Theology and our Issues: The E. Michael Jones Problem

Robert E. Reis

To paraphrase a famous novelist, when I use the word theology I mean orthodox Christian theology, and when I say orthodox Christian theology I mean Roman Catholic theology. I rely on E. Michael Jones, the editor of Culture Wars magazine, to keep me informed about Catholic theology.

Dr. Jones discusses the fate of white ethnic Americans in recent decades and the roles played by Jews and the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant elite in deciding this fate.

Robert E. Reis

Dr. Jones discusses the fate of white ethnic Americans in recent decades and the roles played by Jews and the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant elite in deciding this fate.

The orthodox Catholic position on the Jews is that no one may harm Jews for being Jews or disturb their worship, but that Christians have an equally solemn duty to prevent Jewish subversion of faith or morals.

When Pope Pius XI condemned Nazi persecution of the Jews before World War II, he also recognized “that everyone has the right to defend himself, in other words to take the necessary precautions for his protection against everything that threatens his legitimate interests.”

Catholic theology has always insisted on that which Pope John Paul II reiterated in his 1990 encyclical Redemptoris Missio. “Christ is the one Savior of all, the only one able to reveal God and lead to God…And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”

The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith annoyed the world Jewish community when it issued the formal statement Dominus Iesus in 2000. The Congregation reiterated the Catholic doctrine that “No one, therefore, can enter into communion with God except through Christ by the working of the Holy Spirit.” The author of this statement is the current Pope Benedict XVI.

E. Michael Jones insists that Roman Catholic theology entails that “no Christian can in good conscience be an anti-Semite, but every Christian, insofar as he is a Christian, must be anti-Jewish.”

What does he mean?

For Dr. Jones Jews are a theological construct, a product of mental invention, not a racial category.

A search for the word “Jews)” in a literal translation of the Bible will show that it is rarely used in the Old Testament, but it appears in the New Testament with a specific meaning.

Dr. Jones explains that Annas and Caiphas represented all of those Jews who insisted on a Messiah who would restore and increase worldly Jewish power. They told Jesus they would accept him if he came down from the cross. “Those Jews who accepted Christ became known as Christians. Those Jews who rejected Him became known as Jews.”

Assuming as he does that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, Dr. Jones infers the Jews who rejected Jesus became “revolutionaries”.

Judaism is in essence an ethnic revolutionary conspiracy masquerading as a religion.

The Jews were looking for a military Messiah. In A.D. 136 all the rabbis in Jerusalem recognized Simon bar Kokhbar as that Messiah. The Christian Jews were expelled from the city for refusing to recognize bar Kokhbar as the Messiah. Dr. Jones says that this proves that “the Jew was not a racial but a theological construct.”

For almost two thousand years the ultimate determinant of Jewishness has been the rejection of Jesus’ Messiahship.

I suggest the most grievous failure of a typical Christian education, Protestant or Catholic, is the failure to deliver accurate information about the history of Judaism. It is as if most of the shepherds have spent twenty centuries sheltering the wolves from their flocks.

I imagine that to most of the members of the flocks the issue of the Jews and their Messiah ended with Jesus.

Rabbi Moshe Yoseph Koniuchowsky pointed out that over the past two thousand years rabbinical authorities have made “at least 68 official declarations that Messiah had arrived.” Wikipedia gives an extensive list of the most important among these failed messiahs.

The recurrent acclamation of false messiahs ought to be an embarrassment for Jews, but it is not for two reasons. Non-Jews have not been kept informed by their shepherds and the Jewish notion of the messiah is not what non-Jews think it is.

Wayne Simpson says that Jews regard the failed messiahs as would-be deliverers of Israel who failed to achieve what they aspired to.

Jewish messiahs are closely akin to the mahdis of the Islamic world. The Lawrence Olivier character in the movie Khartoum show us how a Messiah/Mahdi is expected to act.

The Jewish originally understood their messiah to be a nationalist savior, a great and literal king of the Israelite people. Over time they reconfigured him as an expression of the one God of the Universe who would lord – physically and spiritually – over the earth, not in an after-life, but in the here-and-now.

Abraham Grossman concluded that linked themes of vengeance and redemption for Israel can be found in the Bible, the Talmud, and in apocalyptic literature.

Max Weber once noted: “In the mind of the pious Jew the moralism of the law was inevitably combined with the aforementioned hope for revenge, which suffused practically all the exile and postexilic sacred scriptures. Moreover, through two and a half millennium this hope appeared in virtually every divine service of the Jewish people…one finds that in Judaism the doctrine of religious resentment has an idiosyncratic quality and plays a unique role not found among the disprivileged classes of any other religion.”

Maimonides explained the laws the Jews must follow should their return to the land of Israel coincide with the arrival of the messiah. (Mishneh Torah) He taught that ‘any Gentile not upholding the Noachic commandments is to be killed if under our rule.’ He even taught that all living beings must uphold the Noachic commandments or be put to death.

Noah Feldman, Harvard Law School professor and graduate of twelve years of instruction in the Maimonides School of Brookline, Mass., recently wrote about his heritage in the New York Times.

He relates that a local doctor addressed a school assembly and told the students that he would never distinguish Jewish from non-Jewish patients on the Sabbath: a human being was a human being. One of the teachers rose to challenge him. “In violating the Sabbath to treat a non-Jew, intention was absolutely crucial. If you intended to save the patient’s
life so as to facilitate good relations between Jews and non-Jews, your actions were permissible. But if, to the contrary, you intended to save the patient out of universal morality, then you were in fact guilty of violating the Sabbath, because the motive for acting was not the motive on the basis of which the rabbis allowed the Sabbath violation to occur.” This teacher apologized to the students for “not keeping the secret of why non-Jewish lives might be saved.” A few non-Jews had attended the assembly!

Feldman confirms the observations of Abraham Grossman and Max Weber and when he recalls Dr. Baruch Goldstein’s massacre of 29 worshipers in the mosque atop the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron in 1994. “Goldstein committed his terrorist act on Purim, the holiday commemorating the victory of the Jews over Haman, traditionally said to be a descendent of the Amalekites. The previous Sabbath, he sat in synagogue and heard the special additional Torah portion for the day, which includes the famous injunction in the Book of Deuteronomy to remember what the Amalekites did to the Israelites on their way out of Egypt and to erase the memory of Amalek from beneath the heavens. This commandment was followed by a further reading from the Book of Samuel. It details the first intentional and explicit genocide depicted in the Western canon: God’s directive to King Saul to kill every living Amalekite — man, woman and child, and even the sheep and cattle.”

Feldman notes that Goldman’s murders were not universally condemned by Jews. Goldman’s gravestone describes him as a saint and a martyr of the Jewish people with clean hands and pure heart.

Yom Kippur is the central day of the Jewish calendar. Rabbi Meir Y. Soloveichik describes how the service ends. “We ask God for mercy and for forgiveness, attributes of God that Judaism holds dear. But then our thoughts turn to the utterly evil and unrepentant. Towards the end of this prayer, one anguished, pain-filled sentence stands out: “Our Father, our King, avenge, before our eyes, the spilled blood of your servants.” After a day devoted to prayer, synagogues everywhere are filled with the cry of fasting, weary, exhausted Jews. They have spent the past twenty-five hours meditating upon their sins and asking for forgiveness. Now, they suddenly turn their attention to those who gave no thought to forgiveness, no thought to God, no thought to the dignity of the Jewish people. After focusing on their own actions, Jews turn to those of others, and their parched throats mouth this message: “Father, do not forgive them, for they know well what they do.” [Italics added.]

Perhaps Rabbi Soloveichik is unaware of how this terminal curse echoes and reverses Jesus’ words from the cross. However, I would not be surprised that the insertion of this sentence into the Yom Kippur ritual took place after the crucifixion of Jesus and was intended to mock Jesus.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Talmud is “the supreme authority in religion . . . for the majority of Jews.” It would have been nice if at any point in my twelve years of religious indoctrination some priest or nun or brother had taken a few minutes to point this out. Even better, some time spent describing; analyzing and discussing the Talmud would have been useful. There must have been reasons why the shepherds upheld a strict policy of insuring that their flocks were kept in the dark about Jewish beliefs, laws, rituals, attitudes, hopes and intentions.

Dr. Jones does not answer my question, but he does make it clear that the Catholic Church was not unaware of the Talmud and its contents. He reports that many Popes have condemned the Talmud not only for denying the divinity of Christ but also for being a direct assault on morality itself. How else can you describe a document that expressly forbids a Jew to save a non-Jew from death, or to restore to a non-Jew his lost possessions, or to take pity on a non-Jew?

But the Talmud did not go away. Instead, the Papal condemnations were filed and forgotten. At least no priest, nun or brother mentioned them at my Catholic schools and universities.

Late in life, after reading Israel Shahak, I learned what happened if you asked a supposedly liberal, tolerant, enlightened Jew a question about the Talmud. The supposedly liberal, tolerant, enlightened Jew immediately severs social relations.

Non-Jews are not supposed to know anything more about the Talmud than the lie a leading Israeli Talmudic expert told to a gullible reporter in Chicago. He told her that the Talmud was a collection of Jewish folktales. She bought it. The Jewish owned newspaper printed it.

As Noah Feldman’s anecdote about his teacher’s apology witnesses: Jews feel obligated to keep their beliefs secret from non-Jews.

Dr. Jones asserts the Talmud is an anti-Christian ideology confected by Jewish leaders to keep their people in bondage.

There is no doubt about the first half of his interpretation. St. Justin Martyr stated in 116 A. D.: “The Jews were behind all the persecutions of the Christians. They wandered through the country everywhere hating and undermining the Christian faith.” I am confident the good priests at St. Justin Martyr Church in Chicago do not recall this remark from the pulpit.

E. Michael Jones dates the creation of the Talmud to the six centuries following the destruction of the Jewish Temple. But Annas and Caiphas rejected Jesus forty years before the destruction of the Temple. They rejected Jesus on the basis of their understanding of their religion before the Talmud was composed.

I suggest the authors of the Talmud simply built on and extrapolated from the existing Jewish scriptures and standards of ethical behavior. After all, did not Jesus have a point in the parable of the Good Samaritan? Did not genocide by Jews get its license in Deuteronomy?

Before Jesus was born Cicero remarked that “The Jews belong to a dark and repulsive force.” The first century Greek historian Diodorus Siculus observed that Jews treated other people as enemies and inferiors.

While the compilation of the Talmud had hardly been begun, Tacitus (56-120 A.D.) observed that “the Jews are extremely loyal toward one another, and are always ready to show compassion, but toward other people they feel only hate and enmity.”

Relying on the Gospel of St. John, Dr. Jones insists that the only identity Jews have is negative. “The minute they rejected Logos, which means reason, order, speech, and word, they became revolutionaries, determined enemies not only of Christ and the Christian social order, but any order in any society not of their own revolutionary making.”

In my experience the good priests and nuns and brothers in the parishes and on the faculties of history in Catholic universities have systematically suppressed the history of the massacres perpetrated by Jews.

I suspect the Protestant clergy follows the same policy. Perhaps one of my readers can tell us if any of their ministers cited the second century Roman historian Dio Cassius’ description of the Jewish massacres of Greeks and Romans in Africa and in Cyprus. “They ate the flesh of their victims, made belts for themselves out of their entrails, and daubed themselves with their blood… In all, 220,000 men perished in Cyrene and 240,000 in Cyprus, and for this reason no Jew may set foot in Cyprus today.”

Did any man of the cloth tell his congregation about the massacre of the Arabian Christians of Najran by a Jewish army from Yemen? Mohammed referred to it in the Koran; Jewish web sites describe its perpetrators as heroes.

How about the fact that Jews bought Christian prisoners of war from the Persians purely for the pleasure of torturing and killing them; has anyone heard this mentioned in his Christian church?

Dr. Jones’ assessment of the revolutionary Jew cannot be gainsaid. “What do Jerusalem under Simon bar Kokhbar, the Soviet Union under Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamanev, and Radek, the short lived Soviet Republics of Bavaria under Kurt Eisner and Eugene Levine and Hungary under Bela Kun, the racial Apartheid state known as Israel under terrorists like Menachem Begin or Itzhak Shamir, or the neocon never-never land known as a free and democratic Iraq have in common? Death is what they have in common. Lots of people have to die to bring about the revolutionary Jew’s version of heaven on earth.”

Dr. Jones has commented upon the manipulation of the American civil rights movement by leading Jewish organization. He knows that their goal was the destruction of the mainly Roman Catholic white ethnic communities in the United States Their goal was not uplifting the people of color.

As a devout Roman Catholic he sees the massive immigration of Latin Americans both as the result of hostile Jewish manipulation of the immigration laws and as a possible boon to the moral reform of America.

Dr. Jones is not one of those extremists who sees the solution to the Jewish problem in silver bullets and wooden stakes.

Posted by Robert Reis on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 08:14 AM in Jewish Diaspora
Comments (41) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Guessedworker on August 14, 2007, 11:13 PM | #

Michael E. Jones is a brilliant, mistaken man. He cannot rightly see or, seemingly, understand ethnicity. But being a man of high intellect, he is well able to synthesise a cultural alternative.

Assuming as he does that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, Dr. Jones infers the Jews who rejected Jesus became “revolutionaries”.

Judaism is in essence an ethnic revolutionary conspiracy masquerading as a religion.

Judaism is and always was a fitness strategy operating in precisely the same way as any other fitness strategy, including all religions. The Jews could proclaim whoever they wanted as the Messiah. It would make no difference. Yahweh was and is a thought. Jewish Man is the thinker.

Dr Jones would benefit from removing himself from his Catholicism.

Posted by Al Ross on August 16, 2007, 08:03 AM | #

At least one RC priest, the late Father Leonard Feeney would have understood Dr Jones perfectly:

http://www.fatherfeeney.org/

Posted by Robert Reis on August 16, 2007, 09:38 AM | #

Thanks Mr.Ross

Posted by greg on August 20, 2007, 09:14 PM | #

More on the Catholic position in this thread…

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=207046#207046

THE MYSTERY
OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE IN HISTORY

By Rev. Frs. Michael Crowdy & Kenneth Novak
Originally printed in the April 1997 issue of The Angelus magaine.

{...}This article claims to be an explanation of the Jew —a theological explanation —which in this case is the only possible one. Theology is the science of the mysteries of God. These mysteries are the inscrutable judgments of the Most High which are known to us when He deigns to manifest them to us. Without these manifestations we would have no inkling of them.

Catholic theology teaches that the Jewish people is the object of a very special vocation from God. Only in the light of theology can one explain the Jew. Neither merely psychology nor the biological sciences, nor even purely historical studies can explain the Jewish people. This people is a topic of universal and eternal scope which by its very nature requires a universal and eternal explanation that is valid for today, for yesterday and forever. The Jewish people must be considered by an explanation which is eternal, like God; that is to say, a theological explanation.

What emerges from this explanation is not meant in any way to justify either semitic or antisemitic activity. These two terms tend to trivialize a situation that is deeper and more universal. Catholic theology, while throwing light on the mystery of the Jewish people, will indicate the relations between Jews and Christians, who must live apart until the mercy of God disposes their reconciliation.{...}

Posted by Fr. John on August 23, 2007, 09:49 PM | #

A very good article on a man whose writings helped guide me to truth… and out of the Roman Church, into Holy Orthodoxy. The Orthodox clearly know who is the enemy of Christ, and have for centuries clearly stated that it is the “Deicides” who are the greatest enemies of the Church. They have never ‘forgiven the jews’ as J2P2 uncanonically attempted to do..

Even the term referenced blasphemously above by the Jews in Yom Kippur has a referent. “Love your enemies” is often used by Unitarians and other modernists to give weight to their argument that ‘we all really worship one God.’ (NOT!) St. Theodosius of the Kiev Caves Lavra said clearly, “Love your enemies, but only your personal enemies, NOT the enemies of God.” THIS is the only possible referrent, as well as ‘who is my neighbor?’ (those who look like you, who are your ethnic relatives, as the Hebrew clearly points out in the OT text from whence this comes).

Some quotes to help substantiate this position:

“The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees.”
- Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 1948, Vol. 8, pg. 474.

“The Talmud is, then, the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the Traditions of the Elders.”
- Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson

“OUR RACE IS THE MASTER RACE. WE ARE DIVINE GODS ON THIS PLANET. WE ARE AS DIFFERENT FROM THE INFERIOR RACES AS THEY ARE FROM INSECTS. IN FACT, COMPARED TO OUR RACE, OTHER RACES ARE BEASTS AND ANIMALS, CATTLE AT BEST. OTHER RACES ARE CONSIDERED AS HUMAN EXCREMENT. OUR DESTINY IS TO RULE OVER THE INFERIOR RACES. OUR EARTHLY KINGDOM WILL BE RULED BY OUR LEADER WITH A ROD OF IRON. THE MASSES WILL LICK OUR FEET, AND SERVE US AS OUR SLAVES.” - Jewish President

* Did you know that the Russian Revolution was not Russian at all? “According to data furnished by the Soviet press, out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik state, including the above-mentioned, in 1918-1919 there were: 17 Russians, two Ukrainians, eleven Armenians, 35 Letts [Latvians], 15 Germans, one Hungarian, ten Georgians, three Poles, three Finns, one Czech, one Karaim, and 457 Jews.” The Journal for Historical Review January/February 1994

“A Jew cannot be a true patriot. He is something different, like a bad insect. He must be kept apart, out of a place where he can do mischief .. The Jews are responsible for Bolshevism in Russia, and Germany too. I was far too indulgent with them during my reign, and I bitterly regret the favors I showed the prominent Jewish bankers.” (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, July 2, 1922)

And now, how Christians should be prepared to ‘give a defense’ for the faith:
A person who is not inwardly prepared for the use of violence against him is always weaker than the person committing the violence.----A. Solzhenitsyn. “The Gulag Archipelago”.

While the sword is not used in ALL instances (vide Peter’s cutting off the ear of Malchus) yet in Ezra and Nehemiah, swords could not be turned into plowshares, until the wall of separation was built to keep the Biblical Church safe from the ‘goyim’ around her. Same thing applies today…

Posted by Robert ap Richard on August 12, 2008, 10:00 PM | #

Has anyone heard of this new book, Judaism Discoverd, by Michael Hoffman?

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/page5/page5.html

Looks very interesting.

Posted by Robert ap Richard on August 12, 2008, 10:02 PM | #

Oh, he also has a Blogspot weblog, which is supposedly about to be shut down:

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/

Posted by Robert ap Richard on August 12, 2008, 10:07 PM | #

Oh, he also has a Blogspot weblog, which is supposedly about to be shut down:

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/

Posted by Robert ap Richard on August 12, 2008, 10:12 PM | #

Oh, he also has a Blogspot weblog, which is supposedly about to be shut down:

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/

Posted by Al Ross on August 13, 2008, 02:40 AM | #

Theology is the study of God. As God cannot be shown to exist, it necessarily follows that those who prefer blind faith over the pursuit of realities that we as humans can know or discover, should expect respect only of their right to believe the farrago of religious boobery. Any expectation that intelligent people should treat the preposterous content of religious belief with intellectual respect should be met with scorn.

Posted by Robert ap Richard on August 13, 2008, 03:22 AM | #

So, Al, you’re hostile to over 90% of the population? Great attitude, most constructive. You should expect legions of followers very soon. Get real—the most intelligent know that religious belief is a fundamental part of the human condition. Faith is the ingredient which moves people to move mountains. But you have nothing but contempt for this natural force. So, who’s the real boob?

Posted by Al Ross on August 13, 2008, 04:11 AM | #

OK you win, God exists because 90% of"the population” deem it so.

As one sagacious commentator noted, “Debating on the internet it is like competing in the Special Olympics - even if you win you’re still a retardate”.

Posted by snax on August 13, 2008, 04:15 AM | #

Religious belief is a construct upon a fundamental part of human nature, it is not itself fundamental.

It may very well be that other constructs - philosophy, science, nationalism, art, community fellowship - can better meet the basic and higher needs of humans than does religious belief. Particularly, for us, belief in the stories told by Jews.

Our problem is, of course, that we haven’t a philosophy or any art, and our science is corrupted, and nationalism and community are relentlessly attacked.

Is it Limbo, until a post-crash New Civ?

Posted by Guest on August 13, 2008, 05:34 AM | #

Hoffman’s book has been REMOVED from Amazon.com is that a FIRST?
NO Solzhenitzen no Hoffman.

Posted by Al Ross on August 13, 2008, 07:16 AM | #

Amazon founder and CEO, Jeff Bezos is a Jew so dont be surprised at the deletion of such titles from the company’s stock list.

Posted by Robert ap Richard on August 13, 2008, 10:58 AM | #

Al said: OK you win, God exists because 90% of"the population” deem it so.

You’re like a neutered dog, you just don’t get it. It doesn’t matter just now whether one belief or the other is true or not. Everybody has a belief system, even you. The point is that most people believe in the supernatural, and the group you are working with believes in a single diety, a.k.a., God. You’re worthless as a thinker or leader if you cannot accept this reality and work with it. I mean really, what good does it do to act like a teenage punk with attitude about such things? Good grief.

Posted by Dave Johns on August 13, 2008, 01:18 PM | #

Amazon founder and CEO, Jeff Bezos is a Jew so dont be surprised at the deletion of such titles from the company’s stock list.

I just purchased CofC via Amazon. How does that affect your opinion of Amazon, Al?

OK you win, God exists because 90% of"the population” deem it so.

Richard Dawkins hypothesises: “Aliens from outer-space seeded the earth with life.” How crazy is that?

Thor ... Odin ... HELP!!!

Posted by Al Ross on August 13, 2008, 10:55 PM | #

I purchase books from Amazon and my opinion of them is that they, as a company, are at times, useful to me. The cupidity of Jews like Bezos is often seen as an end in itself but that is far from being the case. The innate Jewish greed for gain is so often a camouflage for the true intent of that race and is frequently subordinated in order to further their anti-White objectives, as in the preponderance of high-tax-approving Jewish liberals who vote against their economic interests, hence my ‘dont be surprised” caveat, which, contrary to the Dave Johns implication, was not a claim that Amazonian Jewish proscription was absolute. The Dave Johns reference to Norse deities is, I suppose, intended to convey the superiority of his Biblical Jew-God, Yahweh and reminds me of the scene from the sitcom ‘Friends’ in which Chandler claimed that his parents preferred his imaginary friend to him.

The fortunate few of us who have resided in a sensible nation run by atheists, i.e., Singapore, enjoyed a rare privilege and,for myself, one of the amusingly piquant moments was the period between the sentencing and the corporal punishment of an American teenage punk vandal, Michael Fay, during which starry-eyed Christians in the US (and even some in S’pore) prayed long and hard for divine intervention to stop sentence being carried out. Well, as all rational people knew would be the case, Yahweh wasnt listening that day or, if He was, perhaps He preferred the general purport of the atheists argument.

Posted by Dave Johns on August 14, 2008, 02:02 AM | #

There is no doubt there are way too many naive liberal White Christians whom are active participants in the genocide of their own race; however, the same can be said for liberal atheists and agnostics.

Part of my reasoning for “keeping the faith” is derived from Pascal’s wager.

“Pascal’s Wager (or Pascal’s Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should “wager” as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose....”

Al, you are on one side of that bet, while I’m on the other. Freedom of choice at work!

Anyway, I agree with Robert ap Richard. It is counterproductive, as a recruitment stradegy, for our side to react in a “hostile” insulting manner toward Christians. Keep in mind, Al, Christianity is the Religion that the majority of Whites beleive in.

Posted by Al Ross on August 14, 2008, 02:23 AM | #

Let’s go with the majority then if only because of their entertainment value:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BaGHKe5oi0

Posted by Scooby on August 14, 2008, 04:03 AM | #

“Pascal’s Wager (or Pascal’s Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should “wager” as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose....”

Obviously God is too stupid to see through this.

Posted by Al Ross on August 14, 2008, 04:49 AM | #

Ever true to the racial psyche of the Jews who created Him, in the matter of Pascal’s Wager Yahweh values dishonestly faked belief over sincere scepticism.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 14, 2008, 05:10 AM | #

I didn’t post the thing signed “Scooby” two comments above.

Posted by Dave Johns on August 14, 2008, 01:50 PM | #

Al, that pro-homosexual, pro-atheist, youtube video you linked to only underscores the hostility a significant segment homosexuals and atheists have for Christianity. Its message fits right in nicely with the Gramscian worldview.

Too, instigating a rift between White-preservationist-Christians and Atheists is indeed counterproductive to our ultimate goals: that being re-securing homogeneous homelands so our posterity can survive and flourish.

Driving a wedge between Christians and non-Christian White-preservationists parallels what a notorious commentator [silver] attempted to do in the past ... that is: cause deviciveness between northern and southern Europeans.

The Ghost of Antonio Gramsci
By Gary DeMar

For a long time American Vision has been calling on Christians to understand that social change comes from the bottom up, not the top down. This does not mean that the top should be ignored. There were converts in “Caesar’s household” (Phil. 4:22). Political involvement is God-ordained and “ministerial” (Rom. 13:1, 4), not redemptive (John 19:15; cf. Acts 17:7). With these principles in mind, more attention should be given to family, church, education, business, law, art, journalism, and entertainment while not ignoring politics.

The Left learned this in the 1960s when their political agenda failed to accomplish their stated goals. Their radical agenda was shot down politically because the majority of Americans still retained a remnant of the older Christian worldview. The Left knew it would be necessary to capture those institutions that shape and mold children who will one day become leaders. Once the heart and mind are captured, everything else follows, including politics. This is a major tactical maneuver that most on the Right did not understand.

Antonio Gramsci’s philosophy for cultural and social change was the model for the new Leftists. Gramsci (1891–1937) considered Christianity to be the “force binding all the classes—peasants and workers and princes and priests and popes and all the rest besides, into a single, homogeneous culture. It was specifically Christian culture, in which individual men and women understood that the most important things about human life transcend the material conditions in which they lived out their mortal lives."1 Gramsci broke with Marx and Lenin’s belief that the masses would rise up and overthrow the ruling “superstructure.” No matter how oppressed the working classes might be, their Christian faith would not allow such an overthrow, Gramsci theorized. Marxists taught “that everything valuable in life was within mankind."2

The Christian masses rejected the secular foundation of Marx. Perceptively, Gramsci realized that in the long run what people did not ultimately believe in they would not fight for. Was Gramsci right? “The only Marxist state that existed” in Gramsci’s day “was imposed and maintained by force and by terrorist policies that duplicated and even exceeded the worst facets of Mussolini’s Fascism."3 The building of the Berlin Wall was the most visible evidence of Gramsci’s critique of traditional Marxism. Walls had to be built to keep people from escaping the “Workers’ Paradise.” Today, a majority of Americans, including Christians, crave what Gramsci envisioned. Not a shot was fired or a wall built to bring Marxism to America.

While Gramsci was still a committed Marxist and “totally convinced that the material dimension of everything in the universe, including mankind, was the whole of it,"4 he believed that the road taken by traditional Marxists to “utopia” was one lined with formidable obstacles.

Gramsci began his re-imaging of Marxism by dropping the harsh slogans. “It wouldn’t do to rant about ‘revolution’ and ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ and the ‘Workers’ Paradise.’"5 Instead, Marxism would have to put on a new face and talk about “national consensus,” “national unity,” and “national pacification.” Sound familiar? The democratic process rather than revolution would be used to bring about the necessary changes. At first, pluralism would be promoted and defended. Further, Marxists would join with other oppressed groups—even if they did not share Marxist ideals—to create a unified coalition of voting power. After building their coalition “they must enter into every civil, cultural and political activity in every nation, patiently leavening them all as thoroughly as yeast leavens bread."6

Even after all of these successes, Gramsci still understood that Christianity remained his biggest obstacle in achieving his newly formulated Marxist goals. He had to strip the mind of any notion of the transcendent—"that there is nothing beyond the matter of this universe. There is nothing in existence that transcends man—his material organism within his material surroundings."7

The pagan notion of the separation of the two realms that has dogged orthodox Christianity since the first century had to be reintroduced.

In the most practical terms, he needed to get individuals and groups in every class and station of life to think about life’s problems without reference to the Christian transcendent, without reference to God and the laws of God. He needed to get them to react with antipathy and positive opposition to any introduction of Christian ideals or the Christian transcendent into the treatment and solution of the problems of modern life.8

The here and now must be absolutized and made the reference point for everything we think and do. “Everything must be done in the name of man’s dignity and rights, and in the name of his autonomy and freedom from outside constraint. From the claims and constraints of Christianity, above all."9 Has Gramsci been successful? Most definitely. You’ve heard it said:

What a person does in his private life does not affect his ability to govern.
It’s just about sex, even if it’s adultery.
Religion and politics don’t mix.
You can’t impose your morality on others.
You can’t legislate morality.
The transcendent is no longer a viable reference point in Blue America. All of life is immanent, that is, all that counts is the here and now. Establishment Republicans want to silence Christians. Democrats liberalized the Bible. They pick and choose only those Bible passages that they claim support their statist agenda. Libertarians, like Gramsci, believe “everything must be done in the name of man’s dignity and rights, and in the name of his autonomy and freedom from outside constraint.” America is haunted by the ghost of Antonio Gramsci.

Posted by Scooby on August 14, 2008, 03:53 PM | #

“Pascal’s Wager (or Pascal’s Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should “wager” as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose....”

God Incarnate doubted his Faith,

I didn’t post the thing signed “Scooby” two comments above.

Except at the moment of death when He died knowing He was God.

He ‘died’ for us.

Posted by Guessedworker on August 14, 2008, 04:13 PM | #

You’ll die for us if you don’t stop pissing around with Fred. I welcome your thoughts. I would you to choose a handle that does not reveal your hostilities. Please.

Posted by GT on August 14, 2008, 08:53 PM | #

You’ll die for us if you don’t stop pissing around with Fred.

LOL!

I would you to choose a handle that does not reveal your hostilities. Please.

No hostility there, GW. Just having a wee bit of fun with Fred but mostly with ... what’s his name today? Onlooker, is it? .357 Magnum? .357? .357 Dave? .357 Dave Johns? Dave Johns? Next week?? Next month???

“Pascal’s Wager (or Pascal’s Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should “wager” as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose....”

Easy racialism, easy faith, playing it safe.

Kind of like God Incarnate, who died knowing he was God.

Posted by Guessedworker on August 14, 2008, 09:28 PM | #

Fred is nearer to God than I, GT. He can absolve you.

Wouldn’t the modest Blaize be your kind of philosopher, btw?

Posted by Al Ross on August 15, 2008, 12:01 AM | #

The Marxist delusionals,including the Italian Jew cited by Dave Johns, who believe that their atheism has liberated what passes for their minds from Christian belief, are sadly mistaken. They have simply jettisoned the supernatural spook element of the Jewish heresy, Christianity, while preserving that malodorous creed’s veneration of the “poor”, the “meek”, the “peacemakers” and anyone else they can use for camouflage in their quest for power, just as Church leaders have done since the Jesus nonsense first appeared.

With reference to homosexuality, it could have been invented for Christian clergymen and without it the inane Roman Catholic vow of celibacy demanded of the ordained shamans would have been impossible to enforce.

For many centuries, intelligent Aryans who rejected the Christian dogmas were simply killed while others, doubtless equally intelligent,if hypocritical, feigned belief in the Semitic saccharine for fear of reprisals. This meant that, thanks to Christianity, Aryans were subject to a version of selective breeding whereby the intelligent sceptics were weeded out, leaving the hypocrites and the camp followers, thus impairing our racial immune system irreparably.

Who knows the true extent of the damage which Christianity has visited upon White people?

Posted by Al Ross on August 17, 2008, 11:52 PM | #

More from those marvellous Christians, viz., an influential Catholic publication in Italy supports the struggle of that country’s pestilential illegal immigrants while His Holiness lectures Whites on the evils of “racism”. Bless you all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7567175.stm

Posted by torgrim on August 18, 2008, 05:48 AM | #

Al Ross,

“For many centuries, intelligent Aryans who rejected Christian dogmas were simply killed”....

This is true.

When the usual trickery was unsucessful, the smoke and mirrors, etc., out came the truncheon.

A warrior of great ability resisted in Norway, and was the Regent of Norway for most of his life, the date was around 996...eventually after many attempts with armies from the Holy Roman Emperor Otto of Saxony and the famed Jomsvikings, the Church finally suceeded and managed a most dishonorable death to Earl Hakon of Lade.

The new attacker was the first Christian king of Norway, Olaf Tryggvason. Olaf paid a ransom, a Thrall killed the nobleman Hakon, and then Hakon was beheaded by the Thrall, and his body burned, and the head was place in the place where criminals were executed.

The point was made.

Here is part a poem that honors Earl Hakon;

Vellekla, by Einar Skalaglam, Icelandic Skald ca. 986

Hakon the Earl, so good and wise,
Let all the ancient temples rise,--
Thor’s temples raised with fostering hand
That had been ruined through the land.

His valiant champions, who were slain
On battlefields across the main,
To Thor the thunder-god,may tell
How for the gods all turn out well.

The hardy warrior now once more
Offers sacrifice of gore,
The shield-bearer in Loke’s game
Involves once more great Odins name.

The green earth yields her store,
As she was wont in days of yore,
Since the brave breaker of the spears
The holy shrine again uprears.

The Earl has conquered with strong hand
All that lies north of Viken Land;
In battle storm, and iron rain
Hakon spreads wide his swords domain.

Posted by Al Ross on August 18, 2008, 06:10 AM | #

Thank you, torgrim, for that fine poem of which I hadnt heard.

Posted by Dave Johns on August 18, 2008, 02:03 PM | #

After reading many pro-White-preservationist websites’ articles, blog entries, and the comments contained therein; I’ve come to the conclusion there is far more variation of opinion within our groups than there is on the other side. The other-side, meaning those that want to advance policies on a global scale which will result in the white-race being ethnically cleansed from the planet. There is little to no bickering amongst our enemies.

Unfortunately, or a more appropriate term would be Tragically, our side is constantly embroiled in disputes about which stradegy we should embark upon to save our European gene-pool. We have no effective leadership.

The finger pointing and fault finding amongst us is causing the whole white-preservationist project to be regarded as folly by those looking on it from the outside. Our opposition, the liberals, led by mainly by Jews, et al, must be very happy to see our struggle against them so disjointed and in disarray.

Again, after reading tons of books and articles and essays relevant on the subject of race-replacement of the White-race, I’ve come full circle right back to what I believed 20 years ago ... that is the MAIN cause of our precipitous decline is modern-liberalism..

Jewish influence notwithstanding, Modern-liberalism gave us forced racial integration, open boarders, political correctness, expanded welfare-state, out of control expanded government spending, affirmative action, forced acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, diversity training in most public and private institutions, anti-White textbooks at all levels of our public educational institutions, ETC., ETC., ETC.

Bottom line: If we can’t defeat, i.e, totally discredit anyone or everyone whom advances modern-liberalism, we will continue down the path of genocide we’re on.

Posted by Dave Johns on August 18, 2008, 02:08 PM | #

“I’ve come full circle right back to what I believed 20 years ago”

Correction:

Make that 35 years ago.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 18, 2008, 02:36 PM | #

“Bottom line: If we can’t defeat, i.e, totally discredit anyone or everyone who advances modern liberalism, we will continue down the path of genocide we’re on.” (—Dave Johns)

Wider dissemination of the poster comprising the final shot in this video (all the way at the end) might help in that task lying before us. (Hey it certainly couldn’t hurt ....)

Posted by Dave Johns on August 18, 2008, 03:46 PM | #

Fred, that’s an accurate portrait of a liberal. LOL! If only all the libs would continue to move their body up their own rump orifices ... eventually their entire body would be consumed—then POOF! The liberals would disappear into thin air.

Problem solved.

Posted by Robert Reis on August 18, 2008, 06:24 PM | #

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=eiBPIHEAmig

The state of Ireland

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=dDy_hRR09zc&feature=PlayList&p=340C4265B6542C75&index=0

Answer Ireland’s call?

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=g4yPBO1KoNw

Posted by Al Ross on August 18, 2008, 08:45 PM | #

The Muslim women resident in Ireland are, in the view of a Pope who favours the baneful presence of Europe’s racially alien interlopers, just as guilty of ‘murder’ if they engage in abortion as Roman Catholic women would be, so help from that quarter seems unlikely. Traditionally, in a colonized Catholic Ireland, the RC Church represented the only legitimate expression of anti-overlord nationalism and, as such, attracted more ostensibly practicing adherents than it otherwise might, so the exaggerated religiosity of the Irish served a useful political purpose.

Posted by JGB on September 17, 2008, 12:19 AM | #

The main posting reads like a review of E. Michael Jones’s new book, The Jewish Revlutionary Spirit, but it never mentions the title of the book.

Here is a link to information on the book

http://www.culturewars.com/Reviews/RevolutionaryReviews.html

as well as a link to an interview with Jones on the book

http://www.culturewars.com/2008/JRSInterview.htm

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 17, 2008, 01:30 AM | #

JGB, I just read the E. Michael Jones interview you linked, looking for some acknowledgement on the part of Catholics of the race-replacement crisis, finding none. I accuse Catholics of brain-death on the race-replacment issue. I accuse them further of collaboration in genocide.

This man Jones’s theological differences with the Jews have their place, the way a man dying of cancer’s ingrown toenail has its place.

Posted by Rusty Mason on December 16, 2008, 03:03 PM | #

E. Michael Jones sounds great until one discovers his definition of race and ethnicity. He says that all ethnics should be allowed to separate into their own neighborhoods.

But to Jones, ethnicity is completely non-racial, comprised primarily of religion. To think that culture, religion, or society is influenced in any way by race is “cluelessness.” His definitions are so odd that he calls anyone who is estranged from their religion and culture, “deracinated.”

He welcomes the Mexican invasion. He believes that Mexican, Italian, and Irish Catholics are co-ethnics and should have no trouble assimilating, so long as the assimilation process is slow and ordered enough. In short, he is a Catholic first, a real universalist, and does not care one iota subscript if all white peoples die out.

He has good insight on the Jews, though, and he understands the blunders of the Protestant elite that have brought us to this multiculti disaster. For this, he is a great read, especially when supplemented by Michael Hoffman and even Alex Jones.

http://www.culturewars.com/2004/Challenge.htm