Posted by Fr. John on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:16 | #

While this sounds like a hopeful ‘candle held up against the growing darkness,’ I don’t think a front cover of an (apparently) inebriated White Man bodes well for the Weltanschauung iterated therein.

Nor do I find Tom Sunic’s comment (based more on his aberrant Romanism) having any real understanding of the “two Europes’ theory” of Dr. Photios Farrell’s book, “God, History and Dialectic,”  and the subsequent inability of the West to even honestly state that they ARE ‘Europe,’ when we read Sunic blathering about the intersection of Faith and Culture: “However, we must emphasize that Christianity is by definition a religion of universal brotherhood of all men.” p.6.

WHAT? WHEN? I have NEVER heard that, in over 40 years of being a Christian, until the Ecumenicists started with this sort of ‘disinformatia’ about 1980, or so…

Sunic degenerates even further, (and faster) when he has the chutzpah to state: “Look at St. Paul and his Epistles to the Galatians where he openly calls for a multicultural system-religion.”

Christianity may have been a Faith, but only in post-Schism Rome, was it morphed into anything approaching a ‘system.’
To state it more clearly, ‘look in a mirror, Sunic.’

The nadir of all this balderdash is contained in the utterance that shows (subconsciously) the UTTER hatred most RC’s have for ANYTHING that smacks of success by the protestants; when he (Sunic) loses all credibility with me, via the sentence, “Yet Calvinism brought the judeophile Christian replica to the American shores in a more glaring fashion, stripped of its critical content.”

Pardon me while I puke. This is mere Croat hatred for the Orthodox metohia, than anything else- a hatred transferred into a selbsthass for the West, precisely as the erring experiment in Papal supremacism and secularism without the leavening of the Orthodox religious phronema has collapsed in our generation, even when that ‘orthodox phronema’ was chanelled through the Anglican Divines, or the Westminster Confession of Faith!

And that fact that the utterly secularized West gives him credence, (such as this website or the Black Oak Folk) is the biggest slap in the face!

Dr. Sunic, do you not know, or have you note heard of the Calvinists in the USA who are calling a ‘spade a spade’ and arguing for a RETURN to that BIBLICAL, ‘catholic’ (without the Roman, you understand!) Weltanschauung which, in the era of the rise of Marx, Engels, and all the ‘hosts of hell’ over in EUrope in the 1850’s and ‘60s’, was seeking to ‘preserve their Southron heritage’  of a Christian, White Agrarian populace, and were willing to die for it - i.e., the war between the States?

What the HELL was Europe doing at about the same time? Worrying over a puny jewish soldier that SHOULD have been guilty, if for nothing else, than for merely being jewish. (I speak of the utterly useless “Dreyfuss affair”) From him [Dreyfuss] (and the ‘legitimization of the Jews’), and as a result of the Jewish-led riots of 1791 and 1848, along with the rise of Herzl, and the aberrant heresy known as Dispensationalism, eventually came the dengeneracy of the fin-de-siecle that finally gave us WWI, along with Freud, Proust, etc.

And then, via the same Jewish interests, the ‘sleaze culture’ of the 20’s and 30’s that necessitated the rise of Hitler, ultimately to no avail. For, after the ‘war to end all wars, we were ‘treated’ to the literary ‘genius’ of deracinated men such as Sartre, Camus, Genet, et al. OVer in America, we then began to get Hemingway, Hollywood, Ginsburg, the “Beat Generation” and that whole host of judaized New Yawkers and their ‘anti-culture.’

In the USA, at least the ‘silent resistance’ of the South kept alive the ideal of biblical morality, tradition, and the Republic (for which it stands) as opposed to the Union which Lincoln (may he rot) foisted on us, until the Bolsheviks swarmed into the West, after 1918., and LBJ, Celler, and Ted Kennedy lied to us, and then enforced the final capitulation to the defeated South, and thereby made the entire rationalist Western Filioquist Roman model collapse of its’ own dead weight, some forty years later.

IN case y’all didn’t know, (or are not reading my posts over at http://www.thewhitechrist.wordpress.com) even though I have grave theological differences with the Calvinists, I am willing to give credit where credit is due, which is why I quote them shamelessly - Because they are so good at finding these voices of non-subsumed White Identity of a pre-‘civil wrongs’ era, from wherever they may appear.)

Here are some URLS to ‘enlighten your mind,” as to that [sic] fultile ‘judeo-xian’ Calvinist ‘christian replica’ Sunic denigrates. (God, what hubris!)

http://www.spiritwaterblood.com
http://www.cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com (this from- I think- a Catholic that is not that enamoured of Vatican II revisionism, but articulates the Celtic mind quite clearly)
http://firstword.us/
http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/
http://thecaucasianliteraryreview.blogspot.com/
http://www.kinism.net/

Well, there’s just a few. IF I am correct, these (except for Cambria) are Calvinists all. I see NOTHING of the like from the ‘Benedict [Arnold] wing’ of Catholi-schism, for the simple fact that Rome is working to become in this day and age, what the Reformers called her five hundred years ago - the Whore of Babylon.

Frankly, it was from CALVINIST men like these, and also the Orthodox religious nationalism of pre-Soviet Russia, that I myself awoke from my Western, filioquist, Romanist slumbers of over 40 years! To paraphrase a charlatan -much like the ‘heir apparent’ charlatan we soon are to be saddled with here in the USA as our ‘fornicator in chief’ - when I realized that Western and Eastern/Byzantine White Men once knew who they were, and were racially aware of it, BECAUSE of a NON-ROMAN Catholi-‘schism’ Christian religion, it was a case of “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, I am free at last!”

Sunic, I fear, wants to remain in his fetters. Or his prison guard position as the Whore of Babylon’s iontelligence bureau in the Brave New World of Brussels and her bureaucrats.

I have no time for any of it.

‘Orthodoxia ki thanatos.’
‘Give ‘em Watts, boys!’

Same Idea, different centuries, that is all.

Posted by Selous Scout on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:03 | #

What to make of this:

http://www.deathtotheworld.com/index2.html

Posted by j on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 22:21 | #

Selous,

It is website of Eastern Christians, also called Nestorians in China and Central Asia. Eastern Christianity was the more vigorous even dominant branch in the Far East till the fall of Constantinople 500 years ago.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:44 | #

Little by little I am understanding where Fr. John is coming from.  When he first began posting here he was a mystery to me, and I thought he was illegitimate, a poseur.  I see now, on the contrary, how legitimate he is.  (I’m Catholic but am furious — am seething with anger — at the Vatican, hate is the right word:  I hate them with a passion, and am starting to waver in my identification with that sect of Christianity, as a result of the Catholic Church’s one-hundred percent endorsement of contemporary Judeo-Capitalism’s race-replacement genocide of all Europeans on the face of the Earth and that characterisation is no joke or exaggeration:  that’s exactly what they’re on board with as we speak, genocide.)  I’ve saved this comment of Fr. John’s for further study, and will peruse the links he included (three of which I wasn’t aware of before), and will study the Sunic interview.  Unlike with GW, Al Ross, Friedrich Braun, Proze, Steve Edwards, James Bowery, and many other great comrades here, religion is important to me, the Christian religion in particular.  I don’t want to give it up and I cannot give it up.  I don’t want Eurodom to give it up.  I am looking for a way not to have to do that.  I feel a way can be found but am not certain.  What the Vatican is doing is extremely bad, just extremely, extremely bad.  It’s a stain on Christianity, on Catholicism.  Can’t anyone get through to them?  Apparently not.  At the very least, I see no way to avoid the conclusion that the Sedevacantists are right:  there’s been no legitimate pope since John XXIII.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:54 | #

“Upon his election, Cardinal Roncalli chose John as his regnal name.  This was the first time in over 500 years that this name had been chosen — previous Popes had avoided using this name as the last man to use this name came to be considered an Antipope following the Western Schism.”

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XXIII )

Very apt choice of name, it turns out:  with this man’s papacy Satan was let into the Roman Church.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:59 | #

(I just want to mention that J, who posts just above my comment-before-last, clearly is not the Israeli guy who has commented here using the same signature.)

Posted by Carsten Westermarck on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 03:31 | #

Tomislav Sunic is an atheist, and hardly a Catholic supremacist.

Posted by Fr. John on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 14:32 | #

Posted by Selous Scout on January 02, 2009, 08:03 PM | #

What to make of this:

http://www.deathtotheworld.com/index2.html

I can speak to that, but their website says it more clearly:

“In the wilderness of of Northern California, Monks John and Damascene searched in hopes of finding a way to reach out to the Punk scene, which John had escaped. Seeing that the scene was full of kids that were sick of themselves and crippled by nihilism and despair, the Monks set out to give them the same hope that they found in Ancient Christianity. To do this, they decided to submit an article about Father Seraphim Rose in the popular magazine, Maximum Rock and Roll. When Father Damascene read over the magazine, he knew that they would never publish something like it. Struggling to show truth to the darkened subcultures, they tried again, but this time only placing an ad for Saint Hermans Brotherhood. They got a response from the editor, saying “What the @#*% is a Brotherhood?” and the Monks were told “We only run ads for music and ‘zines*.” A light bulb went on and thus, Death to the World was born. The first issue was printed in the December of ’94 featuring a Monk holding a skull on cover. The hand-drawn bold letters across the top read “DEATH TO THE WORLD, The Last True Rebellion” and the back cover held the caption: “they hated me without a cause.”

It was one of the last efforts of the late Fr. Seraphim Rose and Fr. Herman Podmozhensky, to ‘die to self’ and ‘have nothing to do with the world’ directed at the above sub-group.

Monasticism, of course, does strive to do both of these things, so it is nothing new. What was new was that the PLatina Russian Orthodox monks sought to reach out to the multiculturalized, totally heathen ‘yout’s’ of California.

In that, I cannot guage their successes, but that the website is still up and they are now on Issue 19 says that they seem to be reaching their target market.

Posted by Fr. John on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 15:07 | #

1.) “It is website of Eastern Christians, also called Nestorians in China and Central Asia.”-Posted by j on January 02, 2009, 09:21 PM | #

2.) Posted by Carsten Westermarck on January 03, 2009, 02:31 AM | #
‘Tomislav Sunic is an atheist, and hardly a Catholic supremacist.’

Mr Westermarck, thanks for the confirmation of my thesis. Sunic quotes that he is a Catholic, and he is from that part of the world where Croats and Serbs have been fighting for centuries - remember Milosevic and Serbia? And (having been raised RC, and left it) I can attest that the ‘religious supremacism’ of that area on the part of the RC’s, AS WELL AS THE Orthodox, is VERY STRONG, when tied to one’s nationality. That Sunic is now an ‘atheist’ does not mean he will DIE one…deathbed conversions, while rare, do occur. Nor does it deny the ‘once catholic, always catholic’ mantra….

J, be careful. Nestorianism is a theological HERESY, and is held more honestly by the vast majority of the Mainline Protestant denominations in the USA,  than by any ‘eastern orthodox’ groups—- apart from the Copts in Egypt, the Armenian Orthodox, and the true Nestorians in Iran/Iraq area (the latter group are VERY small). All three of these aforementioned groups are considered OUTSIDE the framework of Western, Trinitarian, Chalcedonian Belief - which both the Byzantines and the Romans used to profess, and therefore both groups used to shun the Copts, Armenians, and Nestorians…. until the WCC came around.

As to how this heresy works out in daily life in the West:

http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/extreme-nestorianism-the-game-or-the-filioque-of-the-mind/

3.) Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 02, 2009, 11:44 PM | #

“Little by little I am understanding where Fr. John is coming from.  When he first began posting here he was a mystery to me, and I thought he was illegitimate, a poseur.  I see now, on the contrary, how legitimate he is.”

Thank you, Mr. Scrooby. That’s a ‘fair fine compliment, it is’ - as my Irish grandfather used to say. While I cannot speak to the situation over in the UK, here in America, I have watched EVERYTHING I held dear fade, wither, or be TORN UP VIOLENTLY since I was a child, and I finally had to KNOW what was ‘going down’. After 9/11, I began to coalesce my thoughts into the book that I wrote, which I have quoted from time to time over at my website…. since no publisher in their right mind would publish a 1200-page book on matters ethnic, racial, and theological, in this day and age!

Because I think in terms that are THEOLOGICAL, rather than just sociological, or purely demographical, I AM a ‘mystery’ to many. Also, because I see merit in the mindset of the late Rousas J. Rushdoony and his theonomic framework (where the Law of God, confirmed as binding on the Church by Christ in Matt. 5:17ff. is used to constantly point out the LAWLESSNESS of Modern Man), I irk those ‘catholic’ sentiments of my fellow liturgical Christians.

But if ‘not one jot or tittle shall pass away,’ (and the modern world is NOTHING if not utterly LAWLESS) when it comes to the Law of God, it was Rushdoony; who is/was, Mr. Westermarck (for the record, just to be clear) - an ethnic Armenian… and thereby somewhat Nestorian! - who became a Presbyterian clergyman in the USA, (even though he had 16 generations of Armenian Orthodox Clergy in his immediate family) and what he wrote after he began to read what the Founding Fathers and the Founding Theologians of the USA had written, said, and done, to grasp how FAR we have come from that ‘American Vision’... it was His writings that benefitted me most, and I believe we ALL could benefit from, if we care about the fate of Christendom.

When I also saw that the same IDEOLOGICAL problems Rush and the West grappled with, and lost, were ALSO encountered in pre-Soviet Russia, (and by the same ethnicity whose names oft end in -berg, -witz- and -stein) I had my ‘a-ha!’ moment. From then on, it’s been merely a ‘connect the dots’ exercise. Sort of like reading the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and going, ‘Why does this sound like a blueprint for world domination’ when ‘they’ say it is a forgery?
Uh-huh…. SURE it is…..

I LOVED the RC Church. I still do. But what I DON’T like, is her willingness to be heretical, to be lying, to be utterly NOT that which she was. The same applies (in a different fashion) to the Anglican/Episcopal communion. What they WERE is not what they ARE. And we ALL are the losers thereby. And the recent ‘indult masses’ allowing the ‘return to Latin’ is too little, too late, and even (to some degree) the liturgical/theological equivalent of margarine to butter; One is fake, the other is true, and even though they look alike, they are COMPLETELY Differen.

And that’s because ALL CHURCHES are being corrupted, co-opted, and co-mingled with the great heresies, and by the same people that Christ said were ‘of their father the Devil.’ [John 8:44] When I also realized that ‘race-fornication’ was THE MEANS to effect ‘change’ I said, clearly, THIS IS OF THAT SAME Christ-killing people. And, with the election of Barry Soetoro Davis Obamugabe, I now see the bloody hand that is orchestrating it all.

Does that mean there is no hope? Far from it. God rules. But He is going to let us ‘work out our Damanation with fear and trembling’ for our sins, before he saves us ‘from our sins.’ Look at the Recession, look at the price of Gold, look at who got elected as GD President, for Christ’s sake! YHWH God and His Son is not mocked. I am merely trying to warn ‘the elect’ (in however a feeble manner as I can) WHY things are they way they are…...and maybe ‘flee unto the hills’ before it is too late, ‘so that these days be shortened.’ Deo Volente. May white people WAKE UP and smell the dark brown stuff, before it crashes like a ‘Camp of the Saints’ tidal wave over us all.

As Belloc said, “Europe is the Faith; the Faith, Europe.” Truer words were never spoken, in over 1900 years of Christendom. Now if we only have ‘ears to hear, and eyes to see.’

Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:56 | #

...were ALSO encountered in pre-Soviet Russia, (and by the same ethnicity whose names oft end in -berg, -witz- and -stein) I had my ‘a-ha!’ moment.
Posted by Fr. John

Ever seen Pastor Arnold Murray of the Shepherds Chapel out of Arkansas? http://www.shepherdschapel.com/index.cfm

That guy all but calls the jews the literal, physical, offspring of Satan. He calls them Kennites.

He’s basically Christian Identity and teaches that the other races were created on the six day while the Adamic race (White people) were created on the eighth day.

He also teaches that the lost tribes of Israel (White people) settled in Europe.

Of course he denies any racism but it’s pretty obvious what he is saying.

And despite all of that he’s all over the TV. I get him on two local channels in the morning. One is a FOX affiliate.

It’s an hour long show with the first half being a “Chapter by Chapter, Verse by Verse” Bible study.
The second half hour he answers questions.

I don’t buy most of it,  but I still watch him often.

For one thing he talks like people I know talk.
And his approach (verse by verse) appeals to, my Protestant sensibilities, I guess you could say.

Plus there is a video of him on youtube pulling a gun on an unruly congregant.

...religion is important to me, the Christian religion in particular.  I don’t want to give it up and I cannot give it up.
Posted by Fred Scrooby

I’m kind of in the same boat.

On the one hand my gut tells me that when I die, that’s it. Lights out.

Never-the-less I find it hard to just up and walk away from it completely. I still frequent Christian sites (those Fr. John listed included).

Beyond a lack of faith in an afterlife, I just can’t reconcile the Bible’s universal undercurrents with the kind of positive discrimination needed to preserve our people.

...

Posted by Dave Johns on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 18:31 | #

“I just can’t reconcile the Bible’s universal undercurrents with the kind of positive discrimination needed to preserve our people.”

Sure you can.

Universally, in the spiritual realm, we can all live as ‘One in Christ’. However, at the same time, Christianity does not preclude us from living separated according to race. I think people mistakenly confuse Christianity’s message with that of a man-made-race-replacement agenda.

Remember: God created the races separate and distinct. It is man’s designs that are destroying what God created.

Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:14 | #

...in the spiritual realm, we can all live as ‘One in Christ’. However, at the same time, Christianity does not preclude us from living separated according to race.
Posted by Dave Johns on January 03, 2009, 05:31 PM

It doesn’t directly encourage it either.
In fact it seems to promote the contrary.

“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. “

“And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. “

“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. “

-Jesus, Matthew cc. 10

Plus there is that description of “Paradise” in Revelation that sounds an awful lot like Brazil.

After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

-Revelation 7:9

...

Posted by Tom Sunic on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:44 | #

Fr John makes some good comments albeit in a lingo not worth of a priest.

Here is my scholarly piece published in CLIO in 1994.
I am sorry to hear that we Euro folks have started a new religious war .

http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com/clio.html

......................................................

Marx, Moses, and the Pagans
in the Secular City
by Tomislav Sunic

CLIO
A Journal of Literature, History, and the Philosophy of History
vol 24 No 2 winter 1995
(Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne)

Posted by yourchatbuddy on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:46 | #

    After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

  -Revelation 7:9

The spiritual reward program means that heaven must be emulated on earth to the very best of our ability.  Only hypocrites, ignoramuses, or non-believers would think otherwise.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:03 | #

Sunic: “Fr John makes some good comments albeit in a lingo not worth of a priest.”

Sunic, this is what you have to say about Christians in the essay you link to:

“Along with Gothic spires of breathtaking beauty, the Christian authorities built pyres that swallowed nameless thousands. Seen in hindsight, Christian intolerance against heretics, Jews, and pagans may be compared to the twentieth-century Bolshevik intolerance against class opponents in Russia and Eastern Europe-with one exception: it lasted longer.”

Is the behavior of Christians that you describe above inherently, ineluctably characteristic of Christianity taken seriously or not, in your opinion?  That certainly seems to be your position.  So isn’t Fr. John merely being a “serious Christian” in a way consistent with what you think serious Christianity induces?  So what you are really saying is, “If you simply must be Christian, then please to try not to take it too seriously.”  LOL!

From the Black Oak interview: “Wishing to shrug off the deep-seated Christian roots of many white Americans, and start preaching about Wotan and Freya or sun-worshipping, may sound like signs of early lunacy.”

In other words, preaching a return to paganism is not practical.  Reading a little deeper, all believe in the super-natural and transcendent is “lunacy”.  But if the lemmings simply must “believe” then paganism is preferable to Christianity, but a return to paganism is not practical.  LOL!

“White anti-Semitism is a form of self-defeating neurosis.”

Oh?  It’s the Christards’ “neurosis” that makes them act uncharitably toward Jews, thus inciting anti-Gentile recriminations from Jews?  Give up the Christardianity, become pagans, start being nice to the Jews, and all our problems will go away?  LOL!

“This type of “negative legitimacy,” I fear, will lead us anew into another round of hatred, pogroms, and civil wars.”

I take it you mean hatred for non-Whites (including Jews), pogroms against Jews, and civil wars against non-Whites?  You honestly believe that the decisive factor in making these things come to pass will be Christianity and not the depredations of non-Whites (including Jews) against Whites?  And if indeed it will be Christianity that is the decisive factor that galvanizes Whites to stand up for the survival of their race in the most muscular terms possible why then is Christianity a bad thing for Whites?  And if Christianity is what dissolves White racial consciousness then how can it have precisely the opposite effect of galvanizing it in the most muscular terms imaginable; that is psychologically/ internally only by dint of itself (Christianity), and not due to the fact that it brings Whites into more contact with non-Whites?  LOL!

Where do you get your nonsense from, Sunic?

Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:05 | #

A fair critique of Christianity is more difficult than most of us (myself included) will admit.

I’m not a believer at this point in my life, and certainly not a Catholic, but G.K. Chesterton did have a way with words,

“But if Christianity was, as these people said, a thing purely pessimistic and opposed to life, then I was quite prepared to blow up St. Paul’s Cathedral. But the extraordinary thing is this. They did prove to me in Chapter I. (to my complete satisfaction) that Christianity was too pessimistic; and then, in Chapter II., they began to prove to me that it was a great deal too optimistic. One accusation against Christianity was that it prevented men, by morbid tears and terrors, from seeking joy and liberty in the bosom of Nature. But another accusation was that it comforted men with a fictitious providence, and put them in a pink-and-white nursery. One great agnostic asked why Nature was not beautiful enough, and why it was hard to be free. Another great agnostic objected that Christian optimism, “the garment of make-believe woven by pious hands,” hid from us the fact that Nature was ugly, and that it was impossible to be free. One rationalist had hardly done calling Christianity a nightmare before another began to call it a fool’s paradise. This puzzled me; the charges seemed inconsistent. Christianity could not at once be the black mask on a white world, and also the white mask on a black world. The state of the Christian could not be at once so comfortable that he was a coward to cling to it, and so uncomfortable that he was a fool to stand it. If it falsified human vision it must falsify it one way or another; it could not wear both green and rose-coloured spectacles.

“Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilaean, the world has grown gray with Thy breath.”

But when I read the same poet’s accounts of paganism (as in “Atalanta”), I gathered that the world was, if possible, more gray before the Galilean breathed on it than afterwards. The poet maintained, indeed, in the abstract, that life itself was pitch dark. And yet, somehow, Christianity had darkened it. The very man who denounced Christianity for pessimism was himself a pessimist. I thought there must be something wrong. And it did for one wild moment cross my mind that, perhaps, those might not be the very best judges of the relation of religion to happiness who, by their own account, had neither one nor the other.

It must be understood that I did not conclude hastily that the accusations were false or the accusers fools. I simply deduced that Christianity must be something even weirder and wickeder than they made out. A thing might have these two opposite vices; but it must be a rather queer thing if it did. A man might be too fat in one place and too thin in another; but he would be an odd shape.

Here is another case of the same kind. I felt that a strong case against Christianity lay in the charge that there is something timid, monkish, and unmanly about all that is called “Christian,” especially in its attitude towards resistance and fighting.”

....I turned the next page in my agnostic manual, and my brain turned up-side down. Now I found that I was to hate Christianity not for fighting too little, but for fighting too much. Christianity, it seemed, was the mother of wars.
Christianity had deluged the world with blood. I had got thoroughly angry with the Christian, because he never was angry. And now I was told to be angry with him because his anger had been the most huge and horrible thing in human history; because his anger had soaked the earth and smoked to the sun. The very people who reproached Christianity with the meekness and non-resistance of the monasteries were the very people who reproached it also with the violence and valour of the Crusades. It was the fault of poor old Christianity (somehow or other) both that Edward the Confessor did not fight and that Richard Coeur de Leon did. The Quakers (we were told) were the only characteristic Christians; and yet the massacres of Cromwell and Alva were characteristic Christian crimes.”

taken from here: http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Gilbert_K_Chesterton/Orthodoxy/The_Paradoxes_of_Christianity_p4.html

Even if you see the rebuttals that could be offered up to his points, you still have to admit that the way he wrote it was astute and comical.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:52 | #

Sunic is not engaging in a serious critique of Christianity; he is engaging in sophistry.  I know, he doesn’t like Christianity, he thinks we would be better off without it.  But he all but concedes we will not be able to extirpate it (which is a point I pryed out of others who attack the “Christers”).  The Bolsheviks tried to about as mightily as anyone could; they failed.  If they can’t do it, neither can we.  It’s like with Bowden, he can’t take time out to write a book (a history of the Anglosphere slanted so that the “moral” is the preservation of our race and living space has the “mandate” of history) - which he is eminently capable of writing, perhaps better than any other - because he has more pressing issues; making “art” films (LOL!).  BULLSHIT! 

At what point is the intellectual life, if it is not pursued in the service of life, just jerking off?  When will our “best minds” start getting serious, you know, like with coming up with a winning game plan; and concentrate on “ideas” that are based in the practical attainment of that goal (the survival of our race)?  I’m not holding my breath.

This is what drove the faileocons at Takimag nuts, I asked them the tough questions.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:57 | #

CC,

Let me labour a point I have made before.  We all know that the Christ Cult, not being an evolved product of the European mind, had to be absorbed into it so that, exoterically, it might commend behaviours that were adaptive for us.  Self-evidently, it performed well in that respect for a long period, though we cannot compare its success with the naturally-occurring European faith that preceded it.

But great religions are not solely evolutionary strategies, but contain and hold available to those very rare students who have the appropriate personal capacities, an esoteric component that appears to have no evolutionary function at all ... a knowledge about the twin paths of human self-perfectionment and union with the Divine.  This knowledge, whilst it is always the same in its purposes in all places and at all times, is usually considered to be nowhere held as a unified hole, but is distributed in the philosophy, practise and theory of the other great faiths.  But it is my opinion, for what it is worth (and I make no claim to understanding of spirituality), that Christianity in the West, as it has been fitted to the European mind, is both too fragmented in its Word and too disassociated from the esoteric tradition to offer anything very much of value in that regard.

Why?  Well, I think it is likely that European Man, given his particular exhilarating, dangerous path through life, a path characterised by his vigorous and Faustian challenge to the power of Nature, is not primarily in need of the esoteric, and cannot serve it.  If you consider the extraordinary intellectual achievement of the Vedas or the long history of Sufism it should be apparent that other peoples are better equipped for preserving and transmitting the esoteric tradition - not all other peoples, not negroes, of course, and not Meso-Americans.  But our undoubted brilliancy has been purchased at a cost.  We are not fatalists, we do not yearn for the eternal, we do not hold our worldly lives cheaply.  We are restless for mastery.  We climb mountains and go under the polar ice-cap.  Our spirit is magnificently Promethean.  But the fact of our Christianity argues for our paucity of spiritual depth.  Such is the European way.

So what are you really asking of us, CC, with regard to Christianity?  Let it be.  If we cannot uncover the real faith of the European mind, just let it be.

Posted by xfgwefb v on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 01:11 | #

The problem with Christianity has less to do with the existence (or non-existence) of Greeks, jews, slaves, freemen, men, and women than it does with the idea that Christians must accept and strive to emulate, on earth, the concept of “Oneness in Christ” to the very best of their ability.  Old Time Religionists like Fr. John are not equipped to address this aspect of the problem, for their version of Christianity is intended to perpetuate the spiritual-material dichotomy.  The judeochristian version, on the other hand, strives to resolve this metaphysical contradiction by uniting the spiritual and material in a hologram, of sorts.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:52 | #

xfgwefb: “The problem with Christianity…”

Tactically, I essentially argued this point with the “Christers” at Toilet Mag exoterically.  To wit: When non-Whites adopt Christianity they “make it their own.”  So it must be because they are not White.  If Western Christianity be the True Faith, then the White race must be preserved otherwise the True Faith will not be.  Further, if the White race is not preserved there will no longer be those around to instruct non-Whites in the True Faith.  But there are necessary conditions that must obtain for those carriers of the True Faith to survive in order to preach the True Faith; such as not being pressed cheek to jowl with non-Whites.  Now, this would be the pragmatic course even assuming Western Christianity were, in fact, in truth, in reality, the True Faith.  What are noble lies if they are not also necessary lies?  And in what way are necessary lies noble if they do not ennoble?  You can know they are necessary if the people you mean to ennoble resist them being taken away unto death.  Having arrived at this empirical fact, there is nothing to be done but to ennoble the ineradicable lie so that it will be noble again; so that it will serve life.  You do what you can with what you have. 

It is always a good laugh to tip over the other guy’s sacred cow until he tips over yours.  Then it is not so funny.  Heaping ridicule and scorn upon upon those who cannot change and are not sufficiently intelligent to combat said, to the degree that it is combatable, takes on the aspect of pulling the wings off an insect - only it is not an insect in these cases.  These are men who I could easily believe are more intelligent than I and certainly have more life experience; but in this instance it seems wisdom does not obtain.  Tactically it is a blunder, if not poor form; a thousand times I say it is a blunder.

“...the concept of “Oneness in Christ” to the very best of their ability.”

Sam Francis refutes this ably.  Are the roles of men and women to be dissolved - in fact are “man” and “woman” to be dissolved - with this “Oneness in Christ”?  No, because that is absurd.  It is perhaps as absurd to to suggest that “Greek” and “[J]ew”, as biological categories, should also be dissolved.  Slaves are to obey their masters, this presumes, presumably, that their are those better fit for slavery than mastery.  Which, presumably, could lead to the conclusion that some races are fit for slavery and others for mastery.  That this is not the straight forward implication (if there is such a thing) of the Scripture does not matter, it is convincingly arguable. 

The idea that the survival of the White race hinges on this is laughable, in my opinion.  What that hinges on is the White race’s will to survive.  How many people will passively accept death when a mud charges them with a knife because they think “turning the other cheek” is the swell thing to do?  Not many more than would have been inclined to do so anyway, I think.  No, it is not that the induced passivity of Christianity will be the make or break of our survival, it is that attacking it, and not trying to massage it to our purposes, will stop up the ears of those who may have been inclined to listen; for which we will have to endure greater pain later because of the fact that we did not have them on our side earlier.  One need only be clever enough to make the appropriate apologetics, these can be absorbed by the “Christers” with sufficient repetition.  Not taking the time to do this, and exhorting everyone to get busy building a kiln instead, is just intellectually lazy and counterproductive; with all due respect.  Kiln builders to their kilns and apologizers to their apologetics; a nice division of labor.  Both are important, because both are necessary; as I hope I have demonstrated for the latter and I think you have ably done for the former.

“Old Time Religionists like Fr. John are not equipped to address this aspect of the problem, for their version of Christianity is intended to perpetuate the spiritual-material dichotomy.  The judeochristian version, on the other hand, strives to resolve this metaphysical contradiction by uniting the spiritual and material in a hologram, of sorts.”

So neither interpretation resolves anything, and it is a wash?  Only a matter of who has power to impose their narrative as the dominant, obtaining one?  I’d say so.  But we can be sly, sly as our enemies, when need be, in obtaining power.  Machiavelli was a White man.

Posted by Diamed on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 03:32 | #

I disagree CC.  Christianity must, sooner or later, give way to Truth or all is for naught.  Who wants to live a lie?  Moreover, why would you wish to perpetuate the untold trillions of lives of the future to live a lie by keeping such a brazen lie as Christianity around to haunt them?  Accepting racial differences is just one aspect of sacrificing all wordly interests and goods to the altar of Truth.  If we do not do that in all fields, why do it in any?  Telling people it’s okay to live a lie and keep on being Christians, so long as they don’t live ‘important’ lies like egalitarianism is, shall I say, lacking in principled values.

There is not a truth existing which I fear or wish unknown to the whole world.  One of those truths is that all organized religions are lies.  Sooner or later humanity must discard their stupid, self-concocted fairy tales and interface with the real world.  Compared to the delusion of religion, the delusion that all races are equal seems quite believable.  After all we all know some decent black or asian guy, but not one of us has ever seen God, heaven, a soul, a miracle, jesus turned into a piece of bread, a virgin give birth, etc.  What insane world would insist people take racial differences seriously but simultaneously say you’re off the hook, Truth is no longer valuable in any other field?  Should people just turn off their brains and go back to their preferred status as logic-less zombie sheep from there on?

A ‘win’ includes developing people to a higher plane of existence, a higher state of consciousness, it cannot just be a physical chunk of land.  We can do so much better than yet another jewish-invented lie to rule our lives.  There is no point treating Christians like equals or allies.  They must realize that principles cannot be compromised, and the most important principle of all is ‘live not by lies.’  We all got this far refusing to live by the lies society has rammed down our throat, why do they think we will spare their pet lies as somehow not a part of the revolution?  Christianity is nearly through in Europe as it stands.  There is no need to ally ourselves with a dying, played out horse.  Their star is run out, as Nietzsche said, ‘God is dead.’  We have no obligation to resuscitate the ridiculous myths of the past and fighting lies with other lies will only weaken our cause as a whole.  We should be the party of truth.  All lies should belong to the enemy, all truths to ours.  There should be no muddying of the waters.

Posted by Dave Johns on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 03:48 | #

Diamed,

Can you prove God doesn’t exist?

Posted by Ex ISKCON robot on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 04:40 | #

“In the wilderness of of Northern California, Monks John and Damascene searched in hopes of finding a way to reach out to the Punk scene, which John had escaped. Seeing that the scene was full of kids that were sick of themselves and crippled by nihilism and despair, the Monks set out to give them the same hope that they found in Ancient Christianity. To do this, they decided to submit an article about Father Seraphim Rose in the popular magazine, Maximum Rock and Roll. When Father Damascene read over the magazine, he knew that they would never publish something like it. Struggling to show truth to the darkened subcultures, they tried again, but this time only placing an ad for Saint Hermans Brotherhood. They got a response from the editor, saying “What the @#*% is a Brotherhood?” and the Monks were told “We only run ads for music and ‘zines*.” A light bulb went on and thus, Death to the World was born. The first issue was printed in the December of ’94 featuring a Monk holding a skull on cover. The hand-drawn bold letters across the top read “DEATH TO THE WORLD, The Last True Rebellion” and the back cover held the caption: “they hated me without a cause.”

ISKCON pandered to the same punk-hardcore-skinhead-straightedge crowd back in the late 80s.

God only knows how many “krishna-core” bands sprouted up in NY, DC and L.A. back then, with their own zines, tours, the whole nine yards.

ISKCON prided itself on a revival of sorts.  Except this time around the youth were more pious than their hippie counterparts back in the 60s and 70s.  These kids were “straight edge”, no drugs, no beer, no sex, no meat.  The preaching all of a sudden became easier.

Sooner or later these punk munks become dis-illusioned with the religious organzitions that reach out to them.  After a year or two of peace, love and spirituality, they become aware of the sheer crooked politics and control trips of religion, whatever religion it is they join. 

Anyway, do you folks think most white nationalists are Christians of one sort or another?

This is something that turns me off.  I am not particularly inclined towards Christianity or the other religions that sprouted up in the near and middle east.

I think the offerings of the “new age” spirituality are more in line with white nationalist, individualist thinking.

Posted by xfgwefb v on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 05:27 | #

Are the roles of men and women to be dissolved - in fact are “man” and “woman” to be dissolved - with this “Oneness in Christ”?  No, because that is absurd.

Francis didn’t understand the problem.  Neither do you.

Read what I wrote again, carefully:

The problem with Christianity has less to do with the existence (or non-existence) of Greeks, jews, slaves, freemen, men, and women [and the roles dictated by these differences] than it does with the idea that Christians must accept and strive to emulate, on earth, the concept of “Oneness in Christ” to the very best of their ability.

So neither interpretation resolves anything,

Not to our satisfaction as White nationalists. 

and it is a wash?

For us, yes.  Not so for the regime.  The judeochristian version is more consistent than Fr. John’s and supports the regime’s equalitarian objectives.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 05:33 | #

Diamed: “Who wants to live a lie?”

I suspect many would wish to live in ways that they cannot, in ways that cannot be actualized.  Do they wish to live lies?  Dave Johns and Fr. John don’t don’t believe Christianity is a lie, for them the lie would be to strike their faith from their hearts.  They are good men, and they are for their people, our people; that is good enough for me.

“Moreover, why would you wish to perpetuate the untold trillions of lives of the future to live a lie by keeping such a brazen lie as Christianity around to haunt them?”

Christianity, when exercised with sane restraint, provides comfort for the tender-hearted; as it did for my Dutch grandmother in her final years. “God is Love,” she said. When she was no longer strong enough to stand under her own power.  Where was her pet pug, when it had died, I asked her?  “In Heaven, where else?”, she replied.

“Accepting racial differences is just one aspect of sacrificing all wordly interests and goods to the altar of Truth.”

If there is not God, then neither Christ nor Truth is God.  Neither in fact has any value other than it serves life.  We are evolved to value life, and evolved to value certain values that serve life, consistent with our evolved life.

“...shall I say, lacking in principled values.”

I see no value in harming others needlessly.

“There is not a truth existing which I fear or wish unknown to the whole world.”

It is easier to get them to believe in the importance of racial differences for the reason that they are obvious when pointed out, it is not so obvious that there is not God.  Let’s just say there is more “wiggle room” to assert the latter.  It is much easier for people to accept that people who are self-evidently different from themselves pose a threat to them than it is for them to accept that the threat of everything that they have ever loved in life being forever lost to them in death.

“Sooner or later humanity must discard their stupid, self-concocted fairy tales and interface with the real world.”

In the “real world” the continued existence of our people has no value; it is only true that we are evolved to value it.  The universe doesn’t care.

“Compared to the delusion of religion, the delusion that all races are equal seems quite believable.”

That there is some ultimate sanction for the value of our peoplehood seems more believable - more consistent with our evolved values - than that which is self-evidently false (i.e., that racial differences do not exist).

“After all we all know some decent black or asian guy, but not one of us has ever seen God, heaven, a soul, a miracle, jesus turned into a piece of bread, a virgin give birth, etc.”

No White person has ever seen an “asian” or a “black” guy who looks like them.

“What insane world would insist people take racial differences seriously but simultaneously say you’re off the hook, Truth is no longer valuable in any other field?”

Is the sun “true”?  Is it “true” that our peoplehood has value?

“Should people just turn off their brains and go back to their preferred status as logic-less zombie sheep from there on?”

If they don’t have the ability not to, then nothing lost.  What is important is that they become conscious of the necessity of asserting their peoplehood; at least for their own self-interest, which will be the reason that most do it.

“A ‘win’ includes developing people to a higher plane of existence, a higher state of consciousness, it cannot just be a physical chunk of land.”

I’d be satisfied with a decent life lived amongst my own people.  And to reclaim the life that should have been ours, for future generations.

“There is no point treating Christians like equals or allies.”

I see value in treating the tender-hearted as valued members of our people.  I would engage in barbarism only to save them from it.

“They must realize that principles cannot be compromised, and the most important principle of all is ‘live not by lies.’”

Love is of greater value to me than that.

“We all got this far refusing to live by the lies society has rammed down our throat, why do they think we will spare their pet lies as somehow not a part of the revolution?”

Revolution is not and end unto itself.  Revolution to secure the existence of our people and a life worth living for them is the strived for end.

“Christianity is nearly through in Europe as it stands.”

Then let is collapse of its own weight.

“We have no obligation to resuscitate the ridiculous myths of the past and fighting lies with other lies will only weaken our cause as a whole.”

I work with it only because it is my conviction that, for many, it is not irradicable.  And that to do so would be, therefore, pointlessly cruel.

“We should be the party of truth.  All lies should belong to the enemy, all truths to ours.  There should be no muddying of the waters.”

Read my exchange with Armor and you will see why “the truth and nothing but the truth” is not necessarily productive.  Most people just don’t want to hear, and can’t bring themselves to imagine, what is may very well cost us in the end - they are not strong enough. 

It is not, in the final analysis, being the smartest, or the most willingly ruthless, that makes a man a leader.  It is that he has a moral weightiness about him.  It is that he will do what he must, but with regret.  It is that he is a good man.  That is why, when, Rienzi says that GW is a “leader”, with sarcasm, I can only chuckle and say, “Yes, he is.”  Only I affirm his “leadership” without sarcasm. 

No offense to Rienzi, btw.  He is a hell of a smart guy who used to keep a good blog.  I hope he starts blogging again.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 06:47 | #

xfgwefb v: “...the idea that Christians must accept and strive to emulate, on earth, the concept of “Oneness in Christ” to the very best of their ability.”

I suspect you are not one to demand too great a measure of internal consistency from Scripture.  After all, that is for “Christers”.  Let’s see if this is a reasonable facsimile of your meaning: Christians must strive for spiritual unity via their “Oneness in Christ” by living amongst one another, serving one another, consistent with Christ’s living example.  Is that what you mean?  For the life of me, that is all I think that you could mean.  To that my reply is: Verily it is said, the mind is willing but the flesh is weak.  How many White people actually do this?  How many would even think it were sane to LITERALLY take on the challenge.  William Gayley Simpson did, so he wrote, and was awoken from his trance as a result.

“Not to our satisfaction as White nationalists.”

The attainment of a perfectly, logically consistent world view by which all the emotions are calibrated optimally to be consistent with said is a rare and heroic feat.  I’m sure you do realize that most of our people are what Pierce referred to as “lemmings”.  I’m sure you are aware, sans eugenics, that is the material we have to work with.  I’m sure you have dedicated yourself to all the hard work you have put in over the years for the “lemmings”; so that the “lemmings” can live on happily and healthily in perpetuity.  It is your selfless dedication to your people, however maddeningly irrational and self-defeating they can be, that has gained you my undying respect.  The only reason I argue this point with you and others is that I firmly believe it is of little practical value to our shared goal - for the reasons I have stated - and of potentially much practical detriment if we continue in this vein putting anti-Christian themes as one of the central planks in our nationalism.  It will not fly, the lemmings will not go for it.  Do you disagree with that fundamental point?  If not, it seems to me to be a point that is more academic than practical. 

“For us, yes.  Not so for the regime.  The judeochristian version is more consistent than Fr. John’s and supports the regime’s equalitarian objectives.”

And Western Man’s low evolved ethnocentrism and his “faith gene” are the gifts that keep on giving to the anti-White, genocidalist regime.  It is the practical benefits of racial consciousness and solidarity that Whites will find in the course of “saving their own asses’” that will prove definitive.  Raising consciousness and evoking solidarity will become easier (and this will only be made more difficult if we simultaneously attack Christianity) the worse things get.  If that is not so I see little hope, and Christardianity is the least of my worries.

Posted by AS on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 06:56 | #

Just as with Mithraism so with Christianity. For all intents and purposes it has been dead for several decades.

Posted by Ex ISKCON robot on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 09:03 | #

for the reasons I have stated - and of potentially much practical detriment if we continue in this vein putting anti-Christian themes as one of the central planks in our nationalism.  It will not fly, the lemmings will not go for it.  Do you disagree with that fundamental point?

I agree that there is no benefit in anti-Christian themes.  But Christians in the United States have proven themselves by and large an intolerant group towards people and groups of differing belief systems.  So while we may not be anti and intolerant of them, will they reciprocate and be tolerant of us?

Will they feel unity and solidarity with proud, unapologetic pagans and heathens?

Posted by disgraced cosmonaut on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 09:59 | #

Will they feel unity and solidarity with proud, unapologetic pagans and heathens?

As long as you mind your manners and keep a civil tongue when discussing our Faith then the answer is maybe.

Posted by Diamed on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 13:41 | #

@ Dave Johns:  I can prove the Christian God does not exist.  The bible is internally contradictory.  For instance the gospels have different contradictory accounts of Jesus’ death, different contradictory Genesis stories, etc.  One or the other must be false, and thus the book is a lie.  Furthermore, the bible contradicts known facts and thus contradicts itself externally.  The world was not created in six days, in fact the universe has developed over 14 billion years.  Nor is the world six thousand years old which you can discover by tracing the genealogy from Adam on down, it’s actually 4 billion years old and humans have been around for 200,000, or 3 milion if you count any hominid.  People weren’t created out of clay, they evolved from lesser mammals who in turn evolved from fish, etc.  The walls of Jericho were not smashed by trumpets of the lord, but fell due to an earthquake long before the hebrews ever got there.  Noah’s Arc couldn’t possibly fit 2 of every species and all the food and water for them for thirty days.  The plan was ridiculous on the face of it, it couldn’t have happened.  Nor could just 2 of each species be enough to secure its survival.  A base stock of hundreds, thousands is necessary for enough genetic variation to not be inbred and sickly.  Need I go on?

The bible also contradicts purely abstract logic—and seeing as how logic is infallible that leaves God the odd one out.  Here are some logical contradictions:

How can there be an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that still manages to make life hell for the vast majority of all living things and then sends the vast majority of all dead people to Hell to suffer for the rest of eternity as well?  This is not logically possible.  God’s nature, and the results of God’s works, are contradictory.

Why do bad things happen to good people?  And don’t tell me ‘free will’ because a) there’s no such thing and b) a policeman does not prevent a criminal’s free will by arresting him and stopping him from hurting others, nor is it seen as bad when a citizen sees a rape ongoing, intervenes, and saves the girl before she is raped.  No moral system has ever said it’s good to stand by and watch evil being done because it gives evil-doers free will—this is a pass only given to God.

How is this the best of all possible worlds?  And yet, how can God, who is Perfect, do anything short of perfection?  If God doesn’t act perfectly and achieve perfect results, couldn’t we imagine a yet better God who could—and thus how is God perfect?

Who made God?  What existed before God?  If something existed before God, how is God the prime mover of reality—wouldn’t he just be another cog?

Isn’t the fact that human beings have easily improved life by curing small pox, polio, developing anaesthetics, finding ways to store food, etc prove that God could have also done these same improvements but chose not to?  If it is physically possible for humans to be better off, why hasn’t God done this for us, doesn’t he love us?

Why did God perform all those miracles in the past and talk to people directly, but now is silent and performs no miracles for anyone?  Is this fair?  Why should we believe Jesus is risen when the apostles were allowed to see it with their own eyes before they had to believe?  Don’t we have as much a right to an honest and upfront God who gives us personal interviews and miracles as the early christians?  What’s with the favoritism?  That doesn’t seem very Godly to me.

Could God really have condoned the Israeli genocide and enslavement of the innocent people of Canaan?  Why did God make all those dumb dietary laws?  Why is God’s law so much more barbaric than the human law of today?  Why does the bible never display any knowledge beyond the level of the writers of its time?  For instance, just one formula for gravity or special relativity to show this was written by God not men of the time?  Instead the bible assumes the world is flat: Remember when Jesus is brought to a tall mountain by Satan and told to look upon ‘all the kingdoms of the world’ and offered rulership of them all?

Why one God?  Why not two?  Or two thousand?  If one God can exist, what precludes more from existing?  If natural forces can produce a God, couldn’t they produce more?  If God is unnatural, then how did he come to exist?  Isn’t anything not following natural law impossible?  There is no explanation or sense behind there existing only one God, there are after all many rocks, many humans, many everything else.

I could go on and on.  From the ridiculousness of burning people in Hell forever, who simply had never even heard about Christianity—the vast majority population of the earth, and thus had no chance to convert, to the absurdity of a God ‘outside’ time and space not composed of ‘matter’ able to physically alter reality.  Only things with charge can affect other things with charge, things with mass affect other things with mass, etc.  God has none of these attributes and yet supposedly can affect all of them and work miracles on earth.  I could mention that Christians don’t even read the bible or abide by any of its strictures and thus have no right to even go by that name, or the fact that Christianity has historically been a force for tyranny and ignorance that opposed Galileo and science and still refuses to believe in evolution.  I could also point out Christianity is a needless schism between the white race, which is our extended family, and a needless communion with non-whites, including judaism, islam, blacks and hispanics who have adopted our religion, and so on.  It creates a new community that is completely aracial, Jesus specifically attacks the family as meaningless, “you cannot not love me unless you hate your wife and children, mother and father.”  Paul says there is “no jew nor Greek, we are all one in Christ,” and everything Christianity teaches is anti-thetical to the natural love whites should hold for each other and disdain we should hold for others intruding on our family ties.  It preaches a ridiculous communism “give all your money to the poor, it is harder for a camel to get through a needle than a rich man to get to heaven.”  We all know the bad results of this sort of thinking, and here’s another eye-widener: “If someone hits you, turn the other cheek.  If someone steals your coat, give him also your coat.  If someone kidnaps you from your home, walk an extra mile with him willingly.”  Jesus may as well have added in “if someone rapes you, make sure he enjoys it by kissing and cuddling with him after.”  Anyone that tells us to “do good to those that hurt you” is clinically insane.  What better creed to reward evildoers and punish faithful innocent good people, now we all have to satisfy their vile lusts and desires instead of our own.  And what is this crap?  “The meek shall inherit the earth.”  Great, just what we need.  The losers will eventually prevail.  Believe in me, the religion of losers, for losers, and by losers.  We don’t want smart people in our faith, strong people, courageous people, leaders, etc—no we want slaves, meek, idiots, whores.  Is this ennobling?  Is this really how whites should prioritize merit and honor?

To CC and others, a lie this vast cannot be allowed to stand.  No amount of mitigating circumstances can excuse whoppers like these.  They will be the death of us and have been the death of us.  A polite lie that ‘fido is in heaven’ and the vast lie of Christianity with all its claims are on two completely different levels.  A fanciful heavenly happy place we all go after we die is one thing, the Bible and all its claims is another.

Posted by Dave Johns on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:15 | #

CC,

For what it’s worth, I asked Diamed the question: Can you prove God doesn’t exist? only to prove a point. That being: If the existence of God cannot be “proved”, then by the same logic, it cannot be disproved.

From my perspective, most people that profess to be atheists, just like liberals, have very limited power to reason. The poor guys and gals don’t realize they are just as “faithful” as any Christian. In other words: Most stiff necked atheists don’t realize that they are people of “faith” too! They have “faith” that God does not exist, as they can NEVER “prove” the contrary. All they can do is console their liberal/leftist grey matter with “evidence” of what they think is likely. But then again, reason and logic is not the liberals’ or leftists’ forte.

Anyway, rock on CC, I always enjoy reading your posts.

Posted by Dave Johns on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:34 | #

Sorry Diamed, I posted my last comment before I was aware you posted yours.

“Noah’s Arc couldn’t possibly fit 2 of every species and all the food and water for them for thirty days.  The plan was ridiculous on the face of it, it couldn’t have happened.  Nor could just 2 of each species be enough to secure its survival.  A base stock of hundreds, thousands is necessary for enough genetic variation to not be inbred and sickly.  Need I go on?”

Noah could have stored DNA samples on the Arc.

That said, I agree with you; the Bible story read on its face sounds ridiculous ... but so does the “Big Bang Theory.” The very notion that the universe created itself out of nothing rivals or surpasses any kooky worldview ever invented by man. Christianity aside, I think you’d agree the theory of Intelligent Design is well worth exploring.

Posted by fascist on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:46 | #

Only I affirm his “leadership” without sarcasm. 

Can you affirm where Dienekes is standing, politically?  Can you affirm when intellectual property rights will be respected on this blog?

Well, that’s not important.  Let’s just bash those white people.  Noel Ignatiev would be proud. Why not let Noel be a blogger here?  He may have some pointers on effective white-bashing.

Noah could have stored DNA samples on the Arc.

Certainly.  He started cloning the animals shortly after the waters receded. 

The very notion that the universe created itself out of nothing rivals or surpasses any kooky worldview ever invented by man.

More accurate to say cosmologists and other physicists simply don’t know what existed “before” the “Big Bang.”  But, then the same problem exists for “who created the Creator?”  You say, “I don’t know,” or you assert that “he always existed,” or “he just came into being.”

The same with the universe, without the added and superfluous feature of a “Creator.”

Posted by Fr. John on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:00 | #

xfg, etc. - “Old Time Religionists like Fr. John are not equipped to address this aspect of the problem, for their version of Christianity is intended to perpetuate the spiritual-material dichotomy.  The judeochristian version, on the other hand, strives to resolve this metaphysical contradiction by uniting the spiritual and material in a hologram, of sorts.”

Hardly. The fact that Tom Sunic tried (unsuccessfully) to ‘shut me up’ on this forum, and then have others call his bluff, clearly shows that minds are awakening to a resurgence (a “Restoration”?) of the concept of Christendom.

What the West has done, that Farrell in his book ‘God, History, and Dialectic’ is to ‘dis-incarnate’ Christianity from the “Theanthropic Body” of the Church - the “Body of Christ.”

It was the ‘old time religionists’ that sought to point out the INDISSOLUABILITY of that Body, in the face of the Rationalists, the “Enlightenment” types, and the neo-pseudo pagans that call themselves Europeans and ‘intellectuals.’ God calls them fools [Ps. 14:1]  Secondly, there IS NO SUCH THING as a ‘judeochristian’ ANYTHING!

It’s all so much b.s. (barbra streisand), and yes, Dr. Sunic, vulgar language befits vulgar theology, or have you not read St. John Chrysostom, or the other Fathers? They called dung, ‘dung’ when they saw it, too.

Actually xfg, it is only we ‘old timers’ that clearly KNOW that within orthodox Christianity, is the spiritual and material meshed into one Incarnate Person - Christ!

http://www.cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com/

Read the last four or five of this man’s posts. He is, IMHO, a genius.

And he clearly points out, that for White Men, we cannot go back to the infantile statements iterated on this board by the unregenerate, like the ‘superfluous feature of a “Creator.”

God is in His Heaven, He Laughs them to scorn.
And, frankly, so do I.

God reigns, even when Men deny Him.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:35 | #

“Can you affirm where Dienekes is standing, politically?”  (—Fascist)

He remains a man staunchly of the “left” (which I knew he was originally but I wrongly thought was changing), his sympathy with the Greek Orthodox religious culture notwithstanding.  Racially/ethnoculturally he views the world in a manner so narrowly focused on Greece that he, in effect, denies the existence of Europe whether ethnoculturally or biologically!!!!!  This absolutely astonishing fact, apparent on reading his exchanges in the comments on his recent log entry, “Ethnicity Strikes Back” (which he should have titled “Ethnicity Strikes Back:  It Strikes Back Against Dienekes”), reveals him to be a pathetically narrow-minded anti-nord bigot.  His starting point whether in biology, philosophy, race, culture, ethnicity, or what-have-you, is Greece, Greece, and only Greece, and he works his way outward concentrically from Greece, always jealously guarding against allowing any concessions whatsoever to the standing or the legitimacy of nords, in a glaring display of the worst kind of inferiority complex seen in a certain kind of narrow-minded dagoe who, in striving to defend himself against being perceived as small-minded, superficial, and dagoe-like, his worst nightmare, succeeds only in shining a brilliant spotlight on his ultra-defensive dagoe-style shallow small-mindedness.  In fleeing what he fears and loathes most, wants most to avoid, and wants no one to see, he becomes it, becomes all of it, for all the world to see and stare at with jaw agape:  “Europe does not exist,” don’t you know!!!  Now, why would this insecure Med with an inferiority complex so thick you can cut it with a knife see the world that way?  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out.  This dagoe is so defensive he’s blind to everything but his pitiful little game of defense of “the poor little Greek” against “the big bad nasty brutish mean uncultured nords.”

I respect Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Albanians, Sardinians, Corsicans, Sicilians, and Maltese.

My suggestion for Dienekes?  Wake up, lose the inferiority complex, and join Europe instead of trying to create a new Magna Graecia out of Greece, Sicily, Anatolia, the Levant, and a narrow concentric ring around those, beyond with is nothing, no Europe, only the sea serpents and the edge of the Earth sailors fear falling off of.

“Can you affirm when intellectual property rights will be respected on this blog?”

What about the rights of the people such as myself who come to this blog to be taught, to learn, to arrive at the truth on subjects such as EGI?  What about our rights, majority rights?  Don’t those take precedence over “intellectual property rights” of any individual who claims to be on our side?  We need that intellectual property to stay right where it is, because it serves a sacred function:  education of our people.  You think this blog has had no effect?  You think wrong.  It has had an enormous effect and that effect will be ongoing.  There is such a thing as an intellectual donating his intellectual property to a place where it will serve the greater good, instead of hoarding it under wraps where no one will see it, no one learn from it.  Individuals have learned from the intellectual property at this site and as a result been intellectually armed to go out elsewhere around the net and spread truth and self-confidence before the other side’s displays of sophistry.  That needs to continue but won’t if people “on our side” withdraw their “intellectual property.”  I vote for that property staying where it is, and for the “owner” to strongly consider showing his solidarity with The Cause by donating it to this site.

“Well, that’s not important.  Let’s just bash those white people.  Noel Ignatiev would be proud. Why not let Noel be a blogger here?  He may have some pointers on effective white-bashing.”

Throwing a glass of cold water in Dienekes’ or whoever else’s face by means of some occasional frank language isn’t “white bashing.”  It’s truth-telling and a call for him to wake up, lose the totally unnecessary and ridiculous inferiority complex, stop imagining Greece is in any of this all alone, and stop cutting off the Greek nose to spite the Greek face.

Posted by xfgwefb v on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 19:10 | #

I’m sorry, Fr. John, but you can’t have and eat your cake.  To claim a meshing of the spiritual and the material in the form of Jesus Christ is to say that existence is something like a hologram and we are all images. Without a “hologram” the concept of spiritual-material unification is contradictory.  The non-hologram world of the Old Time Religion is inconsistent compared to judeoxtianity, a fact your real enemies won’t hesitate to point out.  If you genuinely desire to be useful to White nationalism, then resolve the problems associated with OTR in a neat, consistent manner which puts the screws to judeochristianity – or step away.

CC, I agree that judeoxtian lemmings are incapable of negotiating all the complicated labyrinths of theology.  All they need to understand is the simple, neat, consistent formula that non-racialism (or non-sexism, or non-ageism) is next to Godliness, for there is neither “Greek, nor jew, nor slave, nor free, nor men, nor women” in we who are “One in Jesus Christ.”

Posted by xfgwefb v on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 19:35 | #

CC,

I suspect you are not one to demand too great a measure of internal consistency from Scripture.  After all, that is for “Christers”.

You are correct.  My concern with Christian consistency is limited to that which effects White nationalism.  Selling White nationalism to judeochristians requires much more than theologically “proving” the existence of racial, sexual, and age differences.  Judeochristians are fully aware of these differences, but choose to ignore them because non-racialism, non-sexism, and non-ageism are next to Godliness. If we are spiritually “One in Jesus Christ,” then emulating the spiritual world on earth increases our chance of entering heaven upon death.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:28 | #

Dave Johns: “Anyway, rock on CC, I always enjoy reading your posts.”

I appreciate it Dave.  It seems, at one time or another, I’ve got something to say that will offend at least someone.  I see no point in sweeping dirt under the rug.  As for “secular humanists”: I used to hang in some of their circles.  Talk about a bunch of effete, deracinated, frivolous jerk-offs.  “Alright, atheism, now what?”  Blank stare.  LOL!  Utterly boring.

fascist: “Can you affirm where Dienekes is standing, politically?”

Dienekes, Dienekes…yawn.  Quite frankly, I don’t care what he thinks.  Having the reading comprehension to regurgitate the contents of peer reviewed, scholarly articles on his dreary blog and possessing the talent to perform basic statistical computations are, I suppose, relatively rare; but not that rare.  He claims to be a Greek nationalist but seems to be indifferent if his people are transformed into mulattoes; or at least won’t take any meaningful steps to prevent it.  Dienekes, you are a worm.  You can tell him I said that, and I would have no problem telling him that to his face.

“Can you affirm when intellectual property rights will be respected on this blog?”

You mean when will GW take down your stuff so no new readers can become educated to the very important facts regarded EGI because you’re mad at him because he let silver talk smack about you?  LOL!  Here is how you deal with silver, you kick the greasy little punk in his balls; that, and never let him see you sweat. 

Not my call, I’m not exactly “in the loop”.  And I’m not in the fifth grade any longer either.

“Well, that’s not important.”

No, in the grand scheme, and even in the small scheme, of things, it is not; no disagreement there.

“Let’s just bash those white people.”

I’ll engage in some vulgar satire directed at other Whites from time to time; but that’s what it is, satire.  I am not a proponent of “Desmondism”.

“Noel Ignatiev would be proud. Why not let Noel be a blogger here?  He may have some pointers on effective white-bashing.”

LOL!  Actually, I wouldn’t have a problem with that in the least.  That is, if he would make an effort at an honest exchange with his readers in the dreaded comments feature.  He would have his ass handed to him, and it would be a beautiful thing.

I hope you don’t think that after reading the above that I am with silver, or in fact that I am silver (LOL!); I remain a loyal fan.  BTW, I don’t know if I ever laughed so hard as I did with your “giantess” posts. Those were classic.

xfgwefb v: “All they need to understand is the simple, neat, consistent formula that non-racialism (or non-sexism, or non-ageism) is next to Godliness, for there is neither “Greek, nor jew, nor slave, nor free, nor men, nor women” in we who are “One in Jesus Christ.””

I dare say these non-isms obtain with more regularity and robustness amongst secular religious folk.  What of them?

“Judeochristians are fully aware of these differences, but choose to ignore them because non-racialism, non-sexism, and non-ageism are next to Godliness.”

They may give lip service to it, but do they actually “carry that cross”?  I see little evidence of it (e.g., White-flight).  I’ve had White people make unbidden remarks to me about how they don’t think race-mixing is “natural”.  These were, at least nominally, Christians, and didn’t have canisters of Zyklon-B stored in their basements; that I am aware of.  The reality is our people still have healthy, biologically endowed instincts for racial preservation, their instincts are merely suppressed and not non-existent.  If said instincts were biologically degenerated to the point where nothing could be done then it would in fact be, I guess, not unreasonable to throw in the towel; but that is not the case.  I seriously do not believe “Christerianity” is the make or break for White racialism; but bashing the “Christers”, which has the effect of making them dig in their heels, can, and will, slow progress.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:57 | #

xfgwefb v,

Further, I suspect, from reading the writings of you and your friend that you have no small measure of respect for the most radical nationalist revolutionary in European history, Adolf Hitler.  Hilter was, in his personal sentiments, no particular fan of Christianity.  But, he was sensible enough to realize that it was too deeply ingrained in the historical/cultural tradition of Germany to be extirpated.  He worked with it, he worked around it, he bent it to his purposes.  Were the degeneracy and deracination of Germans much more so under Weimar than of Whites in the West today?  I don’t think to a significant degree that they were.  Hitler had his revolution through the ballot box as a result of economic/societal conditions that were ripe for revolution.  The people followed him because he promised them more of the necessities and comforts of life and he delivered on his promises.  He then had their ears, and was subsequently able to inculcate them to his message.  That is how it actually works, here in the physical realm; regardless of spook stories.  Christianity, as presently constituted, is a factor, but certainly not the definitive factor, that holds back pro-White revolution.

Posted by danielj on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:16 | #

A relevant post from another Presby over at Iron Ink:

<blockquote>“Here’s what I’m having trouble with: either 1, genetics are as strong as you say, meaning that no matter the “environment”, a good deal of the traits of a person’s soul will shine through, or 2, genetics are as weak as you say, so much so that we need to be concerned about loosing it. A Christian worldview HAS TO transcend the genetics (I think this is clear in Scriptures), and that being the case, isn’t that the culture we should be striving to build? I am not contending that we build a democratic utopia - that has never worked and will never work, however, stating that “one can [NOT] get to Anglo-Protestant culture apart from a majority of Anglo-Protestant people” confuses me because we don’t FIRST want an AP culture. We must believe that the under-pinnings of the AP, because it has been successful pulls deeply from the the well of Christianity, which, no matter what the genetics is in the realm of possibility for an genetic club to achieve.”

  Letter From DSE

Dave,

I once read someone define culture as faith poured over ethnicity. I think there is something to be said for that.

If we really believe that God loves diversity then we should expect there to be as many Christian cultures as there are ethnic people groups. While I am looking for all the world to be christian, I am not looking for all the world to have the same exact culture. I believe that Anglo-Protestant culture is distinct and unique to Anglo-Protestant people and that even if all the African continent genuinely converted and became “Reformed,” that wouldn’t mean that they would have a culture that was Anglo-protestant. (Nor should it mean that.)

In the book of Revelation we find the peoples streaming into the New Jerusalem by nation (ethnicity). There is a sense that even in the new Jerusalem distinctions remain. Now, they are certainly, one and all, Christian but they are not all the same culture or ethnicity as they file in.

I would say genetics are strong but not beyond experiencing extinction.

A Christian Worldview does transcend genetics in the sense that it has the power to alter the thinking habits of all people groups as well as individuals but it does not transcend genetics in the sense that genetics becomes irrelevant to who the people group are who have been converted. If the Mongolian nation (people) were to be given Repentance there would still be something about them that was Mongolian and their Christian faith would be expressed in a Mongolian way. Similarly if the Albanian nation (people) were to be given repentance there would still be something about them that remained Albanian and their Christian faith would be expressed in an Albanian fashion. Mongolians and Albanians would be brothers in Christ but they would not cease being Mongolians and Albanians and neither would their cultures become automatically the same. Now, there certainly would be touchstones between them but they also would remain distinct.

Now, as to the whole issue of not first wanting a Anglo-Protestant culture. That is true in and of itself but when we consider that an Anglo-Protestant culture was what it was because of Christ (always in need of ongoing sanctification to be sure) then the desire to have a Anglo-Protestant culture is the desire to have Christ. The Anglo-Protestant culture was a culture built by faith being poured over ethnicity.

Missiologists spend a great deal of time talking about contextualization and planting a truly indigenous Church. Well, that is what happened in the West. The Church was planted in the West and it became truly indigenous. That is what we should desire for every tribe, tongue and nation. A Christianity that is universal in the sense of making all men brothers because of the finished work of Christ as applied by the Spirit and yet distinct in the sense that God’s plan doesn’t mean we all become the same. In my estimation this satisfies the character of God who is both One and Many.

So Christianity will change a people regardless of their genetics but it will change them in keeping with their genetics. Welsh, Xhosa, Cantonese, and Indian (to take some arbitrary examples) will all be converted and become brothers and be members of the one universal Church of Christ but that does not mean they will all build the same culture or that the distinctions that make them who they are, ethnically, culturally or even ecclesiastically speaking, have to go away.

God loves diversity and Revelation seems to indicate that diversity remains in the New Heavens and Earth.

Thanks for helping me think through this and articulate it. I think there is something important in all of this because the prevailing tendency today is to put all of our differences in a blender and mix them all up. Multi-culturalism can’t exist without the support of multi-faithism and multi-racialism. The result of this project is not a honoring of the distinctives that God has created of race, ethnicity, and culture (and even gender) but the elimination of them and the creation of a unipolar world where all the colors bleed into one. Honestly, such a project strikes me as being familiar and similar to the project of Babel in Genesis 11. Further, such a project, I am convinced, has as its real goal the elimination of the only faith, and the resultant culture that refuses to “bleed into one.”

I suppose for the sake of those who will willfully try to twist what I have said I should try to articulate some other ideas. First, because I am Anglo-Protestant it is only natural that I prefer Anglo-Protestant culture, just as because I am a McAtee I prefer my own children over against someone elses children. This doesn’t mean I hate other peoples children, it merely means that I prioritize my own. Similarly, I don’t have to hate other people’s race, ethnicity, or culture in order to prefer my own. Second, when Reformation comes to the World the differing Christian cultures that will result will become various body parts of the one body. They will each have their strengths that will serve the whole, but the whole body will not become a hand or an eye, nor needs to. Differences can remain, be honored and should be sustained for the good of the body.

God gave us a picture of all this in the covenant people of the Old Testament. They were all God’s people and yet they all belonged to distinct tribes. In the New and Better covenant the one people of God are drawn from every tribe, tongue and nation but they remain according to “tribe, tongue, and nation.” The Scriptures teach me that the Gentiles come in. The Scripture does not teach me that the Gentiles have to lose their distinct culture in order to come in. (Indeed, Galatians suggests that Gentiles don’t have to become culturally Jewish in order to be Christian.)

I’ve spent some time in my life with dear Christian brothers and sisters in Zimbabwe. I love them dearly and have tried to show that love by supporting them financially in their time of need. Having said that, I wouldn’t want to become part of their culture in order to become Christian and I wouldn’t expect them to become part of my culture to become Christian. There is enough diversity in God that both cultures could be “Christian” having one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism.

Well, I’ve gone on a little because such discussions are, for whatever reason, open to hostile reactions. Thanks for listening.</blockquote>

Also, don’t forget about Hearthstone.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:19 | #

The other thing, Fascist, is you should be back here blogging.  Your gifts should be put to use benefitting The Cause on a regular, ongoing basis, not kept hidden. 

You asked the other day for my opinion as to whether or not this blog “used to be better.”  Yes, it did.  It used to be better because you blogged here.  It can be as good if you come back. 

Letting yourself be chased away by zeroes gives those zeros power they wouldn’t have if you hadn’t given it to them.

Posted by Ex ISKCON robot on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:12 | #

Will they feel unity and solidarity with proud, unapologetic pagans and heathens?

 

As long as you mind your manners and keep a civil tongue when discussing our Faith then the answer is maybe.

That proves my point.  “Maybe”. I am open to the idea of respecting Christians rights to practice their religion as they see fit, and even open to intelligent and polite discussions wherein we share each other’s belief systems - their’s with mine and mine with their’s.  I am not “maybe open to that”, rather, I am “definetly open to that”.

But Christians are not into sharing with others on an equal level their belief systems.  It’s always condescending to other belief systems.  At least here in the UNITED STATES.  They want to prove their way is the right way and convert us.  Hence the “maybe” in your comment.  “Maybe” to a Christian means “if you are willing to hear what we have to say without contributing any contrary opinions and without going into detail about your religions and beliefs and if you are open to being converted, then maybe we can have discussions with you.”

Hence I can understand why some people develop an anti-Christian stance.

Can we blame them?

Really I don’t care if Christians are interested in engaging me or not.

Posted by danielj on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:44 | #

Posted by Diamed on January 04, 2009, 12:41 PM | #

I will be getting back to this comment in essay form before the end of the week as long as no unforeseen work emergencies arise.

Posted by Guest on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:56 | #

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 04, 2009, 09:19 PM | #

Why not have blog comments only by those who have registered with MR?

Might cut down on the BS levels. Not to mention the time someone used your name and posted filth.

Just a thought.

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:51 | #

danielj, your post with the link to ironlink exemplifies the issue.

Put bluntly, it is easier and more expedient to debunk the Bible (and thus Christianity) and then build an argument/defense on genetics, than it is to try and reform Christian doctrine first, then promote racialism.

If there is even the slightest hint of “brotherhood of man” (even if it is in a spiritual sense) then you are, ultimately, just trying to nail jelly to the wall when it comes to defending race.

Universalism is universalism no matter how you spin it. It’s either completely embraced or completely rejected. There is no in between.

The problem I see at the link you posted, and the others, (cambriawillnotyield comes to mind) is that they wish to lay Western Civilization on Christian foundations.

Obviously, that’s not true.

The West was great long before Christianity came to town.
In fact the whole of The West didn’t even become Christian till about the 14th century. And of course by the 18th century it was beginning to be formally rejected.

Of the thousands of years The West has existed, Christianity was only a moderate force for about four centuries.

Looking around the world it is obvious that genetics, not faith, determine the civilization.

Christianity has been in Africa for as long as it has been in Europe.
Worked wonders there hasn’t it!

Ditto for Latin America.

As I said before, a fair critique of Christianity (the faith) is difficult. Far easier is the debunking of its texts…. Of its characters and personalities and related events.

The stories of Moses, Joseph and Esther are all fictional anecdotes on how to despoil gentile nations.

The second half of the old testament is an attempt to explain away the fact that “God’s chosen people” never achieved beyond “one-horse town” status in comparison to all of the gentile Empires about them.

If God’s purpose in creating Israel was to show the whole world the power of his blessings on those who obey him, then I’m afraid he failed miserably.
At its most “grand” (the reign of David and Solomon) Israel was to its surrounding neighbors what Albania is to the rest of Europe today. Which is to say, not much.
Even if David and Solomon existed their “mighty” kingdom went unnoticed by the rest of antiquity.

But the OT does have God promising to make up for it by enslaving the gentiles and handing us over as property to the jews.

1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.

2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;

3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles , and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.

-Isaiah 54: 1-3

.

.

Nothing an invading army loves more than an adversary who has, “Love thy enemy” as part of their underlying morality…

.

Posted by danielj on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:31 | #

The problem I see at the link you posted, and the others, (cambriawillnotyield comes to mind) is that they wish to lay Western Civilization on Christian foundations.

Obviously, that’s not true.

The West was great long before Christianity came to town.

In fact the whole of The West didn’t even become Christian till about the 14th century. And of course by the 18th century it was beginning to be formally rejected.

I agree with you here but it isn’t a problem for me. I’m not trying to lay Christianity on top of anything. I just believe it because it is the truth. Most of the people that run around spouting off about Europe being the faith have yet to read any European history.

It could be argued that Europe really wasn’t Christian until the Reformation

But the OT does have God promising to make up for it by enslaving the gentiles and handing us over as property to the jews.

You misunderstand the prophecy. God’s Israel is spiritual and the spiritual Israel did indeed “inherit” the Gentiles.

Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:49 | #

Western Civilization, Our Tradition,

by James Kurth

[A]mong scholarly interpreters of the West,
it has been widely understood that Western
civilization was formed from three distinct
traditions: (1) the classical culture of Greece
and Rome; (2) the Christian religion, particularly
Western Christianity; and (3) the
Enlightenment of the modern era.2 Although
many interpreters have seen Western
civilization as a synthesis of all three
traditions, others have emphasized the conflicts
among these threads. As we shall see,
the conflict between the Christian religion
and the Enlightenment has been, and remains,
especially consequential.

[ ... ]

Christianity shaped Western civilization
in many important ways. Christian theology
established the sanctity of the individual
believer and called for obedience to
an authority (Christ) higher than any secular
ruler (Caesar), ideas that further refined
and supported the concept of liberty under
law. Christian institutions, particularly the
papacy of the Roman Catholic Church in its
ongoing struggle with the Holy Roman Emperor
and local monarchs, bequeathed to the
West the idea of a separation, and therefore
a limitation, of powers ....

I for one want to preserve our genepool AND our Western Culture.

Posted by xfgwefb v on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:54 | #

In Adolf’s day Christianity was inconsistent due to the spiritual-material gap.  Bridging the gap required a fair amount of cognitive dissonance.  Today’s “hologram” concept minimizes the dissonance.  Witch doctors with degrees in sophistry are no longer needed for bridging.  Church authoritarianism is in decline – has been for decades.  Christians want heaven in the afterlife.  Any Christian can be God’s little buddy.  Non-racialism is next to Godliness.  What would Jesus do? Answer:  Neither Greek, nor jew, nor slave, nor … and so on.

Are we getting the picture?

Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:02 | #

“Church authoritarianism is in decline”

Yup, it sure is. Just like the cultural Marxists planned it!

http://www.americanvision.org/article/has-the-ghost-of-antonio-gramsci-returned/

Are you happy now?

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:07 | #

It could be argued that Europe really wasn’t Christian until the Reformation.

Posted by danielj on January 05, 2009, 10:31 AM

At one time I argued that very point. Then I realized it didn’t make my case any better since modern liberalism and egalitarianism came about in the same time and movement.

I just believe it because it is the truth.
Posted by danielj on January 05, 2009, 10:31 AM

If it is, then that means heaven is gonna look and awful lot like Rio…

 

You misunderstand the prophecy. God’s Israel is spiritual and the spiritual Israel did indeed “inherit” the Gentiles.
Posted by danielj on January 05, 2009, 10:31 AM

Been there, done that.
Replacement theology and what not.

Used to argue for that one as well.

I can’t help but wonder though why the Bible bothers to trace Jesus’s ancestry back to David (a man who fathered Solomon through murder and rape) and Abraham, if its all just “spiritual”.

Besides that it was silly anyway since, after a thousand years, every jew in the Levant would have been a descendant of David as well.

...

Posted by xfgwefb v on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:12 | #

As long as you mind your manners and keep a civil tongue when discussing our Faith then the answer is maybe.

Maybe.

God above Man (Race).

Should the existence of our race be secured there is little doubt that Christian Europids would have non-believers drawn and quartered, including those who “minded their manners and kept a civil tongue” for the sake of “the revolution.”

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:37 | #

Western Civilization, Our Tradition,

by James Kurth

  [A]mong scholarly interpreters of the West,
  it has been widely understood that Western
  civilization was formed from three distinct
  traditions
Posted by Dave Johns on January 05, 2009, 11:49 AM

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…..Western Civilization is the White Race…Peoples indigenous to Europe.

It isn’t a culture. It isn’t a tradition. It isn’t a religion. It isn’t a philosophy. It is a Race of man.

Where ever White people are, be it today or ten thousand years ago, there is The West.

“Church authoritarianism is in decline”

Yup, it sure is. Just like the cultural Marxists planned it!

http://www.americanvision.org/article/has-the-ghost-of-antonio-gramsci-returned/

Are you happy now?
Posted by Dave Johns on January 05, 2009, 12:02 PM

So you see paradise as one united world under one global monarch(god) espousing one unified truth and religion…..but yet you’re worried about what collectivist marxists are up to?

Does that not strike you as a bit ironic?

...

Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:46 | #

“Should the existence of our race be secured there is little doubt that Christian Europids would have non-believers drawn and quartered, including those who “minded their manners and kept a civil tongue” for the sake of “the revolution.”

Either that or we’ll ship you all to Brazil with a set of palm leaves. LOL!

Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:02 | #

Narrator,

Let me be perfectly clear with you:

When it comes to the issue of race, I’m a white-separatist.

Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:13 | #

One more quick thought:-

Racial-integrationists v racial separatists.

Those are the two opposing forces.

Posted by Ex ISKCON robot on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:23 | #

There are so many religions to chose from and one can create their own as well.

Chrisitianity is just one of many options.

Posted by Guest on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:56 | #

Posted by Dave Johns on January 05, 2009, 12:46 PM | #

Either that or we’ll ship you all to Brazil with a set of palm leaves. LOL!

Don’t speak a word of Brazilian Portuguese will there be a cram course before departure?

Posted by danielj on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:37 | #

I can’t help but wonder though why the Bible bothers to trace Jesus’s ancestry back to David (a man who fathered Solomon through murder and rape) and Abraham, if its all just “spiritual”.

Some of them go all the way back to Adam.

Christ came through a certain line through David; the ruling lineage of Judah even though he is our High Priest. It is/was symbolic and it was part of the many prophecies that were fulfilled as a sign. David was also a type of Christ, like Moses and Adam. Read the Psalms and you will see that. <a href=“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=22&versi>Psalm 22</a> is a striking example.

Christians are Abraham’s seed because there is only one “seed” not many and that one Seed is Christ. You are making the same mistake as the Jews by overemphasizing the physical aspect.

It is not “replacement theology” but proper theology deduced by utilizing a proper hermeneutic.

This is my last post on the subject in this thread since it is off-topic.

I’m trying to work on an essay that will address the issue.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:12 | #

xfgwefb v: “Are we getting the picture?”

I dunno, a few bones of contention.

“In Adolf’s day Christianity was inconsistent due to the spiritual-material gap.”

I take it you are a materialist, so then, to be consistent, doesn’t ANY spirituality suffer from a “spiritual-material gap”?  Even spirituality that reifies the value of “the material” suffers from this gap since “the material” has no value; “the material” just is?

“Bridging the gap required a fair amount of cognitive dissonance.”

Wrapping piano wire around a defenseless man’s neck while he begged for his life and watching him slowly writhe and choke because he (the executioner) was told it was his “duty” to the Fatherland required a fair amount of cognitive dissonance for anyone who wasn’t a psychopath.

“Today’s “hologram” concept minimizes the dissonance.”

Oh?  So a concept, though arguably internally consistent, that stands in stark contrast to readily observable reality minimizes cognitive dissonance?

“Witch doctors with degrees in sophistry are no longer needed for bridging.”

The NT also tells slaves to obey their masters.  But slavery is immoral, we are told today.  Are you sure the witch doctors have retired their brooms?

“Church authoritarianism is in decline – has been for decades.”

Much ado about nothing, then?

“Christians want heaven in the afterlife.”

Is that why they divorce at the drop of a hat, move out when the niggers move in and fuck anything with a pulse?

“Any Christian can be God’s little buddy.”

Any secular humanist can be Gaia’s little buddy.

“Non-racialism is next to Godliness.”

Loving niggers apparently doesn’t mean having to live next door to them.

“What would Jesus do? Answer:  Neither Greek, nor jew, nor slave, nor … and so on.”

Should niggers obey their masters?  Hmm, what would Jebus say?

“God above Man (Race).”

Man (Master Race) above man (non-White exterminable vermin)?

“Should the existence of our race be secured there is little doubt that Christian Europids would have non-believers drawn and quartered,”

Should the doctrine of the Master Race be reasserted there is little doubt that Whites would have non-Whites exterminated.

“...including those who “minded their manners and kept a civil tongue” for the sake of “the revolution.” “

Including those non-Whites who were willing to submit to the Master Race’s authority.

Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:40 | #

this is my last post on the subject in this thread since it is off-topic.
Posted by danielj on January 05, 2009, 08:37 PM

Understood.

I’ll reply though just for the sake of the conversation.

 

Christ came through a certain line through David; the ruling lineage of Judah even though he is our High Priest.
Posted by danielj on January 05, 2009, 08:37 PM

Speak for yourself.

David was also a type of Christ, like Moses and Adam. Read the Psalms and you will see that. Psalm 22 is a striking example.
Posted by danielj on January 05, 2009, 08:37 PM

Exactly!
As I pointed out, the story of Moses is about how jews despoil and plunder gentile nations.
Joseph reduced Egypt to poverty and slavery, Moses later took the loot.
That has been played out (for real) countless times over the centuries.

David (“the man after God’s own heart) had a man murdered and raped the guy’s wife.

So yeah, I agree, they do tend to foreshadow the effect Jesus has had on The West of late…

Christians are Abraham’s seed because there is only one “seed” not many and that one Seed is Christ. You are making the same mistake as the Jews by overemphasizing the physical aspect.
Posted by danielj on January 05, 2009, 08:37 PM

Abraham is a character who pulled the same bait and witch scheme with the gentiles as well.

Genesis 12

11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:

12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.

13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

14 And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.

15 The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house.

16 And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.

17 And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram’s wife.

18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?

19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.

20 And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.

Genesis 13

1 And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south.

2 And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.

That’s your “spiritual” father.  A scruffy little brown skinned semitic con artist.

These are the type of odious characters the Bible lays claim for as Jesus’s ancestors.

The worst pagan Viking scoundrel had greater moral fortitude than those people.

But then,

as I’ve always held to be self-evident; The races are not equal. There is no universal morality amongst the races, thus there is no universal sin(s), thus there can be no universal savior….

.

Posted by Fr. John on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:49 | #

“Without a “hologram” the concept of spiritual-material unification is contradictory. “

xfg, are you referring to the Platonic ‘forms’ and ‘universals’ stuff that underlie much of Scholasticism?

Orthodoxy does not consider that to be, well… orthodox. But heresy.

And your raising all manner of points at which YOU have ‘issues’ with Christianity, does nothing but point out YOUR personal rebellion against God, not whether or not Christianity is still viable. Sorry to be blunt, but the post above which begins with ‘xfgwefb v: “Are we getting the picture?” noted by CaptainChaos makes this perfectly clear.

The Anarchist always believes only he is right, and drags the world down to destruction, because of too small and petty a vision.

The Christian always believes only GOD is right, and via Grace, builds a civilization thereby, because of a far larger and vivifying vision.

The godless (and the jealous, like the Jews) will disagree with that aforementioned construct, of course, but that’s what sore losers always do. Satan is their exemplar. “Better to rule in hell, than serve in Heaven.” 

They (the sore losers) point out supposed ‘injustices’ against other races, ‘sexual expressions,’ religions, and climes, and lay the blame on us, but what they conveniently ignore is that those ‘persecuted’ peoples were in a hell on earth of paganism, idolatry, filth, superstition, and disease BEFORE the White Man came.

When presented with soap, a dirty man will often see for the first time what filth really is.
‘And now are ye all clean.’ - Jesus Christ

Posted by Fr. John on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:53 | #

“Just as with Mithraism so with Christianity. For all intents and purposes it has been dead for several decades.”

AS, am I a zombie? Am I not living? Do I not have friends, family, children that are believers? In case you are living in a bubble (or a jewish enclave like NYC) Christianity is alive, if albeit feeble in this latest skirmish with Satan.

I believe that which you attribute rigor mortis to, is not Christianity. What died was heresy, and it damn well deserves to!
But the Church of God lives on, until the End of time.

Your days, however, are numbered.
Now… which would I rather put my trust in?

Gee, let me guess.

Posted by Dharma Chakra (ex iskcon robot) on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:09 | #

The Christian always believes only GOD is right, and via Grace, builds a civilization thereby, because of a far larger and vivifying vision.

The godless (and the jealous, like the Jews) will disagree with that aforementioned construct, of course, but that’s what sore losers always do. Satan is their exemplar. “Better to rule in hell, than serve in Heaven.”

This is probably the biggest problem we have here with Christiantiy Fr. John. 

It’s idea that believers in God of other religions are Godless somehow.

I have rarely tried to convert my Christian friends to Christianity (though now I’m stepping that up), but most of them have been very persistant in working on me.

Finally, the reasonable ones at least, have learned to STFU once I had them read some of the wonderful works and concepts of my faith.  And I think it was more out of shame than anything else, for compared with their own belief system, mine shines forth with great logic and practical application, not just merely a belief in a previous prophet to ensure one’s salvation.

But anyway, I respect your right to believe in what you find inspiring and I would never seek to take that away from you.  And I do not condone the harsh and respectful tone used towards you by some people here, but then if you go back and check your tone, you can probably see some sort of provocation for that.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction and that is called “karma”.

Posted by AS on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:11 | #

Posted by Fr. John on January 06, 2009, 02:53 PM | #

Just the sort of vile, venomous hate I’ve come to expect from Christians.

The garish, burlesque of so-called Christianity today.

By their fruits ye shall know them.
The weed of Christianity bears bitter fruit. Christianity does not pay for the White man.

In commerce and in general life I’ve found atheists, Muslims, and Satanists to be more cognizant of decorum than Christians. Even on discussion forums the worst of the worst, well tied with Jews probably.

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:17 | #

I have rarely tried to convert my Christian friends to Christianity

Should read, “I have rarely tried to convert my Christian friend to my religion”

Posted by danielj on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:06 | #

Should read, “I have rarely tried to convert my Christian friend to my religion”

It was clever-er the other way…

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:30 | #

Yeah I know, even Christians try to convert other Christians to their specific sects.

LOL!

Posted by xfgwefb v on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:01 | #

Sorry to be blunt, but the post above which begins with ‘xfgwefb v: “Are we getting the picture?” noted by CaptainChaos makes this perfectly clear.

Now you’re being silly, Fr. John.  CC’s “bones of contention” are a poor defense of your position.  I assumed you were an academic.  Was I wrong?

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:01 | #

xfgwefb v: “CC’s “bones of contention” are a poor defense of your position.”

I have not attempted to, in one fell swoop, bring logical coherence to Christianity.  What I have attempted to do is argue for the practical benefit of harnessing the faith impulse to which, for many Whites, it is so powerfully attached.  I have tried to point out that Nazis intentionally tapped into the faith impulse and its most fanatical adherents probably had a fair dose of the faith gene.  Drew Fraser, apparently, thinks we should form something like a Hezbollah for White people.  Now, I’m sure you’ll note the blending of a major monotheistic faith with the trappings of Fascism in Hezbollah.  So, whether the fanaticism of a mass movement places the focus of its faith impetus on the supernatural (God) or the material (the sacred gene pool), if you run to far off the reservation while caught up in the middle of such a movement, it very well could mean your ass; that is the price of admission, so to speak.  The thing is to get people motivated to save our race, if that means mouthing the correct platitudes consistent with whatever the doctrine that accomplishes that happens to be, then that is what we will have to do.  It is not as if we can openly proclaim our racialism on every street corner now anyway; so nothing much lost.

Collaberation with guys like Fraser, especially when they share so much in terms of tactical agreement, wouldn’t be a bad think.  All arrows firing in the same direction.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:59 | #

You are correct.  My concern with Christian consistency is limited to that which effects White nationalism.  Selling White nationalism to judeochristians requires much more than theologically “proving” the existence of racial, sexual, and age differences.  Judeochristians are fully aware of these differences, but choose to ignore them because non-racialism, non-sexism, and non-ageism are next to Godliness. If we are spiritually “One in Jesus Christ,” then emulating the spiritual world on earth increases our chance of entering heaven upon death.

I don’t see how this can be so, when Jesus was obviously a racist.  He told the woman begone, he had no interest in healing her child, because he had come only for the sons of Israel.  I find it odd that the Good Samaritan is held up as an equalitarian lesson, when the anecdote uses an “outsider” as close to Hebrew stock as humanly possible; Samaritans were the subject of a “are they Jews?” debate at the time - sounds to these ears more like Jesus was a pan-Semitic ethno-nationalist than an equalitarian universalist.

Let’s be honest here, if one takes the Bible as one’s book, seriously, and one winds up with “Godliness” as a goal, one does not come up with “meek,” or “egalitarian,” or “forgiving,” or any of the other shit typically associated with modern Christianity.  “Fire,” “Brimstone,” “destroy the heathen,” “destroy the defector,” “do not let their filth infect you,” “racism,” etc., are far more apropos, at least vis-a-vis outgroups.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:06 | #

is next to Godliness, for there is neither “Greek, nor jew, nor slave, nor free, nor men, nor women” in we who are “One in Jesus Christ.”

If I had all the names of the outgroups g-d ordered destroyed, I’d post them.  Anyone care to guess how many there are?  A dozen?  Two dozen?  All ethnically distinct from the Hebrews, but also closely related, perfectly in line with a racialist argument.

Slavery continued right on through as and after Christianity took over; obviously their interpretation was opposite the modern one, and only goes to show that interpretation (who?  whom?) is the important issue here.

“Be not of the world,” there’s a great argument to really ram home to devout Christians there; it’s child’s play to introduce doubt and guilt concerning how thoroughly “the world” has infected Christianity.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:36 | #

The Narrator,

<quote>Put bluntly, it is easier and more expedient to debunk the Bible (and thus Christianity) and then build an argument/defense on genetics, than it is to try and reform Christian doctrine first, then promote racialism.

If there is even the slightest hint of “brotherhood of man” (even if it is in a spiritual sense) then you are, ultimately, just trying to nail jelly to the wall when it comes to defending race.

Universalism is universalism no matter how you spin it. It’s either completely embraced or completely rejected. There is no in between.</quote>

Says who?  I see no problem saying, “I believe in the brotherhood of man, but each in his own back yard; good fences make good neighbors.”

How did Christianity underlie Segregation?  Don’t remember any earthquakes…

<quote>The stories of Moses, Joseph and Esther are all fictional anecdotes on how to despoil gentile nations.</quote>

You mean, the Bible is partly a manual on ethnic warfare?

<quote>The second half of the old testament is an attempt to explain away the fact that “God’s chosen people” never achieved beyond “one-horse town” status in comparison to all of the gentile Empires about them.</quote>

You mean, the Bible is partly ethnic chest-thumping, even to the point of denial?

<quote>But the OT does have God promising to make up for it by enslaving the gentiles and handing us over as property to the jews.</quote>

Seems like you’re saying the Bible’s a racially supremist document, but that can’t be right because we’ve already learned above that it’s all about marrying blacks.

X,

<quote>What would Jesus do?</quote>

Tell the (closely related, “almost-but-not-quite-Hebrew”) heathen bitch to piss off, then have a bit of mercy when she declares herself and her people “dogs” begging for scraps from the master’s table?

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:38 | #

Sorry, let’s try that again:

f

The Narrator,

Put bluntly, it is easier and more expedient to debunk the Bible (and thus Christianity) and then build an argument/defense on genetics, than it is to try and reform Christian doctrine first, then promote racialism.

If there is even the slightest hint of “brotherhood of man” (even if it is in a spiritual sense) then you are, ultimately, just trying to nail jelly to the wall when it comes to defending race.

Universalism is universalism no matter how you spin it. It’s either completely embraced or completely rejected. There is no in between.

Says who?  I see no problem saying, “I believe in the brotherhood of man, but each in his own back yard; good fences make good neighbors.”

How did Christianity underlie Segregation?  Don’t remember any earthquakes…

The stories of Moses, Joseph and Esther are all fictional anecdotes on how to despoil gentile nations.

You mean, the Bible is partly a manual on ethnic warfare?

The second half of the old testament is an attempt to explain away the fact that “God’s chosen people” never achieved beyond “one-horse town” status in comparison to all of the gentile Empires about them.

You mean, the Bible is partly ethnic chest-thumping, even to the point of denial?

But the OT does have God promising to make up for it by enslaving the gentiles and handing us over as property to the jews.

Seems like you’re saying the Bible’s a racially supremist document, but that can’t be right because we’ve already learned above that it’s all about marrying blacks.

X,

What would Jesus do?

Tell the (closely related, “almost-but-not-quite-Hebrew”) heathen bitch to piss off, then have a bit of mercy when she declares herself and her people “dogs” begging for scraps from the master’s table?

Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:40 | #

  I see no problem saying, “I believe in the brotherhood of man, but each in his own back yard; good fences make good neighbors.”

Posted by Svigor on January 09, 2009, 05:38 PM

You aren’t the whole of Christendom.

80% Christian America just elected a black guy as President.

The proof is in the pudding…

You mean, the Bible is partly a manual on ethnic warfare?

Posted by Svigor on January 09, 2009, 05:38 PM

Yep! Psychological ethnic warfare.
Its message (as presented through Joseph, Moses, Esther…) to the gentiles is, Surrender and be subjugated to God’s chosen people.

It’s no coincidence that America, a nation that boasts of its Christian roots and Christian majority, has a jewish elite ruling over it.

As I said before, there is nothing an invading army loves more than an adversary who has for their underlying philosophy the mortal ethic of, “love thy enemy.”

Seems like you’re saying the Bible’s a racially supremist document, but that can’t be right because we’ve already learned above that it’s all about marrying blacks.

Posted by Svigor on January 09, 2009, 05:38 PM

No, it’s both.

Its about the racial superiority of jews and their glorious destiny to enslave the rest of us.
Its message to us is, relax and enjoy your subjugation.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 00:48 | #

Further to my comment above of Jan. 2, 11:44 PM, mentioning the Sedevacantists, The Civic Platform has published a little commentary on the same subject, most of which I agree with:

I hadn’t heard of Sedevacantism before Pater Rolf Hermann Lingen (here) showed up and started posting on the Holocaust.  Sedevacantism also came up on my radar screen because of the European revisionist Vincent Reynouard (here and here) who now operates in hiding.  Vincent Reynouard is a Sedevacantist and married father of seven children.

I’ve read up a bit on Sedevacantism and liked their promotion of traditional values, anti-liberalism, and anti-modernism.  I’m somewhat familiar with Catholic doctrine, since I was born a Catholic and lived at an Opus Dei residence while attending university.  The Catholic social gospel remains a great alternative to Marxist materialism.

Unfortunately, today’s Catholic Church has made peace with modernism and liberalism and is mostly in the news for pederast scandals and rampant homosexuality in the priesthood (although those scandals haven’t touched Opus Dei).  Just like the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church looks to an outsider like a private club for gay men.  It’s an interesting phenomenon when one remembers, for example, the manly and courageous Jesuit priests of the past.

Christianity is in bad shape nowadays:  on the one hand we have “conservative” Christian-Zionist Evangelicals and on the other hand mainline liberal, pro-immigrationist Protestant sects and the post-Vatican II Catholic Church.

I used to think that a serious Christian who wanted to escape the liberalism and philosemitism of contemporary Catholicism and Protestantism should consider Orthodoxy.  I’m glad that Sedevacantism is also an option.

While I’m not a religious person I’m very conservative and traditional in my outlook, so I feel that I have a great deal in common with people who are sincerely religious.  I find that I can have a dialogue with an Islamist, but find no common ground with an Americanized, westernized, immigrant thug.  The Islamist harbors certain familiar values and modes of thought (respect for authority and hierarchy, family values, patriarchy, anti-liberalism, anti-modernism, sexual morality, modest dress, role of women in society…) that can allow us to find a common language.

I see the possibility of a form of Sedevacantism that explicitly acknowledges the right of Catholics to preserve communal racial identity in defiance of social Marxism, as they have the right under Catholicism to preserve private property in defiance of economic Marxism.  Why should Catholicism tell Catholics they have to knuckle under to the Marxists who demand to take away their communal race, but not to the Marxists who demand to take away their private property?  It makes no sense.  The advent of such a form of Sedevacantism would be a great way to stay Catholic, which I’d like to be able to do:  I respect the Christian Kinists, the Mormons, and the Eastern Orthodox but I don’t want to have to change into any of them in order to preserve my race.  I’d like to stay Catholic and be able to do it.  I’m very, very encouraged by this new discovery.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 00:54 | #

As for the truth of Sedevacantism, it’s already clear they’re right that there is no pope and hasn’t been since 1958 (for some, since 1963).  That much is beyond dispute by any sane person.  The only question now is whether a form of Sedevacantism can be developed that explicitly acknowledges the right of Catholics to communal racial preservation (provided of course any such communal racial preservation is accomplished perfectly humanely and reasonably).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:41 | #

James Kalb unwittingly makes a statement that can be cited by others as strongly supporting Sedevacantism:

“the civilization of the West has been a result of the Christian understanding of reality.  That understanding explains how man and the world —  human reason and human action —  can truly matter even though they are obviously limited and flawed. [...] The decline of [the civilization of the West] has resulted from abandonment of that understanding.  Liberal Christianity is Christianity without God.  It has the same relationship to Christianity that a make-believe garage in a world without automobiles would have to the real thing.  Guys could still hang around and play with tools and make guy jokes, but somehow it wouldn’t be the same.”

All the more reason, as far as I’m concerned, to view the series of popes who’ve presided over the Vatican’s adoption of liberal Christianity as illegitimate, therefore as non-popes.