CHRISTIANITY EXPOSEDAn account of how the Jews concocted the

Christian Religion to enable them to confuse,manipulate and finally subjugate the White Race.

byCHRISTINE M. JOHNS

(The author is an Honours Graduate of theUniversity of Newcastle-on-Tyne where she readPhilosophy. She has made a special study of thedestructive effect that Judeo-Christian beliefs andpractices have had, and are having, on the White Race.It is her conviction that Jewish influence, operatingthrough Christianity, is largely responsible for thedecline and decadence so evident in the West today.)

PRINTED & PUBLISHEDby

TRUTH ENTERPRISES, PO BOX 229, LONDONE17 6HE.

© 1985 Truth Enterprises

DEDICATEDTO

THE MEMBERS OF THE TULLE SOCIETYR.I.P.

See! Nemesis by Douglas Reed, page 54.

FOREWORDIvor Benson, in his preface to Douglas Reed’s The

Controversy of Zion, gives us these stirring words:

“Scholarship, by its nature, disinclined to militancy,had at length awakened to find itself in the centre of thestruggle for the mind and soul of man; scholarship hadfound itself defending imperiled scholarship; Shockley,Jensen, Butz and many others, its heroes were riding forthto offer battle to the forces of darkness.”

This is my contribution to the battle.

Table of Contents

FOREWORDCHRISTIANITY EXPOSEDTHE ELEMENTS OF CHRISTIANITYJEWISH ORIGINSTHE OLD TESTAMENTTHE NEW TESTAMENTTHE MYTHICAL CHRISTSOURCES OF CHRISTIANITYDOUGLAS REEDHISTORY AND NATURE OF THE JEWSJEWISH PROBLEMSTHE INTELLIGENTSIA DUPEDJESUS: THE EVIDENCERALPH PERIERTHE MOST GIGANTIC HOAXTHE PERNICIOUS EFFECTS OFCHRISTIANITYWARNINGLIST OF BOOKS USED

CHRISTIANITY EXPOSEDCHRISTIANITY, besides being one of the world’s

largest religions, is probably the one which has had themost profound effect on mankind. It is generallyconsidered to be an enlightened religion based on reasonand love. Compared to the primitive, heathen superstitionswhich preceded it, Christianity is regarded to have had abeneficial and civilising effect on mankind.

However, Ben Klassen, a former US Senator,completely contradicts these almost universally heldbeliefs. He asserts that it is not a religion at all but a crueland subversive system devised by the Jews to befuddle,pervert and enslave the White Race.

Klassen states that from 66 A.D. the Jews wereengaged in a fierce war with the Romans which lasted forfour years, but after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. whenthe victorious Romans burnt their temple to the ground,they realized that militarily they were no match for theRomans and so conceived of a more ingenious plan todestroy them — Christianity! As this strategy provedsuccessful, the Jews later applied it to the rest of theworld, says Klassen, particularly the White western part,with the same aim.

Klassen informs us that the Jews did this because of

their religion. He says the driving force of the Jewishreligion is a “terrible and pathological hatred of theirhosts” — meaning that they hate the people of any countrygiving them shelter or in which they settle, evenvoluntarily, however kind the indigenous peoples mightbe. The Jews therefore regarded the White Race andparticularly the Romans who had subjugated them, as anenemy deserving to be swept from the face of the earth.“They hated Rome”, says Klassen, “with an inhumanhatred.” They also hated the Babylonians — “The Whoreof Babylon” — who had once captured and enslaved them,even though the Babylonians treated them relatively kindlyand later released them.

Thus, because of their fanatical hatred of the Romans,Klassen believes the Jews concocted Christianity in orderto defeat their opponents by perverting their instincts andmuddling their thoughts with ludicrous ideas. He believesthat Christianity has had, and continues to have, acatastrophic effect on the White Race, especially in itsfight against the Jews and the coloured races.

Klassen tells us that “Christianity despises fact,reasoning, evidence [and] logic”, and he believes that tosuccumb to the Christian philosophy is “to indulge in acowardly flight from reality . . . to destroy reason andcommonsense.” Klassen also thinks Christianity prevents

Whites, like born-again Christians, from being able toprotect their own race, and says: “A born-again Christianis a pervert who has had his instincts warped, his mindunhinged, and his total outlook on life, outlook on sex andon the survival of his kind completely perverted from that,which, as a natural human being, he was originally createdby Nature. He becomes a destroyer of his own race”!(My emphasis).

THE ELEMENTS OF CHRISTIANITYTheoretically, Christianity is well-understood. Its

characteristic elements are well-known. We are told itwas one of the first religions to worship a single God(Jehovah), which it shares with Judaism, and that it is ahappy religion, all “Good News and Glad Tidings.” Italso tells us we are guilty of Original Sin and so afterdeath are doomed to go to a ghastly Hell, where we willsuffer eternally, but to save us from that it provides aMessiah called Jesus Christ, who is both the Son of Godand also a man. Faith is a main element too, and with faithin Christ we can avoid Hell and go to a lovely placecalled Heaven.

The Ten Commandments are another importantelement. They are supposedly moral rules written on astone tablet and given to Moses on the summit of MountSinai by God himself. These Commandments are the basisof our moral values and we know this because it is writtenin the Bible, another major element and the “Holy Book”of Christianity.

All the teachings of Christianity derive from this Bibleespecially from the New Testament, which informs us thatwe have a loving, protective God who will always lookafter us; that we must forgive our enemies, not judge othersand that it is evil to hate. However, Christians can hate

war and must disapprove of wealth.

What Christians believe in.

It also instructs us to love everyone, support peace andto be tolerant, humble, obedient and charitable. It stronglysupports the equality of races through its tenets that allmen are equal in the sight of God and made in the image ofChrist, and so opposes any discrimination, but itsimultaneously tells us that the Jews are God’s “Chosen

People” and that Christ was a Jew, a Galilean, as well asthe Son of God.

Most Christians believe in the Immaculate Conception;the Virgin Birth, which they celebrate at Christmas; theResurrection after crucifixion, which they celebrate atEaster; and in angels, devils and miracles. If Catholic theytake eucharistic meals, believing that they eat the body ofChrist and drink his blood (bread and wine), support thepractise of baptism in order to be saved, and if in holyorders remain celibate. The Christian denominations varybut they are all evangelical, believing that it is aChristian’s duty to “spread the word”, which is why somany undertook and still undertake missionary workamongst the “Heathen”.

JEWISH ORIGINSThe Jews were first heard of around 2,000 B.C. when

they migrated from Mesopotamia to Southern Canaan(Palestine) on the borders of Egypt where they eventuallysettled. However, bands of Jews made constant forays intoEgypt and eventually established themselves there in largenumbers. But they cruelly exploited the Egyptians who, soenraged by their depredations and treachery, expelledthem from the country in 1225 B.C. to return to theircompatriots in Canaan.

THE OLD TESTAMENTKlassen says that during this time the Jews discovered

the amazing power of religion, both as a weapon ofdefence and attack. He says that the Old Testament is theweapon used in its defensive form and was concocted bythe Jewish religious leaders to unify the aggressive,warring Jews, to give them a binding creed, a sense ofpurpose and identity. It is Klassen’s belief that very earlyon Jewish leaders discovered that having a commonenemy was unifying and that they therefore preachedhatred against all the rest of mankind (the Goyim), makinghatred a major tenet of Old Testament writings, andlicensed the waging of wars: small and large-scale,financial, political and religious, as well as militaryagainst the Goyim. This is why the viciousness of the OldTestament with its “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth”philosophy has so often been commented on.

But Klassen tells us that the Old Testament is also acollection of pornographic stories, probably false orexaggerated, “about dirty, whore-mongering Jews” likeDavid, Abraham, Solomon and Lot, many of whomprobably did not even exist, but which nevertheless showthe cruel, murderous and materialistic nature of the Jews;and how all that is bad by Christian standards is reveredby them, clearly shown by the respect given to their filthy

and immoral heroes and leaders. Klassen commentsfurther that all the stories of the Old Testament arefantastic, ridiculous and absurd, and he often calls thewriters of the Old Testament “Scriptwriters” — obviouslywith the example of Hollywood in mind! At the same timeKlassen refuses to allow Jewish apologists to absolvetheir fellows for the evil that permeates the OldTestament; for as he rightly points out, the storiescontained in it are really “only the reflections of theinmost meanderings of the collective, perverted Jewishmind”!

Klassen refers to the story of King David andBathsheba. He shows that this King and great Jewish herowas an adulterer and a murderer, David seducedBathsheba the wife of Uriah, one of his most loyalofficers, and then had him killed by secretly ordering thathe be sent out alone into the thick of battle. Klassen thenmentions Abraham, the top Jewish patriarch, who lived ina state of incest with his wife Sarah because she was alsohis half-sister. This Abraham actually acted as a pimp forthe Pharaoh by selling Sarah to him as a whore, and failingto mention that they were married. Abraham’s son, Isaac,did exactly the same with his wife, Rebecca, who withher younger son Jacob, were criminal in their turn whenthey tried to deceive Isaac into giving his blessing andwealth to Jacob, instead of to Esau, the elder (Genesis 20

—27). In addition, Klassen shows that King Solomon, farfrom being a wise and benevolent ruler was, in fact, justanother cruel, treacherous, debauched Jewish murdererwho had 700 wives and 300 concubines, and whomurdered his own half-brother, Adonijah with all hissupporters because he wanted to marry just one ofSolomon’s many women (I Kings 2).

Then there is the story of Lot, nephew of Abraham,who chose to live with his wife and two daughters in acity of perverts, Sodom, and who, when his homosexualneighbours attacked his house, wanting to abuse his twomale guests - supposedly “angels” in disguise - offeredthem his own daughters! After the destruction of Sodomthese girls later committed incest with their sleeping father(Gen. 19).

The incredibility of the stories is highlighted in the onewhere Abraham’s wife, Sarah, becomes pregnant whenshe is ninety, gives birth to Isaac, with Abraham thentricking yet another king, Abimlech of Gerar, and sellingto him his ninety-year-old sister/wife as a whore!

In Klassen’s opinion this is all trash and he tells usthat Egyptian histories which talk of the Jews being abunch of thieves and cut-throats are nearer the truth.Indeed, Klassen tells us the Jewish name “Hebrew” comesfrom the Egyptian word “Habiru” which means “cut-

throats from across the river”.

Klassen also analyses the Book of Esther, which heshows, like so much in the Old Testament, to have nobasis in fact, but to be a blue-print, as are the Protocols ofthe Learned Elders of Zion, for the takeover of a nationand the murder of its governing classes, as happened inRussia this century.

THE NEW TESTAMENTKlassen further informs us that the Jewish leaders also

wrote the New Testament. This work has always beenpresented as being full of enlightened ideas but heexplains that it is not really at all enlightened. Klassenalso tells us who Jesus Christ really was and explainswhat the Apostles and Evangelists of Christianity were —those supposedly unimpeachable witnesses to the truth ofChristianity and the existence of Jesus Christ! Lastly heshows where the ideas of the New Testament could haveoriginated from if they were not, as Christians claim, thewords of God.

In Klassen’s eyes, the ideas of the New Testamentcould not be further removed from enlightenment. Heconsiders the advice it contains to be complete and utternonsense and says that its teachings were designed todivide, confuse and destroy the White Race; to tear apart

the fabric of society by setting people not only againsttheir fellows and families, but even against themselves;against their own healthy instincts; so that they becameconcerned only with saving their own souls. He says thatthis divisive intent is clearly shown in St. Luke’s Gospel(12:51—53) where Christ says:

“Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? Itell you, Nay; but rather division: for from henceforth thereshall be five in one house divided, three against two, andtwo against three. The father shall be divided against theson, and the son against the father; the mother against thedaughter, and the daughter against the mother; the motherin law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in lawagainst her mother in law”

And it is hard to see how this enlightenment can beanything but confusing when the New Testament, fromwhich is derived the whole Christian creed, is veryconfusing. The main point of the New Testament is that wecan all get to heaven if we accept Christ as our Saviour.However, it tells us that even then we can’t get thereunless we are Jewish. Klassen says that Christ answersthe Woman of Canaan, pleading for her sick daughter bysaying: I am not sent but unto the House of Israel, (Matt.15:24) — i.e. he will only serve the Jews. But there arealso many other barriers to heaven. Those who love their

parents more than Christ are banned (Matt. 10:37); as arespeakers of idle words (Matt. 12:36); cursers of parents(Matt. 15:4); blasphemers of the Holy Ghost (Matt.12:31); people who do not forgive all trespasses againstthem (Matt. 18:35); people who remain rich (Luke 6:24)and people who do not believe in Jesus Christ. Well mightthe disciples have asked him: “Who then can be saved?”(Matt. 19:25).

But this confusion is just one of the many puzzles in theNew Testament. There is the puzzle of the Holy Trinity:how there can be three persons in one God; how Christcan be a man yet a God at the same time; and also how hecan be his own father, as there is only one God. Thenthere is the incongruity of a cruel and vengeful God whocreated Satan and Hell, but who at the same time issupposedly a gentle, loving and protective God. And howcan we all be equal in the sight of God, but the Jews bemore equal — the Chosen People of God? Moreover, howcan every word in the Bible come from God when much ofit is contradictory, particularly the New Testament, asKlassen so ably demonstrates? And how can human beingspossibly be expected to be humble and forgiving as Christexhorts us to be, when his own father, God, is depicted inthe Old Testament to be vengeful, vindictive andvainglorious?

An artist’s attempt to make sense of the “Holy Trinity”

Furthermore, many of Christ’s parables are confusingand even subversive, like that of the Prodigal Son, whichsuggests that the lazy, shiftless, thoughtless, wastrelyounger son should be preferred to his hard-working, law-abiding elder brother. Other parables are simplyincomprehensible, like that of the Unjust Steward (Luke16:1—13), punished then rewarded for wasting hismaster’s goods; or idiotic like the parable of the TenTalents (Matt. 25:14—30) where a servant is punished fornot making a profit for his master, although he was notasked to; or nonsensical like that of the parable of the LostSheep (Luke. 15:3—7) which recommends endangering orrisking the loss of the bulk of one’s wealth to search for asmall fraction that had been lost.

There is the puzzle, too, of Christ’s respect andaffection for low-life types like Mary Magdalen and tax-collectors (prostitutes and thieves) and his criminalbehaviour in whipping money-lenders from the temple.

But the biggest puzzle of all is the Sermon on the Mount,chapters five, six and seven of St. Matthew’s Gospel. This“Sermon” gives insane advice which in Klassen’s viewshows most clearly the destructive intent of the NewTestament teachings. He states that the Sermon on theMount is absolutely full of false statements, damagingadvice, idiotic ideas and ludicrous prohibitions, and onemust agree with him. He begins by commenting on the factthat, as reported in the Gospels, Christ is supposed to havetold us that the meek and humble are the most valuable toGod, and indeed to man on earth for St. Matthew’s Gospelquotes him as saying (Matt.5): “Blessed are the poor inspirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” and “Blessedare the meek; for they shall inherit the earth.” But Klassensays we all know this is wrong and that while it is notwise to be too forceful, it is the strong, bold, quick andintelligent who survive and prosper.

Then Klassen mentions the scorn in the NewTestament for the rich young man, who has as much chanceof getting to heaven “as a camel has of passing through theeye of a needle”! He is told (Matt. 19:21) to “Go and sellall that thou hast and give it to the poor.” And the rest of usare told (Matt. 6:19) to “Lay not up for yourselvestreasures upon the earth, where moth and rust doth corruptand thieves break through and steal, but lay up foryourselves treasures in heaven” — i.e. by giving away all

your money!

This advice suggests that it is pointless to be thrifty orindustrious: building up a business, providing for one’sfamily or planning a better future for oneself, andadvocates that we give away all our wealth (to the Jews?)in order to lay up treasures in heaven for ourselves. This,presumably, means more benefits, status and approval inheaven, but as Klassen shrewdly asks why is it acceptableto lay up treasures in heaven but not on earth?

The authors of the New Testament escape thisdifficulty by saying that earthly treasures are subject tocorruption from moth and rust and at risk from thieves,while heavenly treasures would not suffer thesehandicaps. This is an example of what Klassen calls thenon sequitur form of argument from which nothingfollows, and which, he says, the Jewish authors of theNew Testament use extensively, either to encourageagreement with a nonsensical view or to attack a sensibleone.

An example of such a nonsensical view is that ofgiving charity in secret which the New Testament advises.But why should it be given in secret? Perhaps because theJewish authors of the New Testament don’t want kindWhite Gentiles to gain the reputation for charity whichwould probably be theirs if they did not follow this

biblical tenet. Significantly, the Jews, who give charityopenly, do have a reputation for charitable works,although their charity is usually only for the benefit offellow Jews!

However, there are very many more important tenetsthan secret charity. One of these is that we should “Resistnot evil”. So if someone does us or one of ours graveharm, we should just “turn the other cheek” and put upwith it and even, perhaps, allow them to repeat it. Thisadvice is clearly ludicrous when you consider what formthe evil might be - rape, murder, torture, as well as a hostof lesser crimes and offences.

Moreoever, what about the exhortation to “love yourenemy”? St. Matthew’s Gospel reports Christ as saying:“But I say unto you love your enemies, do good to themthat hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use youand persecute you” (Matt. 5:43).

But there is absolutely no reason to do so and Christjustifies this piece of nonsense with another non sequiturwhen he asks: “For if you love them that love you whatreward have ye? Do not even the publicans do the same?”(Matt. 5:46). But as Klassen rightly asks, why shouldn’tyou do as the publicans do who are obviously showinggood sense? Why should we change our whole life,instincts, ideas and beliefs just to avoid doing what

publicans do? And, in any case, what’s wrong withpublicans? Perhaps this is the first recorded use of aJewish “trigger” word, like “extremist” or “Nazi”.

Presumably this exhortation to love one’s enemyexplains why the Sermon on the Mount advocates givingup one’s cloak as well to someone who is trying to stealyour coat! But why does it advise us to “Agree with thineadversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him;least at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judgeand the judge deliver thee to the officer and thou be castinto prison” (Matt. 5:25), which disregards all principle,justice and fair play?

Yet more damaging advice is contained in theinjunctions: “Take no thought for your life; what ye shalleat . . . . drink . . . . put on”, (Matt. 6:25) and “Behold thefowls of the air for they sow not neither do they reap, norgather into barns yet your Heavenly Father feedeth them.”(Matt. 6:26). Klassen says this is wicked advice, designedto destroy all sense of responsibility: the individual forhimself, the man for his family and the citizen for hiscountry. It is Klassen’s belief that this is the advice whichcaused the disintegration of Rome, just as it attacks oureducated classes nowadays, creating hippies andencouraging a cool, unconcerned attitude to life.

Christ continues: “And why take ye thought for

raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow,they toil not neither do they spin; and yet I say unto you,that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed likeone of these.” (Matt. 6:28).

This advice isn’t just questionable, it’s completelyfalse. As Klassen again very shrewdly points out,generally the “beasts of the field” and the “fowls of theair” do take care to think of what they will eat and drink.Even with their limited understanding they devisestrategies for acquiring food, to meet present as well asfuture needs, like squirrels; and most animals work hardfor their food by hunting for it every day. They alsocompete with others of their own species for territory andmates. Even the plants like the lilies, compete for land,water and sun and to get their seeds propagated in as manyareas and in as great a number as possible. The injunctionabout taking no thought for your life is manifestlynonsensical; Nature is all feverish activity andcompetition even when she seems to be calm and placid.

But Christ goes even further and says even moreexplicitly: “Take therefore no thought for the morrow; forthe morrow shall take thought for the things of itself” and“Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” (Matt. 6:34)which are simply evil. They forbid prudence, forethought,planning and indeed any self-protective measures, andattack the very basis of survival.

Another false piece of advice, and a very damagingone that is popular with many middle-class liberals is thatgiven against judgements: “Judge not, that ye be notjudged.” (Matt. 7:1). The word “judgement” has a numberof different meanings ranging from an opinion to acondemnation and includes beliefs, choices, deliberations,theories, guesses, assessments, prejudices (unfavourableassessments of someone or something), discriminationsand convictions — all of which may be valid as long asthe reasons for the judgement are sound. As Klassen says,the Jews’ advice not to judge would create insanity ifpractised because our biological nature as reasoningbeings demands that we make hundreds of judgements on amultitude of subjects every day. Christ says that we mustbeware of judging others because we will then be judged;but Klassen responds that we will be judged anywaywhether we like it or not, and of course, one can see thatthis is so.

THE MYTHICAL CHRISTChrist’s commands given to the multitude on the Mount

of Olives as reported in St. Matthew’s Gospel, arerepeated throughout the New Testament, especially in theGospels of Mark, Luke and John. One is therefore leftpuzzled as to how a supposedly loving and intelligent man

like Christ could have given such diabolically bad advice— in view of the fact that he apparently had a direct lineto God, the Father. The truth is that in all probability henever existed, but was created by the Jewish authors ofthe New Testament as a fantasy figure for the purpose ofpersuading gullible Gentiles to accept the revolutionaryideas that would be their undoing. In my view thecharacter of Jesus Christ was developed from a number ofsources, one of which may very likely have been the lifeof Prince Sidhatta Gautma, a wealthy young man wholived in southern India 500 years before Christ’ssupposed birth. He was called Buddha (the Wise One),and was about twenty-eight years old when he decided toleave his wife and child for a wandering life with hisfollowers. He too formed a religion, Buddhism, and he toogave a sermon, the Sermon of Benares, where he gave outhis Five Principles of Good Living. Buddhism too has aheaven, Nirvana.

Is he a myth?

Although Klassen does not exactly say that Christ is amyth, he does say that there is no historical evidence at allthat he existed, and of course, even less that he was a God.My own encyclopedia confirms this. It says in its openingsentence “All that we know of Jesus is contained in thefour Gospels”! (My emphasis). So, he is mentionednowhere else, yet we have independent evidence for otherhistorical figures like Julius Caesar, Cicero, Socrates, andPlato, as eminent in their times as Christ must have been inhis. They were depicted in sculpted busts and paintings;

they had been written and talked about by theircontemporaries, yet Christ had not. But Klassen tells usthat on his birth, according to the New Testament, thecountryside was lit by a great star and that King Herodwas so upset he ordered the murder of all new-bornbabies. Yet despite Christ’s highly controversial life andcareer, no contemporary evidence of his existence can befound, apart from the Gospels. Surely this lack of evidencesuggests that he did not exist.

SOURCES OF CHRISTIANITYMany Christians believe that the Gospels are evidence

enough for the existence of Christ even without historicalevidence of any kind. But if his existence is uncertain, howmuch more uncertain must be the existence of his Apostles,and, as we shall see later, even if they did exist it is highlydebatable whether they did in fact write the Gospels as“eye-witness” accounts or even at all. In addition, relyingon the Gospels as evidence for the existence of Christoverlooks the fact that three of the four Gospel writerswere definitely Jewish: i.e. Matthew, Mark and John, andthe fourth, Luke, a pysician from Syria, was probably aSemite too. He was also “best friend” of the Jew, Saul,later known as St. Paul, after his “miraculous” conversionon the road to Damascus. And Saul was a Pharisee, a

member of the tough and cruel sect of Levites who ruledthe Jews at that time. Indeed all, the principal figures andevangelists of Christianity were Jewish. If Christ did existhe was a Jew, and so were all his disciples, with thepossible exception of Luke; and according to Klassen,Christ’s mother, Mary, was Jewish as was Joseph, herhusband, and so, of course, was “Saint Paul” who wasalso a major propagandist for Christianity. Furthermore,the basic principles of Christianity, as expressed in theSermon on the Mount, are also Jewish; they must havecome from somewhere, and Klassen tells us the source ofthese ideas, which he considers have done so muchdamage to White mankind.

The bleeding Sacred Hearts

Though perhaps originally taken from elsewhere, thesenonsensical ideas were the product of the Essenes, aJewish, religious community situated around the Dead

Sea, which existed up to the beginning of the Christian eraand then, around 100 A.D., inexplicably vanished. Weonly know about them because of the discovery in a cavesome years ago of the Dead Sea Scrolls on which theirviews are set out. Why they had been hidden no-oneknows.

The Essenes were a celibate sect who were extremelypious and high-minded. They practised simple communism(the sharing of all goods) as they considered privateproperty to be evil. They were apparently a revolutionarynew movement, a new form of social order: they werepacifists, condemned and abolished slavery and wereopposed even to making weapons of war. They wereagriculturalists, practised handicrafts and were in fact anew co-operative, communitarian, brotherhood; areligious society, and one of the first to introduce forinitiation purposes, the religious rite of baptism, as wellas eucharistic meals or communion. Both baptism andcommunion are main planks in the Christian ritual! What ismore, although the Essenes had no Messiah they did havea “Teacher of Righteousness”! — presumably to give them“good advice” and keep them on the right path, just likeJesus Christ!

Klassen believes that the ideas of the Essenes are themain source of the New Testament and have thereforemade a major contribution to Christianity, but the Jewish

authors of the Bible also took many ideas from the customsand religions of other races amongst whom they had dwelt;notably the Egyptians and Babylonians. They then assertedthese ideas were their own. Klassen says the Jews are asterile race of liars, thieves and parasites incapable oforiginal ideas and without any innate creativity and heasserts that though they are especially proud of havingformulated the concepts of monotheism and a universalreligion, they did not do so.

The idea of a single God was developed earlier inEgypt (1367 B.C.) by Pharoah Ahknaton, who called itAton, while the Jews developed their idea only about 500B.C; and Buddhism 500 B.C. was an earlier universalreligion than Christianity.

The Jews also obtained from the Egyptians theconcepts of the resurrection of the body after death and abelief in the existence and immortality of the soul andpossibly, too, the practise of circumcision and the wearingof their famous skull-caps. The idea of the TenCommandments written on a stone tablet was also verylikely an alien idea adapted by the Jews. For example theBabylonian king, Hammurabi, had written his own code oflaws on a number of large stone tablets long before; andthe Jews had been captives in Babylon. Then again, thestory of Moses in the bulrushes is remarkably similar to

the story of Sargon the Elder, King of Assyria, who wasalso found in bulrushes as a baby. And the Jewish orChristian concept of hell bears a strong resemblance to theancient Greek concept of Hades, the underworld, wheredead souls went. Indeed, the Christian hell, the nameperhaps taken from the Norse word Hel meaning theunderworld, seems to be merely a cruel elaboration ofHades; and if one were to make a thorough analysis, it isprobable that many more alien superstitions could beshown to be the basis of “enlightened” Christian ideas.

This is why Klassen says that Christianity is far frombeing the beneficial and civilised religion of reason whichwe have always thought it to be, but is in fact merely ajumbled hotch-potch of alien ideas and superstitionsassembled by the Jewish leaders into a cruel system ofbrain-pollution to divide, confuse and destroy Whitemankind. This is just like its modern counterpart,Communism, which is produced by the same people andwith the same aims. No wonder Christianity andCommunism seem so similar!

In fact Christianity is a terrible system of beliefswhich tells people that they have “original sin” and willbe cast into hell unless they have “faith”: the completelyunreasonable belief that a man called Jesus Christ existedand is their Saviour. In this way, says Klassen, people in

earlier times were forced to become Christians becausethe threat of eternal damnation was so terrifying. Theirfear of it nearly drove them mad so that they would doanything to gain salvation. Klassen says Christianity usedthe “carrot and stick” approach, threatening people withhell and the loss of their souls while at the same timesoothing them with the promise of heaven.

The fact that Christianity is nonsense is clearlyillustrated by Klassen’s amusing reference to his asking acleric for clarification on a confusing point of Christianity.“Ask a preacher to explain it and he’ll give you an hour’sworth of double talk and when you come out of there hewill have so browbeaten you, that you think, well heprobably has the answer, although you don’t understand it.The fact is he doesn’t have any answer.”

DOUGLAS REEDThose who are amazed at Klassen’s attack on

Christianity will be further amazed to learn that he is notalone in his views. He is supported by Douglas Reed, inhis book The Controversy of Zion. Reed was ajournalist, formerly Central European Correspondent ofThe Times, an honourable man who resigned from thepaper in 1938 when his dispatches were censored andlater on he became an author who suffered greatly from the

suppression of his books as a result of the world-wideinfluence of Jewry. Yet Reed was a deeply “committedChristian”! who did not hate the Jews even though hethought they were evil.

The Controversy of Zion, one of the books Reedproduced when he was prevented from practising as ajournalist, is a masterpiece. It is a comprehensive historyof the Jews; their origins, development and nature whichentirely supports Klassen’s views, although it was writtenin 1956, long before Klassen had written on the subject.Furthermore, Reed would have been very opposed toKlassen’s thesis in Nature’s Eternal Religion (published1973) that Christianity is absolute nonsense and that thereis no such thing as a loving, personal God.

Nevertheless, in the first chapters of his book, Reedconfirms Klassen’s thesis showing that the Jews are full ofhate and trickery, which explains why they went to thelengths Klassen said they did in order to avenge theirdefeat by the Romans and also how they were so expert inthe mind-manipulation of Christianity clearly evident inthe bible.

HISTORY AND NATURE OF THE JEWSReed tells us that originally the Jews, whom he calls

Judahites, were a poor and nasty tribe of Semites. They

were greedy and quarrelsome and could not get on withtheir neighbours, the larger and very much nicer tribe ofIsraelites (whose name they have stolen in this century).Their only ally was the small tribe of Benjamin whichattached itself to them. But then, the Judahites wereadopted by a landless tribe of itinerant priests calledLevites (tribal name Cohen) which Reed considers to beone of the most momentous events in history.

These Levite priests, says Reed, were even nastierthan the Judahites, but because of their learning andintelligence, took control of the Judahites, moulding themwith religious lies, trickery, and cruelty into the powerfulforce they became and are today.

The Levites introduced blood sacrifices like the deathof every first-born male Judahite child, and also forced theJudahites (Jews) to follow burdensome religious practicesand restrictions which they said God, (Jehovah)demanded. They further asserted that there was only oneGod and that he spoke only to them.

It is not known when or where the Jews and Levitesunited, says Reed, but about 1500 years after the migrationto Canaan, which may or may not have included theLevites, they were united and the first tract from theJewish leaders was produced. This was Deuteronomy,the first-written book of the Old Testament and one of the

most vicious. The Jews say that Genesis was the firstbook of the Old Testament (the first five books of whichare also called The Torah) and that it was written around1750 B.C. by Moses. In it, they say, Abraham makes thefirst mention of “The One God”. But in fact Deuteronomywas written first, completed much later in 621 B.C. andwritten by the Jewish Levites although they claimed onlyto have “discovered” it, as *Douglas Reed informs us.[*Douglas Reed - The Controversy of Zion, DolphinPress, Durban, South Africa, 1978, p.13.]

The word “Deuteronomy” means “Second Law”, or“Mosaic Law” as the Jews call it, but it was really thefirst “written” law of the Jews. It told them that they werethe Master Race, the “Chosen People” and that God,Jehovah, would favour only them. Reed says it was a lawof exclusion; a law of racio-religious intolerance andsanctioned the murder of enemies: “Kill all thatbreatheth and opposeth you”. In Deuteronomy, saysReed, the Levites said that Jehovah was a god of hatred,racism and revenge; that he was a bargainer who promisedterritory, treasure and power to the Jews in return forreligious obedience: observing the practices andrestrictions of Judaism (the religion of the Levites).

This “law” was read out to the Jews in 458 B.C. asthey returned from captivity in Babylon. It condemned

them, says Reed, to a new captivity: their enslavement tothe murderous Mosaic Law of racio-religious hatred.

From constant collective readings in the ghettos andsynagogues the Levites indoctrinated the Jews with theirideas. The demands of “The Law” were that Jews mustkeep themselves apart — no mixed marriages. Any Jewsmarried to Gentiles had to divorce them. The Law alsorequired all Jews to worship Jehovah and it was anessential condition of proper worship to live insidePalestine; therefore all Jews who lived outside (themajority), even if they chose to do so, had to regardthemselves as “captives of the stranger” and were told to“root out”, “pull down” and “destroy” their hosts. Thus“The Law” advocated murder, and made Jews thedangerous trouble-makers they have since become, asdestruction, says Reed, is the condition of fulfilment ofthe Judaic Law i.e.

To be a proper Jew you must worship Jehovah inPalestine.

All Jews outside Palestine are “captives”Duty of Jews to destroy their “captors”Ergo, constant attacks on and hate for the peoples of

the world.

No wonder Reed writes of the “fanatical tribalism” of

the Jews and says at the end of his book: “The feeling Ihad in tracing the story of this ancient superstition wasthat of contact with a living evil thing.” A hundred yearsor so after the first promulgation of the Mosaic Law, itsdictates were strictly enforced. Any Jews who weredisobedient or ignored the ritualistic demands of theLevite religion were severely punished. Most Jews livedin communities called ghettos which were closed toGentiles and set up and run by the Levites for the purposeof better controlling their people; and this control wasexercised against any rebellious Jews. The Levites wouldthreaten them with excommunication or expulsion from theghetto, sometimes they would even kill recalcitrant Jews.

Blood-thirsty Jew.

When, after a time, the Jews began again to fraternisewith the surrounding tribes and intermarry, the Levitesliving in Persia, sent a Levite leader called Nehmiah, withPersian soldiers, to deal with them. He reinforced theSeparation; dissolved mixed marriages; built awalkaround Jericho which became a completely Jewish

city and introduced the “New Covenant”, an even heavierburden of religious observances. The requirements of theMosaic Law: Separation and Religious obedience werethe key to Levite power then and they wanted to retain it.This power which the Jewish leaders still have over theJews today has made them the most powerful race onearth.

Reed, then, backs up Klassen because he shows whythe Jews are so vicious and filled with hate for non-Jews,and how it is they are so adept at trickery and propagandaas to be able to pull-off the great con-trick of Christianity.He shows that this ability came from the Levitepriesthood; learned, cunning and cruel, who manipulatedthe Jews for their own ends and gave them their distortedideas. And Reed also proves that it is not just a few nastyJews, but the whole Jewish race who are the enemies ofmankind, because of their enslavement to the Mosaic Law.

Reed also, quite inadvertently, gives yet moreevidence against the existence of Christ; for he quotes himin the New Testament, written, Klassen alleges, by theJews, as saying: “I am not come to destroy the law [theLaw?] but to fulfil.” But what law could have been meant?Surely only the cruel Mosaic Law which promised Jewsdominion over the world. For if, Christ did exist but wasthe Jewish Messiah, he could claim to have come to fulfil

this “Law”, but as a Christian Saviour he could not claimto “fulfil” the law of the land — he could only “uphold”that.

And Reed tells us that it was the Pharisees, thedominant sect of the Levite priesthood in the time whenChrist supposedly lived, who introduced the idea of amaterialistic Messiah who one day would come to theJews bringing them all the world’s wealth and power andfree them from their heavy burden of religiousobservances — which was considerable. He continuesthat the Jews were not governed by the State but by “thestern and inexorable regime of the Levites enforced by theobligation to render unquestioning obedience to theregulations of the ritual.” To the Levites non-observanceof ritual was the greatest crime and they told transgressorsthat if they turned from wickedness to observance (ofritual) then the Goyim (us) would suffer instead. Theseobservances consisted then and now of thousands of pettyrules and restrictions governing the most minute areas oflife: from what food to eat, when and where; how to dress,worship, what to read and how to keep clean, to conjugalrelations, puberty rites, and women’s hygiene —continuing on endlessly. For examples see Leviticus Ch.15 and Numbers Ch.s 28—32. Reed also tells us it wasthese cruel Levites, particularly the Pharisees, who werethe earliest specialists in secret conspiracy as a political

science and devised the communist method of spies-checking-on-spies which helped create the dreadful powerof Communism.

Further, Reed shows how the Jews have become suchfacile debaters, not to mention liars. He says that theyoften practised a game called Pilpulism , a form ofdialectics, where one Jew has to argue convincingly thatanything is legal under “The Law”. Pilpulism, says Reed,is “a species of spiritual gymnastics which is frequentlypractised where men’s intellects, menaced withsuffocation by the pressures within their communities, findno outlet for creative expression in real life”; and thismust have been, and must still be, the case for many maleJews crushed in the ghettos, by the “stern and inexorableregime” of the Levites.

JEWISH PROBLEMSHowever, although the Jewish leaders had created

Christianity to befuddle the Goyim, they had also createda bit of a monster for themselves. If Christ were theMessiah and Jewish, what was to stop Jews from turningwholesale to this new religion?

Douglas Reed, in all his Christian innocence, gives usthe answers. He tells us “Everything he [Christ] said wasa quiet but direct challenge to the most powerful men of

his time and place, and a blow at the foundations of thecreed which the sect had built up in the course ofcenturies.” This indicates that the Christ character wasdeliberately depicted as being opposed to the teachings ofthe Pharisees to whom all ordinary Jews gave allegiance;and indeed in St. Matthew’s Gospel, Christ is shownconstantly opposing and insulting them: “Woe unto you,Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” is a frequentlyrepeated phrase, and not only does it sound veryunchristian in its vehemence, but also it would certainlyprevent Jews from accepting the religion of the man whoattacked their masters. Moreover, the Phariseesthemselves are depicted as being opposed to Christ and byimplication to Christianity. They are shown (Matt. 22:15)constantly trying to trick and trap him with their debatingskills, and setting him difficult questions such as askinghim if it was lawful for a Jew to pay tribute to Caesar.

In his book Klassen had commented on Jesus Christ,saying that it was significant that the Jewish authors of theNew Testament identified him as a full Jew in order togain advantages for the Jews as a “Holy People”; but fortheir fellow Jews they depicted him and his Apostles asonly Galileans, a subrace of Jews who were known, butonly to Jews, for their violence and general uncouthness. Itwas the Galileans who were the most vicious fightersagainst the Romans during the four year 1st Jewish War.

And in St. Matthew’s Gospel (4:16) reference is made toGalilee as “Galilee of the Gentiles” — i.e. the placewhere non-Jews live! This implies, of course, that theBiblical Christ was not a Jew, which Douglas Reedconfirms. He says that Jesus was made out to be aGalilean, a member of that “rough breed.” This depictionof Christ as an alien would help further to dissuade Jewsfrom becoming Christians.

Further, if the existence of “Christ” is uncertain, howmuch more so must be the crucifixion? And if it wasfabricated; casting the Jews as the murderers of Christwould certainly make them feel guilty and prevent themfrom accepting Christianity, as would the depiction ofJudas, the traitor, as the only Apostle who was a full Jew.

Yet another barrier to Jews becoming Christians is thedepiction of Christ, in the New Testament, as disobeyingthe strict dietary laws of the Jewish religion; he picks earsof corn on the Sabbath, when work is forbidden; eats withunwashed hands, and with publicans and sinners. He also,as Reed explains, adapted the Old Testament sayings like:“Love thy neighbour (if he’s Jewish) as thyself” to lovingall men, including the despised Samaritans, to which theJews would never agree, as they had always beenencouraged to hate them. Reed also tells us that Christrefused to play the “nationalist liberator and conqueror of

territory” - i.e. the materialistic Messiah for whom theJews had waited, because he said “my kingdom is not ofthis world.” This again was almost certainly a deliberatemove, to keep the money-mad Jews away. But the Jews’main weapon against Christianity was the Talmud, theseries of books written after the Bible had been compiledin which the Rabbis (another name for the Levitepriesthood) expounded on Judaism and preached hatredagainst Christians, sanctioning criminal behaviour towardsthem. In my view this was obviously to keep the Jewsfrom being attracted away by Christianity, the religion of“love” which would otherwise have presented such adelightful contrast to the oppressive regime of Judaismwith its heavy burden of ritual laws. As all Jews from theage of 13 study these Talmudic volumes of hate andcruelty against Gentiles this is another reason why they allhave the same inimical attitude; which is hate for thepowerful White countries of the time; then Rome andBabylonia, now America and Britain and disinterest inand contempt for the rest of mankind.

A portrait of the non-existent Christ!

Nevertheless, the Jews are not the only ones with aproblem as regards Christianity; Klassen has a problemtoo. He suggests that the White Race should have areligion of its own based on Reason and the laws andforces of Nature, but without a God, which he calls TheReligion of Creativity. Yet Douglas Reed seems to havebelieved that such a natural religion would be a frightfulstep backwards into paganism, presumably because hethought the denial of the existence of God would includethe denial of Man’s human and spiritual qualities. WhileReed’s fears may have been exaggerated or even entirelyfalse, it is a bewildering fact that his book mentions a

number of organisations, mostly Jewish and revolutionary,such as Communism and the secret societies of Illuministsand Freemasons, which are all opposed to organisedreligion, particularly Christianity, the very religionKlassen alleges, their Jewish masters set-up. They onlywant a religion of Reason and Nature and they too areopposed to a God, to the idea of a divine power outsideman. This is a puzzle indeed. Perhaps they considered thatorganised religions, especially Christianity, turned out tobe too beneficial to the people they wanted to control,giving them moral guidance and protection frommanipulation and abuse. Or perhaps their natural religionwould be different from Klassen’s, or perhaps Klassen isnot an honourable man after all and is in fact on their sidetrying to deceive us. Whatever the reason, it is a fact thatJewish-instituted Freemasonry, Illuminism andCommunism want to destroy organised religion and aremost vindictive against Christianity. But from Klassen’swork we can clearly see that they are then opposed to thesource of their own power, as it is only because of thestranglehold Christianity has on the minds of our powerful,educated classes that the White Race has not been able tofight against the Jewish menace before.

THE INTELLIGENTSIA DUPEDAlthough this is a slight difficulty, it is likely to be

sorted out on further analysis. What is a greater difficultyis how we can believe Klassen’s thesis that for nearly2,000 years we have been duped by the Jews in this mostcynical manner. One immediately asks what ourintellectuals were doing that they did not spot the obviousfalsity of the Jews’ claim; that they allowed white peopleto worship a being who never existed; to fear a hideousfate that could never materialise; and permitted the mindsand instincts of millions to be befuddled and pervertedleaving them utterly confused and pitifully defencelesswithout even one, ‘learned fellow,’ saying: “lt’s allnonsense,” as Klassen has done.

Even Douglas Reed was fooled. He, like many, wasopposed to the cruel Old Testament, except for the fewparts ascribed to the moderate Israelite prophets likeIsaiah and Jeremiah which the Jews incorporated into theOld Testament to fill it out; but about the New Testamenthe was completely fooled. He said: “Even today thesudden fullness of enlightenment in the Sermon on theMount dazzles the student of the Old Testament”. Andagain he mentions the effect of the “blinding revelation ofChrist’s teaching.”

Reed continues: “What the entire Old Testament taughtin hundreds of pages, the Sermon on the Mount confuted ina few words. It opposed love to hatred, mercy tovengeance, charity to malice, neighbourliness to

segregation, justice to discrimination,affirmation/reaffirmation to denial and life to death”, andhe adds: “the Sermon on the Mount taught that moral[meek?] behaviour, humility, the effort to do right, mercy,purity and peaceableness would be blessed for their ownsake and receive spiritual reward.”

Reed was a clever and honourable man who wasdeceived by Christianity; so is it possible that all our otherintellectuals could have been so easily duped? Let us takethe example of St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, (340-397A.D.) who took the decision to include the vengeful, dirtyand vicious Old Testament in with the newly compiledGospels and the rest of the New Testament. We think, dowe not, of a nice, doddery, old soul who simply must havemade a mistake when he incorporated two such differentbooks together. But on further investigation we find that“Saint” Ambrose was a very different character. He wasnot a cleric at all but a lawyer, a member of a sly andscheming profession, and he was still a layman whenappointed to the very high position of Bishop of Milan in374 A.D., aged just 34. This seems to imply that Ambroseand many others of his ilk, were simply bought by Jewishmoney and pushed by powerful Jews into accepting andpropagating the new religion. Indeed, Klassen tells us thatthe Jews were very powerful in the ancient world, theRoman world, controlling all its emperors after Emperor

Domitian 81-96 A.D. He also says that this fact is oftenunrecognised today because Emperor Aurelian, around270 A.D., burnt the great library at Alexandria, completelydestroying all the books, many of which, Klassen believes,mentioned this fact of Jewish power, and perhaps otherstoo which may have disproved Christianity.

This library was the biggest in the ancient world, andalmost the only one of any size containing over half amillion books. And it is perhaps significant thatAlexandria had the largest Jewish population in the worldat the time of the burning of the library, and that itsdaughter library was destroyed by Christians in 391A.D., and that the Christians instituted their own librariesthere beginning a strong library tradition which of coursewould help them in disseminating their views and stiflingthe opposition. If this is true then it is perfectlyunderstandable how the intellectuals and leading-menthroughout the centuries could have been bought, kept inignorance, or if rebellious, suppressed or killed, for that isprecisely what the Jews do today to those who opposethem in our much more sophisticated world.

JESUS: THE EVIDENCEIf anyone doubts the truth of Klassen’s claim that

Christianity is a Jewish con-trick let him consider the

controversial London Weekend Television programmeJesus: The Evidence, which, like Douglas Reed’s book,completely backs up Klassen. The programme opens in325 A.D., fifty-five years after the burning of the library,with a scene showing Emperor Constantine (a wife-and-son killer), presiding over a conference of Christians. Thisconference, known as the Council of Nicea, was convenedby Constantine to settle the Arian Controversy; the vexedquestion of the Holy Trinity; how Christ could be the Sonof God, and therefore a God himself (which the Ariansdenied), if there were only one God.

The three major groups attending this Council were theJewish Christians, the Roman Christians, and the Gnostics(“left-wing” Christians), who were all in constant disputewith one another. Eventually, however, the RomanChristians prevailed and the Nicene creed of Christianitywas formulated; though not by consent or divineinspiration, but as the television programme showed us,under duress: Constantine more or less decided the Creedhimself and the delegates had to vote on the matter afterConstantine threatened to exile those who disagreed orabstained. The television programme showed also thatConstantine and his successors subsidised Christianity andits representatives (palaces for bishops); destroyed thedocuments belonging to the other two major Christian

sects, which might conflict with “Roman” or CatholicChristianity, and put down the many pagan cults, rivals toChristianity, which existed at that time. (And perhaps theEssenes too?) The programme also gave the dates whenthe Gospels were written, between 66—90 A.D., and thebeginning of the 1st Jewish War was 66 A.D.!

As we know, Klassen doubts the existence of Christand this may seem unbelievable to some, but the televisionprogramme supports him. The script says “Historically themultitudes never referred to a Jesus Christ, only generallyto a Saviour” and that “what we know about Jesus . . . .has to be discovered by extremely careful historicalscholarship.” (My emphasis). And the Jew, AlbertSchweitzer, a New Testament commentator, said that “Wemust be prepared to find that historical knowledge of thepersonality and life of Jesus will not be a help, butperhaps even an offence to religion”! (My emphasis). Theviews of Rudolph Bultman, another New Testamentcommentator are really bizarre. Although to him all storiesof Jesus Christ were myths, he nevertheless remained a“devout and pious Christian” and the television reportedhim as saying “Now, no sane person can doubt that Jesusstands as founder of Christianity . . “, and “Historicalresearch could never serve as a basis for faith . . “, and “Apicture of the historical Jesus is not necessary for the faithof the Church.” Well might this Bultman say he knows his

views are “a stumbling block” and a “scandal for rationalthinking”! The programme informs us too that although theidentity of the Gospel writers is unknown, the Gospelscould not have been written by any of the Disciples, andfurther informs us that the Letters of St. Paul, written in 50A.D., make no mention at all of a Christ who supposedlydied in 33 A.D., and that the name “Jesus” simply means“God Saves” and also that no-one worshipped at Christ’stomb although worshipping at the tombs of the dead was acommon Jewish practice, thus implying what Klassensuggests — that Jesus Christ never existed.

Jesus: The Evidence, frequently refers to a majorauthority for Christianity which both Klassen and Reedignore. This is Flavius Josephus, a historian who givesevidence for Jesus Christ in his historical works. Hementions Christ and John the Baptist, relating details oftheir lives, particularly the sad crucifixion of Christ andthe cruel persecution he suffered at the hands of PontiusPilate. But the programme also mentions that Josephuswas a Jew and a soldier - “a military commander” - saysthe television script. But my dictionary says that he was infact one of the leaders of the Jews in their rebellion(my emphasis), that is, he was a military leader of theJews in the 1st Jewish War of 66-70 A.D. against Rome -and yet it is his word we are asked to accept for the

existence of Jesus Christ!

From the works of Klassen, Reed and the contributorsto the television programme, it can be seen that all theevidence for the existence of Jesus Christ and the validityof Christianity is Jewish; while there is no independentevidence of any kind.

The television series confirmed what Ben Klassen hadsaid — that Christianity is wholly Jewish! In particular itshowed how Klassen was correct in his assessment thatthe New Testament was written at a later date by theJewish leaders and not by any “eye-witness” Gospelwriters who lived at the same time as Christ supposedlydid.

The evidence for this is given by the contributors tothe television programme. They confirm incomprehensibleinconsistencies in the New Testament, particularlygeographical ones. Their sheer number proves the Gospelswere not first-hand accounts as does the fact that they referto the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. thoughwritten, supposedly, around 30 A.D. It is almost certainthey were compiled by the Levitical sciolists in theseminaries and colleges of the Jews far from the placesmentioned, in Palestine and the Levant. This was possibleas Douglas Reed shows that the leaders of the Jews oftenlived far from the mass of their people in Persia, Poland

and now America, especially New York. The programmealso confirms that the New Testament was written first inAramaic and then translated into Greek and not the otherway round, as previously claimed. And it gives even moreinteresting facts such as that details of Christ’s life werecommon rabbinical sayings or copied from the OldTestament, and that copies of “linking phrases” for joiningpassages of writing similar to those in the bible werefound at Oxyrinchus (Egypt) in 1896; and that a scholar,David Strauss, was dismissed and lost his professorship,after he proved that parts of the Old Testament werecopied into the New Testament to fill it out.

Klassen has shown that many elements of “Roman”Christianity were taken from the religions of other races,particularly, the Egyptians; and Jesus: The Evidencecertainly confirms this.

The programme suggests that the Christian ideas of theImmaculate Conception and the Resurrection of Christderived from what was merely an Egyptian spring festivalwhere Adonis, divine ruler of regeneration, would beeaten by his mother Ashtarte, after he had died in theautumn and gestate in her womb during the winter to beborn again (resurrected) the following spring, having beenconceived by an immaculate conception!

This festival was also probably the origin of the story

of God the Father begetting God the Son and both beingeach other, and, with the addition of the Holy Ghost, stillonly one God — i.e. the Trinity. And long before the mythof the Madonna and Child was created, the Egyptiangodess Isis and her saviour son Harpocrates werepopular objects of worship. Further, myths of divinebeings bathed in light were common in Egypt, and majorfigures of Christianity are often depicted and reported asbeing seen in that way.

But the television programme showed that otherreligions and cults have made their contribution toChristian ideas and practices. It informed us that theEgyptian cult which worshipped the Persian bull-god,Mithras, involved “baptisms in blood” after which theperson would be “saved”. And the father of PersianMithras was Sol Invictus (the Sun-God) although himself aLatin deity, who has had a great effect on Christianity.Emperor Constantine created the holy day of Christianityon his day, Sol’s day or Sun-day, probably to placate thearmy of Sol’s Latin supporters as he was the most widelyworshipped Roman deity. And Jesus: The Evidence alsosuggests that the idea of halos for saints stemmed from hiscult, but even more importantly tells us that Christ’sbirthday, the 25th of December, is the same date as thefestival of the rebirth of the sun! After all, if Christ neverexisted Christmas cannot be a celebration of his birth and

the manufacturers of Christianity would have to choosesome other important date with popular appeal on whichto celebrate their major festival, and Sol’s birthday musthave seemed ideal.

However, although Christ and Christianity seem tohave no validity, Christmas and Father Christmas mayhave some basis in fact. Although the televisionprogramme said nothing about this, Douglas Reed did. Hetells us that it was common for Jewish children to hold anannual ceremony, possibly the Jewish festival of Hanakuhheld since 165 B.C., when they left out glasses of wine atbedtime for their cruel and bearded Old Testamentprophet, Elijah, in the hope of receiving presents in return!Hanakuh is celebrated on the 25th of Kiflev, the JewishDecember, and lasts for eight days.

The television programme also mentioned that therewere signs that occult and homosexual practices wereconnected with stories of Jesus Christ and Christianity,evils which, in some people’s minds are associated withJews and Jewish institutions.

The Jewish Prophet wears a long red cap, and hisbeard is white !Orifice Fixation

Everyone who has spent much time in the company ofJews has noted the extraordinary degree to which their

thoughts and their words dwell “below the belt.” Althoughthe phenomenon varies greatly from Jew to Jew, a

genital/anal fixation seems to be a fairly dependablecharacteristic of the race and is observed in individuals of

both sexes and all ages and stations.National Vanguard No. 102, December 1984.

RALPH PERIERAnother “debunker” of the Christianity myth is Ralph

Perier. In his booklet Christianity: A Religion for Sheephe gives Buddhism as the probable origin of Christianity’slife-denying principles, taken from the Essenes ideas, andtherefore the origin of the Essene creed too, and suggeststhat the Christian belief in the eternal conflict betweenGod and Satan, Good and Evil, which led to so manyEuropean religious wars, may well have developed fromPersian Zoroastrianism. This was a monotheistic religionfounded by Zoroastra or Zorathustra around 600 B.C.which also taught the importance of hospitality,philanthropy and benevolence. These are all, of course,Christian precepts as well.

Jewish Garb as worn by Catholic Clergy.

THE MOST GIGANTIC HOAXIf the facts presented by Klassen, Reed, the television

programme and Perrier are true, then we have all been thevictims of the most gigantic hoax ever perpetrated against

mankind. And this explains much. There are many puzzlingsimilarities between Catholicism and Judaism. BothCatholic priests and rabbis dress in long black gowns andbishops wear the Jewish skull-cap on the back of the head,while monks used to have the tonsure, the shape of theskullcap, cut into their hair. A Catholic nun’s habit is verylike Semitic female dress and Christian women wear aveil when they marry just like Jewish or Arab women.Further, monastries seem very like those Essenecommunities would have been, while a church is verysimilar to a synagogue in design and basic shape; and theCatholic mass includes a eucharistic meal, involving theveneration of Christ’s body and blood, while the Jews areconspicuously blood conscious. They eat kosher(bloodless) meat; have a horror of female bodily functionsand have occasionally been accused of ritual murderwhere the blood of the victim is consumed. According toDouglas Reed, the Levites initially practised bloodsacrifices of Jewish first-born males. Also the Rabbis inthe Jewish ghettos excommunicated disobedient membersjust as the Catholic church does. And why shouldCatholics carry palm leaves on Palm Sunday to celebrateChrist’s entry into Jerusalem just as the Jews did incelebration of the Maccabees victory (165 B.C.) againstthe Syrians if Christianity and Judaism and not closelyrelated?

But Klassen’s thesis explains more than these strangesimilarities. More importantly, it explains the strongmedia support for Christianity, its evangelical andcharitable nature, and much else besides.

What Christianity promotes!

It has always been a puzzle to Racial-Nationalists thatChristianity has such an easy time with the Jewish-controlled world media, and Klassen gives us the reasons.There are, he tells us, two distinct types of Christians,both of whom, however, are equally damaging to Whitepeople — the Liberal Christians and the FundamentalChristians. The Liberal sort support the idea of the racialequality of man and therefore actively promotemongrelisation of the races, while the Fundamentalists

believe Christ was a Jew and regard the whole Jewishrace as sacred, the Chosen People, who are abovesuspicion and above criticism. No wonder there is wideand friendly coverage of Christianity in the Jewish-controlled media. If the Jews really hate Christianity whydo they give such constantly favourable coverage to it? I,personally, remember being bewildered when the Jew“Lew Grade” produced Jesus of Nazareth for television.The Jews would never permit the Christian religion whichthey profess to despise and “Christ” whom they profess todetest to get a good press from them unless they wished usto support this religion and its figurehead.

Klassen’s thesis shows that it is no wonder thatChristianity is an evangelical religion, always trying tomake converts, since every convert to Christianityincreases Jewish power and weakens the White Race inits fight for survival against the Jews and the colouredraces. Does this explain how a Christian, evangelicalmagazine like Plain Truth gets distributed throughout theworld? It is extremely well-produced, well-written butentirely free - so who pays for it and why? Notably, one ofthe top propagandists for Christianity, “Billy” Graham —thought by some Nationalists to be Jewish (and whofinances him?) — said in a television interview thatevangelists are against three things: and the one he put firstwas Racism belatedly followed by War and Poverty.

And what about charity? Christianity is supposed to bea charitable religion that gives aid to the poor and sick outof kindness. In return church leaders only demanded“obedience”. Yet this is really nothing but trickery.Christian leaders are always trying to make ever morepeople believe in Christian principles on which,according to Klassen, Jewish power is based. They havesimply used charity to buy converts. It is not from kindnessthat their charity is given.

The editor of Plain Truth.

Christianity is not kind; it preaches against hatred ofothers but hates itself. As Klassen said, it has a hatred ofreason and of anyone who questions it too closely, and itsmembers will hate anyone, especially “racists”, whodares to dislike aliens or Jews, no matter how justifiably.It preaches “forgiveness” ad nauseam but fails to offer itto Racial-Nationalists and does not care that they are

persecuted, branded as criminals because of their beliefs,nor that they are denied freedom of speech and assembly,which it does nothing to defend.

Klassen’s thesis that Christianity is a Jewish strategyof subversion seems to explain why the Roman CatholicChurch always supports the Jews when they are in trouble,and why the Church has always attacked usury, so thatfinancial power fell into the hands of the Jews makingthem rich and powerful, although there is nothing wrongwith lending money at a reasonable rate of interest. Itseems, also, to explain why the Vatican was sited inRome. Italy has always been a volatile and politicallyunreliable country, not the place for the headquarters of aninternational organisation on which so many depend. Yet itwas sited in Italy, in Rome itself, surely the culmination ofthe Jewish revenge of Christianity over the Romans? AndKlassen’s thesis allows us to understand why Catholicchurches have usually been built so much larger than thesurrounding architecture — not in praise of God but as aboast of dominion and why, as Jesus: The Evidenceinforms us, York Minster cathedral was built on the site ofa Roman headquarters. Further, what about churchpatronage of the Arts?

This has been practised on a massive scale, resultingin a veritable flood of religious art and music, which now

seems to be merely another form of propaganda forChristianity. Lastly, Klassen’s thesis shows why asChristianity is a Jewish institution there have beenallegations of Freemasonry, occultism and crime in the“Holy” Vatican.

Christianity is in fact an atrocious religion and itseffects on the White Race over nearly 2,000 years havebeen disastrous. It has caused many religious wars costingthe lives and happiness of millions of people, mainlyWhite, and laid them open to Jewish exploitation as ittaught them to bear what they could have resisted. And theidea of celibacy, inflicted on the Roman Catholic clergy,condemned hundreds and thousands of the best, bravestand most intelligent Whites to lives without physicalhappiness and condemned thousands of women tonunneries, to be lonely brides of a non-existent Christ.Many more, of both sexes, were lost to the missions, “tohelp the foreigner!” and those affected were, in the main,very much the powerful middle and upper classes, whocould have opposed the Jews.

THE PERNICIOUS EFFECTS OFCHRISTIANITY

However, the pernicious effects of Christianity are asdisastrous today even though the power of Christianity is

much reduced. Klassen says: “Although becoming aChristian is a matter of degree and very few people take itseriously [most] accede to its domination of our outlookand our society.” He believes that everyone is affected byresidual Christian teachings which bewilder and confusethem even if they are not practising Christians.

As we know, Klassen believes Christianity distortsthought processes and that Christians cannot think clearlywhen confronted with difficult questions. This is a resultof the New Testament strictures against judgement, which,as we have seen, inhibit the “educated” classes from clearassessments of problems and account for the oftenrepeated plaint of the members of this class that “youcannot generalise”. Not only do they not understand what ageneralisation is (a statement that most members of agroup have characteristics in common), they cannotexplain why generalising is wrong. They fail to see that ifa person cannot generalise then he cannot make anyjudgements about large groups of people such as races,

and cannot protect himself from them should they beunfavourably disposed towards him.

This Christian distortion of thought has had a very badeffect too, in the area of crime and the treatment ofcriminals. It has inhibited severe punishment oftransgressors because Christians oppose the penalties ofhanging, castration, flogging and long, tough prisonsentences for murder, rape and violent assault, favouringinstead treating criminals as merely sick and deservingpeople who need to be “rehabilitated”. They do this on thespurious Christian grounds that human life is sacred,which only God can take; and because the otherpunishments are against the “human dignity” of a criminal,which he has by virtue of the fact that all men aresupposedly made in the image of Christ. Their thoughtbeing distorted, they do not see how they hurt the innocentvictim who is denied the satisfaction of revenge.

Christianity also seems to support homosexuality,which is particularly prevalent within the Anglicanchurch, and regards it as only an “unfortunate handicap”according to Archbishop Runcie; and as we know, theprogramme Jesus: The Evidence mentioned thatperversions were connected with Christianity. We alsoknow that Christianity encourages multi-racialism with its“all men are equal” philosophy, thereby hindering the

White Race from opposing the Jewish plan ofmongrelisation and annihilation; encourages Communism,another Jewish philosophy; condemns war, howeverjustified (Archbishop Runcie and the Falklands) andimperialism, however beneficial to native peoples.

In short, Christianity does nothing but harm, andpurveys nothing but lies to deceive, beguile and bewilderthe White Race. No wonder Klassen said that to get theWhite Man’s thinking straightened out, that is, de-Christianised, was the most important task.

WARNINGHowever, we must not allow our understanding to

become befuddled again which is precisely what the Jewsare attempting to do.

The Jews are cunning enough to realise that theChristian fantasy world they have created is crumbling,not only from the investigations of New Testamentcommentators and the attacks of people like Klassen andReed but also because of the sheer disinterest in religionof the White Western World. The current controversies ofChristian clerics like the Bishop of Durham who denystrong and long-held Christian beliefs are no more thanprudent back-pedalling, trying to slough off as muchobvious nonsense as possible while retaining the bulk of

the ideology. If that fails, the Jews will try other methodsof attack, and Douglas Reed’s The Controversy of Zionand The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion provethat war on Whites is the Jewish purpose. They havealready very successfully used one of their modernweapons and are developing others.

Communism is the modern weapon of the Jews and itis extremely effective. At one and the same time itmentally enslaves the superior classes of the White Raceand captures the allegiance of the coloured races byinflaming their biological and racial hatred of Whiteswhile promising them wealth and power that it neverintends to give them. No wonder it seems similar toChristianity; it is fully as divisive, confusing anddestructive, although much more cruel. But the Jews aresupporting Communism with two other weapons: drugsand religious cults.

The massive rise in drug-addiction and the resultantcrime and damage to society is very likely due to theJews, particularly the Jewish Mafia. The Soviet Union hasmade allegations against its own Jews in this matter andIraq has accused Israel of colluding with the drugtraffikers from Iran. In addition, the complete absence of adrug problem in Israel and the Levant indicates Jewishcontrol, keeping it out of the territories they have usurped.

Also the two countries to which the drug flood is mainlydirected are Britain and America, the very same countrieswhich Klassen says, the Jews are out to attack. After all,what better way to subvert a nation than by making itspeople dependent on drugs?

The second weapon that the Jews deploy is thecompletely uncontrolled proliferation of powerful butludicrous cults such as the Moonies, Mormons,Scientologists, Christian Scientists, Jehovah’s Witnesses,Hare Krishna; as well as Christian cults like theCharismatics, the Navigators, the L’Abri Fellowship, andeven the group: Jews for Jesus! What all these groupshave in common is their opposition to the educated classesof the White Race, taking their money and absorbing theirenergy in “self-exploration” and “spiritual development”,thus preventing them from facing reality; the Jewishmenace and the grim danger of racial extinction.

Klassen says that if anyone doubts the effectiveness ofreligion as a weapon they should consider theMahommedan religion called Islam. Klassen tells us thatthis religion was fabricated by the Jews just asChristianity was and foisted onto the previously peacefulArabs around 700 A.D., causing them to rise up and toflood out of Arabia in order to attack Europe which wasplunged into a new Dark Age for more than 500 years.

Spain, especially, was the victim of this Jewishincitement, and because of Jewish treachery was entirelysubjugated, its people enslaved and their race nearlydestroyed by mongrelisation with the Arabs, the taint ofwhich, says Klassen, has never been completelyeradicated. The Arabs were able to conquer a large partof Europe because they fought with great ferocity andvigour as their religion promised them Paradise if theydied in battle.

But this promise of Paradise for a desired mode ofbehaviour — with Islam — war energy, with Christianity— meekness and humility — is not the only similaritybetween the two religions. Islam, too, had a figure-headMahomet — just like Jesus; and this Mahomet underwent a“miraculous conversion” just like “St. Paul.” Andsignificantly, aged about forty and just before heinaugurated his religion, Mahomet, an Arab, married awealthy widow who was Jewish.

That Christianity is an attempt by the Jews to destroythe White Race now seems clear, and this is why Klassensays we need a religion of our own, the racial-religion ofCreativity. Klassen founded this religion to protect theWhite Race by providing a basis for beliefs derived fromNature, Reason and love of race, “the Noble White Race”as he calls it, which cannot easily be undermined. It is

therefore necessary for all White Christians, whetherRacial-Nationalists or not, to consider seriously theevidence presented here for the good of their race: itsprosperity, security and future.

The Rabbis, who wrote the New Testament said (Matt.7:15): “Beware of false prophets which come to you insheep’s clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”The Rabbis knew what they were talking about — theyand the ordinary Jews are the ravening wolves;Christianity is the false prophet, and the sheep’s clothingis the gentle but misguided views of the Essenes,perverted to a terrible use: the spiritual enslavement of theWestern world for centuries.

LIST OF BOOKS USED

Nature’s Eternal Religion . . . Ben Klassen

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion . . .Edited by Victor Marsden

The above books are obtainable from Steven Books,

P.O. Box 112, London N22 6AW.

The Controversy of Zion . . . Douglas Reed

Christianity: A Religion for Sheep . . . Ralph Perier

The above books are obtainable from Historical ReviewPress,

19A Madeira Place, Brighton, Sussex BN2 ITN.

The Bible (Authorised Version) . . . The British& Foreign Bible Society

The Talmud . . . Available in most good referencelibraries

The Modern Encyclopedia