On Christianity: The Censored Section of the National Alliance Membership Handbook

Written by Anonymous

Introduction by Andy.

I give you this piece for thinking. It is not a set of guidelines. It is your choice as to what you think of it.

  • Is it a criticism of Christianity or is it a criticism of the Church version of Christianity?
  • Is it a view that makes Christianity unpopular?
  • To be a Christian, does one have to believe in god.
  • To prove one’s Christianity, does one have to accept the elimination of one’s race?
  • To prove that you are not a racist, does one have to eliminate one’s race?

Please read and think? Andy.

by Dr. William L. Pierce

The following was written by Dr. Pierce in 1992 and was included in the original edition of the ‘National Alliance Membership Handbook(pages 46-51). Unfortunately, this entire important policy guideline — one of the crucial elements that sets the National Alliance apart from other racial organizations — was removed altogether in the second edition that was published by Walker and Gliebe. It has been restored under the chairmanship of Will W. Williams.


2d.vii. Christianity

The National Alliance is not a religious organization, in the ordinary sense of the term. It does, however, have to concern itself with religious matters, because religions influence the behavior of people, society, and governments. The doctrines of various religious groups — Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, et al. — deal with the temporal as well as spiritual matters and therefore often conflict with National Alliance doctrine.

Christian doctrines are of much greater concern to the National Alliance than the doctrines of other large religious groups, because Christianity is the most influential religion in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the White world. Most members of the National Alliance come from families which are, or a generation ago were, at least nominally Christian, and very few come from families which practice or practiced, Islam, Buddhism, or other religions. Furthermore, the history of our race for the last thousand years has been inextricably bound up with Christianity. The National Alliance really cannot avoid taking positions regarding Christian beliefs and practices, despite the complications this causes our work.

Christianity ignores racial differences and promotes egalitarianism and racial mixing.

The immediate and inevitable fact which forces us to come to grips with Christianity is that the mainstream Christian churches are all, without exception, preaching a doctrine of White racial extinction. They preach racial egalitarianism and racial mixing. They preach non-resistance to the takeover of our society by non-Whites. It was the Christian churches, more than any other institution, which paralyzed the will of White South Africans to survive. It is the Christian establishment in the United States which is preeminent in sapping the will of White Americans to resist being submerged in the non-White tide sweeping across the land. Most Christian authorities collaborate openly with the Jews, despite the contempt and abuse they receive in return, and the rest at least follow Jewish policies on the all-important matter of race. The occasional anomaly — a Catholic bishop in Poland speaking out angrily against Jewish arrogance, a few Protestant groups in the United States expressing sympathy for oppressed Palestinians — does not invalidate the rule.

We are obliged, therefore, to oppose the Christian churches and to speak out against their doctrines. But we do not, as some groups have done, accuse the Christian leaders of being false Christians. We do not say, “We are the real Christians, because we stand for the values which the mainstream churches stood for a century ago, before they were subverted.” We do not reach for our Bibles and point to verses which seem to be in accord with the policies of the National Alliance and contrary to the present policies of the Christian churches. A diligent Bible scholar can find in the Judeo-Christian scriptures support for — or ammunition against — virtually any policy whatsoever.

Beyond the immediate conflict between us and the Christian churches on racial matters there is a long-standing and quite fundamental ideological problem with Christianity. It is not an Aryan religion; like Judaism and Islam it is Semitic in origin, and all its centuries of partial adaptation to Aryan ways have not changed its basic flavor. It was carried by a Jew, Saul of Tarsus (later known as Paul), from the Levant to the Greco-Roman world. Its doctrines that the meek shall inherit the earth and that the last shall be the first found fertile soil among the populous slave class in Rome. Centuries later, as Rome was succumbing to an internal rot in which Christianity played no small part, legions of Roman conscripts imposed the imported religion on the Celtic and Germanic tribes to the north.

Eventually Christianity became a unifying factor for Europe, and in the name of Jesus Europeans resisted the onslaught of Islamic Moors and Turks and expelled the “Christ-killing” Jews from one country after another. But the religion retained its alien mind-set, no matter how much some aspects of it were Europeanized. Its otherworldliness is fundamentally out of tune with the Aryan quest for knowledge and for progress; its universalism conflicts directly with Aryan striving for beauty and strength; its delineation of the roles of man and god offends the Aryan sense of honor and self-sufficiency.

Finally Christianity, like the other Semitic religions, is irredeemably primitive. Its deity is thoroughly anthropomorphic, and its “miracles” — raising the dead, walking on water, curing the lame and the blind with a word and a touch — are the crassest superstition.We may have fond memories of the time before the Second World War when pretty, little girls in white dresses attended all-White Sunday schools, and Christianity seemed a bulwark of family values and a foe to degeneracy and indiscipline. We may cherish the tales of medieval valor, when Christian knights fought for god and king — if we can overlook the Christian church’s bloodthirsty intolerance, which stifled science and philosophy for centuries and sent tens of thousands of Europeans to the stake for heresy.

We may even find Christian ethics congenial, if we follow the standard Christian practice of interpreting many of its precepts — such as the one about turning the other cheek — in such a way that they do not interfere with our task. But we should remember that nothing essential in Christian ethics is specifically Christian. Any successful society must have rules of social conduct. Lying and stealing were shunned in every Aryan society long before Christianity appeared. Our pagan ancestors did not need Christian missionaries to tell them how to behave or to explain honor and decency to them — quite the contrary!

Historians may argue the pros and cons of Christianity’s role in our race’s past: whether or not the unity it provided during a period of European consolidation outweighed the loss of good genes it caused in the Crusades and the bloody religious wars of the Middle Ages (and through the Church’s policy of priestly celibacy); whether the splendid Gothic cathedrals which rose in Europe during the four centuries and the magnificent religious music of the 18th century were essentially Christian or essentially Aryan in inspiration; whether Christianity’s stand against the evils of self-indulgence — against gluttony and drunkenness and greed — was worth its shackling of the human mind in superstition or not. One thing already is clear, however: Christianity is not a religion that we can wish on future generations of our race.

We need ethics; we need values and standards; we need a world view. And if one wants to call all of these things together a religion, then we need a religion. One might choose instead, however, to call them a philosophy of life. Whatever we call it, it must come from our own race soul; it must be an expression of the innate Aryan nature. And it must be conducive to our mission of racial progress. Christianity, as the word is commonly understood, meets neither of these criteria.

The fact is that, completely aside from the racial question, no person who wholeheartedly believes Christian doctrine can share our values and goals, because Christian doctrine holds that this world is of little importance, being only a proving ground for the spiritual world which one enters after death. Christian doctrine also holds that the condition of this world is not man’s responsibility, because an omnipotent and omniscient deity alone has that responsibility.

Although some Christians do believe Christian doctrine wholeheartedly, however, most do not. Most instinctively feel what we explicitly believe, even if they have repressed those feelings in an effort to be “good” Christians. Because of this many nominal Christians, even those affiliated with mainstream churches, can, under the right circumstances, be persuaded to work for the interests of their race. Other nominal Christians — especially those who stand apart from any of the mainstream churches — have interpreted Christian doctrine in such an idiosyncratic way that the contradictions between their beliefs and ours have been minimized.

For these reasons we want to avoid conflict with Christians to the extent that we can. We don’t want to give unnecessary offense, even when we speak out against the doctrines of these churches. We don’t want to ridicule their beliefs, which in some cases are sincerely held. Some of these people later will reject Christianity’s racial doctrines. Some will reject Christianity altogether. We want to help them in their quest for truth when we can, and we want to keep the door open to them.

Members who want to study the subject of Christianity and its relationship to our task in depth should read Which Way Western Man? by our late member William Simpson. The book’s initial chapters describe the spiritual odyssey of a man of exceptional spiritual sensitivity, who was far more intensely a Christian than nearly any Christian living today and who eventually understood the racially destructive nature of Christianity and rejected it.

A more concise study of the difference between the Christian world view and ours is given in Wulf Sörensen’s The Voice of Our Ancestors, which was reprinted in National Vanguard No.107.


Heinemann 30 March, 2015

Jesus of Nazareth condemned Christianity and also warned of its usurpation and of his authority by the rich and powerful and their misuse of it. Of its estrangement and apostasy until ultimately it is revealed as the Anti-Christ.

The words above, the censored section, condemn a religion or faith by virtue of its alien source and or can not represent their ideals, namely the glorification of their race.

According to scripture, Jesus of Nazareth was not Jewish or Israeli. His words or spiritual qualities were eternal and embodiment of the Creator.

He did not necessarily give a doctrine for all life like the law of Moses. He gave freedom to self reproof and self judgment. He sanctified marriage but did not recommend it. He taught one must achieve perfection or become like his spiritual father.

A new mind that strives to conform to the heavenly would abhor the earthly. Law was not void. Thou shallt honour thy mother and father. Miscegenation would certainly not.

It is meant for everyone or predetermined. . But few are worthy. What we know of Christianity or what preserved it were Europeans, Martin Luther, John Hus, Ulrich Zwingli. Most were murdered in the reformation. Luther codified high German language (Hochdeutsch) as well as preserving scripture but through marriage for priests (his wife was a nun) and end of celibacy began a culture of priests or race.

Christmas for example is hated by Jews and disavowed by the Christian churches today because its origin French or German was not literally ordained and it is not analogous nor simultaneous with Jewish holidays nor feasts.

After the syncretism that brought German converts Christmas or German Yule tide , “Weihnacht” excelled and transcended the middle eastern confined doctrine fashioned for and probably by Jews.

Christmas has been a controversy forever. Usually strong argument is its contradictory time of year which of course insults the Jewish entanglement and excludes them and it refuses literalist or pharisaic demand for accurate documentation.

Mathew for example brings the Magi from Persia ,an event named still the epiphany for tenacious faithful searching and discovery of the light.

The Magi are the first converts and were neither Jewish nor Semitic but Persian
from whose language the word Aryan was borrowed. They were probably also Zoroastrians or believers in Zarathustra

Christmas is German and despite the attempt of Irving Berlin to demoralize American troops with his profane , “I’m Dreaming Of A White Christmas” ,the beautiful earlier, traditional music was inspired by this wonderful and Germanic ideal belief of Advent ,

Today, despite the “Christian” churches or because of them we are living in darkest tides of all history.

The “Christian” churches not only like it they perpetuate it. But they are the paradoxical consummation of the story.

Whether they marry Afro-American or adopt them , glorify and throw themselves beneath the Jews or ordain homosexuals as ministers, or promote wars for their saviour against innocent people, they are seeking expiation for their sin. They have refused the sacrifice of Christ and therefore are not Christian.

Jesus of Nazareth was persecuted, cynosure of conspiracy, and eventually murdered by the Pharisaic influence over the powers of the time.

Today, prevails the same persecution from the same adversary, who control or influence all powers of the Western world and its oppressed peoples.

Who does not conform to this world and loves the truth or life or ideals , all that is not of this world will be persecuted …

National Alliance people may have more in common with Jesus of Nazareth than they know. 

Gerald Goldberg 30 July, 2019

The three Semitic Abrahamic Cults of Death = Judaism – Christendom – Islam.
These three Cults of Death have drenched the earth with the blood of their victims!


We often hear people say,
“If only Jews would return to the Law of Moses!
“Instead, they follow their secular, atheistic, and Zionist ways!”
They express horror at the recent deliberate slaughter of Gazans, particularly the slaughter of women and children. (1)
But haven’t these folks ever read the Hebrew Bible? Are they unaware of the influence of the Old Testament on Judaism?
Please open your Hebrew Bible. For the moment, focus your attention on the Book of Numbers.

NUMBERS 31:13-18:
(13) Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp.
(14) But Moses was furious with all the generals and captains who had returned from the battle.
(15) “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.
(16) “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the Lord at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the Lord’s people.
(17) So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man.
( 18 ) Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

For further discussion of Jewish teachings on sex with children, see the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 60b, Soncino 1961 Edition, page 402. Discussion and links at

Should we be surprised at how women and children were treated in Gaza?
(1) New Evidence of Gaza Child Deaths, BBC, 22 January, 2009

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Matthew 5:18

“Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, in whom you have put your hope. If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”…
John 5:45 47

“Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ [Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy. 5:16] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[Exodus 21:17; Leviticus. 20:9]

But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

“‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ [ Isaiah 29:13]”
Matthew 15:1-9.

QUESTION: The Torah specifies that children disrespectful of their parents be put to death. How did the rabbis deal with this?
ANSWER. Rabbis of the Talmudic period were reluctant to carry out the punishment of crimes of one insulting or beating one’s parents (Shemot 21:15,17). In fact, the Talmud calls a court that executes a criminal even once in 7 years “a wicked Sanhedrin [court]” (Makkot 1:10). And, R’ Eliezer ben Azariah said that such a court deserves that appellation if it executes a criminal even once in 70 years. R’ Akiva, a 1st century scholar, and R’ Tarphon, a 2nd century scholar, opposed capital punishment under all circumstances. R’ Simeon ben Gamaliel, president of the Sanhedrin in the 2nd century, disagreed saying that not to execute a criminal guilty of a capital offense encourages criminal activity.

This was no light matter to the Rabbis… when they would be called to impose the death penalty upon a criminal they would fast on the day that they would sentence the person to death. (Sanhedrin 63a).
An interesting study is Shemot 21:15 which concludes with the words mot yumat “that man shall surely be put to death.” Since the word for death is repeated in the Hebrew phrase (both mot and yumat are forms of the word for death), the Rabbis concluded that this was intended to teach that the death penalty is to be imposed only by G-d, not by man. For, when the Scriptures wishes to indicate death at the hands of a human tribunal (as in Shemot 35:3), the word mot is used alone.

Muslims claim the Prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18:18 is Muhammad.

It is NATURAL to have a rational fear of Islamic Jihad!
There are 164 Quranic teachings on violent Jihad.

It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Pre-Pubescent Child Rape (65:4)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Rape (Quran 4.3)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Gang Rape (Quran 24:13)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Sex Slavery (Quran 4:24)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Torture (Quran 22.19-22)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Whipping (Quran 24.2)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Amputation and Crucifixion (5:33)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Beheading (Quran 8:12, 47:4)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Wife Beating (Quran 4:34)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Inferiority of Women (Quran 2.228, 4.11, 4.176)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Women as Sex Objects (Quran 2.223)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Murder (Quran 2:191, 9:5)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Killing kafirs (Quran 47.4)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Terrorizing kafirs (Quran 8.60, 3.151)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Immoral Paradise guaranteeing accession to Paradise for Muslim men who kill kafirs or who die in the process of trying to kill kafirs (Quran 9.111)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Massacre (Quran 8.67)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Genocide (Quran 8.17)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Theft and Robbery (Entire Quran Chapter 8 called Booty)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of All other religions must submit to Islam (Quran 2.103, 2.286, 3.19, 48.16)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Your children are your enemies (Quran 9.23, 64.15)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Revenge (Quran 5.45)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Hate (Quran 5.60, 2.61)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Slavery (Quran 2.178)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Extortion (Quran 9:29)
It is NOT ISLAMOPHOBIC to have a rational fear of Lying (Quran 3:28, 5:51)

The real Islamophobes are the leftist PC Islam appeasers, because it takes real fear to pretend that a religion whose believers slaughter each other daily is supposed to be bringing the world peace. Islam the religion isn’t intellectually respectable. Political Islam should be classed as a world crime, including Sharia and even the shouting of Allah Akbar. The Muslim World is in its last days, and knows it, but won’t go quietly.

GOOGLE: Gentiles in Halacha
See what this Jewish document says about Gentiles!

Cosmotheist 9 April, 2015

“The most important single fact concerning Christianity with which the Alliance must deal is that all the major Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant, liberal and fundamentalist, have openly aligned themselves with the enemies of the White race.

The Catholics and the liberal Protestants are vigorously supporting racial mixing, while the fundamentalist Protestants are strong boosters of Zionism.

These alignments will become increasingly important factors in our struggle in the years ahead, as the churches become more and more involved in social and political issues. The Jews have already announced their intention to mobilize fundamentalist Christians in their effort to maintain control of the U.S. government.

The Alliance cannot remain silent in the face of such developments, for the sake of White unity or anything else.

No honest, conscientious Alliance member can maintain his membership in the Alliance and also in an organization which is fundamentally opposed to the goals and principles of the Alliance.

The former member who belongs to the Moral Majority acted correctly in resigning from the Alliance, and the same applies to others: Any Alliance member who is also a member of a church or other Christian organization which supports racial mixing or Zionism should decide now where he stands, and he should then resign either from his church or from the Alliance.” — Dr. William Luther Pierce

And from the study of the “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” by Gibbon:

“Looking at Roman history it became clear to me that whereas Rome had established a great civilization, had conquered the world, was completely supreme, that when Christianity hit it like a plague, it began to crumble and fall apart. And after studying the underlying suicidal ideas that Christianity had perpetrated upon the Romans, I could easily understand why the Romans no longer cared to defend their Empire, nor to meet their earthly responsibilities. It became clear to me why the whole great White Empire disintegrated under the influence of this new Jewish poison.”—Ben Klassen 


JM 8 August, 2019

One can find a few credible authors who make comparisons between that era of the Roman empire and the Jew-dominated and -corrupted US-led “Western Civilization” of this era and discern a similar fate about to befall. Most may not be conscious of this, but many certainly can feel it occurring as our lives advance. For those who do have this consciousness, there is a path to life for our people through Cosmotheism and the program of the National Alliance. And for the rest? Their fortunes are much less certain, and their genes will likely be lost in various ways – death and miscegenation to name a few.

Josef Tone

Josef Tone 7 January, 2020

Sometimes I can be a sucker for a great sounding hymn. For example, many old military hymns despite the fact that I don’t think much of the ever changing and convoluted teeter totter of war propaganda throughout the history of our race. One of the greatest (sounding) hymns in history is ‘Amazing Grace’. However, needless to say, those utterly dreadful lyrics of that hymn is not something that I can negotiate with in any way. Beyond that, I actually enjoy any parlay with a Christian regarding their faith. There are so many demerits within it that I can shed light on. I have no idea as to why Jews and Liberals attack Christianity when overall it serves their goals so well. Poor strategy on their part.

Anthony Collins 8 January, 2020

“I have no idea as to why Jews and Liberals attack Christianity when overall it serves their goals so well.” Perhaps they want a bigger market share for their particular brand of superstition. Monotheisms are exclusive and intolerant: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me . . . for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:3-5). 

Alex Wells

Alex Wells 8 January, 2020

Jews and liberals have no quarrel with the so-called “mainline” Christian churches that used to represent the historic Christian faith, but now are little more than liberalism in Christian clothing. Jews hate evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity because it teaches that everyone must be a Christian or else face eternal damnation; therefore, Jews must convert to Christianity in order to be saved. Liberals hate historic Christianity because it rejects feminism and condemns homosexuality.


cas 30 August, 2020

The Jews love anything that sows discord among brethren. It also teaches hating family which is contrary to nature. If we learn from nature (physical creation), nature’s “god” is cruel, has no peace, weak, imperfect, no balance.

pj dooner 

It’s a historical grudge. Even though Paul of Tarsus and his gang of jew supremacists invented Christianity as an insidious scheme to weaken European civilization they eventually lost control of it to control freak Europeans who (probably unwittingly) boomeranged it back as a weapon against the Jews by blaming them for the supposed execution of the “Son of God”.
So, while much of the original scheme paid huge dividends by tricking Christians into wasting their time and efforts trying to get into “heaven” (which gave the power-mad jews a decisive advantage in most fields of endeavor) and not fighting as hard as they otherwise would have against the jews’ other schemes by always trying to be fair and just so as not to jeopardize their “heavenly” aspirations, the label as “Christ-killers” brought a lot of enmity against the Jews for close to two thousand years and that is why they hate Christianity (and the white race).

About the author


Leave a Comment