (his name,

Zech 6:12) YEHOSHUA (Zech 6:11-12)

because he will bring his people

yeshuah (rescue, salvation, deliverance)from their peyshaim (rebellions).








So, Israel and Judah were Sinning against Yahweh. Jesus was to reign

over all the tribes of Jacob, but there is one specific important element

that we will find in the New Testament Hebrews :

For the law having a shadow of good

things to come, and not the very image

of the things, can never with those

sacrifices which they offered year by

year continually make the comers

thereunto perfect. For then would they

not have ceased to be offered? because

that the worshippers once purged

should have had no more conscience of

sins. But in those sacrifices there is a








remembrance again made of sins every

year. For it is not possible that the blood

of bulls and of goats should take away

sins.

Wherefore when he cometh into theworld, he saith, Sacrifice and offering

thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou

prepared me: In burnt offerings and

sacrifices for sin thou hast had no

pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the

volume of the book it is written of me,)

to do thy will, O God. Above when hesaid, Sacrifice and offering and burnt

offerings and offering for sin thou

wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure

therein; which are offered by the law;

Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O








God. He taketh away the first, that he

may establish the second. By the which

will we are sanctified through the

offering of the body of Jesus Christ once

for all.

Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a

witness to us: for after that he had said

before, This is the covenant that I will

make with them after those days, saith

the Lord, I will put my laws into their

hearts, and in their minds will I write

them; And their sins and iniquities will Iremember no more.

For if that first covenant had been

faultless, then should no place have








Get it? He made a new covenant with the houses of Israel and

been sought for the second. For finding

fault with them, he saith, Behold, the

days come, saith the Lord, when I will

make a new covenant with the house of

Israel and with the house of Judah: Not

according to the covenant that I made

with their fathers in the day when I took

them by the hand to lead them out of

the land of Egypt; because they

continued not in my covenant, and I

regarded them not, saith the Lord. For

this is the covenant that I will make with

the house of Israel after those days,

saith the Lord; I will put my laws into

their mind, and write them in theirhearts: and I will be to them a God, and

they shall be to me a people.








Judah – the ones that were rebelling and sinning against him – and

since everything in Judaism required a sacrifice to God, they made one

big final sacrifice to him – Jesus Christ – he was to be the blood

sacrifice to Yahweh so that he could forgive them their sins. He will

remember their sins and iniquities no more. They are forgiven all the

non-Yahweh stuff they did in the past. This is what your Jesus came for.

He came for the “lost sheep” of Israel (House of Jacob) which were the

houses of Israel and Judah. Feel liberated yet?

Another, very interesting, point is the “definition” of the term “Jacob” –

its etymology: to follow with evil intent; to supplant; to deceive. What

is supplant? Who is a supplanter? Supplanter often refers to

governments and rulers of countries, and it comes from the verb

supplant, which evolved from the Latin supplantare, meaning “to trip

up or to overthrow.” Fuck me, right? The house of Jacob, that is to say

all of fucking Jewry, literally is defined as a group of people who are

supposed to overthrow other Nations.

According to rabbinical teachings, which








dominated even during the existence of

the Temple (Pes. viii. 8), Baptism, next to

circumcision and sacrifice, was an

absolutely necessary condition to be

fulfilled by a proselyte to Judaism (Yeb.

46b, 47b; Ker. 9a; ‘Ab. Zarah 57a; Shab.

135a; Yer. Kid. iii. 14, 64d). Circumcision,

however, was much more important,

and, like baptism, was called a “seal”

(Schlatter, “Die Kirche Jerusalems,” 1898,

p. 70). But as circumcision was

discarded by Christianity, and the

sacrifices had ceased, Baptism

remained the sole condition for

initiation into religious life. The nextceremony, adopted shortly after the

others, was the imposition of hands,

which, it is known, was the usage of the

Jews at the ordination of a rabbi.

Anointing with oil, which at first also








So, Christianity was simply a new version of Judaism specifically

designed for these 2 houses that were not really worshiping Yahweh

the right way. If you read the “Hebrews”, they were also annoyed by

having to bring constant sacrifices to God – so he made a deal with

them to deliver one final sacrifice – a Human one. That’s it. Read the

god damn Hebrews. This is why there are “Orthodox Jews” who do not

follow this new covenant and “regular Jews”, basically Christians, who

follow it entirely – because they are of these 2 houses.

Christianity is Judaism 2.0 that has simply dropped circumcision and

sacrifices to God, because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice to God.

The rest is pure brainwashing, designed to slowly but surely create a

Communist environment wherever Christianity shows up. The Bible

itself is the Blueprint of Communism, but in the NT we find all the

important “messages” that brainwashed people. Everything you

basically hate about Cultural Marxism can be found in the NT :

accompanied the act of Baptism, and

was analogous to the anointment of

priests among the Jews, was not a

necessary condition.








Interestingly enough, it supposedly says this in the Talmud – “Whether

Jew or gentile, man or woman, rich or poor — according to a man’s

deeds does G-d’s presence rest on him.” Man’s deeds of course defined

by doing God’s Will – in other words – you only have to worship Jews

and their God, Goyim – then you are fine with us.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is

neither slave nor free man, there is

neither male nor female; for you are all

one in Christ Jesus.








1) God made a new covenant with the houses of Judah and Israel

2) This covenant was established by sacrificing Jesus

3) Jesus didn’t fulfill the Jewish idea of the Messiah

4) Jews use Christianity and Jesus to accomplish their Messianic age,

the Jew World Order, White Genocide

5) The Jewish Messiah is literally a Jew who is supposed to bring

about the Jew World Order

6) Therefore, every Christian is, by definition of his Belief, a Cuck

As long as you are a Christian – you need the Jews. Because your

“Messiah” can only come as a Jew – you need Judaism and the Jews.

You are keeping Judaism and Jews alive. Without Christianity and Islam,

Judaism and Jews are again just and only tribal idiots of a tribal religion

with absolutely no impact on anything. The moment you are not a

Christian anymore – you need neither – you don’t need Jews or

Judaism. I don’t need a single god damn Jew telling me what to do,

what to believe in or what to say. I am free from his shackles. That is

the difference, my Christians.








1093SHARES

← White Privilege Tax: An Idea Whose Time Has Come

1. http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/jacob/2. http://www.thegodmurders.com/3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_in_Judaism4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_60006. http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm7. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/108400/jewis

h/The-End-of-Days.htm8. http://jesusisajew.org/Jesus_is_a_Jew.php9. http://www.masonic-lodge-of-education.com/masonic-

calendar.html

Facebook

Twitter

Subscribe





http://www.renegadetribune.com/white-privilege-tax-idea-whose-time-come/

http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fall-christians-are-cucks%2F

https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=All%20Christians%20are%20Cucks&url=http://www.renegadetribune.com/all-christians-are-cucks/&via=RadioRenegades




White Supremacy Causes Premature Births in Black Women

→

George LincolnRockwell: 1967Speech at UCLA February 12, 2016

7

The CelticLibrary: TheSacred Land April 23, 2016 1

Made In Sweden– The Art Of CarlLarsson (Part 2) January 30, 2017

2

Axe of Perun

The Return of the White European racial Spirit

You May Also Like





http://www.renegadetribune.com/white-supremacy-causes-premature-births-black-women/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/george-lincoln-rockwell-1967-speech-at-ucla/



http://www.renegadetribune.com/george-lincoln-rockwell-1967-speech-at-ucla/#comments

http://www.renegadetribune.com/celtic-library-sacred-land/



http://www.renegadetribune.com/celtic-library-sacred-land/#comments

http://www.renegadetribune.com/made-sweden-art-carl-larsson-part-2/



http://www.renegadetribune.com/made-sweden-art-carl-larsson-part-2/#comments




CONNECT WITH:

Notify of new follow-up comments Email ›

forresttales

Member

Leave a Reply

106 Comments on "All Christians are Cucks"

Sort by: newest | oldest | most voted

The crushing, unavoidable, and insurmountable reality about

Christianity is that it is intrinsically Zionist sympathetic, no

matter what excuses are made. And the seminaries are replete

with Phd graduates turned atheist. Yes, the more you know, the

Join the discussion





http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Facebook&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fall-christians-are-cucks%2F

http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Google&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fall-christians-are-cucks%2F

http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Twitter&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fall-christians-are-cucks%2F




23 REPLY 10 months 16 days ago


Bruce Arney

Guest

renegade

Admin

more impossible i t is to believe. And how some people can

have such a keen mind in some respects, while committing

intellectual suicide in others, I’ve always wanted to understand.

Christianity is emotional, and unfortunately, cultural – NOT

logical. When 911 happened, I made the comment to my

Christian father that the Israelis will be happy, now that it

seems… Read more »

Christians are indeed cucks. How anyone could listen to

Pastor John Haggee and send their hard-earned cash to him

to feed a starving Jew is beyond me. We need a purge to rid

ourselves of defective minds

Irrefutable proof, I’d say. The only line of defense that is ever

offered is: the jews of today are not the real jews, they are

Edomites. Yahweh made his covenant with the White race,







http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/renegade/






21 REPLY

10 months 17 days ago

Axe of Perun

Hipster Racialist

Author

and we will be the ones ruling the world when Rabbi Jesus

returns, or some shit like that.

Which of course is absolute bullshit. Europeans

existed before the Bible and any type of migration of

any Jews. By the logic of the idiotic Christian Identity,

which is a Jewish agency yet again, it would mean that

“the real jews” came to Europe, killed all Europeans

and replaced them with themselves. Which of course,

is bullshit – yet again. No matter how you look at it, you

get to the point where “real jews” infiltrate Europe and

that’s it. And these Jews, who have infiltrated Europe,

are now destroying it as the “supplanters” which they

are.… Read more »












-10 REPLY


19 REPLY


renegade

Admin

Guest

That’s because it wasn’t a “migration of Jews”,

and not all Whites are Israelites, and no Jews

are Israelites. You’re just pushing cultural

marxist from a ignorant pro-White angle.

So Abraham, who whored out his wife as

his sister and almost murdered his son

for the voice in his head, was an Aryan?

And Lot, who god loved so much that he

saved so that he could get drunk and fuck

his two daughters, he was an Aryan too?

You are pushing something far moresinister than cultural marxism – you are

pushing the fucking Torah onto White

people!












8 REPLY


Axe of Perun

AmericanIntel

lectual

Guest

Author

Thumps up to what Kyle replied to you. So

– Christian Identity then, you say? In what

scenario are Whites the Israelites – but not

all Whites? So we got a secret elite of

Israelites ruling over the Whites? Because

Israelites, by definition of the Messiah –

want to create a New World Order. And it

is not the Jews you say? So, we have within

our own People Israelites who want to kill

us? Is that what you claim? Are you

defending the Jews? Are you saying we are

our own Traitors? Because that is

what… Read more »

Most Cultural

Marxists of the Frankfurt School

were Atheists. And Ethnic Jews.











-1 REPLY



Skodalaskoda

Guest

Ferdl Weiss

Guest

What sort of sites admin get involved in comments

debates? Renegade is a wasteland of stupidity.

Hello everyone To all of you christ-hating flock I can

just pray that God may forgive you for your blasphemy.

In the truest sense of Christ’s appeal to God his father,

you need his mercy :- “Father, forgive them, for they do

not know what they are doing.” Since you have

absolute not the slightest clue who the real Jesus was,

you might one day be excused for your utterly stupid

and uninformed comments. Jesus was the only one

being ever who had the courage and guts you could

not even dream of, who called out the… Read more »










-11 REPLY


14 REPLY


Axe of Perun

AmericanIntelle

ctual

Guest

Author

> Since you have absolute not the slightest clue

who the real Jesus was – I am sure you can

explain to us with full proof evidence who the

real Jesus was. You probably have pictures of

him as well. You can just and only “believe” in

him; which puts you in the perfect position for

the Jews to take control over your mind. I can bet

that you haven’t read the article with Reason. >

Jesus was the only one being ever who had the

courage and guts you could not even dream of,

who called… Read more »

During the Thirty Years

War, there was no unified Germany and

German Nationalism wasn’t invented yet












-2 REPLY


Ferdl Weiss

Guest

by Johann Gottfried Herder. That guy lived

in the 18th century. Thirty Years War was

also about rivalry between various

European states, using religion as an

excuse sometimes. Catholic France fought

on the side of the Protestant German

states and Sweden in that war, while

Protestant Denmark at times fought on the

side of Spain, Austria, Catholic German

states, Hungary, Poland-Lithuania. This war

was not only about religion, but also about

economic and power rivalries between

states. Also in this war,… Read more »

I am sorry to say that your assumptions,

which you pull out of thin air are full of

contradictions. None of what you bring up

here is true and when quoting the Bible it

is taken consistently out of context. For

instance Jesus did not call Peter Satan. He









-6 REPLY


forresttales

Member

spoke directly to Satan, who caused Peter

to stumble, and said get behind me. It is

even silly to think that Peter should get

behind him. It’s of course obvious that

Satan who is the stumbling block and not

Peter should move away. A believer in God

has… Read more »

To reverence and worship a persecuted Jew…

wrap your mind around that for a few moments.

To deny the danger in this is to deny the Jewish

problem that we have – which is undeniable.

And who are the ‘good’ Jews? Before the

egomaniac, Alexander the Great, and the

temperate and tolerant Romans came along, the

‘Jews’ (Hebrews, really) did nothing but rob, rape,

and slaughter each other from city to city for

hundreds of years. Further, the Hyksos dynasty, a

direct contradiction to the OT Moses tale is

taught as archaeological fact even in Israeli









7 REPLY


-2 REPLY


Matt Turner

Member

-2 REPLY


Matt Turner

Member

Scott Roberts

universities. Yes,… Read more »

Go Flock Yourself.

HA HA HA HA HA HA, I forgot that you were

there and saw everything happen. Please, tell us

more.








http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/scott-roberts/







Axe of Perun

Author

Chris

Guest

Member

Jesus Christ that was a good article. I salute you for your

candor. I’ve deemed it an unworthy cause myself, since every

Christian out there will come along to tell you how their version

of Christianity is the one and only “exception” and how you are

being a great big meany for “bashing” their religion… but hey,

sometimes it needs to be said, despite this

programmed/predictable/emotional reaction. I mean, I’d rather

we just all put race first and keep our religious beliefs private

until we sort out this White genocide thing, but many (if not

most) versions… Read more »

Thank you Scott, means a lot coming from you.

Once heard you on a show with William Finck a few

years back. Facts are facts and you’re still not getting

it.















-1 REPLY


J.Johansen

Guest

Scott, why you are endorsing this is beyond my

understanding. Renegade Tribune is a Jewish

controlled oppostion (‘control al l sides, ‘lead the

opposition yourself’, as per the Jewish imbesile

Lenin/Blank’s suggestion). The Jews are pagans, no

doubt about it. Soulless animalistic creatures that

survived the flood. Are modern Jews converted

Khazarian pagans? More evidence of Middle Eastern

roots geneticliteracyproject . org/2014/09/23/are-

modern-jews-converted-khazarian-pagans-more-

evidence-of-middle-eastern-roots/ Even the Jews

themselves admit they are pagans: Jewish Paganism:

Oxymoron or Innovation? “So this is Jewish paganism:

naked, covered in mud, communing with the God (orGoddess) in nature. It’s sensual, it’s controversial… (

)… Read more »







http://www.riksavisen.no/





1 REPLY


Axe of Perun

Author

renegade

You just can’t let go of your indoctrination my

friend. Had you never heard of the Bible, you

would have lived without it perfectly fine and

would have died in peace and harmony. This

way, you are obsessed with a Jewish fairy tale

and eating yourself from the inside out – it

controls your life, your thoughts, youremotions, it dictates you to believe therefore it

controls your belief, it is your moral and ethical

guide – you base your existence upon a Jewish

prophet and a hook-nosed history… you are a :

Semite.

Your god is a circumcised rabbi, and yet you











https://media2.8ch.net/pol/src/1466481820133-3.jpg




1 REPLY


Admin

Blut und Boden

Member

think you are in opposition to the jews?









http://volkischpaganism.com/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/blutundboden/






ORION1428

psychoNWO

Guest

Guest

RACE BEFORE RELIGION is a solid principled stance to start out

from IMO. My problem with the typical christian, though, is

that I find it near impossible to know precisely when he’ll start

hallucinating about yahweh or jesus suddenly appearing

before him, commanding him to mend his ways by adopting

random niglets or donating his savings to the nearest zionist

megachurch. Personal crises in the life of a christian

apparently carry this capricious potential to trigger latent,

totally unpredictable chain-reactions of extremely irrational

religious fervor, possibly involving ‘visions’, leading inevitably to

the characteristic guilt-ridden panic to ‘redeem’… Read more »

“hallucinating about yahweh or jesus” …”possibly

involving ‘visions’” I think its more likely that the Jewish

Jesus has been a hinderance to widespread visionary







https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7JUpuvpM4U9hQp1L9N_nvA




-1 REPLY 10 months 15 days ago

Afterthought

Guest

revelations than a catalyst for them. I certainly haven’t

heard of any Christians who have experienced such

visions, except for the Fatama children that is, who

may have simply eaten some wild psilocybin

mushrooms by mistake without knowing what they

were. “let us ensure that semite religions no longer

contaminate the soul of the Aryan race” I’m all for not

letting semitic influences contaminate the Aryan race,

religious or otherwise, however references to… Read

more »

Many have advised the pro-white movement to sweep these

religious conflicts under the rug, to turn down the volume on

the criticism of Christianity to zero. What have we learned from

the Trump campaign? Christians, who should be supporting

Trump in huge numbers, are not. Cruz, an obvious con man, is

winning in states with high church attendance, while Trump

wins in states with lowest church attendance. Christian

organizations, the big ones, not dissident groups, are

undermining Trump. Even the Pope, the leader of the largest

and oldest sect has declared Trump “not a Christian”











ORION1428

OckovonDornum

Member

Guest

specifically because… Read more »

Great article … the judeochristian bible is indeed ridiculous

and so are its believers … jews at least have their own holy

books (as sick and perverted as it is, they do at least have theirown ethno-national mythology), whereas christianity is the only

religion I know of that borrows and appropriates its entire

canonical literature and mythical structure from another

people’s national legends(!). Truly pathetic. It is my experience

that most White christards furthermore have very little

knowledge of or even curiosity about the ancient, pre-christian

culture of their own ancestors. Some individual Whites,

however, with… Read more »

It is the other way around. Jew steal the legends from

Aryans and write them so it fits their agenda. Jewish

books do not present the history of Jews. They keep








http://twitter.com/OckovonDornum




3 REPLY


6 REPLY

ORION1428

Guest

that well away from the non-jewish public.

Mideastern religiosity and superstition is

unworthy of and beneath the Aryan mind. We

have our own culture. No need at all to attempt

the undignified appropriation or spurious

interpretation of the cults of other nations.

Theorizing about which lying jew stole what

superstitious tale from another goatherding

semite in the desert … is utterly futile. The

important distinction to draw is only between

Nordic-germanic, Aryan mythology on the one

hand and semitic slave-morality on the other.Adopting any form of foreign mythology or

religiosity will only lead to confusion, alienation

and demoralization as History shows. Even

if… Read more »












0 REPLY


Hshdh

Guest

0 REPLY


OhZobe

Guest

What was the population 3000BC,(

Grendel not included?)Noah had sons,

grandsons,pale with red hair,Gomer

The Jews either modeled their patriarchs on the

Egyptian Pharaohs or they were the

Pharaohs.(the Hyksos) Judahized in their book

so as to uphold their Exodus story. Again a

victim story.











Philibert

Guest


Stradivarius

Guest

I´d suggest reading the slawic aryan vedas. Sounds more like

something our ancestors would´ve believed in.

Funnily, my stupid mother, who´s a Jehovas Witness btw, has

decided to call me Jakob. I could puke every time someone

calls me by that name. One things certain, I will choose

another name. It´s not like they can force me to call myself that way.

I´ll pic a nice german or russian name which has a meaning

that fits my character.

I have nothing to do with Jews stories … Jesus and co is their

problem …











Hshdh

Guest

Chris

Guest

The word jew is not mentioned in the bible, Sem of

the semites is, some troubles in the family maybe as

some Askenaz Armenian tribe is hanging on to

judean believes as the semites? Semites are the

middle East, as Jafethites are Europe and Iran, India.

Anti semite means , I do not like my half brother.

There are some two faced creatures who are anti

semites and accuse others of anti semitism, and all

variations of it, being zionist and aryan at the same

time etc.

“Both his parents were Jews because they were observing the

Torah”

When did the word jew come into existence? It’s not used in

the Bible.










6 REPLY


renegade

-3 REPLY


Chris

Guest

Admin

Sarge

Muh pro-White Aryan rabbi.

Come on you can do better then that.

How many Muh Whites are out there

worshiping yellow monkeys caling them sifu or

sensei.

Rabbi just means teacher.














Guest


Jmcaul

Guest

From the mouth of Christians:

http://www.vcyamerica.org/blog/2016/04/19/significance-of-

passover Joining Jim to answer these questions was Chris

Katulka. Chris is the host of the radio program, ‘The Friends of

Israel Today’. He also serves as a speaker, writer and blogger

for The Friends of Israel and writes for ‘Israel My Glory’

magazine. He also leads annual tours to Israel. The program

began by discussing anti-semitism. For decades it seemed to

be isolated to the Middle East. It spread to Europe and has

become such a force that Jews are fleeing France in droves for

Israel. London is no longer a… Read more »

CI is a pacifier. A sugar tit for newly racially aware White

people. To keep them infantilized. Waiting for their sky daddy

to rescue them. This way they just sleep and get fat mentally

and never put up a real fight against the enemies that never

stop working to destroy us.











Argo

Guest


mothman777

Guest

I suggest you to learn about the Creative Movement, this is

what the White race needs:

http://creativitymovement.net/creator_library/english/rvtr-

4.html

Excellent and insightful writing. Also, the original Bible never

had anything in about the gospel being intended for all

peoples in the world (just all Jewish peoples in the world). Read

Hugh Fogelman, ‘Missionaries – They Do Not Know What They

Are Doing’.

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/missionaries_they%20do%20not%20k

now.html All the stuff about the gospel being for other peoplesas well was only added later. I think Tyndale realized the truth.

The Protestant Lutheran reformer Will iam Tyndale was

executed by being strangled to death at the stake, and his

body then burned at the stake afterwards for having dared to

translate the… Read more »







http://creativitymovement.net/creator_library/english/rvtr-4.html





OckovonDornum

OckovonDornum

Member

Member

The bible was written around 1,000 AD, more or less 1000 years

ago. The Chronology we believe in is wrong. The russian Prof.

Fomenko studied that and a growing number of followers dig

more and more out what does not fit. The Chronology was

established around 1600 AD by Scaliger, who tried to make a

church history (demonstrably false) and from that connected

events to european history. As the base was wrong everything

else is wrong. Fomenko proofed it on many points, using

astronothy and other methods. Our real history was taken

away from us and replaced… Read more »

He also says that the Bible isn’t 2,000 years old, but

only a few hundred. the oldest Bible is from 1475 AD,

that is the oldest surviving one. The time frame given

for the Bible doesn’t fit at all. Modern research cannot

attest to the stories and what is also important, not

even to the place. Nobody has proven yet that

Jerusalem (Eretz Shalom = the place of peace, usually












psychoNWO

Guest

the place where the chief Rabbi lived was called that,

so there are many Jerusalems,around 1,000 that was

Constantinopel or Czar-grad as the Rus called it).

The… Read more »

Yeah, the Jews sure did a number on Jesus. A one thousand

year campaign of Judeo-Christian terror that turned a

sacrament of our real Gods into the illegitimate son of a fake

god.

Renting out your husband for the night. Illegal drugs in the

Bible;

http://www.hiddenmeanings.com/Sermon10drugs.htm

Professor John Rush Interview – Was Jesus a mushroom ?;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALCOqBSYLkg

Secrets of the Mushroom – Religious Origins;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kZR7WyuH_o






http://www.hiddenmeanings.com/Sermon10drugs.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALCOqBSYLkg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kZR7WyuH_o






Lucifer

-1 REPLY


Turbostoep

Lucifer

Guest

Guest

Looks like someone has taken work from other people who

have done the homework and now claiming it to be theirs.

Hard to say the person or people who did the

homework didnt do thesame, isnt that what

researchers do? Look at what others have written? It

becomes rather hard to follow if you see who is

beeing quoted after every line, nor can you be sure

the person beeing quoted is the actual author.











1 REPLY


Guest


Sarge

Guest


Lynn Ertell

Guest

You give credit for your sources. Don’t see that

here.

Pardon the typos, autocorrect can kill a cogent argument

quicker than an ignorant rebuttal.

Joseph Atwill has explained the origins of the Gospel

narrative in his “Caesar’s Messiah”. It was a collaborativeeffort between Hellenized establishment Jews and Roman

elites from the Flavian family.








http://losalamos911truth.blogspot.com/





Carmen Lamontagne

Guest


Brutus

Hshdh

Guest

Member

David in Texas covered all this thoroughly. Remember Kyle?

I hadn’t heard of Christian identity until hearing it mentionedon a few renegade shows, it seems to be a distorted offshoot of

British Israelism which i have looked into. People seem to think

it claims that the white tribes of Europe are the “real Jews”, this

is not the case. It claims that Europeans are descended from

the 10/11 tribes who fled Israel after the Assyrian invasion.

Judah (the tribe of Judah = Jews and The tribe of Benjamin)

remained in occupied Judah, this is where the Torah got mixed

with Assyrian mysticism which gave birth… Read more »

Jesus is no jew, his spirit lives on in the Word, the

origin of judaism is found in Israël. And paganism,

that he opposed. Paganism was a bit of a hassle I












Zan Overall

Guest

Benni

suppose for the partakers with the sacrifices and all.

Jesus got some vicious resistance from the partakers

in chief the gold polishing posse and the romans with

their role in the part that was Jesus ‘ fate.

What are cucks please? Do you mean Kooks? I have learned

some Hebrew and some facts from this article but most of the

posters and the author seem to think there was an historical

Jesus. There wasn’t. the NT was a novel written by Jews like

Josephus working for the Flavian Caesars. No peacenik Jew

could have wandered around preaching “Render unto Caesar”

while the Jews were in revolt against Rome—-and live. Check

out Joseph Atwill’s book “Caesar’s Messaih” or his website.

Jesus was a Roman psyop intended to distract the Jews fromtheir revolt. It survives… Read more »







http://www.youtube.com/1wom





Guest


Benni

Guest


Matt Turner

Member

Joel

Admin. With your argument, the jews are valid in claiming

that whites are guilty of the slave trade, and so on!

It’s ironic, that sometimes I feel like me and mr. Hunt are

solemates. The only difference is I’m a christian and he a

pagan. He is a pagan but Hagee is supposedly christian. Why

do I like mr. Hunt and dislike Hagee! Don’t be fooled!

Good stuff.

It looks like you’re making the same mistake I made in thinking








http://modafinilexpert.com/





Guest

Jack

Guest

Catholicism = Christianity. A lot of what you mentioned has

nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with

Catholicism. While Catholicism appears Christian on the

surface, their doctrine directly contradicts the Bible and the

inner circle of the Vatican consists entirely of Satanists. All

their symbolism is overtly occult and their actions are blatantly

anti Christian. True Christianity isn’t about being a spineless

pussy. Paul – the guy who got shipwrecked, repeatedly flogged

and imprisoned, and boldly proclaimed the faith was far

from… Read more »

Most modern day Christians I know are cool. Of course there

are exceptions in the entire population and the same things I

can say about any religious group. I think you are living too

much in the past. Putting down a person is not a logical thing

to do. I am not religious and I recommend not getting all hung

up about it. I know cool Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, and Atheists too.

Most people are not in the crusader, jihadic, zionist mode.

Most people do not even care about these things because it

isn’t normal. It is… Read more »






http://na/






Youbunch Ofcunts

Guest


Hipster Racialist

Guest

You fucking keyboard nazis are cunts of the first order. The

white race is dying thanks to your masturbatory fantasies

which the internet unfortunately enables. The blog you read

here, the ideology you follow -all owned and operated by

Freemasonry -Talmud fir the cattle which you are all soobviously are. Whilst you are here tugging your Cock to the

cunt who wrote above shit – I assume for shekels from his

MOSSAD handler – in the real world – sunlight, grass, houses –

the white race is being destroyed. This piece represents how

many invader rapists… Read more »

This guy is clueless. Was Hitler a cuck? Fuck this!












anarchyst

Axe of Perun

Author

Guest

…as far as I am concerned, the only positive thing judaism gave

to Christianity was the Ten Commandments–nothing more.

Judaism is actually Babylonian Talmudism in nature and, as

such, judaism and Christianity are polar opposites. As usual,

the jews got others to do their “dirty work” for them. To wit, the

jews were responsible for the murder of Jesus Christ, as they

took full responsibility for it, demanding that Pontius Pilate dothe “dirty work”. To this day, Talmudic jews have always gotten

others to do their “dirty work ” for them. It is only in the… Read

more »

Even the 10 commandments are exclusively for Jews,

as the first one declares to whom they are given :

> I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out

of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Who was it that was brought out of Egypt? Jews.

However, Christians are usually just taught “I am the











14 REPLY


1 REPLY


OhZone

Guest

OhZone

Guest

Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before

me”. Changes the commandments dramatically,

wouldn’t you agree?

The 10 commandments are a plagiarized

version of the Egyptian 42 commandments. Do

the research. There are several copies of them

on line.

I have never understood why Christians so

maliciously accuse the Jews of killing Jesus. I was

taught that he was specifically sent to us as a sacrifice

to save us from our sins. He was supposed to die!! So












Elaine

Member

Marika Liljeroos

Guest

shouldn’t Christians be grateful to the Jews for doing

the job for them? Instead of laying a guilt trip on them

shouldn’t they be giving them gifts and humbly

thanking them?

Re: The 10 Commandants – the commandant that says “Thou

shalt not commit adultery” does not mean being unfaithful to

one’s spouse. It means do not do race mixing. That is real

adultery.

I have to say that we Finns are extremely found of our past.

Kalevala mythology is a journey into the Finnish soul. But that

epoch wouldn’t have gotten us where we are today. Christianity

is a religion not mythology. I love not only Finnish but

Scandinavian, Egyptian, summerian etc but they are just that












Benni

Guest

Benni

Guest

mythologies.Hinduism is mythology from India even if it is

promoted as a religion today. And they love cows, snakes and

monkeys so we go directly to buddism and the Chinese

horoscope. …that was used by God in the end times, it has

the… Read more »

I am from Iceland. I know how the, endless revenge killings,

vent on here before we took up christianity. And how some

groups treated others. So don’t tell me that Christianity is the

problem. I think you could learn something from the Icelandic

saga’s.

Where in the christian doctrine does it say: kill pagans, or for

that matter, any one. Everyone can claim to be a christian.

Even the pope does!












renegade

Admin

Benni

Guest

Are you retarded or just ignorant? Deuteronomy 17 If

there be found among you, within any of thy gates

which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman,

that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD

thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hathgone and served other gods, and worshipped them,

either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven,

which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee,

and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and,

behold, it be true, and the thing certain,… Read more »

Division, is the name of this game. Do you think Christians

wake up to the jews if they deny Christ? Do you think I deny

Christ because of a prostitude, like Hagee? If so, I would have

to abandon my nationalist ideology because of a jew like you.

Only jews put so much effort in dividing people, like you do.













11 REPLY


Axe of Perun

Brutus

Member

Author

We have woken up to the Jew and yet none of us

follows the Jewish Religion. How come? There is no

Nationalist ideology in the Bible, because its ultimate

point is the creation of a New World Order with aOne world government in Israel.

Yes, Jews put a lot of effort in dividing people – not

only did they divide all of Europe with Christianity,

they also divided Christians into XY branches.

Apart from the fact the Bible documents the first

world order under babylon and nimrod and how

God had to intervene and create the different

nations (God clearly supports Nationalist

ideology and despises globalism). It has also












-6 REPLY



Benni

renegade

Guest

prophesied the coming satanic new world order

and lays out exactly how it will come to be, talks

about the coming decpetion and the jews role in

it. Europe is hardly divided, it will be the

hundreds of millions of Christians that will

decide the fate of europe not pagans or any

other beliefs. Any fight against christianity is

both… Read more »

Admin. You call me retard, and quote Deuteronomy. I think

Satan was talking to Moses there. As you should know, the

jewish god is Satan. That’s why they crusified Christ, he was

not worshiping they’re God.

So when the God of the Bible says something you













Admin


Conrad

Guest

don’t like, it was probably just Satan doing it? That’s

convenient. Anyway, who is it that created Satan and

made bets with him? For example, when he

destroyed Job’s life to see if Job would still love him?

Was it really Satan who told Abraham to sacrifice his

son? I am trying to understand your schizophrenic

religion.

Also, Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament. “Thinknot that I am come to destroy the law, or the

prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

Know I understand why we as a race are f**#@d! The amount

of ignorance of our race show here is beyond believe – what

this “ignoranus” knows about Christianity he learned from the

jews he suppose to despise.














renegade

Admin

13 REPLY


Axe of Perun

Author

I think he learned it from the Bible and observing

Christians (accurately). Did you learn about

Christianity from a CI felon?

As Kyle said – everything I have given you as an

example is from the Bible. I just put it in the correct

order, connecting for you the things you are taught to

overlook. Read the article – everything is quoted from

the Bible itself, or is a wikipedia description of a

certain term, like the Jewish holidays. The article

begins with this statement : With the Internet, the

Awareness of the Holocaust Lie has also grown. In the

very same way is the Awareness of the Bible Lie

growing. Therefore, we are not talking here

about… Read more »














13 REPLY


Scott Roberts

Member

Wayne

Guest

PS – I read the bible when I was young (“The

Book”). All on my own. To judge for myself. And I

rejected it AS I was reading it, at each step along

the way, when it came to every single story and

child-like point written in it. I didn’t have parents

or preachers in my ears so it was quite easy to

get beyond all the hoccus-poccus, fear-mongering, and craziness. So that was another

fine point you made in your article. People are

brainwashed more by their priests and parents

than by the actual book itself.

I have read the book, not the old Testament but

the new, and there is also lots of passes that

speak of the truth about the jews and there

hatred of gentiles. I agree that most Christians

are cucked, but there is no way to get them to

change they’re ways unless you use there own











-2 REPLY



Benni

Axe of Perun

Guest

religion against them. Even then I have friends

and relatives that just will not listen, even when I

use quotes right from the bible, but I can tell

that they start to think a bit, and maybe, just

maybe they will… Read more »

I have been following “renegade” for some years, and I have

to say I’m very dissapointed in this bashing of Christians. My

understanding of the Bible is totally different. I have never

bashed Pagans as a whole group even though I think some of

them are stupid. I think Hollywood, with all they’re jews,

would not do a better job of bashing Christians!

We are not bashing Christians. We are bashing

Christianity and the Bible – however, since you follow












10 REPLY


AmericanIntellect

ual

Guest

these Jewish ideologies/wish to identify yourself with

them – the end result is that you, personally, also feel

affected by it. The term “Christians” refers simply to

Hebrews/Jews who accepted the idea of a Jewish

Messiah and stopped doing Blood offerings to Yahweh

and stopped performing Circumcision. The term

“Christians” is then compared to the term “Cuck” and

the result of this equation is -> All Christians are

Cucks. How do you think does every “Pagan” today feel

about Christianity… Read more »

There was no

demographics, no modern mathematics, no

statistics, no census records, no birth and death

certificates in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th or

10th centuries when the mass conversion of

various European ethnic groups and tribes took

place. You can’t claim 4 terms of millions or how

many terms of millions because statistics and

record keeping was not invented yet, and was









-4 REPLY


AmericanIntellect

ual

Guest

not done. The first censuses in Germany and

Britain were conducted first in the early 19th

century. By the way, Nationalism itself is a

modern invention. The idea of Nationalism was

invented… Read more »

Christianity spread through

European lands not because of Jews, but

because of Germanic or Slavic or Celtic or Latin

Emperors, Kings and nobles which made

Christianity the official state religion. The Saint

Roman Emperor Constantine was the first one

who endorsed Christianity and made it powerful.

King Clovis of the Franks, King Ethelbert of the

Anglo-Saxons in England, Charlemagne- all these

powerful warrior Kings made Christianity the

official state religion. And these men also fought

the Arab Muslims or the Umayyad Caliphate and

drove them away. If not for Christianity, Europe

would have become Muslim. The









-5 REPLY


4 REPLY


Axe of Perun

AmericanIntel

lectual

Guest

Author

Rashidun… Read more »

Oh, you mean this guy here – such a good

goy? It was the basic people and someauthorities who defended Europe – it had

nothing to do with Christianity. Christians

didn’t even help Byzantine, they just

watched it become Turkey.

Christians from

Western Europe did try to help the

Byzantine Empire. At the Battle of

Nicopolis in 1396, at the Battle of

Varna in 1444, Janos Hunyadi from









http://orig01.deviantart.net/66ea/f/2014/190/4/6/charlemagne_and_jewish_usury_by_brit_nationalist-d7ptmgk.png




-4 REPLY


Benni

Guest

Hungary tried to help. But they did

not succeed, because the Ottoman

Empire had a larger and more

superior army at that time period.

European population everywhere

declined due to the Great Plague

outbreak and climate changes and

had less mobilization potential.

Ottoman Empire had cannons.

Turkey by the way did not exist yet,

Turkish Nationalism was invented by

the Committee for Union and

Progress party in the late… Read

more »

Axe of perun is maybe happy that the jews killed the

Christians in USSR. The Christians have always been they’re

maine target. It’s unbelievably stupid to attack the greatest

enemy “ever” of the jews.

I’m starting to think that Christins are not safe if the Pagans











renegade

Admin

Axe of Perun

Author

get to power. Are Pagans just crypto jews?

White Europeans are the main target. I love your

assertion that pagans are really just crypto jews,

while Christians worship a circumcised rabbi and

were responsible for allowing all the “conversos” who

were welcomed as brothers when they pretended

accept Jesus.

Again, absolutely none of you guys has tried to analyze

the text or give us proof that something within it is

wrong. You simply attack us now with random

assumptions. No, my deluded friend, it was Christians

who killed Pagans, lead by the very first Christians ->

Jews. It was important to bring about a new layer of

existence unto the European people -> Christianity.














10 REPLY


AmericanIntellect

ual

Guest

With it they could annihilate all of Europe if necessary

simply because they were “heretics” who didn’t believe

in the Jewish bullshit story. They were killing us for

“righteousness” and they even… Read more »

In a feudalistic and

patriarchal society prevalent in European

countries, most people had to convert to

Christianity. People back then were very

different from what they are today. The average

person was a serf or a vassal of some nobleman,

that nobleman was a vassal to the King or

Emperor. When the Kings or Emperor chose

Christianity as official state religion, most people

complied. Idea of inherent personal liberty only

appeared in the 18th century because of the

Enlightenment philosophers. Before the

Enlightenment, aristocracy and monarchy were

seen as natural. Communism did not exist

before the Industrial… Read more »









-1 REPLY


0 REPLY 1 month 22 days ago

Alis

Guest

Blenda Richter

Member

So why did your ancestors go to Iceland? wanted to

escape being killed by Christians? yes we have Snorri’s

Edda…as a good Christian he wrote down “our” history

a good man wouldn’t you say? too bad he was so

greedy…got murderded did he not? really like that you

think it’s served your “pagan” ancestors right to be

killed and driven from their land in the first place…by

the way..we were known as Norse men, Men from the

North Sure hope one day Christians will at least start

following their beloved bible and start doing what

“God” whants..or… Read more »

Although I agree with the few points I was able to read from

the beginning paragraphs of this writer’s diatribe I stopped on

a dime reading his/her angry diatribe by the third paragraph.I







https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/1690365554572407/






Marika Liljeroos

saneworldnow

Guest

have no use for any author who’s unable to moderate his

emotions and starts hurling foul language to express his

frustration and or anger. I concede that a well-placed

expletive helps to drive a point and to buttress it every now

and then but aggressive and attacking dirty language is

simply sophomoric and an instant turn off even for any

halfway serious reader.

Axe of perun is your typical Zions troll.pretending barking at

the jews but only saying things we all already know. At the

same time working for their long time agenda to destroy

Christianity, the religion the jews hate and always saw as the

biggest problem on the way to world rulers.

Marika, Wow i absolutely agree, almost all of his











Guest

silenzz

Guest

articles are attacking the Christian vehemently. You

took the words out of my ‘head’. This would be

something they would do, infiltrate to divide and

conquer and make enemies of the Christians, they

will stop coming to this site because of such

animosity and name calling of which i already got.

THE Jews want to obliterate Christianity and Jesus

‘name’, seems like Axe of perun is a good tool for

them.

Kinda wondered the purpose of this article given immediate

and alienating title. Maybe Renegade has a larger purpose in-

mind, who knows? Does the author care not for the sensibilities

he thinks he may effect. No matter. However, I highly

recommend if he hasn’t done so already to go and visit

Chartres cathedral or Notre Dame in Paris. And if you have

enough shekels left, by all means visi t the Vatican. And on the

evenings of your travel read the works of the great Benedictine

St. Anselm, and better yet the giant of them all , the Dumb

Ox,… Read more »










18 REPLY


renegade

silenzz

Guest

Admin

The article deals primarily with the verses from your

Bible and fairly concrete evidence of how Christianity

has been a tool of jewish subversion, none of which

you refuted. If you really cared about your people,you’d take a more objective look at this anti-White

pro-jew religion.

Cherry-picking verses from the Bible does not

prove anything. Committing multiple logical

fallacies, e.g. an appeal to emotion, shifting the

burden of proof, in your response does nothing

to strengthen your argmument. To be sure, I am

Roman Catholic and I do care for my people. In

the Catholic Tradition the Faith is transmitted












-18 REPLY


Axe of Perun

Author

not just by sacred scripture (The Word of God),

but equally as well through Sacred Tradition,

and Magisterial Teaching. These three

components comprise the Mystery of Faith. To

say Christianity is based solely ‘the Bible’ is a

painfully narrow interpretation of the millennia-

plus… Read more »

Since you are a Roman Catholic, you

believe that Jesus is God, that Yahweh is

God and that the Holy Spirit is God. Which

means that you believe that Yahweh and

Jesus represent the same exact entity, the

same power, will, being, essence – just and

only in a different form. That means that

every time you read about Yahweh in the

Old Testament – you could simply change

his name to Jesus – because, whatever

Yahweh did – Jesus would do exactly in the

same fashion since he is the exact same











15 REPLY


14 REPLY


Scott Roberts

Axe of Perun

Author

Member

entity. That is to… Read more »

If we concerned ourselves too much with the

“sensibilities” of our audience, then we’d never takethe sheeple beyond the mainstream narrative to even

the 1st stages of their awakening.

The title may have been “harsh” (to the point), but

sometimes that sort of approach is necessary.

In the end, facts are still facts. Whether they hurt

certain peoples feelings or not.

I renamed the title several times as I was

collecting the material and writing the article.














10 REPLY


6 REPLY


forresttales

Walter mitty

Guest

Member

Finally, I simply said – fuck it – it has to be

harsh (and to the point).

Good! It’s refreshing. Sometimes a loud

noise is the only way to get peoples’

attention. And ‘Cuck’ is balls-on accurate.

You are quoting Bible Verses,

Talmudic Judaism interpretations

and throwing in comments by Marx.

Who was an atheist The Talmudist

usurpers hate Christians almost as

much as you do. The majority of

Modern “Jews” are descendants of










-9 REPLY


forresttales

Member

Ahkenaz , Togarmah and Khazar with

a spattering of Edomite. : See 1st

Samuel 16:12 . Only white people

can have “ruddy” or show red in the

skin or face. Most of the the original

Israelites were deported to Assyria.

See: II Kings 17:24 First deportation.

From Northern kingdom The King of

Assyria deported 200,000 Israelite’sfrom The Southern Kingdom… Read

more »

@Walter mitty I’m not sure where

you’re going with your comments. I’d

say that your ‘hate Christians’ is a

little severe. The spirit of the article

addresses the contemporary

complacency and complicity of

Christianity to Judaism. But I actually

voted you up because you brought to









3 REPLY


AmericanIntel

lectual

Guest

the surface a subtlety that is often

used in defense of Christianity –

“Where would European civilization

be without it?” Pros and Cons

abound on this issue. But this appeal

to history is a very typical Christian

retreat when circular apologetics has

no effect. It’s a lazy excuse, but

nonetheless, common.… Read more »

The funny thing is

that the Talmud was written AFTER

Jesus Christ and was completed only

by 500 AD. It took the pharisees

some 300 years between 200 and

500 AD to complete the Talmud. Even

wikipedia admits that the Talmud is

not that old. Also they added

Shulkhan Arukh in 1565 as a new

holy book. Also the shape and









1 REPLY


11 REPLY


renegade

Admin

Axe of Perun

character of jewish people did not

remain the same over the centuries.

For example some Sephardic Jews

are descended from North African

Berbers who converted to Judaism.

There were many Berber Jews in

North Africa. Some… Read more »

They act the same. The Israelites of

the Bible are not honorable people.

I cannot fathom why any White

person would want to be related to

them.














0 REPLY


Author


OCKO

Guest

Perhaps they want to do the

Israelite test of Abortion?

https://www.biblegateway.com/pas

sage/?search=Numbers+5%3A11-31

Why do you think Chartres was a Christian building?

First of all it was to emulate a forest with its columns

and ceiling. That is heathen is as we worshipped our

God’s in forests. Did you notice the gorgoyles? Very

strange for a Christian building. What would be the

Christian interpretation for the spiral at the entrance?

What does a spiral have to do with christianity? It was

built by heathen goth master builders (free masons to

be precise). From where did they got the knowledge

how to build? From the bible? Even Solomon needed a

builder… Read more »









https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+5%3A11-31




Recent Posts

Blackbird9’s Breakfast Club: The US Uncivil

War Pt4

Ancient Aryans of China

Sinead’s Kosher Food Experiment

All Christians are Cucks #7

Andrey R. Bens: Sinead McCarthy –

Genocide in South Africa

Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) Gang: Major

Players in Sex-Slave Trafficking and More

California Department of Public Health Hid

This Warning on Cell Phone Radiation for

Years

Sections

Race and

Nationalism

Current Events

and Politics

Religion and

Spirituality

Philosophy and

Insight

Poetry and Artwork

Videos

Podcasts and

Radio

Hodge Podge

Pages

Home

AuthorRegistration

Subscribe

Log In

Site Stats

Todays Visits:27,869

Last 7 Days Visits:

297,540

Log In

Username or E-

mail

Password

Connect with:

Remember

Me

Log In












http://www.renegadetribune.com/category/race-nationalism/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/category/current-events/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/category/religion-and-spirituality/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/category/philosophy-insight/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/category/poetry-artwork/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/category/videos/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/category/podcasts-radio/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/category/uncategorized/

http://renegadetribune.com/


http://www.renegadetribune.com/subscribe/


http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Facebook&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fall-christians-are-cucks%2F

http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Google&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fall-christians-are-cucks%2F

http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Twitter&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fall-christians-are-cucks%2F




Subscribe

Lost Password

Renegade Tribune is published by Kyle Hunt






http://www.renegadetribune.com/lostpassword/




Jesus: Christianity is for JewsOnly

Mike

Walsh

Kyle

Hunt Sinead

Digger

for

Truth

Axe

of

Perun

Aria

Whitebeam

Robert

Heimdal

Sacred

Runes Patrick

Top Authors

SECTIONS AUTHOR REGISTRATION CONTACT LOG IN













http://www.renegadetribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/jesus-king-of-the-jews-peter-jenkins.jpg





http://pdfcrowd.com/redirect/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.renegadetribune.com%2fjesus-christianity-jews%2f&id=ma-170305164030-fb277eeb
















http://www.renegadetribune.com/contact/





September 2, 2015 Lorenz Kraus 30 Comments

It’s surprising what you can see in the Bible in light of Kevin

MacDonald’s survival strategies.

If you read the Gospel of Matthew and Acts, you will come to

realize that: Jesus intended to Christianize the Jews and only the Jews.

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew

15:24)

Can’t get more clear than that. Jesus speaks, but the Gentiles didn’t

listen.

This is a radical notion. It would invalidate all existing churches and all

their Gentile missionary efforts, except churches involved in brute

force-converting Jews to Christianity, since that’s the way die-hard Jews

convert. As Jesus said, “Bring the sword!”

It is one thing to tell Europeans that god doesn’t exist, or that

Europeans have their own gods, or that Christianity is an ineffective

deterrent against the Jews, standard positions in the nationalist camp.

It’s quiet another to say that Jesus didn’t want Gentiles to be Christians.

At most, Jesus wants you to Christianize the Jews and that’s it. Be the

hunters, not the hunted.

Chouinard

NewsletterSubscription

Email *

Select list(s):

New Article Updates

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe!

Book Promotion

Your support is needed! Click

here to contribute and

receive a gift.


http://www.renegadetribune.com/jesus-christianity-jews/


http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/lorenz-kraus/















There is plenty of support for the Jews-only thesis in the New

Testament. The body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine

was meant to be an artificial substitute for the appetite of the

bloodsucking cannibal-like Jews. Greeks and Romans were not

cannibals and were in no need of a reinvention of a deplorable ritual—

child sacrifice. Jews were.

If Jesus wanted to efficiently Christianize the world, why not be born to

a Roman emperor and reign? Jesus, born among Jews, aimed toChristianize them, not the world. He was the Jew anti-Jew.

The Jews-only thesis helps us resolve the absurdities and

contradictions of Jesus in terms of the two-faced Jews; by this we can

clear the deck for the West’s post-Christian Renaissance. You have to

remember who Jesus was talking to: Jews. Apart from the Jews, his

ideas don’t make sense.

What does Christianity consist of? Christianity is a P.O.C.S. on the Jews.

With Jesus, always remember his

audience: Jews.









In line with the vows of various orders, Christianity is a vow of Poverty,

Obedience, Chastity, and Silence.

Can you think of anyone who needs poverty, obedience, chastity, and

silence more than Jews?

Jews are the rich, law-breaking regulators; a sex-crazed perverted,

vocal minority that loathes the Gentiles the world over. Christianity is

perfect for them. It doesn’t make sense for the rest of the world to be

given the P.O.C.S. of Christ.

Jews are arch-xenophobic collectivists. They love their family and hate

the world. Jesus called for the opposite. Love the world and hate your

family. This is ruinous to any group, but what group deserved to be

ruined? The genocidal Jews.

The Jesus P.O.C.S. would destroy the Jews, if accepted voluntarily, and

if brought to bear on them by armed force, they would surely be under

the boot of the Gentiles (the Brutes of God). Christianity is dangerousand Jesus made it for you to use on the Jews, not your own kind.

Jesus came to bring sword to the Jews, implying that Christianizers of

the Jews, whoever they may be, must aim to force the Jews to be

Christian: to be poor, obedient, chaste, and silent. What does it mean

to be a Christian? Now you know. You don’t want to be Christian. You













want the Jews to be Christian.

That Jesus and the Apostles couldn’t bring armed force upon the Jews,

the way Mohammed brought force upon Jews to convert them to

Islam, is the reason why Christianity was deflected and redirected upon

the Gentiles.

The Apostles were the low-hanging fruit that Jesus converted; after that

resistance to Jesus grew. After Jesus died, the only way for Christianity

to grow, was by wrongly converting Gentiles, instead of righteously

and violently converting die-hard Jews, fulfilling the mission of Christ.

Once deflected, the Jesus P.O.C.S. brought vast ongoing Gentile

destruction to the present day, including white genocide. We can stop

it once people understand that Jesus meant to be a P.O.C.S. on the

Jews, not on us. The Jews-only thesis is the basis for a new and urgent

reformation in Christianity.

Jesus was King of the Jews. Not Emperor

of the Gentiles.













Once the Apostles ran out of easy to convert Jews, they betrayed Jesus.

They began to convert and accept Gentiles. They abandoned the

mission of Jesus.

If you read Kevin MacDonald on Jewish rabbinical cults, and listen to

Yuri Bezmenov on the art of subversion, you will realize that Jesus was

a subverter of the Jewish rabbinical cults of the time. He wanted to de-

construct the Jews to repair their megalomania and genocidal ways.

Apparently, Jesus was split between violently destroying them (for lack

of an army, he couldn’t) versus warning the world by his crucifixion:

this is what happens when you are at the mercy of the Jews. He did

what he could do and served as a warning.

Get Hellstorm onDVD

The real message of Jesus was

Christianize the Jews, not your own kind.









https://www.destroyzionism.com/2014/01/18/macdonald-jewish-personality-cults/

https://youtu.be/y3qkf3bajd4





For all the notions about Christianity and family values, some of the

most familiar and insane anti-family notions come from Jesus himself.

Here, Jesus pits Jew against Jew.

Speaking to Jews:

“I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her

mother,” and spouses against their in-laws.

“One’s enemies will be those of one’s household.”

“Brother will hand over brother to death, father his child; children will

rise up against their parents and have them put to death.”

“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me,

and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of

me.”

Jesus denies a Jew compassion to bury his father. “Let the dead bury

their dead.”

Let your father’s corpse rot!

“Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my

sake will find it.”

“I have come not to bring peace, but the sword.”

Contribute at least the

amount listed below:

United States


DVDs

International


DVDs









Jews must revere recompense with heaven more than earthly blood

relations, as Jesus does.

“Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” Jesus denies Jew blood

nepotism. Jesus denies the significance of Jew family ties. They mean

nothing to him.

Jesus wants Jew children to rat on their parents; sounds like the Stasi or

Homeland Security or brother against brother fighting in the Civil War. Jesus offers no peace and love in the Jewish home. Abandon your

family, and join the cult. Jesus does not offer the Jews family values. He

wants to break up the Jewish family.

Since Jesus was speaking directly to a Jewish audience, you can see that

Jesus had the goal of subverting the Jewish family and breaking family

ties. Jews, he is telling them, should forget about their parents and

children, their history and their future, their ancestors and their

posterity. Jesus matters more than all of that. That’s great stuff, if youwanted to destroy the Jews. Jesus is a good role model for those who

want to subvert the Jews.

Recent Posts

Blackbird9’s

Breakfast

Club: The US

Uncivil War

Pt4

Frederick does an "ad hoc" show,

skipping pt3 of the series for the

time …

Ancient

Aryans of

China

The Chinese

mummies

present a unique problem to thosewho assume that the Chinese …

Sinead’s

Kosher Food

Experiment

Sinead heardWho claims to follow Jesus in subverting











What about peace and love, you ask? Love your (Gentile) neighbor as

your self!

This message is for the Jews regarding their perception of Gentiles.

Who puts themselves up above the Gentiles, as master of the world,

and sees Gentiles as cattle? The Jews. Who needs the message of “love

others as yourself?” The Jews.

The first shall be last? Who thinks of themselves as the first, the chosen

ones, the closest to god, number one? Jesus tells them, Jews will be

last. The rich shall be poor and the poor shall be rich. It’s about the

Jews.

How do we know he is speaking to Jews? It says so:

Just before the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus “went around all of Galilee,

teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom.”

He wasn’t going to Greek sporting venues, markets, farmers, Gentile

law courts, Greek temples, and such. He was seeking Jews. He was not

a fisher of men, but a fisher of Jews. Jesus wanted to round up the

Jews.

that kosher food

is the only food that is safe to eat, …

All Christians

are Cucks #7

We shall analyze

words of Jesus

and his

connection to the Jewish Law and …

Andrey R.

Bens: Sinead

McCarthy –

Genocide in

South Africa

Sinead talks about her work

exposing the ongoing genocide in

South Africa, which she …

MaraSalvatrucha

(MS-13)

Gang: Major

Players in

Sex-Slave Trafficking and

More

Jews?











Jesus, speaking to the Jews, wants the arrogant Jews to be meek, to

mourn, to be merciful, to be hungry, to be insulted and to like it.

Jesus had opposite messages that appear to be contradictions.

However, understanding the two-faced Jews, there was an inner

message and an outer message to suit the inner and outer attitudes

that Jews have of themselves and the Gentile world.

The inner and the outer messages of Jesus were like a domestic and

foreign policy for Jews.

This phenomenon could only mean Christianity is for the Jews. Jesus

was teaching them the opposite message of two-faced Judaism, a dualmessage of his own, love the world and hate your family. His message

doesn’t make sense to Gentiles. It makes sense to Jews.

Inside and among the Jews, Jesus brings family discord and death.

Towards Gentiles, Jesus expects of Jews love and submission.

This is how to make sense of “I have not come to bring peace but the

Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) is a

trans-national criminal gang that

originated in El Salvador that …

California

Department

of Public

Health Hid

This Warning

on Cell Phone Radiation for

Years

The California Department of Public

Health had hidden a document

drafted years ago that …

Adolf Hitler’s

Economic

Reform

The charging of

interest on loans

was considered immoral and by

forcing banks to …

Sacred

Womanhood

Western man

can have a

The Beatitudes are for Jews.






http://www.renegadetribune.com/adolf-hitlers-economic-reform/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/sacred-womanhood/




sword” and “love thy neighbor.” The apparent contradiction is resolved

when illuminated by the context of two-faced Jews. These dual

messages could not possibly suit simple one-faced naive Gentiles. To

us, it makes no sense. These are contradictions. To Jews, it is a call to

come down from the ceiling and join the human race.

Christianity couldn’t be conceived, unless Jesus was speaking to Jews

and only Jews; his message was tailored to them and only them

reversing what they live by.

Jesus was a genius at de-constructing the Jews. Understand that, and

you understand Jesus and his subversive mission. Christianity is not for

you, Gentile. There’s no room at the Christian inn for Gentiles. It’s Jews

only.

Render under Caesar what is Caesar’s. Who is Caesar? Gentiles are the

Caesar.

future Western

man must do his part Honoring his

…

US

Congresswoman: To Solve

Refugee Crisis, Stop Funding

Terrorism

Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi

Gabbard is still calling on the U.S.

government to stop its …

The Nine

Worlds

The Asa-gods

built for

themselves

Asgard, the celestial city, which is

set high above …

UnSpun: Keys

to Critical

We are Caesar and the wealth of the

Jews is ours.





http://www.renegadetribune.com/us-congresswoman-solve-refugee-crisis-stop-funding-terrorism/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-nine-worlds/





Jesus reverses the Jewish dynamic. Jesus forges Jewish hyper-

collectivism and zenophobia into Jewish fratricide and love for the

outside world. If Europeans drink Christianity, we get brother wars and

white genocide. Christianity is not for us. It’s for the Jews, to destroy

them, as Jesus intended them to be destroyed. Jesus had no love for

the Jews; the den of vipers.

Why can’t Christians respect Jesus? You’re supposed to follow in his

footsteps, not those of the Christianized Jews. We are not supposed tobe Christianized. The Jews are.

If necessary, we must Christianize the Jews and reduce them to

poverty, obedience, chastity, and silence, as a matter of self-

preservation. Are “Christians” up for it? Not if they walk in the footsteps

of the anti-Christs.

Christian Zionism is work of the anti-Christ, where Christ means the

word. It is the opposite of the words and aims of Jesus. John Hagee is

the anti-Christ.

Christianity is not for Gentiles. If Jews didn’t exist, it couldn’t be

conceived. Christianity is meant to save the world from the Jews.

Jesus tells Jews, not the Gentiles to, “offer no resistance to evil,” “turn

the other cheek,” “when pressed into service for one mile, offer two,”

Jan and Joe

discuss how our

critical thinking abilities have been

under attack and …

#Pizzagate

Declared a

‘Debunked

ConspiracyTheory’ by

Wikipedia Disinfo Agent

This “pizzagate conspiracy theory”

debunking work is carried by a

prolific Wikipedia “user” who …

Trapped in

the World

Wide Web

The Internet has

quickly become

a massive surveillance network, but

it's something that most …

Renegade Report







http://www.renegadetribune.com/pizzagate-declared-debunked-conspiracy-theory-wikipedia-disinfo-agent/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/trapped-world-wide-web/




“love your enemies.” This is a message to Jews, and explicitly not the

pagans. (Matthew 5:38)

You’d want the Jews to drink from this cup.

Christianity is a means, “the sword,” to subvert the Jews and rip them

out of power.

What apparently happened was that the Jews who were receptive to

joining Jesus joined as low-hanging fruit. The rest of the Jews were

more resistant. Because of this resistance, the Apostles decided to

Christianize easy to convert Gentiles, departing from the original

intentions of Jesus. This became Jew-servile Cuckianity.

To think Jesus wanted to convert everyone “to the ends of the earth” is

mistaken because, even then, Jews were already an “international

clique.” In the context of the time, spreading Christianity to the ends of

the earth still meant Jews-only:

“Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying


RenegadeBroadcasting

The latest radio shows from

our sister site.

Renegade

Roundtable: Kyle

Hosts (3-4-17)

Circus Maximus:

Hebraic Chutzpah

at the Hippodrome

(3-3-17)

Truth Hertz: The

Buried Book of

Enoch (3-3-17)

Weekly Dossier:

Mother Revisited

(3-2-17)

The Apostles abandoned Jesus.






http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/renegade-roundtable-kyle-hosts-3-4-17/

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/circus-maximus-hebraic-chutzpah-hippodrome-3-3-17/

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/truth-hertz-buried-book-enoch-3-3-17/





in Jerusalem.” (Acts 2:5)

These Jews were confused because each one heard a voice in their own

language, though they came from Rome, Asia, Mesopotamia, Egypt,

Libya, you name it. To these Jews, the P.O.C.S. of Christ was

proclaimed. You Jews from the ends of the earth in Jerusalem now:

“You who are Jews…”

“You who are Israelites…”

Reduce yourselves to poverty!

“All who believed were together and had all things in common. They

would sell their property and possessions and divide them among

them according to each one’s need.” (Acts 2:44)

“No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had

everything in common.” Acts 4:32

You can see the notion of spreading the P.O.C.S. around to the ends of

the earth does not imply spreading it to Gentiles, but spreading it to

the Jews wherever they reside, anywhere in the world, until every last

Jew is Christianized.

Then, there will be peace on earth.

Truth Hertz: The

Amazing Ant (3-2-

17)

Brigid’s Readings

from the Tribune

(3-1-17)

Truth Hertz:

Freeloading on the

Fauna (3-1-17)





http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/truth-hertz-amazing-ant-3-2-17/

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/brigids-readings-tribune-3-1-17/

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/truth-hertz-freeloading-fauna-3-1-17/




Christianity has become universalized, but that was not the intention of

Jesus.

“You who are Israelites, hear these words. Jesus the Nazorean was a

man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and

signs. This man, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him.” (Act

2:22)

“God exalted (Jesus) at his right hand as leader and savior to grant

Israel repentance and forgiveness of sins.” Acts 5:31

Talking to the Jews. The evidence is everywhere.

How did Christianity go universal?

After Jesus was dead, “the circumcised believers who had accompanied

Peter were astounded that the gift of (Baptism) should have been

poured out on the Gentiles also. Can anyone withhold water for

baptizing these people? Peter ordered them to be baptized in the name

Who let the Gentiles in? The Anti-Christs

Peter and Paul.








of Jesus Christ.” (Acts 10: 44-48)

Those were the words of Peter, not Jesus.

Why would the half-dick Jews be astounded? Only if, these

Christianized Jews believed, and were led to believe, that Christianity

was Jews-only by Jesus himself. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have been

astounded.

The earliest Christians took Christianity as Jews-only. Why can’t Peter

(and all modern Christians) listen? What is Peter doing baptizing

Gentiles?

This is a radical rejection of Logos (the intent of Jesus) committed by

Peter, to paraphrase, E. Michael Jones.

“Before the cock crows, you (Peter) will disown me.” Jesus was right

about that!

So why are Christians Christianizing any nation, but the Jews, when

Peter led them astray? Apparently, the Christianized are too weak and

gutless to Christianize the Jews. Apart from short outbursts, that is

subsequent Christian history. That, however, must be done. That was

the original plan.








Said Peter, “God knows no partiality. Every nation whoever fears him

and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.” (Acts 10: 34-35)

If Gentile nations are acceptable, they don’t need to be Christianized.

You can’t P.O.C.S.-punish them, Peter. Jews, however, needed to be

repaired with Christianity because they are broken, they are the

sinners, being Jews out to bring all things under their dominion.

Jews should tolerate, not destroy, Gentile nations.

How can you P.O.C.S. the Gentiles, Peter? The Jews should accept other

nations as equals, instead of, as cattle. Jews should accept other

nations as “acceptable.” That’s their Christ-given job and Christian-duty.

That’s why you have to P.O.C.S. them. Jews need to be “repaired,” not

the better half of humanity. Peter has it all wrong.

This is where Christianity went wrong and destroyed the world.

With Peter Christianity jumps the tracks

to infect the Gentiles. The intentions of

Jesus were betrayed.








Let’s distinguish Cuckianity from bio-Christianity.

To be or not to be P.O.C.S.ed.

To P.O.C.S. or not to P.O.C.S. the Jews.

When the P.O.C.S. is turned on Gentiles, it becomes Cuckianity and the

Jews rule the world.

When the P.O.C.S. firepower is directed on the Jews, we can call it bio-Christianity. (There is basis for bio-Christianity already, “ancestoral sin”

is accepted as hereditary.) When Jews are P.O.C.S.’ed, Jews are

marginalized, humiliated, and silenced.

That Gentile nations must be respected doesn’t mean Gentile nations

should be Christianized or that these nations should accept

Christianization.

Christianization is treatment for the Jews.

If you are not a Jew, you are exempt

from Christianity.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestral_sin




Why do Christians think Christianity is for them? Everything points

away from Peter’s notion. Christianity is Jew-only. Evangelicals are on

the wrong mission. Biblical literalists missed something.

The Jews-only thesis demands debate. Can this Jew-only thesis be

refuted? It makes no sense for Gentiles to be silenced, impoverished,

childless, and servile to Big Jew. It does make sense to silence,

impoverish, chastise, and render obedient the Jews.

The West has been POCSed by Peter.

We must be detoxed of the POCS with a little Christian revisionism.

Jesus was a genius. He was history’s first Cultural Marxist. He

understood the complexity of the Jews and deconstructed them.

Instead of destroying Western Civilization, he wanted to destroy the

Jews. By this, he is a veritable hero warning the world of the malice of

the Jew. Those who turn his P.O.C.S. on us are the Anti-Christs.

Christianity is not about the death and resurrection of Jesus, but the

death of the Jews, so the Gentiles can survive. Jesus is a savior, if only

Christians would listen and follow directly in his footsteps. Gentiles

must become the Christianizers, not the Christianed; the hunters, not

the hunted.








Use Girls’ Bathroom→

Judaism: The

Greatest Lie EverSold May 11, 2015

72

Adolf Ziegler’s

CampaignAgainstDegenerate Art December 22,

2016 4

Top 5 Ways for

Women to Talk toTheir Men AboutWhite Genocide November 29,

2015 3

Lorenz Kraus

Started reading Kmac in 2011.

You May Also Like

http://www.renegadetribune.com/tranny-trauma-backlash-at-high-school-after-boy-allowed-to-use-girls-bathroom/








http://www.renegadetribune.com/judaism-greatest-lie-ever-sold/



http://www.renegadetribune.com/judaism-greatest-lie-ever-sold/#comments

http://www.renegadetribune.com/adolf-zieglers-campaign-degenerate-art/



http://www.renegadetribune.com/adolf-zieglers-campaign-degenerate-art/#comments

http://www.renegadetribune.com/top-5-ways-for-women-to-talk-to-their-men-about-white-genocide/



http://www.renegadetribune.com/top-5-ways-for-women-to-talk-to-their-men-about-white-genocide/#comments




CONNECT WITH:

Notify of new follow-up comments Email ›

Lothar

Member

Leave a Reply

30 Comments on "Jesus: Christianity is for Jews Only"


In my opinion, we, as Aryans, have nothing to do with any of

the Middle Eastern myths. How can we ever be “Judenfrei” if

we cling to their myths and, by extension, their culture? There

is no more authority in Hebrew myth than there is in Greek,

Join the discussion





http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Facebook&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fjesus-christianity-jews%2F

http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Google&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fjesus-christianity-jews%2F

http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Twitter&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fjesus-christianity-jews%2F




4 REPLY 1 year 6 months ago


renegade

Admin

Mr. White Genocide

Guest

Roman, or Norse myth. The only reason that we were nominally

Christian in the first place is because we were born into it. One

has to have literal blind faith in the Bible, because when you

read it without the bias of that blind faith, you see that it

is… Read more »

Great comment to a very interesting article.

Hail ALL Pre-Christ. religions north of the Alps ! The

ONLY TRUE religions of the TRUE White race!

Unawake Whites , of the White race RENOUNCE your

J. Christ. religions ! RENOUNCE Your puppet J.

controlled Christ. religions that promote Race Mixing

& White race GENOCIDE! YOU MUST , or we will go

extinct very soon.









http://w.p.p.o.whitephenotypepreservationorg.y-group/




-1 REPLY 1 year 6 months ago


renegade

Admin


Time to change my

Christian name

Guest

I think bringing jews to Christ is a great idea. It’s what Bobby

Fischer wanted to do to most of them. Let Jesus be their

shepherd (and lead them to slaughter).

Nice to finally see this come out.

Not only was Christianity a Middle Eastern disease, it was

specifically aimed at reforming Jews. That’s right on target! It

has been awhile since I read the Bible. Had forgotten just how

specifically the New Testament spelled this out. It caused some

cognitive dissonance way back when I first came across it. Now,

so many years later, it just makes sense. White people wanted

to join the Christian party, be counted among the Hebraen

god’s favored people, even when the Jews themselves didn’t, so

we gave up our own identities,… Read more »














Raymond Daubney

Guest

Kevin Sommers

Member

I don’t give a continental damn for Christianity, it was these

retards that opened the gates to the Jews to begin with. These

idiots are not capable of independent thought, they cant make

a decision without first looking it up in their Bible. The dumb

clucks cant even agree on which Bible is the correct one. I’m

waiting for Hollywood to do a remake of the movie Dumb &

Dumber, using a Christian & a Muslim respectively in the lead

roles. If there were an uprising against the “occupiers” and

victory, if I were around and with… Read more »

Now that is straight brill iant thinking, new thought. And it does

address the many contradictions of the religion. You shouldbounce this theory off Christians within and outside of the

movement.. refine it as they find errors to pick at, perhaps

some will help in finding more supportive evidence. This is a

theory well worth spreading far & wide I feel. It brings a lot to

think about and many questions. Can this plan follow through

so long as whites follow Christianity? Or must it be scrapped?

Were whites meant to play a part in conversion? If… Read more






http://google/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/kevin-sommers/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/kevin-sommers/






Lorenz Kraus

Author

TRUTHMAN71

Member

»

Hi Kevin, thanks for your questions. 1. “Can this plan

follow through so long as whites follow Christianity? Or

must it be scrapped?” I think it is a transition orstepping stone towards something more suitable than

abject Christianity, towards something aggressive. 2.

“Were whites meant to play a part in conversion?” You

mean back in Peter and Paul’s time? They probably

heard the “peace and love” part and thought it was

cool. They go for the straight-forward sugar-coating

and can’t see the dangers because they don’t know

Jews and Muslims have that two-faced way. Part

of… Read more »

anyone getting their knowledge of Christ from Renegade

tribune needs more help than Jews lol







http://banjews.com/


http://twitter.com/TRUTHMAN71






renegade

Admin

Bo Sears

Guest

So the Bible verses quoted are inaccurate? You’re not

supposed to turn the other cheek and resist not evil,

according to the circumcised rabbi?

If one is ready to slough off the outer coat of Christianity, but

not yet ready to slough off an inner coat of respect for the Old

Testament [OT], an opportunity lies in the fact that the OT

spells out a covenant reached with Noah in behalf of all

humanity consisting of seven commandments which are pretty

good, and which were intended for us as well as the ancestors

of those who became Hebrews. Take a look…the Noahide

commandments require us to establish judges and to behead

criminals. A new look at weapons for the civil war… Read more

»









http://www.resistingdefamation.org/






renegade

Admin


Blut und Boden

Member

I am never going to consider myself an Israelite or my

enemies Edomites.

CI-tard response to the claim that jesus was a jew: “Not uh, he

was a White man and we are the true Israelites.”

Normal christard response to the phrase “the house of Israel”:

“With the death and resurrection of jebus “the house of Israel”

came to mean those saved through jebus’ willful act of

sacrifice via crucifixion. That is the new covenant.”

What do they both have in common?

Retardation.
















J. Belenger

Lorenz Kraus

Author

Member

This is probably one of the best articles I’ve read this year,

unfortunately it won’t have as much exposure as it should. I

would encourage to check out ‘Caesar’s Messiah, The Roman

Conspiracy To Invent Jesus’ by Joseph Atwill (2001). I think

that should shed even more light on this important debate.

Yes, I watched his material some time ago. It’s

intriguing. It would make strategic sense from the

Roman’s perspective, if true; and an example of their

brilliance. One of the problems for the average person

is that you need outside material to confirm his theory

through Josephus. I do like his idea that the similarity

between one story and another, on one point after

point, has a multiplication effect of value, reducing the

odds of disbelief. That may be a useful idea on its own.

That you need outside specialized knowledge is the

same problem I have… Read more »






http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/belenger/

http://banjews.com/








hbm

Guest

mothman777

Guest

The Gospels are a palimpsest– like a layer cake– with a Jewish

lowest stratum. They were written over the course of at least a

hundred years and by many different hands. From passage to

passage in any given Gospel, there can be multiple authors

(some Jewish, some Gentile) writing across decades– evencenturies. The names by which we recognize the Gospels as

were not even attached to them until almost 200AD. These are

probably the first things anyone curious about the origins of

Christianity needs to understand. Mark, which surely contains

material from proto-Gospels (Jewish folk tales… Read more »

Yes, the original Bible, there having been over 20 significant

church council revisions of the content of the Bible and what it

actually teaches, documented by AMORC, contained only the

instruction by the psy-op literary creation Jew Jesus never to go

to the Gentiles. Later additions to the Bible that purport to

state that disciples should speak to all people all over the










0 REPLY 1 year 1 month ago

0 REPLY 1 year 4 days ago

TS Odinson

Guest

The Bluetooth

Guest

world are a complete falsification. The article by Hugh

Fogelman, ”Missionaries, They Do Not Know What They Are

Doing ‘ reveals the truth of this. The coming real messiah of the

Jews will need… Read more »

Not that I have a dog in the race anymore, not Christian

anymore, but when I was studying everyday biblical and

systematic theology as part as my discernment for religious li fe

and/or the priesthood as a traditionalist Catholic, I can help

you with your argumentation. You quoted scripture. Can’t do

this, you open the door for the counter to follow up with the

same since you used it as a contrary to itself. The counter will

simply be quoting scripture as well and destroy your case, ie:

Isaiah 49:6 “And he said: It is a small thing… Read more »

Jesus is the bell faery from the Bible tale …












Hansel

Guest


Tom

Member

“We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of

Christianity. Our movement is Christian.” – Adolf Hitler,

October 27, 1928.

I think Jesus sent the disciples to the “lost sheep” of Israel. Not

to the dispersion among the Greeks. The direction he sent

them was toward Europe. The Jews of Jesus’ day were

Pharisees and Sadducees (today’s agnostic Jews.) Neither

faction formally acknowledged Jesus as belonging to them.

Jesus said his sheep heard his voice–but that the Jews were

children of the father of lies–the devil–who spoke lies and did

not have the truth in them. Saul of Tarsus, who never met

Jesus, created what we call Christianity today. It is different

than what Jesus taught and… Read more »








http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/tom/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/tom/





Wanda Lawrence


renegade

Admin

Guest

CLASSIC JEW writing. Everything is all about them. Then how

come Jesus states that he came to save the WORLD John 3:16?

And, there is no difference between a Jew and a Gentile,

circumcised or uncircumcised, bond nor free? Jesus did come

from Jews but, he had to come from somewhere. No matter

what culture he came from, someone will slant and complain.

Seems to me that Jews needed Him the most at that time.

Someone comment on the above scriptures. I’d love to see how

you twist those. Would be interesting fictional writing.

The Bible is classic jew writing. It sure as shit is not

European. No use arguing with a dupe, though. Go

worship your circumcised rabbi.












0 REPLY 4 months 1 day ago

Jeff

Guest


Germal

Guest

J. Belenger

Typical Jew tactic. Convince whites to give up/reject 2000 years

of their ancestors history. Why is it that these Christ haters are

so dishonest that they lie about the Christian Idintity message,

and tell the Jew lie that Christianity is Jewish. Its our History.

Jesus was not a Jew. He was an Aryan. He spoke Aramaic an

Aryan language. His whole message was anti-Jew. Its only been

for about the past 100 years that they have taught Judeo-christianity in the church. Our western civilization is built on

Christianity. This line of thinking that Christianity is a

Jew… Read more »

Brilliant analysis, to be spread as much as possible.

I can’t wait to go though this article completely. Some people













Member


newstarmist

Guest

think that raising this subject creates in-fighting in the

movement (and they are right to a certain extent) but I for one

think these issues should be discussed as soon as possible

within our ranks for the sake of avoiding further problems.

The question of Christianity should be put on the table in

spite of not being the first priority simply for all the trouble it

has caused since its inception.

You’d have to be blind not to see what’s happening right before

your eyes. Ask yourselves “what other group along with the

jews are euphoric with unbridled glee in anticipation of what

lies ahead?” From Albert Pike, author of Morals and Dogma:

“The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage

of the differences caused by the “agentur” of the “Illuminati”

between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World.

The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the

Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel)

mutually destroy each… Read more »












0 REPLY

1 year 6 months ago

Blut und Boden

newstarmist

Guest

Member

That letter is an obvious hoax. “The First World War

must be brought about in order to permit the

Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in

Russia and of making that country a fortress of

atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the

“agentur” (agents) of the Illuminati between the British

and Germanic Empires wil l be used to foment this war.

At the end of the war, Communism will be built and

used in order to destroy the other governments and in

order to weaken the religions.” “The Second World War

must be fomented by taking… Read more »

Well, isn’t everything a hoax these days? Just like

the Protocols Of the Elders of Zion, for example?

And isn’t it eerie how Pike’s vision regarding WWI

and WWII came to fruition, and everything else is

falling into place, just l ike the Protocols

predicted? It’s comforting, though, knowing that











0 REPLY

1 year 6 months ago

Blut und Boden

Member

it’s all a hoax. Makes it so much easier to stay

asleep. As for the term nazi: Based on

entomology, the term nazi had been around

prior to the NSDAP. It was a colloquialism used

to denigrate one as basically being a fool, and

came into use as… Read more »

No, not everything is a hoax, and I’m not

one of those people.

Except that this wasn’t a prediction since it

was written after both World Wars. And it

didn’t come to fruition because the third

part hasn’t yet been realized.

I was unaware that you had trouble

sleeping at night, NewStarMist.

So then, “Nazism” must refer to “foolism”,

and his predication was about the “fools”

and the Fascists vs the communists and











0 REPLY

1 year 6 months ago

zionists?

Right…

Recent Posts

Blackbird9’s Breakfast Club: The US Uncivil

War Pt4

Ancient Aryans of China

Sinead’s Kosher Food Experiment

All Christians are Cucks #7

Andrey R. Bens: Sinead McCarthy –

Genocide in South Africa

Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) Gang: Major

Sections

Race and

Nationalism

Current Events

and Politics

Religion and

Spirituality

Philosophy and

Insight

Pages

Home

Author

Registration

Subscribe

Log In

Site Stats

Log In

Username or E-

mail

Password

Connect with:
























Players in Sex-Slave Trafficking and More

California Department of Public Health Hid

This Warning on Cell Phone Radiation for

Years

Videos

Podcasts and

Radio

Hodge Podge

Todays Visits:

28,532

Last 7 Days Visits:

298,203

Remember

Me

Log In

Subscribe

Lost Password

Renegade Tribune is published by Kyle Hunt

















http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Facebook&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fjesus-christianity-jews%2F

http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Google&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fjesus-christianity-jews%2F

http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Twitter&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fjesus-christianity-jews%2F



Carl Gustav Jung: Enemy of the Church September 16, 2015 renegade 4 Comments

by Dr Pravin Thevathasan

The danger to the Church represented by Jungianthinking

JUNG’S theories have penetrated more deeply inside the Catholic Church than those of any other

therapist. There is an apparent mystical aura which surrounds his name as compared to the overt

atheism of Freud or humanism of Carl Rogers. His friend, the Dominican father Victor White,

wrote that assessing a person’s dream sequence seemed like an interior religious pilgrimage.

Jungian analysis superficially appears to resemble religious retreats, and religious retreats are

often no more than exercises in Jungian therapy. Indeed, the Myers-Biggs Type Indicator – a

Jungian based technique that helps one choose the type of prayer that fits one’s personality – has

been all the rage in retreat centres. Hawkstone Hall – a Catholic pastoral centre – offers




http://www.renegadetribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Blog-12.jpg




“imaginative work inspired by CG Jung”. It is one of many.

Jung repeatedly stated that he was writing his own personal myth which cast him in a prophetic

rather than a merely psychological role. His own brand of psychology thus becomes dogma and

every aspect of religious belief is interpreted in its light. The following sections are intended to

summarize his findings with regard to religion.

JUNG ON RELIGION

Jung claimed that he was interested in religion from a psychological perspective. Psychology

“opens peoples’ eyes to the real meaning of dogmas”. For Jung religious experiences and ideas are

found in the human psyche and not in the supernatural. He developed a particular interest in

gnosticism and claimed that the Gnostics were great psychologists – the highest compliment

possible.

From 1920 onwards he became fascinated by the I Ching, the Chinese oracle book. While

practising it he claimed that all sorts of remarkable phenomena occurred. He explained the

“ghosts” he saw during seances as “exteriorizations” of archetypal images within his mind,originating in the collective unconscious of the human race. At the core of Jungian therapy lies the

occult.

He had an obsession with alchemy, the maternal darkness that compensates for Christianity’s

paternal light. To become whole, we need light and darkness made one.

Jung claimed to have identified Three Stages of religious evolution. The first stage was the archaic

age of Shamans. This was followed by the ancient civilization of prophets and priests. Then came

the Christian heritage of mystics. At every stage of religious history all human beings share theinner divinity, the “numinous”. Within the psyche, the divine and the self merge.

It can be seen that for Jung, the archetypes of the collective unconscious are the true sources of

the supernatural. He had absolutely no interest in objective truth. What matters for the individual

is to create his own personal “myth” in order to gain wholeness. His own psychology developed

from contact with his spirit-guide who he named Philemon.

In 1916, Jung’s house felt haunted, his daughters had seen ghosts and he saw a crowd of spirits

bursting into the house. As the ghosts disappeared he went into a three day state of automatic

writing, leading to the production of his work “The Seven Sermons”. He was already far beyond

the realms of psychology.

JUNG ON THE TRINITY

For Jung the doctrine of the Trinity is replete with psychological meaning. The Father symbolizes

the psyche in its original undifferentiated wholeness. The Son represents the human psyche and

the Holy Spirit the state of self-critical submission to a higher reality.

Not surprisingly Jung found similar Trinitarian ideas in the Babylonian, Egyptian and Greek

mystical traditions. However, he believed in a quaternity, the fourth person being the principle of

evil: without the opposition of Satan, who is one of God’s sons, the Trinity would have remained a

unity. In Jungian terms, without the opposition of the shadow (the “fourth” person) there would be



no psychic development and no actualisation of the self.

Jung perceived the dogma of the Assumption as the Church’s attempt to create a quaternity

without shadow, without evil, for the devil had been excluded. The Gnostic Jung, however,

believed that the principle of evil had in fact been introduced into the Trinity by the material

presence of the Mother of God. From a Gnostic perspective, Mary becomes a diabolical presence,

the maternal darkness, within the Trinity.

In his essay on Job, Jung contends that Yahweh desired the love of mankind but behaved like athoughtless, irritable tyrant who is indifferent to human misery. Like Adam, who is mythically

married to both Lilith, daughter of Satan, and to Eve, so is Yahweh married to Israel and to

Sophia, who compensates for Yahweh’s behaviour by showing human beings the Mercy of God.

Her appearance in the visions of Ezekiel and Daniel leads to a fundamental change: God

transforms Himself by becoming man. Yahweh has wronged the creatures who have outdone

Him and only by becoming man can he atone for His injustice.

THE CHRIST FIGURE

Maintaining a tradition put forward by Gnostics, Jung believed that Christ is the symbolic

representation of the most central archetype, the self. He may be compared to other Mythic Gods

who die young and are born again.

The sublime goodness of Christ means that from a psychological perspective, He lacks archetypal

wholeness. Missing is the dark side of the psyche, the element of evil. Christ receives wholeness

in the person of the Antichrist. The Incarnation leads to the Apocalypse and the unleashing of evil

by an inexorable psychological law.

Christ’s death and Resurrection are full of psychic meaning, representing the human drama of

following the hard road of individualism, allowing the ego to be put to death in order that the self

– the Son of God – may become incarnate within.

JUNG ON THE MASS

In his essay on the Roman Mass, Jung wrote that the liturgy arose from the psychic process

underlying other ancient pagan rituals. Transubstantiation occurs symbolically in the bread and

wine but more authentically in the participant who is transformed, exalted and self-enhanced.

The Mass is the outcome of a process that began in ancient times with gifted Shamans whose

isolated experiences gradually became universalized with the progressive development of

consciousness.

The Church teaches that Christ died in order to save us. For Jung, this is a misleading

rationalisation for an otherwise inexplicable cruelty: the angry Yahweh of the Old Testament is full

of guilt and in need of atonement. Jesus dies on Calvary to expiate the sins of God the Father.

The masculine wine and feminine bread represents the androgynous nature of Christ, signifying

the union of opposites within Him. What is sacrificed is nature, Man and God, all combined in the

symbolic gift.

In Jungian terms, the heart of the Mass lies in the rich, emotional experiences encountered by the



participants. A man-centered liturgy enables the mystery of the Eucharist to transform the soul of

empirical man into his totality.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF JUNGIAN THERAPY

It should come as no surprise to learn that Matthew Fox sees Jung along with Teilhard de Chardin

and a select few others as founders of the New Age Movement. Barbara Hannah of the CG Jung

institute writes that visualization is considered the most powerful tool in Jungian psychology for

achieving direct contact with the unconscious.

Father John Dourley, a professor of religious studies and a Jungian therapist has written that a

religious myth should not be reduced to historical fact and that the Christian mysteries belong to

the human psyche. Upholding Dourley’s view that the Resurrection should be seen in Jungian

symbolic terms is the Episcopalian minister, Wallace Clift, who sees a new age of consciousness

brought about by a reinterpretation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

The Episcopalian theologians John Sanford and Morton Kelsey – both Jungian therapists – see

religious practice as a healing inner-journey towards wholeness and meaning and dreams shouldbe seen as sources of religious insight. Kelsey writes that witchcraft, sorcery and other forms of

Shamanism are not evil in themselves but can be used for good. Clairvoyance, telepathy and

other forms of ESP are manifestations of the power of God. In typical Jungian fashion, he

concludes that spiritual reality is ultimately a construct of the human unconscious.

Logically enough, the Jungian who goes to Confession would wish to accept himself as he is and

to integrate the good and evil aspects of his personality. Acceptance replaces absolution”. (ln this

context, it is of interest to note the number of priests who have left the priesthood in order to

marry and become psychotherapists).

The homosexual who has the courage to “come out”, for example, is welcoming and integrating

the darker and opposite-sex side of the personality. There can be no moral condemnation when

wholeness is achieved.

CONCLUSION

Wholeness for Jung means the union of good and evil. As the notion of good and evil are central

to Jungian doctrine, he cannot be assessed purely as a psychologist.

Throughout his life, Jung made a number of remarkable predictions which came true. A famous

example occurred on 4.4.44 when he predicted the death of the doctor who was treating him.

This followed a dream that he had of the doctor’s “primal form”. On the day of the prediction, the

doctor took to his bed and did not leave it again. One wonders whether Jung’s interest in the

paranormal and his participation in seances had paid off in unexpected ways.

In sum the teachings of Jung are wholly at variance with the Church. There is little scope for

dialogue and none for a Christian-Jungian synthesis.

References:



← Jez Turner: Fighting for Your Folk The Daily Shoah: Special Die-Cut Cover →

Know Thyself June 15, 2016 1

Jesus: Christianity is for Jews Only September 2, 2015 30

1. David Wulff: Psychology of Religion (John Wiley and Sons).

2. David Hunt: The Seduction of Christianity (Harvest House Publications).

3. CG Jung: Collected Works (Princeton University Press).

4, Victor White: God and the Unconscious (Harvill Press).

This article first appeared in the December 1998 edition of Christian Order .

renegade

Donate to the Tribune and receive a gift card to buy great historical books! Click hereto learn more and contribute

You May Also Like

http://www.renegadetribune.com/jesus-christianity-jews/#comments




http://www.renegadetribune.com/know-thyself/#comments

http://www.renegadetribune.com/know-thyself/



http://www.renegadetribune.com/promotion/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-daily-shoah-special-die-cut-cover/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/jez-turner-fighting-for-your-folk/

https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Carl%20Gustav%20Jung%3A%20Enemy%20of%20the%20Church&url=http://www.renegadetribune.com/carl-gustav-jung-enemy-of-the-church/&via=RadioRenegades

http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fcarl-gustav-jung-enemy-of-the-church%2F



Understanding Wotan Consciousness September 24, 2015 4

CONNECT WITH:

Notify of

new follow-up comments

Email

›

Bo Sears

Leave a Reply

4 Comments on "Carl Gustav Jung: Enemy of the Church"


Guest

Accepting the Jungian reading applied above, there is still another mystery…assuming some of these myths are

embedded in some of Hebrew literature, and that is it appears by all accounts that we are dealing with twodifferent god-like figures. One from the Adam through the Noah to Moses at which point the god-figure ceases to

be universal. The god-like figure for Moses and Hebrews, Muslims, and Christians was for an exclusive group,

acquired immediately after the Hebrew mass migration out of Egypt when the character of the god-like figure

undergoes a vast change in character, nature, symbols,… Read more »

Join the discussion

http://www.resistingdefamation.org/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Twitter&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fcarl-gustav-jung-enemy-of-the-church%2F

http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Google&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fcarl-gustav-jung-enemy-of-the-church%2F

http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Facebook&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fcarl-gustav-jung-enemy-of-the-church%2F

http://www.renegadetribune.com/understanding-wotan-consciousness/#comments

http://www.renegadetribune.com/understanding-wotan-consciousness/





J. Belenger

Hermit

Blut und Boden

0 REPLY

1 year 5 months ago

Member

Even if Gustav Jung’s legacy has been monopolized and therefore tarnished by the ‘Usual Suspects’

(who have proven to be expert psychological manipulators themselves) one can still separate the

wheat from the chaff and learn a lot from this particular knowledge. One of my favourite quotes by

Jung is ‘my work will be continued by those who suffer’.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us7XofxPX48

(To be watched with caution – This three part documentary features lots of ‘juden’)

0 REPLY

1 year 5 months ago

Member

Some people may be familiar with the personality inventory called the “Meyers-Briggs” test. This

system was actually devised by Jung. It should be no surprise that his work has been plagiarized

and modified by a jew. There is another similar personality classification scheme put forward by

another jew named Keirsey. It is another work of plagiarism.

Plagiarism aside, people should google these tests and take them to learn more about themselves,

their intrinsic motivations, and that of others. If you learn to identify another individual’s

personality type you can tailor your methods of persuasion around that individual’s personality.

0 REPLY

1 year 4 months ago

Member

I do not know how much at face value one can take the author’s description of Jung’s views when it

comes down to some of the finer points of his thinking, since he himself is a Catholic [Indian living

the UK].

0 REPLY

1 year 2 months ago


http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/hermit/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us7XofxPX48




Mike

Walsh

Kyle

Hunt

Sinead

Digger

for Truth

Axe

of Perun

Aria

Whitebeam

Robert

Heimdal

Sacred

Runes

willally

Top Authors

Newsletter Subscription

Email *

Select list(s):

New Article Updates

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe!

Book Promotion

Your support is needed! Click here to contribute and receive a gift.


http://www.renegadetribune.com/author/willally/











Get Hellstorm on DVD


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/communism-is-neo-christianity 233/238Contribute at least the amount listed below:



United States

$20 for 1 DVD or $60 for 4 DVDs

International

$30 for 1 DVD or $90 for 4 DVDs

Recent Posts

Freemasons in Action: the Southern Staged Deceptions

Originally published January 13, 2017 By Russ Winter of The New Nationalist As a …

The Lolita Riddle

This is a 2010 documentary dealing with child rape, Shirley Temple, Lewis Carroll, Freud …

Continuity Of Agenda: Destroying Syria Since 1983

Recently revealed CIA documents portray recent efforts to undermine and overthrow the Syrian

government …

Pacific Islanders Undertake Grand Experiment Against Purveyors of Junk Food

The very job of government under new nationalism is to stand up to slash …

A Distress Call from Germany

Form a man who was born and raised in an occupied country. What could …

http://www.renegadetribune.com/distress-call-germany/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/pacific-islanders-undertake-grand-experiment-purveyors-junk-food/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/continuity-agenda-destroying-syria-since-1983/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-lolita-riddle/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/freemasons-action-southern-staged-deceptions/




White Nationalism’s Rise, Defeat and Resurrection

Our numbers, despite all the pessimism today’s media munchkins report regarding replacement levels, will

…

‘False Memory’ Narrative Used By Pedophiles to Gaslight Victims

In 1992, pedophiles set up an entire organization devoted to gaslighting victims under the …

The Story of Creation

There in the gulf was the beginning of things. There time first dawned. And …

Marc Dutroux – The Monster of Belgium

After Dutroux’s arrest, one of his accomplices claimed to have hosted a party that …

Pablo Escobar’s Son Reveals His Dad “Worked for the CIA Selling Cocaine”

Juan Pablo Escobar Henao, son of notorious Medellín cartel drug kingpin Pablo Escobar, now …

Sophie Gengembre Anderson’s Precious Paintings of Women and Children

Sophie is best known for her photograph-like paintings of women and children in rural …

Trump Gets Ready To Pick John Bolton As Advisor

White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters that Trump will speak to former US …

Google’s Artificial Intelligence Getting ‘Greedy,’ ‘Aggressive’

As artificial intelligence becomes more complex, it is more likely to take extreme measures …

The Psychopathic Takeover

This video describes the elite psychopathic political and social takeover. The methods and motives …

http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-psychopathic-takeover/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/googles-artificial-intelligence-getting-greedy-aggressive/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/trump-gets-ready-pick-john-bolton-advisor/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/sophie-gengembre-andersons-precious-paintings-women-children/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/pablo-escobars-son-reveals-dad-worked-cia-selling-cocaine/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/marc-dutroux-monster-belgium/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-story-of-creation/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/false-memory-narrative-used-pedophiles-gaslight-victims/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/white-nationalisms-rise-defeat-resurrection/



Renegade Report


Renegade Broadcasting

The latest radio shows from our sister site.

Aryan Talk: Putting Our Struggle in Perspective (2-21-17)

Truth Hertz: The Messiah’s Meanderings with Mary and Mary (2-21-17)

Firestarter Radio: Clearing the Air (2-20-17)

Truth Hertz: The Lost History of Jesus in Britain (2-20-17)

The Solar Storm: Sofia Smallstorm – Destruction of Our Nature (2-19-17)

Renegade Roundtable: Kyle Hosts, Then John (2-18-17)

Circus Maximus: Wardo Hosts – Crypto History & Present Predicaments (2-17-17)

Recent Posts

Freemasons in Action: the Southern Staged Deceptions

The Lolita Riddle

Continuity Of Agenda: Destroying Syria Since 1983

http://www.renegadetribune.com/continuity-agenda-destroying-syria-since-1983/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-lolita-riddle/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/freemasons-action-southern-staged-deceptions/

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/circus-maximus-wardo-hosts-crypto-history-present-predicaments-2-17-17/

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/renegade-roundtable-kyle-hosts-john-2-18-17/

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/solar-storm-sofia-smallstorm-destruction-nature-2-19-17/

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/truth-hertz-lost-history-jesus-britain-2-20-17/

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/firestarter-radio-clearing-air-2-20-17/

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/truth-hertz-messiahs-meanderings-mary-mary-2-21-17/

http://www.renegadebroadcasting.com/aryan-talk-putting-struggle-perspective-2-21-17/




Pacific Islanders Undertake Grand Experiment Against Purveyors of Junk Food

A Distress Call from Germany

White Nationalism’s Rise, Defeat and Resurrection

‘False Memory’ Narrative Used By Pedophiles to Gaslight Victims

Sections

Race and Nationalism

Current Events and Politics

Religion and Spirituality

Philosophy and Insight

Poetry and Artwork

Videos

Podcasts and Radio

Hodge Podge

Pages

Home

Author Registration

Subscribe

Log In

Site Stats

Todays Visits: 41,629

Last 7 Days Visits: 458,897

Log In

Username or E-mail

Password













http://www.renegadetribune.com/false-memory-narrative-used-pedophiles-gaslight-victims/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/white-nationalisms-rise-defeat-resurrection/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/distress-call-germany/

http://www.renegadetribune.com/pacific-islanders-undertake-grand-experiment-purveyors-junk-food/



Connect with:

Remember Me

Log In

b ib d



http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Twitter&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fcarl-gustav-jung-enemy-of-the-church%2F

http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Google&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fcarl-gustav-jung-enemy-of-the-church%2F

http://www.renegadetribune.com/login/?action=wordpress_social_authenticate&mode=login&provider=Facebook&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renegadetribune.com%2Fcarl-gustav-jung-enemy-of-the-church%2F

communism is neo-christianity

Documents

appearance christianity

misery christianity

religion of slaves

history of early christianity

future world

religious person

roman world empire

recognized state religion