Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:59 | #

Interesting thoughts, beautifully presented.

Of course, you understand that Christiam universalism has nothing in common with globalism, or the reduction of man to the status of proletarian cattle characteristic of Marxist aspirations. The “universalism” of Christianity merely acknowledges that all men are creatures begotten of God, and as such, are invited to partake of salvation through acceptance of Christ. “My kingdom is not of this world”, Christ informed us, and loyalty to Him in no way obviates loyalty to kin and nation (whatever the various nominal or “theistic Marxist” Christians plaguing the various denominations may state to the contrary) - as millenia of Christians before our bizarrely fallen times have implicitly understood.

Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:57 | #

GW: Timelessness underpins everything.

Yes, I very much like the way you phrased this.

I’ve recently warmed to the view that right and left, as political orientations, are not about ideology per se but about how we see respond to our past in shaping our future.  On this view, the rightward end of the spectrum tends to shape the future with the forms of the past while the leftward end tends to reject the forms of the past and shape the future with new forms.  On one extreme we never advance beyond caves and grass huts while on the other extreme we lose all sense of rootedness and our society descends into chaos.

I’m not sure how relevant these musings are to your entry but I thought I’d share them.

Posted by Sam Davidson on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:01 | #

Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” (Matthew 10:35)

But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” (Matthew 12:47)

And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Behold! My mother and My brethren.” (Matthew 12:48)

If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, yes even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)

...anyone who does not renounce all he has cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:33)

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:17 | #

“My kingdom is not of this world”, Christ informed us, and loyalty to Him in no way obviates loyalty to kin and nation

Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” (Matthew 10:35)

But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” (Matthew 12:47)

And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Behold! My mother and My brethren.” (Matthew 12:48)

If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, yes even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)

...anyone who does not renounce all he has cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:33)

You can’t have it both ways.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:37 | #

Notus,

I would like to think we are capable of transcending both extremes.  Nationalism should always do this and even the socialism of National Socialism was a gesture in this direction.  Both poles of nationalism - the ontological and the teleological - tend to the unity of the blood over the abstractions of right- and left-liberalism, but the ontological pole does it best, imo.

Leon,

I am increasingly doubtful of the worth of preserving the Christian faith-form, save that the faith instinct must adhere to a form, and these things don’t come into being like fiat money.

Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:26 | #

GW,

I agree with you, I’m just sharing an observation.  If nothing else, Truth certainly transcends the political axis.

My feeling is that on this understanding of left and right we’re all moderates, desiring to hold onto what’s beneficial for our people and leaving behind what’s not.  For example, we all want to preserve the biological form of our Western past but at the same time each of us also wants to do away with various cultural forms that are also in our past, which continues to be a source of much disagreement, but I don’t think anyone around here wants to slavishly recreate the past.  On the other hand, the Western mainstream is on the extreme leftward end of this spectrum, as it always repudiates the heritage of the past.

Posted by Frank on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:31 | #

That’s… beautiful. You brought a tear to my eye. It’s a shame how brain drain hits rural areas so fiercely.

I liked how in the Last Samurai movie, Cruise’s katana had inscribed “I belong to the warrior, in who the old ways have joined the new.”

I’m not going to nitpick on religion here.

Posted by Frank on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:12 | #

Inertia won’t be enough to preserve the rural though. When outsiders are attracted by something within the community (likely to wealth), it will need a foundation to stand on to endure / repel the invasion.

Posted by Quotable quotes on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:24 | #

“Big Von and Soren Renner querying each other about the metaphysics of Heidegger? BORING. IRRELEVANT.”

“Reading this effete horse shit makes me want buy a six pack, get in the nearest Ford F150, and go ride dirt roads.”

Hunter Wallace on Majority Rights

Posted by tc on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:38 | #

It is these remarks, that I keep coming back for Brother.

You and I may disagree, may have differing intellects, but our genes(instincts) carry us along parallel/similar paths…or for those of us, more spiritually inclined:

...have soul.

I will have to aim more carefully…:-)

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:17 | #

The Larger Question, danced around but insufficiently honed: What is it exactly that “you people” want, and why? National (proletarian) Collectivism, Aryan Aristocracy, a recrudesced national past (and which one), maintenance of existing social and political forms and structures sans non-whites, etc?

I affiliate with white nationalism for three reasons. First, and more idealistically, I wish to preserve Western Civilization, which I find in the High Culture as well as superior moral values of the historic European ethnocultures/nations. I further recognize that biology undergirds social and cultural evolution, and I believe, as a function of historical study as well as personal (and vicarious) observation, that only genetic (racial) continuity will ensure cultural continuity (’culture’ in both senses of the word: mental (intellectual and artistic) production, and folkways). Only whites will preserve Western culture in perpetuity. I am, in other words, nothing more than a true conservative. There are other true conservatives sprinkled throughout the West today, but most are cowards when it comes to acknowledging the ineradicable relation between conservatism and racial preservation, understood both genetically (blood purity) and demographically (numerical preponderance).

Second, it is in my long-term personal interest as a white man to fight against my racial dispossession and disempowerment. The presence of non-whites directly harms me in numerous ways, from fear of criminal victimization, to wealth transfers (both in taxes and professional setbacks due to “positive” discrimination), to non-white seduction and (for me) ruination of white females, to anxiety about all these negative effects of racial diversification intensifying in the future. ‘Diversity’ brings no benefit to me, but many harms.

Finally, I am a man of moral integrity, as well as personal honor (a Christian, if somewhat lackadaisical and heterodox, and a Roman), and thus find unendingly nauseating, and personally infuriating, the lies and behaviors associated with the Cult of Diversity, both the unearned swagger of arrogant and abrasive minorities, and the pathetic pusillanimity of whites in the face of it. The Christian in me morally rebels against the untruths of the Cult, while the Roman in me wants to confront and destroy it.

I’d enjoy hearing why others identify with WN, and what they understand by it (I have an ulterior reason for posting this, having to do with what I take to be many philosophical and strategic errors swirling about the WN blogsphere, including here).

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:22 | #

I don’t understand. I had a longish response, tried to post it (the word was “13boys”), and somehow re-posted a comment from another thread.

I am really bummed out. How did this happen? I can’t find my original comment!

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:25 | #

I cannot believe I lost that comment. What a lesson! Break up long comments, post paragraph by paragraph!

What a waste of time. Fuck it, time to sleep.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:33 | #

The one advantage of typewriters: at least you never lost your product with one or two incorrect keystrokes!!!

That’s really a turnoff. You know, I only tried to copy my text because of occasional problems with posting long comments in the past, which somehow got timed out, and wouldn’t post.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:19 | #

On some browsers ExpressionEngine eats thoughtful posts.  Chrome caches them OK.

Posted by Eco-Fascism as Western Salvation? on Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:28 | #

‘Groundbreaking’ studies like this were well known and discussed decades ago.  For instance, the German National Socialist Richard Walther Darré, who was the Reich Minister of Food and Agriculture from 1933 to 1942, wrote a book entitled Das Bauerntum als Lebensquell der nordischen Rasse [The Peasantry as Life Source of the Nordic Race] back in 1928.

In fact, a lot of the ideas of the current ‘green movement’ were formulated and put in to practice by various high ranking National Socialists - especially Darré who is sometimes considered the first ‘green’ politician - long before the contemporary fad was even a blip on the Anglo-American radar; read the good book Blood and Soil: Richard Walther Darré and Hitler’s “Green Party” by Anna Bramwell.

And the Norwegian Nobel Prize winning writer and National Socialist ‘sympathizer’ Knut Hamsun who wrote books like Growth of the Soil (1917) about various blood and soil issues.

Also, can the ‘eternal nation on its rural hearth’ still be said to exist once, as Spengler wrote about in many works and has definitely come to pass, the countryside largely empties of people as culture progresses to civilization with the rise of cities?  And with modern White urbanites largely failing to breed at replacement, with the rural folk long since gone to live in the cities as just stated, what will become of The West?

“But this vulgar luxury of great cities - little work, much money, and still more
amusement - exercised a fatal influence upon the hard-working and simple men of
the open country. They learnt to know of needs of which their fathers would never
have let themselves dream. Self-denial is hard when one has the opposite before
one. The flight from the land set in: first the farm-hands and maids went, then the
farmers’ sons, and in the end whole families who did not know whether or how
they could hold the paternal heritage in the face of all this distortion of economic
life. It has been the same in all Cultures at that stage. There is no truth in the
belief that Italy became depopulated after Hannibal’s time by the large landed
estates. It was the “panem et circenses” of cosmopolitan Rome that did it, and it
was only when the land had lost its population and became worthless that the
farming of large estates by means of slaves developed.  Otherwise it would
have become a wilderness. The depopulation of the villages began in England in
1840, in Germany in 1880, in the Middle West of the United States in 1920. The
peasant is tired of working without wages when the town offers him wages
without work. So away he goes - to become a ‘proletarian.’” - HOUR OF DECISION

“The whole pyramid of cultural man vanishes. It crumbles from the summit, first the world-cities, then the provincial forms, and finally the land itself, whose best blood has incontinently poured into the towns, merely to bolster them up awhile. At the last, only the primitive blood remains, alive, but robbed of its strongest and most promising elements. This residue is the Fellah type.” - DECLINE OF THE WEST

“As soon as Life is fatigued, as soon as a man is put on to the artificial soil of great cities - which are intellectual worlds to themselves - and needs a theory in which suitably to present Life to himself, morale turns into a problem.” - http://www.duke.edu/~aparks/Spengler5.html

“The transition from Culture to Civilization was accomplished for the Classical world in the fourth, for the Western in the nineteenth century. Form these periods onward the great intellectual decisions take place, no longer all over the world where not a hamlet is too small to be unimportant, but in three or four world-cities that have absorbed into themselves the whole content of History, while the old wide landscape of the Culture, become merely provincial, served only to feed the cities with what remains of its higher mankind. World-city and province—the two basic ideas of every civilization—bring up a wholly new form-problem of History, the very problem that we are living through today with hardly the remotest conception of its immensity. In place of a world, there is a city, a point, in which the whole life of broad regions is collecting while the rest dries up. In place of a type-true people, born of and grown on the soil, there is new sort of nomad, cohering unstably in fluid masses, the parasitical city dweller, traditionless, utterly matter-of-fact, religionless, clever, unfruitful, deeply contemptuous of the countryman and especially that highest form of countryman, the country gentleman. This is a very great stride towards the inorganic, towards the end—what does it signify?

The world-city means cosmopolitanism in place of “home” . . . To the world-city belongs not a folk but a mob. Its uncomprehending hostility to all the traditions representative of the culture (nobility, church, privileges, dynasties, convention in art and limits of knowledge in science), the keen and cold intelligence that confounds the wisdom of the peasant, the new- fashioned naturalism that in relation to all matters of sex and society goes back far to quite primitive instincts and conditions, the reappearance of the panem et circenses in the form of wage-disputes and sports stadia—all these things betoken the definite closing down of the Culture and the opening of a quite new phase of human existence—anti-provincial, late, futureless, but quite inevitable.” - http://www.duke.edu/~aparks/SPENG7.html

“What makes the man of the world-cities incapable of living on any but this artificial footing is that the cosmic beat in his being is every decreasing, while the tensions of his waking- consciousness become more and more dangerous.. This then, is the conclusion of the city’s history; growing from primitive barter-centre to Culture-city and at last to world-city, it sacrifices first the blood and soul of its creators to the needs of its majestic evolution, and then the last flower of that growth to the spirit of civilization—and so, doomed, moves on to final self-destruction.”

More reading:

- http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Folk_and_Land

- http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Richard_Walther_Darré

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 05:50 | #

What is it exactly that “you people” want, and why?

1) English ethno-state.
- Minimum 90% English, further up to 98% other British and British descent, up to 2% other.
- Written constitution, US one as the model with extra clauses specifying blood citizenship and a specified mechanism for maintaining a minimum level of genetic closeness
- improved liberal democracy stealing good ideas from here and there

2) Variations on the ethno-state theme according to their own preferences for the other white nations as that will be neccessary for mutual survival.
- some kind of treaty arrangement based on total non-interference in each other’s internal affairs but mutual aid in a crisis
- all the white nations with a few nukes to prevent unneccessary wars
- some particular considerations for Anglosphere countries

3) A certain amount of re-arranging of the world to make this potential extinction event less likely in the future.

Why?

Some day in the future i want my blood to see the view on Alpha Centauri.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:47 | #

Very good, Wandrin (though I’m sorry that I accidentally posted that comment here, when I lost another, much longer one somehow).

The jury is still out, though, on whether any kind of either liberalism or democracy will be compatible with any white ethnostate. They could be logically, perhaps, but psychologically, I think some type of fairly rigorous authoritarianism will be needed, both to achieve as well as maintain the ethnostate, at least in the early years.

Posted by Sam Davidson on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 22:00 | #

The Larger Question, danced around but insufficiently honed: What is it exactly that “you people” want, and why?

Well… that’s a fairly broad question.

I want:

...to not worry that my family will be raped/dismembered in their sleep.
...to stop paying for other people’s illegitimate children.
...to stop subsidizing an educational system that discriminates against my race.
...to protect the integrity of my country’s borders.
...an end to foreign wars at the behest of influential lobbyists.

I don’t want my country to look like this:

Posted by pug on Sun, 24 Oct 2010 22:40 | #

Leon Haller,

Once the ethnostate is achieved, a year’s worth of propaganda and fullstop will assure its persistence for at least half a century. Can you imagine the effect it will have on our people to educate en masse on the importance of European life, or just inciting the masses by barraging and flashing all the non-White on White crime scene photographs available on public record, and pointing out what evil our predecessors had done to our people?

The important thing is getting there. I don’t think it is possible through GW’s intellectualism at this point, though I wouldn’t put in on hold. This (MP3, Follow The White Rabbit podcast #52, talking about relentless repetition of ideological contradictions in left-liberalism as the means of bringing the Establishment) seems more important. Edmond Henri Adolphe Schérer had the same idea: wordism is at fault.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 01:18 | #

“What do we want” is a good question.  But it is not the first question.  That, to answer pug, is “Who are we”.

In the end, if we cannot answer this simple question, if, instead, all we can do is point to histories and genealogies or cite study references or lose ourselves in filmy imaginings of a virtuous past ... if we really cannot look at one another and at our children and say “This is who we are, and we are one”, then how can we be expected to fight those who oppress us and take our freedom as a people away and our children’s birthright?  How can we be expected to slough off the veil of lies and distortions that they use?  How can we find something more important to us than our jobs, our comforts, our security, our quiet lives, and do what must be done?

It is easy to say, “Here ... here is the panacea. Here is what we must do.”  Our numbers are full of people who have such thoughts.  They don’t understand how deep the existential crisis runs.  For over a thousand years we have worshipped an adopted god and a dogma of original sin.  For over nine hundred years we have tolerated a detached and self-interested ruling elite.  For over three hundred years we have chased after an abstract notion of liberty.  We have industrialised and atomised, and become impoverished by debt and by a crass materialism.  We have fought brother wars.  We have allowed the Jew to insinuate himself in our affairs, and now we are told we do not exist and there is nothing to defend against the waves of unwanted aliens washing over us.  The very idea, we are told, is unthinkable and inhuman.

How can we, to borrow from Fred Astaire, simply pick ourselves up from this, dust ourselves down and start all over again?  No, we must be serious.  Our self-estrangement is too profound to permit simple solutions.  As peoples and as a race, we have to return ourselves to healthy functioning, and the gold standard ... the real meaning ... of that is that once again we know who we are.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 01:55 | #

The jury is still out, though, on whether any kind of either liberalism or democracy will be compatible with any white ethnostate.

Sure. It doesn’t actually matter to me because what i believe is if the blood is preserved then eventually we’ll get back to some kind of democracy over time the same way any ethnic group with average 100+ IQ will always tend to some kind of democracy over time.

And left to our own devices over time, with many mistakes and dead ends along the way, we’d gradually perfect it.

The only vital thing is maintaining our blood - i wouldn’t say pure exactly, but within a certain range of genetic closeness - as the overwhelmingly dominant ethnic majority on our land.

Which then leads me to the same view expressed by pug

talking about relentless repetition of ideological contradictions in left-liberalism as the means of bringing the Establishment

because to me, if my tribe’s blood is preserved then over time they’ll gradually evolve towards the *best* form of government. So what i want is the survival of my blood on our land as everything else will inevitably follow on from that over the centuries. Everything else is tactics.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 01:59 | #

For over a thousand years we have worshipped an adopted god and a dogma of original sin.

I think we adopted the dogma of original sin so readily because it fitted our evolved psychology as per MacD.

Other than that quibble though i generally take your point and would prefer a form of religion which met the psychological needs of people while at the same time 100% supporting our blood, our land.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:09 | #

As peoples and as a race, we have to return ourselves to healthy functioning, and the gold standard ... the real meaning ... of that is that once again we know who we are.

[For over nine hundred years we have tolerated a detached and self-interested ruling elite.]

And there remains a question as to why you are once again subject to a master people?

Marx himself would have been hard-pressed to have extruded a finer specimen of prole-speak.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:29 | #

We must be serious…, know who we are.

I was quite content with myself as an imp until this guy came along.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:35 | #

And there remains a question as to why you are once again subject to a master people?

Easy answer to that. Normal people find it almost impossible to imagine the level of betrayal jews, or at least diaspora jews consider normal because, to take the most charitable explanation, they haven’t had the same twisted history as the jews did.

The jewish way of being, to take the most charitable explanation, is based on thousands of years of wanting to survive and thrive as a small minority inside host populations without assimilating. Apart from gypsies no other group in Europe had that experience.

The way of being they evolved requires constant and casual betrayal of their non-jewish neighbours on a daily basis. To them it is pre-emptive self-defence hence their complete lack of shame over it.

It’s like a big goy saves the life of a jew and then immediately the jew starts plotting to kill the man who saved his life and steal the man’s house. You don’t have to be clever to do that, although no doubt it helps, you just have to be viler than the first man could ever imagine.

If you are viler and more treachorous than the average person can imagine it’s easy.

There’s a whole class of conmen who are the same. There’s one set that targets greedy people and another set that targets kind people because kind people are so trusting.

Posted by uh on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:59 | #

The globe-trotter lives in a smaller world than the peasant. He is always breathing, an air of locality. London is a place, to be compared to Chicago; Chicago is a place, to be compared to Timbuctoo. But Timbuctoo is not a place, since there, at least, live men who regard it as the universe, and breathe, not an air of locality, but the winds of the world. The man in the saloon steamer has seen all the races of men, and he is thinking of the things that divide men—diet, dress, decorum, rings in the nose as in Africa, or in the ears as in Europe, blue paint among the ancients, or red paint among the modern Britons. The man in the cabbage field has seen nothing at all; but he is thinking of the things that unite men—hunger and babies, and the beauty of women, and the promise or menace of the sky. Mr. Kipling, with all his merits, is the globe-trotter; he has not the patience to become part of anything. So great and genuine a man is not to be accused of a merely cynical cosmopolitanism; still, his cosmopolitanism is his weakness. That weakness is splendidly expressed in one of his finest poems, “The Sestina of the Tramp Royal,” in which a man declares that he can endure anything in the way of hunger or horror, but not permanent presence in one place. In this there is certainly danger. The more dead and dry and dusty a thing is the more it travels about; dust is like this and the thistle-down and the High Commissioner in South Africa. Fertile things are somewhat heavier, like the heavy fruit trees on the pregnant mud of the Nile. In the heated idleness of youth we were all rather inclined to quarrel with the implication of that proverb which says that a rolling stone gathers no moss. We were inclined to ask, “Who wants to gather moss, except silly old ladies? “But for all that we begin to perceive that the proverb is right. The rolling stone rolls echoing from rock to rock; but the rolling stone is dead. The moss is silent because the moss is alive.

-Chesty, Heretics

Posted by pug on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 04:28 | #

“What do we want” is a good question.  But it is not the first question.  That, to answer pug, is “Who are we”.

In the end, if we cannot answer this simple question, if, instead, all we can do is point to histories and genealogies or cite study references or lose ourselves in filmy imaginings of a virtuous past ... if we really cannot look at one another and at our children and say “This is who we are, and we are one”, then how can we be expected to fight those who oppress us and take our freedom as a people away and our children’s birthright?  How can we be expected to slough off the veil of lies and distortions that they use?  How can we find something more important to us than our jobs, our comforts, our security, our quiet lives, and do what must be done? — GW

It can only be stated in 100,000 ways and you know it. I’ll try to add to the list, then:

It is mostly due to the hostile jewish elite’s intellectual terrorism that European people can eschew most of our current understanding of biology, as well as physics, and what intellectual position flows from them, even if the instinct for, and implicit understanding of, self-preservation that most beings already default to fail. All individual evolved organisms have a non-putative “striving of life,” a raison d’être and ultimate interests toward ensuring the indefinite survival and expansion of their distinctive genetic information—information that is an important part of the fabric of reality and subjectively, for the organism, of the utmost importance—whether said distinctive genetic information is present and embodied in said organism or collateral kin—kin extending to and including the populational and ethnic/racial variety. Such is the only abiding morality; there is no other more important reason for which we, or our social mores, culture or governments, or their territorial monopolies, should exist. Sidestepping and cutting through all the metaphysical quagmires of yore, yesterday and the quotidian present, there is indeed an “afterlife” to speak of and consists of gaining informational representation in the universe through your natural ingroup’s progeniture, whether directly yours or kin by other means. Either we obtain ethnostates, or our history never was and our future is lost. We have less than a generation left to act.

So, do I know or not know “who we are?”

1.) What must be done is informing people of these basic life-facts, but not through eschewing socio-cultural palingenesis or any other argument for ethnic nationalism such as from the social and economic realm et seq., and certainly not at the level above; I don’t think intellectual elites can be won, and may have to be [self-censored], along with perhaps all politicians in a national revolution that is not of the ideational, so gearing oneself up would be a good idea. Why? Because I do not believe in your blatantly palingenetic pretense of English honesty, fairness & honor, that perhaps never existed, that you feel will get England through this. Philosophically qualifying “who we are”—to death?—isn’t political traction.

2.) What must also be done is drawing up an intellectual & political manifesto and talking points that all European nationalist politicians can and will constantly use, esp. White or “[insert ethnicity] genocide.” Furthermore, we need a skillfully written economic programme with regards to the issue of the monetary system and the lie of ‘free trade,’ both of which are false excuses for genocidal mass immigration. If nothing of the intellectual work done here gets applied through the political, and if the ‘free trade’ issue isn’t brought up, people won’t turn to us (“We told you so!”) when shite hits the fan, which is soon.

I don’t know how to get direct access to nationalist political parties. I don’t know if even one is currently addressing race qua race, since they’re all been seemingly queered to civic nationalism via anti-White legislation or lack of will. We need to build that bridge to all of them, however, and give them talking points which can escape PC inquisition such as discussed in the Follow The White Rabbit podcast linked above, which you are most welcome to listen to should time be available. The failure of nationalist parties to drive this point home—of minoritisation, then extinction, and what this means—is both interesting and risible. The question is how do we capture our friends who have never thought of extinction before, to then move on to our foes? And what can we do about a egomaniacal tosser such as Lee John Barnes who has been thoroughly exposed to the message of English life and rejects it for political acumen?

Posted by Lurker on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 04:37 | #

Thanks for that uh, I’d never read that before.

Posted by Mario on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 04:46 | #

any ethnic group with average 100+ IQ will always tend to some kind of democracy over time.

Only very recently in historical terms has democracy become at all popular.

If we assume that some ethnic groups had IQs of 100 or above 1,000 years ago, which seems likely enough, than none of those ethnic groups practiced democracy.

If all the 100 IQ ethnic groups went from no democracy to having it, what actual reason is there to think they won’t all go back to not having democracy again?

It happened in Germany. 

They went from being a democracy to not being one, and it’s only because Hitler happened to lose the war that they went back to being a democracy.

Enough with the enshrinement of historical accident into historical law.

Posted by pug on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 04:55 | #

Wandrin,

The radio show I mentioned advocates something brilliant: the Establishment’s buzz-words and buzzphrases should be met with fiercer others. To wit, whenever some White anti-White calls you a “racist,” the appropriate snappy reply is to be invariably the following (not an exact reproduction of how he does it, but that’s unimportant):

In your opinion I am a racist. You are only saying that because I am White. Anti-racism is just a code-word for being anti-White, and a feeble cover for your self-estrangement and hatred of your own kind.

I.e., don’t accept it, don’t deny it, don’t question it or yourself, just attack them and question their motives. He figures that if enough people know this, it will reverb, spread geometrically and ultimately destroy our being owned by words.

To my knowledge, there is nothing they can do to respond to the above effectively; tested it and it works. Perhaps because it is true. One can twist it and use it with “anti-Semite” or whatever one wishes.

Posted by pug on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 05:03 | #

Mario,

The extent to which European nations are currently democracies is very questionable.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 06:06 | #

Mario

Only very recently in historical terms has democracy become at all popular.

Well, i’m not going to argue about this as it’s not relevant. I think if my blood manages to survive this current attempted genocide and ends up maintaining itself at c98% of the blood on our land then the form of government will inevitably trend in the direction i would like because of oxytocin. There might well be numerous diversions along the way but that is my belief.

People originally from the non-marxist and non-ideological left will understand it better because oxytocin is the foundation of that strand of politics.

Pug

The radio show I mentioned advocates something brilliant:

Yeah. I’ve been following that line for a while now - consistent message - bang, bang, bang, like a hammer. It’s slow but it works and if it ever reaches critical mass then things could flip dramatically.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:13 | #

“And there remains a question as to why you are once again subject to a master people?”

Easy answer to that. Normal people find it almost impossible to imagine the level of betrayal jews, or at least diaspora jews consider normal because, to take the most charitable explanation, they haven’t had the same twisted history as the jews did.

No, that is the answer to another and subordinate question.

Which would be: why are now the Jews the particular master people involved - rather than why are the goyim perpetually subject to a master race, in general, as above.

And the answer thereto is: the goy is a perpetual child - whose intellect is marvelously adept at solving technical problems (playing with toys and taking them apart) - but whose grasp of larger organizational conundrums is negroid.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:43 | #

the goy is a perpetual child

Yawn. My people, left to our own devices on our own land, will always eventually make much better places to live than your people.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:26 | #

“What do we want” is a good question.  But it is not the first question.  That, to answer pug, is “Who are we”.

In the end, if we cannot answer this simple question, if, instead, all we can do is point to histories and genealogies or cite study references or lose ourselves in filmy imaginings of a virtuous past ... if we really cannot look at one another and at our children and say “This is who we are, and we are one”, then how can we be expected to fight those who oppress us and take our freedom as a people away and our children’s birthright?  How can we be expected to slough off the veil of lies and distortions that they use?  How can we find something more important to us than our jobs, our comforts, our security, our quiet lives, and do what must be done?

It is easy to say, “Here ... here is the panacea. Here is what we must do.” Our numbers are full of people who have such thoughts.  They don’t understand how deep the existential crisis runs.  For over a thousand years we have worshipped an adopted god and a dogma of original sin.  For over nine hundred years we have tolerated a detached and self-interested ruling elite.  For over three hundred years we have chased after an abstract notion of liberty.  We have industrialised and atomised, and become impoverished by debt and by a crass materialism.  We have fought brother wars.  We have allowed the Jew to insinuate himself in our affairs, and now we are told we do not exist and there is nothing to defend against the waves of unwanted aliens washing over us.  The very idea, we are told, is unthinkable and inhuman.

How can we, to borrow from Fred Astaire, simply pick ourselves up from this, dust ourselves down and start all over again?  No, we must be serious.  Our self-estrangement is too profound to permit simple solutions.  As peoples and as a race, we have to return ourselves to healthy functioning, and the gold standard ... the real meaning ... of that is that once again we know who we are. GW)

_______________________________

A lot here to mull. This response could easily generate a counter-response in the form of a series of questions - Thirty (or Fifty or a Hundred) Questions for Racialists. Because I am harried, I will confine myself.

1. Is it possible to say “who we are”? Who any race/people is, existentially? Has our race ever answered that question in the past?

2. Is it really necessary to answer “who we are” in order to save our race from extinction?

3. Why did our self-estrangement, if dated to the Euro-barbarian conversions (in the main, from Constantine to its substantial conclusion by the time of Charlemagne), only now manifest itself?

4. Do you hold that modern Western/white self-denial was always a latent aspect of the West’s acceptance of Christianity? Or is it possible that modern Christianity is itself a heretical deformation of the historic faith? How do you explain the clear fact that Western self-hatred has grown concurrently with the decline of traditionalist Christianity, and the rise of liberalism?

5. Is white suicide primarily a philosophical, theological, biological, sociological, or political problem?

I think these questions (and others I didn’t list) are very important, as is this type of discussion (though we must always bear in mind that at some point soon, we must ‘shite or get off the can’; we cannot endlessly debate the sources of our existential angsts, while the floodtide of aliens washes ever higher - I always like to remind the intellectuals that there is an ever-worsening physical condition out there that finally we will have to defeat, concurrent with our theorizing, if not before we have fashioned a new meaning of life).

My own view (very simplified) is:

a. Christianity is plausible enough for me to accept it.

b. Christianity, in its essence, does not morally necessitate the abandonment of non-universal attachments (to kin, community, nation, race).

c. Liberalism is hostile to particularistic attachments, as well as un- and anti-Christian.

d. The rise of Western self-destruction precisely chronologically mirrors the political ascendance of leftism (liberalism, socialism), though other, less ideational factors have played important roles in white destruction: rise of Jews, intra-racial wars, communication/transportation revolution ‘shrinking’ the world and thereby facilitating immigration, trade, capital flows, in turn leading to white elite unrootedness and psychic displacement from ‘folkish’ bonds, general rise of ‘individual’ and ‘self’, etc.

e. The intellectual/ideational problem of white suicide is to be solved through a return to traditional Christianity, now theologically updated to sanction ethnocommunal preservation (such preservationism, I believe, always theologically latent in the Faith, though never explored in great depth - as far as I have discovered - as today’s issues have never before obtained).

Much more could be said, obviously. I leave the ball(s) in your court(s).

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:52 | #

Yawn. My people, left to our own devices on our own land, will always eventually make much better places to live than your people.

If wishes were horses…

[You will never “be left to [your] own devices” on a globe where the population has passed pre-historic demographic levels.]

So grow up and try to grasp that human life is going to be, inescapably, stratified by lies and violence.

Sadly - presently - your attitude portends that you will be perpetually on the bottom of that pile! :-(

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:54 | #

GW,

On one point we are in complete agreement. The modal way of life in the white world today is wholly racially unsustainable. That is, the entirety of the modern way of life propels white extinction, even if that is not the intention of most whites (neither is racial preservation, of course).

Is racial extinction primarily an epiphenomenon of the modern lifestyle? Or is it intrinsic to it?

Put another way, there is an ideology - multiculturalism, ‘diversityism’, liberalism - dominant in the West which promotes white extinction (or at least, excoriates positive steps towards white preservation).

But it seems as though the dominant economic structures and (non-racial) social mores (‘acquisitive individualism’) in the West also functionally promote white extinction.

Does the ideology create the structures and mores, or did the latter create conditions for which multiculti can be seen as an ex post facto rationalization?

I know I’m not expressing myself well, but perhaps you/others can intuit where I’m going with this. 

I want to know if this is really all one big intellectual problem/error, or if the modern world, quite apart from multiculti ideology, produces a non-communitarian, short-term outlooking greedmonger, for whom kinist or nationalist sacrifice is no longer desirable or even intelligible.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:05 | #

Does the ideology create the structures and mores, or did the latter create conditions for which multiculti can be seen as an ex post facto rationalization?

...the party of fanciful Good Intentions with which this Road to Hell is presently being paved is the meliorist liberal Left, classical and modern, which has facilitated the liberation of the “people,” bourgeois and working-class, from their historic aristocratic masters. If we place the most charitable interpretation upon the motivation behind this contribution, we would say that the oppressed and exploited have thereby been relieved of such injustice, and have been granted the freedom and rights to which all are entitled by virtue of their humanity. Notions of Natural Law and Progress make self-evident the righteousness of this subversive enterprise — based, as it is believed to be, upon universal principles dictated by reason and compassion for one’s fellow man. Thus, as is easily observed in the present instance, advocates of this “liberalism” find themselves to be the most compassionate, caring, concerned, and committed of us all in seeing to the welfare of humanity as a whole and of the planet upon which that humanity resides.

The problem with liberating the lower orders, however, is that the revolution means more suffering, exploitation, and death under the new masters than under the old. For example, maintaining order on a mutinous ship in the old days sometimes meant resorting to flogging miscreants even more often than did the martinet who induced the mutiny. More recently, the nascent Soviet Union had to take murderous Russian brutality and callousness to unprecedented heights (or depths) in conforming its much-reduced population of surviving peasants and workers to their lovely new Gulag-enhanced and Secret-Police-supervised “Worker’s Paradise”. And to date, the tally of Maoist Red Chinese domestic megacide, in pursuit of a pure Communist liberationist regime, has not even been approached in absolute numbers by any other polity.

That is the actual working-out of the brutal logic of political-economy in the history of events, as opposed to the sentimental theory and fable with which we are most familiar. The order created by centuries of aristocratic dominion is not a story of unbridled rapacity presiding over incessant misery, a’la the tales of Robin Hood and Uncle Tom’s Cabin, but, in fact, of the progressive minimization of the unavoidable impositions that violent conflict make upon human society. It is when republican “citizenship” and revolutionary “comradeship” make their appearance on the scene that the suffering and killing really start - because the demands of the newly-elevated rabble multiply the demands that must be met. It was democratic Athenian imperialism, not monarchic Spartan conservatism, that provoked formation of the anti-Athenian coalition leading to the Peloponnesian War. It was the most “liberal” of the European powers, England, the World’s Workshop, and not Prussian Militarist Germany, on whose empire the sun never set.

Liberalism is thus the logical and historical prelude to anarchy or despotism, by virtue of having unleashed demands, for the satisfaction of which no new formula exists in replacement of the accommodations reached in the course of centuries of aristocratic rule. Anglo-America has avoided this fate, to this date, first, by having long exploited the politico-economic virtues of global colonialism in which Laissez-faire works nicely according to theory - until a pioneering frontier closes - and by having thereafter been sold into another Faustian Pact with the Fifth-Column international theocrats of the day (elite Jewry having replaced the Church in this capacity).

This latter-day Deal with the Devil involved being rewarded in the historic short-term with manhood-affirming, mock-heroic martial “victory,” and with long-awaited economic “recovery,” and with transitory global pre-eminence in the aftermath of the Fifth Column’s engineering of the War to Save Communism from Hitler and Tojo - plus the wide-spread off-shoring of otherwise class-warfare-producing wage-slavery and the additional extortions from global economic imperialism, as a bonus.

This comes, however, at the long-term expense of eliminating effective resistance to displacement of the native oligarchy by elite Jewry, of resistance to illegal immigration and eventual declension into Third-World decrepitude, and of preparedness for eventual attack by the irregular forces of the Asian (currently crypto-Communist Russian and Chinese Communist) revolutionary regimes, who are deceptively exploiting the ideologically-based delusions of their “objective enemy,” Greater Judea (formerly “America”) - the latter having been temporarily elevated beyond its place in the world (Hua Guofeng-wise) by the Fifth-Column-engineered WWII alliance with its Communist then-and-now mortal enemy, in a back-stabbing betrayal of its would-be natural and present ally, Germany.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:09 | #

NN,

You just wrote that comment/response in 11 minutes??!! Unless you’ve merely appended something written previously, you must be some kind of genius. I’m not sure I merely could have typed what you wrote that quickly.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:14 | #

LH,

Cut and pasted from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:25 | #

SUPERHUMAN

[I mistakenly linked email, previously]

Posted by Sam Davidson on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:39 | #

3. Why did our self-estrangement, if dated to the Euro-barbarian conversions (in the main, from Constantine to its substantial conclusion by the time of Charlemagne), only now manifest itself?

Do you not think that race replacement was happening in the Roman Empire?
http://bellsouthpwp.net/b/e/bencragun/ben42/Ancient Ancestors.htm

Do you not think that the rise of Christianity had something to do with the decline of classical civilization? After the Christians took power they outlawed paganism upon penalty of death. They tore down ancient idols. This pattern repeated itself in Northern Europe. And yet this is somehow compatible with our culture?

a. Christianity is plausible enough for me to accept it.

A virgin birth, a man walking on water, a reanimated corpse? How are these things even remotely plausible?

b. Christianity, in its essence, does not morally necessitate the abandonment of non-universal attachments (to kin, community, nation, race).

Get behind me, Satan! Christ refutes you!

Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” (Matthew 10:35)

But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” (Matthew 12:47)

And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Behold! My mother and My brethren.” (Matthew 12:48)

If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, yes even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)

...anyone who does not renounce all he has cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:33)

4. Do you hold that modern Western/white self-denial was always a latent aspect of the West’s acceptance of Christianity?

It was already fully developed in Christianity, it was never ‘latent.’

Or is it possible that modern Christianity is itself a heretical deformation of the historic faith?

Christianity has certainly developed away from the original cult… It lost most of its radicalism as an adaptation to long-term survival. Christianity today is a mashup of pagan festivals with Jesus-cult aesthetics.

How do you explain the clear fact that Western self-hatred has grown concurrently with the decline of traditionalist Christianity, and the rise of liberalism?

For better or worse, Christianity became a part of Western culture. Our culture is dying, thus Christianity dies with it…

In its death throes the Christian leaders are trying to convert non-whites, but it usually ends up like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318756/Papua-New-Guineas-Black-Jesus-guilty-raping-young-girls.html?ITO=1490

Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:40 | #

Leon,

Here are some my thoughts on the subject.

Many of the big problems that surround us can be directly traced back to ideas that came out of the Enlightenment, which has resulted in a triumph of the technocratic over the ancient and spiritual.

It’s not that all the ideas inherent to classic liberal thought are wrong - to the contrary, I think they have a necessary place for the more individualistic peoples of the West - it’s just that you can’t found a nation on them.  Nations should be founded on principles of identity and not simply on freedom, natural rights, and equality.  Moreover, if we are to contemplate about the prospect of rebuilding our respective societies on principles of identity then it stands to reason that we must also figure out who we are and just what kind of identity we should be organizing our political energies around.  These are not matters of common sense given our current condition of extreme self-estrangement.

Another big problem that I can identify is our incomplete view of wealth.  The kind of economic thinking that’s been dominant in the West measures economic value in terms of unending growth; increasing economic value (i.e. “growing” the economy) means increasing the rate of unending growth.  Clearly, this model is not sustainable and needs to be tempered by a broader view of wealth that takes into account both social and environmental factors.  For example, a business might bring in lots of dusky hordes into its workshops because it can employ them at cheaper cost and reap a big profit, but this kind of thing only works in the short-term for if those dusky hordes were to be so numerous as to grasp the reigns of power then the entire social-economic fabric that allowed that business to be profitable in the first place would dissolve and wealth will be lost.  Another example, a business might increase its profit margin by dumping its untreated waste onto the land; however, this too is a short-term situation as eventually the land might be so polluted and degraded that it can no longer support the society that lives on it and wealth will be lost.

Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:01 | #

Sam,

For those of us who live in the real world the West is now thoroughly secular and technocratic, neither Christian nor pagan.  You can hate how Christianity replaced those pagan idols many centuries ago as much as you want, but it’s an exercise in esoteric irrelevancy at this point.

Nietzsche was right when he wrote in the 19th century that, “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”  Western society no longer believes in such things so you’ll have to look elsewhere for the problem.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:12 | #

Another big problem that I can identify is our incomplete view of wealth.  The kind of economic thinking that’s been dominant in the West measures economic value in terms of unending growth; increasing economic value (i.e. “growing” the economy) means increasing the rate of unending growth.  Clearly, this model is not sustainable and needs to be tempered by a broader view of wealth that takes into account both social and environmental factors.  For example, a business might bring in lots of dusky hordes into its workshops because it can employ them at cheaper cost and reap a big profit, but this kind of thing only works in the short-term for if those dusky hordes were to be so numerous as to grasp the reigns of power then the entire social-economic fabric that allowed that business to be profitable in the first place would dissolve and wealth will be lost.  Another example, a business might increase its profit margin by dumping its untreated waste onto the land; however, this too is a short-term situation as eventually the land might be so polluted and degraded that it can no longer support the society that lives on it and wealth will be lost.

If only I could arrange to retain my youth, I should live forever.

A polity will grow as long as it can, economically and/or territorially - for, when it reaches its maximum extent, it has only to decline.  As one hopes to defer death, a polity will resort to one or another sort of imperialism or colonialism in order to continue to remain whole or in balance and thus alive.

The anti-imperialism of the Left (and of the bone-head Right) is a formula for premature disintegration or fossilization of the social organism.  No one has developed a formula for societal stasis or equilibrium.

Because (rimshot) - that’s what death is.

Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:14 | #

NN,

I’m feeling puckish this morning.

Which would be: why are now the Jews the particular master people involved…

This springs from an inverted form of Jew worship, resist the Nietzschean urge to make gods out of men.

...but whose grasp of larger organizational conundrums is negroid.

If by negroid you mean to say that his mind is prone to being addled with conspiracies then I agree with you.

Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:27 | #

NN,

The anti-imperialism of the Left (and of the bone-head Right) is a formula for premature disintegration or fossilization of the social organism.  No one has developed a formula for societal stasis or equilibrium.

I don’t deny the circle of life, but I would hope to preserve the most essential elements of our civilization when death inevitably comes.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:05 | #

So grow up and try to grasp that human life is going to be, inescapably, stratified by lies and violence.

You’re a jew. You might not actually be jewish but you’re describing exactly how they think, or at least how their worst 20% think.

The simple reality is…

If enough white people come to believe they are the ongoing victims of a deliberate attempt at global genocide by the jews as a reaction to Hitler (which they are) then they’ll be very, very cross.

If this is achieved before it’s too late then that level of crossness will lead to the world being re-shaped in highly dramatic ways aimed at reducing the chances of this happening again.

Win or lose, as this all comes to a head very, very large numbers of innocent people will be getting killed simply because 20% of those ****ers think they’re the master race. Tragic.

==

Also God isn’t dead because God is empathy therefore God will continually be reborn. If you want to kill God you’ll have to eradicate oxytocin in the blood.

Master shepherds would be the ones who understand the sheep best not the least.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:28 | #

You’re a jew. You might not actually be jewish but you’re describing exactly how they think, or at least how their worst 20% think.

You refer, of course, to the 20% that are the cowboys that run the ranch (the ole “Circle K”) that you occupy as a cow.

So consider this question, Wandrin: who do you think best knows how to run a ranch - a cowboy or a cow?

And what does a number of very very cross cows constitute other than a stampede?

And who knows best how to direct and get control of a stampede other than a cowboy?

So, Wandrin, you might not actually be a cow…

Posted by Sam Davidson on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:05 | #

For those of us who live in the real world the West is now thoroughly secular and technocratic, neither Christian nor pagan. You can hate how Christianity replaced those pagan idols many centuries ago as much as you want,...

You’re implying that I’m a bitter pagan blaming our current woes on Christianity. That’s not true.

...but it’s an exercise in esoteric irrelevancy at this point.

Irrelevant to what?

Nietzsche was right when he wrote in the 19th century that, “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.” Western society no longer believes in such things so you’ll have to look elsewhere for the problem.

And what is… the problem?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:08 | #

Wandrin,

If enough white people come to believe…

I’ve forwarded the entirety of your message to the major media outlets. It’s just a matter of time now before our masters begin repeating the Mantra to the millions.

‘Til the cows come home, stay tuned.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:31 | #

Neo,

“who do you think best knows how to run a ranch”

They don’t know how to run a ranch. Hence Germany in the 30s and the coming economic collapse in Britain and America. All they know how to do is loot what others have built. My people know how to run a ranch. My people’s problem is their inability to conceive of levels of trachery above a certain threshold.

Like i said. Your primary value is as an educational tool. You think exactly like the worst jews.

JimmyMarr,

Everyone has a media outlet. It’s called their mouth.

Alternatively you can dress up in a kilt and shout “sieg heil” in the face of a conveniently placed 90 year old rabbi.

Posted by Ezra Pound Says... on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:33 | #

“The Jew is a savage, his psychology is ... may the stink of your camp drive you onwards—herders—having no care but to let their herds grouse and move onward when the pasture is exhausted.” - May 11, 1943

—-

A bit of writing on the nomadic character from http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/Wrench_Recon/Wrench_Recon_6.html

The Jews and other nomadic people are DESERT MAKERS; wherever they have settled they’ve historically turned in to inhospitable deserts and then moved on to greener pastures looking for new goyim to exploit.

The Nomads are the inhabitants of Belt 2, the Steppe country. They are defined in Annandale’s Concise English Dictionary as ‘those people whose chief occupation consists of feeding their flocks, and who shift their residence according to the state of the pasture’.

The Nomads, according to this definition, present a picture to the mind’s eye of wandering shepherds and peaceful pastoralists passing from pasture to pasture to the sound of tinkling cow bells. They would erect their tents of oxhide at new pastures and enjoy the comfort of a home and resting place, until their experienced eyes told them that the pasture was insufficient for their cattle and it was time to move on.

...

The picture of the Nomads is a pleasant one and their life was peaceful and pleasant as long as the pasture was good. But, when the rain was scanty and the pasture poor, they were in trouble, Then they had to move frequently and, sometimes, faced by the loss of their cattle by starvation and themselves feeling the pinch of hunger, they would move quickly and their warriors, mounted on their loved steeds and armed with bows and arrows, would fling themselves upon peaceful people, either more fortunate pastoralists like themselves or farmers, slay many and take possession of their land. With their incredible swiftness on the march and an unprecedented speed of encircling attack, with their deadly accuracy of arrows shot from the saddle, with their horrific cries to terrorize their slow-moving victims, they must have seemed like a horde of winged insects, whose sting was death, and whose capture and destruction were impossible.

The cause of this disturbing loss of food was at one time believed to be an increasing dryness of the climate in historical times. This hypothesis was propounded by Prince Kropotkin in an article in the Royal Geographical Journal of 1904 in which he stated that it was quite certain that Belt No. 4 was more populated than it is now; it was quite certain, for example, that within historical times Eastern Turkestan and the adjacent part of Mongolia ‘were not deserts as they are now. They had a numerous population, advanced in civilization, which stood in lively intercourse with different parts of Asia’. Many of them were successful farmers dependent on irrigation from rivers flowing from their enclosing mountains. This, Sir Aurel Stein, in his monumental work The Desert Cities of Cathay, 1912, has convincingly proved beyond further discussion. Kropotkin continued: ‘All this is now gone, and it must have been the rapid desiccation of this region which compelled its inhabitants to rush down to the Jungarian Gate’ (Jungaria was a name of Western Mongolia) ‘to the lowlands of Balkash and the Obi.’ Mr. Huntingdon Ellsworth skilfully developed this hypothesis in The Pulse of Asia.

...

Another reason had to be found. It was found in the particular character of the treatment of the soil by the Nomads.

The first statement of this other reason, which I have been able to find, is that by Monsieur Rorit in the Royal Geographical Journal of 1870. Rorit wrote: ‘The nakedness of Arabia and the vast tracts of Asia in the north and west, the sterility, which extends over Persia, cannot be traced to any other cause than the pastoral habits of the inhabitants. The people inhabiting them are locusts; they destroy all woodland and vegetation, modifying even the climate—whence the necessity of migrations. Had the invasions of the barbarians any other cause? A study of the question in this sense would perhaps give us the key to the great migrations of mankind.’

Monsieur Rorit’s reason is pungently expressed, but it is now accepted. It could not well be otherwise, for, to confirm it, the same process is going on in many parts of the world under our eyes today.

In the countries in which Nomads fed their flocks and herds and grew temporary crops of grain, there was, as is usual in uninterfered with nature, a balance between animal and vegetable life. Animals feed upon the land and manure it, but they do not ravage it. When human pastoralists entered these countries, there entered with them an altogether new danger, namely a form of terrene animals so advantaged by their upright position, their hands and their large brains, that they have the capacity to override the natural law of balance. They could breed more animals than the land could permanently support; they could break up the natural life-cycle of a district by using all that the soil produced, and then, when exhaustion of the soil came, move on to another district. With weapons forged from the iron of the Altai Mountains, these Nomads could cut down trees and shrubs and, with their ability to create fire from flint or friction, they could burn as well as cut down. The ash of the burnt trees and shrubs gave the manure of their substance to the land and enabled the Nomads to grow good temporary crops for a number of seasons. They, in short, as men, had power; and power in this sense may be defined as the ability to exceed the limitations set by nature.

Nature followed the rule of return, and the Nomads, unlike the true farmers, failed to follow the, rule of return. Indirectly, by cutting down trees and shrubs for fuel and for ash, they made the soil drier. Rain fell and was by nature broken into a fine spray by trees, shrubs and thick grass and was thus evenly and widely spread in the topsoil. The topsoil, sheltered from sun and rain, stored the water. By slow evaporation from the vegetation, the water was returned to the air. But where excess of cattle fed upon the land and where trees and shrubs were widely burnt, the soil was exposed, dried and powdered, and then blown away by the winds or washed away by the rain. So a district of desert was formed, which forced the Nomads to move on. Nature then returned and in many cases restored the ravage. But if the destruction of fertility had been too great or if the half-recovered soil was again used for crops and grazing, permanent deterioration was the result.

The Nomads, then, lived a life of ill-balance by not following the rule of return, which is the only stable rule of living. They were, therefore, forced to live a life of chance. They depended on the seasons and, as the seasons varied, they themselves were necessarily speculative. In this character, indeed, they were like to other kinds of speculators, many prominent at the present time. Speculators disregard the rule of return. They strive to gain without giving; they disregard future generations; they are indifferent to the sufferings of others, provided they themselves can escape suffering. Yet eventually there is no escape from the effects of these actions, because ultimately their values are destructive and not conservative.

As long as the Nomads failed to use settled agriculture and limit their cattle-breeding, life was sometimes generous to them, sometimes even-handed, sometimes, at seasons of drought, harsh. At times of harshness, mounted on their horses they organized wide-sweeping hunts of wild animals for their food. If further pressed, they were forced to move on and this sometimes entailed making raids into the lands of their neighbours, who, in their turn might raid or join with them in raiding. Then, with increasing numbers, they might successfully, make themselves masters of the land of settled farmers and the food and wealth, which they had not the wit to get by their own skill and toil. Hence they praised war, not as a means of defence in the way in which a sturdy peasantry has so often successfully defended itself and its soil, but as a means to mastery and wealth. To them life was not only a struggle for existence, but a will to power over their enemies, an assertion of the right of the better-armed and of the more savage nature over what they regarded as possible, and if possible legitimate, prey. They terrorized when they attacked, and, when they conquered, they were successful owing to the speed of their attack, the terror they aroused, and the human slaughter they effected. All these characters of theirs ultimately, therefore, arose from their attitude to the soil. The soil was something to be exploited and even plundered for their gain. This attitude was in the sharpest possible contrast to the tenet of the Babylonians, that the soil belonged to their god, or to the sanctity with which the soil was endowed by the followers of Zoroaster. These faiths of the holiness or wholeness of the soil were, as we shall see, faiths of the farmers; the very word cultivate is derived from the Latin verb colere, of the two-fold meaning of tilling and worship.

Yet the Nomads were not by any means always wild horsemen, as when they presented themselves to their enemies, the farmers. They had within them the gentler character of humanity. Professor Keane, in Man, Past and Present, said of the Tartars or Mongols of Mongolia: ‘They are all brave, warlike, even fierce, and capable of great atrocities, though not normally cruel.’ The invention of the gun has now robbed them of their power and, in consequence, they have ‘almost everywhere undergone a marked change from a rude and ferocious to a milder and more humane disposition.’

The Nomads have been the great human desert-makers, and the deserts of the Gobi, the Lop Nor, the Taklamakan, the Registan, the Great Salt Desert, the Syrian Desert, and even the Arabian Desert and the Sahara of Africa are due to their treatment of the soil. Nor is this desert-making by men at an end. It is going on at the present, as future chapters will show, in North and South America, in Russia, in Asia, in North and South Africa, in Australia, and even in the islands of New Zealand and the West Indies, with a speed that outstrips that of the Asiatic Nomads, so much so that it may even be said that man, in this proud scientific era, has paid for his all-too-swift advance by the loss of terrene capital, of the fertility of the soil. He has become the great transferrer of this capital to other fields than those of the soil, and, by his destruction of the soil, has foredoomed himself to God knows what impending calamities, exceeding those brought about by the Asiatic Nomads, unless he calls a halt.

It is this fact which gives this dissertation on the Nomadic character its present significance.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:44 | #

Neo,

I think you overreach in assuming mastery of the populace is an end unto itself in the service and realization of one’s masculinity and not properly done, all things considered, so when necessary that populace may endure.  Surely if the former course is taken without the added sense of duty to pursue the latter there is a much diminished likelihood that populace will enjoy survival unto the generations - it not then being thought of as mere fodder for the rule of its would be masters. 

On the other hand, it is my opinion GW’s conviction that an ethos of militarization and subordination to Leadership is not needed to effect mobilization in defense of ethnic interests - he cites the examples of the other combatants involved in WWII - is misplaced when addressing our present predicament as his favored examples were in possession of nation states which acted as established vehicles for channelling mobilization where as we have no such thing; nor did the Krauts when they reclaimed Germany in opposition to Versailles, which was the whole point of their movement.  In short, a militarized movement acts as a vehicle to channel aggression in pursuit of group interests in the absence of a nation state and then to gain control of a nation state.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 01:03 | #

Wandrin,

If I could get 1% of the media reverb and hyperbole from which your conflation originates, for the countless times I have published and recited the Mantra in public meetings, I’d be far less conservative in my estimation of its prospects.

My occasional antics and visual deployment of the vestiges of European tribalism are the only methods at my disposal for generating publicity. When I had a choice between addressing 20 aged civil rights activists, or 200 angry young anarchists, I thought it reasonable to attract the 200. In hindsight I can see that the results were, at best, only a marginal improvement.

So where does that leave us?

I’m certainly not going to stop employing the Mantra, but I will try cut back on my sieg heils, and I never wear kilts past Samhain, which I will observe this weekend.

This weekend will mark the beginning of a new strategy for me. I have invited all Oregon participants on Northwest Front’s White Nationalist Email List to visit my wife and I in our home during Samhain. I hope that a few will be able to make it. I hope that face to face communication with like-minded kinfolk will offer a new dimension to the array of possibilities available in the virtual domain.

So anyway, that’s my plan for now. I wish you could join us. Rest assured that, among other things, we will discuss opportunities to maximize the utility of the Mantra.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 01:05 | #

They don’t know how to run a ranch. Hence Germany in the 30s and the coming economic collapse in Britain and America. All they know how to do is loot what others have built. My people know how to run a ranch. My people’s problem is their inability to conceive of levels of treachery above a certain threshold.

Well, you know that the Blacks built this country, having been kidnapped from an African Athens, and you Whites are just parasites living off the sweat of the slaves who suffered and died by the billions, and to whom you owe reparations in the trillions.  And I’ll even bet you didn’t know that Hannibal and Cleopatra were Black.

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 01:23 | #

Ezra Pound

The Jews and other nomadic people are DESERT MAKERS

Exactly. I’ve had a lot of contact with gypsies and they’re the same - just less clever. One, they view non-gypsies as prey and two they have no permanent emotional connection to the particular soil they happen to be on because they expect to move eventually. So they trash it.

Anyone who’s ever run a business or farmed or even gardened will know you have to constantly re-invest. You have to keep feeding the soil. They don’t do that (except in Israel) because they have no attachment to the soil they’re on.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 01:25 | #

I think you overreach in assuming mastery of the populace is an end unto itself in the service and realization of one’s masculinity and not properly done, all things considered, so when necessary that populace may endure.  Surely if the former course is taken without the added sense of duty to pursue the latter there is a much diminished likelihood that populace will enjoy survival unto the generations - it not then being thought of as mere fodder for the rule of its would be masters.

Don’t worry, Captain - I’m a Nazi - not a snuff-sniffing aristocrat. 

In short, a militarized movement acts as a vehicle to channel aggression in pursuit of group interests in the absence of a nation state and then to gain control of a nation state.

Die Fahne Hoch!

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 01:26 | #

Leon,

Is racial extinction primarily an epiphenomenon of the modern lifestyle? Or is it intrinsic to it?

But what is this modern lifestyle?  Is it simply an historical-sociological phenomenon?  No, it is not detached.  It is intimate.  It is psychological ... it is noumenon ... the weakening over an extended time-period of the foundations such that the house will not fall, but cracks appear in its walls, the damp enters, and it is liveable only if one has no memory of the pleasantness and warmth of the past.  And I am not talking about some long-lost golden age but simply about the plastic qualities that are productive at any and all times of good in Man, seeing, as I have mentioned elsewhere, that good in this unique respect is what tends to consciousness of self and bad is what tends to unconsciousness.

In other words, I propose a second morality beside, but perhaps not much different in detail to, the morality of the genes.  Such a morality would indeed have intrinsic to it the vivifying effects of consciousness of self, which most certainly include the unity and love of kind.

Does the ideology create the structures and mores, or did the latter create conditions for which multiculti can be seen as an ex post facto rationalization?

Neither.  The ideology furthers our estrangement.  But so does everything else - that is my point.  At its most poignant and powerful, this is a story of an entire race being slowly maddened by the circumstances in which they arise, until only more maddening can ever come out of it, and the descent turns into a death spiral.  And whilst we might look upon this comedy and say, “Ah, it’s moral degradation!” or “It’s a loss of faith and a death of custom” or “It’s Jewish ethno-warfare!”, still we are not looking at it full in the face.  Full on, it is, to borrow again from Petrarch, a “sleep of forgetfulness”.  Notus has called it the failure of our entire civilisation, but I think that may be by-product rather than the thing itself.  In itself, it is as I say.

I want to know if this is really all one big intellectual problem/error, or if the modern world, quite apart from multiculti ideology, produces a non-communitarian, short-term outlooking greedmonger, for whom kinist or nationalist sacrifice is no longer desirable or even intelligible.

But you make the greed-monger sound like something “other”.  He is us.  He is our brother, our son, our neighbour.  We cannot escape our kinship to him even if that kinship is unintelligible to the mind which has been formed in him, which is also our mind and the mind of all those about us.

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 01:28 | #

Jimmy Marr,

I’d be far less conservative in my estimation of its prospects.

Sure. I agree the odds of success are very bad. Apologies if i came across too rude.

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:10 | #

or “It’s Jewish ethno-warfare!”, still we are not looking at it full in the face

Just to say i think there’s two parts to this. If it’s possible to knock over the existing culture then the anger generated in the process will lead to - stuff - happening. And if successful that stuff should hopefully provide for short term survival. The foundation of long-term survival might well require a lot more thought but i’m focused on the first bit and the default state for human groups who believe their ruling class is of the same ethnicity is…consent and the default state for human groups who know or believe their ruling class is from another ethnicity is…rebellion.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:11 | #

Wandrin,

Apologies if i came across too rude.

No. I’m the one who initiated the sarcasm. The tone of your response was perfectly appropriate, and it forces me to look critically at the negative effects of my strategies. I appreciate the help of your challenge, and hope that mine spurs you onward. I admire your work.

The Under Cover Lover tee-shirt goes very nicely with a black Utilikilt. Eyes forward.

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:40 | #

Undercover lovers of the world unite

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 03:07 | #

JimmyMarr,

Last thing, just to say it wasn’t the kilt or even the sieg heiling it’s the guy being 90. From a practical politics point of view that’s a no-win situation.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 03:23 | #

When it comes to promoting the Mantra Originalsavagechick shows way more potential in a skirt than I will ever show in a kilt.

Oh well; At least I have the consolation of my “forked beard”.

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:08 | #

Oh well; At least I have the consolation of my “forked beard”.

Cool

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:39 | #

Wandrin,

Last thing, just to say it wasn’t the kilt or even the sieg heiling it’s the guy being 90. From a practical politics point of view that’s a no-win situation.

That’s good because that never happened. It’s a conflation of events, but I’m glad you brought it up, because I welcome the chance to tell my side of the story.

That wheedling Rabbi is no older than I am. He also had a full Hillel entourage, and he was attempting to filibuster the forum with pilpul and personally humiliate my 95 year old patron, Orval Etter. I wasn’t confronting an elderly man. I was defending one against the pernicious machinations of the much younger and villainous Rabbi.

For the best part of four years, I have been responsible for providing Orval’s transportation to and from the Forum. For his part, Orval used his emeritus professorship to acquire university meeting rooms. At first he could use a cane, then a walker, then a wheel chair, and eventually I had to bodily lift him in and out of bed, and in and out of my car. I had to shower him; comb his hair; brush his teeth; dress him; hold his bedpan, and change his diapers. Even now that his family won’t permit me to transport him anymore, and the university won’t allow me to speak, I still visit and tend to his needs out of loyalty.

I apologize for providing all these details, but I want to make it clear that I put a lot of effort into showing respect for the elderly.

On the evening in question, two speakers were scheduled to address the public. Even though Orval was not speaking, I had parked him in his wheelchair adjacent to the speakers’ table in a show of respect to him as founder and chairman of Pacifica Forum. Shortly after starting, the speakers were interrupted by the Rabbi, who was standing to the hard right of the stage and addressed a question to Orval, who could neither see nor hear him. In addition to vision and hearing problems, Orval suffers from bouts of senile dementia, and has insufficient lung power to speak in a public setting. There was no way Orval was going to be able to respond to the question, and the Rabbi, who knows Orval, knew this perfectly well, so he kept repeating iterations of his mantra-question for the benefit of audience. His questions spun around the axis of “We all respect the right of freedom of speech, but shouldn’t responsible people distinguish between free speech and hate speech, and don’t you think some of Pacifica’s speakers routinely cross that line?” Blah, blah, blah, blah ad infinitum in this horrible wheedling voice accompanied by slithering, limp wrested, hand gestures.

Finally, when I felt it had become obvious to the audience that Orval could not respond, I interjected that Orval had already implicitly answered the question by virtue of his having invited the present speakers who were currently entitled to have the floor. The Rabbi responded with “What are you; a mind reader?”

I responded: “Yes. I am a mind reader, and it doesn’t take me all evening to read yours. Sieg heil. Sieg heil. Sieg heil.”

At that point the Rabbi and his crew left and the meeting continued.

What more can I say?

Sieg heil!

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:46 | #

Ach zo.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:21 | #

To Jimmy Marr:

You asked, I answered.

I think we’re on the same page, Leon. What do you think about Northwest Front? (Jimmy Marr)

Jimmy,

Never heard of it, until you pointed it out. I read some of the website. Could be promising, but:

1. Weren’t people already hashing this about as far back as the 70s (then it was to be called The White America Bastion, or something)? Various neo-Nazi and Identity people, who, incidentally, are far more ideologically extremist than I am, went up to Idaho, and nothing much happened, except ultimate US Federal Govt harassment, the killing of Randy Weaver’s wife, etc.

2. My notion of the ethnostate comes about through WN emigration and peaceful demographic conquest of an already existent sovereign polity (eg, Australia or Uruguay have seemed the most promising to me). [I’ve discussed this at some greater length here at MR; maybe a search will find my comments.] The NWF idea seems to be talking about internal immigration/conquest, followed perhaps by racial cleansing and then secession. That is infinitely more difficult to achieve, especially as whites continue our slow-motion descent into slavery - or at least the status of a conquered people.

3. I strongly support racially conscious whites intentionally coalescing (“sending out the call”) in a given area, forming political and social networks, and unannounced militias for common racial defense, and organizing politically, albeit in subterranean fashion, to perhaps take over local GOP party orgs, school boards, etc. I’m sceptical if this will actually lead to the real ethnostate (it would certainly help to make the lives of the area’s whites more pleasant).

4. As for myself, I would probably pass on this initially, though I might be a “second-wave” emigrant (once tougher, more committed men like you or Covington, etc, actually did the hard initial settler work). I’m neither a pioneer, nor a hero, nor any kind of martyr. I have a very clearly defined set of objectives for myself to aid the movement for race preservation, most of which involve intellectual projects, the initial ones aimed at possibly gaining me a place within the broader conservative media (Haller is not my real name). I’m able to succeed within the commercial mainstream; as I transition to a different career, I think I can eventually be a kind of bridge between Hard Right conservatism, and WN. That is my goal, anyway, or one of them.

Relatedly, I’m also in the process of trying to get up an American (not white) nationalist organization, one which will utterly eschew any racism (and thus, if we grow, will be condemned by VNN, Covington, etc), but which will be an activist organization many of whose goals will be congruent with WN. We’ve got to wake up our countrymen to their dispossession, but we lose them if we go in too hard on race (just a fact of life, as I see it). Many of our fellow whites want to support an implicitly white agenda (eg, stop immigration, abolish affirmative action, resist multiculturalism, oppose welfare, shoot criminals, etc), as long as “race” is never mentioned. Hence, American nationalism. [I’ve discussed all this in private correspondence with GW.]

5. Although I would have wanted the US to have stayed out of WW2, I totally reject Nazism, both morally and strategically. Nazism needs to be buried. We don’t need new racial symbols, or flags, or ideologies. We just need to assert traditional values, as long as they aid white preservation, and are understood to be racial values, too.

A quick addendum: I’m not only a WN, or interested only in WN political issues. I am also a Catholic, and a serious conservative, and I have many intellectual interests to explore stemming from those identities, as well.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:32 | #

Leon,

Weren’t people already hashing this about as far back as the 70s (then it was to be called The White America Bastion, or something)? Various neo-Nazi and Identity people, who, incidentally, are far more ideologically extremist than I am, went up to Idaho, and nothing much happened, except ultimate US Federal Govt harassment, the killing of Randy Weaver’s wife, etc.

I don’t know very much about this. Even though I was living in that area in the early 80’s, I didn’t know anything about white nationalism. The popular myth was that there were “Devil worshipers” in the woods around Hayden Lake. I had no idea what it was about.

I didn’t have a racial awakening until sometime around 2006. Prior to that I was an apolitical person with leftist sympathies. I started to get involved in the anti-war movement during the Bush administration and was shocked and appalled to discover the subversive strength of the Jewish influence there, particularly with regard to Palestine.

I got interested in Pacifica Forum, which was more even handed in its assessment of Palestine. I started to investigate media distortion vis a vis Palestine which led me to extrapolate that if the current media is lying, it is essentially journalizing a false version of history. How long had this been going on? That question ignited my interest in revisionism. The rest is history.

Right now I’m interested in Northwest Front largely because I live here, and my interest has recently been piqued by Michael O’meara’s Toward a White Republic, which pays favorable attention to the concept of a white migration to the Pacific Northwest.

Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:42 | #

Sam,

Irrelevant to what?

The present condition of Western society.

And what is… the problem?

That’s a difficult question but I try to give a partial answer here.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:28 | #

Thanks Dasein.

Writing the description was a good exercise for me because it has forced me to realize that my writing is a distorted view of reality. Because it is impossible for me to verbally recreate a multi-dimensional reality, I have instead resorted to attempting to recreate in the reader the feelings I experienced during the event. For instance, I don’t know if the rabbi really left the room after my salutations, or whether he just left my awareness. I’m just not sure. How do I really know if those accompanying the rabbi were members of Hillel? How many were there? Men or women? When I consciously look into my memories to discover more detail, they seem to retreat. What passes as memory is largely composed of emotional impressions associated with transient imagery.

This gives me a glimmer of insight into media and historical distortion. It helps me understand that some people who were deprived of media ownership in Germany during the 1930’s might remember it as surviving nine “death” camps.

Hopefully mine is not an egregious case, and hopefully the reader presupposes a certain amount of distortion in any anecdotal writing. I can accept that distortion is inevitable, but knowing this also intensifies my sense of unease in the knowledge that our journalistic class is dominated by a people of hostile ethnicity.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:15 | #

my interest has recently been piqued by Michael O’meara’s Toward a White Republic (jimmy Marr)

Is this a book? Sounds very interesting.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:55 | #

I got it. An article from TOQ. I’m way behind there.

I’m in favor of racial coalescing within the US, as functionally has been done forever at the neighborhood level. If a conscious coalescing in the Northwest really starts to happen, great! Indeed, something of an implicit nature already has been occurring, as many racially/ideologically/economically disgruntled white Californians moved to Idaho throughout the 90s and 00s.

Unfortunately, as Sam Francis pointed out 15 years ago, where whites move, jobs get created, and then non-whites follow. Non-whites have been migrating to ID, too (per my friends there). I suspect that this tandem process will continue (what’s to keep the non-whites out, pre-ethnostate?), making a future transition to a new Northwest White Republic improbable. I fear Sam Francis was right: genetic segregation is vital (to preserve our race and thus civilization), but territorial racial segregation (within the US) is unlikely absent unforeseen, ‘game changing’ cataclysms - and thus, within the US, the proper strategy is not racial separatism, but something like “Boerism”: ie, white supremacy, at least practiced within the white community itself (eg, we demand in-group loyalty, Race First consciousness, shaming and harassment of traitors, WN conflictual politics vis a vis other races). A white ethnostate will never be allowed to arise peacefully, and, fantasies of armed racial revolution are just that - fiction. They are fictive not because of the inadequate martial qualities or potential of WNs, but because of the contrast between the slow growth of white racial awareness, and the ongoing demographic inundation. A race between the ripening harvest, and the approaching jungle, as Wilmot Robertson expressed it - in 1972!
[I’d say the jungle was winning, though with the advent of the internet, the harvest has been ripening more quickly of late.] 

I say this not to be a downer, but because I don’t want limited resources of time, energy and capital being expended in ways unconducive to our ultimate goal of race preservation - especially when there are more useful activities and better approaches. 

I’ve penned some longish comments here at MR on the need for white emigration/electoral conquest of some foreign, sovereign polity as the last hope to prevent white extinction. So I do support the ethnostate, but I believe it must be brought into being by stealth, and within existing political boundaries and institutions, though the US is too diverse already, populous and politically stable in the medium term, to make ethnostate formation within the US strategically worthwhile.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:08 | #

Jimmy,

One last comment. Don’t give up your activism. Our race needs it as a prelude to any type of racial recovery. I’m just downplaying the notion of an ethnostate carved out of existing American territory.

Also, WN activism should NOT focus on shock tactics, such as appropriating anything from Nazism. It should be about simple truth telling, and making appeals to justice, and the white man’s own innate common sense, and sense of fairness. We are in the moral right, and morality among whites (especially white Americans) trumps mere recitations of dry scientific facts. The will-to-power posing of NeoNietzsche; the Hitler advocacy of Captainchaos; the desiccated, life-is-meaningless-so-we-create-our-own-meanings-despite-not-really-doing-so-because-free-will-does-not-exist philosophy of GW; the scornful rebuking of Christianity of Sam Davidson; the casual dismissal of God and man’s spiritual longings of Notus Wind; the ludicrous anthropomorphizing of genetic structures by seemingly everybody, except AWOL Fred Scrooby ...

Even apart from the many metaphysical errors I strongly suspect to be swirling about in these parts, none of these approaches is really going to amount to much in actually furthering our preservation, at least in the US, though the extent to which they might be tactically defensible approaches elsewhere merely accentuates the degree of the West’s degradation and disassociation (dare I say “self-estrangement”?) from its heritage.

I’ve said this before (to no avail, of course), but even the most hard-headed Darwinian or Nietzschean should be able to recognize the ethical superiority of whites to non-whites. It was from an early recognition of such on my part that I became a very precocious racialist. I was only ever attracted to White Power reactively and defensively. If non-whites were violently aggressing against us, then by (and with) God, we should defend ourselves! Fight Back! That was/is not only our right, but our duty.

Later, of course, I broadened my understanding to include an awareness that mass immigration was a form of government sponsored ‘structural violence’ against whites. But always, I was motivated in racial thinking by a sense of moral outrage, compounded of course by the lies and historiographical duplicity of multiculturalism, not to mention disgust at constant white appeasement of violent and disagreeable minorities.

My simple point is that, even for atheists and Nazis, we are going to win or lose in the realm of ethics. Most white people are good people (which, nota bene!, is why their survival ultimately matters); often ethically confused, never more so than in our times, but basically wanting to do the right thing. We must win on ethical grounds, or all the racial science will be unavailing. ‘Ought’ never finally comes from ‘is’.

And in America, the foundation of most whites’ ethics is Christianity (and in Europe, too, though the fools have turned their backs on religious truth and their own heritage; having done so, of course GW is correct about the need for a new ontology, or a new understanding of reality, including of what kind of a being Man is, and of the sources of his happiness). We will win here only by convincing those whites who are not racially/mentally defective (the defectives are a large proportion of our people, but possibly not a majority), only confused or fearful, that racial preservation is at least ethically permissible, if not morally mandatory. And we will do that by subverting the true religious subversives (the multiculturalists); ie, by showing that one can be both a Christian and a white patriot, that Christianity is not incompatible with active, sub-universal attachments (eg, to race and nation).

If WN is seen to be disallowed by Christianity, you can forget about it becoming a mass movement in the US.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:36 | #

LH,

Also, WN activism should NOT focus on shock tactics, such as appropriating anything from Nazism. It should be about simple truth telling, and making appeals to justice, and the white man’s own innate common sense, and sense of fairness. We are in the moral right, and morality among whites (especially white Americans) trumps mere recitations of dry scientific facts. The will-to-power posing of NeoNietzsche; the Hitler advocacy of Captainchaos; the desiccated, life-is-meaningless-so-we-create-our-own-meanings-despite-not-really-doing-so-because-free-will-does-not-exist philosophy of GW; the scornful rebuking of Christianity of Sam Davidson; the casual dismissal of God and man’s spiritual longings of Notus Wind; the ludicrous anthropomorphizing of genetic structures by seemingly everybody, except AWOL Fred Scrooby ...

You neglected inclusion of your own pet fatuity, Leon.

Give yourself the same summary treatment and we’ll all grade your essay for you.

Or would you prefer the thorough excoriation that I can deliver?

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:43 | #

In the meantime, let us reduce the Hallerian argument:

1) Whites have innate common sense. [”...the white man’s own innate common sense, and sense of fairness.”]

2) White survival depends upon victory in the realm of ethics. [”...we are going to win or lose in the realm of ethics.”]

3) However, White people are ethically confused. [“Most white people are good people…often ethically confused...”]

4) And the foundation of most Whites’ ethics is Christianity. [”...the foundation of most whites’ ethics is Christianity...”]

5) But Christianity is not prescriptive of racial survival - it merely can be shown not to be incompatible. [“We will win here only by convincing those whites who are not racially/mentally defective…that racial preservation is at least ethically permissible...by showing that one can be both a Christian and a white patriot, that Christianity is not incompatible with active, sub-universal attachments (eg, to race and nation.”]

6) Christianity is thus an obstacle or irrelevancy to be gotten past or merely accommodated. So the simple truths of White innate common sense/fairness/justice must be relied upon.  But White survival, in simple point, depends upon victory in the realm of ethics.  And Whites are ethically confused.  But Christianity is the basis of White ethics.  And Christianity is not prescriptive in regard to racial preservation, so there is no victory to be had - only mere avoidance of the issue.  Again, White innate common sense/fairmess/justice must be relied upon.  But White survival depends upon victory in the realm of ethics, wherein Whites are confused, because Christianity is the basis of White ethics, and Christianity is, at best, merely ethically permissive or not incompatible with the racial preservation that has no affirmative basis in the ethics that are based in Christianity.

7) Conclusion: Leon argues, via circumlocution, that White survival is not to be had.

[But let us salvage Leon’s argument by stating it with more precision.  He errs by writing of “victory” rather than of mere accommodation.  And he escapes the circumlocution, above, by distinguishing between “ethics” and Whites’ “innate” qualities - the latter of which should perhaps be referred to as “proto-ethical” or “sub-ethical” and merely instinctual.

So Leon’s prescription comes down to an appeal to the instincts of Whites for racial survival.

Then we must, in compliance, discard all of this superficial philosophical superstructure and go for the gut.

In sum, per the implication of this enhanced precision in argument, we should see you all over at Stormfront and the Vanguard News Network.]

Posted by Sam Davidson on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:00 | #

The present condition of Western society.

That’s debatable. I’d argue that a major religious movement that helped bring down part of Western civilization is entirely relevant to the present condition of the West, especially since this movement still holds a tremendous amount of power. Compare this with the Enlightenment thinkers you believe to have been so destructive. How many people have read Hume or Kant compared to the New Testament? (Perspective - Can you make the kitty spin in both directions?...)

But I don’t think Christianity is the main cause of today’s decline.

That’s a difficult question but I try to give a partial answer here.

What I’m getting at is not the cause of our problem(s) but the problem itself.

I’d define the problem as racial decay. (via dysgenics, race replacement, etc)

If you agree with this statement then the next step is to diagnose the causes, which one assign to the Enlightenment, or Christianity, or the Jews, or etc etc…

And in America, the foundation of most whites’ ethics is Christianity

You have it backwards. Christianity became a ‘nice’ religion because that’s our innate character. If you give Christianity to savages (as shown above) they’ll turn it into an excuse to rape and murder. Biology creates ideas. This is materialism in action.

Posted by jimmy Marr on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:25 | #

Leon,

In addition to the TOQ article by the same title, Toward the White Republic is a book published by Counter-Currents containing fifteen essays by Michael O’Meara, in which he does a surprisingly good job of contrasting the viability of ethnostate formation with that of leviathan reformation.

But since I’m already in the Pacific Northwest, and the first stage of ethnostate formation is a coalescing of the white community in this area, my participation in NW Front amounts to nothing more than what I should be doing under any circumstances. In short, for me its a merely a vehicle.

While many disagree with me, I take the same approach to National Socialist Movement activities. Rather than spend my time criticizing these organizations, I focus my energy on limited participation and finding common cause.

Since both organizations tend to attract people who are younger and less fortunate than me, I try to approach them from the perspective of what I can offer rather than what I can receive. Both organizations offer structure and meaning to the lives of people in need. The sense of collective mission and pride creates a de facto system of peer review. Drinking is out. Drugs are out. Crime of any type is out.

For my own support and improvement, I turn to the senior voices I find here at MR. While it is sometimes unsettling to see so much disagreement among those I look to for guidance, I’ve come to believe that is precisely the value of this site; To externalize and chronicle the conundrums that will inevitably arise internally in the hearts and minds of current and future nationalists.

Without MR, people like you and me would run a higher risk of becoming as whacky as GW.

Maybe that is why he provides it for us?

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:22 | #

we are going to win or lose in the realm of ethics. Most white people are good people

I don’t believe most white people are good exactly. However i do believe white people have a need and predisposition for a unifying foundational moral / cultural / philosophical idea that acts as a binding and that moral high ground could be “good” if you believe in a good, which i do.

Siezing the moral high ground means becoming the priesthood of the dominant morality / culture / philosophy. Group policies all flow from and are judged against this.

If you have a fixed moral point then this foundational idea could be “good”, “bad”, suicidal or genocidal but the mechanism is the same. It’s a mechanism for group cohesion.

If you look at the relative success of the Dutch and Scandinavian groups they are basing their arguments on the liberal foundational idea which they are contesting against the “cultural marxism disguised as liberalism” foundational idea of the multicult. I don’t think that can do more than slow down our destruction but it’s better than nothing and i think it illustrates the point.

The multicult currently has the moral / cultural / philosophical high ground and policies aren’t enough on their own to challenge it. If any of your policies conflict with the hegemony you are automatically defined as “bad” in the culture. You have to challenge the foundational idea.

There’s no doubt a lot of potential candidates for this foundational idea but it has to contradict the multicult on a fundamental level on at least some points. For ethno-nationalists the multicult has conveniently provided that foundational idea itself through their elevation of the holocult. The implied foundation of the law of genocide being the implied right of unique peoples to exist.

It’s their own (pretended) foundational principle. They just don’t apply it to white people because their true motivation is genocidal ethnic hatred.

“Manifest destiny” - if that is the moral high ground then policies flow naturally from it

“Diversity is good” - if that is the high ground then policies naturally flow from that

“The English people have a right to exist” - if that’s the high ground then a completely different set of policies flow downhill.

One answer to “racist!” is “do the English people have the right to exist?” They can’t answer yes or no. Their way out of that would be to say the English people don’t exist already - mongrels etc - but that’s fine. Don’t lose your temper, just keep prodding them and they’ll dig their own grave proving their genocidal intent.

The unique peoples of the western world have the right to exist. Anything else is genocide.

the ludicrous anthropomorphizing of genetic structures by seemingly everybody

Amazon forest. Tribes fighting. It’s no different to red and blue anemones fighting over some coral. It’s just biology expressing itself through layers of abstraction. As human societies develop they find other things to fight over *as well* but biology always remains as one of those things underneath.

jews cannot co-exist on the same living space as white europeans without conflict. There are no doubt hundreds of abstract reasons but one of them is simple biology. On average, those jews who are least hostile to white people will be those with the most white blood.

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:28 | #

In short, for me its a merely a vehicle.

I think that’s a good way to look at a lot of things. There’s organising and there’s agitating. Agitating requires a consistent message which you pump out, with situational variations, using whatever vehicle is to hand.

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:43 | #

For my own support and improvement, I turn to the senior voices I find here at MR. While it is sometimes unsettling to see so much disagreement among those I look to for guidance

Evolution in action.

Except in our case there probably won’t be one key that unlocks the multicult everywhere. There’ll be different variations in different countries / regions.

I don’t think there is one correct answer. I think there is one correct answer for each region / country for the conditions that exist at that time in that region / country.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:46 | #

The unique peoples of the western world have the right to exist. Anything else is genocide.

OK - we’ll preserve you as a perpetual underclass, increasingly impoverished and otherwise diminished.

Happy now?

[Well - that’s a start.]

Oh - so now you want to talk about fairness and justice, eh?

[Uh - yes, fairness and justice are only fair and just - wouldn’t you agree?]

I course - it is so by definition.

Now provide us with the world’s first complete and coherent definition of “justice and fairness,” please.

(I will be phoning up the Nobel Peace Prize Committee on your behalf, in the meanwhile.)

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:07 | #

Well - that’s a start.

Yes it is. It’s what communists used to call a wedge. You find a crack, slip in a wedge and then use the wedge to gradually widen the crack.

it is so by definition.

Yes, Mr Neechean Superman. *I* (or anyone else) define it to be so. *I* (or anyone else) define what God is. If enough people agree then it becomes so.

*I* define *my* God to be the commonweal and…

diversity kills.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:19 | #

Yes, Mr Neechean Superman. *I* (or anyone else) define it to be so. *I* (or anyone else) define what God is. If enough people agree then it becomes so.

In this instance, one is agreeing upon that which is a vacuous pseudo-proposition by virtue of its tautological construction.

(i.e. and e.g., justice is just, and fairness is fair)

So, let’s have the non-tautological version.

(But learn some epistemological sophistication first.)

(Then you can become a Superman, too.)

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:21 | #

Christianity is not prescriptive of racial survival

It is not now, but it was. The evidence of this is found in John Rolfe’s consternation over his impending marriage to Pocahontas and the Virginia colony’s concern regarding miscegenation. It is also evident in MacDonald’s classification of the Puritan’s as a prosopographer’s dream.  However, it did not advance the notion of racial survival, per se, but focused upon kin selection. As a father, it is undesirable, as the Book of Ezra records, for your sons to take strange wives because ultimately it impacts the familial blood line resulting in exclusion from the community.

If you give Christianity to savages (as shown above) they’ll turn it into an excuse to rape and murder. Biology creates ideas. This is materialism in action.

Not necessarily good ideas.

The same high mental faculties which first led man to believe in
unseen spiritual agencies, then in fetishism, polytheism, and
ultimately in monotheism, would infallibly lead him, as long as his
reasoning powers remained poorly developed, to various strange
superstitions and customs. Many of these are terrible to think of-
such as the sacrifice of human beings to a blood-loving god; the trial
of innocent persons by the ordeal of poison or fire; witchcraft,
&c;.- yet it is well occasionally to reflect on these superstitions,
for they shew us what an infinite debt of gratitude we owe to the
improvement of our reason, to science, and to our accumulated
knowledge. As Sir J. Lubbock* has well observed, “it is not too much
to say that the horrible dread of unknown evil hangs like a thick
cloud over savage life, and embitters every pleasure.”

Charles Darwin

This is what the Spanish discovered in their first encounter with Mesoamericans, ‘a cloud thick with evil’ and fundamentally maladaptive.

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:44 | #

So, let’s have the non-tautological version.

The tautology is the point.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident”

Notice how those actual supermen conjured a God out of thin air.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:48 | #

Joshua 23:12-13

23:12 But if you ever turn away and make alliances with 1 these nations that remain near you, 2 and intermarry with them and establish friendly relations with them, 3 23:13 know for certain that the Lord our God will no longer drive out these nations from before you. They will trap and ensnare you; 4 they will be a whip that tears 5 your sides and thorns that blind 6 your eyes until you disappear 7 from this good land the Lord your God gave you.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 00:15 | #

The tautology is the point.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident”

Notice how those actual supermen conjured a God out of thin air.

And with so little expenditure of effort!  Kaum zu glauben!

Posted by Sam Davidson on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 00:17 | #

It is not now, but it was.

Rolfe was referring to the Book of Ezra, right? That was a story about Jews, not Christians.

Further, Rolfe justifies the miscegenation as an opportunity to make Pocahontas a believer in Jesus. (I.e. Judaism preaches against miscegenation, but Christianity can be used to support it.)

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 00:59 | #

Judaism preaches against miscegenation,

It is possible for non-ethnic Jews to convert to Judaism.  What if a nigger converts to Judaism and takes an ethnically Jewish mate?

but Christianity can be used to support it.

There are passages in Scripture were seem to strongly condemn exogamy.  For those lemmings who simply must have their Jebus that could be a powerful means of convincing them to eschew mudcegenation.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 01:33 | #

Captain sir,

For those lemmings who simply must have their Jebus that could be a powerful means of convincing them to eschew mudcegenation.

I hear tell White Lemmings will jump off a cliff ‘fore crossbreedin’ with Tundra Lemmings which are brown by nature but tend to get extra muddy durin’ rut.

Notus Wind is pretty keen on such things but ya might wanna check with a seasoned outdoorsman like Hunter Wallace ‘fore ya set to work harassin’ Christians with this little known fact.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 01:40 | #

For those lemmings who simply must have their Jebus that could be a powerful means of convincing them to eschew mudcegenation.

The other side have left the outer form of Christianity while gradually reshaping the inside to support the multicult.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 01:55 | #

The other side have left the outer form of Christianity while gradually reshaping the inside to support the multicult.

Tens of millions of White Christians implicitly agree with us.  If we insist they forsake their faith, or submit their progeny to spiritual castration (“breed out the faith gene”), we will drive them away.  However, if we throw them a sop to their delusions which gets them to do what we want, which is really what they want to do anyway but are now cowed, then that is a win, as far as I am concerned.

Posted by jimmy Marr on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 02:00 | #

throw them a sop to their delusions which gets them to do what we want, which is really what they want to do anyway but are now cowed, then that is a win, as far as I am concerned.

Norman Lowell mentions a related strategy in the newly posted NR videos.

Posted by uh on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 02:43 | #

‘Twas Wandrin the wise that said,

“I want a blood-based liberal democracy that incorporates the truth that diversity kills.”

??????
??????
??????

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 03:39 | #

CC,

Yup. Christianity can be turned in almost any direction over time. It’s the *form* that people have a craving for.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 04:04 | #

uh,

That is what i would personally prefer but i don’t think that’s how things would go in the short term. If momentum could ever be created people would be getting increasingly angry at how utterly they’d been betrayed by their rulers. The anger means the end result is much more likely to be more along CC’s line. However it’s getting the momentum started in the first place which is the tricky bit.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:39 | #

Wandrin,

The tautology is the point.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident”

Notice how those actual supermen conjured a God out of thin air.

I also take note, here, of what amounts to a Nietzsche-esque exercise in inadvertent mischief-making.

For, as perhaps you know, Nietzsche recognized a significant historic pattern of psychological self-indulgence - famously in regard to the highly variable commentary on the French Revolution - from which variety he deduced the infamous “perspectivist” principle of “no text - only interpretation”.

To Nietzsche’s credit, however (as we hope will be your own eventual good fortune at my hands), his maturity brought him ‘round to “conceiv(ing) reality as it is,” with its implicit recognition of the distinction between psychology and epistemology.

It would appear that such maturity lies before you, Wandrin, if I correctly hold you to standing in approbation of “divine” tautologies - an example of which is reproduced above.

In that event, you might be credited with recognizing that the indiscriminate mind dwells in the consolation provided by tautology (“all things work for good for those who love the Lord”) - as it does in adopting a “perspective” on events (the “Good War”) that is emotionally (ideologically/theologically) comforting.  Thus we have in the former a empty vessel (a “form”) to be filled with cartoonish distortions of reality - and in the latter we immediately have the substance of said distortion.

So what is wrong, we may ask, with the consolations of tautology and perspective, when we indulge, likewise, in mind-altering substances as relief and recreation from the banality of reality?

Well, the evolution of Civilization/High Culture is a process of aging, wherein the martial violence of the founding conquerors is eventually softened and the delusional lies of the priesthood are eventually exposed.

Thus, to the extent that martial virtues are sustained and minimal reliance upon priestcraft is thus achieved, the society may enjoy prolonged good health and form until its final moments - as I would hope is our mutual objective.

In conclusion, then, we may sagely condemn reliance upon suggestive but essentially meaningless and merely emotive nonsense such as ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident…” - since virtue is in restraining the downward slide of the sled that is the collective cultural vehicle, rather that in giving it added impetus.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:51 | #

Notice how those actual supermen conjured a God out of thin air.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...”

And I have long noted the irony of the pretension to possession of eternal truth therein - which pretension was immediately followed by the devising of a government regime based upon ancient models that had already shown themselves to have no such endurance.

For the founding regime lasted but three-quarters of a century, until Lincoln’s Federal Imperium did away therewith.  And another half-century was all it took to transform the American Empire into the Greater Judean version thereof.

But none of the supermanly conjurers seems to have left an effective legacy of forebodings as to the future that was already evident from the pattern of the past.  Perhaps Hamilton had some thoughts to that effect, but in any case, such wisdom did not find its way into the influential products of the period, and the fatuity explicit and implicit in those documents exposed their progeny to a swift end as a mere totem erected of its corpse.

Apple-pie, anyone?

Posted by Sam Davidson on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:20 | #

It is possible for non-ethnic Jews to convert to Judaism.  What if a nigger converts to Judaism and takes an ethnically Jewish mate?

Converting to Judaism is a bit more difficult than converting to Christianity. Historically, converts to Judaism have always been among the lowest ranking members of the Jewish community and their bloodlines did not intermingle with the priestly castes. Kevin MacDonald discusses all of this.

There are passages in Scripture were seem to strongly condemn exogamy.

What passages? The ones about Babylonian Jews?

Tens of millions of White Christians implicitly agree with us.  If we insist they forsake their faith, or submit their progeny to spiritual castration (“breed out the faith gene”), we will drive them away.  However, if we throw them a sop to their delusions which gets them to do what we want, which is really what they want to do anyway but are now cowed, then that is a win, as far as I am concerned.

Step 1: Identify sympathetic White Christians.
Step 2: Racialize them with supportive quotes from the Old Testament.
Step 3: Completely fail when someone starts quoting the universalist statements of Jesus.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:41 | #

Neechean,

Meaningless waffle littered with the sort of words people use when they want to make meaningless waffle sound like something else.

Back to practical politics…

Three moments:
1. Griffin on QT where the black man was saying his views were disgusting.
2. Griffin at the election asked by some black women “are we equal?”
3. Darby attacked in an interview “you shouldn’t be allowed into Buckingham Palace because you’re racist.”

All of these attacks are based on the foundational ideas of the multicult to which there is no non-wriggly answer because they are truths held to be self-evident by the dominant culture. In another time and place they could just as easily have been attacks based on belief in transubstantiation or the Arian heresy. Foundational beliefs are equivalent to a God.

The foundational idea of the multicult comes to: diversity is good with no specified limit and anyone who says different is evil. This line has an internal contradiction because diversity with no limits amounts to attempted genocide on the people on the recieving end of the diversity. One line that could have been used in each of the moments mentioned above and which if accepted cuts to the heart of the internal contradiction would be:

“Do the English* people have the right to exist?” (*or French, German, Irish, whatever)

If they answer “yes” then you’ve placed a limiting condition on: diversity is good with no limits and anyone who says different is evil. If they answer “no” then they’ve admitted it is intentional genocide. The non-malign will say “yes” without thinking. The malign will want to say “no” but know they can’t admit in public that the entire multicult is based on genocidal ethnic hatred of white people so they’ll wriggle - which will look to the audience like they’re trying to avoid saying “no” - which they are. Another option with the malign is they say “yes” quickly then immediately try and go back to their original question. However once they’ve said yes you can keep dragging them back to that single point.

Posted by uh on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:03 | #

Wandrin,

But you know the sharper of them will just respond that that is racist baiting or there is no English people. What then? Can’t really win when the other side is so cynical.

Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:05 | #

Sam,

How many people have read Hume or Kant compared to the New Testament? (Perspective - Can you make the kitty spin in both directions?...)

Ha!  While I sincerely appreciate your sense of humor here I suspect that not many people have read any of those texts.  Regardless, I don’t think we can identify the destructive forces at work in our society by simply examining what books the masses (or even elite) are reading.

I’d define the problem as racial decay. (via dysgenics, race replacement, etc)

If you agree with this statement then the next step is to diagnose the causes

I think most of us agree that racial and cultural decay are just symptoms of whatever the real problem is.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:19 | #

Step 3: Completely fail when someone starts quoting the universalist statements of Jesus.

Those universalist statements existed when white culture was completely different to how it is now.

Christianity isn’t a political religion like judaism, islam or Confucianism (sort-of religion) so the dominant culture will determine which bits of the religion get prominence and how they’re interpreted.

For example, you can imagine a sermon based on “love they neighbour” which is slanted to meaning kin and your immediate neighbours first, then gradually widening out in concentric circles from there.

The other angle with universalist statements is in theory they apply to white people too. What the multicult does is promote universalist values but then only applies those values to non-whites. The multicult version of Christianity does the same. Taking the statements they make and then explicitly applying them to white people do forces the reality out into the open.

Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:35 | #

Leon,

My simple point is that…we are going to win or lose in the realm of ethics. Most white people are good people (which…is why their survival ultimately matters)...but basically wanting to do the right thing. We must win on ethical grounds, or all the racial science will be unavailing. ‘Ought’ never finally comes from ‘is’.

Believe it or not, I agree to a large extent with what you’re saying in this paragraph; regardless of how any of us looks at the question, ethics does matter both as a political force and as a series of questions that will forever gnaw at the souls of men.  Perhaps if we were East Asians or Africans the political challenge it poses would be less salient but, as you are so fond of pointing out, “Western man is ethical man.”

However, there is still the question of how we got into this position, which I think in many respects has gone almost entirely unattended.  The mistake that is usually made in these circles, I think, is that people would rather substitute conspiracies that oversimplify the situation for real answers out of a sense of pragmatism.  In some small way I would like to contribute to a greater understanding of how we got here and what we need to do in order to successfully pick up the baton that the current liberal paradigm is about to drop.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:08 | #

uh,

But you know the sharper of them will just respond that that is racist baiting or there is no English people. What then? Can’t really win when the other side is so cynical.

You’re right you can’t win the debate because they are vile disgusting creatures with no sense of shame or honor but it’s not them that matters.

It’s the audience that matters.

The aim is to try and neutralize or partially neutralize the power of the dominant culture on the audience. The enemy who you’re debating with is purely there to help you illustrate that the multicult is genocidal anti-white racism in disguise. You can’t win with them because they hold all the cards but you can win with x% of the audience.

To the audience the answer to the question is obviously “yes.” To the audience the other side wriggling around trying to avoid answering “yes” or going into a big rant about how the English (or whoever) don’t exist just helps to illustrate that the “universal” principles they pretend to believe in don’t apply to white people. If they talk about race-baiting then you can then ask “Do the Indian people have a right to exist?” or “Do Kenyans have the right to exist?” People will see on their faces that that would be an easy “yes” but the same answer for any white nation makes them squirm. If they talk about the English or whoever not existing then spin it out as long as possible “so are Pakistanis mongrels too or is it just the English? What about the Scots? Are they mongrels too? Is it just the English who don’t exist or is it all white people. Let them hang themselves with the audience.

In theory anyway. I use this as my lead-in to the genocide line with neutrals but i haven’t actually used it much with hostiles as the opportunity hasn’t come up.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:19 | #

I think, is that people would rather substitute conspiracies that oversimplify the situation for real answers out of a sense of pragmatism.

That is more or less my view. I have no doubt that somewhere out there is a foundational philosophy that could both knock over the multicult and provide the basis for it’s replacement but in lieu of that i’m for knocking over the multicult with whatever is available and letting the chips fall where they may.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:36 | #

Wandrin,

Meaningless waffle littered with the sort of words people use when they want to make meaningless waffle sound like something else.

What irony that a worshipful tautologist should extrude an indictment on that account!

You are to be congratulated, Wandrin, on perhaps the most ludicrous reversal that could have been managed!

Had your clever achievement been deliberate, I would have been compelled to forward your nomination for Jester to the Venue.

But regrettably we must reckon that ineptitude, rather than aptitude, occasioned this intellectual pratfall.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:50 | #

Back to practical politics…

Yes, Wandrin, that’s what we’re doing here at MR - practical politics.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:28 | #

I have no doubt that somewhere out there is a foundational philosophy that could both knock over the multicult and provide the basis for it’s replacement…

And that replacement would simply involve the Left in falling back on cosmopolitan universalism.

That would leave them theoretically vulnerable to discussion, once again, of intellectual and cultural superiority - around which they have maneuvered with post-modernist/multi-culturalist perspectives that deny any such universal standards.

However, the times are not what they once were, and it has become, more than ever, impermissibly impolite, ridiculously utopian, and culturally cretinous, to be other than sentimentally and symbolically nationalistic.

So the Left wins, no matter what.

Posted by uh on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:52 | #

Das stimmt.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:52 | #

Neechee,

You still going on?

I could argue but seeing as you argue just like a jew i’ll demonstrate something instead.

Instead of trying to debate people who want to dance around trying to prove how clever they are and / or obfuscate whatever the discussion is about, the thing to do is argue like it’s a fight where the other person is allowed to move around but you have to stand in a 2 foot diameter circle and you lose if you step out of it. Stick in one spot and keep repeating your lines. The point is not the debate itself. You know you can’t influence the enemy or anyone who thinks like them. The point is to hopefully influence at least one person in the audience. If the lines work when you’re arguing with a conscious enemy rather than a teen ego then they won’t want you to keep repeating them precisely because they might influence one of the audience. So eventually they’ll retreat scowling.

With that in mind.

Three moments:
1. Griffin on QT where the black man was saying his views were disgusting.
2. Griffin at the election asked by some black women “are we equal?”
3. Darby attacked in an interview “you shouldn’t be allowed into Buckingham Palace because you’re racist.”

At those three moments asking the question “Do the English people have a right to exist?” would have been better than what was in fact said. That question or the explicit statement “The English people have the right to exist” works on a fundamental level and leads into the genocide question.

Neechee may have a better answer as to what could have been said at those three moments.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:18 | #

The left never wins.  I have slaughtered leftist arguments for years, and taken no damage to my own.  The only way they can even preserve the illusion of remaining in the game is either to play punch-bag or to censor or ban me.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:52 | #

Wandrin,

You still going on?

Seemingly indefatigably - where error raises its ugly head.

I could argue but seeing as you argue just like a jew i’ll demonstrate something instead.

You flatter me.  But you have me at a disadvantage in attempting to reciprocate.

The point is not the debate itself. You know you can’t influence the enemy or anyone who thinks like them.

But I think like them - I speak their language: master-speak.

You can’t influence them because you converse in prole-speak.

The point is to hopefully influence at least one person in the audience. If the lines work when you’re arguing with a conscious enemy rather than a teen ego then they won’t want you to keep repeating them precisely because they might influence one of the audience. So eventually they’ll retreat scowling.

I see no point in addressing the uncomprehending herd - if you’re going to contest the running of the ranch, you have to drive your “wedge” in between the cowboys.  That’s the point of SUPERHUMAN

With that in mind.

Three moments:
1. Griffin on QT where the black man was saying his views were disgusting.
2. Griffin at the election asked by some black women “are we equal?”
3. Darby attacked in an interview “you shouldn’t be allowed into Buckingham Palace because you’re racist.”

At those three moments asking the question “Do the English people have a right to exist?” would have been better than what was in fact said. That question or the explicit statement “The English people have the right to exist” works on a fundamental level and leads into the genocide question.

Neechee may have a better answer as to what could have been said at those three moments.

Indeed.  The better answer would have been to have offered agreement in each instance and to have asked for the implications thereof.

This immediately disarms the interlocutor and requires him then to think as is not his habit nor within his capability.

This technique requires, however, the skill of one who argues like a Jew - so I counsel against its use by one such as yourself.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:16 | #

the skill of one who argues like a Jew

It’s not skill. It’s a lack of interest in the truth. The value of debate is as a mechanism for getting close to the truth. jews already know what the truth is and want to hide it. They argue accordingly. If a person goes into a debate with jews they need to understand their opponent has no interest in the truth finding aspect of debate. Their aim is to hide it. Discourse is war. Therefore the aim of debating with them is simply to try and use them to illustrate those sort of points.

In your case it’s not because you know and want to hide the truth it’s just teen ego. However as your way of arguing is the same as theirs your way of arguing can be used to illustrate this point.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:02 | #

Rolfe was referring to the Book of Ezra, right? That was a story about Jews, not Christians.

The whole bible is about Jews.

Step 2: Racialize them with supportive quotes from the Old Testament.

Ezra did not emphasize race. The emphasis was upon kinship. The concern was the well-being of the family.

Step 3: Completely fail when someone starts quoting the universalist statements of Jesus.

The universal statements, like Jefferson’s, are largely misinterpreted. The famous “There is no difference between Jew and Greek…” (in heaven). There is no difference between master and slave (in heaven). However, you are correct that currently there is no room to interpret these biblical passages, as they were written. The tools exist but their use is forbidden.

And I have long noted the irony of the pretension to possession of eternal truth therein - which pretension was immediately followed by the devising of a government regime based upon ancient models that had already shown themselves to have no such endurance.

What model has endured? The fundamental starting point is self-interest and kin. It’s true of the animal kingdom and of man. The Anglo-Saxon evolved a system of “‘non-kinship based forms of reciprocity’ associated with Protestant Christianity, monogamy, companionate marriage, nuclear families, a marked de-emphasis on extended kinship relations, and a strong tendency towards individualism”. From Italy to NE Asia the emphasis has remained, in varying degrees, upon kinship based reciprocity, and the triumph of nepotism. The world of kinship based reciprocity is largely ethnically homogeneous. The world of non-kinship based reciprocity is heterogeneous.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:19 | #

What passages? The ones about Babylonian Jews?

Review the Pentateuch, which clearly frowns upon exogamy.

Step 1: Identify sympathetic White Christians.
Step 2: Racialize them with supportive quotes from the Old Testament.
Step 3: Completely fail when someone starts quoting the universalist statements of Jesus.

These are the same White Christians who live in White neighborhoods, attend mostly White churches, home school their children, and mate with fellow Whites.  The “universalist statements of Je(b)us” seem not to have fazed them in pursuing their preferred style of life.  Which would seem to make the following course of action self-defeating and unnecessary:

Step 1: Identify sympathetic White Christians.

Step 2: Attempt to gain their support for racialism by informing them that their beloved religion, a cornerstone of the way they organize their lives, is the root of all evil and must be destroyed.

Step 3: Get out of their way as they stampede for the door.

My proposed course of action is not a trump card which beats all hands; it is a politic means of stacking the deck in our favor in relation to those whose actual behavior gives every impression they wish for themselves what we wish for our race: separation.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:42 | #

” the skill of one who argues like a Jew”

It’s not skill. It’s a lack of interest in the truth.

Then you are doubly the fool in believing that skill is not involved and - in so believing or defining him thus - underestimating your enemy. 

You misspeak in writing of the technique as merely “a lack of interest in the truth” (as opposed to skill) when you concede that they “already know what the truth is”.  Thus their putative lack of interest does not address the question of alternative means (skill), but rather of ends, when you note that they “want to hide it”.

And so you have, in effect, not supported your point as to skill, but merely asserted and confused it. And followed it with a filibuster as to obvious points.  Perhaps you should turn to concerns other than debate.

Further, it is the case that advancing and defending an untruthful position requires much more skill than does the straightforward declaration of that which is logically coherent and empirically correspondent.

So our hopes for you are modest in the expectation that you will one day master the less demanding of the two disciplines.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:01 | #

What model has endured?

None.

Which fact should have prompted explicit deliberations upon, and proclamations as to, the impermanence and/or vacuity of “self-evident” truths and “god-given” rights - and the implications thereof for the shape of future regimes on the continent.

But that is to expect too much consistency - hence the historic irony.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:16 | #

Neo,

I am not sure that Jews require that much skill to perform these argumentational acrobatics.  We would most certainly do so.  But it may be Eurocentric, anthropocentrically speaking, to view the Jewish “gift” in this area through the prism of our disadvantage.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:20 | #

Neechee,

I won’t bother reading that. I’ll just further use you to illustrate the point i was making. If this was another arena and i’d made some point or other and someone had attacked it i’d talk to them a bit to find out if it was an enemy or someone simply misguided. If they were just misguided i’d debate / talk to them in the usual way. However if it’s an enemy (or a teen egotist) there’s no point in the debate process itself. The only point is to influence the audience.

So the sequence would be (after deciding the other person was an enemy whose aim was solely to throw up a smokescreen around the point and therefore not worth debating in a fair and honest way.)

Me: Make the point again

Them: Blah
Me: Blah
Them: Blah

Me: Blah + repeat the same point again.

Them: Blah
Me: Blah
Them: Blah

Me: Blah + repeat the same point again.

And repeat ad infinitum. Which in this case would be:

Three moments:
1. Griffin on QT where the black man was saying his views were disgusting.
2. Griffin at the election asked by some black women “are we equal?”
3. Darby attacked in an interview “you shouldn’t be allowed into Buckingham Palace because you’re racist.”

At those three moments asking the question “Do the English people have a right to exist?” would have been better than what was in fact said. That question or the explicit statement “The English people have the right to exist” works on a fundamental level and leads into the genocide question.

If they’re an actual enemy (as opposed to a teen egotist) and the point you’re making is damaging to them eventually they give up because they don’t want the point constantly repeated in front of an audience. Or ban you obviously if it’s online.

If it’s a very simple point, as all mine are as i want then them to be usable even by people who aren’t that sharp, then it no doubt gets very repetitive and annoying but it does work okay as a method.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:22 | #

The left never wins.  I have slaughtered leftist arguments for years, and taken no damage to my own.  The only way they can even preserve the illusion of remaining in the game is either to play punch-bag or to censor or ban me.

May we see the hands of anyone amongst us who ever lost an argument on the net?

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:37 | #

I am not sure that Jews require that much skill to perform these argumentational acrobatics.

This will sound odd but a while ago i spent a chunk of time trying to figure out their psychology and one exercise i did was pretend i was some kind of WN secret agent from a buried WN base in Antarctica who was operating behind enemy lines in ***ZOG***

The interesting part of the execise being that you must think hard about everything you say before you say it but in real-time as every word counts, and you mustn’t say the wrong thing as if you say anything non-pc enough to get a PC reaction it counted the same as being rumbled as a spy. During this role-play exercise i could almost physically feel my verbal IQ going up a tiny bit every day.

I think that is one of the reasons they are good at word-juggling. Outside Israel they spend their life like they’re operating behind enemy lines.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:46 | #

I won’t bother reading that.

But your mother says that it would be good for her little boy.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:56 | #

one exercise i did was pretend i was some kind of WN secret agent from a buried WN base in Antarctica who was operating behind enemy lines in ***ZOG***

[But Mom would always want me to climb out of the trash can and wash up for supper before my mission was complete.]

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:16 | #

Nitchy,

I’ve made my points already.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:27 | #

I’ve made my points already.

Having failed to grasp the most important of mine - which is that tautologies are pernicious vacuities.

Posted by Sam Davidson on Fri, 29 Oct 2010 04:45 | #

Review the Pentateuch, which clearly frowns upon exogamy.

The Pentateuch, otherwise known as the Torah.

My main point: the authority of Jesus Christ trumps all previous teachings in the eyes of Christians. You can be a Christian and ignore the 613 mitzvot observed in the Torah, but you can not observe these and reject Jesus Christ or his teachings.

The only people who do that are, well… Jews.

These are the same White Christians who live in White neighborhoods, attend mostly White churches, home school their children, and mate with fellow Whites.  The “universalist statements of Je(b)us” seem not to have fazed them in pursuing their preferred style of life.

Most White liberals live in white neighborhoods and marry fellow whites. They don’t smuggle baby negroes out of Haiti or dig wells in Africa like Christians, though.

Attempt to gain their support for racialism by informing them that their beloved religion, a cornerstone of the way they organize their lives, is the root of all evil and must be destroyed.

It’s not a cornerstone but a stumbling block. You admit this. These people force themselves to love other races but only from a distance.

I’ve never advocated WNs attacking Christianity… the only reason why I touched on this topic was to engage Leon Haller. And I only commented on his post because I value his opinion. If he were a troll or an idiot I’d have ignored him.

Posted by Wanderer on Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:19 | #

I’d also recommend (along with a commenter far above) the excellent essay “Folk and Land” reproduced at Metapedia.

Excerpts:

Folk and Land: The Revitalization of Our Culture

The soil is the foundation of our European Culture, both in terms of practical sustenance and spiritually. The land has a mystical quality to which the Folk is rooted by ties of Family—of Blood—for generation upon generation. This is the meaning of that misunderstood and slandered concept Blood & Soil.

The Village emerges to fill the social and economic needs of an expanding rural population, to both sell produce and facilitate social communication. This is the beginnings of a culture. As the Culture gives way to Civilization, the symbols are no longer the land and its Family/Blood rootedness, nor the Village; but the Town becoming City, and ultimately (at the last, ‘Winter’ phase of a Civilization) the Megalopolis, drawing the rural population into its embrace, submerging the citydweller into a nebulous, alienated mass of proletarians and merchants without ties of land or blood and with at most a precarious notion of family. Above it all stand the new lords and masters: the Bankers, with their democratic political demagogues.

...
NS-Germany was the only major modern effort to address the decline of the Western Civilization, and to attempt an answer to the question of how to maintain a progressive, technological State yet return the Folk to the “Springtime” of its youth. Whatever mistakes, atrocities or excesses be attached to the NS experiment, the crisis of our time requires that we look at that experiment dispassionately to see what lessons might be learned from both its mistakes and successes. For the NS Reich was a conscious effort to return our Folk to the peasant values which alone can give health to our culture.
...
The real Germany was for [Voelkisch-Agriculture Minister] Darre and his supporters within the National Socialist Party not the Germany of merchants, feudal lords, cardinals, of Teutonic Knights bringing the mercantile spirit back from their Crusades in the Levant. It was the Germany of the peasant, and of the Peasant Revolt of 1525 which had sought to replace Roman, feudal law with a return to the old, customary German law under which they had been free.

Darre adopted certain of the views of Rudolf Steiner despite the latter’s opposition to NS. He opposed the industrialization of the farmer, artificial fertilizer, mass-produced grain, and insecticides. Goslar, a medieval town, became a new peasant capital, which Darre envisaged as the center for the formation of a Northern European peasant community. Festivals and farmers’ rallies were held here. Conferences on Blood & Soil were attended by representatives of Norwegian and Danish peasant movements.

Practical measures included large-scale land reclamation and harvest work undertaken by the youth of the Labor Service,where all classes of the young worked together. By the end of 1934 over half a million children from the cities and industrial areas had been sent on holidays to the country through State health programs.

“They saw, often for the first time, cattle grazing in the meadows, they felt the charm of the countryside, of the mountains, lakes and the sea. They had the unique experience of coming into contact with the customs of the peasantry, rural customs and festivities and with the peaceful charm of Nature, in contrast to the hustle and bustle of city life. Above all, it was the work of the farmer that turned out most impressive to the mind of the city child. The spirit of the city child struck roots, as it were, once again in the soil of its forefathers…” (Werner Reher, Social Welfare in Germany, Berlin, 1938).

It goes on to talk about the revolutionary “Hereditary Farms Act”, which aimed to allow families to remain tied to the land, and not be swept up in economic-migration to mega-cities.

The basis of the peasant revival was the Hereditary Farms Act. “The law takes the farm as a living cell in the folk organism.” The law ensured that indebtedness was reduced, and that farmland could not be confiscated. The law “takes fields, farm homesteads and cattle as a natural unit in the center of which stands the farmer himself. The union is regarded as a permanent one. Therefore the farm shall remain to the descendants or relatives as an inheritance in the hands of free German peasants.” Hereditary farms were defined as those no larger than 300 acres and capable of supporting a family of several children, so that “as large a number as possible of medium and small farms shall be spread over the whole country.”

An Act of June 1, 1933, in seeking to reduce farm debt and protect the farmer, ensured repayment would be from the yield without endangering the farmer’s livelihood. Property could not be confiscated by creditors, nor auctioned.

“Folk and Land”

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:03 | #

Jesus Christ or his teachings.

Jeboo does not enjoin his followers to miscegenate.  Nor does he say he is the negation of the old law but its fulfillment.

They don’t smuggle baby negroes out of Haiti or dig wells in Africa like Christians, though.

Sure they do.

It’s not a cornerstone but a stumbling block.

It is a significant aspect of implicit Whiteness.  It can either, if approached in the right fashion, be transformed into an asset or more of a liability than it is now.  They will not give up their Christianity; they may well choose racialism.  But if forced to choose, it will not be the latter.  Which is my point.

engage Leon Haller.

Leon has stated in the past that he is agnostic.

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:43 | #

Thanks for the responses and critiques directed to me. I plan to respond if I can get through today with some sanity left! I also need to engage with some of NN’s broadsides from the Duke Letter thread of 10/9.

I wrote a very long comment a couple of days ago, which I then somehow screwed up in posting and lost, leaving me still with lethargy in my limbs, and bile in my mouth. But the Old Culture needs its defenders, so I will try to rally soon. These are important issues. Y’all are opening my eyes to just how un-conservative much of the WN global community is. In the US, even ‘notorious’ ex-Klan Wizard Dr. David Duke routinely mentions his Christianity, and certainly never criticizes the Faith. Many European political nationalists similarly profess the Christian faith. Indeed, Jared Taylor may not be a Christian himself, but I have never heard of him refer to Christianity as a problem or an obstacle to white survival.

We need to have an entire post and comment thread devoted specifically to Christianity and race. It would be interesting to see the varieties of white preservationism present in the MR community.

Posted by Sam Davidson on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 00:57 | #

They will not give up their Christianity; they may well choose racialism.  But if forced to choose, it will not be the latter.  Which is my point.

And what do you think will happen when the flock begins to awaken to the reality of race? The good rabbi will ring the priest and tell him to do something about his crazy gentiles! Then the priest will say something like this:

“Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites”
-Pope Pius XI, 1938

How would you respond to this?

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 03:44 | #

Spiritually, we are all Semites

Not directed at me but politically i’d say the key was pushing the line that Jesus was a direct and total universalist refutation of jewish particularism - that their particularism cut them off from both God and Man and made them cursed - which psychologically it did (imo). This would only an argument to address to religious folks obviously.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 06:40 | #

How would you respond to this?

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally.

According to long established RC church doctrine to believe that Catholics are the spiritual progeny of Abraham is a mortal sin.

Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 07:52 | #

We need to have an entire post and comment thread devoted specifically to Christianity and race. It would be interesting to see the varieties of white preservationism present in the MR community.

Posted by Leon Haller on October 29, 2010, 11:43 AM |

It’s been covered here several times in the past. My own article on the subject, for example http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/god_and_the_west/

The arguments tend to go round in circles.
.
.
.
.

If WN is seen to be disallowed by Christianity, you can forget about it becoming a mass movement in the US.

Posted by Leon Haller on October 29, 2010, 11:43 AM

Well, Christianity does in fact disavow WN, or any particularism for that matter.

But I would guess that around 90% or more of Whites who call themselves Christians do so in the same spirit that they call themselves Packers fans or fishing enthusiasts.

I’ve argued here before that the best way to approach the Christian Problem is to undermine its assertions and highlight its contradictions. Particularly starting with the Old Testament.

For example, in a related thread by Danielj http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/kinism_the_one_and_the_many/ I pointed out the following,

Interestingly enough, throughout the entire expanse of the Bible’s narrative, from Genesis to Revelation, never once does it touch upon the ‘why’ of creation.

Why did God create?

Seems an obvious question, yet never brought up or even hinted at. Genesis (the origins book) seems mostly concerned with the mechanics after the fact; why are there rainbows, why is a cow called a cow (cause that’s what Adam named it) and so on.

But if you were to take the text at face value, you have to consider that Man was restricted or confined to the garden only, and not free to roam the earth generally.
And as it was a fruit garden containing the tree of life and tree of knowledge, it seems that Man was created for the express purpose of tending to the Garden of the Gods. The trees of life and knowledge were for the Gods only.
This would also explain why Man needed a companion (“it’s not good that man should be alone”) and why that is in direct contradiction with the New Testament’s evolved presentation of God’s relationship to/with Man.

In Genesis it’s clear that God intended no special relationship or purpose for man, aside from that of employee-employer.

At that point, Man was without sin and stood in the presence of God, walking and talking with him. According to the New Testament, THAT is the exalted state of hallelujah for which eternity strives towards returning and which Jesus died for.

Yet in Genesis, God suggests that un-Fallen Man is alone and lonely.

In other words, un-Fallen -sin free- Man has no special relationship with his creator, nor is he intended to.

Of course, I always thought that one of the most humorlessly ironic passages, is that God declares Man’s alone-ness to be “not good”.

Then offers his solution, Woman, which causes Man’s downfall!

It does pose an interesting question though,

Which is better?

Lonely bachelor in paradise?

Or married dirt-farmer in the waste lands?

Seriously, I never understood why, if the whole point of Jesus’s death was to restore our potential for a personal relationship with God as sin-free servants in Paradise, how Adam could be called “alone” as he was a sin-free servant in Paradise who had a personal relationship with God???

.
.
.
As to a solution to our problems here in North America, I’m afraid we’ve reached the point where circumstances will sort that out. Whites are being increasingly and openly attacked and that will increase to the point where they’ll either fight back or be wiped out.

There isn’t going to be a political, philosophical or spiritual resolution, as Whites will be to busy (literally) fighting to survive to worry about the pillars of justification for their actions.

To use a season-appropriate analogy, it’s like the last few survivors of a zombie-infested city frantically boarding up the doors and windows in a warehouse surrounded by thousands of ghouls.
It’s survival instinct, pure and simple and unencumbered by philosophical horse&*@#.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 09:44 | #

Protestants may appreciate what Martin Luther had to say in his treatise On the Jews and Their Lies:

A person who is unacquainted with the devil might wonder why they are so particularly hostile toward Christians. They have no reason to act this way, since we show them every kindness. They live among us, enjoy our shield and protection, they use our country and our highways, our markets and streets. Meanwhile our princes and rulers sit there and snore with mouths hanging open and permit the Jews to take, steal, and rob from their open money bags and treasures whatever they want. That is, they let the Jews, by means of their usury, skin and fleece them and their subjects and make them beggars with their own money. For the Jews, who are exiles, should really have nothing, and whatever they have must surely be our property. They do not work, and they do not earn anything from us, nor do we give or present it to them, and yet they are in possession of our money and goods and are our masters in our own country and in their exile. A thief is condemned to hang for the theft of ten florins, and if he robsanyone on the highway, he forfeits his head. But when a Jew steals and robs ten tons of gold through his usury, he is more highly esteemed than God himself.

In proof of this we cite the bold boast with which they strengthen their faith and give vent to their venomous hatred of us, as they say amongthemselves: “Be patient and see how God is with us, and does not desert his people even in exile. We do not labor, and yet we enjoy prosperity and leisure. The accursed Goyim have to work for us, but we get their money. This makes us their masters and them our servants. Be patient, dear children of Israel, better times are in store for us, our Messiah willstill come if we continue thus and acquire the chemdath of all the Gentiles by usury and other methods.” Alas, this is what we endure for them. They are under our shield and protection, and yet, as I have said, they curse us. But we shall revert to this later.

We are now speaking about the fact that they cannot tolerate having us asco-heirs in the kingdom of the Messiah, and that he is our chemdath, as the prophets abundantly attest. What does God say about this? He says that he will give the chemdath to the Gentiles, and that their obedience shall be pleasing to him, as Jacob affirms in Genesis 49, together with all the prophets. He says that he will oppose the obduracy of the Jews most strenuously, rejecting them and choosing and accepting the Gentiles, even though the latter are not of the noble blood of the fathers or circumcised saints. For thus says Hosea 2:23: “And I will say to Not my people, ‘You are my people’; and he shall say, ‘Thou are my God.’” But to the Jew hesays [in Hos. 1:9]: “Call his name Not my people (lo-ammi), for you are notmy people and I am not your God.” Moses. too, had sung this long ago in his song [Deut. 32:21]: “They have stirred me to jealousy with what is no god; they have provoked me with their vain deeds. So I will stir them to jealousy with those who are no people; I will provoke them with a foolishnation.” This verse has been in force now for nearly fifteen hundred years. We foolish Gentiles, who were not God’s people, are now God’s people. That drives the Jews to distraction and stupidity, and over this they became Not-God’s-people, who were once his people and really should still be.

Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:08 | #

Don’t traditional Catholics believe jews provoked the Protestant Reformation to divide Christendom?
.
.
.
At any rate, Martin Luther still managed to illustrate the problem of the inherent universalism in Christianity,

“A person who is unacquainted with the devil might wonder why they are so particularly hostile toward Christians. They have no reason to act this way, since we show them every kindness. “

.
.
.
.

“We are now speaking about the fact that they cannot tolerate having us as co-heirs in the kingdom of the Messiah, and that he is our chemdath, “

‘
.
.
.
.
And words, concepts and names like,
Abraham,
Messiah,
Chemdath (I can’t even find a quick and clear definition for that on google)
Jacob
Gentiles
etc….
Are not indigenous to Europe or her peoples.

Yahweh was one of many Semitic gods worshiped in the middle-east, NOT EUROPE.

Look into the Ugaritic Texts. Yahweh was most likely originally named Yam or Yah and was one of the 70 sons of the Canaanite god, El, who had the title “Most High”. In the Ugaritic texts Yah’s chief competitor to El’s throne is his brother/advesary Baal.

It’s also VERY likely that the hebrews were a local Canaanite tribe and that their “adventures in the desert” were contrived during their time in Babylon, about 500 years BC.

The truth is, there was no Abraham, there was no Issac, there was no Moses, and there was no Exodus or bondage in Egypt. It’s all myth.
It’s also highly unlikely that David or Solomon existed, and if they did there were no more than tribal chieftains of a tiny primitive village that went completely unnoticed by their neighbors and in the records of that day.

This is all mythology from the Orient. It’s the fables of little brown people in near-Asian deserts.

...

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:43 | #

That is, they let the Jews, by means of their usury, skin and fleece them and their subjects and make them beggars with their own money.

T-BOM them,

Posted by Sam Davidson on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 16:11 | #

Protestants may appreciate what Martin Luther had to say in his treatise On the Jews and Their Lies:

1) Everyone acknowledges that mainstream Christianity is anti-racialist.
2) Anyone trying to be both racialist and Christian will be forced into a choice. (Most racialists, myself included, would not push someone out of the movement for being a Christian, but the Christians would not be so lenient with their own flock.)

How will we hold onto Christians when their leaders denounce us?

According to long established RC church doctrine to believe that Catholics are the spiritual progeny of Abraham is a mortal sin.

Then the best we can say is that the Catholic Church is self-contradictory, right?

Pope Pius XI continues:

“To this day, the coinage and the postage stamps of the country bear the figure of Mary, the Mother of Mankind. It would be all the more tragic, therefore, if a people so devoted to Mary, the Jewish Maiden who was the Mother of the Messiah, freely countenance cruel laws calculated to despoil and annihilate the race from which Jesus and Mary sprang.

“It is incredible that a people with such profound Christian faith, with its glorious history, with the oldest parliamentary tradition of the Continent, would join in a hymn of hatred and willingly submit to the blood lust and brigandage of tyranny. No man can love God and hate his brother. No one who hates his brother can be a faithful follower of the gentle Christ.”

Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 19:30 | #

Sam,

Let’s see how you handle a few inconvenient facts.

That’s debatable. I’d argue that a major religious movement that helped bring down part of Western civilization is entirely relevant to the present condition of the West, especially since this movement still holds a tremendous amount of power.

Excepting a tiny minority, our people are not racially aware in the way that we understand the expression and can be thought of as existing along a continuum of implicit Whiteness.  In America, implicit Whiteness is positively correlated with one’s willingness to identify with conservative beliefs and traditional cultural institutions while American liberalism and secularism are negatively correlated with implicit Whiteness.  The generic White American who identifies as being secular is more likely to hate his people and is less likely to have White children and form White communities (albeit, implicit ones) than his ostensibly religious counterpart.

Forget about scriptures, religious doctrines, papal pronouncements, and nonsensical musings about our pagan past and focus your mind on the reality that surrounds us today.  Does it really seem as if a declining Christianity is what’s bringing down Western civilization in our time?

1) Everyone acknowledges that mainstream Christianity is anti-racialist.

So what.  Mainstream academic science is also anti-racialist as is the mainstream academic community of people who study Nietzsche for a living.  If we are to judge the worth of institutions and ideas by their mainstream forms in the present degraded age then I suspect that we’ll have to reject just about everything.  Are you prepared to do that?

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:09 | #

In America, implicit Whiteness is positively correlated with one’s willingness to identify with conservative beliefs and traditional cultural institutions

True.

Any good news to report?

Does it really seem as if a declining Christianity is what’s bringing down Western civilization in our time?

In the sense that the incapacity of “Christians” - and of all other slave moralists - to govern themselves without resort to whoring with the residue of Babylonian culture, is bringing the West to a precipitate end rather than a mellow retirement.

Posted by PF on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 23:11 | #

Notus wrote:

The generic White American who identifies as being secular is more likely to hate his people and is less likely to have White children and form White communities (albeit, implicit ones) than his ostensibly religious counterpart.

Please help me crack this nut Notus.

Low income correlates with low IQ. Low income also correlates with higher religiosity. High income correlates with lack of religiosity. Low income and low IQ also correlate with earlier age of pregnancy - I assume also with higher number of children per woman.

So there is this narrative within white nationalism, that secular white nationalists are not reproducing quickly enough, and secular people tend to be self-hating. All of this is used to support the argument for the racial value of Christianity.

To what extent is this observation just an extension of the trend that:

1) low IQ people tend to be religious
2) low IQ people have more children
3) low IQ people are de facto more immune from significant shifts in political ideology, because they do not yet understand enough about the world to realize the significance of politics - intellectually.

Take me, I’m a high IQ person. Everything indicates that I would just naturally tend to be less religious (I am) and that I will defer procreation until 30 (I likely will). That would likely happen regardless of our precarious racial situation. Saying that I’m less likely to form a white community is masking another effect, which is the urban>rural gradient.

When the effects of these gradients are removed, to what extent are these implicitly white, traditional, white-community-forming, political-correctness-immune, fecund rural whites just the brawlin’, snortin’ left side of our bell curve?

I’m going to go a step further. You and I both know that the cultural weapons crafted by Judaic thought and by whatever other trends have brought us here, were weapons to which urban, secular whites were especially vulnerable. This is probably because these same whites represent, or used to represent, our smart fraction - the people holding positions of influence in major cities and determining the direction of our culture. For a whole host of reasons, these people are the people targeted by these weapons. So of course “we” secular whites are also the most endangered by them, the most heavily and thoroughly destroyed by them. They were created within and intended for the milieu of *our* cultural heritage; Marxism and Critical theory were made to succeed in London, Frankfurt, Vienna, Paris and New York, not Oklahoma and Nebraska, where no critical mass of people would have the background to interface with what these theories were saying.

So I see this newfound longing and respect of white nationalism for Christianity as a worship of the white hive-mind from afar. The hive mind is rural, yes its still Christian, yes its immune from sophisticated cultural attack, yes it tends to produce lots of children - most of these things are the blessings that accrue to its advantage, no small part of which is that it was either too unintelligent or home-hugging and not upwardly mobile enough to participate in the cultural advance that made us vulnerable to these trends in the first place.

I have an image in my mind. Fifty men are trapped on the side of a cliff. Some guys advanced in fearlessness towards a ledge, and were kicked off by enemies - now the people who remained behind in the cave are being lauded for never making the effort. Its too bad because if you are going to need to progress to further ledges in the rest of your evolutionary history, or if the cave should provide insufficient protection (i.e. retreating into rural Christianity causes us to lose all cultural control and effectively cede America completely to the Other), then these rural whites are not the warriors we were looking for. Thats what I’m made to think of when someone extolls the amazing implicit whiteness of rural America.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 23:40 | #

“There isn’t going to be a political, philosophical or spiritual resolution, as Whites will be to busy (literally) fighting to survive to worry about the pillars of justification for their actions.”

Maybe so but every white person who is woken up or partially woken up beforehand represents a slight improvement to the odds of winning. And part of that process involves weakening the hold the dominant culture has on people.

“At any rate, Martin Luther still managed to illustrate the problem of the inherent universalism in Christianity”

A universalism which can be flipped round and used as a tool. The multicult uses the language of universalist principles but doesn’t apply those principles to white people. You can use that contradiction to undermine them. The same goes for church groups.

You don’t need to espouse a principle to use it as a weapon against people who do. For example left-liberals hounding an avowedly Christian politician into resigning over an extra-marital affair when the hounders themselves don’t care about it. They don’t say everyone should marry and be faithful they attack on the basis of people not living up to their own stated principles.

“How will we hold onto Christians when their leaders denounce us?”

Same as freeing people from the multicult. Same as the multicult is currently doing to the Catholics over abusive priests. You undermine the moral authority of those leaders first.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 23:40 | #

PF,

To complicate things further ...

Not every urban white person is an urbane white person.  What is the IQ of the blue collar white population?  What is its religious profile?  Its fertility?  How does it compare with its rural equivalent?

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 30 Oct 2010 23:46 | #

Interesting chunk of papal bull from Desmond. Of course, the Vatican’s views are subject to change in matters of theology and the RC Church was at one time so eminently sensible that it prohibited its followers from actually reading the Bible.

Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 01:19 | #

PF,

First of all, I should preface all my remarks with the caveat that everything I have to say about Christianity and its cultural impact is almost entirely within the confines of White Protestant America, which is the true extent of my experience and understanding.

All of this is used to support the argument for the racial value of Christianity.
...
Thats what I’m made to think of when someone extolls the amazing implicit whiteness of rural America.

My aim is much more modest than what your comments suggest.  All I am trying to do is point out the inconsistency between what Sam is implying - that [a declining] Christianity is bringing down Western civilization - and the fact that, in America, having healthier racial values and beliefs is positively correlated with religiosity in the main.  This is not to say that I am by any means satisfied with the model of implicit Whiteness that rural America has carved out for itself nor am I trying to make any kind of grand assessment about the racial value of Christianity for Western peoples the world over.

When the effects of these gradients are removed, to what extent are these implicitly white, traditional, white-community-forming, political-correctness-immune, fecund rural whites just the brawlin’, snortin’ left side of our bell curve?

The left half of the bell curve for what variable?

Regardless, even if you control for all the relevant variables I believe that this phenomena is best explained by the fact that - once again, in America - secular cultural forces are the most heavily infected with radical egalitarian, anti-Western memes (as you identified in Marxism and Critical Theory).  In general, to become more secular in contemporary America is to put oneself in closer proximity to the ideas that really are bringing Western civilization down; of course, this need not always be the case it is only our situation at the moment.

...to participate in the cultural advance that made us vulnerable to these trends in the first place.

Let’s agree to call it a cultural advance when it becomes one.  Until that happens those among us who have decided to stay behind in the cave while their urban “betters” jump off the ledge and into the Judaic abyss that’s been prepared for them have proven themselves wise (if not well-educated) by their actions.

Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 01:34 | #

NN,

Any good news to report?

I wish.

...and of all other slave moralists…

If I understand you right, the problem isn’t Christianity per se but rather the slave morality that lies underneath all our systems (both Christian and secular).

Posted by Sam Davidson on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:43 | #

Excepting a tiny minority, our people are not racially aware in the way that we understand the expression and can be thought of as existing along a continuum of implicit Whiteness.  In America, implicit Whiteness is positively correlated with one’s willingness to identify with conservative beliefs and traditional cultural institutions while American liberalism and secularism are negatively correlated with implicit Whiteness.

We should work on increasing the tiny minority.

Forget about scriptures, religious doctrines, papal pronouncements, and nonsensical musings about our pagan past and focus your mind on the reality that surrounds us today.

Forget about anything that can even be remotely used to identify Christianity! Clever rhetoric.

Does it really seem as if a declining Christianity is what’s bringing down Western civilization in our time?

I have already answered this multiple times.

You’re implying that I’m a bitter pagan blaming our current woes on Christianity. That’s not true.
-October 25, 2010, 09:05 PM

But I don’t think Christianity is the main cause of today’s decline.
-October 27, 2010, 05:00 PM

So what.  Mainstream academic science is also anti-racialist as is the mainstream academic community of people who study Nietzsche for a living.  If we are to judge the worth of institutions and ideas by their mainstream forms in the present degraded age then I suspect that we’ll have to reject just about everything.  Are you prepared to do that?

Science was not founded by a demi-God born of a Jewish mother. I can reject Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin without rejecting Lucretius, Newton, Darwin, Murray, etc.

But let’s say that in 33AD some man claimed to be ‘the Scientist’ and created a body of work that was held to be the word of God. It would be absurd for me to simultaneously reject this man’s teachings while still supporting Scientism. And that’s the inner conflict that a WN Christian has to deal with.

Same as freeing people from the multicult. Same as the multicult is currently doing to the Catholics over abusive priests. You undermine the moral authority of those leaders first.

Well, you can convert people by pointing out their worldview is false. That works. But one can’t do this without shattering their beliefs. I’m asking how we can allow White Christians to retain their religion while bringing them into racialism. This is only possible through doublethink. Most decent White people are not capable of this.

Posted by PF on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:48 | #

Notus wrote:

In general, to become more secular in contemporary America is to put oneself in closer proximity to the ideas that really are bringing Western civilization down.

To become more secular in America is to put oneself in closer proximity to ideas in general.

It is the leaving behind of Christianity that first even opens one up to ideologies, politics and world-theories of any kind. Insofar as white man has opened himself up to rational discourse and the interplay of ideas at all, it has usually - although not in all cases - lead to his increasing secularization.

Thats why we - speaking for secular urban whites - are vulnerable, because we do not inherent a world-model that is religious. By its nature it is more open to change and thus to capture by hostile powers.

Let’s agree to call it a cultural advance when it becomes one.  Until that happens those among us who have decided to stay behind in the cave while their urban “betters” jump off the ledge and into the Judaic abyss that’s been prepared for them have proven themselves wise (if not well-educated) by their actions.

It definitely was a cultural advance, only it took place on channels that you have reasoned subsequently not to matter. Many of these areas of advancement are intangible or only accessible to rarified perception, such as advances in arts and heart-culture, and advances in intellectual culture which are subtle but important. As a general rule with human beings, anything that doesnt immediately produce a tangible reward for their cause celebre will be invalidated.

If it were possible for the intellectual discourse of the rural Midwest to somehow be distilled and decanted, and held up against that of the cities prior to 1950, I dont doubt that there are several aspects which you would have to find superior in the discourse of the cities. I’m aware however that the whole calculation is being biased by a deeper consideration, which I will attempt to address now.

I take it a person on this board will invalidate any development that he believes has the tendency not to avert our present predicament. This is also called Decadence Critique, it essentially hinges on the belief that by adopting a certain set of beliefs, poses and mores, one group of whites living at a certain time became in some essential sense inferior to their predecessors. Its determined by outside metrics such as how well we withstand the onslaught of foreign races. Put another way, the job of pre-1950s whites was to develop a culture such that our present moment of existence would never come into being. All their actions are judged retrospectively in this light. If they made an advance in something subtle that doesnt immediately offer a connection to Our Survival, then their worth as people will be invalidated by comparison with vestigial whites, who, it is reasoned, by virtue of being invulnerable to the onslaught of critiques and theory, were therefore better men. You could quite reasonably say that the whole development of sensibility which occurred from Whenever-I-Discern-The-Decadence-As-Having-Begun to Whenever-I-Discern-It-As-Having-Reached-Its-Peak, is registered as a negative development by virtue of increasing our vulnerability. The country boy is instead held up as a model of psychological health.

Some people call this romance de la bue (sp?), or romance of the mud. It is the same thinking that led to the glorification of gangsters and criminals in 80’s/90s American culture (the Godfather, the Sopranos) and to the glorification of whiggerdom and gangsters in 90’s and 2000s American culture. The idea is to retreat from advances in sensibility because they lead to a weakening of the whole core of the man. The metric that whiggers use is the ability to ‘roll up on’ a chick with self-confidence and/or project aggression in tense urban settings so people leave you alone - its better to have a brain from 40,000 years ago if you want to do these things well; the metric racialists use is How-Does-This-Help-Avert-Our-Present-Disaster, for which, they reason, its better to have the brain of a rural fisherman from the 1820s. There is something dishonest about an evaluative framework that is so blatantly self-serving.

All one really wants is an excuse to run into the arms of the teleological route-to-success that one finds most attractive. For a rural white person in the embrace of Decadence Critique, they might want to see some cartoonish images of urban whites - e.g. a metrosexual - which will justify their abhorrence and turning away from urban secular white culture generally. Judaic media certainly gives us enough of these images by constantly focusing on the most decadent elements of this culture.

To divulge where my teleology lies, my family is partly sprung from an inter-generational conflict over Christianity - a tale of relatively poor origins and strong, strict beliefs. For me to go back to Christianity is no movement towards strength, in my mind its a movement towards dogma, enforced fake social conscience, and literal poverty, since these things went together back in the day. I guess what some people are telling me is that my great-great grandfather was a more strong white man, because he worked on a farm in Appalachia and demanded everyone live by the Bible. Apparently, I’m degenerate compared to him - by this reasoning. Because I look at porn occasionally and listen to rap music occasionally, right? I mean, these things are how we judge the worth of a man, do we not? So y’all are basically with my g-g grandfather, eh? (mixed regionalisms representing the movement north).

I’m not so convinced. Put it this way: the romance de la bue for vestigial whites is totally understandable as a psychological reaction to modern times, and an attempted immune reaction and act of self-defense against these times. As with most anything though, if you are willing to be more perspicacious, it will break down. Its an attempt to find oneself by establishing fixed reference points based on selectively perceived images and migrating towards one (the Strong Farmer) and away from another (the Degenerate White). I challenge rural whites to move en masse to our brown cities, be exposed to the ‘cultural accelerants’ and non-stop programming that we are, and maintain themselves with a lower rate of attrition than we do. Urban whites are at the burning point, at the point where society is constantly breaking down, at the point of attack for the whole foreign animus, and I think its a lack of sympathy that rails against them for not always being able to resist these forces.

Posted by Wanderer on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 03:35 | #

PF wrote:
Low income correlates with low IQ. Low income also correlates with higher religiosity. High income correlates with lack of religiosity.

You’re just assuming this because of your own biases.

According to this research, the exact opposite is actually true—i.e., among whites, higher income equals more religious.

Mean church attendance score by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status

Whites
Low 3.15
Middle 3.49
High 3.73

Blacks
Low 4.27
Middle 4.47
High 4.90

Mex-Ams
Low 3.81
Middle 3.73
High 3.79

Whites are the least churchgoing, and blacks are the most. If you assign a ranking to races and are comparing them, religiosity seems low-status.

But the plot thickens. If you look at whites alone, religiosity increases with socioeconomic status. This is also the case with blacks. By contrast, low-status Mex-Americans go to church as often as their high-status counterparts.  So, for blacks and whites, if you are comparing yourself to other members of your race, religiosity is a high-status activity.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 03:42 | #

When universities were Christian, nobles would fear sending their children there lest they become monks (and have no children).

Now that universities are secular, education correlates with atheism and anti-racism. Similarly, IQ (I assume) and urban location correlate with level of education.

problem isn’t Christianity per se

What sort of social structure is proposed, and how will it be maintained?

I fear that at least damaging, nationalist structures will be undermined; and at most damaging new, anti-nationalist structures will be formed.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 03:46 | #

Wanderer,

You’re just assuming this because of your own biases.

Yea, the proper criticism of religion is it’s a delusion, especially a social delusion, not something stupid. I’m not sure of the exact definition of religion used here (is it merely that which is outside agnosticism?)

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 04:20 | #

I’m asking how we can allow White Christians to retain their religion while bringing them into racialism. This is only possible through doublethink. Most decent White people are not capable of this.

Except they did for centuries. They were Christian and racialist for centuries. Christians quite happily slaughtered each other for centuries as well despite all the turn the other cheek stuff.

Most people aren’t religious about their religion. It’s a cultural, social and luck thing. People are quite capable of compartmentalising. They did it for centuries.

The churchs have surrendered to the multicult now but were they the vanguard of the change or the rearguard? Seems to me the churchs were the ones trying to hold back the multicult all these years until recently. It seems a bit odd to blame Christianity for x and y when Chrisitianity opposed x and y for centuries and only surrendered 60 years after cultural marxists gained control of the cultural high ground through media and education.

However that was then. It is trickier now because now the multicult has “turned” the churchs the congregations have two sets of conditioning working on them at once. Maybe that does mean it is better to try and undermine the faith but even if so a direct frontal charge just makes people defensive and angry.

I’ve thought about this before. If i was living in the bible belt my WN activism would actually be setting up a church and my core would be something like:
—jesus as direct and total rejection of jewish particularism
—love thy (literal) neighbour, kith and actual neighbours first
—riffs on charity begins at home e.g man with a hundred sheep gives them away to charity compared to a man with a hundred sheep who keeps them, breeds them each year and is then able to give 50 a year to charity ad infinitum

People would come to it from other churchs because it would satisfy the cultural and social forms while fitting in better with their interests.

Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 04:49 | #

Sam,

I have already answered this multiple times.

My apologies.  I think my arrow missed you and hit PF instead (sorry buddy).

Sam: 1) Everyone acknowledges that mainstream Christianity is anti-racialist.

Notus: So what.  Mainstream academic science is also anti-racialist as is the mainstream academic community of people who study Nietzsche for a living.

Sam: Science was not founded by a demi-God born of a Jewish mother. I can reject Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin without rejecting Lucretius, Newton, Darwin, Murray, etc.

You concede the point then.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 05:15 | #

It’s an attempt to find oneself by establishing fixed reference points based on selectively perceived images and migrating towards one (the Strong Farmer) and away from another (the Degenerate White).

Someone once observed that the American went straight from savagery to degeneracy - with no civilization in between.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 05:39 | #

If I understand you right, the problem isn’t Christianity per se but rather the slave morality that lies underneath all our systems (both Christian and secular).

“Overmen/Uebermenschen refers to the historic warrior nobility/aristocracy of all politically-advanced cultures, who, by virtue of their having predatorily conquered and stratified settled societies at the foundation of their regimes, formed the basis for “every elevation of the type ‘man’,” according to the account given by Nietzsche. These masters of violence, in a world whose lower, slavish orders were and are inescapably governed by none other than the lies of priests and the violence of nobles, need not resort to the theological and ideological illusions employed by the former and may thus adopt the clear-eyed grasp of the world that Nietzsche’s “Bird of Prey” has with regard to the tremulous, “good” (tasting) “lamb” that reciprocates with a hysterical view of the hungering raptor as the blackest of “evil”. Thus the master and his “master morality” are “Beyond Good and Evil” and so avoid the destructive, apocalyptic distortions of reality that are required of “slave morality” in all its forms (principally in the eschatological expectations of an escape to “freedom” and “liberation” from oppression and repression in an immanent (Christian) Kingdom of God or an egalitarian (Liberal/Socialist/Pacifist/Anarchist/Communist) Utopia of Man to come).” [Become Superhuman]

Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 05:50 | #

PF,

Good writing on your part.  But please keep in mind that we’re now far afield from my little observation.

I take it a person on this board will invalidate any development that he believes has the tendency not to avert our present predicament.

Far be it from me to not acknowledge the advancements in sensibility that have been made.  They have been made.  However, the whole thing comes to us as a package deal so you can’t consider the benefits in isolation from the costs.

these things are the blessings that accrue to its advantage, no small part of which is that it was either too unintelligent or home-hugging and not upwardly mobile enough to participate in the cultural advance that made us vulnerable to these trends in the first place.
...
The country boy is instead held up as a model of psychological health.

If, at the end of the day, the country boy is all that’s left then hasn’t history cast her judgment?  We may bitterly complain but we must also concede that perhaps even Natural Selection works in mysterious ways.

To become more secular in America is to put oneself in closer proximity to ideas in general.
...
Urban whites are at the burning point, at the point where society is constantly breaking down, at the point of attack for the whole foreign animus, and I think its a lack of sympathy that rails against them for not always being able to resist these forces.

You’re forcing my hand here.  Yes, I do hold something of a deep animus against “the cities” for the following reasons:

(1) Moral cowardice.  Their total surrender to the Jewish culture of critique is more than enough to render them worthy of scorn.  At least the hayseeds held out as long they could.

(2) Intellectual pretense.  I have been around “the cities” long enough to know that urban Whites generally believe what they are told to believe and seldom have the courage to think for themselves, yet they fashion themselves so superior to the hayseeds for just this reason.

(3) Lack of patriotism.  They tend to hate their rural brethren who they perceive as being little more than a mass of stupid White people.  It’s never a pretty site when these sorts of feelings come out in public.

Once again, I feel that I must emphasize that we’re talking about a division between the urban and rural in America.  My suspicion is that the situation in Europe is quite different.

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 06:00 | #

Once again, I feel that I must emphasize that we’re talking about a division between the urban and rural in America.  My suspicion is that the situation in Europe is quite different.

My guess is it would vary from country to country. France i imagine would be similar to America in this because they preserved their small farmer caste whereas Britain didn’t.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 06:25 | #

(3) Lack of patriotism.  They tend to hate their rural brethren who they perceive as being little more than a mass of stupid White people.  It’s never a pretty site when these sorts of feelings come out in public.

They have no attachment to anything.

(2) Intellectual pretense.  I have been around “the cities” long enough to know that urban Whites generally believe what they are told to believe and seldom have the courage to think for themselves, yet they fashion themselves so superior to the hayseeds for just this reason.

Very true. They’ve worked through the math problems and been rewarded for having gotten the correct answers. But they’ve never learned to think, nor do they have any real structure to build upon. They’re strangely attached to “the city” rather than their ethnic group. They have friends and a nuclear family, but otherwise their entire existence is shallow and hollow. They’re “citizens of the world” aka programmable robots, or as CC would say “lemmings”.

The rural believes in the Bible and is proud of where it’s from; but at least it has something, at least it’s human.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 06:49 | #

NN,

I’ve seen you post that before, but I don’t think that’s really saying anything. There’s always a balance of power, that is a balance of force. You can’t will away the religious, though you can act without it on your own I suppose, or encourage others to…

Feudalism won’t be returning, not with today’s technology. At “best” you might gain an Orwellian state that monitors and controls everything, totally dominating with force everything in society. Even under feudalism though, religious currents existed.

Sun Zhu teaches pure force, rejecting religion. He’s oriented around winning though, and it’s perhaps likely other texts were used with his to teach with. Someone had to do the teaching, so someone other than the general was expecting either a benefit or a common idol / attachment to be served.

-

What you might propose that is potent is for whites or white Christians to act as elites in service to their attachments.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 06:52 | #

I watched that Heidegger series earlier. It took 7 videos to teach a philosophically unsound, though useful, lesson of: don’t sweat the small stuff.

I wonder if the geniuses here aren’t wasting their time reading the wrong books - I mean to include Nietzsche in that too. Read the real stuff.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 08:24 | #

Low income also correlates with higher religiosity. High income correlates with lack of religiosity.

This is an extremely superficial view and as such is infelicitous in fleshing out the deeper dynamics of what is being discussed here.  Religiosity is but “the outward and often social articulation of belief in higher powers”.  I do not believe you think yourself that bourgeois liberals are less given to organizing their social lives around principles they think high and transcendent.  The beginning of incite is to delve into the content of beliefs which are essentially religious and then to ask which type of personality would tend to be attracted to the former.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 08:55 | #

People who hold conservative as opposed to liberal views are more likely to be attracted to members of their own race and are more likely to have greater numbers of children.  Conservative Whites are more conventional in the view of the world and their concern is more provincially circumscribed.  They are less open and novelty seeking.  They are more likely to give charitably.  They are less morally vain.  These are personal tendencies which translate to higher ethnocentrism and group genetic continuity.

Posted by PF on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 08:56 | #

Wandrin wrote:

You’re just assuming this because of your own biases.

Maybe. But I am almost sure that I had read research on this point. Let me try to find it on the net and get back to you. When I say stuff like that, i.e. correlations, I try not to shoot from the hip, I think there was actual research.

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 09:49 | #

Wandrin wrote:

Wanderer, i think.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:11 | #

They are less morally vain.

Moral vanity is a function of narcissism and cuts against love and loyalty to those closest to one’s self, the former disposing one to be more concerned with “moral” abstractions that stroke one’s ego than self-sacrificing altruism.  It is not for nothing that some signed off on effectively the extermination of the German people for their 30 pieces of Lend-Lease silver whilst Germans, for all their alleged moral debasement, would have given Slavs under their prospective rule no worse than Czechs were given when their docility was obtained.  If anything, it is moral vanity which translates to moral debasement (i.e., race treason).

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:55 | #

signed off on effectively the extermination of the German people for their 30 pieces of Lend-Lease silver

The Slavs that the English allegedly fought the war to save were turned over to the Bolshevik butchers.  The 500,000 British troops stationed in dismembered Germany as a nascent Cold War counter-weight to Russian troops on the other side of the divide created a man power shortage in England which necessitated the importation of niggers who then went to work mongrelizing the English people.  Those British soldiers, according to the narrative of moral superiority erected in the aftermath of WWII, apparently could not have been put to better use in crushing the Red Army at a time when their side had the atom bomb and the Soviets did not; or at least being sent home to tend to their women and not leaving this job to niggers.  Perhaps only Krauts can be bothered with fighting to the last man out loyalty to their own, not to mention an outcome which would have been actually morally superior in its consequences to the one obtained by English perfidy.  And as epilogue, it can hardly be a coincidence that in America the “WASP” ruling class totally capitulated to Jews and is now utterly in league with them, their moral vanity acting as a fig leaf for their seemingly congenital sociopathic lack of racial loyalty.

Posted by PF on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:05 | #

CC wrote:

concerned with “moral” abstractions that stroke one’s ego than self-sacrificing altruism.

Self-sacrificing altruism is a moral abstraction, as you are using it.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:27 | #

Self-sacrificing altruism is a moral abstraction, as you are using it.

Self-sacrificing altruism and moral vanity are traits of personality - which, I submit, depending upon their degree of robustness, can predict behavior - in the sense I am using them.  I do not, at least conceptually, necessarily assign moral content to the former (no more so than I feel intellectually obliged to say water that boils at 32 degrees is morally agreeable water), but of course it is an abstraction.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:50 | #

Despite the best efforts of Jews and WASPs to put a Final end to the Kraut question it seems those irrepressible rascals may once again be the ones to attempt to pull the chestnuts of the race out of the fire.  Thanks Thilo.  And where are the English?  If not asleep behind the wheel, then attempting to steer it towards oncoming traffic, per usual (thanks Barnesy, you shithead).  If the Krauts ever just disappeared (or were exterminated), with the English alone left to mind the store, then our race would surely be totally fucked.

Posted by PF on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:56 | #

Cor, CC, you have to be one of the most boring people on the whole internet.

Wait….I think I am finally beginning to understand your point…. Should the nazis have won WWII? Why… because you’re part German and you dont like America’s racial situation? OK. Gotcha. 50 million English people were wrong, because you are right. They should have capitulated, because… like you said, 70 years on, their folly is obvious. Tell me whose folly isn’t obvious 70 years on, and I’ll give you a cookie. You know better than the men who lived then. Just invent a time machine now and go back and tell them what to do. While you’re at it, go back a million years and advise homo habilis on how they can harness fire. Go back to the Roman empire and advise them not to settle Goths within their territory. Go back to old France and tell them never to invite the Normans in to serve as mercenaries. What a bunch of fucking losers, all these nations.

You know, those Romans were fucking retarded. The Goths just took over their shit. Pathetic. How could they not have known? If I were running their empire, 1800 years ago, I would have done it better, word is born. Dude, I’m like, smarter than the Romans! I know more about their empire than even they knew! Can you believe it? Its almost as if… its almost as if the existence of historical hindsight allows me to have superior strategic knowledge to all people who lived in the past… amazing!

Now I just declare how they were in the wrong, and bam! I have a moral narrative about how the past is “wrong” and “should” have been another way! Even though no one can do anything to change the past, I can nevertheless constantly remind the descendents of the groups who committed “strategic errors”, that the blame for their mistakes lies squarely on their heads, and ruthlessly hold them to account. Just like all decent people stopped doing to Germany sometime in the 70s or 80s.

Hey uh - you shouldn’t have let Goths settle within the Limes. Fucker. Hey Dionekes Pontikles and Taki, you guys were real idiots to yield to Macedonian conquest. Hey Notus, why did you let Garth Brooks overtake country music? You see, gentleman, from my vantage point in 2010 I’m retroactively declaring the experience of your ancestors invalid, because its strategically incorrect from my 2010 racialist perspective, and I’m holding you to account for this “mistake” via blood libel. And I’m creating a narrative where my ethnic group is uniquely above all blame, while I blame everyone else for all thats happened.

Time to watch some ren and stimpy.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:16 | #

Well, PF, I guess you might say of me what one commenter said on Auster’s blog of Melanie Phillips, that is, I’m a “banger”.  I’ll just keep hitting (English) people over the head with the obvious until I’m blue in the face, until I’ve exhausted any last doubt that they get my one and by now tedious point.  Either that, or until they acknowledge Krauts as the Master Race.  LOL!

Subtly be damned, I am but a simple half Kraut from the thumb state, where we don’t have countless lakes inland but big suckers surrounding us.

Posted by PF on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:28 | #

CC wrote:

Well, PF, I guess you might say of me what one commenter said on Auster’s blog of Melanie Phillips, that is, I’m a “banger”.  I’ll just keep hitting (English) people over the head with the obvious until I’m blue in the face, until I’ve exhausted any last doubt that they get my one and by now tedious point.  Either that, or until they acknowledge Krauts as the Master Race.  LOL!

What exactly is your point?

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:35 | #

Wait….I think I am finally beginning to understand your point…. Should the nazis have won WWII? Why… because you’re part German and you dont like America’s racial situation? OK. Gotcha. 50 million English people were wrong, because you are right. They should have capitulated, because… like you said, 70 years on, their folly is obvious.

Should the National Socialist regime of pre-WWII Germany have prevailed against those who conspired to destroy it?

50 million English people were not given such education and information as would have allowed them to intelligently and providently transcend their mis-acquired sense of cultural and moral superiority - and the exploitation thereof by those in positions of responsibility who were either of the same mind or who had been prostituted to the racial and ideological enemies of the German regime.

Please resume your remarks, PF, with this unexceptionable characterization in mind.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:50 | #

In the interest of fashionable full disclosure, I know of no personal ancestry that is German other than Anglo-Saxon.  Otherwise I’m Norman (descended from a lieutenant of Rollo).

So I’m completely free of the blood bias that taints the remarks of our half-breed Captain.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:51 | #

When you absolutely need to get some racially advantageous shit done, call on the Krauts.  They’re a steamroller.  Capable of near superhuman puissance.  Which why the English in their petty rivalry with said find it necessary to constantly shame Krauts into submission as when it comes to marshal prowess Krauts have everyone else shitting bricks, and that’s even when Krauts are not ginned up on their palingenesis.  I mean, for Engerlishmuns, it’s not just NS that is worthy of scolding, “Prussian militarism” also makes them go beet red in the face.

My point?  I guess it’s as simple as Krauts are numero uno.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 13:58 | #

Excellent and interesting comments from many persons. MR seems to be discussing these issues at as high a level as anywhere else on the racialist web (is my sense correct?). I’d like to respond to so many (including some of the linked essays, esp from Narrator), but I am realizing that these issues quickly implicate the most fundamental concerns of men’s lives (and I do mean “men”; females just don’t seem interested in foundational matters or able to think as abstractly, in the main), to which collectively agreed upon answers are not available.

That is, invariably, those seriously investigating all major political problems (which very much includes the struggle to save the white race and/or Western Civ) start “cheating” by taking those problems to ever-higher levels of abstraction and generality, until we finally hit the wall of Ultimate Inquiry which remains infinitely contested, and perhaps contestable: What is Real? and, What Can Be Known? Every plain policy problem, in other words, can rapidly be turned into a problem of ideology (“Is this really nationalist/conservative/progressive, etc?”), then political philosophy (“Is this just?”), then ontology (“Is this true?”), and finally epistemology (“Is this knowable?”).

Of course, to get through our lives, we all rely on a huge background of empirically settled ‘knowledge’ (what GW perhaps would refer to as ‘adaptive knowledge’; that is, the understanding of the world garnered through personal or vicarious experience - “don’t touch a hot stove” - or through reasoning based on experience - we know what it’s like to fall down, and thus can infer correctly the consequence of falling from a high place). Philosophers try to prove that we cannot really know anything - yet they themselves seem to know not to walk into traffic, submerge electronics in water, swallow razor blades, shout the “n-word” in faculty meetings, etc.

My concern here is not with Ultimate Reality (UR). I would like knowledge about UR, but I doubt I will find it here, or possibly anywhere. Even if I were presented with UR, I’m not sure I would recognize it as such, or be able to defeat epistemic critiques of it if I did. We’re not going to solve UR issues, and even if we did, others might not recognize our accomplishment. And even if others recognized our achievements, how would that advance the cause of race survival?

My point is that, wrt the issue of Christianity and race/WN, there are two only somewhat overlapping sets of concerns. First, what is the correct view of essential Christianity (I’m a big believer not only in intra-Christian ecumenism, but in the notion of a Christian doctrinal and hence ethical core which transcends more superficial points of dissension) wrt race and integration v. preservation? Does Christianity in its metaphysical essence condemn temporal conservatisms, boundaries or sub-universal attachments? Is Christianity completely otherworldly, with no concern for earthly affairs (the massively agreed upon answer to this latter question, whether doctrinally or historically, has been “NO”; Christianity in the main body of tradition values the material world, and God judges men’s behaviors in it)?.   

And second, what is the strategically correct approach WNs should adopt towards Christianity? Whether the Christian message corresponds to UR or not, should those whites concerned with race and civilization attack Christianity, coopt it, or ignore it?

These are weighty questions, though as Narrator (and I, in other contexts, perhaps only in passing) has noted, they may be finally moot. Most people possess some sort of instinct for self-preservation, and we may be approaching (though I suspect still not for some considerable time) a day in which whites will be faced with the kind of limited options that available to whites confined in American prisons: fight or be enslaved or murdered. At that point concerns about ontology, ethics, and the like will be as meaningless as debates about animal rights and biodiversity in the face of a shark or tiger attack.

But we are still far from that Race-Omega point, and the more we get our acts together now (as I believe Captainchaos asserts above), the greater our collective and thus individual chances for preservation will be when we do reach it. And that is why these deep issues do matter, and not just in terms of UR, but strategically. WNs know (not to an epistemic certainty, but as a function of the adaptive knowledge I referred to above) that the end result of the multicult will not be good for us, and thus recruiting to our cause now, “pre-war”, is akin to weapons stockpiling.

It is also necessary in light of the “ripening harvest / encroaching jungle” metaphor I utilized earlier. We’re in something of a ‘numbers game’. Our forces are shrinking; the future enemies’, mainly due to immigration, expanding. If we do not stop immigration, we could lose by default. The later we stop immigration, the harder our final fight, whether for racial liberation, or racial survival, will be. 

Does it really matter what the UR of Christianity is? It does to me, and it should to you, but only individually. Obviously, it does not matter to us as racialists, and so it is not worth debating here. What about the theologically proper view of Christianity towards race? That matters more, but again, only to that minority of intellectuals capable of understanding subtle and complex issues, and willing to consider issues dispassionately. Also, the issue is a limited one. Contrary to the condescension of NeoNietzsche above, it is crucial to draw distinctions between what is morally imperative, and what is merely ethically permissible - and such distinctions are relevant to our racial survival. Christians, vastly more numerous among whites than WNs, don’t need racialists to prove the truth of their religion, nor do racialists need to be converted to Christianity (at least for race survival purposes). Moreover, very few Christians, if forced to choose between religion and race, are going to choose race. That is an empirical contention, but experience of the world strongly favors it.

So a key, contemporary strategic issue for WNs (not for Christians - remember who is powerful, and who is weak) is whether a Christian can be a WN? Does Christianity properly, theologically, forbid, again, sub-universal attachments, such as unequal concern for nation and race - or can we embrace our own cultural particularity, and practice demographic exclusivity?

Let me reiterate: we do not need to resolve the existence or non-existence of God, the nature of justice, even whether Christianity condemns racism, properly understood. For our strategic racialist purposes we only have to show that stopping immigration and outlawing miscegenation (and in Europe’s case, repatriation of non-indigenes) are not actually forbidden by essential Christian doctrine. This is possible, if not easy, as these problems are fairly new, and there does not exist a large body of theology on these subjects (except for some tendentious 19th century OT musings from various Southern patricians, which do not carry much weight amongst Christians today - and less for their PC violations, than shoddy scholarship).

But of one thing I am certain. If most white Christians deem racial preservation measures (immigration + miscegenation + healthy nationalist pride) ‘racist’, and ‘racism’ ethically impermissible according to their religion, WNs will continue to exist in a circumscribed, if slightly, albeit continuously, growing ideological ghetto - and the Third World hordes will overwhelm us long before we shall have attained any power.

In democracies, you go where the votes are. In America, atheists are not a big group. Right-wing atheists are infinitesimal. Where should we concentrate our firepower?

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:10 | #

PF’s point wrt 20/20 historical hindsight is fair in general, but doesn’t quite invalidate criticisms of Allied involvement in WW2, at least wrt the Anglo-American elites who dragged us into war. There were plenty of persons like aviator Charles Lindbergh who understood at the time that American involvement would be catastrophic for white civilization (his words, in a speech), and could result in communist domination of Europe. There were many rightists who clearheadedly recognized that Hitler was the lesser of two evils viz Stalin.

Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:45 | #

The difficulty of the hindsight critique is one of perspective.  If we critique our predecessors from the perspective of the 21st century then at best we’re pointing out a lesson of history, which is easy to do as there are many lessons of history.  It is only when we couch our critique from the perspective in which said events took place do we deal a direct blow to the targeted historical actors, which might only be possible in the future when the relevant historical documents become available.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:51 | #

There were many rightists who clearheadedly recognized that Hitler was the lesser of two evils viz Stalin.

Correct.

One might even note that 80% of the GJ goyim were opposed to intervention - yet Jew-stooge Roosevelt engineered it.

So why bother with a voting majority of goyim? 

[Also, to speak of Hitler as the lesser of two evils is to be profoundly lacking in sophistication as to the logic and history of political economy - which is to say that one is typical of the Greater Judean goyim, then and now.]

Posted by Sam Davidson on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 17:51 | #

Except they did for centuries. They were Christian and racialist for centuries.

Hmm… examples? I’d say that racialism is a more recent development. Gobineau did not explain his racial theories until the second half of the 19th century and such views of Nordic superiority and eugenics were not popularized until the early 20th century.

Christians quite happily slaughtered each other for centuries as well despite all the turn the other cheek stuff.

I might have to concede this point. My only addition would be to say that for most of history the common man was illiterate and relied upon priests to give religious direction. Here’s an interesting quote that explains quite a bit about the Jewish talent for doublethink:

“In addition, the disappearance of the heroic ideal is always accompanied by the growth of commercialism. There is a cause-and-effect relation here, for the man of commerce is by the nature of things a relativist; his mind is constantly on the fluctuating values of the marketplace, and there is no surer way to fail than for him to dogmatize and moralize about things.” - Ideas Have Consequences, Richard Weaver

The churchs have surrendered to the multicult now but were they the vanguard of the change or the rearguard? Seems to me the churchs were the ones trying to hold back the multicult all these years until recently. It seems a bit odd to blame Christianity for x and y when Chrisitianity opposed x and y for centuries and only surrendered 60 years after cultural marxists gained control of the cultural high ground through media and education.

“Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.” - Oswald Spengler

Christianity played a large role in the abolitionist movement. The rifles sent to anti-slavery forces in Kansas before the Civil War were nicknamed “Beecher Bibles” after the minister Henry Ward Beecher, brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” Slavery is not racialism exactly, but it’s the only acceptable form of society apart from total racial separation.

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” -Alexander H. Stephenson, Vice President of the Confederacy

Posted by Jon Leigh Barnsley on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 18:08 | #

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

you are all a bunch of hitler worshipping nazi dickheads and poofters

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Now vote for my new Shittish Freedumb Party so we can breed the Great Ones.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 19:39 | #

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” -Alexander H. Stephenson, Vice President of the Confederacy

This betrays the weakness of the Confederate position, in that enslavement of the Negro was no more taxing of the ideology, structure, and martial agenda of the South than was mule ownership.

So the Confederacy was doomed, at the outset, for lack of the determination to rule the Union, as was the basic ambition of the Federal cause.

In contrast, the Romans understood the “great truth” that one’s “superiority” is the product of victory on the battlefield.  Mastery is not racial superiority - it is martial superiority - in engagement of one’s racial peers with deadly weapons.  The Confederacy was “based” thus upon a pseudo-aristocratic, quasi-bourgeois conceit of little merit.  For to claim some sort of superiority by comparison with “the negro” is to damn oneself with faint praise and, as said, to betray a fundamental and fatal lack of discipline and organization that was, ironically, the product of the very suitability of the negro as a compliant slave.

Unfortunately, there is too much of this same sloppy and superficial orientation in the formulation of WN objectives.  The world will, again, not permit the realization of a simple desire to deal with racial aliens by bourgeois means (purchasing primitives, segregating them, excluding them, running away from them).

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 31 Oct 2010 23:27 | #

I’d say that racialism is a more recent development.

Yes, you’re probably right to say explicit racialism was a later development but slavery (and pretty much the entirety of European Christian history) shows how people could quite easily compartmentalize.

Psychologically i think what happens is when the preacher preaches on a Sunday the congregation take his words as applying to “us” not neccessarily anyone else - summed up in the expression “praise the lord and pass the ammunition” supposedly said by a Royal Navy Chaplain at the battle of Jutland. Throughout most of European Christian history that “us” didn’t neccessarily extend any further than the next town. In Britain there was an expression “the wogs begin at Calais” which sums up the attitude.

Now the multicult churchs are explicitly saying “us” applies to everyone in the world but they didn’t used to.

So backtracking a bit i’d say instead that European Christians were always (but only ever implicitly) racial simply through distance and geography placing non-whites at a distance and therefore not “us.”

My only addition would be to say that for most of history the common man was illiterate and relied upon priests to give religious direction.

That’s precisely my point. Religious believers still do even when they’re not illiterate - if not to the same extent. Using the exact same new testament a church could stress “love thy neighbour” in the sense of those physically close to you, kith and kin, or literal neighbours or whatever.

My guess is there’s also a big pool now of Christian inclined people who have given up on the current forms because the current forms have become so multicult. One little known fact is one of the biggest pools for muslim convert jihadists is people from strict Christian backgrounds reacting against their church becoming too soft.

Here’s an interesting quote that explains quite a bit about the Jewish talent for doublethink:

That’s a possible explanation but another would simply be that jews have two “us” and two “them.” In public they share the same “us” and “them” as the host population. In private “us” is the jews, “them” is the host. The essence of the jewish survival (without assimilating) strategy is to strive to ensure their sense of “us”-ness is stronger than the host’s sense of “us”-ness.

“Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.” - Oswald Spengler

Yeah except speaking as someone who was on the left for decades it’s not remotely true. The left has always contained a *strand* of liberal Christianity but the liberal wing of Christianity was always massively outnumbered by the conservative wing until recently. Anglicanism in Britain was known as the Conservative party at prayer until it succumbed to the multicult and died.

There was also always a parallel strand of ideologically based liberalism on the left - also massively outnumbered by ideological conservatives.

Marxism was a third separate, parallel strand that has nothing to do with Christianity or liberalism. The only connection is Marxism *uses* Liberal or Christian language as a wrapper to disguise its intent.

Spengler should have simply read what the cultural marxists said among themselves. They don’t hide anything among themselves. Take crime for example. They knew crime destroys society so they wanted more of it. They can say that among themselves but they can’t say it in public so what do they do? They take liberal and Christian sounding arguments like criminals being the victims of society and use that as camouflage to get what they want. The camouflage then draws actual Liberals and actual Liberal Christians to do the legwork.

Christianity played a large role in the abolitionist movement.

The liberal wing of Chrisitanity no doubt did. Whereas the conservative wing of Christianity played a large role in legitimizing slavery.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm

==

The correct analogy in my view is that of a poison and cuts on the skin. Christianity and Liberalism may represent cuts on the skin but they are simply not the poison. The poison is left-liberalism which is disguised cultural marxism.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:00 | #

Leon Haller,

And second, what is the strategically correct approach WNs should adopt towards Christianity? Whether the Christian message corresponds to UR or not, should those whites concerned with race and civilization attack Christianity, coopt it, or ignore it?

Does it really matter what the UR of Christianity is? It does to me, and it should to you, but only individually

Exactly so. I’d also add, for those who think attacking Christianity is neccessary or useful politically (i don’t) then *how* it should be attacked is relevant. In terms of the effect they have most of the attacks i see on Christianity on WN sites could just as easily have been made by enemies.

Moreover, very few Christians, if forced to choose between religion and race, are going to choose race. That is an empirical contention, but experience of the world strongly favors it.

White people maybe - not blacks or hispanics. That distinction will gradually rub off on white christians although possibly too late.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:12 | #

The argument over Christianity applies more generally.

The entire western world is daily saturated with anti-white propaganda coming out of the media and education. This is aimed at demoralization and divide and rule. Now obviously cultural self-criticism is neccessary up to a point to analyze how we got where we are and therefore how we get out. But people should realize that that cultural self-criticism also reinforces the psychological demoralization and divide and rule of the other side.

So people should weigh the benefit of that criticism against the cost.

For example, for most of the month the benefit of Captain Tampon’s input is probably higher than the cost but his monthly PMS sessions are all cost and no benefit. I doubt he can control it but it’s important to not get dragged in if possible.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:22 | #

In contrast, the Romans understood the “great truth” that one’s “superiority” is the product of victory on the battlefield.  Mastery is not racial superiority - it is martial superiority

Very true.

The heroic, aristocratic medieval knight could take on a hundred peasants and win.

Until the peasants got guns.

Martial ability then became a mass project and the heros became mass composite heros e.g 82nd airborne or Royal Marines instead of individuals.

Military technology killed the aristocratic tradition not democracy. Democracy is / was the neccessary price to pay for the switch to mass warfare.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 01:42 | #

Christianity played a large role in the abolitionist movement. The rifles sent to anti-slavery forces in Kansas before the Civil War were nicknamed “Beecher Bibles” after the minister Henry Ward Beecher,

Beecher apparently, was a strong believer in Darwin’s theory of evolution. The rifles were supplied to immigrant anti-slavery forces, especially composed of the ‘48ers’, who were migrant Germans, apparently.

I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England if she is the first European nation which utterly abolishes it! I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies. I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese, with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; and, considering the enormous healthy-looking black population, it will be wonderful if, at some future day, it does not take place.

Charles Darwin

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 01:46 | #

Military technology killed the aristocratic tradition not democracy.

Junker

[as in Von Leeb, von Bock , von Rundstedt, von Manstein, etc.]

Guillotine

[As in the French Revolution]

Posted by Sam Davidson on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 03:18 | #

All of the Christian apologists in this thread are making these general points:

1. White Christians don’t really believe what the bible says. In fact, they’re usually ignorant.
2. Thus it follows that we could manipulate Christians into believing that their religion is either racialist or tolerant of racialist beliefs.
3. All we need to do is somehow overthrow the dominant culture and gain control of these lemmings for our own purposes.

Question: If White Christians are just a passive reactionary lump, why would they be of any use to us anyway? Slave labor? Cannon fodder?

Now the multicult churchs are explicitly saying “us” applies to everyone in the world but they didn’t used to.

Matthew 12:48 - Jesus Christ redefined kinship as being a spiritual relationship. But that’s not important since White Christians are functionally illiterate and can be fooled, right? The Christian apologists certainly have a low opinion of White Christians!

I am beginning to find all of these low opinions of White Christians quite distasteful and fail to see how it will further the cause of racialism by insulting so many decent White people!

The Confederacy was “based” thus upon a pseudo-aristocratic, quasi-bourgeois conceit of little merit.

Quite right, NeoNietzsche. The Confederates were pussies! Let us continue this highly topical discussion away from the rude children at MR, post haste!

Posted by danielj on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 04:11 | #

Has anybody here ever heard of R.L. Dabney?

Christians can have genuine disagreement, as they did violently, in the Civil War.

Both factions in the conflict, being composed mostly of self-described Christians, claimed for their side the blessing of the Lord. I’m not suggesting that we discount the other forces at play and other motivations for the struggle, but we should remember that both sides applied a thick veneer of theology over the whole escapade.

Again it appears that Christianity serves as a convenient whipping boy for liberals who accuse it of being a reactionary conservative force that is parochial, backward facing, nostalgic, pastoral, etc. and a for the WN right who accuse it of the exact opposite and consider it harbinger of all things progressive and the handmaiden of liberalism.

Unfortunately, as somebody pointed out above, it is usually just an afterthought and politicians merely recruit the clergy for manipulation of the laity.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 04:15 | #

Question: If White Christians are just a passive reactionary lump, why would they be of any use to us anyway? Slave labor? Cannon fodder?

Soldiers. Voters. Electricians. Lawyers. All the usual things.

Matthew 12:48 - Jesus Christ redefined kinship as being a spiritual relationship. But that’s not important since White Christians are functionally illiterate and can be fooled, right? The Christian apologists certainly have a low opinion of White Christians!

The Koran says go kill infidels. Some muslims take it seriously. Most muslims ignore it because they’re people and most people’s primary desire is to have a quiet life. Christians are the same. So are Budhists, Hindus whatever.

I am beginning to find all of these low opinions of White Christians quite distasteful and fail to see how it will further the cause of racialism by insulting so many decent White people!

I don’t have a low opinion of white christians. People are people. Most of them want a quiet life. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Under normal conditions it provides stability. It’s only a problem now because a hostile elite has stealthed its way into power and needs to be taken down.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 04:27 | #

All we need to do is somehow overthrow the dominant culture and gain control of these lemmings for our own purposes.

The options are
—ignore
—co-opt (multiple possibilities)
—attack (multiple possibilities)

I don’t know what the best option is. However i think the worst option is attacking Christianity and Christians via a direct banzai charge as all that does is annoy people. Apart from anything else the multicult is already doing that all the time anyway.

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:29 | #

People who hold conservative as opposed to liberal views are more likely to be attracted to members of their own race and are more likely to have greater numbers of children

Posted by Captainchaos on October 31, 2010, 07:55 AM

We don’t necessarily need more of us. We need less of them.

Numbers are not at all relevant to the issue. Our numbers have gone up and down throughout the ages.

.
.
.
.

Does Christianity in its metaphysical essence condemn temporal conservatisms, boundaries or sub-universal attachments? Is Christianity completely otherworldly, with no concern for earthly affairs….?
Posted by Leon Haller on October 31, 2010, 12:58 PM |

The answer to both questions is yes and no. Hence, the problem.

The bible only has one semi-consistent thread running throughout it from Genesis to Revelation, and that is the notion that there is one god and sole creator of all peoples.

If you embrace that idea you have no choice but to embrace the rest of multiculturalism. And as multiculturalism is suicidal, the belief in “one god of all” is literally poison to a civilization.

The embodiment of that reality is, of course, Jim Jones and his church. Jones is LITERALLY the patron-Saint of Evangelical Christians, as his doctrine and advocacy for integration and “social justice” are the mainstream.
America is Joenestown.

G.K. Chesterton once quipped that critics of the bible will on the one hand accuse it of promoting pacifism and then on the other hand promote aggression and war. He said it can’t be both.

Well, yeah it can and it does, which is why it is interpreted both ways, sometimes simultaneously by its followers.
Case in point, most Christians support America’s invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan (and, they ultimately hope) Iran because it is okay to defend ourselves and our way of life. Setting aside the fact that none of those countries ever attacked us, these same Christians are silent and outright passive in the face of the tens of millions of immigrants raping and murdering people everyday, right in their own towns and cities.

The bible is full of contradictions and hypocrisies and logical fallacies. Thus its followers are all over the place in their affiliations and beliefs.
And so sadly you’ve got ‘good and descent White people’ holding up little brown insidious characters like Abraham, Joseph, Esther and Moses as “heroes” whose examples are to be followed.

.
.
.

In democracies, you go where the votes are. In America, atheists are not a big group

Posted by Leon Haller on October 31, 2010, 12:58 PM

As I’ve said before, if we’re to come out of this predicament alive we will be led. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN DEMOCRATICALLY.

The great White Christian majority will be a minority at any time, so the democratic process will destroy it anyway.

...

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:24 | #

The bible only has one semi-consistent thread running throughout it from Genesis to Revelation, and that is the notion that there is one god and sole creator of all peoples.  If you embrace that idea you have no choice but to embrace the rest of multiculturalism.

No it doesn’t.

G.K. Chesterton once quipped that critics of the bible will on the one hand accuse it of promoting pacifism and then on the other hand promote aggression and war. He said it can’t be both. Well, yeah it can and it does, which is why it is interpreted both ways, sometimes simultaneously by its followers.

As you say yourself five seconds later.

I don’t think being pro-christian is the answer or anything but this whole anti-christian thing is a complete waste of time.

Seriously. What is the absolutely GIGANTIC logical flaw in the idea that Christianity is the problem?

In Europe has Christianity got stronger or weaker over the last 60 years?

In America has Christianity got stronger or weaker over the last 60 years?

If over the last 60 years Christianity has got significantly weaker in America and absolutely collapsed in Europe then how the f**k can Christianity be the problem?

The multicult is the new religion.

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 12:50 | #

As you say yourself five seconds later.

Posted by Wandrin on November 01, 2010, 09:24 AM

huh?
.
.
.
.

What is the absolutely GIGANTIC logical flaw in the idea that Christianity is the problem?

Posted by Wandrin on November 01, 2010, 09:24 AM

Again….what?
.
.
.
.

In Europe has Christianity got stronger or weaker over the last 60 years?

In America has Christianity got stronger or weaker over the last 60 years?

Posted by Wandrin on November 01, 2010, 09:24 AM

It’s impossible to say either way as we have no idea to what extent past generations took Christianity (as a supernatural faith) seriously on a personal level.

I’ve said at MR before that Christianity looks to have been born out of a cultural nexus of the excesses of Classical Greek Philosophy, the Roman Empire’s “pragmatic” political cosmopolitanism and the Semitic notion of monotheism. All three were bad news. Mix them together and you’ve got a witch’s brew of toxicity.
The point is, some of the sentiments of the religion reflect native European’s worst tendencies of “live and let live” altruism. Toss in the “one god for all” motif and you’ve got an eternal justification for passivity conveniently applied at various whims.
.
.
.
.

...how the f**k can Christianity be the problem?

The multicult is the new religion.

Posted by Wandrin on November 01, 2010, 09:24 AM

Meet the new boss,
Same as the old boss.

Christianity was conceived and born out of multiculturalism, not surprisingly at the junction where three continents meet.

Besides, think of the psychology at work in the faith. Christians, collectively, are the “bride of Christ” waiting for the “marriage supper of the lamb” and the “consummation” of the age.

In other words,

to be a Christian is to be in the harem of Sheik Jesus, a swarthy skinned asiatic man, anxiously awaiting your turn in a cosmic orgy with your “husband-to-be”.

That’s not exactly a healthy starting point for the survival of our people.

...

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:00 | #

The bible is full of contradictions and hypocrisies and logical fallacies. Thus its followers are all over the place in their affiliations and beliefs.

And so it will be, as long as the bourgeois bumpkins rely upon preachers and priests, and their own prejudices, for a tailored version of the “faith” - as opposed to self-reliantly and detachedly taking from the text, as a whole, its antithetical, inversional, and apocalyptic recasting of reality, such as appeals to the minority of Christians true to the ancient and authentic faith.

So, in order to make off with the herd in our direction, the Christian cattle will have to be rustled, somehow.

And how are the Identity and British Israelism folks doing these days?

Posted by danielj on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:06 | #

Narrator,

  You say you disagree with Chesterton and that it can be interpreted in multiple ways, that it is full of contradictions, etc. but you then go on to claim that it must be interpreted as a religion that abolishes all earthly distinction and that it must be interpreted solely in this fashion. The Bible cannot simultaneously be “full of contradictions” and have the unifying theme you describe.

I think Wandrin was saying you can’t have it both ways.

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:46 | #

You say you disagree with Chesterton and that it can be interpreted in multiple ways, that it is full of contradictions, etc. but you then go on to claim that it must be interpreted as a religion that abolishes all earthly distinction and that it must be interpreted solely in this fashion. The Bible cannot simultaneously be “full of contradictions” and have the unifying theme you describe.

I think Wandrin was saying you can’t have it both ways.
Posted by danielj on November 01, 2010, 01:06 PM

To quote myself,

The bible only has one ***semi***-consistent thread running throughout it from Genesis to Revelation, and that is the notion that there is one god and sole creator of all peoples.

Posted by the Narrator… on November 01, 2010, 08:29 AM |

I mean, “let US make man” and so on…
...

Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:28 | #

danielj,

Apparently, Christianity has just enough coherence for all of the Narrator’s points to stand. 

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:54 | #

Apparently, Christianity has just enough coherence for all of the Narrator’s points to stand.

Posted by Notus Wind on November 01, 2010, 04:28 PM |

And they do stand.
.
.
.
.
On the political side, here is another example of why we aren’t going to vote our way out of this.

This is consistent with the developing partisan realignment of formerly bipartisan Israel-support. Encouragingly, in the wake of Obama’s actions, the American electorate – 98 percent non-Jewish – is now solidly behind Israel: According to a recent McLaughlin poll, 53% could not vote for an anti-Israel candidate even if they agreed with that candidate’s other positions. But look closer: Among Republicans, 69% are more likely to vote for a pro-Israel candidate

The anticipated election results favoring Republicans would result in one of the most pro-Israel Congresses ever.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=193468

Posted by Thorn on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:56 | #

Q: Can you be both a Christian and a race-realist?

A: An obvious YES! Just look around.

Q: Can you be rabidly pro-multicult and completely reject Christianity?

A: An obvious YES. Just look around. In my perception, non-Christians are the biggest race denying kool aide drinking multiculters.

Ergo Christianity is not, repeat NOT the main factor nor is even a minor factor contributing to our demise. If you really want to pin it onto something it’s cultural-Marxism; an ideology which all political correctness flows.

If anything, Christianity has been subverted by practitioners of political correctness. PC of course is a Jewish invention designed for the expressed purpose of breaking down Western Culture. Given the historical fact that Christianity has always been a main pillar holding up Western Culture, it’s no wonder why Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfort School shmuckaroos regarded Christian morality as one of the main obstacles in their long march through the institutions.

Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 18:11 | #

Narrator,

Friend, in addition to entertaining the wacky idea that a committed communist and Soviet sympathizer [Jim Jones] was the ultimate fulfillment of Christian doctrine you were exposed by Wandrin in the following exchange:

Wandrin: In America has Christianity got stronger or weaker over the last 60 years?  If over the last 60 years Christianity has got significantly weaker in America and absolutely collapsed in Europe then how the f**k can Christianity be the problem?

Narrator: It’s impossible to say either way as we have no idea to what extent past generations took Christianity (as a supernatural faith) seriously on a personal level.

Your unwillingness to admit the obvious - that Christianity in the West has greatly declined in all its forms and expressions over the last two generations - reveals that you can’t be taken seriously on this subject.

Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:03 | #

Sam,

I’m not sure who you think you’re fooling but you can’t make authoritative theological judgments about Christianity on the strength of a few lines of scripture and the remarks of one pope, such a facile treatment is as inadequate as it is offensive.  Moreover, even if we grant your rhetorical scraps as being more serious than they deserve what weight do they have when compared against a legacy of Europeans who were able to integrate Christianity with a vigorous national identity that stretches over multiple centuries and continues in the hearts of some to this day?  Common sense says, “Not much.”

Don’t misunderstand, none of this is to say that Christianity is beyond some well-deserved reproach.  It is not, and such has been leveled against it at MR without objection from anyone.  However, crude critiques will continue to invite acrimonious debates such as this one.

Posted by Silver on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:51 | #

Christianity’s just a spiritual tradition—a rather sensible spiritual tradition for Europeans, especially considering the alternatives.  It maintains plenty of adherents on this implicit basis alone, ie they don’t care so much for or believe in the particulars but they value the spiritual nourishment, sense of purpose and feeling of community it provides. 

This is what Haller refers to as “essential Christianity.” (A term for it, incidentally, I was using independently.)  It’s basically what the first converts, illiterates to a man, would have understood and experienced of the salvific power of Christ’s resurrection.

At this level of abstraction it should be clear the doctrine can support a wide variety of political positions.  Whatever it does, one would be hard pressed to deny Christian morality stresses “the good” (as does any morality, but we’re playing favorites).  A feeling of a community is undeniable good (except to commies, who want people to feel utterly miserable in order to precipitate revolution), thus with respect to race, Christian morality should stress that which contributes to a strong sense of community; if multiracialism can be shown to do that, Christians should stress it; if monoracialism can be shown to do a better job, Christian morality should stress that.  One size doesn’t fit all.  There are some communities whose racial mix is an essential component of their community’s identity; Christians would be fools to tamper with it.  In other communities, namely white communities, stressing the good would require the honest Christian to stress racial community (something the orthodox churches always got right).

Posted by MOB on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 22:58 | #

Speaking of rural hearths . . . having discovered Lark Rise to Candleford through Netflix and watched the first two seasons, I was happy this weekend to be able to find the third season at my library, newly arrived.  After enjoying two of the four season 3 discs, I realized this morning that, while Lark Rise has not replaced Anne of Green Gables in my list of favorite television series, it’s so close as to be nearly tied, especially since the only character I didn’t like had the misfortune to be locked up in a debtor’s prison, someplace far way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4gsD78eahg

I’ve wondered if men watch this series as well, or if in England it’s considered female fare.  Anne of Green Gables is for all ages, wonderfully so (and there’s the Hagood Hardy music).  But Lark Rise has more fully developed characters and deals with more serious issues, beautifully so.

Realistic or not, I highly recommend it.

MOB

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 00:04 | #

Speaking of rural hearths . . . having discovered Lark Rise to Candleford

Nostalgic rural shows are increasingly popular. Possibly as a reaction to what is happening. They’re viewed more as family fare than female fare i think.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 00:38 | #

I mean, “let US make man” and so on…
...

Why have you capitalized “us” here? I don’t understand the significance.

And so on what?

The Bible is more than semi-coherent on the issue of creation. The fact that we accept the plan truth of the Scripture about creation doesn’t imply that we must accept liberalism in toto, or at all really. You refusal to accept *any* universals should give you pause. The greatest thinkers in history have spent much energy defending them against sophists of all stripes. You are much too smart not to understand what a ridiculously absurd position nominalism is. If there is no “human race” than there is no “White race” or “English” or anything else but uninterpretable brute fact and bare particulars incapable of being assimilated as knowledge.

The diversity and unity contained within the Godhead enables us to understand the relation of the particular to the universal; the fundamental epistemological issue. It isn’t wrong of Christianity, and neither does it lead us to accept Babelism as the will of God, to acknowledge the spiritual equality of mankind. It doesn’t sully up our cause to feel a twinge of sympathy for the other either or to acknowledge their “humanity” whatever that may turn out to be.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 00:38 | #

I own Anne of Green Gables.

I like it.

Posted by Sam Davidson on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 03:49 | #

If over the last 60 years Christianity has got significantly weaker in America and absolutely collapsed in Europe then how the f**k can Christianity be the problem?

As far as I’m aware, no one in this thread has actually proposed that Christianity is singlehandedly responsible for the modern decline of the West.

I’m not sure who you think you’re fooling but you can’t make authoritative theological judgments about Christianity on the strength of a few lines of scripture and the remarks of one pope, such a facile treatment is as inadequate as it is offensive.

Are you saying that the words of Jesus Christ, humanity’s Lord and Savior, hold no authority within Christianity?

Moreover, even if we grant your rhetorical scraps as being more serious than they deserve what weight do they have when compared against a legacy of Europeans who were able to integrate Christianity with a vigorous national identity that stretches over multiple centuries and continues in the hearts of some to this day?  Common sense says, “Not much.”

You call my evidence “rhetorical scraps”. You label my arguments “facile”, “crude, “offensive”, and accuse them of “esoteric irrelevancy”.

The monocle has dropped into the wine glass.

This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put!

Posted by Pro-Occidental Green on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 04:39 | #

“They talk of the triumph of the machine, / but the machine will never triumph.”

- from “The Triumph of the Machine” by DH Lawrence: http://www.kalliope.org/digt.pl?longdid=lawrence2001061629a

—-

“Even the apologists of industrialism have been obliged to admit that some economic evils follow in the wake of the machines. These are such as overproduction, unemployment, and a growing inequality in the distribution of wealth. But the remedies proposed by the apologists are always homeopathic. They expect the evils to disappear when we have bigger and better machines, and more of them. Their remedial programs, therefore, look forward to more industrialism.”

- from I’LL TAKE MY STAND by Southern Agrarians: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA01/White/anthology/agrarian.html

—-

“The spectacular growth of certain great trusts and industrial mammoths has produced the hopeless feeling that mass production is an inevitable trend. The saying is that we cannot turn back the hands of the clock, although there are few machines, even clocks, that cannot be turned backward as well as forward.  Actually most biological processes go always forward, but almost never continuously upward. The dinosaur and the woolly mammoth grew great, failed to develop the necessary brains to adapt themselves to a changing environment, and passed off the stage. So may the mammoths of industry.”

- from “The Fallacy of Mass Production” by D.C. Coyle in WHO OWNS AMERICA?: A NEW DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: http://www.isi.org/books/content/277chap1.pdf

—-

“The clock, not the steam-engine, is the key-machine of the modern industrial age.” - from TECHNICS AND CIVILIZATION by Lewis Mumford: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technics_and_Civilization

“The cycle of the machine is now coming to an end. Man has learned much in the hard discipline and the shrewd, unflinching grasp of practical possibilities that the machine has provided in the last three centuries: but we can no more continue to live in the world of the machine than we could live successfully on the barren surface of the moon.” - from THE CULTURE OF CITIES by Lewis Mumford: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford#The_Culture_of_Cities_.281938.29

“If we are to prevent megatechnics from further controlling and deforming every aspect of human culture, we shall be able to do so only with the aid of a radically different model derived directly, not from machines, but from living organisms and organic complexes (ecosystems).  What can be known about life only through the process of living — and so is part of even the humbles organisms — must be added to all the other aspects that can be observed, abstracted, measured. ... Once an organic world picture is in the ascendant, the working aim of an economy of plenitude will be not to feed more human functions into the machine, but to develop further man’s incalculable potentialities for self-actualization and self-transendence, taking back into himself deliberately many of the activities he has too supinely surrendered into the mechanical system.” - from THE MYTH OF THE MACHINE by Lewish Mumford: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford#The_Myth_of_the_Machine_.281967-1970.29

—-

“. . . the human race is beginning confusedly to understand at last that it is living in a new and unfamiliar universe. The new order was meant to be a buffer between man and nature. Unfortunately, it has evolved autonomously in such a way that man has lost all contact with his natural framework and has to do only with the organized technical intermediary which sustains relations both with the world of life and with the world of brute matter. Enclosed within his artificial creation, man finds that there is “no exit”; that he cannot pierce the shell of technology to find again the ancient milieu to which he was adapted for hundreds of thousands of years.”

- from THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY by J. Ellul: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jsa3/hum355/readings/ellul.htm

—-

“The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering—even in “advanced” countries.”

- from “Industrial Society and Its Future” by T. Kaczynski: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future

—-

“An extremely potent influence, however, is the transformation of the nation from an agricultural to a manufacturing community. Heavy, healthful work in the fields of northern Europe enables the Nordic type to thrive, but the cramped factory and crowded city quickly weed him out, while the little brunet Mediterranean can work a spindle, set type, sell ribbons or push a clerk’s pen far better than the big, clumsy and somewhat heavy Nordic blond, who needs exercise, meat and air and cannot live under Ghetto conditions.

The increase of urban communities at the expense of the countryside is also an important element in the fading of the Nordic type, because the energetic countryman of this blood is more apt to improve his fortunes by moving to the city than the less ambitious Mediterranean.”

- from THE PASSING OF THE GREAT RACE by M. Grant: http://www.archive.org/details/passingofgreatra00granuoft

—-

“Japan was the first yellow people to go methodically to the white man’s school, and Japan’s rapid acquirement of the white man’s technology soon showed itself in dramatic demonstrations like her military triumphs over China in 1894, and over Russia a decade later.”

“Thirty years ago, Professor Pearson forecast China’s imminent industrial transformation. “Does any one doubt,” he asks, “that the day is at hand when China will have cheap fuel from her coal-mines, cheap transport by railways and steamers, and will have founded technical schools to develop her industries? Whenever that day comes, she may wrest the control of the world’s markets, especially throughout Asia, from England and Germany.”

- from THE RISING TIDE OF COLOR by Lothrop Stoddard: http://www.archive.org/details/risingtideofcolo00stoduoft

—-

“What is this system threatening collapse and what are the forces provoking it? Simply put, it is the techno-economic system born of 18th-century liberalism — whose principal exemplar has been the United States and Europe, but whose global impetus now holds most of the world in its grip.
…
These catastrophes, Faye argues, are rooted in practices native to liberal modernity. For the globalization of Western civilizational forms, particularly American-style consumerism, has created a latently chaotic situation, given that its hyper-technological, interconnected world system, dependent on international trade, driven by speculators, and indifferent to virtually every non-economic consideration, is vulnerable to a diverse range of malfunctions. Its pathological effects have indeed already begun to reach their physical limit. For once the billion-plus populations of India and China, already well embarked on the industrializing process, start mass-producing cars, the system will simply become unfit for human habitation. The resource depletion and environmental degradation that will follow are, though, only one of the system’s tipping points.
…
Though rejecting liberalism’s monstrous perversion of European life, Faye does so not as a New Age Luddite or a left-wing environmentalist. He argues that a technoeconomic civilization based on universalist and egalitarian principles is a loathsome abnormality — destructive of future generations and past accomplishments. But while rejecting its technological, bureaucratic, cosmopolitan, and anti-white practices, he fully accepts modern science. He simply states the obvious: that the great technological and economic accomplishments of Europe cannot be extended to the world’s six billion people — let alone tomorrow’s ten billion — without fatal consequence.”

- http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/06/the-widening-gyre/

Posted by Pro-Occidental Green on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 04:46 | #

Oswald Spengler noted that Western technology will eventually lead to the decline of The West:

“In 1931 [Spengler] published Man and Technics, a book that reflected his fascination with the development and usage, past and future, of the technical. The development of advanced technology is unique to the West, and he predicted where it would lead. Man and Technics is a racialist book, though not in a narrow “Germanic” sense. Rather it warns the European or white races of the pressing danger from the outer Colored races. It predicts a time when the Colored peoples of the earth will use the very technology of the West to destroy the West.”

- from “Spengler: An Introduction to His Life and Ideas” by K. Stimley: http://www.toqonline.com/2009/06/spengler-an-introduction/

—-

“Every high Culture is a tragedy. The history of mankind as a whole is tragic. But the sacrilege and the catastrophe of the Faustian are greater than all others, greater than anything Æschylus or Shakespeare ever imagined. The creature is rising up against its creator. As once the microcosm Man against Nature, so now the microcosm Machine is revolting against Nordic Man.  The lord of the World is becoming the slave of the Machine, which is forcing him — forcing us all, whether we are aware of it or not — to follow its course. The victor, crashed, is dragged to death by the team.
...
The mechanization of the world has entered on a phase of highly dangerous over-tension. The picture of the earth, with its plants, animals, and men, has altered. In a few decades most of the great forests have gone, to be turned into news-print, and climatic changes have been thereby set afoot which imperil the land-economy of whole populations. Innumerable animal species have been extinguished, or nearly so, like the bison; whole races of humanity have been brought almost to vanishing-point, like the North American Indian and the Australian.

All things organic are dying in the grip of organization. An artificial world is permeating and poisoning the natural. The Civilization itself has become a machine that does, or tries to do, everything in mechanical fashion. We think only in horsepower now; we cannot look at a waterfall without mentally turning it into electric power; we cannot survey a countryside full of pasturing cattle without thinking of its exploitation as a source of meat-supply; we cannot look at the beautiful old handwork of an unspoilt primitive people without wishing to replace it by a modern technical process. Our technical thinking must have its actualization, sensible or senseless. The luxury of the machine is the consequence of a necessity of thought. In last analysis, the machine is a symbol, like its secret ideal, perpetual motion — a spiritual and intellectual, but no vital necessity.  It is beginning to contradict even economic practice in many ways. Alreadytheir divorce is being foreshadowed everywhere. The machine, by its multiplication and its refinement, is in the end defeating its own purpose.

...

The Faustian thought begins to be sick of machines. A weariness is spreading, a sort of pacifism of the battle with Nature. Men are returning to forms of life simpler and nearer to Nature; they are spending their time in sport instead of technical experiments. The great cities are becoming hateful to them, and they would fain get away from the pressure of soulless facts and the clear cold atmosphere of technical organization. And it is precisely the strong and creative talents that are turning away from practical problems and sciences and towards pure speculation. Occultism and Spiritualism, Hindu philosophies, metaphysical inquisitiveness under Christian or pagan colouring, all of which were despised in the Darwinian period, are coming up again. It is the spirit of Rome in the Age of Augustus. Out of satiety of life, men take refuge from civilization in the more primitive parts of the earth, in vagabondage, in suicide. The flight of the born leader from the Machine is beginning.
...
The third and most serious symptom of the collapse that is beginning lies, however, in what I may call treason to technics. What I am referring to is known to everyone, but it has never been envisaged in its entirety, and consequently its fateful significance has never disclosed itself. The immense superiority that Western Europe and North America enjoyed in the second half of the nineteenth century, in power of every kind — economic and political, military and financial — was based on an uncontested monopoly of industry. Great industries were only possible in connexion with the coal-fields of these Northern countries. The role of the rest of the world was to absorb the product, and colonial policy was always, for practical purposes, directed to the opening-up of new markets and new sources of raw material, not to the development of new areas of production. There was coal elsewhere, of course, but only the white engineers would have known how to get at it. We were in sole possession, not of the material, but of the methods and the trained intellects required for its utilization. It is this that constitutes the basis of the luxurious living of the white worker — whose income, in comparison with that of the “native,” is princely — a circumstance that Marxism has turned to dishonest account, to its own ruin. It is being revenged on us today, for from now on, evolution is going to be complicated by the problem of unemployment. The high level of wages of the white worker, which is today a peril to his very life, rests upon the monopoly that the leaders of industry have created about him.

And then, at the close of last century, the blind will-to-power began to make its decisive mistakes. Instead of keeping strictly to itself the technical knowledge that constituted their greatest asset, the “white” peoples complacently offered it to all the world, in every Hochschule, verbally and on paper, and the astonished homage of Indians and Japanese delighted them.  The famous “dissemination of industry” set in, motivated by the idea of getting bigger profits by bringing production into the marketing area. And so, in place of the export of finished products exclusively, they began an export of secrets, processes, methods, engineers, and organizers. Even the inventors emigrate, for Socialism, which could if it liked harness them in its team, expels them instead. And so presently the “natives” saw into our secrets, understood them, and used them to the full. Within thirty years the Japanese became technicians of the first rank, and in their war against Russia they revealed a technical superiority from which their teachers were able to learn many lessons. Today more or less everywhere — in the Far East, India, South America, South Africa — industrial regions are in being, or coming into being, which, owing to their low scales of wages, will face us with a deadly competition. The unassailable privileges of the white races have been thrown away, squandered, betrayed. The others have caught up with their instructors.  Possibly — with their combination of “native” cunning and the over-ripe intelligence of their ancient civilizations — they have surpassed them. Where there is coal, or oil, or water-power, there a new weapon can be forged against the heart of the Faustian Civilization. The exploited world is beginning to take its revenge on its lords. The innumerable hands of the coloured races — at least as clever, and far less exigent — will shatter the economic organization of the whites at its foundations. The accustomed luxury of the white workman, in comparison with the coolie, will be his doom. The labour of the white is itself coming to be unwanted. The huge masses of men centred in the Northern coal areas, the great industrial works, the capital invested in them, whole cities and districts, are faced with the probability of going under in the competition.  The centre of gravity of production is steadily shifting away from them, especially since even the respect of the coloured races for the white has been ended by the World War. This is the real and final basis of the unemployment that prevails in the white countries. It is no mere crisis, but the beginning of a catastrophe.
...
This machine-technics will end with the Faustian civilization and one day will lie in fragments, forgotten — our railways and steamships as dead as the Roman roads and the Chinese wall, our giant cities and skyscrapers in ruins like old Memphis and Babylon. The history of this technics is fast drawing to its inevitable close.. It will be eaten up from within, like the grand forms of any and every Culture. When, and in what fashion, we know not.”

- from MAN AND TECHNICS by Oswald Spengler: http://www.archive.org/details/ManTechnics-AContributionToAPhilosophyOfLife193253

Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 06:44 | #

Friend, in addition to entertaining the wacky idea that a committed communist and Soviet sympathizer [Jim Jones] was the ultimate fulfillment of Christian doctrine you were exposed by Wandrin in the following exchange:

  Wandrin: In America has Christianity got stronger or weaker over the last 60 years?  If over the last 60 years Christianity has got significantly weaker in America and absolutely collapsed in Europe then how the f**k can Christianity be the problem?

  Narrator: It’s impossible to say either way as we have no idea to what extent past generations took Christianity (as a supernatural faith) seriously on a personal level.

Your unwillingness to admit the obvious - that Christianity in the West has greatly declined in all its forms and expressions over the last two generations - reveals that you can’t be taken seriously on this subject.

Posted by Notus Wind on November 01, 2010, 05:11 PM

Again, and just for you Notus Wind, I originally wrote,

The bible only has one ***semi***-consistent thread running throughout it from Genesis to Revelation, and that is the notion that there is one god and sole creator of all peoples.

Posted by the Narrator… on November 01, 2010, 08:29 AM |

You might notice the word SEMI, which I highlighted there.

Do you still not see it?

If you were as familiar with biblical text as you claim, you’d know precisely what I’m talking about. But playing dumb and brushing it off is easier, I guess.

Yahweh was part of a polytheistic cult who eventually was promoted to the “one and only” at a late date.

There are passages is the text that testify to this. Notably Deuteronomy 32 (which could be used by your side to support one aspect of your argument, but -as usual- seems to be unknown and unacknowledged.

7 Remember the days of old;
  consider the generations long past.
Ask your father and he will tell you,
  your elders, and they will explain to you.
8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
  when he divided all mankind,
he set up boundaries for the peoples
  according to the number of the sons of Israel.
9 For the LORD’s portion is his people,
  Jacob his allotted inheritance.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls, in place of “sons of Israel” (in verse 9) it reads ‘sons of god’.

So when you actually translate the titles, the verse reads,

7 Remember the days of old;
  consider the generations long past.
Ask your father and he will tell you,
  your elders, and they will explain to you.
8 When El Elyon gave the nations their inheritance,
  when he divided all mankind,
he set up boundaries for the peoples
  according to the number of his sons.
9 For Yahweh’s portion is his people,
  Israel, his allotted inheritance

And this is all setting aside the most obvious point, which is that the eventually established “one god” of the second half of the old testament is so obviously different in character from the “one god” in the new testament.
And then us course there is the trinity and so on and on and on….
.
.
.

Your unwillingness to admit the obvious - that Christianity in the West has greatly declined in all its forms and expressions over the last two generations -

Posted by the Narrator… on November 01, 2010, 08:29 AM

Again sir, ye know not your own religion.

For if, as you suggest, Europe was once overwhelmingly and truly Christian, then Christ was a liar.

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
MAtt. 7:13

In the New Testament Christians are repeatedly portrayed as an endlessly persecuted small minority in all places and all times (sounds familiar doesn’t it). Of course after Jesus tells believers they will be hated and killed by all men he then encourages them to go ahead and make disciples of all the men who kill them.
It’s good stuff. Really.
.
.
.
.

The greatest thinkers in history have spent much energy defending them against sophists of all stripes. You are much too smart not to understand what a ridiculously absurd position nominalism is. If there is no “human race” than there is no “White race” or “English” or anything else but uninterpretable brute fact and bare particulars incapable of being assimilated as knowledge.

Posted by danielj on November 01, 2010, 11:38 PM

That would be a long and deep and ultimately boring and circular subject to get into. My only comment would be that,
yes,
you, I, Notus Wind, Jamal, Ping Ching, Abdul, my dog, deer, squirrels, stray cats, and several thousands of other creatures, large and small, all use oxygen, for example.
Now, whether or not squirrels should be allowed to vote is another story.

That’s how a subject like Nominalism usually unfold.
.
.
.
.

It isn’t wrong of Christianity, and neither does it lead us to accept Babelism as the will of God, to acknowledge the spiritual equality of mankind.
Posted by danielj on November 01, 2010, 11:38 PM

“Acknowledge”?
It’s an article of faith. A choice to believe in things not seen or evident.

The idea of a soul or spirit or things spiritual is literally the proverbial ‘leap of faith’. If people believe, really believe, in the super-natural then all things connected to the natural (the real) begin to lose all meaning and shape.

I guess what it all boils down to is what is it that we really want.
Are we content with simply keeping our numbers high and replaceable, living contently amongst the hordes?
Or do we strive for a West that is 100% White?

If it is the second (which it is for me) will Christians be a help or hindrance to that end?

...

Posted by Urban racial extinction on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 06:54 | #

“But the decay of the white family, the inevitable outcome of megalopolitan existence, is spreading, and it is devouring the “race” of nations. The meaning of man and wife, the will to perpetuity, is being lost. People live for themselves alone, not for future generations. The nation as society, once the organic web of families, threatens to dissolve, from the city outwards, into a sum of private atoms, of which each is intent on extracting from his own and other lives the maximum of amusement – panem et circenses. The women’s emancipation of Ibsen’s time wanted, not freedom from the husband, but freedom from the child, from the burden of children, just as men’s emancipation in the same period signified freedom from the duties towards family, nation, and State. The whole of Liberal-Socialistic problem-literature revolves about this suicide of the white race. It has been the same in all other Civilizations.”

- http://ia341210.us.archive.org/2/items/TheHourOfDecision/HOD.pdf

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 12:17 | #

I’m pleased that I have played some part in stimulating this debate on Christianity and WN, and I appreciate those responses directed to me. The following statements of mine, which I judge the most useful of what I have posted on this thread, have not been addressed (unless I missed someone), and deserve to be, as they are the heart of the issue as I see it:

Does Christianity properly, theologically, forbid, again, sub-universal attachments, such as unequal concern for nation and race - or can we embrace our own cultural particularity, and practice demographic exclusivity?

Let me reiterate: we do not need to resolve the existence or non-existence of God, the nature of justice, even whether Christianity condemns racism, properly understood. For our strategic racialist purposes we only have to show that stopping immigration and outlawing miscegenation (and in Europe’s case, repatriation of non-indigenes) are not actually forbidden by essential Christian doctrine. (me)

So: Are patriotism, stopping immigration, and anti-miscegenation laws (a followup would pertain to mere anti-miscegenation sentiment) un-Christian? More problematically, would European racial repatriations of non-indigenes be forbidden by Christianity (I refer to core doctrine, not the predictable actions of ecclesiastical authorities)?

I think these questions form the “nationalist minimum wrt Christianity”; that is, the questions respecting the Faith which are relevant to nationalists. They deserve (terse) answers. Let’s hear them.

For my part, I don’t think that Nazism (or any aggressive, as opposed to defensive and/or remedial, nationalism) can be conformed to Christian doctrine. The compatibility of the nationalist minimum with Christianity, however, seems obvious to me.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 14:01 | #

And this is all setting aside the most obvious point, which is that the eventually established “one god” of the second half of the old testament is so obviously different in character from the “one god” in the new testament.

And then us course there is the trinity and so on and on and on….

Firstly, the trinity is in the O.T. There are pre-incarnate Christ figures, Christophanies, etc. You quoted the verse from Genesis that talks about “us” making man. The trinity is there from the very beginning. Additionally, I’ve written (as have many others) on how the trinity actually presents a pretty decent solution for the epistemological problem of the one and the many by presupposing an ontology with the Triune God at the back of the unity and diversity we see in the universe.

Secondly, the continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testament is an interesting subject but anybody that takes sola scriptura seriously and has adopted almost any of the orthodox systematical hermeneutics can see that it is the same God administrating the same covenant in both testaments.

Israel’s flight from Egypt and crossing of the Red Sea represents a modern Christians salvation from the Devil (Pharoah) and Hell, and our pilgrimage (waking life on the earth) to the Promised Land (Heaven) flowing with milk and honey (salvation and eternal life). The things that occur in the O.T. are spiritual pictures completely in line with the character of the God of the N.T.

You might notice the word SEMI, which I highlighted there.

I noticed it the first time. We all saw it. It just doesn’t change the thrust of your comment or my criticism of your comment and, it isn’t a correct reading of the Bible.

That would be a long and deep and ultimately boring and circular subject to get into.

A subject you couldn’t even talk about. There are no such things as circles and therefore no such thing as circular and no way to even relate the two concepts.

I guess what it all boils down to is what is it that we really want.
Are we content with simply keeping our numbers high and replaceable, living contently amongst the hordes?
Or do we strive for a West that is 100% White?

You already know how we would all answer that question.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 14:51 | #

For my part, I don’t think that Nazism (or any aggressive, as opposed to defensive and/or remedial, nationalism) can be conformed to Christian doctrine. The compatibility of the nationalist minimum with Christianity, however, seems obvious to me.

And I would agree, given the following:

1) This popular “Christianity” is no more than the belief that one will attain “Heaven,” in this world or the next, through the forgiveness of obstructive sin (by virtue of belief in Jesus as the ever-indulgent Savior, or in the priest as a potent intercessory agent).  This procedure basically involves no more than confession prompted by a childish/effeminate sense of having sinned, rather than mature attendance to ethical/moral specifications which would otherwise immensely complicate matters upon examination.

2) This minimalist “nationalism” falls far short of what needs to be addressed of existential issues.  The global class war, referenced in the posts above, will see to the death of the West, long before the immigration issue has altogether submerged the otherwise comfortable bourgeois bigot.

3) In addressing the existential crisis, an examination of its roots, nature, status, and prospects involves elevating the discussion of “Christianity” (and many another issue) to a plane above that with and in which the Women and Children of proposition (1), above, are comfortable or capable.  At this point, Christianity, in its ethical and philosophical inversions, becomes a distinct liability in terms of the survival of the race and of civilization on the planet.

4) And finally, and in summary, Men rise above and counter this and other liabilities as thoughtful and courageous latter-day Nietzscheans and Nazis.

Posted by Sam Davidson on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:42 | #

Does Christianity properly, theologically, forbid, again, sub-universal attachments, such as unequal concern for nation and race - or can we embrace our own cultural particularity, and practice demographic exclusivity?

Yes. If one believes in Jesus Christ and his teachings one must abandon ideas of racial and even family bonds because such things are superseded by spiritual concerns.

John the Baptist says in Matthew 3:9 that blood relatedness is unimportant.

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Likewise, Jesus repeats the idea of a spiritual-based kinship in Matthew 12:48.

The biological family is dealt with directly in Matthew 10:35.

For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

Even if we argue that Jesus was not promoting the breakdown of family bonds, he certainly saw it as inevitable given the nature of his teachings.

For our strategic racialist purposes we only have to show that stopping immigration and outlawing miscegenation (and in Europe’s case, repatriation of non-indigenes) are not actually forbidden by essential Christian doctrine.

By all means do so.

So: Are patriotism, stopping immigration, and anti-miscegenation laws (a followup would pertain to mere anti-miscegenation sentiment) un-Christian?

Yes. If someone wrongs you, as other races do to us, you are commanded to submit. So, when the blacks are living in “cities they did not build” and eating “food they did not grow” (deuteronomy 6:11) we should, as Christians, do nothing to stop them.

Matthew 5:39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47
But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

More problematically, would European racial repatriations of non-indigenes be forbidden by Christianity (I refer to core doctrine, not the predictable actions of ecclesiastical authorities)?

It might depend on the context. It wouldn’t work in practice, though.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:52 | #

“Does Christianity properly, theologically, forbid, again, sub-universal attachments, such as unequal concern for nation and race - or can we embrace our own cultural particularity, and practice demographic exclusivity?”

Yes. If one believes in Jesus Christ and his teachings one must abandon ideas of racial and even family bonds because such things are superseded by spiritual concerns.

Yes - “properly” - Christianity forbids.  [...as theology/ethics/morality]

No - “popularly” - Christianity does not forbid.  [...as a mere free ticket to Never Never Land]

This discussion will be stupidly interminable unless this distinction is kept in mind.

Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:25 | #

Firstly, the trinity is in the O.T. There are pre-incarnate Christ figures, Christophanies, etc. You quoted the verse from Genesis that talks about “us” making man.
Posted by danielj on November 02, 2010, 01:01 PM

The word there is Elohim, which basically means the heavenly host or gods and the angels. Definitely more than three.
.
.
.
.

the trinity actually presents a pretty decent solution for the epistemological problem of the one and the many by presupposing an ontology with the Triune God at the back of the unity and diversity we see in the universe.
Posted by danielj on November 02, 2010, 01:01 PM

And you can also use it to illustrate the unity and diversity in major metropolitan areas. Whites, blacks, hispansic, jews, arabs and the rest, all “American”.

That’s the problem and the door that is opened by such a notion.
.
.
.
.

Israel’s flight from Egypt and crossing of the Red Sea represents a modern Christians salvation from the Devil (Pharoah) and Hell, and our pilgrimage (waking life on the earth) to the Promised Land (Heaven) flowing with milk and honey (salvation and eternal life). The things that occur in the O.T. are spiritual pictures completely in line with the character of the God of the N.T.

Posted by danielj on November 02, 2010, 01:01 PM

So then how does the rest of the story (the first half) work into that analogy?
You know the part where Israel insinuates themselves into Egyptian society, usurp it, and then enslave the Egyptian people, plundering the country?
And what about the mass slaughter of the people in the “promised land”?
Should the angels be looking over their shoulders?
.
.
.
.
I wrote, “That would be a long and deep and ultimately boring and circular subject to get into. yes,
you, I, Notus Wind, Jamal, Ping Ching, Abdul, my dog, deer, squirrels, stray cats, and several thousands of other creatures, large and small, all use oxygen, for example.
Now, whether or not squirrels should be allowed to vote is another story.

That’s how a subject like Nominalism usually unfold. “

You reply,

A subject you couldn’t even talk about. There are no such things as circles and therefore no such thing as circular and no way to even relate the two concepts.

Posted by danielj on November 02, 2010, 01:01 PM

See what I mean?
.
.
.
.

“You might notice the word SEMI, which I highlighted there.”

I noticed it the first time. We all saw it. It just doesn’t change the thrust of your comment

Posted by danielj on November 02, 2010, 01:01 PM

I didn’t think it was missed, I was just pointing out that Wandrin and Notus Wind were rather conveniently overlooking it in an attempt to misconstrue what I wrote.

...

Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:30 | #

I guess what it all boils down to is what is it that we really want.
Are we content with simply keeping our numbers high and replaceable, living contently amongst the hordes?
Or do we strive for a West that is 100% White?

You already know how we would all answer that question.

Posted by danielj on November 02, 2010, 01:01 PM

The critical question there was,

If it is the second (which it is for me) will Christians be a help or hindrance to that end?

...

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:08 | #

The critical question there was,

If it is the second (which it is for me [a 100 percent-er]) will Christians be a help or hindrance to that end?

It depends, of course, upon to which type of “Christian” you refer and appeal.

Numbskull or fanatic.

As analyzed, above, your chances are immensely enhanced by concentrating on the numbskulls.

Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 20:18 | #

Narrator,

For if, as you suggest, Europe was once overwhelmingly and truly Christian, then Christ was a liar.

My point was that the countries of our forebears were able to maintain a vigorous national identity alongside a Christian religious identity for several centuries.  It is merely a prosaic political observation of mine and has nothing to say about what fraction of these people entered the kingdom of heaven as referenced in Matthew 7:13-14, 21-23.

The bible only has one ***semi***-consistent thread running throughout it from Genesis to Revelation, and that is the notion that there is one god and sole creator of all peoples.
...
Yahweh was part of a polytheistic cult who eventually was promoted to the “one and only” at a late date.

There are passages is the text that testify to this. Notably Deuteronomy 32 (which could be used by your side to support one aspect of your argument, but -as usual- seems to be unknown and unacknowledged.
...
In the Dead Sea Scrolls, in place of “sons of Israel” (in verse 9) it reads ‘sons of god’.
...
The idea of a soul or spirit or things spiritual is literally the proverbial ‘leap of faith’. If people believe, really believe, in the super-natural then all things connected to the natural (the real) begin to lose all meaning and shape.
...
The word there is Elohim, which basically means the heavenly host or gods and the angels. Definitely more than three.

While I perfectly understand everything you’ve written here I fail to see its significance to the discussion in this thread.  Do you have a coherent point to all of these disparate remarks of yours?

Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:23 | #

Sam,

Are you saying that the words of Jesus Christ…hold no authority within Christianity?

Of course not.

You call my evidence “rhetorical scraps”. You label my arguments “facile”, “crude, “offensive”, and accuse them of “esoteric irrelevancy”.

[sigh]

I’m just being honest if a little harsh.

For example, consider your quotation of Luke 14:26; no eminent Christian thinker would conclude on the basis of this verse that in order to follow Christ one must literally hate his biological family or even the milder claim that biological relations are unimportant.  The reason for this is that no one - not even the stereotypical fundamentalist Protestant - reads the Bible in a solely literal manner; rather, it is always read and interpreted in a manner that is believed to be most appropriate in context, which can sometimes be more literal or figurative depending.

To pick out a few verses and act as if they are to be understood prima facie and completely ignore how the Christian tradition has dealt with them in the context of everything else is to engage in a very crude form of analysis.

Posted by MOB on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 00:14 | #

The women’s emancipation of Ibsen’s time wanted, not freedom from the husband, but freedom from the child, from the burden of children, just as men’s emancipation in the same period signified freedom from the duties towards family, nation, and State.

Incorrect.  Women sought their own identity, separate from husbands or children—not physically separate, but psychologically separate, psychologically independent.

Dependence on others for one’s personal identity—not knowing who you are or having a self to stand up for—is unhealthy; it cripples.

Ibsen believed society’s treatment of women was unjust; that’s what he wrote about

Posted by danielj on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 03:14 | #

John the Baptist says in Matthew 3:9 that blood relatedness is unimportant.

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

That specific passage relates directly to salvation. You are misinterpreting it.

Yes - “properly” - Christianity forbids.  [...as theology/ethics/morality]

No - “popularly” - Christianity does not forbid.  [...as a mere free ticket to Never Never Land]

This discussion will be stupidly interminable unless this distinction is kept in mind.

Excellent point.

The word there is Elohim, which basically means the heavenly host or gods and the angels. Definitely more than three.

Come on. Let us not get pedantic about Hebrew unless there is a Hebrew scholar in here. We can all Google. It is an obvious reference to the trinity which is a doctrine that is clearly elucidated throughout *all* of the Scriptures. Sola Scriptura means that we approach the Bible as an organic whole.

There isn’t even much about the “Heavenly Host” itself that is not God. The Archangel Michael is most probably a preincarnate Christ, the Cherubim of Ezekiel and the other major prophets are most likely a picture of the Holy Spirit. It is all there.

And you can also use it to illustrate the unity and diversity in major metropolitan areas. Whites, blacks, hispansic, jews, arabs and the rest, all “American”.

That’s the problem and the door that is opened by such a notion.

Yes, but I would argue that it doesn’t open that door and that it is misuse of the principle that creates the situation. And really, it is untheological, bitch-ass niggers, kikes and liberal whites that are trying to shove the words of Christ down our collective throats, out of context, to induce guilt. It is the foreigners themselves and our own mistaking white guilt for the conviction of the Holy Spirit that are the problem.

So then how does the rest of the story (the first half) work into that analogy?
You know the part where Israel insinuates themselves into Egyptian society, usurp it, and then enslave the Egyptian people, plundering the country?
And what about the mass slaughter of the people in the “promised land”?
Should the angels be looking over their shoulders?

The period of slavery in Egypt is a picture of our bondage to sin and the second death and the usurping Christ-figure (Moses) is a picture of spiritual redemption and our plundering and conquering over Satan.

See what I mean?

Debating a nominalist is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

I didn’t think it was missed, I was just pointing out that Wandrin and Notus Wind were rather conveniently overlooking it in an attempt to misconstrue what I wrote.

I see.

The critical question there was,

If it is the second (which it is for me) will Christians be a help or hindrance to that end?

I would bet you ten grand that Christians will get it done before atheists or pagans of any stripe do.

Regardless, Christians are probably indispensable even if the faithless spearhead the movement. They must either reunderstand their religion, or be reeducated, or that nasty faith gene must be bred out of the gene pool for the revolution to finally get televised.

Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 04:10 | #

This discussion concerning anti- Christianity, Nazism, Nietzscheanism, whatever-have-you…is a self-defeating pathology created by ‘predicate-thinking’...that has been well in-calculated in your mind. It is a result of your Anglo-American culture replacing the core ‘things as they are’ - ‘Ding an Sich’ thinking’ (Hellenic/Roman /European/Academic) world view, with ‘Value as transcendent end to all things’ ... Judeo-Christian (not European Christian) world-view.

Thus NeoNietzsche the American, does not realize his learning as an old weapon in a new war, but defaults to the legal brief prepared for the court of opinion.

Thus Guessedworker, English… subsumed by the pathology - conforms all thinking to it and is incapable of consistent or clear thought….not even the recognition of such.  He will fail to see or refuse to see or admit the most obvious truths…and will justify his ingrained need for failure time and again by turning to an idealized and incoherent ‘values’, which are transcendent thus incapable of bearing teleological or historical inquiry.

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 04:41 | #

“If anyone…does not HATE his own father and mother and children and brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be My disciple” - Luke 14: 26

I look forward to further amusing theological fantasies from danielj

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 04:47 | #

Do you have a coherent point to all of these disparate remarks of yours?

Posted by Notus Wind on November 02, 2010, 07:18 PM |

Not one that you could follow, so don’t let it worry you.
.
.
.
.

Come on. Let us not get pedantic about Hebrew unless there is a Hebrew scholar in here. We can all Google.

Posted by danielj on November 03, 2010, 02:14 AM |

I didn’t google. I have a Strong’s Concordance, which allows you to trace the etymology of darn near every word in the bible.
.
.
.
.

The Archangel Michael is most probably a preincarnate Christ, the Cherubim of Ezekiel and the other major prophets are most likely a picture of the Holy Spirit. It is all there.

Posted by danielj on November 03, 2010, 02:14 AM

That’s a denominational take on things though. Whole other argument.
.
.
.
.

And really, it is untheological, bitch-ass niggers, kikes and liberal whites that are trying to shove the words of Christ down our collective throats, out of context, to induce guilt. It is the foreigners themselves and our own mistaking white guilt for the conviction of the Holy Spirit that are the problem.

Posted by danielj on November 03, 2010, 02:14 AM

It’s also Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, Emergent Churches and the mainstream in general. That spirit has been there all along. From the mythology surrounding the first Thanksgiving (with the injuns) to the abolitionists to the “civil rights” movement.

How many Christians today, famous or not, denounce the “civil rights” movement?
.
.
.
.

The period of slavery in Egypt is a picture of our bondage to sin and the second death and the usurping Christ-figure (Moses) is a picture of spiritual redemption and our plundering and conquering over Satan.

Posted by danielj on November 03, 2010, 02:14 AM

You’re stretching there just a little.
In the narrative, Joseph usurps the king and then proceeds to ruin the county. When he is done, Egypt is financially broke, militarized and the Egyptian people have been INTENTIONALLY driven to poverty and slavery, rounded up and forced into prepared ghettos. The hebrews, on the other hand, take their want of the plundered goods.
Joseph is more like Satan than the Pharaoh. The Pharaoh is actually about the only descent character in the whole story, as he acts to defend his people.

From Genesis 47 (After Joseph, a foreigner, had the people’s grain forcefully taken away from them for seven years,

Then Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen.
5 And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, saying, Thy father and thy brethren are come unto thee:
6 The land of Egypt is before thee; in the best of the land make thy father and brethren to dwell; in the land of Goshen let them dwell: and if thou knowest any men of activity among them, then make them rulers over my cattle.
...

12 And Joseph nourished his father, and his brethren, and all his father’s household, with bread, according to their families.
13 And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine.
14 And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house.
...

  15 And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth.
  16 And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail.
  17 And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year.
...

19 Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate.
20 And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh’s.

...

21 And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof.

...

23 Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh

...

27 And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen; and they had possessions therein, and grew, and multiplied exceedingly.

Joseph takes their grains. Takes their money out of circulation so that they can’t buy back their own grain. Then he uses the money and the famine, which he intentionally made worse, to drive them to starvation and force them to sell the belongings, their lands, their homes and eventually themselves. They are then rounded up like cattle and forced into ghettos.

Meanwhile, Joseph’s people are living high on the hog off a plundered and ruined nation. Of course Exodus picks up a completely different narrative where the Hebrews are now magically a poor persecuted people.

It all has a familiar and redundant theme to it.
.
.
.
.

I would bet you ten grand that Christians will get it done before atheists or pagans of any stripe do.

Posted by danielj on November 03, 2010, 02:14 AM |

Even 2000 years ago European Christians kept welcoming foreigners like Paul into their midst. Jesus himself was (at least) half oriental and he’s welcome into their hearts.

As you know, Pagan was a descriptive word for the rural, un-cosmopolitan, tribal folk who resisted foreign people and ideas.

It was picked up by Christians and used derisively for people who wouldn’t sing along with “we are the world”.

...

Posted by danielj on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 04:53 | #

I look forward to further amusing theological fantasies from danielj

Shut the fuck up. Nobody cares what you look forward to. If you are incapable of understanding rhetorical device than perhaps you should keep your mouth shut?

It is a first principle of any orthodox hermeneutic that one passage of Scripture does not nullify another passage.

Mark 7:10-13 “For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.”

Ephesians 6:2 “Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) “

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 05:10 | #

Anger is a sin, so danielj is a very naughty man. Also, in the Bad Book of Jewish fairy - tales so beloved of those, like the hopeless nitwit, danielj, who prefer to keep their powers of reasoning (if such there be) in abeyance, the New Testament trumps the Old one in the matter of precepts.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 05:16 | #

I didn’t google. I have a Strong’s Concordance, which allows you to trace the etymology of darn near every word in the bible.

Strong’s should be restricted to Greek. There are much better Hebrew concordances.

Although, it was very funny what you did there

That’s a denominational take on things though. Whole other argument.

Ok. Well here is the same take from the N.T. in plain translated Greek: And beginning from Moses, and from all the prophets, He explained to them the things about Himself in all the Scriptures.
(Luk 24:27)

It’s also Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, Emergent Churches and the mainstream in general.

I know. That is just the way the cookie crumbles. 

That spirit has been there all along. From the mythology surrounding the first Thanksgiving (with the injuns) to the abolitionists to the “civil rights” movement.

Again, you might as well say that spirit is just in White people. We’ve went round and round on this. The Romans succumbed to it.

How many Christians today, famous or not, denounce the “civil rights” movement?

You know us all. The Kinists, a few of the unreconstructed and some other odd balls.

You’re stretching there just a little.

No. I wasn’t referring to that period. I was referring to the Exodus period. Joseph and his brothers are a whole different story with its own moral. Although, your point is technically correct. The Jews eventually take over.

It was picked up by Christians and used derisively for people who wouldn’t sing along with “we are the world”.

If you e-mail your address, I’ll send you Law and Revolution and I know you’ll like it. It addresses the subject of Christianization in a scholarly and slightly more dispassionate tone than the one you’ve adopted but I’m sure you’ll find its contents interesting.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 05:21 | #

Anger is a sin, so danielj is a very naughty man. Also, in the Bad Book of Jewish fairy - tales so beloved of those, like the hopeless nitwit, danielj, who prefer to keep their powers of reasoning (if such there be) in abeyance, the New Testament trumps the Old one in the matter of precepts.

In general, there is presumed continuity where discontinuity is not made explicit.

After all, it is a requirement of a never-changing God to not change which would logically lead us to presume that he administers one dispensation throughout a history that is linear and teleological.

I love you Al. I just wish you weren’t such a dick. Come drink some Scotch. My New Year’s Resolution ends the day before Thanksgiving and I can start drinking again.

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 05:27 | #

Scotch sounds good. At least Jesus turned the water into wine, not Coca Cola.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 05:32 | #

Scotch sounds good. At least Jesus turned the water into wine, not Coca Cola.

This is better than “good”... I don’t do swill brah. I come correct.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 05:37 | #

Again, you might as well say that spirit is just in White people. We’ve went round and round on this. The Romans succumbed to it.

In fact, to drive the point home, Paul was a well educated Roman citizen…

Posted by Book Recommendation on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 06:27 | #

Read The Restoration of the Peasantries, With especial reference to that of India by G.T. Wrench (1939) - http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/Wrench_Rest/RestToC.html

Argues, in Wrench’s wise and admirable style, that the health—indeed, the very continuation of our civilization—depends on the health and prosperity of agricultural producers, and shows how the thrust of finance-based civilization has worked to destroy their very existence. A fascinating look at how villages work—and how they’re reduced to poverty and worse. Full text online.

Posted by Occidental Ecocide on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:02 | #

By returning to the soil as its food that which has once taken its life from the soil, the balance between life and death is kept. This is the principle of the continuity of life upon the earth. In lack of reverence for this principle owing to its absorption in “progress,” the modern era has failed and death is overtaking life. In the words of Professor N. S. Shaler of Harvard University, in the National Geographic Magazine, 1896: “If mankind cannot devise and enforce ways of dealing with the earth which will preserve the source of life, we must look forward to a time—remote it may be, yet clearly discernible—when our kind, having wasted its great inheritance, will fade from the earth because of the ruin it has accomplished.”

The countries of western civilization no longer get from their own soils all that which their civilization requires. They require grains, fruits, sugar, flesh, wool, hides, cotton, fibres, oils, rubber, timber, and so on, for their food, bags, ropes, paper, clothes, buildings, oilcakes, gun-powders, tyres, and countless other articles for “the increase in the numbers and the keenness of their rational wants.”

These substances are the transformed foods of many soils, destined under nature to be returned to the soil, or, in an agriculture based on the natural process such as that of the Chinese, returned by men to the soil.

What do the western peoples of to-day return to the lands from which they take their needs? Do they return to the soil, after its use, all that which once took life from the soil? Do they allow the wheel of life and death its equable revolution from soil to plant, from plant to animal, and from plant, animal and man again to the soil, by restoring in full measure such vehicles of life as they have borrowed for their service? The reply is that they do not.

- http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/Wrench_Rest/Rest5.html

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:19 | #

Grim,

This discussion concerning anti- Christianity, Nazism, Nietzscheanism, whatever-have-you…is a self-defeating pathology created by ‘predicate-thinking’...that has been well in-calculated in your mind. It is a result of your Anglo-American culture replacing the core ‘things as they are’ - ‘Ding an Sich’ thinking’ (Hellenic/Roman /European/Academic) world view, with ‘Value as transcendent end to all things’ ... Judeo-Christian (not European Christian) world-view.

Thus NeoNietzsche the American, does not realize his learning as an old weapon in a new war, but defaults to the legal brief prepared for the court of opinion.

I have the impression that ‘Ding an Sich’ (noumenal/essentialist/Platonic/Kantian/Rationalist/Realist) thinking is, to the contrary, ancient and wearyingly misconstructive and self-delusory.  It occasions interminable dispute and disquisition to no effective resolution other than exhaustion pro tempore.  (I adduce the present stupid dispute as an example and evidence thereof.)

Rather I find antithetical Nominalism and analytic philosophy to be usefully solvent of fictitious difficulties - despite the affiliation of those epistemological orientations with Anglo-Saxon culture - with which culture I am otherwise at odds.

And I do not recognize the intent of “Value as transcendent end to all things” or its applicability to myself - unless this references recognition of the value/fact distinction of which party I am a member.

But perhaps I misunderstand the complaint and would profit by an explanation.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 15:14 | #

BTW, Grim,

Is this what you (mistakenly) take to be “predicate thinking”:?

Yes - “properly” - Christianity forbids.  [...as theology/ethics/morality]

No - “popularly” - Christianity does not forbid.  [...as a mere free ticket to Never Never Land]

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 15:27 | #

Grim,

Thus Guessedworker, English… subsumed by the pathology - conforms all thinking to it and is incapable of consistent or clear thought….not even the recognition of such.  He will fail to see or refuse to see or admit the most obvious truths…and will justify his ingrained need for failure time and again by turning to an idealized and incoherent ‘values’, which are transcendent thus incapable of bearing teleological or historical inquiry.

To a small degree you are correct.  Where you think through the particular questions of meaning which interest us, I experience.  That is the essence of the difference in our respective modus operandi.  Because I see and understand the bias peculiar to your way, I can afford to respect it for what it is, and have repeatedly said so.  Because you see the descriptive limitations of mine but do not understand what its advantages are - something also repeatedly said here - you cannot offer respect in return.

In saying this we are only repeating what we have said many times.  Thought cannot experience, and experience cannot communicate beyond its regimen.  Not a cause for conflict but surely one for charity.

Posted by Sam Davidson on Wed, 03 Nov 2010 18:21 | #

That specific passage relates directly to salvation. You are misinterpreting it.

John the Baptist told certain persons that being a descendant of Abraham was not enough to save them. Thus, blood ties are not as important as repentance, faith, etc. Would you agree?

Of course not.

Then how can you disagree with the words of Christ? You’re running in circles.

For example, consider your quotation of Luke 14:26; no eminent Christian thinker would conclude on the basis of this verse that in order to follow Christ one must literally hate his biological family or even the milder claim that biological relations are unimportant.

Prove it.

Personally, I’m willing to concede that Jesus was using hyperbole in this instance and did not mean an ‘active’ hate, but rather a decrease in love relative to Christ. However, if one upholds that ‘honoring one’s mother and father’ is important, then why does Jesus Christ tell one of his followers to not bother burying his dead father? This kind of neglect of his father’s corpse is an insult:

Luke 9:59, 60, 61, 62

He said to another man, “Follow me.” But the man replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”
Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”
Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family.”
Jesus replied, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”

Not only does Jesus Christ want this man to abandon his family (perhaps because they are unbelievers), but he also wants him to do it without feeling any guilt or last-minute affection.

To pick out a few verses and act as if they are to be understood prima facie and completely ignore how the Christian tradition has dealt with them in the context of everything else is to engage in a very crude form of analysis.

I have put these ideas into context multiple times. But it doesn’t matter, because you’ve already formed your opinion and have decided to nobly stand your ground. Like a Roman soldier at Pompeii who defies reality until the end as a volcano of logic buries you. How crude of it to erupt! How acrimonious!

Posted by danielj on Thu, 04 Nov 2010 01:06 | #

John the Baptist told certain persons that being a descendant of Abraham was not enough to save them. Thus, blood ties are not as important as repentance, faith, etc. Would you agree?

That blood won’t save you? Of course. That doesn’t mean blood ties aren’t “important” at all, but rather, that they aren’t important with regard to salvation (excepting that fact that Jesus had to descend through a certain line). Blood doesn’t really factor into the equation in most ways. The point is that we aren’t saved by any of our works or our bloodline but by grace alone. God will save from all classes of men without distinction. Granting this, He nevertheless seems to save mostly the children of Japheth much like He said He would do by way of the blessing of Noah’s sons by Noah.

Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 04 Nov 2010 04:54 | #

Ok. Well here is the same take from the N.T. in plain translated Greek: And beginning from Moses, and from all the prophets, He explained to them the things about Himself in all the Scriptures.
(Luk 24:27)

Posted by danielj on November 03, 2010, 04:16 AM

Yes, but that is the assertion of the author about an assertion of Jesus. And the reason to doubt that is obvious. The New Testament writers had access (or knowledge of) to Old Testament texts. So they could wrap their narrative around that to say, “see, he fulfilled scripture.”
That’s not nit-picking. That’s a literal and justifiable reason to doubt the narrative.
.
.
.
.

Again, you might as well say that spirit is just in White people. We’ve went round and round on this. The Romans succumbed to it.

Posted by danielj on November 03, 2010, 04:16 AM

As I said in this thread and other places, the “Christian spirit” is about 80% indigenous to European peoples. What I further assert though, is that that spirit is harmful and representative of the absolute worst aspects of the Greco-Roman heritage.
It’s inherited (in the blood), for certain. But then so is alcoholism.
.
.
.
.

No. I wasn’t referring to that period. I was referring to the Exodus period.

Posted by danielj on November 03, 2010, 04:16 AM

Wouldn’t the two be connected? You wrote that Egypt was representative of our bandage to sin, yet our bondage to sin is a condition of our having been born, which we have no control or choice over.
The hebrews chose to go into Egypt.
.
.
.
.

That doesn’t mean blood ties aren’t “important” at all, but rather, that they aren’t important with regard to salvation (excepting that fact that Jesus had to descend through a certain line).

Posted by danielj on November 03, 2010, 04:16 AM

Now this may be nitpicking, but isn’t is odd that the bible bothers to establish Jesus’s descent from David since after a thousand years and the population size of Palestine pretty much everybody alive there
at the time would have been a descendant of David?

...

Posted by danielj on Thu, 04 Nov 2010 14:03 | #

Yes, but that is the assertion of the author about an assertion of Jesus. And the reason to doubt that is obvious. The New Testament writers had access (or knowledge of) to Old Testament texts. So they could wrap their narrative around that to say, “see, he fulfilled scripture.”

That’s not nit-picking. That’s a literal and justifiable reason to doubt the narrative.

Not when you are operating under my presuppositions regarding the cannon, viz. that the Bible is an organic whole and is to be treated as a unit. The problem we have here is that I don’t adopt the critical (and I don’t mean naive or unscholarly, but the actual theological term) stance and you do. I believe that Jesus was the fulfillment of all Scripture. Take Psalm 22 for example. I believe that David was talking about, or even as a type of, Christ where you believe that N.T. authors somehow fabricated the stories about the guards casting lots for the clothing of Christ. I believe that it was kind of miraculous that King David described a method of execution that didn’t exist yet fairly accurately where you believe it was coincidence or later interpolation.

We have fundamentally conflicting world views with different presuppositions. Thankfully, mine is capable of strict justification of knowledge.

As I said in this thread and other places, the “Christian spirit” is about 80% indigenous to European peoples. What I further assert though, is that that spirit is harmful and representative of the absolute worst aspects of the Greco-Roman heritage.

It’s inherited (in the blood), for certain. But then so is alcoholism.

So start adopting the more precise language of GW and blame the gene specifically. Christianity isn’t the problem, 80% of the White population is.

Wouldn’t the two be connected? You wrote that Egypt was representative of our bandage to sin, yet our bondage to sin is a condition of our having been born, which we have no control or choice over.
The hebrews chose to go into Egypt.

They don’t have to be connected necessarily. I didn’t write the Bible, I just try to interpret it properly.

Regarding being born into sin, that is the doctrine of total depravity and it is in there. We are born into sin and I can quote much Scripture to that effect, hence the name, original sin or ancestral sin.

Not to quibble, but they didn’t choose to go. They were starving and rode out the famine there.

Now this may be nitpicking, but isn’t is odd that the bible bothers to establish Jesus’s descent from David since after a thousand years and the population size of Palestine pretty much everybody alive there at the time would have been a descendant of David?

You think everybody in Roman Palestine was a descendant of David? I don’t know enough to argue against that assertion but I it sounds like an absurd assertion to me.

Posted by danielj on Thu, 04 Nov 2010 14:08 | #

(and I don’t mean naive or unscholarly, but the actual theological term)

That should read: and I don’t mean that I’ve adopted a naive or unscholarly stance but that I’ve not adopted the “high criticism” of modern theologians.

Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 05 Nov 2010 01:38 | #

Narrator,

Not one that you could follow, so don’t let it worry you.

Hehe.  Fair enough, whether monotheistic Judaism came out of of an earlier polytheistic belief system was always an academic question insofar as I’m concerned.

Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 05 Nov 2010 04:39 | #

Sam,

Prove it.

The very first commentary [Coffman’s] that Google provided says the following in regards to Luke 14:26:

Verses [Luke 14:] 25, 26
Now there went with him great multitudes: and he turned and said unto them, If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also he cannot be my disciple.
...
Hateth
as applied here to father, mother, wife, etc., means “to love less,” and is void of the sentiments usually associated with that word today. The Biblical use of this word becomes clear when it is recalled that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah (Genesis 29:30), and that the next verse says that “The Lord saw that Leah was hated.” The truly difficult part of the requirement in view here is in the words, “yea, and his own life also,” Loving the Lord more than self is the plan of salvation.

According to Coffman, the English word “hate” is not be understood literally.

Similarly, other commentaries reveal that the meaning behind Matthew 10:35 is that Christ’s message will divide even the closest of earthly relationships and the meaning behind Matthew 12:48-50 is that kinship with Christ is spiritually based.  You should note that none of this implies that our earthly ties aren’t important, which was Leon’s original point, and in fact other parts of scripture reveal that they are.

The anti-nationalist universalism we see in American Christianity today is simply a reaction to the collective loss of our Western identity, the blame for which can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the secular [and Jewish] left.  Secular Americans typically respond to this loss by adopting an egalitarian cosmopolitan stance whereas Christians have responded to it by adopting a kind of Christian nationalism, which tries to fill the void left by their ethnic identity with religious affiliation and belief.  Restore to both sets of people their Western identity and I would expect both types of phenomena to recede within a generation.

Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 05 Nov 2010 05:34 | #

Take Psalm 22 for example. I believe that David was talking about, or even as a type of, Christ where you believe that N.T. authors somehow fabricated the stories about the guards casting lots for the clothing of Christ. I believe that it was kind of miraculous that King David described a method of execution that didn’t exist yet fairly accurately where you believe it was coincidence or later interpolation.

Posted by danielj on November 04, 2010, 01:03 PM |

But if we apply the legal notion of “reasonable doubt” then we would be confronted with the fact that it is unknown if David actually existed or was a mythological figure. And it is unknown when and who wrote the Psalms. (some appear to have been lifted from the Ugaritic Texts, other may have been written within a few centuries of Jesus’s time).
Crucifixion has been around for ages. And in fact Paul implies crucifixions were done in the time of Moses,

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”
-Galations 3:13

That is a reference on Paul’s part to Deut. 21:23

22 If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole,
23 you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

So the method would have been know of at the time of David.
.
.
.
.

So start adopting the more precise language of GW and blame the gene specifically. Christianity isn’t the problem, 80% of the White population is.

Posted by danielj on November 04, 2010, 01:03 PM |

That’s not quite what I said. You can see the Roman Political pragmatism of allowing non-Latin people to become Roman citizens in the Christian notion of ‘Christians of all tribes and races are “citizens of the Kingdom”’.

Paul is a good example of that. He was a foreigner, granted Roman Citizenship, who used his legal standing to subvert and harm the very Civilization that granted him his privileges.

It’s political cosmopolitanism married to the idea spiritual universalism.
As the Indians would say, Bad medicine.
.
.
.
.

Regarding being born into sin, that is the doctrine of total depravity and it is in there. We are born into sin and I can quote much Scripture to that effect, hence the name, original sin or ancestral sin.

Posted by danielj on November 04, 2010, 01:03 PM

Being born into sin kind of kills the notion of freewill though.

Not to quibble, but they didn’t choose to go. They were starving and rode out the famine there.

Posted by danielj on November 04, 2010, 01:03 PM

They rode it our on the backs of the enslaved Egyptians.

If you interpret it spiritually, then God created the famine so that the hebrews would be thrown into the proverbial Lion’s Den so that God could then demonstrate his glory by pulling them back out of it.

I mean if he could rain manna on Moses he could do the same for Jacob.
.
.
.
.

You think everybody in Roman Palestine was a descendant of David? I don’t know enough to argue against that assertion but I it sounds like an absurd assertion to me.

Posted by danielj on November 04, 2010, 01:03 PM

A small area, fairly homogeneous people and a 1,000 year space of time between David and Jesus. Oh yes, it’s likely that just about everybody in the Levant was a descendant of David (remember Solomon had 700 women, some foreign).
That’s what makes an ethnic group an ethnic group. They’re all related, distantly or not.

I did a family tree some years back and what you discover is that extensive family histories are actually diamond shaped, not tree shaped. In other words they expand outward only so far, then begin to go back towards a common direction, or area. They aren’t ever-expansive.

For example, if you are of Western European descent, then the odds are pretty good that you can account Charlemagne as a great-great-etc…...grandfather.

...

Posted by danielj on Fri, 05 Nov 2010 14:14 | #

But if we apply the legal notion of “reasonable doubt” then we would be confronted with the fact that it is unknown if David actually existed or was a mythological figure. And it is unknown when and who wrote the Psalms. (some appear to have been lifted from the Ugaritic Texts, other may have been written within a few centuries of Jesus’s time).
Crucifixion has been around for ages.

Did you actually read the paper I wrote on Kinism or the presuppositional literature I’ve recommended you?

There is “reasonable doubt” when it comes to my presuppositions. I ground everything I believe on the Scripture. The only reason I even trust induction or some method like the “reasonable doubt” method of the legal system is because of the truth of the Scriptures.

Even if you haven’t or aren’t inclined to read it, it should be easily understandable by this point what I mean when I say that we have fundamentally different world-views with fundamentally different presuppositions and that I believe that any world-view, save the Christian one, cannot justify knowledge.

So the method would have been know of at the time of David.

So was it an exactly accurate prophecy about the death of Christ? Or is hanging on a pole and being nailed to a tree with extended arms, having none of your bones broken, having your clothing divided by lot, etc. a different method of execution entirely? Or, did the later writers make shit up to fit the Psalms and the Deutero account?

You’re missing the point here because you like to argue with me. For years we’ve done this and you still refuse to listen to me when I say that you have no coherent epistemology and therefore no grounds from which to accuse me.

That’s not quite what I said.

Here it is again with what I consider to be relevant in bold: As I said in this thread and other places, the “Christian spirit” is about 80% indigenous to European peoples. What I further assert though, is that that spirit is harmful and representative of the absolute worst aspects of the Greco-Roman heritage.

It’s inherited (in the blood), for certain. But then so is alcoholism.

Being born into sin kind of kills the notion of freewill though.

There is no such thing as “free will” in the modern sense of free. We aren’t completely at liberty and we don’t have libertarian free will. One more time I will recommend Jonathon Edward’s Freedom of the Will to you.

If one was able to do differently than one did then there is no ground for moral accountability. We are only culpable for our actions because we could do no differently and because it is impossible for a counter-factual state to obtain.

They rode it our on the backs of the enslaved Egyptians.

And then they got enslaved for a much longer time period.

Are you Egyptian or something? Are you questioning my bona fides with regard to jew hatred? Why do you care about something that happened like three thousand years ago?

I mean if he could rain manna on Moses he could do the same for Jacob.

The giving of the Law and the giving of the Law is another Law/Gospel paradigm. The Bread from Heaven is a picture of the gospel, and more literally, Christ.

That’s what makes an ethnic group an ethnic group. They’re all related, distantly or not.

Check it. I’ll grant your point. That doesn’t change the fact that Christ had to be a descendant of David, rather than say, a descendant of Boudica.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:00 | #

So was it an exactly accurate prophecy about the death of Christ? Or is hanging on a pole and being nailed to a tree with extended arms, having none of your bones broken, having your clothing divided by lot, etc. a different method of execution entirely? Or, did the later writers make shit up to fit the Psalms and the Deutero account?

What is the implication of an “exactly accurate prophecy” if we grant that the less likely of the explanations was the case?

And why has a prohecy any implication and what is the “justification” for any such deduction?

Posted by danielj on Sat, 06 Nov 2010 00:48 | #

There is “reasonable doubt” when it comes to my presuppositions.

Should read “There is no “reasonable doubt”“

Posted by danielj on Sat, 06 Nov 2010 03:47 | #

What is the implication of an “exactly accurate prophecy” if we grant that the less likely of the explanations was the case?

It is only less likely under your epistemological metric.

The implication, however, is foreknowledge.

And why has a prohecy any implication and what is the “justification” for any such deduction?

Prophecy necessarily implies foreknowledge. Formally, if prophecy, then foreknowledge.

The implication of all this being that God has revealed Himself.

Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 06 Nov 2010 06:54 | #

Did you actually read the paper I wrote on Kinism or the presuppositional literature I’ve recommended you?

Posted by danielj on November 05, 2010, 01:14 PM |

Yep. As I’ve said before, much of it is not new as I was a believer up until my mid twenties. Got a whole box full of bible studies, essays I wrote, Edwards ‘Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God’, some stuff by “brother Pink”, Gail Riplinger and even some old Carmen and Amy Grant tapes. (I still think The Champion is a good song, but tell anybody)

Presuppositionalism is a fine argument. But if the bible has serious fundamental flaws (which I believe it does) then the Presup argument falls flat on its face.

One such point is the one I re-posted earlier, which is, if UNFALLEN Man (Adam) was, as God declares, Alone,
what then was point of Jesus’s death?
Because, as you know, the entire premise the New Testament writers propound upon is the idea that Christ’s death reconciled man to God so that we could have a personal relationship with him that will reach its apex in paradise where there will be “neither marrying nor giving in marriage” as believers will have a groom/bride relationship with their maker.
We will be then as Adam was in the garden of eden.
Yet that sin-free unfallen Man, who walked and talked with his maker, was declared by God to be alone.
.
.
.
.

So was it an exactly accurate prophecy about the death of Christ?

Posted by danielj on November 05, 2010, 01:14 PM |

If you follow the narrative the authors of the Gospels set up, sure. But we don’t actually know the details of how and when he died. And we never will. As you put it, “Or, did the later writers make shit up to fit the Psalms and the Deutero account? “
Most likely.
Thus doubt as to the validity of the account is justified.
.
.
.
.

You’re missing the point here because you like to argue with me. For years we’ve done this and you still refuse to listen to me when I say that you have no coherent epistemology and therefore no grounds from which to accuse me.
Posted by danielj on November 05, 2010, 01:14 PM

Well I can’t argue with anyone else as I’m pretty much alone in my views amongst my family. There are two “preachers” (I use the term lightly) in my family but we’re not allowed to broach the subject of religion/atheism at get togethers lest we here the “Ahh God there they go again!” cries as the room clears out.

Seriously, we argue this because it keeps coming up. And most likely will continue to come up again and again.
I see, in my own personal experience, how the faith effects people. I have cousins who do missionary/charity work with their church in Africa and other places.
I don’t speak or go about them anymore for that reason, and were I king for a day I’d have them thrown to the lions.

As for my epistemology, I’ve discovered what you will at some point, which is that knowledge and truth are not always synonymous and in many cases incompatible.
.
.
.
.

And then they got enslaved for a much longer time period.

Are you Egyptian or something? Are you questioning my bona fides with regard to jew hatred? Why do you care about something that happened like three thousand years ago?

Posted by danielj on November 05, 2010, 01:14 PM

AS I said, the story itself is a myth. It never happened. It’s the narrative I was critiquing. And it represents a worldview held by those who wrote the text.
You might have noticed that what happened to the Egyptians in that story is pretty much what is happening to us in America right now.
You brought up the idea that the hebrews “escape” from Egypt represented Christians escape from bondage, yet you never quite addressed where the Egyptians fit into that picture. If Moses is Christ, Pharaoh is the Devil and the hebrews Christians, what then were the Egyptians in that analogy?
.
.
.
.

The giving of the Law and the giving of the Law is another Law/Gospel paradigm. The Bread from Heaven is a picture of the gospel, and more literally, Christ.

Posted by danielj on November 05, 2010, 01:14 PM

That doesn’t really address my point. Why didn’t God tell Jacob about the coming 7/7 so he could prepare?
.
.
.
.

That doesn’t change the fact that Christ had to be a descendant of David, rather than say, a descendant of Boudica.
Posted by danielj on November 05, 2010, 01:14 PM

Which in itself seems odd as God only granted their request for a king after their repeated asking and against his own judgment and initial denial.

...