Archive for April 25th, 2006

The Church’s War Against White Intelligence




I mean what is today called the Orthodox and Roman Churches.

But this is no polemic against them. They were the only churches there WERE in the first centuries of the Faith.

Protestant churches, and especially evangelical churches, are just as upset at the idea that Jesus could have been married as the most conservative Catholic priest.

Fundamentalist churches are infuriated at the idea that Jesus, who was wholly a man, could ever have had a sexual desire.

Those who cannot understand this distinction between “church” and “Christian” can now proceed to call me a heretic.

— The Church’s War Against White Intelligence

Too many Christian commenters don’t like the truth, so they deny it.

In my simplistic, non-theological way, I believe that Christ was hated becaus he simply would not bow to the Temple theolgians.

He could have beeen a famous Temple theologian.

Instead Christ kept going out among the masses and telling the simple truth.

Christianity soon rejected all that.

It was too sophisticated to talk about simplistic reality.

Where Jesus attacked adultery, the theologians like Paul attacked all sex.

I belive that, that because of its obsession with the decayed Zoraostrian hatred of life itself, which we now call Manichaeism, there was a two thousand year war in all white countries against the birth of intelligent children.

This is VERY relevant today, because the higher AVERAGE IQ of Orientals and Jews, neither of which were subject to Church hatred of intelligence, is constantly given as a reason for doing away with our race.

No, Elizabeth, they were NOT myths.

The early Christian ideal of a perfectly beautiful, moral and intelligent woman marrying a brilliant and moral Aryan male and persuading him to remain chaste and sterile with her WAS the Christian Ideal.

St. Paul’s ideal of sterility, which commentersw call “moderation,” came out of nowhere if you are the kind of personwho tries to find everything he said in the Old Testament.

St. Peter was a happily and unapologetically married man.

James the Just was Jesus’s brother, Mary’s son conceived of Joseph.

The DaVinci Code makes the point that one fundamental point of Judaism in Jesus’s time was that a father had to find a wife for his son and make sire they produced children by the time the son was twenty.

NOBODY, but NOBODY, knew about tghis historical point before it showed up in that book.

So why does everybody go ballistic when someone suggests that Jesus was married?

It is one of those facts of history that nobody knows or mentions, but once the secret is out, it makes very, very serious waves.

Where in the HELL did this Ideal of Sterility COME FROM?

And where in the hell did this idea that the ideal for a person with good genes was to be a human sacrifice in genetic terms?

First think about it: Where id this come from?

Is there a HINT of it in the Old Testament?

So why did Paul take it for granted?

Why did Paul take it for granted that religion has ANYTHING to do with chastity?


Why did Peter take it for granted that religion has ANYTHING to do with chastity?


Why did Paul take it for granted that religion has ANYTHING to do with chastity?

Answer that FIRST before you comment on this.

Poverty, chastity and obedience.

I defy you to find any mention of any of those “Virtues” in the Old Testament.

They are absolutely, purely, and otherwise inexplicably a part of the degenereate form of Zoroastrianism which was overwhelmingly important during the first seven centuries when Christianity developed.

Why does this MATTER?

Because Zoroaster said that the Evil God, Ahriman, was the God of THIS World. The Good God, Ahura Mazda, was the god of hte NEXT world.

Early Zoroastrianism, back at 1000 BC, was limited to members of the Aryan (hence the word Iran and Erin for Ireland and Aryan in India) race.

Zoroastrianism was originally anything but racially suicidal.

But by the time of Saint Paul, anything of THIS world was evil. If you believed that eternal life had to do with your children, you were on the side of Ahriman.

This belief can come from nowhere else.

Why did Paul take it for granted that religion has ANYTHING to do with chastity?

Why did Paul take it for granted that religion has ANYTHING to do with chastity?

Why did Paul take it for granted that religion has ANYTHING to do with chastity?

So if your ideal for a beautiful woman was that she should have children, you were evil. She should devote herself entirely to the NEXT world, not to the world of Ahriman.

The truly religious person would withdraw entirely from THIS world. The more he had to offer in this world, the more holy he or she was in denying it to Ahriman, the god of THIS world.

The Evil One.

The Church also found clerical celebacy useful for keeping Chruch property away from any heirs the priest might have. That is enough for the Practical Man.

“It’s all just money.”

How Macho can you get?

But Paul never claimed to be a Practical Man.

So any child who could learn to read was encourage, nay, pressed to have no children of his own.

For two thousand years.

And nobody today has the slightest idea that this could have had any genetic effect.




Those of us who have been in this intellectual battle for a long, long time will find this interesting.

If you don’t know what we are talking about, don’t worry about it.


You know what I am talking about because you were at the AR Convention.

Rushton talked about this article at the American Renaissance Convention.

He remembered me very well.

He always starts by greeeting me profusely and then quickly getting tired of what I have to say.

I get tiresome fast, and he lets me know it.

Jensen would never have the guts to speak at an AR convention. Rushton, like me and Carlton
Coon, will say what he has to say anywhere they will let him say it.

Rushton is a complete IQ nutcase. He really believes the Chinese and Jews are our superiors because they have a higher average IQ.

But what makes ALL the difference is that he sees us white gentiles as FAMILY.

People breed with those who look like them. The whole point of that article is the Real version of “We are Family.”

Rushton sees himself as part of OUR family, a family he will die for.

I finally realized that, as long as a man will fight for our survival because he is loyal to his race as a family, it doesn’t make any difference to me if he IS an IQ nut.

You and I know a world with no whites and only Jews and Orientals would be an ant colony, never advancing.

You and I knew that the loyalty of those conservatives who worshipped the Japanese in the 1960s could not be trusted.

But Rushton has drawn Jensen and his followers into LOYALTY to our race, something no one else could have done.

Rushton has drawn Jensen into a whole new category that you and I never thought of.

When Rushton talked about the superiority of the Orientals at Charles Martel Society convention I walked out. I had heard too many Jews hit the IQ argument and then go for the “assimilation” of our race out of existence.

It took me LONG time to realize that Rushton, despite his IQ obsession, was loyal to our
racial survival.

Rushton is loyal.

And that is all I ask of anybody.

You can quote this if you like.


(N.b.: Elizabeth also cited this 1995 article as one of the breakthroughs of our age):

“I nominate April 25 as Rushton-Jensen Day, as it was on 1995 April 25 that
Eureka Alert! announced the issue of the 2005 June issue of Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law, which contained J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R.
Jensen, “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive
Ability, together with four responses (three critical), and a reply by the

“Rushton and Jensen both have been arguing, at least since Jensen’s 1969
article, “How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement?” in the
Harvard Educational Review, 39, 1-123. While the article summarizes
research since, it says little the authors had not been saying all along.”

“What is significant is that an issue of a major academic journal would
devote an issue to the topic. The reader will have to decide for
themselves whether the responses provide data-driven, positive evidence
*for* equality. That the article got published where it did is a powerful
indicator that the issue of equality vs. inequality is becoming less and
less salient.”


1 Comment

So MARCH, Will You?


What if TEN Stormfronters hit the Newsgroups with the Mantra?

Ten of thousands of people would read it!

What if HUNDRED Stormfronters hit the Newsgroups with the mantra?

What if a THOUSAND Stormfronters took four or five hours and hit a hundred Newsgroups with the Mantra?

Some idiots would start to COMPLAIN about it!

A dream come true!

All you have to do is cut and paste.

There is no need for comment.

“Liberals and respectable cosnervatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”

“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”

“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”

“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”

“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”

“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”

“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”


No Comments