Dennis Mangan has described Tanstaafl’s suggestion that “Lawrence Auster’s opposition to Darwinism” is “rooted in his Jewishness” as a “logical absurdity.” In other words, the idea is so prima facie ridiculous (Darwinism is “bad for the Jews”) that it is unworthy of comment. Per Auster, it is something only Jew-hating crazies could believe. Really?
Mr. Mangan obviously hasn’t done his reseach. A simple Google seach turns up thousands of results of Jews and fundamentalist Christians linking Darwinism to Hitler, National Socialism, anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. Consider this WND article: Rabbi defends show linking Darwin, Hitler about a Coral Ridge Ministries production called “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy”.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin, founder of Toward Tradition, tells us, “This dazzling production shows how ideas always have consequences, often unintended, and how Darwinism has impacted American culture,” Lapin wrote. “It discusses how the philosophy of evolution can dehumanize people and how Adolf Hitler, on his own admission, was influenced by Darwinian thought.”
In other words, Darwinism must be opposed because of its consequences for Judaism and Christianity, not on its merits as a scientific theory. This tripe is actually standard fare among conservative Jews, evangelical Christians, and followers of the so-called Intelligent Design movement.
Mangan has obviously never read Richard Weikart’s book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. The Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, provided “crucial funding” for the book’s research.
Auster is a well known traveller in all three circles. But to someone of Dennis Mangan’s way of thinking, it is absurd to suggest that say, an organization like AnswersInGenesis could be motivated by a fundamentalist version of Christianity as opposed to the weight of the evidence in their fanatical opposition to Darwinism.
Auster’s phrase “Darwinian anti-semite”, which he lately applies so frequently and overbroadly, is the most direct evidence that he opposes Darwinism because he sees it creating anti-semitism.
Prozium,
As a person who lives and works in academia I can assure you that academic Jewry is very much pro-Darwinian. In fact, I have personally witnessed the Jewish academic establishment crackdown on a group of evangelical Christian White students who tried to promote some form of intelligent design. My best guess is that academic Jewry’s support of Darwinism is an extension of its general hostility to [gentile] Christian civilization.
I wouldn’t consider people like Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Ben Stein, and Richard Weikart as representative of American Jewry on this matter.
That’s true. The mainstream Jewish community is also anti-racist and fervently supportive of liberalism. Auster is an outlier.
Hell, don’t take my word for it, see what the ADL has to say about creationism, intelligent design, and evolution (i.e. Darwinism) for yourself by following the link below:
http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/create/creationism_QA.asp
Here’s a small snipped from the preceding link:
“Question: Has anyone ever proved evolution?
Answer: Yes, in exactly the same way that scientists prove any other deeply and widely held scientific claim. “
Prozium,
Just as you said, Auster is an outlier.
Jews disagree all the time about what is “good for the Jews.” The neocons are not representative of the American Jewish community. Their warmongering against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was still inspired by Zionism though. Most American Jews opposed the Iraq War.
It is the same way with the Jewish take on Darwinism. The majority of Jews like Darwinism partly because it is subversive of Christianity. A vocal minority of Jews (such as Ben Stein) connect the dots from Origin of Species to Auschwitz. Looked at from one angle, Darwinism is “good for the Jews.” Seen from another, it is plausibly “bad for the Jews.”
Consider liberalism. It shatters and pathologizes white racial consciousness. In that sense, it can be seen as “good for the Jews.” Liberalism is also invoked though to justify the settlement of anti-Semitic Muslim immigrants en masse in Europe. Auster believes that is “bad for the Jews” and has become a cheerleader for Geert Wilders and the BNP as a result.
Auster’s racial ideal is the New York City of 1964. America still has a strong Christian culture. Whites are racially conscious. Anti-Semitism is strongly taboo and almost non-existent. Jews are wealthy, powerful and influential. Muslims are nowhere to be seen. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has just been passed. He is listening to Bob Dylan. All of his writing is about returning to that Golden Age.
Prozium,
Great comments at 6 and 7. I have nothing more to add.
Mangan has replied in the comments:
1.) Mangan’s initial claim was that suggesting Auster’s crusade against Darwinism was inspired by his Jewishness is “outrageously absurd”; a “logical absurdity” on its face. In fact, there is nothing at all unusual about it, as I showed in the links above. Ben Stein is a more famous exponent of this view. Rabbi Daniel Lapin is another. Both of them and many others believe that Darwinism is “bad for the Jews.”
2.) Auster is a conservative Jew, a fundamentalist Christian, and a follower of the Intelligent Design movement. He hangs out in all three subcultures. The claim that Darwinism leads to Hitler and the Holocaust is standard fare in those milieu.
3.) If it is not outrageous to suggest that AiG’s attacks on Darwinism are motivated by Biblical literalism, then why is it a “logical absurdity” to believe that Auster’s Jewishness might have something to do with his anti-Darwinism? It is not like Auster is blazing any new trails here.
“Auster is a conservative Jew, a fundamentalist Christian…”
He’s an Anglo-Catholic and a theistic evolutionist. Almost every time Auster complains about Darwinism, he does so on metaphysical and evidentiary grounds. You don’t know what you’re talking about, Proz.
Bracket the Jewish question for one second: Auster is correct in attacking the rosy-cheeked moralism of certain White Nationalists who rail against Christianity, while unaware their very quest for a healthy Western destiny requires the morality of Christendom for the cause to even make sense.
You are like the Victorian hypocrite who wants traditional White gentile values while their faith in Biblical God is tossed in the trash. As Chesterton said, you are the odd sort who worships the hearth without the altar.
For historical context, see here:
Atheism’s Moral Swindle
http://www.americanvision.org/article/atheisms-moral-swindle/
Mangan has obviously never read Richard Weikart’s book “From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany”.
There is also a book called THE SCIENTIFIC ORIGINS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM (by D. Gasman) that discusses these topics and notes the relationship between Darwinism/evolutionary science and German National Socialism: http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Origins-National-Socialism/dp/0765805812/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246058148&sr=1-1
“He’s an Anglo-Catholic and a theistic evolutionist,…”
Anglo-Catholic???
Monitor,
That’s news to me. I’m quite sure the Catholic Church has endorsed evolution. Auster is an Episcopalian who has spent countless hours attacking evolution. He has been critical of Intelligent Design for not being full throated enough for his tastes. Since when does Auster believe in theistic evolution (which is even weaker than ID)? If you can provide a link, it would be much appreciated.
As for Christian morality, you speak of it as if it were some timeless, unchanging set of concepts. Pick your century. The moral beliefs of modern American Christians are much closer to that of atheists/agnostic neighbors than to that of their Christian ancestors. What’s more, both groups probably owe more in their moral beliefs to the Enlightenment than either does to Christianity.
Proz, don’t mumble about Roman Catholicism, Auster and “modern American Christians.” First, you don’t know what you are talking about. Second, who cares what they think?
You certainly want to live in a civilization with Christian foundations. I certainly don’t see you wanting to live among other Aryans in Iran or India. You worship the box and toss away the pizza.
Monitor: “Bracket the Jewish question for one second: Auster is correct in attacking the rosy-cheeked moralism of certain White Nationalists who rail against Christianity, while unaware their very quest for a healthy Western destiny requires the morality of Christendom for the cause to even make sense. ”
Yeah right. Which version of Christianity? The version that is currently bringing in hordes of non-whites and settling them in formerly all white communities, where they can rape and murder in multicultural comfort? The Christianity that demands integration, miscegenation, and a host of other pathologies? The version of Christianity that would boot out anybody who dared suggest that maybe, just maybe, whites are entitled to survive and have their own nations instead of being displaced, raped, murdered and marginalized? The Christianity that offers absolutely no meaningful opposition to the status quo?
Your Christianity changes with the wind. Today the power structure is politically correct, so suprise! suprise! the church is politically correct. If the churches stood on timeless principle instead of going along with the powers that be, they would have far more credibility. But they don’t, and so they don’t.
You offer nothing but empty platitudes, in your lame attempt to misdirect and obfuscate. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: you enjoy the status quo. You peruse white nationalist sites because you sense that the ideas developed here, should they gain currency, would be a real threat to the system. And that just won’t do for the Monitor.
Which is another way of saying that you enjoy the murders and rapes that the status quo enables and, indeed, make inevitable. In terms that you will understand: the blood of innocents is on your hands, not those of whom you seek to misdirect.
OK, Trainspotter, why the moral concern? If you’re going to cease to exist soon anywhere. this life is a momentary accident. Why should you care about civilization?
You threw the Bible in the trash, so where do you get these transcendental notions about rape and murder being wrong? Per evolution, everything that happens is the logical result of genetic interests anyway. If whites are dying out, you should just accept that as a product of nature.
The JTF opposes darwinism and supports creationism.
Those guys are funny though. Hail JTF!
Monitor, you argue pure nonsenese. Number one, I didn’t throw the Bible in the trash (but nice red herring). I did however point out the demonstrable, provable truth about your church: it blows with the wind. It not only offers no opposition to the status quo, it actively promotes it. In fact, it outdoes the system in its slavish adherence to the status quo. I spelled this out quite clearly in my post above. Notice you didn’t bother to refute it.
And further, why don’t you broaden your horizons just a wee bit? News flash: Non Christian peoples want to preserve themselves -Christianity is not required. Hell, they are doing a far better job of it than the Christian nations. Why can’t you recognize such an obvious reality? Does the fact that China isn’t Christian cause it in any way to not preserve itself? What about any of the other non-white and non Christian nations? Of course not.
Your argument that Christianity is required for self preservation is ludicrous. It’s simply not true. This isn’t a matter of opinion upon which reasonable people can disagree, it is an objectively provable fact. Your platitudes do not survive five seconds worth of scrutiny.
We live in a world where all non-white peoples are protecting their interests, whether they be Christian or not. But if a white dare suggest that his own people should survive, here comes the Monitor with all sorts of objections. Heads up, Monitor: survival is its own justification. Nobody needs to answer to you or any of your fellow nancys as to why they care about their own. A normal man would understand that as part of being human. Of course a normal man wants his own people to survive! Why wouldn’t he? But to the Modern Church Lady, none of this makes any sense. Reality and truth are not her forte.
1.) Virtually all Jewish elites believe in Darwinism. Many of those who give lip service to ID are playing Straussian mind games.
2.) If “Non Christian peoples want to preserve themselves,” as Trainspotter claims, why is Europe handing itself over to Islam? What do Black liberals support the importation of Hispanics who try to ethnically cleanse them?
3.) White elites refuse to preserve White identity because it is intrinsically linked with Christianity, which they see as oppressive and anti-Darwinist. They also mistakenly think Nazism and fascism are Christian institutions.
4.) Where does Trainspotter get this notion that rape and murder are wrong? Nothing in Darwinism makes me think so. Rape and murder are just a gene’s way of gathering resources to make more genes.
5.) To say survival is its own justification is absurd. Evolution could care less whether white people survive, any more than dinosaurs or dodo birds. If white people pursue their genetic interests through creating a new brown mixed race, that is natural selection at work.
Anyone with sense who is familiar with The Monitor ignores him. Anyone who isn’t familiar with The Monitor has to understand before anything else that he cares not one jot about race, and to the extent he pays attention to the subject at all, he’s a race-replacement advocate who rejoices at the current Eurospherewide race-replacement crisis. As for morality, he has the morals of a cancerous tumor. This is the kind of individual who, if he has power, will burn at the stake anyone with a different view of Christianity from his. This is a very, very, very unsavory individual, as unsavory as it gets.
Nobody… as to why they care about their own. A normal man would understand that as part of being human.
Nietzsche didn’t think so:
“When the English actually believe that they know ‘intuitively’ what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as the guarantee of morality, we merely witness the effects of the dominion of the Christian value judgment and an expression of the strength and depth of this dominion: such that the origin of English morality has been forgotten, such that the very conditional character of its right to existence is no longer felt. For the English, morality is not yet a problem.”
Face it. You want a Christian society without the church. If mainline churches and pop evangelicals refuse to stand for anything, that does not let you off the hook.
“1.) Virtually all Jewish elites believe in Darwinism. Many of those who give lip service to ID are playing Straussian mind games.”
I’m not here to advocate Darwinism. I’m here to show that your platitudes are demonstrably false.
“2.) If “Non Christian peoples want to preserve themselves,” as Trainspotter claims, why is Europe handing itself over to Islam? What do Black liberals support the importation of Hispanics who try to ethnically cleanse them?”
This is particularly rich, misleading and dishonest phrasing on your part aside. When confronted with the undeniable fact that non-whites across the planet seek to protect their interests, whether they are Christian or not, you answer with this? How in the world is that a refutation of the undeniable fact that China seeks to preserve itself, even though it is not Christian? Your position is that Christianity is somehow required for self preservation. Objective, demonstrable and provable facts show that you are hopelessly wrong.
“3.) White elites refuse to preserve White identity because it is intrinsically linked with Christianity, which they see as oppressive and anti-Darwinist. They also mistakenly think Nazism and fascism are Christian institutions.”
LOL!! Put down the crack pipe dude. White elites did no such thing until recent generations. Somehow they managed to avoid this for thousands of years. What changed, Monitor? What’s the variable that explains the hostility of white elites to their own people in recent generations? It can’t be Christianity, because that’s been there for a long, long time. What changed?
Now, if it is your argument that when white elite’s allegiance to Christianity weakened, their allegiance to their fellow whites weakened, I can say that such is possible. But that doesn’t help us get out of this mess. The fact is that the churches are hopelessly and slavishly politically correct and committed to the status quo. We’re not going to be able to nancy and Church Lady our way out of this. The Church is more than willing to facilitate and encourage the rape, murder and dispossession of whites.
“4.) Where does Trainspotter get this notion that rape and murder are wrong? Nothing in Darwinism makes me think so. Rape and murder are just a gene’s way of gathering resources to make more genes.”
People had, and have, moral beliefs before Christianity and outside of Christianity. As it happens, I’m not attacking Christianity per se. I’m simply pointing out that the current church and its nancys (Hi Monitor!) are slavishly pro-system. But though much of my own morality undeniably comes from Christianity, it is absurd to say that only Christians oppose rape and murder. As absurd as your ridiculous position that Christianity is required for the preservation of a people, even though that is demonstrably false. Again, your positions are demonstrably false, it is not a matter of opinion.
“5.) To say survival is its own justification is absurd. Evolution could care less whether white people survive, any more than dinosaurs or dodo birds. If white people pursue their genetic interests through creating a new brown mixed race, that is natural selection at work.”
Yeah, it’s absurd to want to survive. Bat shit crazy. LOL! Maybe it’s absurd to Modern Church Ladies, but not to anybody else. And living things don’t give a rat’s ass what “evolution” cares about. Most often, they simply want to survive. They generally aren’t going to ask permission from you nancys, or from “evolution,” or anybody else.
And your last line is so reprehensible and moronic that it defies belief, having spent as much time as you have infesting white nationalist sites. Most white people do not like what has happened to this country. We have a very powerful elite that is pushing these policies, and it is absurd to pretend that everything that is happening is a purely free and voluntary choice. It’s not. We aren’t living in libertarian la la land, we are living in a society where hostile elites, controlling enormous resources, push extraordinarily damaging policies. Calling this “freedom” is absurd.
No, Trainspotter. I’ll give you one last response, if only to annoy Scrooby.
1.) I’m saying that Western society is indelibly loaded with the notion of a Christian moral order. You can’t have the first without the second.
2.) The original was whether anti-Darwinism is good for the Jews. Obviously, most Jews don’t think so. Prozium wants to tell the Jews they ought to be creationists, which is quite funny. He is known for obsessing over weird ideas.
3.) “Non-whites across the planet seek to protect their interests” Why don’t Whites want to do this? Because Whiteness is culturally attached to an integral sort of Christianity, which whites hate.
4.) White elites have been promoting liberalism for hundreds of years. Ever heard of the Enlightenment? Prozium thinks it is wonderful, even though it has cursed him with modernity.
5.) If the churches are PC, so much the worse for them. That is no excuse.
6.) In your rant, you give away my point by saying “much of my own morality undeniably comes from Christianity.” Like I said, you are borrowing from us. So is Prozium.
7.) Other societies have moral codes, but they are not Western and you would not want to live there. And many, many people think Whites deserve rape and murder as punishment for the legacy of Christendom.
8.) You completely miss the topic of evolution, which you do not understand. There’s no use trying to explain it.
9.) Do you do heroin like the real trainspotters? Or do you just envy them? Is that your great white society, a bunch of degenerates bent on self-destruction?
10.) What church, anywhere, encourages rape? Talk about platitudes!
Trainspotter – great job refuting the Judeo-Christian wackjob Monitor…you easily demolished his pathetic argument that Judeo-Christianity is necessary for the permanent racial preservation, general advancement, and forward evolution of Whites.
Whites would clearly be much better off without the heavily repressive Judeo-Christian chains which bind us because that gutter religion promotes all kinds of weaknesses like stark fatalism/resignation and a general ‘softness’ – it is anti-ethnocentric and ridiculously encourages ‘tolerance’ and ‘universal love’ toward all people, even those who seek to openly steal your land/resources and wish extinction upon your group. Judeo-Christianity is pro-immigration and pro-charity towards many worthless and degraded humans that would be likely be better off dead. Judeo-Christianity also idiotically opposes abortion and birth-control, without which the world would currently be even more awash in untold millions (maybe billions) of non-White worthless eaters who seek to immigrate to and eventually take-over White lands.
Whites were much more vigorous, ethnocentric, strong, and geared toward advancing their racial interests before Judeo-Christianity was (often forcibly) imposed upon them and started making White people feel unneccesarily guilty about their succes, intelligence, vigorousness, and strong will-to-survive; Judeo-Christianity used constant guilt-tripping in order to force Whites to be more ‘nice’ and ‘moral’ toward non-Whites, most especially the nation-wrecking/parasitic Jews (among other human refuse).
The Monitor is a pitiful distractionist who wants to refocus the debate away from race and turn it toward largely inconsequential religious/theological matters which definitely aren’t as important in our quest to permanently preserve the White race.
White Preversvationist – Either put up or shut up. Tell me why anything matter if the universe is chaos and your own life is meaningless. All you can do is rant and rave, when you are the one staring into an abyss.
You have no moral reason to believe anything. You make up a bunch of junk about white survival to artificially impose the transcendent, when you have no reason to believe anything.
Why do you care? According to your own system. the White race is just a blip on the evolutionary radar screen! I’m sorry you think all Christians are liberal gnostics, even though that clearly is not the case.
“You certainly want to live in a civilization with Christian foundations. I certainly don’t see you wanting to live among other Aryans in Iran or India.”
By the way, I’ve met some physically attractive, blond Greek people.
What if I were to live in a city-state full of blond Greeks, all of whom discussed Plato and geometry and Zeus without making any reference to Jesus?
Would that be a civilization with a Christian foundation? No! But it would be very familiar to many educated Christians, because a huge proportion of the foundations of Christian thought are actually neo-Platonistic and Stoic, not Christian as such!
One can have asceticism without Jesus – Pythagoras certainly did.
One can have spiritual aspirations without the Bible – Epimenides certainly did!
I think that most Jews, particularly the influential ones in media and academia, accept Darwinism at some level (as mentioned, Larry is an outlier). A fair statement about pro-Darwinist Jews (which probably captures the attitude of 99%) is that they openly support Darwinism because:
1. It disproves creationism, thereby undermining fundamentalist Christianity.
2. It explains HBD (probably the majority stop at 1 and will oppose anyone who’s at 2). Some are particularly interested in those aspects of HBD (intelligence and criminality) that they find problematic in NAMs and which they think need to be addressed in order to make the US a better environment for Jews.
What the overwhelming majority of them don’t want to acknowledge is the implications of Darwinism for ethnic relations (EGI, group selection, etc.). I’m guessing that 1% of pro-Darwinist Jews are willing to acknowledge this, but that 99% of this 1% is going to be hypocritical about it (the majority of Jews will promote Jewish interests and be hypocritical about it, but they don’t need to invoke Darwin, rather they will use the Holocaust or their Chosen/victim status).
If there is a single Jew who accepts the implications of Darwinism on ethnic relations and is not hypocritical about policy solutions, I’d like to know their name. I assume they exist, but I’ve never heard them speak.
Um, western civilization existed before Christianity. You are one of many morons who presents a ridiculously embellished version of history that begins with Christianity and conveniently ignores everything that predates and influences Christianity itself as if Christianity literally came out of a vacuum.
Mangan and others are confused about exactly what “Darwinian anti-Semitism” means – they are mixing up evolution with social Darwinism; over on his blog I left the following comment:
It’s not so much the evolutionary component about Darwinism that is opposed by Jews as many commenters here claim (Mangan and others), but rather the portion of Darwin’s theory dealing with inter-species resource competition and ‘survival of the fittest’ (often referred to as “social Darwinism”).
Many Jews believe in and promote Darwin’s ideas pertaining to evolution, there’s no doubt about that. However, many are much more opposed to Darwin’s ideas regarding ‘resource competition’ and ‘survival of the fittest,’ especially if that idea is applied to human ethnic/racial groups.
When Auster or other Jews speak about “Darwinian anti-Semitism,” they aren’t talking solely about Darwin’s theory of evolution – they are referring to the idea that Jews and Whites are locked in to a long-running Darwinian competition/struggle for control of resources/territory and that only the fittest will survive and come out on top in the end, likely at the total expense of the other group, i.e. either Jews or Whites (BUT NOT BOTH) are going to win the resource competition and as such prove to be the group most fit for continued survival. That line of reasoning also implies that the group (either Jews or Whites) which loses the competition for resources/territory will likely not survive and as a result will fail to persist in a biological/evolutionary sense.
A good quote from Auster’s blog that illustrates his own deep Jewish bias and Jewish blindness as various social, historical, and ethnic/racial realities; in a recent post entitled ‘Hijab-wearing MP’ he wrote: “Muslims may happen to be—as a result of a catastrophic historical error on the part of the host societies—legal British or Belgian citizens, but they are not ethnically or concretely British or Belgian.”
Now, simply substitute the word “Jews” for “Muslims” in that quoted sentence and notice how much socio-historical sense it makes in terms of the long-strained relationship between European Whites and nomadic Semitic/Asiatic [i.e., non-White] Jews; here we go: “Jews may happen to be—as a result of a catastrophic historical error on the part of the host societies—legal British or Belgian citizens, but they are not ethnically or concretely British or Belgian.”
Monitor,
I’m quite sure the Catholic Church has endorsed evolution. As for the Episcopal Church, I am unsure, but seeing how liberal they are I would be suprised if they have not. Auster rejects evolution. This puts him in the fundamentalist camp.
Monitor,
If I remember correctly, the Ten Commandments doesn’t include a prohibition against the rape of women. In fact, there are several instances of rape in the Bible.
Monitor,
Are you saying the only reason you don’t lie, cheat, steal, rape, and murder others is because you hope to reap some supernatural reward for good behavior?
Monitor, not to bombard you with questions here, but what is your reason for opposing race-replacement? (I’m assuming you do oppose it?) Does it have a scriptural basis?
Dasein, you assume wrong. The Monitor doesn’t oppose race-replacement. His sole interest in polluting comments threads with his filthy presence is to berate people who aren’t committed Christians for not being committed Christians. If there were no white people left on Earth he’d be perfectly satisfied, provided everyone was a Christian. Monitor has absolutely no negative feelings about the race-replacement crisis, only positive ones in that it punishes whites who’ve fallen away from Christianity. He’s extremely happy about it, seeing it as welcome pay-back to modern-day whites for what he sees as their less than warm embrace of Christianity. In The Monitor’s opinion the only point in living at all is so that one be a committed Christian, and if one is a committed Christian race has no significance whatsoever: the entire planet can be transformed into a howling Port Moresby and it’ll make no difference because everybody’s a Christian. What The Monitor represents is a variety of the purest filthiest evil.
If whites are dying out, you should just accept that as a product of nature.
A desperate man will cling to anything rather than go over the waterfall.
Even a noose, as you just have. What a stupid comment.
“Because Whiteness is culturally attached to an integral sort of Christianity, which whites hate.”
Negative.
There are plenty of Sacred Writings that speak of ARYANS that Whites can look to for Spiritual Nourishment in place of Jewish Christianity. Heard of Baron Julius Evola? Heard of Savitri Devi? Varg Vikernes? Alain de Benoist maybe? All White, all non-Christian and committed to a Better, Whiter, Brighter World.
Also Monitor your straw-man that the only two choices we have are judeo-christianity OR existential nihilism is absolutely laughable. Now excuse me I have an issue of ‘Tyr: Myth—Culture—Tradition’ ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyr_(journal) ) to read as an alternative to your world-view!!!
My only requirement about religion is that race come first. Any religion that gets in the way of racial survival is bad. I have met very few people on the racial right whose racial loyalty is strengthened by Christianity(excluding CI). Christianity almost always seems to get in the way of racially aware people taking the necessary action to save their race.