|
|
|
A religious image by exPF It seems that one essential feature influencing the fate of a culture is the canon of stories which it uses to entertain young children. I had previously thought of morality as being the result of dictated principles, when a commentator on this website suggested that morality is also determined largely by story-telling. I think that that is an astute observation - morality plays and stories with moral messages seem to be important. It also strikes me to what extent children’s minds, say up to the age of 8, are basically marinated in non-stop storytelling. In our capacity as adults we might tend to view storytelling principally as a vehicle for different skills and concepts: the ability to identify numbers, colors, ability to read, or lessons about the animal kingdom. These are things that children typically absorb up to the age of 5. While we may view the stories as a vehicle, children seem to view them as an end in itself. I think children take great delight in storytelling. Its fascinating also to observe the pliability of children’s minds and all that they will tolerate. They have that extraordinary capacity called Imagination, which renders all of the flashy embellishments of modern technology largely irrelevant—even harmful, insofar as it impedes this faculty. Children don’t need meticulously written screen plays to entertain them, often enough just an improvised story will do, as they gift the story with the grande dimensions which their mind presumes to exist in the undiscovered world. The same is true for toys. Yet we know that beneath all this, the supposedly innocent fare of modern western consumer culture, a war is being waged for the minds of these very children. The same system which lures them in with virtual reality puppet shows and shiny robot toys will one day hold their attention with interracial hospital dramas and video games, when they’ve graduated to the next level of ‘sophistication’. It will one day assure them of the limits of what is acceptable, will one day direct their attention with the flow of images in such a way as to make clear the implicit drumbeat to which they must march. Television is western society’s alma mater, its our primary educational institution, and one can’t be inducted early enough. When I was young my dad told me stories from English history. He taught me about William the Conqueror and Lord Nelson. Most stories he could only render in outline, and sometimes I would just ask him to make up new ones using the old characters. Imagination and proximity to a loved one will suffice to fill in where there is any lack in content. I was told that I had a connection to these stories, that they were my history. As such I identified with them and wanted to learn more, so I began reading English history early on. I inherited a copy of Ridpath’s “History of the World” from 1901. This is a series of big, brown volumes full of black and white plate drawings, written by an American historian, detailing the rise and fall of Europe. The most notable thing about Ridpath’s work was the subtle tone of positivity, unabashed Eurocentrism, and nordicism which were recurring undercurrents in those books. Totally alien to the punitively neutral, consciously non-eurocentric tone of all recent history books. The confidence of culture and sense of western triumphalism expressed in this 1901 book riveted me to the page. Naturally, because it lacked objectivity, its storytelling value was that much greater. Ridpath often conjured images of the Germanic tribes, which he used to see himself through the confusion of the Völkerwanderung. He delineated the Anglo-saxon and subsequent Viking conquest of Britain, the founding of France by the Franks, and the role of Germany in the Crusades. He painted an outline of the ancient Germanics in broad strokes, with their alehorns, festivals, a description of their customs, and their virtues - and this with a measured positive evaluation throughout, even admiring their heroic valour in warfare. (Imagine that!) The plates showed paintings of ancient Germanic gatherings, etc. etc. This of course then led me naturally to Tacitus, Beowulf and the Sagas. What these books conjured for me was an image - the image of our forebears, untouched by Christianity, living in their grand isolation, showing heroic valour, and founding the nations which today have contributed so much to the world. I haven’t thought all that much about it but its an image which remains in my head, I guess its a religious image. Because I view those men as being of incredible, nigh unknowable bravery and fortitude and our culture being a refinement and superstructure based on theirs. Its a kind of ancestor worship which I think is found amongst many cultures and carries within it the implicit seeds of tribalism. Having such an image, of a pristine past age, can be useful for purposes of ‘racination’. Its good because it reminds the modern man - whose unexamined life increasingly comes to resemble a kind of coddled “Pleasant Hell” which John Dolan and the War Nerd bemoan - reminds him that we weren’t always this way. We weren’t always living in dispersion amongst hordes of foreign peoples; we weren’t always cursed from all corners and made a mockery of. Once we were powerful, majestic, noble and alone. It’s important to emphasize the spiritual precedence of the heroic over the refined and civilized, in our history, and to teach our children that comfort, baubles, refinement and flowery words will be the death of European man, if he is led in the pursuit of these to a denial and neglect of first things. Comments:2
Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:02 | #
But I would wager that how those morals are shaped, interpreted and/or implemented is based mostly on genetics.
Yeah, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) is another quote from one of Cambria’s “stellar” articles,
With that Cambria took sides, and not ours. ... 3
Posted by danielj on Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:12 | # Jewishness does not have to be a permanent condition. I would argue (and I don’t see how one could argue otherwise) that genetic Jewishness is an irreversible condition and I think the owner of Cambria would say the same thing. I think he was just saying God accepts the conversions of Jewish people to Christianity as legitimate and as equally as he would accept any converting Gentile. I think you might be hasty in passing judgment here without further clarification. 4
Posted by Dasein on Fri, 06 Mar 2009 22:09 | # For anyone with small children or young relatives, the works of the d’Aulaires (in particular d’Aulaires’ Book of Norse Myths- formerly Norse Gods and Giants- and d’Aulaire’s Book of Greek Myths) make excellent gifts. Although I was raised in a strict Presbyterian household, my mother gave me books of Irish fairy tales when I was young (I say although; I’m guessing some stricter Presbyterians would not have approved of kids learning pagan fairy tales, especially Irish ones). It should be a rite of passage that every child grows up believing in magic (sans modern homosexual versions of Gandalf). On the subject of Greek myths, I can’t help but see parallels between the Flight of Icarus and Ian Jobling’s recent piece at whiteamerica (http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/articles/articles/against_genetic_similarity_theory/). In trying to escape from what he perceives as wrong (or unsavoury) elements of WN, he’s set himself up for a bit of a fall. Also a bit tragic, as he seems like a decent fellow. http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/articles/articles/against_genetic_similarity_theory/ 5
Posted by torgrim on Fri, 06 Mar 2009 22:42 | # “There are no other options. There never have been, since Charlemagne, Olaf of Norway, Vladimir of Kiev, etc. turned from paganism to Christianity.”—-Fr. John Fr. John, why choose Charlemagne or Olaf the Law Breaker as models for Christianity? They are two examples of Christian tolerance that leaves one to suspect that Christianity has problems with ALL other belief systems. No wonder neo-pagans are seemingly hostile to Christianity with historic examples like Olaf and Charlemagne? Personally, I have no such hostility toward Christianity,.. for what it’s worth. Historically, the White Christ was accepted 300 years before Olaf of Norway in many parts of that country. I would rather choose for a model of European history, the semi-legendary character, Ogier the Dane,(French), Helgi,(O.N.), Whole, (English), as someone that fought with Charlemagne against the Sarasens, a pagan in alliance with the Christian king, Charlemagne. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Mar 2009 22:49 | # Dasien, GST is only Ian’s foil for WN generally. The boy is a rebel and some Jews have shown him kindness for it. They have whispered the words “creative destruction” in his ear. The bit they most want him to destroy, of course, is the WN analysis of Jewish group behaviour. One of those behaviours is the denial of ethnocentric feeling to European peoples through the denial of peoplehood itself. In trying to turn European ethnocentrism into a cultural phenomenon Jobling is showing us exactly why he is an extended phenotype, as I told him on his old blog a few months ago. Jobling should not be argued point-by-point, because that is to take his arguments seriously when, really, they are constructions to serve his personal agenda. Go to the Hart of it, and attack the agenda and only the agenda. Strip him naked in front of his readers. It’s all he deserves. 8
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 06 Mar 2009 23:08 | # It appears Jobling of Rushton without reading his paper. Rushton addresses the issue of interracial marriage also on the basis of genetic similarity.
The issue of “if ethnocentrism is innate, why don’t “white” Americans display it” has been answered thousands of times. It varies from group to group, even amongst “white” Americans. It simply another attempt, little different from the many attempts by Auster, to provide a path to include Jews in their “white” America. The final solution for Jews for the likes of Auster and Shamir is conversion to Christianity. Jobling rests his hope for conversion on the basis that ethnocentrism is not genetic. Therefore Jews can be “white” simply by throwing off the warnings of Deuteronomy and assimilating. This is the reason Auster lothes Darwin and Jobling critiques Rushton’s position. 9
Posted by skeptical on Fri, 06 Mar 2009 23:19 | # It is worth remembering that European Christendom gave birth to the modern world, and all the accompanying technological and scientific advances, for good or ill. If the various Germanic and Slavic tribes were left untouched in their pagan condition then it would by no means be a given that they would proceed from there to discover the many secrets that our Christian forebears first unlocked. Who knows how much longer they could have wandered (in an apparently blissful state) of barbaric ignorance if history gone otherwise. To wantonly cast aside so many centuries of European man’s development simply because Christianity has a remote, Jewish origin is nothing short of narcissism. The barbaric ideal is just another romantic fiction that creates more problems than it can solve. 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Mar 2009 23:30 | # PF on the role of culture in ethnocentrism ... Ridpath often conjured images of the Germanic tribes, which he used to see himself through the confusion of the Völkerwanderung. He delineated the Anglo-saxon and subsequent Viking conquest of Britain, the founding of France by the Franks, and the role of Germany in the Crusades. He painted an outline of the ancient Germanics in broad strokes, with their alehorns, festivals, a description of their customs, and their virtues - and this with a measured positive evaluation throughout, even admiring their heroic valour in warfare. (Imagine that!) The plates showed paintings of ancient Germanic gatherings, etc. etc. This of course then led me naturally to Tacitus, Beowulf and the Sagas. Ian Jobling on white ethnocentrism as culture ... CVT would not necessarily predict that common ethnicity is a minor factor in interpersonal attraction since people who share a common ethnicity tend to be similar in many other respects as well. Nevertheless, CVT would grant ethnic similarity a lower importance for attraction than GST and would predict that preference for endogamous mating would frequently be overridden by other factors, leading to widespread interethnic sexual attraction. I’m proud of one and ashamed for the other. 11
Posted by skeptical on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:00 | # Who cares what Jobling thinks. He’s a narcissistic nitwit who’s going nowhere. 12
Posted by Dasein on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:45 | #
If this is Daedalus, Jobling and Rushton are going to make for awkward panel mates at a future conference. Only fitting that this alliance should choose Lysenkoism. 14
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:00 | # If those wonderful Christian intellects who grace the comments section wish to impair the minds of innocent children with Hebrew fairy tales and Jesusjabber about pregnant virgins, walking corpses and talking donkeys, perhaps, in the interests of fairness and balance these ineffably tenacious bores might,at least, tell the truth (for a change) about their cult’s perpetually deleterious effects on White civilisation. 15
Posted by torgrim on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:35 | # From, “Titans”— “Lux Ex Orient—civilization originates in the fertile river valleys of the Middle East>” Actually, when the Icelander, Snorri Sturluson wrote his “History of the Norwegian Kings, Heimskringla” the title of the book means, “Our Home is Round”, refering to the earth. As for Lux Ex Orient, I would say after reading some previous comments, that it is very much alive and well today in the 21st Century! 16
Posted by White Western Man on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:44 | #
The centuries where Whites/Europeans have developed and progressed the most was when the influence of Judaeo-Christianity and the Church became LESS strong, beginning with the Rennaissance - as the influence of Christianity has waned for the last few hundred years White European peoples have became more advanced, more wealthy, and more populous. The past few hundred years - beginning with the Rennaissance, and progressing through to the Age of Exploration, the Enlightenment Era, the scientific and thus anti-religious Industrial Revolution, until modern times - has been the centuries when the influence of Christianity and the Church has decreased the most in The West. The slow demise of Christianity has seen the progression and expansion of White Europeans far beyond any other group on Earth. And Christianity has fought this White-Western progress as “unChristian” every step of the way becuase it represented a lessening of their power. Christianity has constricted the development of White Europeans - there is a reason that the times when Christianity and the Church had the most control over White Europe (from about 500 until about 1500) are referred to as the ‘Dark Ages’ - this period of 1000 years, when Christianity reigned supreme in The West, was a time of serious White stagnation. You can witness evidence of this in the degeneration of many of America’s Whites in to loony and apocalyptic forms of fundamentalist Christianity as America has degenerated and become more Judaized, feminized, and multicultural - in contrast, when America was strong and secure and economically strong (i.e., run and controlled by White non-Jews, who were the vast majority of the population), Christianity held little influence in the public square. These fundie White Christians are actually doing a massive disservice to themselves and White America as a whole by sealing themselves off in what they perceive as ‘tradionalist Christian’ communities or compounds - they aren’t revolting against the non-Christianization of America by doing this, they are running away from the un-Whitening and thus Judaization of America. The Jewish origins of Christianity are anything but ‘remote’ as you say. Though one of the main features of Christianity is the anti-Jewishness of Jesus, Christianity was founded in a Jewish land by Jews and is built entirely upon Jewish beliefs, practices, and scriptures which were written and spread by Jews. Thus Christianity is a child religion of Judaism which, while clearly a bit better and improved than the parent religion, still carries along the sickening Jewish tradition and is thus very destructive to non-Jews. Christianity is just another dangerous, pathetic, and ultimately pitiful Jewish movement like Marxism/Sovietism, feminism, egalitarianism/universalism, plutocrat capitalism, hyperconsumerism, ‘anti-racism,’ or multiculturalism. Christianity, because it encourages powerlessness, meekness, humbleness, universalism (thus, colorblindness and tolerance), passivity, stagnation, hope for better times in the ‘afterlife’ instead of improving Earth, and basically putting up with all form of abuse and injustice (especially Jewish induced abuse and injustice), is just another set of beliefs with Jewish origins that works to dissolve and negate the resistance of White Western peoples against the internal Jewish threat. The sooner Christianity is largely discarded for movements and beliefs which are stronger, more robust, more Western/European, and ultimately more White the sooner the White Western world can be saved from being swamped by the Jewish-led multicult. That is why I have high hopes for the future of the West as it increasingly becomes post-Christian and thus post-Jewish indoctrination, as de-Christianization is a form of de-Judaization and as such allows for pro-White/Western views to further take root. A main goal of pro-White activists everywhere should be the prevention of other Jewish movements (like those mentioned in the above paragraph) of filling the vacuum left by the absence of Christianity. 17
Posted by White Western Man on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:50 | # Just a note - I meant to tack on the word “Judaeo-” before the word “Christianity” or “Christian” (as in “Judaeo-Christian” or “Judaeo-Christianity”) in the above comment, thus helping to hopefully cement in the minds of the people here that Christianity is of Jewish/Semitic origin and is decidedly non-Western. 18
Posted by Ernest on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 02:40 | # This thread is but one example of why “whites” are self destructive. Some of you apparently would have nothing to do with the likes Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, CS Lewis, Sir Walter Scott and many other upstanding Christian white men. 19
Posted by danielj on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 02:41 | #
There is no argument in this. I’m searching but I can’t find it. Gunpowder is of Chinese origin. Algebra is of Arabic origin. All of humanity is of the same origin if we go far enough back. You ain’t saying nothing. The “dark” ages was not as dark as you think and if you want to attribute scientific and cultural stagnation to the reigning religion of a people than certainly the modern era and the reign of secular humanism has left us White folk in a far more precarious position than the one Christianity had us in. We’re on the verge of extinction thanks to the atheistic, technocratic, White rationalist. Christianity is just another dangerous, pathetic, and ultimately pitiful Jewish movement like Marxism/Sovietism, feminism, egalitarianism/universalism, plutocrat capitalism, hyperconsumerism, ‘anti-racism,’ or multiculturalism. That is an utterly absurd statement, the falsity of which should be readily obvious to the average MR’er. Replace Christianity with “secular humanism” and you might be on to something. 20
Posted by danielj on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 02:50 | # Tossing out that ridiculous canard about poor, picked on Galileo just proves you don’t understand the issue. Copernicus’ system wasn’t as accurate as the Ptolemaic and when Galileo came around there was still serious debate and either interpretation was reasonable, especially after Tycho arrived on the scene. People here are oversimplifying the issue. 21
Posted by danielj on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 02:54 | # http://www.white-history.com/hwr41.htm This article is so full of falsehood I would encourage everybody to go through it and count the factual errors and distortions. 22
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:27 | # Dan - just to blow our own trumpet here… The Chinese may have been the first to invent gunpowder but Europeans invented it later, independently, without needing any knowledge of what the Chinese were doing. 23
Posted by danielj on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:48 | # And Leibniz independently invented calculus at a later date without any knowledge of what Newton was doing 24
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 04:45 | # Those two peerless paragons of Christian activism, ‘Oxfam’ (founded by Quakers) and ‘Christian Aid’, are well worth Googling if one wishes to learn the baneful truth about how much (White) money and effort is expended by Christians (together with their philosophical, if spookless, soulmates viz., the social Marxists) in advancing the EGI of our Third World racial competitors. Ironic indeed then, that both outfits started as modest efforts to aid Europeans in distress during World War Two but inevitably and in strict emulation of their self-abasing religion’s stereotypically Jewish, mountebank founder, these charities expanded their mission and embraced ‘all (non-White)mankind’. 25
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 04:53 | #
Not so sure about that Daniel. 26
Posted by skeptical on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 05:24 | # White Western Man,
Yes, Nietzsche correctly foresaw that the slave morality of Christianity would utterly quell our once heroic souls. And how the chaos has left us! That our tragedy would come at the hands of Christians like Trotsky, Marx, Adorno, and Marcuse seems so obvious in retrospect.
Not to mention thoroughly deracinated and at the very brink of death.
So, a degenerate form of fundamentalist Christianity has taken root in America and this somehow proves that the “Dark Ages” were nothing more than a thousand years of stagnation?! By the way, a lot of good things happened in the so-called “Dark Ages”. If it were not so the Rennaissance wouldn’t have happened when it did. Human tribes don’t exactly make the leap from barbarity to the Enlightenment in one fell swoop.
How about my version, “The goal of pro-White activists is to save their people from impending doom.” Take away all the ideology, the screeds against various -isms, and we’re left with something that our people might respond to in the hour of their despair. 27
Posted by Valerian on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 08:38 | #
Just the other day I was able to get Rosetta Stone, via torrent, and while I was on the German program I noticed that the pictures they were using for their lessons were contaminated with multi-cult ideology. Ever since I went to school here in America as a 5 year old I was indoctrinated with a doctrine of Marxist, modern American, and and anti-White propaganda; it happens to everyone around you when you take a closer look. Thankfully I’ve fallen from those views but a lot of people who are still in my “once was” position need a lot of surgery to their minds to undue the brainwashing effects that they’ve been accustomed too. It’s going to take a while too….
When I was about 13 me and my father started going to a church called Calvary Chapel here in Southern California. Looking back, I came to realized how modern Christianity is just another form of destructive modernity that’s destroying the minds of our people. Their is no sense of sacredness or community fellowship of the clergy within these modern churches; just shallow, materialistic, self loathing behavior that perpetuates a life of self-interested gain while healing their own consciousness with an “indiviualized faith”. Look up denominations like Cavalry Chapel and people like Greg Laurie or Rick Warren. Though I am not a Christian, a Stoic-Pagan instead, I can at least see the extraordinary sense of the sacred within the Catholic church and even non-American forms of Protestant Christianity that have had virility and the sense of the sacred. You won’t see that here in the churches here in California. With all the above points mentioned in regards to white Americans losing themselves into a spiral of decadence, I do believe this country will split apart because of that. I look at it like this, though Europe currently has a lot of radical Leftists and Marxists subverting their institutions and societies, the European peoples wake up everyday to their history. Their history, traditions, language, culture, customs, etc. shadow over them everyday and reminds them of who they are. Europe has had cultures that have lasted for thousands of years and nations that have lasted that long as well. America, with it’s foundational element of Liberalism, grew to fast and expanded before it can internalize itself through acculturation. That’s why the farther you go West in the United States the more culturally depreciated it becomes. There is a big contrast between the attitudes, culture, customs, and conventions between a yuppie from San Diego,CA and a fisherman from Maine. I can’t speak for the Pacific Northwest but California doesn’t have a unified White culture ,like the European peoples have, that they can fall back on. Europe, though showing more of a Marxist infection, at least has more immunities then America does not have. These immunities are culture, tradition, history, greater homogeneity, and a stronger concept of self. I will take hundreds of more years for Americans to develop these immunities. 28
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 10:44 | #
And that is the number 1 problem with embracing a universal faith. A religious faith that propagates the notion of any kind of equality at all....in any measure or context at all, is poison. As for Cambria….that writer has, on more than one occasion, adopted the, Europe is the faith, the faith is Europe jargon. He/she has bound Western identity up with the Christian faith to such an extent as to posit that to be Western is to be Christian. Is he not saying that the non-White has become White (Western) by virtue of conversion to Christianity?
That you would put CS Lewis in the same category as Lee and Jackson is nauseating. Lewis is the Martin Luther of modern day left-wing Christianity. As for Lee and Jackson, they were brilliant men, yet I’d venture to say that their applied Christian ethics led to their downfall and the failure of the Confederacy. Grant and Sherman appealed to some rather blatantly un-Christian ethics in battle and thus won the war.
Oh I know all about those kind! The “Emergent Church” is also part of that package. But to be fair I wouldn’t lump all churches in America in with the kind of stuff there is in California. It has certainly spread, but there are still old fashion Baptist, Pentecostal and non-denominational Churches around that haven’t been infected. But the problem is the seed that is inherent in monotheism. And when that seed takes root and blooms, its fruit is of the decidedly “brotherhood of man” variety. One reason I think Christianity was less harmful in the past is that it wasn’t really appealed to. The average person 500 years ago couldn’t read or write while the clergy was composed of opportunistic politicians who were jockeying for power and prestige among themselves. It’s no coincidence that the descendants of the most biblically literate and devout peoples around (the Puritans) are the most zealous proponents of Marxism today. (New England is the most liberal region in America)
Not that long ago Whites in America very much had a culture and sense of themselves as a common people. And yes the country will, formally, fall apart, thankfully. It’s already about 45% non-White and that percentage will rapidly increase over the next 30 years. Unofficially, America has already ceased to exist so we can speak of it in past-tense even now. ... 29
Posted by danielj on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 13:42 | # When I was about 13 me and my father started going to a church called Calvary Chapel here in Southern California. It isn’t a church, it is a corporation. All of our parents in So Cal must have started going to Calvary Chapels when we were around 13 You won’t see that here in the churches here in California. They aren’t really churches. They are places for youngsters to hook up. It’s no coincidence that the descendants of the most biblically literate and devout peoples around (the Puritans) are the most zealous proponents of Marxism today. (New England is the most liberal region in America) You’re telling me that Harvard made its descent into relativism and cultural Marxism because it started off as a fundamentalist Christian uni? I never bought that line and I still don’t buy it. I think maybe the SDS and liberal Jews had something to do with it. Everybody in academia is ‘puritanical’ and overzealous and it doesn’t have anything to do with their cultural “ancestors” since very few of these Marxists are direct descendants of Cotton Mather. There are still Puritan denominations in the country. There are still extremely Calvinistic denominations all over the country and they don’t promote Marxism in the slightest. In fact, why do people here keep comparing Christianity to Marxism? Do you think the Christian catechism includes a workshop on dialectics or something? Unofficially, America has already ceased to exist so we can speak of it in past-tense even now. Indeed. That you would put CS Lewis in the same category as Lee and Jackson is nauseating. Lewis is the Martin Luther of modern day left-wing Christianity. I’m not really sure about that. The Abolition of Man isn’t exactly a left wing textbook and neither are the Chronicles of Narnia. A religious faith that propagates the notion of any kind of equality at all….in any measure or context at all, is poison. I have to disagree. There are plenty of universals amongst mankind, assuming you believe in such a thing as “mankind” and what is lowest in him - eating, sleeping, shitting - is not the only thing he holds in common with other men. I don’t see how pantheism, paganism or polytheism removes or destroys that which is universal in man. How is it ‘superior’ to monotheism in that regard? Is he not saying that the non-White has become White (Western) by virtue of conversion to Christianity? I can’t speak for me, but I’m pretty sure he is saying the non-White has become Christian by virtue of the conversion to Christianity. I’m not opposed to the entire world converting, what does it cost us? What does it cost us if they all convert to Odinism? Is there even anything inherently racial or anything that would promote ethnonationalism in the Poetic Edda? Lastly, can we please decide whether the Enlightenment was a net positive or negative? When people want to trash Christianity at MR they blame Christianity for keeping us in the “Dark Ages” and preventing the spread of Enlightenment and other times when they want someone to blame for all our troubles and the source of disease, they blame Voltaire and Rousseau. I’m afraid we can’t have it both ways. 30
Posted by danielj on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 13:44 | # I can’t speak for me Obviously, that should have read: I can’t speak for him. 31
Posted by Dasein on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:08 | # Hostility to Christianity among WNs is somewhat ironic. I think it’s fair to say that most WNs are interested in the well-being of fellow Whites, which seems like a very Christian notion. In some respects, Salter’s work is the translation of the Christian Gospel into modern genetics. If Christ’s sacrifice is the sacralization of altruism as an ideal for humans to follow, it must take account of Darwinian fitness. Christianity’s universalism is its applicablity for any race which chooses to practice it. Obviously, it struck a chord with a certain race. 32
Posted by Revaluation of all values defeats Jewry on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 15:07 | # According to Nietzsche, Christianity is a product of Judaism, the “Tschandala-religion”. By this he means that Judaism and Christianity after it are the morality born of the hatred of the oppressed (like the Tschandala) to their oppressors:
33
Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 17:34 | #
I don’t know how you factor Harvard into the equation. Harvard is an institution that draws people from various parts of the country and world. Hardly reflective of the original settlers who had a hand in founding it. I would lean more toward the notion that Puritanism is an ethnic expression of faith. The book ‘Albion’s Seed’ kind of supports that notion in showing how certain attitudes and social/religious proclivities were varied and inherent in the four main groups of early settlers who came to America and is still present in their genetic offspring today.
Of course, but they moved into the branch of Christianity that was best suited for their particular kind of usurpational tactics. And that was certainly the Christianity of the Yankee persuasion, which saw itself as creating New Jerusalem here on earth and needed to persuade/force everyone else to adopt their version of the faith. Yes it (jewish influence) spread to other denominations but it found its first and permanent home among those inclined toward the self righteous religiosity that was Puritanism.
Christian Catechism??? As for the relation between Marx and Christianity, they both appeal to a brotherhood of man mantra. They both assume universal standards of justice and behavior and advocate a way to best uphold those assumptions. Though I know it’s a controversial position, Personally I’m inclined to think the various races could easily be qualified as different species. So from my vantage point when I see Marxists and Christians both running around the world advocating one standard of ethics for the various species, the similarity between the two ideologies seems obvious. I’m not really sure about that. The Abolition of Man isn’t exactly a left wing textbook and neither are the Chronicles of Narnia. Posted by danielj on March 07, 2009, 12:42 PM Well I put the qualifier on it. To phrase it more clearly, Lewis was a leftwing-Christian. The genesis of lefty dogma, within Christianity, is ecumenicalism. And Lewis’s ‘Mere Christianity’ is certainly ecumenical. I guess it depends on where you grew up though. I never heard of Lewis or Tolkien growing up. (never remember hearing of Tolkien until 2001 when the first LOTR movie came out) Their mixing of Paganism and Christianity in Rings and Narnia would have (and still are) considered to be Satanic for a great many Christians.
They aren’t superior.
I’ve been reading his/her site for several months now. They have certainly tied Western Identity into Christianity. Besides, jew is an ethnicity. If one converts to Christianity they are still a jew. So what is Cambria really saying…
I’ve never taken that position. Monotheism is the bane of Civilization… 34
Posted by torgrim on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:09 | # “That’s why the further you go West in the United States the more culturally depreciated it becomes.”—Valerian California did have a Anglo-Saxon founding population, I like to call it the pioneer stock. There were parts of California that still had this founder culture intact when I was very young. No, not LA or SF, but in the isolated, rural areas of the 50’s and 60’s. WWII, changed California as it did for the rest of the Nation. Families were torn up, displaced and many young and older men did not return. LA, was made into a boom town and now has been colonized by Mexico. “I can at least see the extraordinary sense of the sacred within the Catholic Church and even non-American forms of Protestant Christianity that have had virility and the sense of the sacred. You won’t see that here in the churches here in California.”—Valerian My experience with the non-American Protestant churches concurs with your statement. The American Norwegian Lutheran Church was centered around the ethnic core, the family. The N.Lutheran Church lasted a short time, until it morphed with the American Lutheran Church, then the Missouri Synod and finally the push to combine the Lutheran Church with the Catholic Church. An example of universalism to the detriment of the ethnic community. I suspect that the Greek Orthodox and other churches that are tied to their ethnic population,.. imbue the sacred. But sadly, with the monotheistic/Orient, mindset, to differentiate, ie.,( natural selection )is stopped. 35
Posted by Dasein on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:10 | #
I’d made a comment that hinted at this, though I’m not sure he understood it to be related to the JQ. http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/articles/articles/against_genetic_similarity_theory/#20384 The mods don’t seem to want to release the following comment, which I’d made yesterday. The guy’s either dishonest or a bit thick. He claims that no one has addressed his points, but he just ignores what people write. I gather that Rushton is aware of the thread too- I can’t believe that he’ll just sit by while Jobling writes such nonsense. Anyhow, I think this is the end of Jobling as any sort of serious commentator (not sure if was ever considered one, but I think this should make it obvious to anyone with half a clue- which excludes people like ‘nycjew’ and ‘The Undiscovered Jew’ who seem to be about the only people who agree with him). Here’s the comment. exPF, sorry to spam your thread with this. Not sure if one exists already, but there should be a site that allows people to see what’s being deleted or rejected in forums. As regards the last question, he has written that he in fact does not believe that there is any innate basis for ethnocentrism (yet he admits it’s a human universal, ignores the data on unconscious responses to race-based stimuli, and then has the gall to call his opponents social constructivists). —-
J. Wingfield spoke of high population densities, not ‘contemporary Western conditions’. The examples you cited could also be complicated by this factor. As for the outrageousness, your dander is a bit light. It’s an example of how extreme innate behaviour can change. We shouldn’t be surprised to find examples that violate GST (or more generally, Darwinian fitness). In past dictatorships, government propaganda could convince members of nuclear families to betray one another. There’s no reason that today’s propaganda from the media and academia shouldn’t lower innate resistance to miscegenation.
I think I did grasp it. I gave you some reasons why physical similarities would not be as important as behaviour in assortative bonding, perhaps you could address them:
The problem is that you are assuming that you know how GST should work, i.e. which (and how many) traits it should privelege. You also haven’t disentangled GST from your favoured theory (see previous comment).
Mr. Jobling, you avoided the question in my previous post, so I’d like to ask it again: do you believe there is an instinctive basis for ethnocentrism? 36
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:33 | # If I had my druthers, Europe would never have become Christian. But I don’t have my druthers. And I realize that millions of my people are strongly attached. With that in mind, I think it’s safe to say that we can work with Christianity, at least, with a Christianity that takes scripture seriously. I’m not sure Catholicism qualifies, since the church seems to set policy, and this kind of centralization has its obvious, serious down sides (e.g., buy off the Pope and you buy off millions of Catholics). I say we can work with Christianity, because the text is so big and so ambiguous that you can pull whatever you want out of it. With that much flexibility, it seems silly to get all bent out of shape over its Jewish authors. Jewish behavior seems to confirm this; Jews obviously LOATHE any Christianity they don’t have in their hip pockets, and merely tolerate the kind they do. The Old Testament is a blueprint for ethnic nationalism. AFAIK it’s the pioneering work on the subject. I’ve said all this before many times, so I’m even boring myself now. 37
Posted by danielj on Sat, 07 Mar 2009 21:56 | # I don’t know how you factor Harvard into the equation. Harvard is an institution that draws people from various parts of the country and world. Hardly reflective of the original settlers who had a hand in founding it. I can’t think of a genetic expression of the Puritan northeast that is directly descended from Puritan stock so I took their most important cultural institution as an example of the devolution we are speaking of. In fact, I’m not really sure what the argument is that tries to portray modern day Marxists as heirs to the Puritan legacy. Is it that the northeasterners vote solidly Democratic? I think that has more to do with the Irish muscle in the area. I would lean more toward the notion that Puritanism is an ethnic expression of faith. I would too, but equating it with overzealous cultural Marxists that lack almost entirely, any genetic link to the founding Puritan stock makes no sense. The book ‘Albion’s Seed’ kind of supports that notion in showing how certain attitudes and social/religious proclivities were varied and inherent in the four main groups of early settlers who came to America and is still present in their genetic offspring today. I think Fisher denies (in a backhanded manner) the genetic aspect. The subtitle of the book itself subtly does this by defining the dominant characteristics of a population as “folkways” instead of “ethnic eccentricities” or something like that. That and his constant use of the word “culture” and “cultural” make him a hard case to peg. Founding stock descendants are less than 20% of the population now (the dominant European group now being of Germanic descent) so I don’t see how we can pick out the genetic offspring of the settlers and compare them to their ancestors. Abolition and transcendentalism were mainly birthed (or at least fostered) in New England. So was the Industrial Revolution. Abolitionists weren’t responsible for the Civil War and transcendentalists are a footnote in history and never achieved any political power or cultural clout. Nevertheless, I agree that liberals were based in New England in the beginning. Christian Catechism??? In truly Protestant churches (Reformed churches in the Lutheran or Calvinistic tradition) there are creeds (Apostle’s, Nicene) and confessions (Canons of Dort, Heidelberg, Westminster, Belgian) that people are taught. Generally, they are written in “question and answer” format and they are used as basic instruction for the Protestant faiths. What passes for Protestant today is really non-denominational and lacks any formalized confession of faith or catechism. As for the relation between Marx and Christianity, they both appeal to a brotherhood of man mantra. They both assume universal standards of justice and behavior and advocate a way to best uphold those assumptions. So does universal ethnonationalism. Christianity makes no appeal to any “brotherhood” of man. It does draw a distinction between the elect and the non-elect, but it does not seek to abolish all other distinctions. So from my vantage point when I see Marxists and Christians both running around the world advocating one standard of ethics for the various species, the similarity between the two ideologies seems obvious. Well, you are certainly being logically consistent Lewis was a leftwing-Christian. The genesis of lefty dogma, within Christianity, is ecumenicalism. And Lewis’s ‘Mere Christianity’ is certainly ecumenical. Left-wing Catholic. 100% agreed. He was attacking the problem of modernism from a philosophical angle. He is like a moderately Christian Richard Weaver or something. They aren’t superior. Sorry, that wasn’t exactly directed at you. Should have been more clear. So what is Cambria really saying… I shall direct him to the post and ask. I’ve never taken that position. That also, was directed to the whole of MR. We can’t have it both ways was all I was getting at. Plato was almost a monotheist in some respects, same goes for Odysseus. There is always a “head” god, or god of gods in our ancient religions as well. Monotheism is the bane of Civilization… Don’t hold back now 38
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:41 | # Here is ‘a religious image’ to warm the heart of every true believer, viz., the sight of Jews and their Christian spiritual cognates sharing premises, in New Hampshire, for the joint worship of that old established family firm of Yahweh & Son Inc. 40
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:49 | #
Well I didn’t say they were Marxists. I said that the descendants of the Puritans became the most liberal group in America. Yes, tragically there were .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) as well. Fortunately their notions of equality were as short lived as they were.
I didn’t get that from it. The various maps he used to show how groups clustered in Britain and then here and how their political views remained consistent along with their cultural/religious views seemed overtly ethnic in his writing.
20% based on surnames maybe.
The industrial Revolution isn’t exactly something to be proud about. The abolitionists did agitate against southerners. The Yankees despised southerners from the get-go and saw in slavery an opportunity to demonize them to such an extent as to morally justify an unjustifiable war in 1861. The absolute best and most accurate description I’ve ever heard for that war, is that it is when the Yankees invaded America. And I’d hardly call transcendentalism a footnote to history. I’d say the majority of Americans today could be called transcendentalists in their ill defined beliefs.
Ohhhhhh! We call that a ‘Statement of Faith’ round these here parts. Some churches have them, most don’t now days. But I would say that every church has to really be non-denominational since each church is local. And then not everyone agrees on interpretation of scripture which causes them to branch off. Loads of fun, that Bible!
Really? It doesn’t imply Adam was the grandpappy of all people? Paul doesn’t imply that through Adam sin came into the world to all men? It doesn’t refer to believers (of all races) collectively as a body? All it takes is the smallest of notions. If you embrace a religion that says there is one god for all men then you are on the road to multiculturalism and racial amalgamation.
That’s hard to know for sure. The Norse myths were written down by Christian monks who were no doubt anxious to show that the ancients knew “the truth” about the one god yet rejected it.
Hey I actually edit out some of my saltier replies! Just a friendly conversation after all…. 41
Posted by danielj on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:41 | # It doesn’t imply Adam was the grandpappy of all people? You don’t think there was a ‘genetic’ Adam, a common ancestor for all humans? 42
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 13:05 | #
I don’t know. Nobody does. BUT, that wasn’t the point or context though. Adam is a religious figure that pertains to a faith. He is symbolic of the Brotherhood of Man mentality that is endemic in so many Westerners today. Not from a scientific point of view but from a “spiritual” one. To accept that story’s symbolism within the Christian narrative is to embrace multiculturalism. Or at least put you on the road towards accepting it. If you, as a point of faith, believe that the human race has one father then you accept that they are all your brothers and sisters, no? ... 43
Posted by Templar on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 16:22 | # If you, as a point of faith, believe that the human race has one father then you accept that they are all your brothers and sisters, no? Who says accepting your brothers and sisters means you have to let them live in your home? 44
Posted by Templar on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 16:25 | # That’s hard to know for sure. The Norse myths were written down by Christian monks who were no doubt anxious to show that the ancients knew “the truth” about the one god yet rejected it. “No doubt”? You seem to be conjecturing. 45
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 16:48 | #
As regards true West-Central African Negroes on the one hand and True Europeans on the other, this position is impregnable in my view: whites and Negroes are properly classified as distinct species, not distinct races. Notice, by the way, some Jewish academics, perhaps anticipating a wider acknowledgement of this, are starting to dabble in species-denial. I actually predicted this a few years ago: that if it looked as if there were grounds for classifying Negroes and Euros as distinct species, Jewish academics would simply begin to deny the existence of species exactly as they now deny the existence of races, citing clines and so forth. 46
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:16 | #
Who are you more likely to take pity on (who is in the best position to take advantage of you); a stranger you’ve never met and have no connection to at all…...or a brother? Label no man who is not your brother a brother.
Yeah I wasn’t there, so…. .
It’s like their tactic of denying there is any such thing as race, then turning around and saying tha mixed race people are more attractive. They never give up. Getting them to acknowledge a point is like trying to nail jelly to a wall… 47
Posted by danielj on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:39 | # I don’t know. Nobody does. But they know how something came from nothing, how life originated from star dust, they just know that we all have one common ancestor and that we rose out of primordial goo. I know the out of Africa theory is PC prevalent now in Western scientific circles, but the the multi-regional theory has not capitulated yet. It will because atheism leads directly to egalitarianism just like it always has. As I said before I think the differences between the races now is so pronounced that they could be considered different species. They can have kids together, unsterile offspring. BUT, that wasn’t the point or context though. Adam is a religious figure that pertains to a faith. He is symbolic of the Brotherhood of Man mentality that is endemic in so many Westerners today. Not from a scientific point of view but from a “spiritual” one. He was also a real person according to the “spiritual” view. His is symbolic of the fall into sin and some other things but not the Brotherhood of Man. In fact, the very next interesting story in the Bible is the story of two brothers in the flesh where one ends up murdered at the hands of the other. To accept that story’s symbolism within the Christian narrative is to embrace multiculturalism. That’s a big non sequitor good buddy. Or at least put you on the road towards accepting it. Maybe, but so does accepting the “Out of Africa” theory but it doesn’t have any relevance for ethnonationalists because we are drawing distinctions in the present and not projecting our sensitivities backward into the past. If you, as a point of faith, believe that the human race has one father then you accept that they are all your brothers and sisters, no? No. I have one real sister on this Earth. She is also the offspring of my parents and that is the defining characteristic of brothers and sisters - that they too are the offspring of your parents. You can have brothers and sisters in Christ that are not your brothers and sisters in the flesh if that is what you are getting at. 48
Posted by danielj on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:43 | #
Templar, you should know by now that the only thing not subject to inevitable interpolation, data manipulation, misinterpretation, outside influence and corruption are the double-blind studies of well funded atheist materialists. 49
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:53 | #
That’s what we’re taught in high-school biology, Daniel, but it turns out “unsterile offspring” is not a criterion. Get into any web literature on the subject and read up on it. Wiki discusses it, John Hawks does, lots do. You can read Ernst Mayer’s papers on it from as recently as the 1990s incorporating modern developments (he was the XXth Century’s leading theoretician on the biological “species” concept). In another thread at this site — it might have been the one for the log entry on the film “300” if memory serves — I posted a few excerpts by Hawks, Mayer, and other articles on this topic. in that thread Andy Wooster and someone else came at me with the “unsterile offspring” thing. They weren’t aware that has completely fallen by the wayside if indeed it was ever a criterion in the first place. 50
Posted by Templar on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:00 | # Who are you more likely to take pity on (who is in the best position to take advantage of you); a stranger you’ve never met and have no connection to at all…...or a brother? That’s a bit of an odd question. From a Christian perspective, the stranger IS my brother, but a brother does not necessarily have a moral claim to my labour and resources. Your slippery slope argument regarding the concept of Christian brotherhood seems rather questionable as well. You could use the same logic to argue that pan-European white solidarity is likewise an embrace of multiculturalism, or at least the first steps on the road towards accepting it. 51
Posted by Templar on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:04 | # Templar, you should know by now that the only thing not subject to inevitable interpolation, data manipulation, misinterpretation, outside influence and corruption are the double-blind studies of well funded atheist materialists. Ah yes, of course. 52
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:37 | #
They don’t know that. I suppose their guess is as good as anybodys’.....Old Moses included.
Knew that one was coming….
Yep, Abel sure was rewarded for his dutiful service to the Almighty there! But, your point is????
The past….like where Adam is? The past bleeds into the present. And right now the Christian past of Europe is acting like a millstone around our collective necks.
So if you had to choose between your Christian brothers and sisters (the whole multiracial bunch of em) on the one hand and your atheist and pagan (all) White brothers and sisters on the other hand, how would you choose?
Exactly!
Yes you could. But minus the religious context as it pertains to “salvation” in personal faith, it’s much easier to draw a line or lines. But even here the conversation isn’t just about one big happy White family. Ideally we’d like to preserve ethnic distinctions as well. .... ... 53
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:43 | #
Here’s the log entry I meant: Unfortunately those particular comments of mine in that thread which I was referring to above have all vanished. (A few others by me remain.) I just scrolled through the long thread looking for the comments I remember posting, ones quoting Ernst Mayer and J. Hawks as well as articles from Wiki and elsewhere, plus comments going into greater detail about my own reasoning on the species issue. You can tell where my comments were by the people arguing against me (mostly on the “middle page” of comments): Andy Wooster, “gnxp stinks” (= JWH), “Bohnson Jailey” — they’re responding to me, arguing against me, but the comments of mine which they’re responding to are no longer there. (There are a few comments of mine on the “third comments page,” but those aren’t the “meatier” ones I refer to, just a few odds and ends I posted as after-thoughts.) (What happened to my posts in that thread? Maybe this: Recently when GW deleted some porn posted by a Jewish troll, he accidentally also deleted a few just-posted comments by both me and Friedrich Braun, as well as a just-posted log entry by James Bowery. Part of this unintended deletion [the part that involved comments of mine posted just minutes earlier and of course signed by me] may have had to do with the porn poster signing one of his porn posts with my pen name, so GW gave the software instructions to delete those particular comments signed “Fred Scrooby.” If that was the mechanism of the deletion of my comments in that instance, the same mechanism might have “gone back in time” and deleted an unknown amount of my commentary in older threads.) Anyway, you can get into the relevant literature on species by browsing the web and going wherever the links take you. Again, the “unfertile offspring” thing isn’t a criterion. 54
Posted by Templar on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 19:28 | #
You seem at a loss to refute it nonetheless…
It seems more like the (post) Christian present is doing the millstone bit, actually.
I’d choose my white atheist and pagan brothers, as my ethnic kinsmen have obvious need of the light of Christ in their lives. My multiracial fellow Christians can look after their own unconverted co-ethnics.
Yes, but not necessarily the way you seem to think.
Again, that seems rather doubtful, if the history of various European nations selling each other out to the Turks for temporary gain is any indication.
A worthy goal, but ethnic distinctions have not, to the best of my knowledge, historically been the source of positive contributions towards pan-continental European solidarity. Lacking a single unvaried “European” white ethnicity and culture, it makes much more sense to utilize a shared Christian heritage than to discard it out of pique. 55
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:11 | #
It’s sunday and I’m tired and it was a joke in regards to his “no you are” type argument. If he lays out an example of how atheism leads to egalitarianism I’ll reply.
Knew that was coming. See how that joke works…
Isn’t there something about not serving two masters in the Bible there? “Let your yes be yes and no be no”. “Choose this day who you will serve”..... so on and so forth…. ???
Yeah, no system is perfect. I guess none of the Crusaders ever screwed one another over. And the Catholic and Protestant brothers never raised a hand to one another. See, this can go forever in circles. We try to learn from the mistakes of the past. We are practically starting over now in this current mess. When you find yourself lost in a deathzone you don’t keep consulting the directions that got you there to begin with.
Cause Europeans never fought each other when they were Christian??? We’re in a great conflict now, the battle of the ages, and one side will be permanently crippled when all is said and done. One side will, after defeat, wither away from history. In the end they will be no more. One side is White, the other side is all else. We may win. We may loose. As for our possible future, There will never be a lack of war. War is with us forever. Ideally though, at the end of the day, no matter who loses a particular (hypothetical future) battle, the winner will always be White. .... 56
Posted by Templar on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:46 | #
Okay….
How, exactly?
Yes. There’s also something about the recognition of valid temporal authority, interestingly enough.
Yes, no system is perfect, so why attempt to demolish a perfectly servicable one lately fallen into a state of disrepair, just to attempt the construction of an entirely new and uncertain edifice? Why not condemn and tear down the white race for the uses to which it has been put by those without its best interests at heart, to raise up a new and purportedly improved breed of man?
You can’t blame a map if you read it incorrectly.
You seem to have missed my point. Europeans fought each other before they were Christians, after they became Christians and would presumably continue to find reasons to fight were they to cease to be Christians. That a Christian heritage is something that all the disparate European peoples have in common is a useful rallying point.
And if whites emerge the victors from this Darwinian death-match, presumably their various ethnic constituents will begin to compete just as savagely amongst themselves for land and resources, there being no one else to fight with, but that’s really beyond the scope of the arguments I’ve made.
That much, at least, we can agree on. 57
Posted by danielj on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 21:10 | # If he lays out an example of how atheism leads to egalitarianism I’ll reply. It was one part of the motto of the militantly atheist Frenchmen during their revolution and modern American society is the other example where atheistic secular humanism reigns. Do you know what the War of the Vendee was? I’m just hoping we WN’s can avoid that or any kind of forced Puritanism or second Inquisition should we be successful. I’m for a united front and as a pan-European racialist I’d rather we all fought together under the same banner. I suppose their guess is as good as anybodys’.....Old Moses included. That is the most honest thing I’ve ever heard on the subject in a long time and I appreciate it, even it was a throwaway line. Yep, Abel sure was rewarded for his dutiful service to the Almighty there! But, your point is???? I didn’t have one apparently. Although, the point of the story (it is a parable in addition to a historical truth) is Cain offered the fruit of his own labors whereas Abel offered an innocent substitute which was a picture of Christ. Our own works are filthy rags unable to do any good in getting us to God. So if you had to choose between your Christian brothers and sisters (the whole multiracial bunch of em) on the one hand and your atheist and pagan (all) White brothers and sisters on the other hand, how would you choose? False dichotomy and logical fallacy. In addition, you didn’t really define your terms. If by choose, you mean live with, I think my presence at MR testifies that I want to live amongst my kind. The fields are white and ready to harvest Ideally we’d like to preserve ethnic distinctions as well. Ideally… But, as I said, I would settle for one big country for all of us, or continent (Europe) if we had to. FRED: Thanks for the info, but my main point was that the criteria for “species” is subjective as is all of taxonomy. We can classify things however we want because there is no objective metric, just consensus. 58
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 22:29 | #
Well, that’s certainly how the Jewish academics are going to go about denying species when the time comes (and how all the goyische Kopfs are going to fall for their sophistries hook line and sinker) but your statement that species classification and taxonomy are subjective is fundamentally untrue, in the sense that one is under a certain degree of logical constraint to adopt the rules or, if one is consistent in rejecting them, render existence itself incoherent. When you look out on the world you see trees, sky, clouds, sidwalks, houses, people, children, cars, dogs, telephone poles, lawns, airplanes, etc., and your mind’s classification of all these into the categories they belong in isn’t arbitrary if the world we inhabit is going to make sense and be something we can live in and deal with. They’re common sense. There are common-sense grounds for saying a porpoise isn’t a fish though it looks and swims like one and lives its life in the ocean, or a bat isn’t a bird though it looks and flies like one and lives its life in the air. If you reject those ultimately common-sense rules for classifying fishes, porpoises, bats, and birds and are consistent about it, you’ll make life unliveable for yourself. Anyone’s free to reject anything he wants. You can reject hotness and go around grabbing red-hot pieces of metal with your bare hand if you want, or you can reject coldness and go around jumping naked into snowbanks and ice-choked rivers, or you can reject height and go around jumping off cliffs, or you can reject collisions and go around stepping in front of eighteen-wheel tractor-trailer trucks doing 70mph, or you can reject the difference between arms and wings, or lungs and gills, and go around jumping off roofs while flapping your arms or jumping into the ocean and breathing in the seawater. You can reject all those common-sense rules and see how far it gets you in real life. Taxonomy is no different, ultimately: the same rules apply. 59
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 22:40 | # The take-home point is the Jewish academics aren’t going to stop at race-denial. If getting Euros miscegenated will require tricking them with species-denial sophistries they’ll do that too, without a moment’s hesistation. Put yourself in the Jew’s place: the name of the game as far as you’re concerned is, first, last, and always, getting Euros race-mixed. Surely you’re not going to shrink from a paltry little thing like a species-denial word game, are you? Especially when goy morons the likes of C. Loring Brace who fall for the stuff are a dime a dozen out there. 60
Posted by Templar on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 00:20 | #
Ah, I should have caught that… 61
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:34 | # One of the most interesting features of many modern atheists is their far-left liberalism which is but a poisonous, equality - seeking, wretched -of the-earth venerating residue of Christianity. So, having given Jesus the finger, an atheist of this sorry stripe then imagines that he has liberated his mind and jettisoned generations of irrational cultural baggage. In fact, he has simply continued in the error of irrational belief, as in the ‘blessed -are-the-poor, blessed - are - the peacemakers guff (but not, of course, belief in the arrant nonsense’s Semitic promulgator) and is working hard to ensure the progress of those quintessentially social Marxist ideals. 62
Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:39 | # Well, that’s certainly how the Jewish academics are going to go about denying species when the time comes Denying that species exist and debating about how to properly classify them are two different things and obviously I’ll participate in the latter behavior. but your statement that species classification and taxonomy are subjective is fundamentally untrue, in the sense that one is under a certain degree of logical constraint to adopt the rules or, if one is consistent in rejecting them, render existence itself incoherent. Now you sound like the Jew, Ayn Rand There are common-sense grounds for saying a porpoise isn’t a fish though it looks and swims like one and lives its life in the ocean, or a bat isn’t a bird though it looks and flies like one and lives its life in the air. If you reject those ultimately common-sense rules for classifying fishes, porpoises, bats, and birds and are consistent about it, you’ll make life unliveable for yourself. There is not one good reason to classify a porpoise one way or another. Pretend for a second there are no such things as ‘fish’ and then pretend that we classify everything that swims in salt water as one race, or phylum, or whatever. It makes just as much sense, if not more. Similarity is in the eye of the beholder. Watermelons and clouds are both 92% water after all. It all depends on our arbitrarily selected set of criteria. It seems to me, that all things that fly should be classified as one taxonomic unit as well. That the standards are arbitrary is not an argument for the elimination of standards so when the Jew tells me it is I’ll tell him his is fallaciously engaging the subject and that one does not necessarily follow the other. (and that he is an asshole) 64
Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:44 | # One of the most interesting features of many modern atheists is their far-left liberalism which is but a poisonous, equality - seeking, wretched -of the-earth venerating residue of Christianity. I would say it is ironic, but then I would be partially attributing blame to religion which is in no way responsible for the behavior of these folk. 65
Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:47 | # If you insist, Daniel. It isn’t like that Fred. I wasn’t trying to be a contrary asshole. I’m just saying I don’t see what “objective” standard we appeal to when classifying things. Number of Chromosomes? Types of lenses used in vision? Wings? Dorsal fins? I’m willing to allow blacks are a different species, we just need to come up with the standard of how to put them there. 66
Posted by Templar on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:51 | #
I wouldn’t call that “interesting” so much as “obvious”. Mere disbelief in a deity does not generate with it a coherent moral philosophy, so these poor fellows are left to either cling parasitically to (some of) the laws of the god they renounced belief in or espouse a Darwinian dog-eat-dog ethic. 67
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:54 | # Daniel, I never thought you were being “contrary.” I only meant I wasn’t going to argue with you about the basics, ones you indicated you were prepared to argue about. I’ll give you the last word, if there’s more to add. (By the way, I’m under no illusions as to anyone else’s agreeing with my view that Negroes are a distinct species of human from Euros. I expect zero comrades will agree with me on that, and close to all will consider me some kind of oddball for saying it. That certainly won’t keep me from expressing my view of the obvious truth of the matter, though. I’m not trolling for converts to the idea. I’m getting the idea on record as the truth according to one participant, namely me. That’s all.) 68
Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:57 | # That certainly won’t keep me from expressing my view of the obvious truth of the matter, though. If we classify human kind according to group standards there are easily ways we could relegate them to the status of a different species. I’m arguing about the procedure, not the general point you are making. 69
Posted by Eman on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 04:40 | # Children of any race are born irreligious, even atheists. In other words, society imposes religions and other ‘moral systems’ upon them as they grow older. Newborns of White/European descent do not have a predisposition toward Christianity any more than Tibetan newborns are born with Buddhist traits, or Japanese babies with Shinto genes. 70
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 07:18 | #
And that would be?...
Christianity was only a vaguely dominant POLITICAL force through out all of Europe for a few centuries. Of the tens of thousands of years our people and their civilization has been in existence, Christianity’s imprint in The West is rather obscure. That it’s precepts effected the thinking of Westerners is undeniable. But let’s not over sell it. Being “a Christian” is whatever any individual chooses it to be. It has no edifice, no structure, no recognizable traits that distinguish it from the landscape other than its monotheistice -we are the world- mentality which it shares, in degrees, with judaism and islam. It’s principles represent the best and worst of Western thought.
Did I say map?
Do you realize what you just wrote there?
Well one would hope that they’d do their best to live in peace, but like I said, war is a constant. That’s life.
And upon what basis did these secular humanists derive their principles? From whence would come such a notion of “brotherhood of man”? What doctrine or ideology fostered such thinking? Did egalitarian secular humanism develop in a vacuum? Did Darwin embrace equality?
Lovely sentiment. What was that Nietzsche wrote about a slave mentality or something?
Is it really necessary for me to lay out a whole scenario? Do you honestly not know what I’m getting at with the question? 71
Posted by White Western Man on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 09:01 | # Race is MUCH deeper than religion - the various races of humankind are tens of thousands of years old while even the oldest known religions have been around (at most) only a few thousand years. Thus, race trumps religion by a long shot - and for every racialist this should be obvious. Does your loyalty first lie with the White race, or with Jesus the Jew? About the only human trait deeper or more basic than race is gender - but besides that racial concerns should clearly take precedence over religious issues because of the primality of race as compared to religion. Race is literally in our blood so - it is a literal part of us whilst religion is something rather subjective which is imposed upon a person or a group by outside forces. People can reject the religion they were born in to , or convert to a new one, but a person can never change their race or ethnicity. I repeat: race trumps religion by a long shot - and for every racialist this should be obvious. Does your loyalty first lie with the White race, or with Jesus the Jew? 72
Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:59 | # And upon what basis did these secular humanists derive their principles? From whence would come such a notion of “brotherhood of man”? What doctrine or ideology fostered such thinking? Did egalitarian secular humanism develop in a vacuum? Did Darwin embrace equality? So it is religion’s fault? That is fucking ridiculous. Anybody that is zealous now can have their flaws blamed on religion. It came about as a result of the abandonment of God. If you wanna play this game we can say that Christianity didn’t come about in a vacuum and blame its flaws on the paganism that preceded it. Maybe it is just White genes that foster the ideology? (Darwin wasn’t around in the 1790’s!) Race is MUCH deeper than religion - the various races of humankind are tens of thousands of years old while even the oldest known religions have been around (at most) only a few thousand years. Obviously, I don’t believe that race is older than religion. I believe the White race is younger than my religion, but that doesn’t mean race isn’t deep. Thus, race trumps religion by a long shot - and for every racialist this should be obvious. Does your loyalty first lie with the White race, or with Jesus the Jew? Race definitely effects the way religion is expressed but they are two different kinds of loyalty. You are presenting me with a false choice. Do you honestly not know what I’m getting at with the question? Yes I know what you are getting at and I’m not an ethics professor so I don’t have an answer right now but that is stupidly reductionist thinking. How would we even end up in that scenario? What if there was only food enough for one and there was a White kid there who was younger, smarter and more promising than me? 73
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:08 | # Keep calm, danielj. Always remember that you’ve conquered Death and we atheists havent. 74
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:22 | #
As I’ve said before (even in this very thread I believe) Christianity was the creation of cross between Greek thought and Roman politics. The worst of two worlds gave birth to a bastard child.
Kinda my point. Darwinian evolution is different from simply saying, as atheists do, that there is no god.
It’s about where a persons loyalties ultimately are. Christians see themselves as eventually being in “paradise” with all the other Christians, be they black, brown, yellow or any hideous combination thereof. We heathen Whites are just temporary allies to Christian Whites, are we not? Just transient, material, comrades who will be left behind when the Christian White enters the multi-racial Heaven with his fellow Christians. Is not the Christian a pilgrim here? A Stranger in a Strange land? Where, ultimately, is the Christian’s heart then? Heaven or Earth?
Our (the White race’s) kingdom, Danielj, is very much of this material world and this material world alone. ... 75
Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:56 | # Kinda my point. Darwinian evolution is different from simply saying, as atheists do, that there is no god. Sorry. I didn’t make my point clearer. Darwin would have been egalitarian had he been there and the subtitle of his opus would have been much different. Just to quibble, there is no such thing as Darwinian evolution anyway since he was wrong about everything. I suppose neo-Darwinian is an appropriate term but those folk are thoroughly egalitarian. It’s about where a persons loyalties ultimately are. Materialists don’t believe in ultimacy so it shouldn’t matter to my comrades either way where my ultimate loyalties are, but where my proximate loyalties are. Indeed, all of our earthly loyalties are temporary since they are extinguished with one’s passing. 76
Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:04 | #
I am calm. Are you trying to goad me? I don’t lay my head to rest with a smugly satisfied smile on my face at night secure in that knowledge. I love my people and it saddens me almost to despair to think of our condition and I don’t think it necessarily stems from the loss of Christianity. Everybody thinks they have the truth but only insecure assholes think they are smarter than others and lord it over them like tiny Napoleonic emperors of truth. 77
Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:07 | # I love my people and it saddens me almost to despair to think of our condition and I don’t think it necessarily stems from the loss of Christianity. That should say I don’t think the loss of Christianity is either a necessary or sufficient condition for the creation of the situation we are in. It doesn’t have to be this way under an atheistic or secular humanistic regime but it is and I’m not blaming religion or the lack thereof - the bell tolls for us, but we are the idiots ringing it! The loss of Christianity is an unrelated and tangential issue in my book, but one that I care about deeply. 78
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:08 | #
That’s highly speculative. Most Neo-Darwinists are currently busy trying to “clean up” the racial implications of Darwin’s work. But the real heritage Darwin left us was his articulation of the concept of Survival of the Fittest.
It’s a matter of divided loyalties though. Where the heart is. If Christianity were born exclusively in Europe and presented a dogma of faith which unquestionably excluded all non-Whites from the possibility of membership, then I’d give it no mind in terms to its status as friend or foe. As it is, it’s a concern.
We achieve immortality through the act of reproduction and leaving those offspring the same Civilization which our fathers left to us. We find salvation and everlasting life in our children, not in invisible sky spirits. ... 79
Posted by Templar on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:09 | #
That sounds like a rather difficult claim to quantify. 80
Posted by Templar on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:29 | #
“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, obviously. St. Paul makes it explicit in Romans 13:1-2 stating “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.”
Christianity has been a compelling force, political or otherwise, for nearly two millenia. The effect of the imprint of it on the mind of Western man and his culture cannot be understated.
Post-modernist nonsense. What defines a Christian was established by the early fathers of the Church and taught by the authority of Rome.
Now you’re just being silly.
Oh please. If you’re going to challenge my metaphor, at least do it in a straight-forward fashion. Splitting hairs like this is just sad.
I do not think it means what you think it means. 81
Posted by Templar on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:38 | #
No, we don’t. Our offspring, however numerous or succesful, provide only a temporary stay of execution for our legacies as the sun grows dim and the universe slips slowly into entropy. Ultimately, there can be no salvation in materialism. 82
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:40 | # ”Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, obviously. St. Paul makes it explicit in Romans 13:1-2 stating “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” Posted by Templar on March 09, 2009, 02:38 PM . How to interpret it though http://www.vdare.com/baldwin/090227_romans13.htm
I was speaking of it in relation to Europe. Yeah it was big in parts of middle-east and Africa for a while, but it didn’t reach the whole of Europe till, when?, around the 13th or 14th century. And just a few centuries after that it was beginning to be discreted there. And we’ll never know what percentage of dark age Europeans took it to heart. You know, those who drew near to him with their lips but their hearts were far from him. If you take Jesus as a reputable source in terms of a faith you’d be forced to concede that only a very small percentage were Christian (having chose that narrow gate).
There are several hundred million protestants who might disagree…
I said directions because I was referring to the Bible. It’s a text. And if you can’t read (and don’t actually have that text in your own hands) you’re at the mercy of ambitious “teachers”.
And what do I think it means ... 83
Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:41 | # But the real heritage Darwin left us was his articulation of the concept of Survival of the Fittest. Yes, strange that a silly tautology is passed off as insightful… It’s a matter of divided loyalties though. Where the heart is. If Christianity were born exclusively in Europe and presented a dogma of faith which unquestionably excluded all non-Whites from the possibility of membership, then I’d give it no mind in terms to its status as friend or foe. As it is, it’s a concern. So we set up racial requirements for church membership a la the Orthodox branches and force other Christian minorities that remain during transition to do the same. Divided loyalties are a wonderful source for Shakespearean style tragedy but I don’t think we have to worry about them imposing negatively upon our everyday politics under a nationalist regime in regards to religion any more than we would have to worry about various White ethnic loyalties presenting a challenge to White racial loyalty. In fact, the ethnicity question is a far larger source of potential turmoil. We, as Whites, should never get into the sort of trouble you describe in the lifeboat situation should we ever gain political power. You, trying to force my position into logical absurdity by ideological hair splitting - which you’ve framed with scenarios that do not exist now and that probably will not exist under an theistic or atheistic (both regimes, hopefully tolerant of metaphysical and religious dissent) nationalist regime and don’t affect the overall thrust and specific concerns of my worldview - is queer behavior that is making me want to psychologize your motivation which I will refrain from doing and instead continue to accept you at your word, which is, terror at the prospect that I might betray the as-of-yet future revolution. Christianity cannot be both simultaneously a feminized, Judaical, harmless dove of a religion and bane of the western world and devilish specter hanging like a guillotine over our collective head. If it is such a weak thing, incapable of withstanding the onslaught of modernity, than there is nothing to worry about when it lives and is practice by a modicum of us under an assertive White regime which is explicitly racialist. Hopefully, we, as Whites, never get into a scenario where ethnic loyalties present us with the challenge of divided loyalties. It is worrisome because I find it to have much greater potential for pushing us into the trap you describe than metaphysical disunity. I think investment of our energy in this much greater source of strife would offer greater returns than quibbling over Christianity. But, as I said, it’s important to me [I’m glad it rained today. I never get to be on MR during the day] 84
Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:44 | # That sounds like a rather difficult claim to quantify It also sound suspiciously close to the doctrine of tabula rasa which usually draws the ire of kinds like us. However, when the doctrine is used to do disservice to those of us with the faith gene, I suppose it becomes a useful tool in the arsenal of the atheist materialist 85
Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:50 | # If you take Jesus as a reputable source in terms of a faith you’d be forced to concede that only a very small percentage were Christian (having chose that narrow gate). They were and are. I think you are right. The people that are only nominally Christian should stop pretending and the rulers of a White nationalist regime shouldn’t have to, nor do I want them to, pander to a tiny minority of us. I simply want to avoid being slaughtered wholesale and left with a certain degree of educational latitude, local political autonomy, religious freedom, etc. I’ve cast my lot, but I put no faith in any princes… even if they are White. 86
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:51 | #
Once you accept that there is nothing but the material, you find true salvation in it. And it is a very grounded, real, physical salvation, redemption etc… how ever you wish to phrase it. It’s the blood that runs in our veins. And it’s thousands of years old. And may it continue, materially, for thousands of years yet to come. ... 87
Posted by Templar on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:28 | #
Could you elaborate?
So was I.
The “whole of Europe” seems somewhat disingenuous. Most of Western Europe was Christian by the 5th century, and the Germanic tribesmen who constituted the barbarian invasions of the late Roman Empire were themselves mostly Christian. The most populous, wealthy and culturally-influential areas, in other words.
Yes, France, Germany and England had only been Christian for “a few centuries” by the time bored intellectuals got around to chafing against its constraints.
In other words, we can’t bring it up as a factor one way or the other.
As danielj said, why not?
With the idea that a Christian is whatever an individual “believer” wants to be? I rather doubt that.
Hence my map metaphor.
Hence the Catholic Church’s insistence on a teaching authority beyond sola scriptura.
Something other than what you think it means, apparently. 88
Posted by Templar on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:33 | #
“Delusion” seems appropriate.
And yet, at the end, it amounts to little more than sound and fury, signifying nothing. 89
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:41 | #
Insightful because it’s true. Tautology? It was spoken by man of The West, reared in “Christendom”!
Please tell me your not serious!!!!
I didn’t present a “lifeboat situation”. I was mocking the idea that you were, indirectly, forcing me into creating one and making simple point more complicated than it need be. You read situational ethics into a place where it was not presented.
Dainielj, YOU weren’t the center of thread nor my comments. I thought it was clear that we are talking in general terms. As for “psychologizing” my motivations, well, that’s a two way street I suppose. It’s a petty little slanderous street to go down, but do as you feel wisest.
Well at the risk of having you “psychologizing” my query…..do Christian ethics make it easier for the poor, sick and homless non-Whites of the world appeal to White sympathies?
Well the sour tone this conversation has taken would seem to disprove that. ... 90
Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:53 | # Insightful because it’s true. Tautology? It was spoken by man of The West, reared in “Christendom”! Which animals are the fittest? The ones that survive. Tautology I didn’t present a “lifeboat situation”. I was mocking the idea that you were, indirectly, forcing me into creating one and making simple point more complicated than it need be. You read situational ethics into a place where it was not presented. Oh. Sorry. So the point is, why would I ever have to choose between my ultimate and proximate loyalties? Dainielj, YOU weren’t the center of thread nor my comments. I thought it was clear that we are talking in general terms. As for “psychologizing” my motivations, well, that’s a two way street I suppose. It’s a petty little slanderous street to go down, but do as you feel wisest. I know. I’m not upset at all. I’m engaged and quite happy to discuss. I didn’t mean “psychologizing” in a sinister and negative way but now that I read it, it definitely sounds that way. I’m just wondering if your hostility stems from there or if you really protest so much based on your stated considerations. I apologize for sound like an ass. Christian ethics make it easier for the poor, sick and homless non-Whites of the world appeal to White sympathies? All those terms are metaphors! Poor, means spiritually impoverished and sick means spiritually wasting. It is a theological issue that you are translating into a social issue much like the modern day, liberal theologian. Christ is concerned with salvation, not material advancement. So, the roundabout answer, is not in proper context but it could just like Darwinism could out of context. For instance, if we accept that Negros are somehow less because of genetics we could just as easily - in an atheistic moral framework - fall victim to caring for the lesser out of concern that some form of human species vanish off the Earth due to its own poor fitness. Think Panda bears here. Well the sour tone this conversation has taken would seem to disprove that. I’m very sorry. I don’t mean to come across that way and I’ll try to fix that. 91
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:05 | #
There are different ways of interpreting Romans 13. The KJV uses the phrase ‘Higher Powers’ which can mean everything from a king to Satan. From a biblical point of view, we are indeed subject to higher powers, up to and including the angles, God, the forces of nature etc… So the text isn’t necessarily about obeying a king, priest or what have you. As for rendering unto Caesar. The other part of that verse is, and render unto God the things that are Gods. Since everything belongs to God, nothing is Caesars. That’s the rub of it. But there’s more to it.
5th Century seems kinda early. Like real early. But never-the-less Western Europe is not the whole of Europe.
Well, okay. As I indicated, those three countries hardly constitute the whole of The West.
A factor in what? If we are discussing the present ethics which many Whites defer to in their support for universally applied morals, then yeah….we can bring it up.
Well, let’s look at it again.
You are saying Europeans fight before, during and after being Christian, but being Christian is a rallying point for Europeans. That doesn’t strike you as somewhat circular? 92
Posted by Templar on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:33 | #
From a Catholic point of view, I believe it is. The point of the passage was to remind the early Christians that becoming a follower of Christ did not absolve one of culpability to earthly law, where it did not conflict with one’s duty to God.
Incorrect. God has created everything, but as danielj pointed out above, God is concerned with moral and spiritual matters, not material ones, which are under the custodianship of Casear, metaphorically speaking.
I didn’t say it was. My point is that the longest-Christianized areas tend to lead the way materially and philosophically,
They might as well, for all intents and purposes, though I’d throw in Italy as well.
How, exactly? Your position on the matter appears to be “we can never really know”, so it would appear that something we can never really know the truth of one way or the other is not going to be of much use in definitively establishing one interpretation over another.
You’re saying it strikes you as being circular? Doesn’t that seem a bit obtuse? 93
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:57 | # The question should not be whether my statement is annoying and goads you, danielj, but whether it is true. It must surely be true, for if Christians do not believe they’ve conquered Death then there seems little point to admitting belief in a flying Jesus who, according to Luke, took off from the Mount of Olives. Old Luke, in his second telling of the Ascension tale (Acts) adds the welcoming clouds and talking angels. Well, when your touting a new sect you need to add some pizzaz. 94
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:13 | #
What I meant was that the phrase runs counter intuitive to everything Christ taught. For Darwin, and his readers, being emerged in Christian culture all their lives, the phrase would not be obvious. The very notion would run contrary to the Christian worldview.
I really don’t know how else to put it…...maybe a Lord of the Rings analogy. It’s all I can think of off hand. Put it this way, Suppose the Elves go to war on the Fellowship of the Ring. Where does Legolas place his loyalty? His people or the brotherhood he has pledged to? That’s a bad example I know. The context is much larger than that though, as non-Christians are the bad guys. So how would that figure into the heart of a Christian.
That’s okay.
I was speaking more of real everyday poor and homeless. I know what Jesus meant in Matthew. But He did go beyond that. Feeding the crowds fish and bread was as real as it is symbolic in regards to how Christians see his mercy to the hungry. Most Christians see themselves as Jesus handing out loaves to the starving non-Whites. For instance, if we accept that Negros are somehow less because of genetics we could just as easily - in an atheistic moral framework - fall victim to caring for the lesser out of concern that some form of human species vanish off the Earth due to its own poor fitness. Finally!!! The question before all of us, is how will our moral ideals and principles (Christian or Atheistic) potentially prejudice us towards either our salvation or destruction as a race. That is a big, relevant, subject before us that is rather delicate and complex. . If you want to know a little of where I might be coming from, when I was a kid all the local churches were passing around those ‘Thief in the Night’ films. Ever see those?
That’s where I’m coming from in regards to Christianity… .. 95
Posted by Templar on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:18 | #
I don’t see how that works. Either your statement was intended as a patronizing attempt at aggravation or it betrayed a fundamental ignorance of Christian thought regarding non-Christians. 96
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:19 | # Templar, I have to go do some work now. I’ll reply to you later, maybe tomorrow, if you still want to continue the discussion… ... 97
Posted by Templar on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:37 | #
Their Christian worldview would have presumably been limited to the affairs of Mankind. After all, Tennyson’s In Memoriam A.H.H. with its evocation of nature “red in tooth and claw” predates the publication of On the Origin of Species by a full decade and the concept of the savage, lawless natural world surely have existed in the Western consciousness long before that.
On the other hand, those being fed were in fact Jesus’s own people, ethnically and culturally speaking, not a multiracial grab-bag of ethnicities specially imported for the purpose.
Hmm… The Catholic tradition I’m coming from is more invested in shades of grey, or at least that’s how I perceive it. The much more stringent believer/non-believer dichotomy you refer to might be a result of the Reformation and the pressing political need to demonize the Roman Church to achieve legitimacy, or maybe it’s just the post-Vatican II Catholic milieu messing with my perceptions. 98
Posted by Templar on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:39 | #
Heh, don’t we all?
I’ll be there, limited as my intellectual offerings may be. 99
Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:58 | # The question should not be whether my statement is annoying and goads you, danielj, but whether it is true. I addressed it. I said that someone else conquering death, on my behalf, does not fill me with a sense of smug and self-righteous satisfaction. Despite my asking if you were baiting me or not, I still answered the question. Additionally, my concern for the truth is what motivates my desire to get to the bottom of human origins and their teleological end point, if there is an endpoint. If an argument that comes along that I find convincing I will abandon my theism and cease proselytizing. What I meant was that the phrase runs counter intuitive to everything Christ taught. For Darwin, and his readers, being emerged in Christian culture all their lives, the phrase would not be obvious. The very notion would run contrary to the Christian worldview. Firstly, I’m not sure that the phrase would not have been disputed on rational grounds with religious considerations being only of secondary importance. Secondly, and this is simply a technicality, Darwin didn’t coin the phrase. Thirdly, Malthus was a clergyman and understood the idea well enough to write on social Darwinism and he preceded Darwin. The idea seems natural to me from my vantage point (still tautological and incorrect) but I would need to read firsthand responses from the popular religious culture to gauge their own feelings. Does it run contrary to the principles in the Christian worldview, or does something inherent in Christian teaching prohibit the idea of social Darwinism? I’m tempted to say “yea and nay” as the short answer. The wisdom literature is filled with proverbs expounding upon the value of thrift and hard work and an ‘only the strong and wise’ survive the storms of life type of attitude. The book of Job provides and interesting take on Stoicism in the face of a lack of understanding God’s decretive will and how it relates to suffering. It seems to imply that one should get up when knocked down, shake the dirt off and redouble one’s efforts in the face of adversity and struggle instead of railing at the heavens. The context is much larger than that though, as non-Christians are the bad guys. So how would that figure into the heart of a Christian. I tried to make it clear that it was a highly unlikely scenario and that we won’t have to worry about it. But suppose, myself being just about equal parts French Canadian, Sicilian, and Scots-Irish that I’m forced to choose between the Meds and the Northerners? Or the French and the Italians? How likely are we going to run into a situation where I’m forced to choose? I’m going to go to war for whoever is in the right if I’m forced to. Finally!!! The question before all of us, is how will our moral ideals and principles (Christian or Atheistic) potentially prejudice us towards either our salvation or destruction as a race. That is a big, relevant, subject before us that is rather delicate and complex. Agreed. I’m working on my end. If you want to know a little of where I might be coming from, when I was a kid all the local churches were passing around those ‘Thief in the Night’ films. Ever see those? Yes. Horrible but effective propaganda. The soundtrack was a terrifying, screeching, dissonant bestial thing. In other words from the Christian viewpoint I know personally, the world is very black and white. There are believers and non-believers. The non-believers willingly whoring after “the beast” and so forth. Thus they are in no way conceivably allies in any context. That’s where I’m coming from in regards to Christianity… Yes, but he who doesn’t love his own is worse than a whoremonger and believers are exhorted to stay with their unbelieving spouses. It is only in black and white for people incapable of living without exact moral certitude and that is a personality flaw anybody is capable of expressing. Materialism doesn’t offer us the black and white either, or it would be, and obviously, it isn’t that way. As you rightly stated above, the order of day is ensuring the preservation of the race and a future for our children. 100
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:08 | # What Christians thought of non-Christians was of considerable importance when the former’s frantic denial of reality and sullen abhorrence of reason adversely affected the day-to-day lives of intelligent Aryans, a situation which, happily, no longer obtains. 101
Posted by Templar on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:26 | #
What denial of reality and abhorence of reason, Al? 102
Posted by danielj on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:53 | # What Christians thought of non-Christians was of considerable importance when the former’s frantic denial of reality and sullen abhorrence of reason adversely affected the day-to-day lives of intelligent Aryans, a situation which, happily, no longer obtains. Can you name a specific group of or some specific individual intelligent Aryans that were unjustly persecuted? For instance, what happened in France in the Vendee after the revolution to religious folk and royalists is an example in the reverse. In any case, it isn’t what they thought of them, but rather as you point out, how they treated them that is the matter under consideration and I’ve already told you what I think and how I wish relations between theists and atheists to remain. Moreover, how atheists Aryans were once treated in your mind in the past by Christians shouldn’t transfer collective guilt onto those of us living in the present. In fact, when WN’s whine about it, they sound like the niggers in America telling us to fill up the measure of our father’s guilt. 103
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:30 | # I’m afraid the assiduously tedious salvation peddlers have begun to bore me and, I suspect, other respecters of observed reality, even more than their febrile ilk customarily succeed in doing. So the answer to questions like how many (Christian) pinheads can dance on an angel must be taken on trust until that glorious day when old Yahweh’s heavenly portals open to receive these two new residents of what may well turn out to be celestial Detroit. 104
Posted by q on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:07 | # Radical homosexuals have the same antipathy towards Christianity as you do, Al. Are you one of them? I, as many who read this, suspect you are. 105
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:35 | # Story telling, more important than people realize. Off-topic: Jobling’s attack on ethnocentrism is his worst article and it reduces his position in my eyes. I saved the article, so that I can answer it in the future. I make now one point. The whole starting point is wrong. Ethnocentrism is divided according to a Gaussian curve and it is weaker in Europeans than in many other peoples. I don’t know the exact numbers, but let’s say that 20% have a tendency to interracial marriage, 60% are between almost never intermarriage - fairly rarely intermarriage, and 20% in practice never intermarriage despite propaganda and other external pressures, lures and lies. When 80% can be pressured by external things in some measure to accept intermarriage, does this mean that we should ignore it. No. If ax murderer X can kill Jobling (external pressure stronger than his life), does this mean that Jobling’s life is unimportant. I am confident that Jobling would answer no. In the same way our at the moment partly fragile ethnocentrism needs protection and strenghtening. Ethnocentrism is our most important single propensity /quality, and other things should be built around. Bread may give life to us (at the moment), but ethnocentrism makes our life worth living and bread worth eating. Ethnocentrism is our soul and without it we are nothing and we will perish. Ethnocentrism is our protector. 106
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:09 | #
Well put and, in fact, sort of a tautology arising from the meaning of the word “we” in the context under discussion. No ethnocentrism, no “we” — almost by definition. 107
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:22 | # “.... and other things should be built around.”——> .... and other things should be built around it. 108
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:28 | # Not gay, q. Interesting that you’d take time to conduct a straw poll on the general consensus though. I’m the Devil and I punish gays with AIDS, as I’m sure Jesus’ little lambs are aware. However, as the default position of any truly intelligent Aryan must surely be atheism or at least agnosticism, the spiritual HIV which is Christianity (and which destroys the White racial immune system as certainly as injudicious chewing of the Communion host amounts to biting old Jesus on the ass) happily doesn’t afflict all and sundry. 109
Posted by skeptical on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:28 | # Al, Here in the U.S., the most deracinated Aryans are usually more secular than the general Aryan population. Here’s another interesting parallel, in America you only have to go back a few decades until the public face of atheism becomes increasingly Semitic. Once you step away from the romantic arguments of Nietzsche, and look at the actual evidence around you, it should become apparent that Christianity is the least of our problems. And perhaps that is something to do with why American Jewry is hostile to an authentic Christianity. 110
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:08 | #
Well that’s the real qualifier isn’t it. After all it was the governing authorities who mostly persecuted and killed Christians early on. There is a duplicity there that neither Jesus nor the New Testament writers would hold down one way or the other.
Which would get back to my original point about Christianity obliging its followers to focus on the spiritual rather than the physical as the physical is transient. In which case the spiritual brothers of a Christian supersede the physical ones.
That has nothing to do with their Western identity though. All Europe is The West. It has been for tens of thousands of years. But anyway, as, I believe, you pointed out, the philosophically and materially advanced countries in Europe began their rejection of Christianity earlier than the rest.
By their fruits you shall know them! Their adherence to the faith personally is unknowable but their outward behavior betrays their immersion in Christian ethics. The vanguard of abating illegal immigrants in America are Christian organizations and individuals.
Okay fine. I’m learnable. Here it is again,
Enlighten me….
“The First will be last” The good shepherd leaves the 99 to find the one…. The rich man and Lazarus. In a Survival of the Fittest mindset we would hold Lazarus in contempt and build monuments to the rich man. But I don’t think that’s the plot of that story….
I’m not talking about a choice between two material sides. I’m talking about the conflict between material and spiritual within the Christian. Here is a better example/hypothetical. Let’s say its about 50 AD (give or take) and you and I are Greek Christians born and raised in and around Palestine. We are surrounded by various races. Some are fellow Greeks along with Romans and other Europeans. I come to you one day and say, “Daniel, we need to create our own nation where those of are kind can survive and thrive. We need to get our own people together in an area here and start fortifying it. The various races here are going to have to segregate themselves as we are. Some won’t be happy about that though and resist deportation. All non-Whites in the area must be (for pragmatic purposes) considered and classified as potential-hostiles. That includes Peter, Paul, Mary, Matthew, John and the rest. Some of them will resist deportation and have to be forcibly removed. After we have succeeded and built our own nation here, other non-White Christians will come crying that the Roman Empire seeks to arrest them and throw them to the lions and seek refuge. We will have to deny it. For safety’s sake all contact between White Christians and non-White Christians will have to permanently cease. If Paul or Peter shows up looking for tidings or even rest, they are to be denied entry, given neither food, water or aid of any kind.” How do you suppose our fellow White Christians there will respond? ... 111
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:25 | #
Peruse this site and its links for examples of modern Christianity. http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/
Well to be fair the public face of pretty much every major organization -religious, governmental, social etc..- is jewish today. Prominent jews like Ben Stein, Pragger, Auster and others all rant against atheism as the cause of the “holocaust”. And not to be conspiratorial, but google a picture of Rick Warren of Purpose Driven Life fame. Tell me that guy doesn’t look suspiciously kosher. ... 112
Posted by danielj on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:42 | # In a Survival of the Fittest mindset we would hold Lazarus in contempt and build monuments to the rich man. But I don’t think that’s the plot of that story…. Aye, but they are parables and if people don’t understand the fundamentally spiritual nature of Christian theology than that is a problem for our theologians to deal with. I’m not talking about a choice between two material sides. I’m talking about the conflict between material and spiritual within the Christian. I know you are and I’m saying they are qualitatively different and that the chances of having to choose are slim. If in America WN’‘s achieve vast and extensive political power and start deporting my spiritual brothers I will not begrudge the WN government. I will rejoice. I might give my spiritual brothers a little money and my prayers, but I firmly believe they should be amongst their own people. When Jesus saves the demon possessed man in Samaria across the sea of Galilee, the man begs Jesus to let him stay yet Jesus rebuffs him and tells him to stay with his people and minister to them. The apostle Paul has the same desire for his own people but God needed somebody to minister to the Gentiles so he was rebuffed but Paul’s desire seems an appropriate one and it isn’t condemned as unlawful or unmerciful. How do you suppose our fellow White Christians there will respond? Even the atheistic White Nationalists will feel pity. It will be a tragedy for most of them to have to go back to their home countries and all parties involved will realize that. My guess is that organized hostility and resistance would arise predominantly from sources outside the church. We could shout Romans 13 at the churches though if they become thorny 113
Posted by SM on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:14 | # This is in response generally to eg skeptical. I’m having a probelm explaingin myslef; this is a complicated issues. So I did the best I could for now and post it anyway. It is important—so glean what you can. ============== Christians point at the last century’s political snowball [feminism, race replacement etc liberalism] as an example of what happens when “rationalism” trumps “religion”. That is dangerously wrong. The previous century is an example of _liberalism_ trumping rationalism _with the gullible christians as the cannon fodder_. The dichotomy actually is right thinkers (masculine and usually smarter) vs left thinkers (effete, feminine, deceptive and often jewish) at the top of the modern day pyramid as priest classes—_and the christians down below as the cannon fodder sheep who keep aligning themselves with liberalism because a-) liberal hooey inherently appeals to christian sentiment more than rightism/rationalism actually does and b) liberals are crafty and the christians are gullible and daft sheep.) Christians think all ‘atheist materialists’ are liberals/leftists. The truth is the leftists were put in power at the expense of the rightist athiest rationalists [aka Darwinists] by {drumroll} the christians. From chrisendom’s own mouth: Any platform that christians would follow en masse would be too toothless to stop liberalism. Another part of that false dichotomy chrisendom espouses: “It is christianity vs jewish [liberalism]; so pick one”. Um No. And that exposes your massive blind spot. (This is why you are at the base of the pyramid.) The choice is meek shall inherit the earth demagoguery (be it jewish liberal or christendom’s)—which has uniquely on this plant led to imbibed feminism, imbibed “race replacement’, lilapution upside down world, mass convuluted Bullshit covering up a simple word: “slavery”—_vs rational understanding of material reality_. ...Material reality which compels us into all that we do in the first place. A compeling force that was unknown to us up until very recently: it is not passion strings from behind a celestial curtain but ‘the chemicals between us’ (ie material cause and effect). The human condition woes—_our, intelligent white male woes_—can’t be solved without this understanding now. ———— Christianity is not denounced simply because it is jewish but because it is against high aptitude [white] males winning. (It is interesting to note that both chrisendom and the new improved version [also known as liberalism]—the two biggest movements ever—both come from the same migrant minority genes. A coincidence which should be explored. ...Migrant Jewishness as a clade might be like when a barnacle attaches itself to a crab and tricks the the crab—through chemical emasculation—into becoming a happy dunce bearer of the barnacle parasite (go look it up). Christianity (and its modern liberalism too) is part of that profound cladistic evolutionary emasculation, I think (and I’m quite a thinker). The exploitive propagandists of western societies—incl ancient Rome and the modern ‘West’—are often historically jewish revolutionaries.) ——— No: it’ll be ‘Gulags’ for the daft and gullible. Our enemy is a runt of our own loins; he wants to get rid of strong smart [white] males, because of instinctual envy, pure and simple. If he is not put down [through eg gulag or guilletine] he will triumph simply because of natural wheat to chaff ratio. Ie since god’s nature (cruel as always) doesn’t get passed the walls of our civilization and purge the runts anymore, we need to now. Chrisendom prevents that purging; indeed christianity—like its cousin liberalism—is the runts rallying around something their limited facualties can grasp. —————- It is daftness that prevents chrisendom from grasping that. As it is daftness that prevents christians from understanding the simple, simple natural selection, cause and effect concept. 114
Posted by SM on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:23 | # Note when I say “you” in the the above post, in some sub sections, they generally are not directed at “skeptical”; More to “Fr john” who isn’t here. 115
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:55 | # Daniellj, I think we’ve adequately exhausted the subject for the time being. I got a lot of stuff to do for one thing. If you feel like there’s more to be said here, I’ll reply but it will be slower responses. regards…. 116
Posted by skeptical on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:01 | # the Narrator, I have been responding to this proposition that Christianity is one of our predominant weaknesses, a primary cause for the mess we’re in. The argument continues that it is not only inorganic to our people but also at odds with the heroic character that is reflected in our pre-Christian pagan traditions. The fundamental problem with this line of thought, particularly for Americans, is that it doesn’t fit the evidence around us. If one were to select out at random a fundamentalist Christian and a secular atheist from the White American public, the odds are greater that the Christian will hold beliefs that are less liberal, and less deracinated, than his atheistic counterpart. Moreover, if you were to attempt this thought experiment at almost any point in America’s history you would probably get the same result (i.e. the more secular the more deracinated). Now, if all I had to go one was this quazi-Nietzschean criticism of Christianity (pace my experience as an American) then I would have expected the opposite to be the case. Another contrary data point can be found in the European conquest of North America. How did our race conquer another continent (at least temporarily) even as it still believed in the “slave morality” of Christianity? I wouldn’t dare tell these Europeans of yesteryear that Christianity prevented them from achieving acts of bravery and heroism. Still another data point, American Jewry has been overtly hostile to Christianity for decades. If Christianity is such a primary explanation for our liberal deracinated condition, then why does Jewry keep kicking a gift horse in the mouth? On this view, Jewry’s reaction to Christianity runs counter to Kevin MacDonald’s work, which is well received in nationalist circles.
Agreed. Warren is pretty disgusting. 117
Posted by Templar on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:05 | #
Of course.
To quote (the infamously anti-Jewish) John Chrysostom, “In saying this, Paul was more likely to draw civil governors who were unbelievers to accept the Christian faith and to persuade believers to obey them. For it was commonly rumored in those days that the apostles were guilty of plotting sedition and revolution, aiming in all that they did and said at the subversion of the received institutions. However, when we see that Christ’s command is that we should obey the authorities, all rumors of this kind will be shown to be false.”
How so? I confess I’m unfamiliar with whatever passages you’re referencing.
“Floating ATM”? What was that you were saying about conversations turning in sour directions?
Do they? Does the historical record bear this out?
That’s somewhat debatable, particularly if my assumption that your conception of Europe includes Russia is correct.
Saying that those countries began “their” rejection of Christianity is rather misleading, considering that anti-Christian thought was not a trend among the general population that crossed all divides of class and station but was rather the pastime of wealthy intellectuals, of the sort who would go on to bring us Marxism, Communism, Multiculturalism and so many, many more wonderful, mutually-hostile-to-Christianity “isms”.
Hmm, I thought we were talking about medieval peasants there, but nonetheless, I would argue that American Christian organizations are, if anything, the rearguard when it comes to importing aliens into the U.S. compared to corporate interests, and conflating the attitudes of “Christian organizations” with the bulk of American Christians (who would seem to by and large reject mass immigration) is rather dishonest.
...How?, exactly? The point is fairly obvious. 118
Posted by Templar on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:26 | #
Interesting, isn’t it? Jews, pagans, homosexuals, multiculturalists, Muslims, feminists, (some) white nationalists… All of these disparate factions united in their deep conviction that Christianity is the enemy. 119
Posted by Templar on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:58 | # SM’s post is a bit too long for me to reply to in length but I thought I’d adress one particular point before real-life tears me away from my computer for the day:
Thank you for highlighting the inevitably genocidal tendencies of atheist materialism. 120
Posted by White Western Man on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:14 | # Re:skeptical
Aside from the Puritans (who barely survived their first winter; they would’ve all died without the help of local Indians) and other fanatical and cult-like Christian groups of Europeans who settled the USA, America was founded, settled, and built by Europeans who were not very religious except possibly in a vague cultural sense - most were not strong Christians at all, though as stated they would have considered themselves Christians in the cultural sense because they came from ‘Christian Europe’ (even if they were secular in their personal and communal lives; and despite the fact that Christianity was already beginning to decline in Europe). However, the religious/Christian component of America’s early settlers and colonists has been highly overstated and misunderstood to the point of being one of the ‘big lies’ of American historiography - early America was almost entirely secular. Many European colonists of America were naturally suspicious of Christianity, having fled a Europe where the clergy was often corrupt and worked to keep people down, where the church controlled too much of the economic, political, and social lives of ordinary people. Thus many sought to leave all this behind and settle in a more free and secular America uncorrupted by such bureaucratic moralizers. Thus, America was not founded as a Christian nation, as the Constitution (freedom of religion; separation of church and state) clearly demonstrates. The backwoods settlers, pioneers, and farmers of early America were for the most part secular and suspicious of religion, even militantly so. How strong of a Christian could you possibly be while spending your whole life exploring, mapping, and settling the vast American frontier whilst attempting to stamp out or expel the local Indian ‘savages’ along the way? As soon as a stable community materialized they often built the token town church, sure, but most people only saw it merely as a community gathering place rather than the focal point of the community. Early American writing and literature is filled with descriptions and references to drunken/lying/cheating/stealing pastors or other sex-crazed religious zealots; this writing attempts to expose the hypocrisy of the moralizing Christian ‘elite’ who they were trying to escape by settling in America where they could be free of such religious nonsense and petty moralizing. Also, if early Americans were so strongly Christian, why were they so ruthless toward the native Indians? Why did they import African slaves, many of who barely survived the very harsh journey from Africa? Why did they act so ‘un-Christian’ toward non-Whites in America instead of lavishing ‘universal Christian love’ upon them? The fact is that America was founded as an expansionist White racialist state, with Christian/religious concerns of tertiary importance at best. 121
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:58 | # Very interesting, if true.
[From The Life Of Colonel David Crockett by Edward S. Ellis, Porter & Coates, 1884.] 122
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:16 | # Interesting how Christian universalism keeps popping up in defence of EGI, in early America.
Rolfe’s consternation, vis-a-vis marriage to Pocahantas, is quite clear;
123
Posted by White Western Man on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:21 | # One of my main points here is that hundreds of millions of Whites throughout Europe, America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, etc are rapidly abandoning Christianity and Jewish/Abrahamic belief systems in general, and as such White nationalism or some other kind of ‘White preservation’ movement needs to step in and fill this vacuum before other damaging Jewish-dominated movements like multiculturalism, hyperconsumerism/materialism, plutocrat capitalism, feminism, neo-Marxism/neo-communism, etc attempt to step in to fill the void left by the increasing irrelevance of Christianity in The West; as I stated here before, politics is a poor substitute for religion, so these mostly non-religious/secular Whites need something that also includes something of the mystical or spiritual to help inspire them to loftier thoughts, deeds, and morals. Because race/ethnicity is, as stated in other comments here, more primal and runs much deeper than religious beliefs, it is my belief that a White racial nationalist movement (which incorporates elements of both rationalism/science as well as spirituality) targeting these many millions of non-religious, irreligious, or marginally religious Whites would have a decent chance at succeeding with them. 124
Posted by skeptical on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:32 | # White Western Man,
Do you know of a primary source that would support this claim. 125
Posted by skeptical on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:34 | # Desmond Jones, Thank you for the references, very interesting. 126
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:47 | # “.... in fact, sort of a tautology arising from the meaning of the word “we” in the context under discussion. No ethnocentrism, no “we” — almost by definition.” - It was implicit in my text, but it is good you made it explicit. Ethnocentrism of course increases also efficiency and independence of the group. Fred, you make your best and most informative posts, when you are in contemplative mood like here, thus my recommendation for it. Jobling says also in his separate discussion forum, that his only reason to be pro-European is selfishness; it is better for him to live in White society. He follows the principles of Richard Dawkins, that extreme individualist and radical atheist, whose claims have been proven wrong (either implicitly or explicitly) by the studies of such researchers of groups and related matters as D.S. Wilson, Scott Atran, Richard Sosis, Richard Michod, Kevin MacDonald, Joe Henrich, Pascal Boyer, Rob Boyd, etc. Only enduring and efficient group can be such, where the group is more important than the individual. This is best achieved in a group /group network which is extended family and where the kin genes of the group comprise more important repository of kin genes than individuals own genes. This is strenghtened by sensible group rules of a religion and to a lesser extent (preferably assisting religion) reasonable group rules of ideology. 127
Posted by White Western Man on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:58 | # Another point - on the whole, Christianity has been a suppressive force of the White/European spirit - it has attempted to stifle the strong and active ‘barbaric’ spirit of White Western peoples even though it is precisely this spirit which has made Whites the most successful race on Earth. Many Whites were plenty ‘civilized’ before the rise of Christianity; if anything, the emphasis on ‘civility,’ ‘morality’ (remember: Judaeo-Christian morality), ‘universal love,’ ‘pity,’ and passivity in the Christian tradition has left The West more vulnerable to Jewish domination in that the White West only fell prey to too much Jewish influence after it had become thoroughly Christianized/Judaized and thus weakened from within. I already posted a relevant Nietzsche quote, but it bears repeating:
Read more about this from Nietzsche in The Genealogy of Morality and The Antichrist, among some of his other works. 128
Posted by White Western Man on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:04 | #
Already stated it. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution - separation of church and state, freedom of religion, etc. 129
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:06 | #
Both being somewhat evolved traits, that’s a difficult one to measure. It also appears that religion can reinforce those notions of ethnic exclusion. However, Lothrop Stoddard made a valid point, IMO, that civilization is not just a benefit but a burden. James has also made the point that the structure of civilization is dependent upon a powerful intervention. The act of lying with a Negro cannot be avoided just by threats from an Almighty God, they must be reinforced by the whip, if you will. The modern day isms are enforced by a coercive state, just as Christian values were to some degree coerced. The only power on the street today is the state, through the police, antifa forces etc and Islam. If nationalist forces were able to seize the power of the state, they would be strongly opposed. In Germany, in the month before the 1932 elections, according to Bullock, there were over 400 riots, despite the fact that Roehm commanded something like 4 million SA street fighters. The Commies were no push overs. The power of the antifa has been well documented. There appear to be few qualms about throwing BNP supporters in front of buses. It will take a heavy hand, most probably, to make even moderate changes. 130
Posted by skeptical on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:10 | # White Western Man,
O.k., let me recap your argument:
131
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:34 | # Nietzsche: “Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, ....” - Well, Nietzsche didn’t understand Christianity’s teaching, because he couldn’t interpret properly anything Jesus said /did and he didn’t deliberately notice the crucial parts that run counter to his “vision”. Something to ponder for you: Why Jesus washed his disciples’ feet? Jesus was divine prophet (his status was extremely high). Washing feet in Middle-east is one of the most derogatory things one can do (lowers status). John 13:1-17. Ask yourself what is the effect of this to group solidarity. Read also e.g. Mathew (?) 15:21-28 (The ethnic principle and paradigm to Christians), Mathew 1:1-17 (The real meaning of this family tree is that Jesus accepted the endogamy rules of Esra 9-10) and Luke 22:35-38 (Abolishes the non-violence made possible by the presence of Jesus and institutes again the principle that one must prepare for the future). 132
Posted by White Western Man on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:43 | # To put it succinctly, Whites have been made far too tame by Judaeo-Christianity - and this taming is exactly what the Jews want because it makes the goyim (cattle) more easy to herd and exploit, because fighting back against exploitation and abuse has been made to seem ‘un-Christian.’ Taming Whites with Judaeo-Christian beliefs like ‘tolerance’ and ‘acceptance,’ ‘universal love,’ ‘resignation,’ ‘hope for the afterlife’ (because earthly life is supposedly so terrible and hellish - which is BULLSHIT), and passivity (Example: “As Christians, these problems and issues are all out of your control, you or any group can never change it, they are in God’s hands; just personally hope for the best in heaven with Jesus after you’ve died”) has directly led to the gradual dispossession of Whites and will eventually lead to the utter domination of a Jewry and their gutter ideals in nearly all spheres of life if it is not soon challenged. 133
Posted by q on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:02 | # I’m the Devil and I punish gays with AIDS - Al Ross Very good, Al. I’m sure your mother would be proud of you. 134
Posted by q on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:11 | # A- Finn. Try and get it right! Whites were made tame by secular-liberalism. 135
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:21 | #
This position lacks an evidential basis. Before WWII, Christian human rights activists were strong proponents of ethno-nationalism.
It is the state and its desire to further a class/capitalist agenda that utilised the human rights movement to further their own interest. It’s clear that the most liberal C of E still maintained, pre-WWII, that “inherent racial characteristics” existed and made certain groups incompatible. 136
Posted by q on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:21 | # Secular-liberalism is a Jewish construct designed to get gentile dupes—like most of you atheist schmucks— to abandon the only belief system that stands in the way of total Jewish domination of the political-worldview. 137
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:31 | # The Traitor and the Jew:(Full title: The Traitor and the Jew: Anti-Semitism and the Delirium of Extremist Right-Wing Nationalism in French Canada from 1929-1939) is a 1992 book of non-fiction by Quebec political scientist Esther Delisle Ph.D.
It’s evident, at least in Quebec, that Groulx, and the Catholic church, embraced “organicist nationalism, namely, the school of thought that conceptualizes the nation as an historical being whose birth and development one can trace across the ages… 138
Posted by danielj on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:25 | # Does anybody wanna take a guess at how much the “taming of the White man” is nature and how much is nurture? Percentages? 139
Posted by danielj on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:57 | #
A weak argument even if we agree with his false premise that the constitution is an a-religious document. If we do assent to that, then we can all agree that deism - which is one step away from monotheism - planted the seeds of our destruction since the “all men are created equal” nonsense in the Declaration certainly wrote its way into the Constitution. However, there is really no reason to assume his premises are correct since half the entire country was founded by Englishmen trying to secure religious freedoms; Puritans and Quakers. The other half comprised of Royalist Cavaliers of the High Anglican variety and the Backcountry folk whose descendants count themselves amongst the most fundamentalist Baptist denominations in the country. [Of course they are secular documents since America wasn’t a theocracy I can’t imagine it being another way] 140
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:12 | # Davy Crockett certainly spent time paying homage to Freemasonry’s ‘Great Architect of the Universe’ but masonic lodge rituals never mention Jesus. They do, however, make mention of ‘that bright morning star’, a reference taken, by some scholars of the craft, to mean Lucifer. Crockett’s fellow Masons spared the life of their enemy General Santa Anna when they realised that the Mexican leader was also a Mason. 141
Posted by White Western Man on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:39 | #
Not sure if this is addressed toward me, but I’ll tackle it anyhow. I’m not an atheist or a liberal - though I take a secular view in terms of politics and economics, that doesn’t make me an atheist who sees the world in solely materialistic terms. I have a deeply spiritual side. You also fail to understand that liberalism is in many respects an outgrowth of Judaeo-Christianity - think of how much liberalism and Christianity has in common: tolerance, egalitarianism, passivity, ‘universal love’ and a concern for the downtrodden (which especially includes non-White racial minorities in modern times), a rejection of the strong/active and the embrace of meekness/weakness, unrealistic views about human nature, etc - early Christians were in many respects the original liberals, which obviously makes sense since the majority of the early Christians were Jews. And Desmond Jones - a few scattered anecdotes does not history make; your average American from the 1700s forward may have spent an hour in church on Sundays (if they lived close enough to one; a large number didn’t have any churches near where they lived), but that doesn’t mean that they were strong fundamentalist Christians. As stated, most were working too hard just to survive and settle America’s vast frontiers to care all that much about worshiping Jesus The Jew. And as I stated in a previous comment, many modern America Whites are unfortunately regressing in to behavior patters last seen in the Dark Ages (a time of complete Judaeo-Christian domination through the Church, and also a time when Jews were able to slowly infiltrate the White-Western world) as America has become more Judaized and non-White:
However, you see hope in the fact that many Whites in America, Europe, Australia, and other White countries worldwide are increasingly apathetic toward Judaeo-Christianity - as evidenced by the large numbers of the elderly, gullible women, children (forced to go to church by parents), and wife-whipped husbands who these modern-day Judaeo-Christians have to target or recruit just to halfway fill up the pews on Sundays. It is very important that White racial nationalists target this rapidly growing group of non-religious Whites who are moving away from the Judaeo-Christian mindset to fill the void lest it be filled by Jewish ideas, as I wrote about in my previous post. I believe that you are also mistaken when you write:
You are still stuck in the Judaeo-Christian mindset because you clearly you still fail understand that Christianity is of Jewish origin and as such has LED AND CONTRIBUTED TO the Jewish domination of the current White-Western political/social/economic worldview. If you are really thinking deeply you will realize that only those views or systems which are entirely devoid of and actively opposed to Jewish/Abrahamic thought can effectively counter and eventually reverse the Jewish domination of the White Western world. Or have you forgotten the old saying: “You can’t fight fire with fire”? ... though I have read of some comparing Christianity to a ‘watery system’ which seeks to extinguish or at least negate the Jewish ‘fiery system,’ but since it hasn’t worked thus far it’s doubtful that it ever will; at this point the ‘Jewish fire’ has clearly become too raging and out-of-control for the ever-weakening ‘Christian water’ to extinguish, much less control. That being said, I would generally be in favor of more robust forms of ‘fiery Christianity’ which actively opposes ‘fiery Jewry,’ similar to the more strong/active and fiery forms of Islam which currently exist in various places, though still you’d still be trying to fight Jewry with a Jewish system (Judaeo-Christianity), which seems doomed to failure in my opinion. So White Westerners clearly need a uniquely Western , much stronger, and much better system or set of beliefs to stave off and eventually extinguish the ‘Jewish fire’ before it ends up incinerating the entire White-Western world. 142
Posted by Templar on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:18 | #
That seems a rather odd charge, given your counter-post appears to be nothing but anecdotes. 143
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 06:11 | # CAMP MEETINGS AND GREAT REVIVALS
Bible in Pocket, Gun in Hand: The Story of Frontier Religion Book by Ross Phares; University of Nebraska Press, 1964. 144
Posted by SM on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:01 | # Why is everybody ignoring the anti ‘darwinist’ tendencies of the late 19th and early 20th century christians? It is that that allowed liberalism—especially jewish advocacy demagoguery, pretending it was new science— to take over in the 20th century. Why don’t you see how that is why we have liberalism now? (BTW, I don’t blame the jews for everything. It seems that way here at MR because of the subject matter I respond to. Hell, I like the jews in some ways and don’t like whites in other ways. I make a horrible Nazi, I know (ironic since I’d be SS). But when it comes to late 19th /early 20 century [“photo journalist”] demagoguery corraling the _dumb ass_ american christians et al I don’t equivocate—this time it is the jews, hook, line and sinker.) When “darwinism” et al appeared, the christians shunned it and followed modern liberalism instead (though you are pretending that you didn’t actually imbibe liberalism, because you are still allowed to say “nigger” out in the sticks occasionally). This “liberalism” is a direct—non coincidental—counter to the rational “darwinist” ephiphanies of the mid 19th century. FYI Marx is not bad because he is a ‘materialist (cause and effect adherent) atheist’. He is bad because he was simply using the new science vocabulary in a typically jewish and deceptive way to corner the market on the political trickle down implications of the new ‘materialist’ ideas. (Also the jews—ie marxists—are hypocrit materialists: when the facts say something they don’t like—this is more often than not, since nature isn’t pretty—they trump materialism with the new faith that is liberalism/feminism.) The jews wrap their political opinions in the high table vocabulary of the day so as to give their opinions more status than they deserve; eg socio-anthro-pyshco babble. (And you all fell for it.) They get away with this, not through the cogent bliss of their ideas trumping the other side’s genius but through advocacy protectionism propaganda; ie with big tent strength-in-numbers power, they take over the high table positions and replace the other side’s genius with their canards, pretending that those canards have won power through intellectual debate rather than political trickery. ============ I edited out of my previous post above a section on why early america appears ‘christian’. It is like your post above… “chrisendom points to N american outback as example of christianity. American frontier lifestyle and ethos is not an example of christianity. It is an example of frontiersmen who happened to have bibles in their bags. Christianity is actually the liberated peanut gallery back east—who the neo-masculine frontier folk were ultimately running from (so as to get away from christian ettiquet [read feminine]). —————- In the immediate past the outback made the wrong decision: it sided with liberalism against darwinism-fascism, because liberalism was able to hide in the “no gubmint” fetish of the outback. (“No government” fetish is a sympton of the frontier ethos /lifestyle—_it is not a thought-through philosophy that can just work anywhere_.) Rational materialism isn’t going away. Period. You can hide your head in hole as you wait for the eminent domain city to kick your ass in all you want. But understanding ‘material cause and effect’ as the way to solve—honestly or deceptively—the human condition woes is here to stay (as man spreads to space and its virtual insanity). You christian types—not the “materialists”—need to pick a side: you are either a “eugenicist darwisnts” or marxists; more fascist or more liberal. But you can not simply pretend that that isn’t the dichotomy. This isn’t up for debate. You are wrong. You either get on board (the ‘SS’ Beagle [snicker]) or we lose and you will be proved wrong through that defeat. Simple. (...Well not so simple actually: what will happen is chrisendom will survive _in name only_ and continue to morph like the slow cooked frog that it is into more and more acute forms of imbibed liberalism, which ultimately meets up with chrisendom’s liturgy anyway.) ————— Firstly masonic-ism is made up toy religion; a chimera just for fun—pattern where there is none. And secondly chrisendom’s “exposing” of it as Luciferism is more pattern where there is none. If your brain wants to see patterns, look at Naturalism—and leave your tinfoil hats at home. 145
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:37 | # Freemasonry is not (and makes no claims to be) a religion. It is a peculiar form of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols many of which are borrowed from the Old Testament. 146
Posted by Collase of American Evangelical Christianity? on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:32 | # The coming evangelical collapse An anti-Christian chapter in Western history is about to begin. But out of the ruins, a new vitality and integrity will rise. By Michael Spencer from the March 10, 2009 edition Oneida, Ky. - We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West. Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the “Protestant” 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century. This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good. Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I’m convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close. - CONTINUED: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html 147
Posted by danielj on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:34 | # Al is definitely right here. Freemasonry was important, is important and extremely historically significant. The go-to text on this issue is James H. Billington’s Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith. Billington goes over the effect of Freemasons and the Carbonati on political history and their large role in revolutionary upheavals across the world. 148
Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:29 | #
As I said before, everybody has their own interpretation…
Know ye not the scripture? The reference to the floating ATM is Matthew 17, in which a disciple gets tribute money from the mouth of a fish. Here it is,
Jesus bluntly states that the rulers of this world are oppressors and that taxation/tribute are forms of slavery. NEVER-THE-LESS Jesus pays the tax to avoid trouble.
No, it doesn’t. As Desmond’s quotes above show, most Christians ignored biblical teachings on such matters and did their own thing, thankfully.
Russians aren’t European?
Well then what was your original point? You stated that western Europe became Christian earlier and that is was therefore materially more advanced.
Go here http://www.vdare.com/ and enter in the search box the words “immigration” and “church”. When it comes to immigration Churches attitudes range from “All for it, Praise Jesus!” to “mehhh, whatever”. If you know of a church that openly advocates for the deportation of all non-White immigrants, let me know.
Having gone to a church that actually did this (the elders of the Church would occasionally wash peoples feet) I can honestly say it didn’t do much for group solidarity. And the image just reinforces the notion of Christian as humble servant to humanity.
Skeptical, I have stated numerous times here, even in this very thread, that I believe Christian doctrine to be heavily influenced by Europeans. The writers of the New Testament grew up in an era and area in which they were immersed in Greek thought and Roman politics. There is a semitic influence for sure (especially the notion of monotheism) but the majority of the principles presented in the New Testament are European. Those ethics can be either good for us or destructive for us. They shouldn’t be taken at face value. The text needs to be sifted to get rid of the unhealthy aspects of it. Within the larger social context things like pity, mercy, forgiveness etc.. need to be very carefully and very reluctantly measured out. The Christian doctrine would encourage us towards pity upon any person of less fortunate circumstances. But that doctrine is socially irresponsible and morally corrupt, as the current state of affairs demonstrates.
How is it that a nation that is self identifying 85% Christian let 35 million mexicans overrun them and a black guy become their president?
Speaking as one of those backcountry folk I can tell you that there is a certain amount of embarrassment about some of the dedication which some of our forebearers reveled in. Every weekend there was a tent revival. During the week these same people would drink, cuss, fight and cheat, then come the weekend it was revival time. And these were mobile events. People would follow them all over the county. Whether it was on some churches property or on private land up a holler, the same people would gather every weekend. And there would be speaking in tongues, slain in the spirit aka -holly rollers-, and the occasional traveling snake handlers. Yep, snake handlers take their show on the road! Those kind of revivals and churches are all but gone now though. They lingered up into the 80’s but today are very rare to hear about. ... 149
Posted by Blessed Collapse of Judaeo-Christian Slave Moralit on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:37 | #
Some of the comments in THIS BLOG POST offer further proof that an increasingly large number America’s Whites are dissatisfied with the weak and effete slave morality of Judaeo-Christianity and thus seek stronger and more robust pro-White alternatives to the imperialistically imposed Jewish Sky God And His Magical Son Jesus The Jew, not to mention The Non-Virgin Mary and Certain Speaking Animals. Pro-White activists everywhere should pounce on this near-blessed opportunity to recruit new members of the White nationalist movement. The current economic crisis, the rising tide of anti-immigrant sentiment in White countries, and the growing awareness of undue Jewish power in the USA and elsewhere due to information on the internet all offer a MAJOR OPPORTUNITY for White nationalists to swell their ranks with Whites who are increasingly disgusted with the liberal, Marxist/materialistic, hyperconsumerist, feminist, universalist, and ultimately decadent Judaeo-Christian mindset. I imagine a glorious future, one in which churches will be converted in to anti-indoctrination centers of education for Whites regarding the Jewish threat - and synagogues will taken over and converted in to the lowliest of the low…banks. —- “This is the stage for the coming evangelical collapse. It is the dawning of an America where Christianity is generic or declining, for the most part. It is the stage where serious Churches and theologically/culturally conservative churches have a first century style mission field. This is the stage where many of us will watch our children and grandchildren identify a generic Christianity when they are young, but never join a church and eventually drop into the ranks of the non-religious. This is the stage for a cultural disengagement from the Christian memory of America. It is the dawning of a new American religious landscape. Give our culture 25 years. How much faster will this happen? How much deeper will it go?” - http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-aris-study-christianity-on-the-decline-in-america 150
Posted by Templar on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:53 | #
Outside of Catholicism, perhaps, but Chrysostom’s interpretation of the passage is entirely consistent with the analysis every other theologian of the early Church I am aware of who offered comment on it.
Know ye nothing but what is sour? I mean, “imperialistically imposed Jewish Sky God And His Magical Son Jesus The Jew, not to mention The Non-Virgin Mary and Certain Speaking Animals”? Come on, already.
And this is incompatible with the concept of legitimate temporal authorities, in your view?
On what basis are you making this claim regarding “biblical teachings”, exactly, and who, or what are you thanking?
I suppose that depends on how you define “European”. Is it merely geography, or genetics, or shared cultural values?
My original point was that materially advanced societies may exert a disproportionate cultural influence on their less affluent neighbours, a prime example being the contemporary United States of America.
“Post-Christian” is a term I find somewhat premature.
You seemed to have missed the distinction I made between church groups and church-goers.
Funny, I can honestly say the direct opposite effect was in evidence in my own experience.
You would prefer your churchmen to be cast in the mold of Julies II?
Could you explain why you see monotheism as a negative, “semetic” trait?
There are no unhealthy aspects. Only unhealthy applications.
I imagine there’ll be a certain amount of embarassment amongst our descendants about the detached cynicism their forebearers reveled in. 151
Posted by Templar on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:56 | #
My apologies. It seems I got you confused with “Blessed Collapse of Judaeo-Christian Slave Moralit” for a moment. 152
Posted by skeptical on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:27 | # the Narrator,
Probably for the same reason that a thoroughly secular Western Europe is allowing itself to be demographically overtaken by Muslim ethnic groups (provided current trends continue to hold). 153
Posted by John on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:53 | #
Praise Jésus 154
Posted by a Finn on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:06 | # Narrator: “Having gone to a church that actually did this (the elders of the Church would occasionally wash peoples feet) I can honestly say it didn’t do much for group solidarity.” - The ignorance Narrator displays here applies to many, if not most present day “Christians”, and it is the reason why Christinity is almost non-existent today. What is offered as “Christianity” is a liberal-ignorant perversity. Bible is a goldmine of ethnocentric knowledge. Due to the less ethnicly competitive evolutionary environments of pagan religions, they can’t compete with Christianity. If we would have applied Christianity, this site and comparable sites wouldn’t exist because there wouldn’t be the slightest need for them in our ethnic and ethnocentric communities and countries. Jesus talked and did most of the things as parables. Parable gives a principle that should be applied to other corresponding things in life. The story content of the parable itself is mostly not important. Christian leaders should not wash peoples feet. They should participate side by side in people’s lives, working with them, living with them, sharing with them, facing troubles with them, leading in the front, defending them, etc. The ethnocentric knowledge of the Bible can be, of course, proved scientifically. High status and solidarity to own group have negative correlation and there is causation, i.e. high status reduces solidarity to own group. A small loss of solidarity is necessary to be able to lead, e.g. a leader can’t deal punishments necessary to the group if he remains at equal level to the group, because he would be tied up by loyalties, friendships, reciprocities etc. to such an extent that he couldn’t judge. But a good leader remains inseparably loyal to his own group by strong everyday ties. Problem is that status can became so high or in other ways so distant, e.g by utopian idelogies or unnatural individual/political communities, that leaders lose all loyalty to their own group. (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Brown and Ford, 1961; Brown and Gilman, 1961; Labov 1972, Giles and Ryan, 1982; Pomerantz 1978; etc.) 155
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:12 | #
So (in reference to the text I mentioned) extortion and coercion are legitimate? Because as I said, Jesus compared the practice of taxation there to extortion and slavery…
Well I’m thankful that the majority of our ancestors didn’t heed biblical admonitions towards indians and instead met them with a shotgun and not a bible. Granted, there were a few defectives who desired to convert the redmen, but for the most part our great-great-great-great-great-grandpappy’s had no such lofty intentions and just ran them out. Amen!!!
Genetics. Western Civilization is in the blood. Whenever and wherever there have been Whites, there has been our Civilization. Be it today or ten thousand years ago.
Because it engenders the deep philosophical and psychological notion of one god for ALL people. It plants the seed in White minds that all the races have something in common on a transcendental or spiritual level. That’s the poison pill in Biblical doctrine that leads down the road of multiculturalism. In that sense, the Christianity I find most tolerable is Christian Identity, in which is taught that non-Whites have no souls and that Whites were the 8th day creation Adam, in the singular. The colored peoples were created on the 6th day. That theology at least would engender the notion of drawing very sharp and dramatic lines between Whites and all else. But, I don’t believe the historical narrative of the ten northern tribes entering Europe and founding the civilizations there holds up. Besides which I don’t much care for the notion that our ancestors were of the likes of Abraham, Joseph, Esther etc….whose outlandish stories serve as a blueprint of how “the chosen” plunder and destroy gentile civilizations.
I don’t know how it is in cities but in smaller towns it goes like this, ...Elders are usually either guys who have businesses in town or guys who are the only guys who would volunteer for the part. ...Pastors come and go. Some backslide or run off with somebody else’s wife. ...The congregation is just a social club. Some come to church and treat it likes a singles bar, while others set in the pews and gossip while others swap hunting stories or talk politics. Some just nod off and sleep. ....And as everybody knows everybody else and you each know how the other acts the rest of the week (fighting, drinking, cussing etc…) you don’t exactly hold one another in holy reverence if one is washing the others feet. ...Sermons consist of one bible verse and 50 one-liners taken from a Christian comedy routine. ...Then there is the inevitable break up as several members come to a disagreement on a passage of scripture and branch out into their own church. ...There is also the fact that people move around a lot now days, and with different churches every half mile (and people split up into cliques and fall out with one another) the odds of going to church with a consistent group of people over the course of the years is slim. ...Plus there is just plain old local politics. Somebody’s third cousin sold a junky truck to another one’s sisters son and the two factions sit in church, never speaking to one another, but occasionally shooting murderous glances in one anothers direction. And those are the halfway descent churches!! The others are like a circus/rock show/comedy club/book store for the latest fad in Churchianity. ... 156
Posted by Templar on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:58 | #
You have some complaint against extortion and slavery?
That assertion would seem to be in conflict with the historical record. Generally, American settlers attempted to treat with the local tribesmen rather than following a policy of genocide first, ask questions later as you seem to be thinking here.
Not in Russia, it isn’t, at least as far as my understanding goes. A lack of ethnonationalist sentiment beyond the confines of the village, a total disregard of and lack of respect for authority except where it is opressive (and then it is admired for being strong) and no concept of private property strike me as being more Asian than European, but you may disagree.
You believe that because you need a justification for your reflexive anti-Christian sentiment. Unfortunately, the truth is rarely so simple as the binary proposition you appear to be attempting to reduce the problem to for whatever reason. Monotheism does not cause multiculturalism. Christianity does not cause multiculturalism. Rather, multiculturalism is caused by civilization, specifically the sort of highly advanced, stupendously wealthy and socially atomized welfare-state society we individualistic white people are so adept at creating.
I can’t speak for A Finn, but I most certainly have, and I generally agree with him.
Baseless nonsense. There’s nothing “dreamy” or unrealistic about them. As for your experiences in church-going, if they are yours, they’re sad but only serve to confirm A Finn’s point. What you observe is the result of a Christianity losing its way attempting to be popular rather than Christian. 157
Posted by John on Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:55 | # The Narrator:
Actually, Christianity is not strictly monotheistic. As Ron Popeil would put it, had he not missed his calling as a TV evangelist, “It’s not one, not two, but three gods in one!” 158
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 16 Mar 2009 01:51 | # “Because it engenders the deep philosophical and psychological notion of one god for ALL people.” - If we just skip trinity question, that Christians go to one heaven have never meant that they are one in earth, and it is made clear in the passages. I spoke against the kind of experiences you have about congregations. Good start should be that people can’t just walk into a core congregation. They have to invest in a cultural marker (use their time and energy in a defined way). Free riders go away, and the members become more committed and their ties stronger. Trust and solidarity between members increases. Of course more is needed, but this is a good start. 159
Posted by Templar on Mon, 16 Mar 2009 05:27 | #
Actually, it is. You just don’t understand the concept of the Holy Trinity very well. 160
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:13 | # The Trinitarian concept is too abstruse for White atheists ? However, this three-in-one (snake) oil analogy goes down impressively well among those rock solid, average 85 IQ, Catholics who populate (all too successfully) the Philippines and Latin America. Rational Whites expect their racial cognates to do better intellectually and if the obsessive farrago of puerile, Jewish fairytales are all that flying Jesus can provide, then even his MR commentator star salesmen may struggle to achieve their quota of souls. 161
Posted by Templar on Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:55 | #
It seems to be, in some cases.
Much like the importance of reproduction goes down impressively well with them, but is inexplicably lost on us superior atheist white types, eh? Really, Al, if you’re interested in the survival of whites as a race it wouldn’t hurt you to give religion a try.
You’re quite the one to talk about obsessive, puerile farragos, Al. 162
Posted by John on Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:09 | #
It is necessary (but not sufficient) to your argument that the pre-Christian Filipinos (and Europeans) were less fecund than the post-Christian ones. Were they? 163
Posted by SM on Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:34 | # Really, Al, if you’re interested in the survival of whites as a race it wouldn’t hurt you to give religion a try. —————— 164
Posted by Templar on Tue, 17 Mar 2009 05:13 | #
I’m sorry, i’m uncertain as to what you mean. 165
Posted by Templar on Tue, 17 Mar 2009 05:16 | #
SM, when a society is driven by Christianity, it produces Handel’s Messiah. When a society is driven by Darwinism, it produces the Holodomor. 166
Posted by SM on Tue, 17 Mar 2009 05:58 | #
And feminism and race replacement, population explosion of dunces, upside down world democracy disaster and etc, etc. Now you’ll say “the jew instigated that”. Yeah and christianty let them and did all the work to make it possible. ...That is a very typical problem for the psychological condition that is conservatives: they separate the “good” from the “bad” of their culture, pretending that the bad is something “other” while rallying around the good as solution for stopping the bad. [Side Note: Good and bad are relative constructs; yep it’s true.] ———
Um The Soviet Union was anti darwinist by explicit definition. “Darwinism”/eugenics [testing and sterilizing] has never been truely tried; it is the only thing that hasn’t been. Indeed democracy and liberalism etc is the masses’ et al’s one last ditch attempt to fend off the inevitable facts[tm] with wishful thinking utopia (which has replaced the previous failed wishful thinking utopia called christendom). And number two if the ‘right” population is “holodomor’d” out then that is a net positive. And further it doesn’t take self aware materialists to kill “enemy” populations or let them starve to death. [“enemy” is a relative construct; yep it’s true] Indeed self aware materialists—truely good ones—can nip all those old problems in the bud, through understanding how `it all goes down. 167
Posted by Armor on Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:28 | #
In other words: Sometimes we will give an external or materialistic explanation for someone’s behavior: his actions are attributable to social pressure or biological determinism, for example. After all, man is not entirely free. And sometimes we will give a moral explanation only: someone’s bad actions only indicate a lack of moral strength. The funny thing is how whimsically we favor one type of explanation or the other. But I think the leftists show less consistency and fewer scruples in the blame game than the conservatives. In the past, the sinners used to be blamed by conservative religious preachers, but today our accusers are mostly leftist. They accuse us of hate crimes, they find excuses for murderers, and they don’t care about facts and reality. (As for the effects of christianity, good and bad, on the current crisis, I don’t have an opinion). 168
Posted by SM on Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:39 | # To Amour. Oh. Liberals are absolute dispicable hypocrits. Some are tactical hypocrits and some are simply low, mindless conformists to the zeitgeist and don’t have the aptitude for thinking about the hyocrisy they advocate and rally around. 169
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:41 | # When I read the word “conservative” I have only one question: Are “conservatives” race-replacement advocates? The answer is yes, they are. Therefore, I am not a “conservative.” If this reasoning is wrong I want to see exactly where “conservatives” explicitly reject forced race-replacement of white people. Where, for example, does Alain de Benoist, Roger Scruton, “Karl Magnus,” John Zmirak, Peter Hitchens, or any other “conservative” explicitly reject it? Where does any member of the Tory or Republican Party explicitly reject it? The only ones who explicitly reject it are us here (GW, JWH, James B., Soren, Desmond, me, etc.) and folk similar to us in this one regard (Alex Linder, Ian Jobling, Lawrence Auster, Friedrich Braun, Jared Taylor, etc.). Explicit rejection of forced race-replacement of white people is so important, it qualifies as a central principle around which to found a political “movement.” “Conservatives” mean strictly nothing to me: they’re all race-replacement advocates. They mean absolutely nothing to me. 170
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:23 | #
I mean like parallel lines: if you say they never cross it gives Euclid. If you say they cross it gives Riemann and the non-Euclidean geometries. According as whether you accept or reject “parallel lines never crossing” as your central principle gives very different geometries. a) Acquiescing in (i.e., failure to explicitly reject) or b) explicitly rejecting forced race-replacement of white people give, when either is taken as a central principle, different political movements completely independent of “conservatism.” Our politics should be based on that as a central principle, not on “conservatism.” 171
Posted by Templar on Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:26 | #
No, that’s simply civilizational decline in action. Once a given population reaches a certain point of relative comfort they cease to care anymore and the entire edifice begins to collapse.
Are you attempting to deny or downplay the very obvious efforts of Jews in promoting these things?
No, Christianity fought them tooth and nail up until after WWII.
This is a very typical problem for the psychological condition that is utopians: They are unable or else unwilling to seperate good and bad from each other, and so see their society or that which hosts them as needing to be purged utterly, that a new, improved breed of Man may emerge from the ashes, tabula rasa, untainted by anything the would-be genocides find disagreement with. The bloodstained hands of Marxism, responsible for the pointless slaughter of millions over the last century, stand in warning to all rational men who might be tempted to believe such things.
You don’t want to go there, SM.
The Soviet Union was Darwinist in the same way that you are a Darwinist: in the explicit desire to annihilate any and all who do not fit entirely arbitrary definitions of what constitutes “fitness”.
And once again, the genocidal ambition slips out. I’d ask why it doesn’t seem sufficient for you to simply start some seperatist state of high IQ atheist somewhere, and must needs instead sieze control of an existing society and murder all of its inhabitants who do not fit your irrational template, but your behaviour seems too consistent with typical low IQ/low status resentment of one’s betters to bother. 172
Posted by Gorothcair the Elf on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:27 | #
Yes this is certainly important. Political beliefs may not be enough to fill ‘the void’ for many that are leaving judeo-christianity so Pro-Whites need to offer Alternative Religions that are fully compatible to be a Healthy White. Here is a short list of some possible options: Paganism (think neo-vikings like Varg Vikernes) Creativity Hinduism (worked for Savtri Devi, has a Caste System, and you get to call colored ‘untouchable!) Satanism (scare the nation of islam and literally be a White Devil!) Hitlerism (worship Hitler as an Incarnate Aryan God-man like Matt Koehl) Aryan Ufology (Alien ‘Nordics’ can be worshiped in UFO Cults. ) There have even been two books written about alot of these beliefs that are moving in to fill the void and they are ‘Black Sun’ by Goodrick-Clarke and ‘Gods of the Blood’ by Gardell. There is a whole World of opportunity out there! Myself I am a Pagan/ Occultist big time into the works of Baron Julius Evola! Post a comment:
Next entry: Governments Importing Death
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Fr. John on Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:12 | #
‘the image of our forebears, untouched by Christianity,”
Sorry, not possible. Either the books were a bizarre offshoot of some esoteric pagan cult in 1900 (which I doubt) or you read into them the possibility that somehow we Westerners- we Whites- can ignore 900-1500 years of incarnated history, and then, magically, find a connection with the pagans of yesteryear, while ignoring the civilizing influences of Christendom, which has - precisely because it is incarnational- become part of the very warp and woof of our genes as White Men.
Cambria will not yield recently wrote another stellar column on this point.
I quote:
“But I find this growing movement in opposition to Christianity among many nationalists and ethnoconservatives to be troubling. I find it so not just because I take the attacks on my God, my faith and the faith of my ancestors personally, but also because it is harmful to our cause. Would the anti-Christians purge us from their number because we don’t toe the secularist or post-Christian or neo-pagan party line? Would they take action against Christians should they ever attain power? I am beginning to think the answer is ‘‘yes’’ because of the vitriolic nature of their diatribes against Christianity. For some of them, Christianity is the object of hatred because it is said to be an ‘alien, Semitic religion’, not one intrinsic to Europe. This is the line Nietzsche used, if I remember correctly.
It is more than troubling, it is a call to arms.” - http://cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com/2009/02/breaking-chains-of-superficiality.html
Moreover, your opening statements are corroborated by one of the great minds of the XXth Century, C. S. Lewis, who noted (honestly) something to the effect that ‘the really great thing about Christianity, is that it is the ONLY ‘fairy tale,’ that is TRUE. [John 17:17]
I’ve recently written a column at my blog, wherein I touch on a related matter to this wish fulfillment of moderns with malaise over the antichrist culture they have nurtured, pruned, watered, and planted, and now find it insatiable, sort of like Seymour in “Little Shop of Horrors”:
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/cain’s-groaning-and-tears-–-a-symbol-for-lent/
How is this post related? “In what did Cain’s groaning and fear consist? I shall tell you; Cain’s groaning (like Esau’s later on) came about, in that (for all his plotting) because of who he was, he was not counted the Elect seed of God.”
When you seek to find cameraderie, and ‘relatedness’ with your people’s past, you don’t take a bit here, and a bit there, and leave out the ‘merely christian’ bits. That would be like saying you like Bacon and Newton with all their rosicrucianism, and occultism, but can’t stand Shakespeare and Dickens, who acknowledged the Christian faith that made free exercise of heretical opinions possible! Oh, wait, that is EXACTLY what the multicultural modernist DOES.
But this is the Bolshevik view of history. In seeking to eradicate the Christian Past, you are STILL viewing the world through Talmudic eyes! You’re trying to create a ‘brave new world’ of paganism, and all it will give you is the Gulag, or the Guillotine, just as IT ALWAYS HAS.
TO try and find Europe apart from Christianity (and, by this term, ’ christianity’ I am NOT talking of the modern Antichrist Roman pontiff making Holocaustianity the new creed of his antichrist church - cf. Michael Hoffman on that one!
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2009/02/creed-of-church-of-shoah.html
Let me quote myself once more: “Here we have the battle between Satan and God, as written of in Dante’s Divine Comedy. Here we have the battle between Christ and the Pharisees in nascent form, which led to Our Lord’s Crucifixion on Good Friday. Here we have the reason for the falsely called ‘anti-semitism’ of the great Church Fathers, and Reformers of the West, from St. John Chrysostom on down to Luther.
And here we have the final battle ‘within their loins’ as it were, between the ‘many nations and peoples’ of Europe who are ‘the heirs according to the promise,’ [Gal. 3:29] versus the one seed that is ‘of your father, the Devil’ [John 8:44] as Christ called them; and this ‘seed’ is one that is as demonic as they come; for it is from the seed of such a race, from whom will come the Antichrist at the end of the age- the seed of the perfidious Jews.”
There are no other options. There never have been, since Charlemagne, Olaf of Norway, Vladimir of Kiev, etc. turned from paganism to Christianity. We are FOREVER linked in an indissoluable union with the Christ of Calvary. For HE is our ONLY ‘Redeemer Kinsman’ King. And we ignore Him and his Body (Christendom) at our peril. For the only other options are the Jews and their accursed theology of false ‘racial supremacism’ and talmudism- and even the Muslims are merely Jews twice removed, who denied Christ for different reasons, but denied the ‘White Man’s God,’ nevertheless.