Returning to Old Order vs. Letting a New Order blossom from the Understanding of Original Order

by Happy Cracker

LindsayWheeler brought up an interesting point yesterday about a return to the Old Order, which he defines as being monarchical rule and Christianity. Permit me to think aloud ...

It seems to me that a fraction of New Right thinkers, who may or may not be represented on this website, desire a return to an even Older Order - i.e. to an order which predates Christianity.

Now we can “return” to an old order, if that order was historically well-documented, simply by imitating the outlines and defining characteristics of that order. In fact, there is no other way we can return except by pretending to uphold the old order and declaring its advent politically. What we are essentially doing is trying to re-enliven a set of past historical circumstances by aping the essential features of those circumstances in our own lives. A fitting analogy would be to say that this is like trying to relive a specific phase of your adolescent past, by gathering together the items you have from those days and doing the activities you did in that phase.

The first thing to understand about this is that this would be a profoundly superficial process. It would necessarily be a matter of recreating the outward symbols and manifestations of the Old Phase, while the context of these actions and the meanings attached to them have been irretrievably altered by intervening experience. One would walk through the forests of one’s youth, dressed in clothes harkening back to those bygone days, all the while listening to music that one listened to at the time: yet the old context cannot be fully retrieved, and what can be retrieved will be viewed through an intervening layer of meta-context which knows this to be a re-enactment of past events. Its strange for human beings to behave in this insincere way.

Returning to the idea of monarchist reinstauration: We proclaim a King, some nobles, and we have a reinstauration of the old order. Needless to say, this old order thus resurrected will be in so many ways a new order - only its rough organizing principles could be said to be from the Old Order. Beneath this structure would breathe a new life - and the whole project would probably be fraught with absurdity as the contrast between new and old became everywhere present. But the superficial nature of the instauration - essentially imitating old names, styles of dress, and organizational charts - is what is important in this consideration.

There will no doubt be some essential elements which necessitated and justified aspects of the Old Old Order’s existence, which we in the New Old Order will lack. These are the things that create context for action, such as: limits of knowledge. Limits are important for defining the context, by defining what is known and unknown - what belongs to the space of speculation and imagination, and what to tangible knowledge. We have a completely different body of knowledge from those people in the period of monarchical rule in Europe. Lacking an essential, yet intangible, element such as this will result in deviations in meaning between actions carried out in the context of the Old Old Order versus those carried out in the New Old Order.

One might not, for example, be able to watch a post-reinstauration King hold court with the same degree of patience and reverance as the Old Old Peasants did, firstly because one is born in an age of rapid information access; secondly, because knowledge of the existence of thriving states under the absence of monarchical rule constrains the dimension of one’s reverence for a King. In order to rectify this deviation, one could then arrange to have those who fail to show proper deference clubbed - but Old Old Peasants didn’t need to be clubbed to experience reverence for the King, so this one example of a deviation will ruin the sincerity of our play acting. Furthermore, once one begins to invent new material outside the framework allotted, the meta-context implicit in these actions will infect other thought processes and ruin the naivete which we are attempting to reconstruct.

This idea is actually quite funny, one can see a great deal of unintended humor resulting from a seriously-intended reinstauration event.

Some members of the New Right seem to be looking for an older order than the “Old Order” - they seem to be looking to paganism, or the reverence for germanic heroism, or some such primeval order.

Perhaps however it is most honest and respectful to those who pursue this path, to say that they are looking to aspects of the old order.  It is certainly possible to re-enliven aspects of older orders, especially if they are found to compensate for a perceived lack in our present order. This is constantly being done in music and fashion - one simply does not attempt this for the totality of contexts or for such causatively deeply pre-determined areas of human life as political organization. It’s OK to bring something back if one does it in a way that contributes something, as opposed to something which demands a further readjustment of established context in order to validate it. For example, Jonathan Bowden wears a medallion with the opila rune on it - a rune symbolizing family, roots, inherited land, and similar ideas. Picture an opila painted in black across the side of a building - it could be a powerful symbol. Borrowing aspects of past orders is certainly possible.

Theoretically at least, underlying each of the temporal iterations of human order is an ontology (itself subject to change, but much more slowly!) which defines the limits of what is possible in each and all of the various individual orders. This is the “underlying order” - which we may attempt to augur, for example through a philosophical understanding of human history and/or through a scientific understanding of evolutionary biology. It is based in an aspect of our being which has a slower rate of change than the temporal and outward aspects of human society. (I am referring to genetics, but the advent of genetic engineering problematizes the idea of contrasting rates of change for human ontology and temporal aspects of human society).

There are limits on what can be known about past eras. Those seeking to reinstate aspects of an even older Old Order therefore face epistemological constraints which demand a cautious approach.

Yet a perfect understanding of our ontology - what we are as people, and as northerners (for those who are) and (for those who are) as Anglo-saxons - would theoretically contain all possible iterations of visible temporal orders. In striving to deepen this understanding of our identity, we can draw something like a Master Template defining, in rough terms, the aspects of our societies which we view as essential. Whether a King, a chieftain, or a Prime Minister rules over us - the deeper features of our character as a race which James Bowery has traced in his various threads and interviews, represent the ontology underlying the outward manifestation of societal order.

Actually, if this were to be rendered as a math problem, what it would look like is a series of conditional probability distributions showing how an intended outcome corresponded probabilistically to a given behavior, for the whole joint distribution of intended outcomes and human behaviors. How to control for time: the conditional probability distribution for all intended outcomes and behaviors is recalculated with new values as a result of each prior action - thus one needs not only a perfect knowledge of the probabilities of intended outcomes given the behaviors, but also a knowledge of how each of these impact future distributions. After each calculation the conditional distribution (Outcome | behavior) would have to be recalculated.


This is a hasty and largely irrelevant blueprint for the mathematical answer to the ancient question of philosophy: how should man best live his life? Although it leaves out the question of what intended outcomes are desirable - this would presumably be determined by the “user” i.e. the person running the program. However it would also be possible to run, prior to the calculations for outcomes | behavior, a calculation to determine the highest pleasure attainable by a progression of outcomes. This would require insight into the neurophysiology of the mind and - contrary to the superficial understanding that this implies excessive hedonism - actually would theoretically allow for the significance of edifying and wholesome pleasures such as “reward after long struggle” and “deep meaning” - without which one (perhaps) would perceive a lack. I do not know what might be used as a criterion for selecting optimal intended outcomes except pleasure, survival value, and some combination of them both. Actually it would be a pursuit of survival value to the point where it remained strategically significant and beyond that point, pleasure value would be paramount.

These are rough ideas for calculations for an individual human being - then one somehow has to account for all human beings.

Yet this is what we are approaching when we use intuitive philosophy to grasp for a template for our group life that will house comfortably our inner nature without destroying us strategically. It is an idea of the organizing principles which would allow us as a group to maximize happiness - even that sort of happiness that comes from struggle and becoming, from enlivening our higher natures, which is not always easy and forthright.

In short, the philosophical adventures of those who strive to seek an underlying Original Order are neither a desecration of the Old Order, which passes away naturally anyway, nor the attempt to reinstate a radical New Order which would in some way contradict the essential fundaments of that which we are.

They are an attempt to ascertain the Original Order which underlies both of these things.

Posted by Guest Blogger on Friday, April 17, 2009 at 08:14 PM in Political Philosophy
Comments (40) | Tell a friend

Comments:

1

Posted by Yawn on April 17, 2009, 10:19 PM | #

We should call a spade a spade.  But what is a spade, how does one define a spade? 

Yawn.

This is the “underlying order” - which we may attempt to augur, for example through a philosophical understanding of human history and/or through a scientific understanding of evolutionary biology.

How’s about we come to a scientific understanding of human history and a philosophic understanding of evolutionary biology.  Just sayin’.

2

Posted by Jebus on April 17, 2009, 10:35 PM | #

GW, can you please tell me why Mr. Jacobson and his coreligionists will not leave England if they hate the English so much? It’s one of those mysteries, no?

http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=e3d8e9b1-8caa-4290-b566-2aff2216016e

3

Posted by Jebus on April 17, 2009, 11:07 PM | #

If a European country did this Israel would be the first country to recall its ambassador with much fury and outrage. Jews, the eternal double-talking blood-sucking parasites.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3700189,00.html

One will recall that that vicious fascistic shitty little country recalled its hook-nosed swindling ambassador when Haider entered Austrian government. Let’s keep in mind that National Socialist Israel is the home of Lieberman whose official party platform called for the expulsion of ALL Arabs, citizens or not. He’s, of course, part of the governing coalition.

I wouldn’t might Jews so much if they weren’t such fantastic liars, cheats, thieves, murderers, and hypocrites.

As a certain European nation used to say: “The Jews are our misfortune!”

4

Posted by Jebus on April 17, 2009, 11:08 PM | #

mind* (not might)

5

Posted by Happy Cracker on April 18, 2009, 01:15 AM | #

Replying to Yawn:

We should call a spade a spade.  But what is a spade, how does one define a spade?

Yet, when faced with the conundrum of defining ourselves - and not even our individual selves, but
something much greater than that - we are facing a topic where it is impossible to “call a spade a spade”.

There are as many questions brought up by this new investigation as there are efforts to pursue
this knowledge.

How’s about we come to a scientific understanding of human history and a philosophic understanding of evolutionary biology.  Just sayin’.

Well, there is a reason I put those words in that order. A philosophical understanding of a scientific
branch of knowledge is unnecessary - since scientific knowledge about a topic is the last kind of knowledge (except possibly divine, if you grant the existence of that) which one can possess.

Why, for example, would we desire a philosophical understanding of the human limbic system?
What use would that be to medical practitioners, when scientific knowledge of the limbic system
already exists?

Philosophy bases itself on intuitive knowledge and inferences gained from different readings of human experience - it is thus a far less precise tool than hard scientific knowledge about the materiality of things (which won’t be forthcoming in this area until the human brain is fully understood).

Until we have the ability to understand the individual human nervous system and then understand human behavior altogether, asking for a scientific understanding of history (which adds the temporal dimension even to those already mentioned) is like asking for a single volume book that will tell you all you need to know about life. Its too massive a demand.

Yawn.

I understand that reaction to this post.

6

Posted by Spirit of Mario Bros. on April 18, 2009, 03:02 AM | #

Cool post, though the mathematics bit is overreaching and show-offy.

BTW, did anybody catch Spengler confessing his intellectual magical mystery tour
and its end in Judaism and Jewish ethnocentrism?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/KD18Aa01.html

God damn, its amazing.

7

Posted by Valerian on April 18, 2009, 03:05 AM | #

Great Post!

I’ve actually contemplated recently, to use my terminology, on what kind of experience a pagan-racial-separatist society would convey to the subject that’s viewing it. The separatist adage is added because I live in America and secession,separation, and regionalism are topics that have been part of American intellectual currents since the country was founded. Any society of this sort that has any chance to appear and excel would have to be organic in it’s constitution and America is only organic at regional, county, city, and neighborhood levels, even then there are many pockets of America that doesn’t have an organic constitution in it’s form. Anyhow, you have a clear, philosophical understanding of the approach needed for re instituting an order, of any type really, and I got a lot of insight from this article.

“One might not, for example, be able to watch a post-reinstauration King hold court with the same degree of patience and reverence as the Old Old Peasants did, firstly because one is born in an age of rapid information access; secondly, because knowledge of the existence of thriving states under the absence of monarchical rule constrains the dimension of one’s reverence for a King. In order to rectify this deviation, one could then arrange to have those who fail to show proper deference clubbed - but Old Old Peasants didn’t need to be clubbed to experience reverence for the King, so this one example of a deviation will ruin the sincerity of our play acting. Furthermore, once one begins to invent new material outside the framework allotted, the meta-context implicit in these actions will infect other thought processes and ruin the naivete which we are attempting to reconstruct”.

The New Old Order, to use you’re terminology, is going to, in a metaphorical sense, resurrect from the decaying ashes of the Modern Order we are currently living in. All world-views, perceptions, and bodies of knowledge throughout human history undergo a casual process that either changes from within, modified from without, and mutates on multi-various levels through cycles and epochs in the course of the Universe. Different epochs, cycles, and eras undergo different intellectual “traumas”, such as Marxism in the 19th century, and intellectual “awakenings”, the 15th century European renaissance that changes the framework for understanding in that particular time. Between this Modern age and the Age of Antiquity, there has been thousands of different modifications to Epistemology that have in a sense changed the world around us, ideologically and materially,  through the previous generations externalization of their Epistemologies. We can bring back those Ancient Principles and world-views to the world but like the nature of all casual processes, all the contingents in that process will retain some aspects of the previous “modes”(i.e. epochs,cycles, etc.) that those contingents or the ancestry of the contingents lived through and experienced. Certain aspects of culture, art, literature, cuisine, technology, and communication will inevitably be still in place but under modified forms and construction. Those Ancient Principles, with new insight and fresh perspective of it’s Being, will be the essential catalyst and modifier of all those previous aspects and discover even more aspects to create. In the end we, as in the radical Right and other similar movements,  are in an uphill battle in the Modern World and the process is going to be slow and nasty but no casual process in history was ever a speedy transformation.

8

Posted by GR on April 18, 2009, 07:08 AM | #

A fitting analogy would be to say that this is like trying to relive a specific phase of your adolescent past, by gathering together the items you have from those days and doing the activities you did in that phase.

‘Traditionalism: An Infantile Disorder’.

9

Posted by GR on April 18, 2009, 07:24 AM | #

Really, Cracker, you disposed of the whole “restauration” crowd with that one line. “Borrowing” is nothing more than imitation and pastiche; traditionalism is its heady ideological expression.

The only path to a revived tribalism would be wide-scale breakdown of everything we know and disappearance of means of communication allowing for a new isolation among the small groups thus created, which could then “construct” a new identity, but even there it would be more what they’re left with at the time of the breakdown than a conscious effort to give the group ancient ideological bearings (when did this ever happen and stick?). Fireside reenactments of ‘Family Guy’ and ‘Seinfeld’, is what one would see.

Otherwise, here on the internet, it’s picking out what you like as personal talisman.

If there were a new white tribal king, I’d probably want to shoot him myself. We’ve come rather too far as humans to revert to God and King and ritual scraping, no?

Too many thought experiments going on here!

10

Posted by Yawn on April 18, 2009, 11:24 AM | #

Yet, when faced with the conundrum of defining ourselves - and not even our individual selves, but
something much greater than that - we are facing a topic where it is impossible to “call a spade a spade”.

If the quest for terminology resonant with our contemporary lexicon - so as to facilitate continuity for better understanding - which is descriptive of reality is “impossible” then what are you typing about?  Granted, it will be much more difficult if you chuck etymology out the window.

There are as many questions brought up by this new investigation as there are efforts to pursue
this knowledge.

But you want to answer each question as it arises, in many instances in linguistic format, with as much precision and accuracy as can be had (call a spade a spade and describe that spade), no?

Why, for example, would we desire a philosophical understanding of the human limbic system?
What use would that be to medical practitioners, when scientific knowledge of the limbic system
already exists?

Phenomenology, solipsism, qualia, etc.

Philosophy bases itself on intuitive knowledge and inferences gained from different readings of human experience - it is thus a far less precise tool than hard scientific knowledge about the materiality of things (which won’t be forthcoming in this area until the human brain is fully understood).

So long as our brains/minds function as they do, and depending upon where one draws the line in proactively altering that, philosophy which attempts to order the soul according to what is deemed optimal cannot be dispensed with.  Are you a transhumanist?

“Its too massive a demand.”

Kevin MacDonald, poor deluded man.  Why does he even bother?

I understand that reaction to this post.

I can appreciate dry wit.

11

Posted by Captainchaos on April 18, 2009, 11:49 AM | #

Really, Cracker, you disposed of the whole “restauration” crowd with that one line. “Borrowing” is nothing more than imitation and pastiche; traditionalism is its heady ideological expression.

Serious intellectual traditionalism strives for a corresponding continuity of the psyche of European Man to compliment his genetic continuity.

The only path to a revived tribalism would be wide-scale breakdown of everything we know and disappearance of means of communication allowing for a new isolation among the small groups thus created, which could then “construct” a new identity, but even there it would be more what they’re left with at the time of the breakdown than a conscious effort to give the group ancient ideological bearings (when did this ever happen and stick?). Fireside reenactments of ‘Family Guy’ and ‘Seinfeld’, is what one would see.

Yawn.

Otherwise, here on the internet, it’s picking out what you like as personal talisman.

Then I guess you are just getting in your catharsis.  Would you rather pound your pillow after having a good cry?

If there were a new white tribal king, I’d probably want to shoot him myself. We’ve come rather too far as humans to revert to God and King and ritual scraping, no?

Maybe if you burn it all down you won’t be able to build it up again; no fire insurance post Apocalypse.  Humpty Dipshit.

Too many thought experiments going on here!

Is that you, SM?  LOL!

12

Posted by cladrastis on April 18, 2009, 04:54 PM | #

Nice post.

Your subject is not an easy one to present diplomatically; I suspect most on this site have strong opinions one way or the other.

I think that at some point WNism will be forced to split into two camps consisting of 1) the Christians (including tradional Catholics) and 2) everyone else (i.e. Euro-“pagans” and the nonreligious, including Creators).  This is not to imply that the two camps should be hostile toward each another, but I think, long term, it is the only way we can reach greater consensus about values, goals, ethics, and ideology.  Without such a split, we are doomed to in-fight endlessly on Jesus’ ethnicity (and whether it makes sense for an Aryan to worship a crucified Aramaic-speaking Hebrew), prosthelytizing, eugenics, the role of nature in spirituality, Darwinism, and morality, generally (particularly as it relates to drugs, sex, the soul, and ecstatic experiences).  Even with such a split, we will still undoubtedly argue amongst ourselves about some of those issues (particularly morality and group ethics), but at least our basis of argumentation will be rooted in the same context (liturgy, logic, or both).   

As for political organization, the problem with a monarchy is that you might get a good king or you might get a really bad one (like a psychopath).  The problem with a republic is that it is subject to takeover or manipulation by hostile alien groups (be they ethnic or corporate).  Personally, I like the idea of national rule by an aristocratic synod with an elected leader (who might remain in power by continuous voting as per James Bowery’s suggestion in relation to militias).  Such an aristocracy might consist of people who meet certain requirements (IQ, strength of character, physical fitness, birth into the nation, etc) and have accomplished something significant in their lives (be it in an intellectual, military, or creative capacity).  As far as I know, this would be an entirely new form of political organization - what would be expected to work based on European evolutionary psychology.  All the rituals and pageantry associated with an aristocratic political organization would likely be a synthesis of borrowed forms and symbols (from European dynastic history and NatSocism) as well as newly invented forms that arise spontaneously from an outpouring ethnonationalist enthusiasm.

Anyway, this is all very speculative and not really based on the reality of WN in the here and now, but it is an interesting subject for discussion, nonetheless.

13

Posted by W Lindsay Wheeler on April 18, 2009, 09:12 PM | #

First off, I would like to say that Christianity is an European religion. It is not Jewish. It was formed by the Hellenistic culture that was throughout the Mediterreanean region. Elite Romans were bilingual and spoke Greek, the lingua franca of the Eastern half of the Roman Empire was Greek.

Plato was the biggest and most influential source of Hellenism. Hellenism in turn created Christianity.

In his book, Christianity and Classical Culture; A Study of Thought and Action from Augustus to Augustine, Charles Norris Cochrane,( Oxford University Press, NY, 1940) writes of the failure of paganism and why it succumbed to Christianity. Paganism was incomplete. Paganism could not answer to the question of why there is evil and how to deal with it. Christianity did. Christianity proved better in answering philosophical questions than did paganism.

Second, Western Culture which started with the Greeks, is based on Excellence—Arete. It is the striving for excellence. In this regard, Christianity is a more excellent religion. Not a single European pagan religion is revealed. They have all been products of the poets and the bards. Western Culture is not afraid to borrow things. Plato laid this out in his 7th letter when he said, we borrow from other cultures—-but we improve them like no other.

Third, only Christianity answers the problem of evil.

So the adoption of Christianity was a perfection within Western Culture. It improved upon what was deficient for it was and is a revealed religion. Again, Plato laments that their religion is not revealed that God needs to speak and clarify things.  Western Culture moves towards perfection, towards excellence.

Orthodox (Roman Catholic) Christianity existed as the standard religion from 320 AD to about 1500 the Protestant Reformation. The Protestant reformation is really the Judiazing of Christianity. It was instigated by Rabbis to split up Christendom.

So Christendom is the heart and soul of Europe, Western Culture and Civilization. Everything since then as been a devolution. The Enlightenment was a deconstruction of that. Freemasonry, also being instigated by the Jews, preached individualism, liberty and freedom as political goals.

Much of Christendom is the carry over of the Roman Empire. Many of the titles throughout Western History is “The Holy Roman Empire”. Though we are many nations as Europeans, we all belong under the umbrella of the Holy Roman Empire. Christendom is a continuation of that. Medieval Europe is a continuation of Ancient Greece and Rome. Victorian England is a continuation of the Greco-Roman civilization with an Anglo-Saxon take.

The Old Order for Europeans is Christendom, not paganism. Who wants to return to their childish ways? Do we not grow into perfection? Why return to garbage? No one today returns to their mistakes. Paganism is just that—a childish, imperfect, creation of bards and poets.

14

Posted by W Lindsay Wheeler on April 18, 2009, 09:36 PM | #

Here in this post, I want to touch on what “philosophia” is.

Philosophia in the Greek means “Love of Wisdom”. First off, one has to define what Wisdom is.

Wisdom is the KNOWLEDGE of Divine and human things and their causes.

In order to know God, God must reveal Himself. Nature is one place where God reveals himself and revelation is another. As St. Justin the Martyr wrote, he himself a Greek philosopher, Christianity perfects philosophy because the Knowledge of God is revealed.

Philosophia includes Theology and the Material sciences. Philosophy also concerns itself with common sense. Philosophy is a metaphysical, quasi/spiritual science. Philosophy is not only the Golden mean; but the science of the Golden Mean.

Moreover, Philosophy concerns itself with the Natural Law.

Aristotle’s favorite number was three. Why? Because Three shows up in nature. What is the most basic human unit?  The family. The family is the Old Order. The Novus Ordo is attempting to redo the family as having two mommies or two daddies or just a single mom. When the Cracker attempts to denigrate going back to the Old Order is he also calling the defense and upholding the traditional family a “A fitting analogy would be to say that this is like trying to relive a specific phase of your adolescent past, by gathering together the items you have from those days and doing the activities you did in that phase.”

I don’t think so.

Nature only goes one way. Monarchy follows the pattern of the family.  Is not the Father the head of the family? Should not the pater family be head of the Race? I mean that is what Hitler was doing in one aspect. Hitler was a psuedo-monarch. He claimed to be the “Father of his race”.  The Germans on instigation of Jewish socialists, got rid of their monarchs and princes and then clung to Hitler as a psuedo-Monarch. The human mind, especially the German, is geared toward Monarchy. Destroy Monarchy and they take on a dictator to take care of that psychological need.

Monarchy developed out of war. The Monarch and the aristocracy did not Club the peasants. Kings arose in ancient times because they combined strength, wit and intelligence to gather armies to protect their kin. Co-captains with the king became the aristocracy. A Monarch is nothing but the War Lord with the Aristocracy serving as War Captains. They are the Warrior Leaders. Monarchs have always served as War Lords. They developed naturally.

What Philosophy concerns itself is the Natural Organic Theory of the State. Monarchy and Aristocracy Naturally arose. The Natural Law is “Cream rises to the top”. That is what the Royal family and the aristocracy are———————-The Cream of their Races.

And you deceived people led by Freemasonry destroyed all that and now the Jew has become our Overlord.

15

Posted by W Lindsay Wheeler on April 18, 2009, 09:50 PM | #

Now, one cannot deny Truth.

Monarchism is Tripartite. You can not escape that paradigm. There is no Novus Ordo. A Novus Ordo can not and will not exist.

Democracy is a Novus Ordo. Yet, Democracy unconsciously always reverts to a tripartite form. The Russian Bolsheviks got rid of their true Monarch and Aristocracy. They killed most of them.  Yet, the Soviet State reconstituted them both with Stalin a pseuo-Monarch with party members becoming the New aristocracy, the pseudo-aristocracy. Same with Nazi Germany, Hitler became a faux king with Nazi party members becoming the aristocracy for the state.

Same thing. As much as you reject and deconstruct Christianity, you remake it with false things. You can’t escape “the Way, The Truth and the Life”. Either you return, or you will make a caricature of it called the “Novus Ordo”.

Christianity is about creating “The New Man in Christ”. Well, Nazi and Communist ideology both tried to create a “New Man”. Christianity is about Jesus Christ as God. Well, Nazis turned Aryanism into a god and Communists turned Materialism into a god. You can not escape Truth.  Man can not create a “novus Ordo”. If you don’t accept Truth, you accept a lie. Nature abhors a vacuum. Either you accept Truth, or you will accept a lie.

God Created the Old Order. None will exist apart from that. There will be NO Novus Ordo. If man does, it is a caricature of the Old Order and it will collapse. The Soviet Novus Ordo lasted 80 Years. The Nazi Novus Ordo lasted 12 years. The French Revolution has now been through five republics and the American Novus Ordo is a failed state in 2009!

Christendom, the Old Order,  lasted 1000 years. There’s your 1000 year reign. Christus Regnum.

16

Posted by Lurker on April 18, 2009, 11:26 PM | #

Fireside reenactments of ‘Family Guy’ and ‘Seinfeld’, is what one would see - GR

Once the west has full spectrum vibrancy I expect that will be the long term outcome anyway.

17

Posted by Lurker on April 19, 2009, 12:09 AM | #

O/T

Another request that scotchfiend.blogspot.com be added as an MR link.

I see that GW has commented there, maybe he doesnt approve?

18

Posted by Happy Cracker on April 19, 2009, 12:54 AM | #

Reply to Yawn:

If the quest for terminology resonant with our contemporary lexicon - so as to facilitate continuity for better understanding - which is descriptive of reality is “impossible” then what are you typing about?  Granted, it will be much more difficult if you chuck etymology out the window.

We arrived at this confusion - where you are apparently reprimanding me for the suggestion that we “cannot call a spade a spade” - because you chose to reply to my post with the remark: “We should call a spade a spade. But what is a spade, how does one define a spade?”

I took your original meaning to be that the terminology I use to discuss these matters is unnecessary. Your remark was essentially ridiculing my post obliquely, by suggesting that I was playing unnecessary word games - that is at least how I interpreted your (to my mind very vague) remark. My original post does not even use very difficult terminology except for “ontology” and “iterative orders” which may not be clear to everyone. So why bring up “calling a spade a spade”? I could only reason that you viewed my terminology as being unnecessary for discussing the matter at hand.

I therefore replied that “calling a spade a spade” isn’t easy when that spade is the eternal nation or even one’s individual self. Essentially I was justifying the use of my terminology, which is unfortunately very burdensome but does reflect an understanding of history/science/epistemology.

You read that as meaning that we can never adequately describe the world in words?

But you want to answer each question as it arises, in many instances in linguistic format, with as much precision and accuracy as can be had (call a spade a spade and describe that spade), no?

Yes.

In response to this from me:

Why, for example, would we desire a philosophical understanding of the human limbic system?
What use would that be to medical practitioners, when scientific knowledge of the limbic system
already exists?

You said:

Phenomenology, solipsism, qualia, etc.

So you want to bring in radical philosophical skepticism to aid in understanding the functions of the human body? E.g. “How can we know you have a heart, we haven’t opened up your chest and looked at it yet?” You want to view the human anatomy as belonging to “qualia”, something which can only be subjectively perceived? Please, think for a moment about what that would mean.

I said:

Philosophy bases itself on intuitive knowledge and inferences gained from different readings of human experience - it is thus a far less precise tool than hard scientific knowledge about the materiality of things (which won’t be forthcoming in this area until the human brain is fully understood).

You replied:

So long as our brains/minds function as they do, and depending upon where one draws the line in proactively altering that, philosophy which attempts to order the soul according to what is deemed optimal cannot be dispensed with.  Are you a transhumanist?

You misinferred from my statement about the limits of philosophical investigation that I thought philosophy was illegitimate/unnecessary. Philosophical understandings are intuitive and based on what is “felt” to be true rather than observation - they are thus necessary to describe complex phenomena which we do not yet have the scientific tools to properly analyse and even observe.

The whole reason we are even discussing this point is the fact that you suggested that a “philosophical understanding of evolutionary biology” is as beneficial as a scientific understanding, and that a “scientific understanding of history” was possible in 2009.

Regarding the possibility of a scientific understanding of history, you quoted me and then wrote:

“Its too massive a demand.”

Kevin MacDonald, poor deluded man.  Why does he even bother?

Kevin MacDonald is a hero of WN; far from the stuff you want to impute to me, I regard his efforts as being the #1 philosophical/mental action contributing to white survival.

MacDonald has made the study of history more scientific by looking at group conflict and the action of group ethnic interests as determining important events in history. Ask him, however, about his scientific understanding of history - I think, at this point, he has a philosophical understanding of history, based on intuitive readings. We are still very much where Yockey/Gibbon/Nietzsche/Barzun/Gobineau/MacDonald and others have left us, as regards history on the whole. We are far from understanding it scientifically.

All this discussion simply because of your quibble about philosphical vs. scientific understandings; if I didn’t love to practice the refinement of ideas, I’d say it was all just a waste of time.

I said:

I understand that reaction to this post.

You replied:

I can appreciate dry wit.

Here, again, you misread me. I was not trying to sophisticatedly one-up you.

When I said that I understand your reaction to my post, I was trying to be civil - remember that you greeted me with the most dismissive, insulting opening that is possible on a board of this sort: “Yawn”.

I view behavior like that as being beneath a man, and I was trying to sympathize with your boredom at the esoteric aspects of my post because I cannot sympathize with the juvenile spirit of antagonism with which you chose to greet me, so I would rather misunderstand the latter as being the former, in the hope that you wouldnt be tempted into further tit-for-tat ego battles. Unfortunately, it did not work.

19

Posted by Happy Cracker on April 19, 2009, 01:34 AM | #

Reply to Valerian:

I’ve actually contemplated recently, to use my terminology, on what kind of experience a pagan-racial-separatist society would convey to the subject that’s viewing it. The separatist adage is added because I live in America and secession,separation, and regionalism are topics that have been part of American intellectual currents since the country was founded. Any society of this sort that has any chance to appear and excel would have to be organic in it’s constitution and America is only organic at regional, county, city, and neighborhood levels, even then there are many pockets of America that doesn’t have an organic constitution in it’s form. Anyhow, you have a clear, philosophical understanding of the approach needed for re instituting an order, of any type really, and I got a lot of insight from this article.

Wow, thats super! The same question you mentioned: “what kind of experience a pagan-racial-separatist society would convey to the subject that’s viewing it” - is also very interesting to me.
It will certainly be something new, and to us (as guys who’ve lived in the multiracial dystopia)
the reality of the new society might really give us “culture shock”. I think, in comparison to what
we’ve seen, we might be amazed at how “healthy” the pagan-racial-separatist society could become.
I know that, upon meeting other racialist whites, I’ve been surprised by how impressive a white person
with a backbone and spirit can be!

The New Old Order, to use you’re terminology, is going to, in a metaphorical sense, resurrect from the decaying ashes of the Modern Order we are currently living in. All world-views, perceptions, and bodies of knowledge throughout human history undergo a casual process that either changes from within, modified from without, and mutates on multi-various levels through cycles and epochs in the course of the Universe. Different epochs, cycles, and eras undergo different intellectual “traumas”, such as Marxism in the 19th century, and intellectual “awakenings”, the 15th century European renaissance that changes the framework for understanding in that particular time. Between this Modern age and the Age of Antiquity, there has been thousands of different modifications to Epistemology that have in a sense changed the world around us, ideologically and materially, through the previous generations externalization of their Epistemologies. We can bring back those Ancient Principles and world-views to the world but like the nature of all casual processes, all the contingents in that process will retain some aspects of the previous “modes”(i.e. epochs,cycles, etc.) that those contingents or the ancestry of the contingents lived through and experienced. Certain aspects of culture, art, literature, cuisine, technology, and communication will inevitably be still in place but under modified forms and construction. Those Ancient Principles, with new insight and fresh perspective of it’s Being, will be the essential catalyst and modifier of all those previous aspects and discover even more aspects to create. In the end we, as in the radical Right and other similar movements, are in an uphill battle in the Modern World and the process is going to be slow and nasty but no casual process in history was ever a speedy transformation.

Hear hear! I agree. It will be strange to watch “the new world” (of a character yet to be defined, I suppose) emerging from the old one we have known.


Reply to GR:

Really, Cracker, you disposed of the whole “restauration” crowd with that one line. “Borrowing” is nothing more than imitation and pastiche; traditionalism is its heady ideological expression.

I, at least, would not phrase that so strongly. I think that cultural borrowing (occuring contemporaneously) and even historical borrowing (happening across periods) is occuring all the time, although it rarely rises above ‘imitation’ - imitation is good enough to make an impact!

The only path to a revived tribalism would be wide-scale breakdown of everything we know and disappearance of means of communication allowing for a new isolation among the small groups thus created, which could then “construct” a new identity, but even there it would be more what they’re left with at the time of the breakdown than a conscious effort to give the group ancient ideological bearings (when did this ever happen and stick?).

I respectfully disagree, but perhaps its a question of what one has seen firsthand and what life one has lived. I don’t think isolation, or breakdown of communication, is necessary for reviving tribalism. As to whether a group has ever revived ancient ideological bearings, it depends on what you mean by ancient ideological bearings.

If we are talking about reviving interest in their history, folklore, traditions, and everything constituting a group identity - I’d have to say that this has often revived - and refer you to the rise of nationalism in the Old World (Europe and Asia) - typically as a result of close contact and competition with foreign peoples. Turks, Czechs, Poles, Irish, Armenians, Jews, and many other groups have succeeded in “pedestalizing” (to borrow a phrase from another discussion on this board) the more rudimentary and primordial aspects of their culture, at least using them as symbols and things to rally around. These groups have quite a good understanding of how their ancient culture fits in with what they are: they have their folklore, songs, epics, their history, cuisine, and they keep these alive quite well, in my experience. Even though they understand at some level that some of these things are perhaps, ultimately arbitrary in themselves.

Fireside reenactments of ‘Family Guy’ and ‘Seinfeld’, is what one would see.

Ew! I guess in the maw of the American anti-culture, this is what would remain. I have different hopes though.

If there were a new white tribal king, I’d probably want to shoot him myself. We’ve come rather too far as humans to revert to God and King and ritual scraping, no?

Thou hast the spirit of Brutus, I dare say. wink

Too many thought experiments going on here!

Tell me about it!


Reply to Cladstratis:

I think that at some point WNism will be forced to split into two camps consisting of 1) the Christians (including tradional Catholics) and 2) everyone else (i.e. Euro-“pagans” and the nonreligious, including Creators).  This is not to imply that the two camps should be hostile toward each another, but I think, long term, it is the only way we can reach greater consensus about values, goals, ethics, and ideology.  Without such a split, we are doomed to in-fight endlessly on Jesus’ ethnicity (and whether it makes sense for an Aryan to worship a crucified Aramaic-speaking Hebrew), prosthelytizing, eugenics, the role of nature in spirituality, Darwinism, and morality, generally (particularly as it relates to drugs, sex, the soul, and ecstatic experiences).  Even with such a split, we will still undoubtedly argue amongst ourselves about some of those issues (particularly morality and group ethics), but at least our basis of argumentation will be rooted in the same context (liturgy, logic, or both).

This thread is a good demonstration of the truth of that.

As for political organization, the problem with a monarchy is that you might get a good king or you might get a really bad one (like a psychopath).  The problem with a republic is that it is subject to takeover or manipulation by hostile alien groups (be they ethnic or corporate).  Personally, I like the idea of national rule by an aristocratic synod with an elected leader (who might remain in power by continuous voting as per James Bowery’s suggestion in relation to militias).  Such an aristocracy might consist of people who meet certain requirements (IQ, strength of character, physical fitness, birth into the nation, etc) and have accomplished something significant in their lives (be it in an intellectual, military, or creative capacity).  As far as I know, this would be an entirely new form of political organization - what would be expected to work based on European evolutionary psychology.  All the rituals and pageantry associated with an aristocratic political organization would likely be a synthesis of borrowed forms and symbols (from European dynastic history and NatSocism) as well as newly invented forms that arise spontaneously from an outpouring ethnonationalist enthusiasm.

I agree, and don’t think your ideal scenario is unrealistic. Oligarchies are very natural (some say they are in a de facto sense all we’ve ever known as humans) - and one can easily imagine how events in the future would tend to select for a certain type of man becoming the leader of the pack. This selection could put the “aristo” back in aristocracy.


Reply to CaptainChaos:

Serious intellectual traditionalism strives for a corresponding continuity of the psyche of European Man to compliment his genetic continuity.

I agree, and whats even more amazing: the man who wrote that sentence, shortly afterward called his interlocutor “Humpty Dipshit”! lol!!! CC, with you its high-flown intellectualism and the spirit of a brawler, awesome.

20

Posted by Asian conformists-"Chinese need to be controlled" on April 19, 2009, 02:26 AM | #

“Jackie Chan: Chinese need to be controlled”

Action star draws applause, saying too much freedom can lead to chaos

BOAO, China - Action star Jackie Chan said Saturday he’s not sure if a free society is a good thing for China and that he’s starting to think “we Chinese need to be controlled.”

Chan’s comments drew applause from a predominantly Chinese audience of business leaders in China’s southern island province of Hainan.

The 55-year-old Hong Kong actor was participating in a panel at the annual Boao Forum when he was asked to discuss censorship and restrictions on filmmakers in China. He expanded his comments to include society.
Story continues below ?advertisement | your ad here

“I’m not sure if it’s good to have freedom or not,” Chan said. “I’m really confused now. If you’re too free, you’re like the way Hong Kong is now. It’s very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic.”

Chan added: “I’m gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we’re not being controlled, we’ll just do what we want.”

- continued: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30280511/

21

Posted by weston on April 19, 2009, 03:09 AM | #

Another request that scotchfiend.blogspot.com be added as an MR link.

I see that GW has commented there, maybe he doesnt approve?

 


  Dude is good. Deserves a wider audience.

22

Posted by White Western Man on April 19, 2009, 03:21 AM | #

W Lindsay Wheeler: “That is what the Royal family and the aristocracy are—-The Cream of their Races.”

Yeah, right…unless they receive a constant infusion of new blood in order to remain strong and dynamic, all monarchies have tended to become decadent and inbred and corrupted over time: ” Inbreeding caused demise of the Spanish Habsburg dynasty, new study reveals - One of Europe’s most powerful royal dynasties was so obsessed with securing its blue-blooded inheritance through family marriages that it brought about its own extinction through inbreeding, scientists have found.”

Because there is no such thing as an “open monarchy,” a major problem with it is that it naturally becomes bureaucratized, stagnant, and resistant to change in order to hold on to power - thus it slowly becomes regressive and damaging and eventually begins to act against the interests of the citizens they are supposed to serve (i.e. greedy Polish royalty suppressing Polish serfs by using Jewish tax collectors, etc).

Also, do some research and realize how Jews had managed to infiltrate MANY European royal families over the past few centuries…and the Jewish element is still very strong within the British royal family, so much so that it may as well be called ‘Anglo-Jewish royalty.’

23

Posted by Bill on April 19, 2009, 03:46 AM | #

Eureka!!  A question I have asked many times.  Thanks to Lurker on April 19, 2009, 03:26 AM

....“The New Jerusalem can become a reality if people are willing
to use the state to enforce group norms of thought and behavior. Indeed,
there are increasingly strong controls on thought crimes against
the multicultural New Jerusalem throughout the West.

The main difference between the Puritan New Jerusalem and the
present multicultural one is that the latter will lead to the demise of
the very white people who are the mainstays of the current multicultural
Zeitgeist. Unlike the Puritan New Jerusalem, the multicultural
New Jerusalem will not be controlled by people like themselves, who
in the long run will be a tiny, relatively powerless minority.

The ultimate irony is that without altruistic whites willing to be
morally outraged by violations of multicultural ideals, the multicultural
New Jerusalem is likely to revert to a Darwinian struggle for
survival among the remnants. But the high-minded descendants of
the Puritans won’t be around to witness it.”

Kevin MacDonald “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism,”

24

Posted by White Western Man on April 19, 2009, 04:04 AM | #

W Lindsay Wheeler, you and your fellow Judaeo-Christians are the childish ones.  Judaeo-Christianity is all but dead in Europe, with football/soccer vastly more popular and serving as the interim ‘faith’ of Europe until something better comes along.  Churches are being turned in to post offices, daycare centers, and museums all over Europe - yes, Christianity is dead in much of Europe, and the European peoples are yearning for a suitable substitute.  This is where White ethnonationalism comes in.

Myself and others here would like you on the side of White humanity, but you seem a bit too far gone in to Judaeo-Christianity Cloud Cuckoo Land as it seems that you would rather stand with Jesus The Jew And His One World/One Love Multicult Army long before you would stand with your fellow besieged Whites who are currently facing almost complete dispossession if not near-extinction within the next 100-150 years if the tide is not turned back very soon.  Meanwhile, Judaeo-Christianity is safely ensconced for at least another few centuries around the world (“One World, Under Christ, with Third World Immigrants For All”), having now been adopted by the Browns and Blacks and Yellows all over South America, Africa, and Asia - so much for Christianity as a ‘White religion,’ as the vaunted ‘eternal faith of Europe and the European peoples.’ YOU EFFETE COWARDS CONTINUE TO ENDLESSLY DEBATE THE POINTLESS MEANINGS OF THE TRINITY AND NEBULOUS CONCEPTS LIKE ‘EVIL’ WHILE THE WHITE RACE IS BEING SWAMPED AND DISPOSSESSED IN THEIR OWN LANDS.  The continuity, territory, and ultimately the very survival of the White race is clearly a much more pressing priority than some Jewish/Near Eastern death-cult that irrationally worships a random loudmouth/rabble-rousing Jew as The Son of God.

I’m sorry, but no amount of fervent praying with rosary in hand and/or ‘soulful meditations’ of a bloody and dead Jew on a cross of are going to turn back the non-White hordes now - it’s going to take immense will, strength, rationality, unity, and planning/organization to turn back the non-White tide (not the irrationality and divisiveness of Christianity with its billion-and-one sects), and those qualities are all woefully lacking in your laughably weak and stupidly childish bastard-child-of-Judaism ‘religion’ with its ‘resignation’ and ‘mercy’ and ‘meekness.’

Parts of Europe didn’t even become fully Christianized until the 1300s-1400s, and it is also clear that many of the other European peoples that adopted it earlier never really accepted it, much less wanted it IMPOSED UPON THEM by roving Jewish fanatics/zealots and their lackeys.  It is now clear that most Whites have outgrown the tiredness and weakness of Judaeo-Christianity, or never even accepted and/or grew in to it the first place - Whites are growing up and moving on (ever since, you know, a little thing called the Renaissance a few hundred years ago helped to banish the generalized ignorance, serfdom, and stagnation which reigned supreme during the heavily Judaeo-Christian Middle Ages), and it is now clear that many Whites worldwide care nothing for and no longer want to have anything to do with this weak yet insidious Jewish death-cult found in their midst.  Nothing illustrates this better than the fact that, as I said above, football is now vastly more popular in Europe than Judaeo-Christianity.

How do you propose Whites rally behind a JEWISH/NEAR EASTERN ‘RELIGION’ like Judaeo-Christianity?  Isn’t that a tad bit odd, Whites believing in a non-White ‘religion’ that has been a prime cause of their gradual but steady dispossession?  A religion that has sapped the natural ethnocentric vitality and warrior spirit of Whites by encouraging them to be ‘civilized’ and ‘loving’ and ‘accepting’ toward any and all non-Whites that accepted Jesus As Their Lord And Savior and showed up at their European doorstep looking for a meal, a home, a job, and of course a White woman with which to breed?

Only after the Roman Empire officially abandoned vigorous, organized, and ethnocentric pro-White Roman paganism and adopted Judaeo-Christianity which emanated especially strongly from the multicultural (and heavily Jewish quarters) of Rome did the empire really start to deteriorate…are you going to try to deny that fact too?  Similar to the spread of Jews/Judaism, and probably because Judaeo-Christianity is of course the bastard-child of Judaism, everywhere that Judaeo-Christianity was imposed has eventually succumbed to the multicultural rot or other Jew-led anti-White movements like race mixing, liberalism, universalism/globalism/internationalism, communism, plutocratic capitalism, feminism, hyperconsumerism, etc.  Get a clue.

Grow up and become a strong White man instead of remaining a cowering White child forever shivering in the shadow of a false Jewish God.  Stand tall and move forward with your White brethren instead of continuing to regress and fall backwards in to the laughable childishness, ridiculousness, and utter falsity of Judaeo-Christianity.

25

Posted by Spirit of Mario Bros on April 19, 2009, 04:29 AM | #

Wow, White Western Man, it takes balls to say all that.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

26

Posted by Yawn on April 19, 2009, 08:18 AM | #

I wanted to nail down whether or not you subscribe to transhumanist nihilism.  You do not, that is good.  Thinking outside the box when faced with a challenging problem can be productive, yet there is, it seems, often a thrust to that thinking which mirrors the thinkers will to power.  So the question then arises, Is he a good man? 

I no longer have any doubts.  Congratulations on your post.

27

Posted by White Western Man on April 19, 2009, 09:23 AM | #

For the people here who keep attempting to bog us down in neverending religious and philosophical debates, and who seek to divide and distract Whites with tedious religious arguments and other viewpoints which are secondary or tertiary in importance…stop it.  Majority Rights is a racialist website first and foremost, not a culturalist one; cultural issues are of course important, especially as they relate to race/ethnicity, but they are not the primary topic of this site.  Racial/ethnic issues and concerns naturally and rightfully come before religious, philosophical, political, economic, and other socio-cultural issues here and, we MRers believe, in terms of all human history and culture - so stop trying to divert the overall discussion from racial/ethnic issues with your theological, psychological, and/or politicized babbling a la “transhumanist nihilism,” etc.

One of the most important things to understand about history is that race/ethnicity ALWAYS trumps religion(s), political systems, economic views, and virtually all other issues in terms of importance and significance because in the grand scheme of things religion(s), political views, economic views, and various other socio-cultural practices are disposable, mutable, and comparatively short-lived when compared to race/ethnicity which is of course MUCH more ancient, atavistic, and primal.  Think about it: religion/politics/economics/etc is written outside of us on the page with mere ink while race/ethnicity is literally written within us in our blood/DNA.  Understanding that, which do you think is more important…our primal race/ethnicity or the aforementioned cultural matters which are constantly in flux?  This should perhaps be understood as the cardinal rule of racialism.

White racialism and White ethnonationalism correctly understands and promulgates the view that Whites must first and foremost unite and rally behind the White race as a whole (as well as our unique White sub-ethnicity, whether it be Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Celtic, Germanic/Nordic, Slavic, Italic, etc).  Our shared European blood, our European common ancestry, must trump ALL other concerns, especially in these especially perilous and dangerous times for Whites worldwide.  In order to preserve the White race and our White racial territory for all eternity, Whites must permanently unite under the banner of the White race first and foremost - then and only then can highly variable secondary/tertiary socio-cultural issues like religion, philosophy, politics, economics, etc enter the picture.

28

Posted by danielj on April 19, 2009, 01:41 PM | #

W Lindsay Wheeler, you and your fellow Judaeo-Christians are the childish ones.

Q.E.D.

29

Posted by Jebus Christer on April 19, 2009, 05:26 PM | #

For the people here who keep attempting to bog us down in neverending religious and philosophical debates, and who seek to divide and distract Whites with tedious religious arguments and other viewpoints which are secondary or tertiary in importance…stop it. - White Western Man, denier of our Lord

I died for your sins.  Why do you reject my gift to you?  I expect to see you at church every Sunday.

Be nice to Negroes.

30

Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 19, 2009, 05:45 PM | #

“Another request that scotchfiend.blogspot.com be added as an MR link.”

Dude is good.  Deserves a wider audience.

(—Weston)

I had a look at his blog this morning:  agree, the guy looks excellent.  I also liked his long, thoughtful reply to GW’s comment.  And his links list is good — when I look at a links list and don’t see certain ones at a minimum, I classify the guy as of little worth (the strict minimum I absolutely require is either Steve Sailer or Vdare.com.  I don’t require MR.com because not everyone’s nerves are steady enough, or sense of morality sure enough, for MR — and both are needed for this blog (as we saw the other day from the comment he left, FJ’s nerves aren’t steady enough for here, for example, and FJ’s not exactly a shrinking violet, so you’ve got to be tough for this blog), but if you link to neither of those other two, you’re, with few exceptions, going to be of zero interest.  (I could do without Scotchfiend’s “Guess the Muff” link, I must say.)

31

Posted by danielj on April 19, 2009, 05:45 PM | #

TO: The Anti-Christers

Being an Albanian was the only “religion” in Albania for a long time and look how that worked out. They even had the luxury of Sino overlords.

32

Posted by W Lindsay Wheeler on April 19, 2009, 07:13 PM | #

To White Western Man, You are not “Western”. I am not a “judeo-anything”. Christianity is Christianity. My Faith and My People built Western Culture. I am a Greek and a Christian. My people built Europe. My people of Crete gave Europe its name So Mr. Neo-Nazi White Western Man—-I disagree with your diatribes. You are talking nonsense again and elevating Race to being a God. I have every right to speak on this matter and Christianity forms the heart and soul of Europe!  Christian Churches are Everywhere in Europe! Not your pagan Nazi symbols. Where is your paganity? Nowhere to be found. All your pagan traditions are incorporated already into Roman Catholicism!

We’ve got Protestants and Jews calling Roman Catholic Christianity pagan and we got Neo-Nazi skinheads like White Western Man calling Roman Catholic Christianity “Judeo-christianity”.

We can’t win.

I tell you what Mr. White Western Man, Roman Catholic Christianity was long before your Nazi racialist stuff ever appeared. Us Christians have more than any right to speak and talk about the destiny of Europe.

Plutarch talked of the essence of the Doric Greek culture of the Spartans and the Cretans which Europe, Western Culture sprang from.

Plutarch said,

“WE ARE NOT IN THIS WORLD TO GIVE THE LAWS BUT IN ORDER TO OBEY THE COMMANDS OF THE GODS”.

If the Creator God sent His Son as a Jew to die on the Cross for all of mankind, who are you Mr. White Western Man? Who the heck are you?  Is it your decision?  Does your opinion matter?  How about you take your Christian hate somewhere else? Christianity is the Faith of Europe.  Your atheism is doing more harm than Christianity. Christianity BUILT Europe.

I and orthodox Traditional Catholics have every right to speak up and be heard.  WE BUILT EUROPE not you fascist racialists.  You’ve been around 50 years?  Catholicism has been in Europe for 2000 years. And I will not let a bunch of rabid God-hating materialists shut me up. Stop trying to marginalize us Christians.  We built Europe—-NOT YOU.

33

Posted by Wandrin on April 19, 2009, 07:19 PM | #

Judaeo-Christianity Cloud Cuckoo Land as it seems that you would rather stand with Jesus The Jew And His One World/One Love Multicult Army

Cultural marxists hate Christianity and seek to destroy it. If it’s their Trojan horse and our weak spot then why do they want to destroy it? The jewish media is virulently anti-Christian and they go almost insane with rage and hatred towards politicians like Sarah Palin. Why? Like the professor says, it’s her “implicit whiteness” especially the Christianity. They hate and fear Christianity more than anything, or rather they did, as islam is currently catching up fast and looks likely to overtake.

Also, for many centuries Christianity happily co-existed with all sorts of things which were blatantly un-Christian - people were quite capable of compartmentalizing the universal message of Jesus with bombing the cr*p out of other Christians. Why? Because the old ruling class told them it was ok.

Christianity is part of the tradition and history of the west - Jesus is as much a part of it as Odin and Archimedes, even if a White nationalist wanted to abandon the religion of Christianity I think it would still be worthwhile to try and include some of the fabric of Christianity in whatever that individual wanted to replace it with e.g use the buildings in the same way Churches were originally built on top of pagan sites. Cultural Christianity can be used as glue even if you don’t believe in religion.

Lastly, religion is a powerful morale booster in dangerous or violent situations -  it’s how the arabs conquered so much so quickly.

Now in our current situation, where a media-led cultural revolution has led to an anti-White cultural hegemony dominated by the jewish media and academy, then the universalist aspects of Christianity have proved to be a powerful weapon against our survival and there’s no doubt all the current churches have been infected with the cultural marxist anti-White version of liberalism. There’s no point denying any of that. Also, I have no problem if people simply prefer atheism or paganism for their own reasons, but I think it’s self-evidently wrong to suggest that Christianity was somehow the cause of our decay since WWII. The vast majority of Christians in history combined Christian belief with extreme nationalism for many centuries up until the cultural revolution of the 60s and the driving force behind that cultural revolution wasn’t Christian.

Now, individual nations may have powerful symbols of their own national survival but currently are there any images of western resistance and identity as emotionally powerful as, and as potentially White-universal as, that of a crusader knight - only elements of Nazi symbolism have the same potential emotional power. I think that is useful.

That’s my view but - I used to be involved in far-left politics once upon a time and i noticed a particular phenomenon. When your group has low numbers there’s a tendency to try and get everyone to agree to one course of action before you do anything. For example there might be three factions of three people inside one group who all 90% agree about everything but spend all their time arguing about the 10% where they differ. If the three factions all organized separately, did their own thing and recruited people of like mind then within no time there’d be three groups of nine people and growing.

So to me, Catholic Monarchist, Pagan Anarcho-Nationalist, Darwinian Neo-Nazi or the dozens of other possible combinations might all prove to be the best strategy in a particular soil. The proof will be in their adaptive success.

34

Posted by W Lindsay Wheeler on April 19, 2009, 07:41 PM | #

Thanks for your insight Wandrin. The Church before WWII was very nationalist everywhere. Communists have a doctrine of infiltrating all sorts of institutions for their subversion. The Roman Catholic Church is not impervious to subversion by closet communists/socialists/marxists.

I totally agree that the Roman Catholic Church, a majority of its clergy and hierarchy are infected with PC MC. But the heretics within the Church does not affect its teaching. Jesus Christ cares for all men. Jesus Christ cares for the preservation of all races and peoples.

Let me tell you Mr. White Western Man, The Jewish God, the Father of Jesus Christ, destroyed the Tower of Babel in Genesis. The Creator God of the Hebrew Old Testament destroyed the Global Government, and SCATTERED the people by differentiating their tongues into different languages. (And Hitler was nowhere around.) Who created Race was God the Creator. God destroyed the Tower of Babel and called it evil and Jesus Christ is His Son. Anybody that destroys race and participates in the Deracination agenda is evil and adikia and will be punished in the herafter. Destroying the Natural Order is against the Will of God. Every nation on Earth has a guardian Angel to protect it and to pray for it. Who appointed these angels was Jesus Christ.

Races will be preserved in Heaven. Just as gender is preserved, race will be preserved in heaven as well. Even though the Marxist may win down here, he will not win in heaven. Race exists in heaven as well. Jesus is a Jew but he is God and he cares for all mankind. Who do you think created the races in the first place? Thor? Ganesh? Zeus? No, the Creator God of the Old Testament who is of no race.

Don’t look at the modern Church under subversion by Leftists. Look at the Heroic place of the Church in Europe’s History.

35

Posted by Wandrin on April 19, 2009, 08:34 PM | #

Judaeo-Christianity

For (semi) Christians or at least people who mix in Christian circles who want to try and move modern Christians away from the multi-cult, this is just a thought I had the other day:

There are many hostile tribes in the world and jews are only one of them but they are particularly dangerous to us because they can pass for White - if they had purple skin they would be much less of a threat. For that reason and because the phrase “Judeo-Christian” is the first brick in the multi-cult wall I think that phrase and the idea underlying it needs to be undermined. So I was trying to think of arguments against the idea of Christianity and judaism being connected that might resonate with religious-minded people.

I was reading about passover and how it celebrates the idea of the jewish God murdering lots of Egyptian children. In a more subtle form that’s would be the the sort of line to take with the kind of Christian who says “Judeo-Christian” as you could use it to drive in a wedge. Taken further the argument would lead on to the general sense of dissonance between the morality of the old and new testaments and how the jewish God of the old testament acts in a way that seems completely inconsistent with the God of Jesus.

Following on, as well as celebrating the mass murder of the Egyptian first born, there’s Abraham, also ordered by the jewish God to sacrifice his first-born son. On top of that there’s a time when the old testament explicitly says the jews worshipped Baal for a time - (the semitic God Baal was big on child-sacrifice). So in future I’m intending to try and push any Christians I come into regular contact with into at least considering the possibility that the jewish God is Baal and Jesus and Christianity were a rebellion from and a complete rejection of judaism.

A shorter version for briefer conversations might simply push the line that Jesus may have come out of judaism but he explicitly rejected it and therefore Christianity isn’t Judeo-Christian.

Not much maybe but every slight push against every brick in the multi-cult wall adds up.

36

Posted by Attack From The Left on April 19, 2009, 09:17 PM | #

We drove Judeo-Christian out of the daily paper here and out of most vocabularies here by the simple expedient of attacking from the left.  Anyone we hear say “Judeo-Christian,” we kindly tell them they want to check their bigotries, that everyone knows the proper designation is “Islamo-Judeo-Christian” and shame on them.  It took only one application to get “Judeo-Christian” banned from our daily newspaper.  Other places and people may take two or three applications, but not often.  And it isn’t replaced with “Islamo-Judeo-Christian,” either.

PC can be bent to our purposes.

Another example we messed with is the vile poem [a screed endorsing unlimited immigration] tacked inside the base of Statue of Liberty, “The New Colossus,” by attacking its use of “wretched refuse” and “huddled masses” as vicious degradation of immigrants.  We still list those two terms in our hate caricatures page on our syllabus:

http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/caric9.htm

I don’t expect the smart people here to understand this.

37

Posted by Wandrin on April 19, 2009, 10:01 PM | #

GW, can you please tell me why Mr. Jacobson and his coreligionists will not leave England if they hate the English so much? It’s one of those mysteries, no?

Their greed is their curse. As long as they can live as ethno-centric parasites within a host nation and compete as a collective while the natives compete as individuals they gain a huge economic advantage. The success of this strategy makes them rich and comfortable and they don’t want to leave while there is still plunder to be had. The downside for them is self-hatred, fear and paranoia.

The rapid growth of anti-jewish sentiment in England is due to two things both of which jews are largely responsible for - mass immigration bringing millions of muslims to England and the foundation of the multi-cult religion which has ethno-nationalism (like Israel’s) as its ultimate sin. They ignore their culpability in this and blame everything on White people being inherently evil.

The public response to the recent Gaza fighting, mostly among leftists and muslim, and the hate-filled reaction of jews like Jacobson to that response, is what nudged me over the last step. They obviously hate White people but have to hide it and so they project the same onto us.

attacking from the left

Yes.

38

Posted by Rusty on April 20, 2009, 01:46 PM | #

for those who want to “do something” now, I’ll tell you what we are already doing,

We are building real wealth and skills.  We homeschool in a classical European way.  We are racially aware, sensitive, and realistic.  We warn of the Other at every opportunity.  We are stable, reliable, active members in our communities and our heritage organizations.  We have beautiful White babies and encourage others to do same.  We devote our lives to helping them succeed in every way, spiritually, intellectually, and physically.  We write, we speak, we teach, we network.  We cut Talmudvision time to zero, and computer gaming time to 3 hours/week or less.  We read and share the classics.  We barter, compost, grow veggies, build and repair buildings and machinery.  We shoot and fish.  We teach other Whites what we know.

In short, we are improving ourselves and our children, preparing the way for all our White descendants, using the wisdom and traditions passed down from our forefathers, adapted to today’s conditions.  It’s simple: our ancestors have already told us what we need to do.  But it’s difficult: it requires constant discipline, something always in short supply, especially today.  Anyone can do these things, if they really want to. 

I have no doubt that what we are already accomplishing will fit neatly into any detailed plans for a future organization someone may eventually devise.

39

Posted by Josef Vicelwitz on April 23, 2009, 05:59 AM | #

Christianity played a pivotal role in the formation of The West.  For a long time people did not even speak of The West, they spoke instead of Christendom! 

Pganism never managed to unite all the European tribes (Romans worshipped Mecury, Northerners worshiped a whole other God, Odin) whereas Christianity did!

What has happened is jews with their Culture Distorting ways even managed to Culture Distort Christianity!  Almost nothing has been left untouched by these hook-nosed vermin, these ‘demons of decay’ as Richard Wagner described them! 

Whites need to get back to the Solar-spirtuality based Imperialistical Crusading version of Christianity of Old and utilize it to bring The West back together as we drive out brown non-believers!  It has happened in the past with the Crusades and can happen again!

Also KMac has argued that in the past Christianity served some Adaptive Purposes (hopefully it can return to it, get a copy of The Passion to piss off Abe Foxman!) :

Visiting St. Peter’s in Rome last summer I noticed that there was a fairly large and prominent crypt of St. John Chrysostom. There is also a large statue of Chrysostom as part of the Altar of the Chair of St. Peter by Bernini, as well a statue on the colonnade. Chrysostom was certainly an important Doctor of the Church. But he is also one of history’s most well-known anti-Semites:

Although such beasts [Jews] are unfit for work, they are fit for killing . . . fit for slaughter. (I.II.5)
[The Synagogue] is not merely a lodging place for robbers and cheats but also for demons. This is true not only of the synagogues but also of the souls of the Jews. (I.IV.2)
Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? (I.VII.1) (St. John Chrysostom, Adversus Judaeos)
Or consider St. Jerome: “If you call [the synagogue] a brothel, a den of vice, the devil’s refuge, Satan’s fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever else you will, you are still saying less than it deserves.”

Or St. Gregory of Nyssa: [Jews are] murderers of the Lord, assassins of the prophets, rebels against God, God haters, . . . advocates of the devil, race of vipers, slanderers, calumniators, dark-minded people, leaven of the Pharisees, sanhedrin of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners, and haters of righteousness.

I wrote a chapter on this in Separation and Its Discontents, proposing that the Catholic church in late antiquity [4th–6th century AD] was in its very essence a powerful anti-Jewish movement that arose out of resource and reproductive competition with Jews.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-SSPX.html

40

Posted by Watson on April 25, 2009, 12:33 PM | #

Cracker, you write with a clarity and fluidity that is exceptionally rare.  Rarer still is your ability to present complex ideas and subtle distinctions without losing that clarity.  Reading your posts and comments is a true pleasure, but I almost wish you would devote yourself to something less ephemeral (perhaps a systematic summary of “the” WN perspective?) because there is almost no one who could present our ideas to the public with greater chances of success. 

I think a lot of the opposition you seem to get here is simply misplaced envy and jealousy.  I myself wish that I could think half as clearly, or write half as well as you, but instead of being upset that I’m not, I’m happy that I have the opportunity to read your posts, and even happier that you are on our side. 

And I’m guessing that you’re exPF, because it can’t be possible that this site could have three writers of such remarkable skill (including GW).

Though really, this site is full of remarkable people.

Post a Comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Smileys

You must prefix http://anonym.to/? to gnxp.com links...
e.g., http://anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/...

Copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting
it just in case the software loses it because the session time has been exceeded.

Remember my personal information

Next entry: Map of Unemployment Epidemic

Previous entry: What, then, is The Susan Effect?

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

DanielS commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/28/14, 12:03 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Israel’s Modus Operandi: Blackmail, Bribery, and Bullying' on 07/28/14, 10:01 AM. (go) (view)

cygnet commented in entry 'Israel’s Modus Operandi: Blackmail, Bribery, and Bullying' on 07/27/14, 08:44 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 3' on 07/27/14, 03:45 AM. (go) (view)

John commented in entry 'Israel’s Modus Operandi: Blackmail, Bribery, and Bullying' on 07/26/14, 08:16 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/26/14, 06:50 PM. (go) (view)

TJ commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/26/14, 06:07 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/26/14, 05:16 PM. (go) (view)

TJ commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/26/14, 04:20 PM. (go) (view)

Maria commented in entry 'Utopian idealists against the nation and the people' on 07/26/14, 05:03 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/26/14, 04:19 AM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/26/14, 04:07 AM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/26/14, 12:58 AM. (go) (view)

Dude commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 04:11 PM. (go) (view)

Dude commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 04:05 PM. (go) (view)

Dude commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 04:03 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/25/14, 03:21 PM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 06:14 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 03:44 AM. (go) (view)

Leon commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 03:15 AM. (go) (view)

TJ commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/25/14, 01:43 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/25/14, 01:25 AM. (go) (view)

TJ commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/25/14, 12:59 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 12:58 AM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/24/14, 11:58 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/24/14, 09:11 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/24/14, 05:13 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Definitions' on 07/24/14, 02:15 AM. (go) (view)

Gordon McRobert commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/23/14, 07:17 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/23/14, 04:00 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 11:22 PM. (go) (view)

Mr Nill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 09:34 PM. (go) (view)

Lawrence Newman commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 02:36 PM. (go) (view)

Gordon McRobert commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 12:54 PM. (go) (view)

Lawrence Newman commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 10:29 AM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media

Audio/Video

Controlled Opposition

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa

affection-tone