Posted by Brennus on Mon, 25 Jul 2011 06:29 | #

In a comment thread at Sailer’s, commenter “RKU”, who is believed to possibly be Ron Unz, makes some very Majority Rights like points on this affair:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/07/norway.html

For example, based on a casual examination of that Oslo guy’s writings, it seems reasonable to regard him as being an extended phenotype of that fanatically anti-Islamic Fjordman fellow (who amusingly enough often shows up on rightwing blogs to denounce them for their “extremism”). But looking a bit more deeply, I think it’s also obvious that the Fjordman crowd themselves are merely extended phenotypes of David Horowitz and his friends, whose money and media dominate the discourse. Similarly, the Scandinavian multiculturalists whose activities over the years had so riled up the Oslo guy almost certainly represent extended phenotypes created by Hollywood and its dominant belief system over the last few decades. Therefore, in crude terms, a Neocon rampage-killer slaughtered scores of Left-Liberals, thereby acting out the sort of righting revenge-fantasy periodically touted by America’s more violent “conservative” talk-radio hosts.

The whole situation contains many ironies. While David Horowitz and his Hollywood opponents are exchanging snide remarks or casual banter at the endless West LA cocktail parties they mutually frequent, halfway around the world their gullible proxies are meanwhile treating each other in far grislier fashion, while remaining totally unaware of the true causes of all their local misfortunes. Obviously, these former antagonists have a much more pleasant lifestyle than do the latter ones, thereby underscoring the considerable advantages which accrue to groups which are highly skilled in extending their ideological phenotypes, and applying “action at a distance.”

Posted by Chechar on Mon, 25 Jul 2011 07:52 | #

I’ve collected several articles critical of counter-jihad.

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:12 | #

Worldnetdaily, arguably the most trafficked conservative website in America, (they even have their own correspondent amongst the White House reporter pool) ran the following commentary today, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=325637

exert,

“While the global media are putting on long faces and performing their customary rituals of mourning la tragédie du jour, the lethal attacks in Oslo and Utoya were little more surprising than Amy Winehouse’s fatal drug overdose when viewed from the historical perspective.

What the multiculturalist progressives omitted to take into account in their early proclamations of victory over nationalism is that nations which will readily tolerate a small and well-behaved group of immigrants will never accept numbers that dictate the eventual displacement and ultimate elimination of the native population. The multiculturalists also forgot that what may be acceptable in times of economic growth, or even perceived debt-funded economic growth, are totally unacceptable during periods of widely recognized economic contraction.

No doubt the Ummayads also assumed, after 89 years of rule over al-Andalus, that their triumph was complete. They did not anticipate that conquered Spain would one day rise against them, much less have the heart to wage a centuries-long struggle, any more than the modern quislings of the Norwegian Labour Party expected murderous violence to be directed at them by a Norwegian national.

The tragic aspect of the multiculturalist attempt to eradicate human tribalism, ethnic identity and national culture in the name of tolerance and diversity is that it guaranteed, from the start, the very ethnic violence it hoped to eliminate. The murderous attack on the multiculturalists of Norway is neither the first example of the inevitable ethno-national reaction nor will it be the last. The tragedy is that it was absolutely unnecessary for any such crimes to take place; simply maintaining the national borders that had been maintained for decades, if not centuries, would have rendered them both unthinkable and impossible.

As historian Victor Davis Hanson has chronicled, the Western way of war is focused on destroying the enemy, not merely defeating him. The Utoya massacre is an example of this, as the New York Times wrote the following of the killer, Anders Behring Breivik: “He predicted a conflagration that would kill or injure more than a million people, adding, ‘The time for dialogue is over. We gave peace a chance. The time for armed resistance has come.’”

The frightening reality is that Breivik is probably correct in anticipating violence of this magnitude in the future. Indeed, it may well be that he is erring on the conservative side. Just as the depression of the 1930s set the stage for large-scale military conflict, the even larger global depression that began in 2008 is likely to build upon the dreadful foundation that was foolishly imposed upon the West by the multiculturalists. What the eventual outcome will be is uncertain. It may be the global government of progressive dreams, but based on the pendulum principle of history, it will more likely mark a return to the pre-World War I state of balanced and ethnically homogenous powers.

On Saturday, Matt Drudge reported a shooting in Seattle that was rather less covered than the Utoya one. Ten people were shot, none fatally, and no one was arrested. But the gunfire at the La Raza car show was every bit as significant as the more lethal shots fired in Norway, because it represents the other side of the coming immigration conflict. According to the statistics, more Americans will die in the next eight days at the hands of immigrants than were murdered in Oslo and Utoya.

Thus far, Americans have proven to be more tolerant of the ethnic vibrancy in their midst, despite the Sept. 11 attacks and 4,380 annual murders by immigrants. But, as the Norway attacks show, apathy and tolerance will not last forever. And when the separatist conflict comes to America, as history tends to suggests it eventually will, it should not be forgotten that primary responsibility for the bloodshed will lie with short-sighted immigration advocates such as Rep. Emanuel Cellar, Sen. Philip Hart, Sen. Edward Kennedy and former President Lyndon Johnson.”

Read more: The death of diversity http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=325637#ixzz1T6uDXyfx

...

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:16 | #

Whoops,

That should have read “excerpt”.

....

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:33 | #

July 23, 2011
The Norwegian Terrorist Is a Neocon
Posted by Lew Rockwell on July 23, 2011 07:30 PM
The apparent mass murderer, instead of being the stereotypical “jihadist,” turns out to be fanatically anti-Muslim and ardently pro-Israel. Indeed, he was much influenced by such neocons as Daniel Pipes. The children he massacred had held a pro-Palestinian rally the day before, and the Norwegian government planned to recognize Palestine and get out of Libya, both acts eliciting the hatred of neocons. As to his religion, he is not exactly a follower of the Prince of Peace, though he may be some sort of Christian rightist or theocon. That is how, as a hater and a killer, he could describe himself as a Christian and a conservative, a Hageeite. (Thanks to Ralph Raico and Gary North)

UPDATE See also Glenn Greenwald.

UPDATE from Ralph Raico:

Few of the reports I’ve seen mention the gentleman’s partiality to the State of Israel.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:49 | #

Geert Wilders is a hero, whatever his views on Israel. He is actually trying to do something (at great personal risk) to save his nation.

As to the “genuine article” - what is it?

Re race, I want all nonwhites physically removed/expatriated from European nations. I also seek to use the power of governments to increase indigenous fertility, and, ideally, to combine natalist with eugenicist incentives. All anti-racist/nationalist indoctrination and mendacity must cease immediately. Mosques, unless possessed of historical value, must be bulldozed and burnt.

For the New World Anglosphere, I want: 1) all illegal aliens deported; 2) all further nonwhite immigration ended; 3) all affirmative action programs and anti-racial discrimination laws repealed; and 4) multiculturalist school propaganda terminated.

Do I qualify as “the genuine article”? I’d really like to know, because note I have little to say re the JQ (I do think there should be some kind of ethnic antitrust legislation viz the media), am pro-capitalist, pro-Christian, and not opposed to Israel’s right of existence.

MR’s editor(s) really need to define a WN.

Posted by Guest Lurker on Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:24 | #

Worldnetdaily, arguably the most trafficked conservative website in America, (they even have their own correspondent amongst the White House reporter pool) ran the following commentary today, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=325637

Did you see this reply by the Christian in response to the worldnetdaily article?

‘In Christ Jesus, there is NEITHER Jew nor Greek (Gal. 3:28).... but a new creation (Gal. 6:15). I have no white pride. I’m equally against all races of man as candidate for God’s greatest promise: the promise of righteousness. I totally renounce my DNA lineage all the way back to Adam. Good riddance. I have been crucified with Christ (Gal. 2:20). I am out of that sorry mess.’

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:26 | #

Berg feeds bear. Gottsegen almost eaten.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:36 | #

He is a Radical Conservative Counter Jihadist who aims to build a new Catholic Imperium in Europe and impose Catholic Conservative values on society.

He is not a Nationalist.

Posted by Land of the Pilgrim's Pride on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 01:01 | #

Guessed Worker,

Welcome to Haggeeville. Speaking as a cradle Anglican, it would be unthinkable to consider Paul’s admonition in any but spiritual—not familial—terms.

Christianity in all its forms and localities has always, from the very start, been a nationalist religion.  Only after WWII, when the Soviet propaganda machine leveraged its tremendous wartime gains among it’s foolish and naive “allies” do we see the idea that Our LORD God’s own inventions namely DNA, inheritance, tribes, nations and races, somehow no longer matter.

It is preposterous—but a testament to the sheer power of modern, scientific propaganda.  What bothers me is that many “WNs” who otherwise detect the faintest whiff of its foul, corrupting odor elsewhere, brook no excuse when Christianity herself falls victim to Madison Avenue’s special brand of Phariseeism.

Posted by Anymouse on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:24 | #

According to the statistics, more Americans will die in the next eight days at the hands of immigrants than were murdered in Oslo and Utoya.

Thanks Narrator.

Interesting to see World Net Deli taking a mature political perspective toward the killings - something completely overlooked by the white literary movement in its quickness to distance itself from ABB.

The behavior of some in the white literary movement is reminiscent of little Kevy Strom’s panicked reaction to the OKC bombing.

Dear Greg:  You can’t support Covington’s “The Brigade” as a work of nationalist fiction and eschew violence at the same time.  Fools might buy the spin.  The enemy won’t.

Posted by Chechar on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:11 | #

Dear Greg:  You can’t support Covington’s “The Brigade” as a work of nationalist fiction and eschew violence at the same time.

I share Greg’s concerns, as can be seen in my latest post (here and at CC). But again, that’s not the point.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:15 | #

He is a Radical Conservative Counter Jihadist who aims to build a new Catholic Imperium in Europe and impose Catholic Conservative values on society.(LJB)

Outstanding! (as long as the Imperium is WHITES ONLY)

(sounds like yours truly, btw)

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:16 | #

What is this “genuine article”? Define, please!

We must have some agreed upon basis before we can commence the sectarian purges.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:36 | #

Nationalism is the politics of genetic interest.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:39 | #

Is this

Re race, I want all nonwhites physically removed/expatriated from European nations. I also seek to use the power of governments to increase indigenous fertility, and, ideally, to combine natalist with eugenicist incentives. All anti-racist/nationalist indoctrination and mendacity must cease immediately. Mosques, unless possessed of historical value, must be bulldozed and burnt

sufficient to qualify me as a nationalist, or am I still just a conservative, albeit a realistic and toughminded one?

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:06 | #

Leon,

When you argue for a revival of “true” Christian faith do you do so primarily to reinstate God in our lives or to make us race-loyal?  I know you think the latter follows on from the former, but just humour me and answer the question in its bare form.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:15 | #

Leon,

As well as questions from GW you ignored my points from an earlier thread on Christianity. Can you tell us why a ‘universalist’ understanding of Christianity is theologically, not politically, wrong? And why would a particularist version be accepted? Anyone with a bare minimum of knowledge of Christianity can very easily argue for the universalist version.

What is your version going to look like and how and why will it gain sociological traction? Please don’t tell us it will be a form of ‘Christian Zionism’ - a stance which when meshed with neo-liberalism makes the holder a truly pathetic creature (at least for a European).

Also American Christianity is both sociologically and theologically a mile wide but about an inch deep (for 99% of Americans their ‘faith’ is ill-defined, vacuous nonsense). The true religion of America is Americanism - an inorganic polity as an experiment in social engineering foundationally and axiomatically ‘liberal’ in its origins and world-view.

Time to put some meat on the bones Mr. Haller.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:28 | #

Norway’s “lost leaders”:

http://www.channel4.com/news/norways-lost-leaders

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:00 | #

GW - look mainly like naive ‘save the whale’ types to me - no doubt some would have developed into the misanthropic utterly cynical, dishonest, hardcore leftists that some of us have had the misfortune to meet and interact with (such as the SWP in England).

But honestly what type of kid is chairman of their local ‘youth’ political party from age 11???

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:23 | #

A brainwashed one, I suppose, and a future one of these ...

This evening on Channel 4 News Jon Snow, the gris eminence of newsroom journalism not long married to a much younger lady of Zimbabwean descent:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1288759/And-finally-Jon-Snow-weds-62.html

.. interviewed the Norwegian Foreign Minister, Jonas Gahr Støre (who is known as Bin Gahr Støre, after he apologised to all and sundry for the cartoons crisis).  The staggering blindness of the Scandinavian liberal was on full display as he twittered away about his visit today to a mourning ceremony at a mosque.  His dedication to diversity and equality was so religious in character, I felt like reaching through the TV set and shaking him awake.  But nothing and nobody can awaken these people.  Liberalism of this order has no space for self-criticism.  It is a self-feeding ideological system.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:38 | #

GW - yes at its worst liberalism is like a viciously circular theology. Liberals also assume that speak the self-evident ‘truth’ hence their world-view is not political rather they think of it as ‘above’ politics. The apolitical (in their own mind) liberal is infuriating in the extreme.

They assume also that those that do not share their ‘common sense’ must be educationally or morally (perhaps both) inferior as a matter of their (the liberals) faith.

Posted by zxc on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:31 | #

Lister

Also American Christianity is both sociologically and theologically a mile wide but about an inch deep (for 99% of Americans their ‘faith’ is ill-defined, vacuous nonsense).

No more is required of the Christian than the essential Christian minimum. That essential minimum—roughly the Apostles’ Creed but not even necessarily that much—is all that the early adopters of Christianity comprehended of their new faith.  Of course, more learned men were keen to graft the existing philosophical viewpoints of the day onto Christianity but no understanding or appreciation of this was required of the average Christian then, nor is it required now.  If Christianity forms the cornerstone of one’s existence than it’s miles deep, not inches, no matter how much materialists like you, convinced they know better, scoff at the notion. 

GW

Liberalism of this order has no space for self-criticism.

Rather like your geneticism. You fundies are all the same so it’s not surprising you picked up on it.  (Takes one to know one!)

Posted by Brandon on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:38 | #

That WND link is to Vox Day’s periodic column.  He blogs at voxpopoli at blogspot.

Posted by anon on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:10 | #

Of course, more learned men were keen to graft the existing philosophical viewpoints of the day onto Christianity but no understanding or appreciation of this was required of the average Christian then, nor is it required now.

Not much brainpower needed to attain grace, then. How convenient for the shtewpeed.

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:49 | #

No more is required of the Christian than the essential Christian minimum. That essential minimum—roughly the Apostles’ Creed but not even necessarily that much—is all that the early adopters of Christianity comprehended of their new faith.  Of course, more learned men were keen to graft the existing philosophical viewpoints of the day onto Christianity but no understanding or appreciation of this was required of the average Christian then, nor is it required now.

Posted by zxc on July 26, 2011, 11:31 PM | #

So you’re saying that all but one of the following is superfluous?

Gospel According to Matthew
Gospel According to Mark
Gospel According to Luke
Gospel According to John
Acts of the Apostles
Epistle to the Romans
First Epistle to the Corinthians
Second Epistle to the Corinthians
Epistle to the Galatians
Epistle to the Ephesians
Epistle to the Philippians
Epistle to the Colossians
First Epistle to the Thessalonians
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
Pastoral Epistles
First Epistle to Timothy
Second Epistle to Timothy
Epistle to Titus
Epistle to Philemon
Epistle to the Hebrews
Epistle of James
First Epistle of Peter
Second Epistle of Peter
First Epistle of John
Second Epistle of John
Third Epistle of John
Epistle of Jude
Revelation

 

...

Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:50 | #

Right so if none of that is actually necessary then who will inform all those fundamentalists in Jesusland?
Sola scriptura out of the window, yes? No ‘literal’ readings anymore as most is not ‘required’?

And you claim the average attendee at a mega-church is having a profound experience - really just how do you know you buffoon? Away and read some Nietzsche (to start with or if that is too hard try looking on google for Rick Roderick’s lectures on him - he’s was from west Texas so should be culturally acceptable to you, yes?).

And I’m not a crude ‘materialist’ whatever you think that means, I doubt I’m ‘it’.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 06:10 | #

Should I jump in on this one?

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:39 | #

Leon,

When you argue for a revival of “true” Christian faith do you do so primarily to reinstate God in our lives or to make us race-loyal?  I know you think the latter follows on from the former, but just humour me and answer the question in its bare form. (GW)

I don’t wish to avoid difficult questions, but that one is really tough for me to answer “barely”.

OK, “barely”:

I would like to restore an intellectually purified (purified of a lot of sectarian garbage, unessential emotionalism, obviously human derived theological accretions) version of Christianity to the West. I think a re-Christianized (I prefer Catholicized, but Protestantized in the relevant areas if that’s most likely) West would be preferable in itself to the modern secularized West, where God is either disbelieved, or relegated to a purely private belief, like astrology or the (alleged) benefits of yoga, etc.

I am castigated everywhere for my alleged “Nazism”, but really I place Christianity over race.

I hold that the Christian faith, properly understood, does not mandate any element of the multicultural agenda, and thus a Christian is free to resist it (obviously, not as Breivik did!). That’s pretty clear and simple, no?

However, as a strictly personal matter, my race-loyalty is something I emotionally place above my Christianity. That is, I am fairly materialist, and am more concerned with ‘things seen than unseen’. I rarely took an interest in Christianity per se, before seeing how it is improperly used to advance the race-replacement agenda. If America and the West had never succumbed to multiculturalism, I would never comment politically. I would make money and enjoy life. I certainly would not embark upon a long period of formal Catholic study. Catholics (and other Christians, as far as I know) are not required by their faith to be theologians, or even just theologically expert. The basics of the faith for the common man are fairly straightforward.

My primary intellectual interests are in history, economics, and literature. I have become increasingly interested in philosophy and theology only because it is so obvious to me that what is happening to the white race is evil - ‘evil’ considered from a Christian perspective. And because it angers me. I am not saying that a Christian cannot be a multiculturalist, nor that a Christian cannot be a nationalist. The faith is highly elastic (within reason - Breivik disqualified himself by his actions).

It is clear that our race is being herded into extinction, and that the method is ethical (combined with immigration and legislated/coercive integration). That is, whenever persons resist, they are silenced by cries of “racist” (implication: “evil”).

But is resistance to mc evil? My intuition (and rough knowledge of theology from years of church, general reading, etc) says it is not, and I want to acquire the knowledge to prove that contention, at least to my own satisfaction.

So, in conclusion: I could never violate Christian ethics in pursuit of nationalist objectives. But I am a white preservationist above all in emotional attachment and politics, and it is my political nationalist concerns which led to my interest in Christianity.

Posted by Anti-WOG Alliance on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:57 | #

Posted on VNN:

Norwegian police began to formally identify the 76 victims of Anders Behring Breivik’s massacre, a list that includes the stepbrother of Crown Princess Mette-Marit and some of the country’s most promising youth politicians.

Many of the victims of Breivik’s rampage were not as young and White as many had at first believed; some were foreign born, leftists and multicultualists all, and one even admired Nelson Mandela.

It is as I said it was:

1. Vast majority of them were not ‘children’ (there was some teenagers.)

2. Plenty of them were not white (some were mixed race mutts, others were the sons/daughters of immigrants.)

3. They were going to become the new ruling elite of Norway (destroying Norway from within.)

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:51 | #

AWA,

VNN is the right place for that kind of comment.  Killing people - any people - is not our way.  You would not kill children, and you know you wouldn’t.  You are not a psychopath.

We have politics: war by another means.  If we cannot save our people by that means then the rules will almost certainly change.  But today apologism for a useless narcissist and psychopath like Breivik is completely wrong and profoundly unhelpful.

Posted by Anti-WOG Alliance on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:24 | #

I did not glorified nor demonized Anders Brevik , the point in posting this information from VNN is to understand his actions whitout the reactionary and emotional baggages most typical of the racialist foras. So far, what I have seen are people claiming that the cause for his actions were either:

1. That Brevik worked for the zionists and all that has happened was a smokescreen operation to discredit white nationalists and white nationalism.

Or,

2. His actions were fueled by him being crazy, a psychopath, a narcissist and so on which caused him to kill ‘his own people who all happened to be white children’.

Both are responses fueled by reactionaryism and emotionalism, one is reactionary response that seek complete dissociation due to the fear of guilt by association and the other is the emotional response which does not seek out to understand the reasons but only to judge out of anger.

Now there is another point which bothers me, racialists wants us all to be drones to ‘the cause’ or ‘the movement’ whitout us having our divergence of opinions, because it makes ‘the cause look bad’ due to the ‘guilt by association’ ploy that has been used against racialists for quite awhile now.

Now Whites are the only people I consider to have a soul because they are the only people who form their own opinions and have diverse and divergent array of behaviors. Unlike non-whites, China is an anthill populated by communist automatons, negroes in Africa and America are also all backward automatons (98% of African-‘Americans’ voted for Obama), Arabs all act the same way, obey and submit to the same backward antithesis (Islam) like drones and so on. The enemies are going to take anything negative done by whites to associate it with other whites, no need to force everyone to conform and act like stoic drones for fear of this because I do not think that is the way to go at it.

Now regarding the use of the word ‘psycopath’, a psychopath is someone that is not in control of his actions and pretty much acts out all over the place, it is described as being bound to ‘impulsiveness, irresponsibility and lack of foresight’ a term which seem more fit to describe the violent testosterone-fueled negroes rather than to describe Brevik, Brevik was composed, thought-out and in control of his actions.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:11 | #

AWA,

I think you’re confusing “psychopath” with “sociopath” (though maybe not; I claim no psychological expertise). Those described as “psychopaths” have often been cunning, patient and ‘inner-directed’. “Sociopaths” is the term more commonly used for your violent ghetto blacks.

GW,

Why do you keep referring to those killed as children? From what I’m reading, it seems that very few were really “children”; some were in their twenties.

And what is your ethical basis for making that statement anyway? Week-kneed sentimentalism? How many children were murdered in the Allied firebombings of Germany (or Japan, but presumably we care less about the latter)? Most of the population of Dresden in 1945 were women and children refugees from the East, fleeing the advancing Soviet Rape Army.

These young persons were the next generation of leftist traitors. Killing them was clearly wrong from a Christian standpoint, for a variety of reasons beyond the general prohibition against doing evil that good may come of it. Specifically, though those youths were brainwashed fools, they had not yet to my knowledge committed any racial crimes; they hadn’t the power actually to be traitors. Though it was statistically probable that many of them would have grown up to be actionable race traitors, Christianity does not allow for present punishments to be inflicted for putative future guilt. We believe in free will, the possibility of repentance and growth, etc.

But you are an atheist, unbeliever, what have you. From that animalistic view, human life (or any life - or anything) possesses no intrinsic worth, ‘worth’ being a moral concept rooted in divine being. When one animal eats another, is it acting immorally? Is the question even meaningful in an impersonal cosmos?

I have stated my preferred goal: measures to ensure white survival within the moral bounds of Christian natural law. But without belief in God, soul, immortality, etc, who cares about wiping out a bunch of future leftists? I recall the vast hordes of pushy, self-righteous, race-replacing liberals at my university. You think I, even as a Christian, would lose sleep over a nut massacring them? Not my crime, not my sin, not my problem.

Posted by zxc on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 05:48 | #

Anon

Not much brainpower needed to attain grace, then. How convenient for the shtewpeed.

The accessibility of salvation was always one of Christianity’s most attractive features (as the more alert among the Mystery Cultists must have later rued).  Anyway, I fail to see how the experience of grace (“all in one’s head” or not) would be improved for its attainment being mentally taxing. However much more intellectually satisfying thinking one’s way to grace may be, if the point is to attain grace then puffing oneself out by trudging up the stairs when one could just as easily take the elevator seems rather silly.  For some people, of course, the elevators may be forever out of order so taking the stairs is their only option, and in that case the exercise is justified.

Narrator

So you’re saying that all but one of the following is superfluous?

As far as the average Christian is concerned, sure.  But just because such understanding is non-essential doesn’t mean it’s useless.  All of it can help to ‘deepen’ the religious experience and so has value. 

From the Church’s point of view, on the other hand, the Christian corpus is most certainly not superfluous. 

Atheists, however, tend to become holier than the Pope when it’s pointed out to them that a Christian is a Christian and his personal experience of the faith—the psychological effect it has on him—is just as real no matter what the church thinks of him.  “Oh, no,” atheists interject.  “He’s no Christian, not if he’s going against the teachings of the Church!”  Whatever the value of that line of reasoning as atheist propaganda, the neutral observer is forced to concede that a man can “follow Christ” and consider himself “saved” (and feel saved—be psychologically transformed by the feeling) regardless of what the Church or fellow believers have to say about it.

Lister

Right so if none of that is actually necessary then who will inform all those fundamentalists in Jesusland?
Sola scriptura out of the window, yes? No ‘literal’ readings anymore as most is not ‘required’?

And you claim the average attendee at a mega-church is having a profound experience - really just how do you know you buffoon? Away and read some Nietzsche (to start with or if that is too hard try looking on google for Rick Roderick’s lectures on him - he’s was from west Texas so should be culturally acceptable to you, yes?).

And I’m not a crude ‘materialist’ whatever you think that means, I doubt I’m ‘it’.

To reiterate, unnecessary doesn’t mean useless. 

I can’t “stop” the fundamentalists, but if stopping them is important they’re rather more likely to be stopped by a viewpoint that permits them to retain the essentials of their faith than by one that demands they discard it in toto.

I don’t know that the average attendee at a mega-church is having a profound experience.  I’d say it’s fair to assume he is but whether he is or isn’t (in that moment) is not germane to my point.  Forget the Texan yokel.  Take the illiterate Egyptian peasant.  There’s no good reason to believe his understanding of his faith runs any deeper than the Texan yokel’s but if his Islamic faith forms the bedrock of his conception of his earthly existence—a bedrock on which will rest his interpretation of every major world event, every rite of passage, every great elation and, especially, every great sorrow—then what right do you have to characterize this experience as “inch-deep”? 

I never called you a “crude “materialist nor did I use term pejoratively.  You are a materialist, aren’t you?  You certainly were scoffing.

Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 07:41 | #

Should I jump in on this one?

Posted by danielj on July 27, 2011, 05:10 AM

I know I shouldn’t. I’ve actively stayed out of such topics here of late.

But, what the heck…
.
.
.
.

So you’re saying that all but one of the following is superfluous?

As far as the average Christian is concerned, sure.  But just because such understanding is non-essential doesn’t mean it’s useless. 

Posted by zxc on July 28, 2011, 04:48 AM

Okay, so which one? Which book/letter should be used that you can neglect all of the rest?
.
.
.
.

[i]Atheists, however, tend to become holier than the Pope when it’s pointed out to them that a Christian is a Christian and his personal experience of the faith—the psychological effect it has on him—is just as real no matter what the church thinks of him.  “Oh, no,” atheists interject.  “He’s no Christian, not if he’s going against the teachings of the Church!”
Posted by zxc on July 28, 2011, 04:48 AM

Are you coming at this from a Catholic point of view? Because that changes the tint a bit.
I’m an atheist, but culturally Protestant.

...

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 08:53 | #

Leon,

Why do you keep referring to those killed as children?

It is a question of the tenderness of parenthood, Leon, and of a proper valuation of human lives.  You talk of lives as glyphs on which you could project a political anger.  It is a demeaning and ungenerous attitude.

Recently I got into debate with someone - not an unintelligent man - who arrived on the BNP section of the British Democracy Forum all full of German this and Third Reich that, the guilt of Churchill and Anglo-America and its Jews, Jews, Jews.  The usual flawed mindset.  He justified the German rape of the east.  The wrong side won, of course.  The SS were heroic, etc, etc.  But he still claimed to be a Brit and to love his land.  I asked him the simple question: “Which deaths did he approve of: the deaths of the German soldiers or of the British soldiers fighting them?”  He went to pieces and began conducting a hate campaign on the forum against me, and had to be banned.  This was an insane person who could only see in black and white.  He had no means of giving a proper valuation to life, and he never will have.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:01 | #

The mistake of course, is the loving of his land and not his race.

“Which deaths do you approve of: the deaths of the German soldiers or of the British proxy (Hindu, Sikh and American Japanese) soldiers fighting them?”

Posted by danielj on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:48 | #

Narrator,

We are all culturally Protestant now. Even Catholics and Jews.

Numismatics uber alles!

Posted by anon on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:19 | #

Yellow Supremacist July 25, 2011 at 7:38 am

Summary of Brievik’s Brief:
Jews are good, gays are good, Muslims are bad.

http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/07/24/a-people-or-tribe-that-doesn’t-recognize-itself-anymore-is-dead/

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:21 | #

Desmond,

Do you have to hand the number of Englishmen the Germans who were killed by Sikhs and Hindhus and Amer-Japs would have killed?  Perhaps we can do a calculation.  Of course, those dead Germans might have been Prussians or southerners, so not that close to the English.  And they might have killed not Englishmen at all but the Danes, Dutchmen, and Flemish they occupied ... all these people being closer to us than Prussians and southern Germans.

Anyway, I will leave the maths to you.  Let me know when you have trawled the birth records and come up with an answer.

Posted by Virgil Cain on Fri, 29 Jul 2011 05:48 | #

Guessedworker: The question you posed is easily answered.  First of all, British and Germans should not have been fighting each other during WWII.  Was it not Britian that declared war on Germany?  And for what?  Poland?  But the Allies were happy to leave Poland in control of the USSR post war.  Isn’t that strange?  The fact is clear for anyone who looks well at history, WWII should never have happened.  It was a continuation of WWI.  WWI should would have and should have been fought to a stalemate between Britian and Germany, leading to a must more just peace afterwards.  This didn’t happen because America inserted fresh troops and skewed the outcome of WWI toward the Brits.  America had no business in WWI (By the way, the Lusitania WAS carring ammuntion and WAS a legitimate target.)
America could have entered that war on either side, though.  Because of America’s interference, Germany was saddled with the sole responsibility for the war and forced to pay reparations to Britian AND rebuild their own devastated nation.  Couple this with the fact that there was over the top Communist agitation and counter-culture revolution against ethnic Germans during the Weimar Republic.  I’m no Nazi sympathizer, I think the Germans were decieved by a lie, but I also believe they were desperate and feared for the survival of their culture and race.  Every multi-cultural evil is a direct result of WWII and misinformation about it. It is not as simple as you believe.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 05:17 | #

Of course, those dead Germans might have been Prussians or southerners, so not that close to the English.  And they might have killed not Englishmen at all but the Danes, Dutchmen, and Flemish they occupied ... all these people being closer to us than Prussians and southern Germans.

Filthy Krauts!  If you’re fighting ‘niggers’ then what’s the big deal about using other hireling ‘niggers’ to kill the former?

all full of German this and Third Reich that, the guilt of Churchill and Anglo-America and its Jews, Jews, Jews.

He probably objected to the heinous crimes that those named committed against the German people, by which they - some allege - debased themselves.  A more “flawed mindset” is scarcely imaginable.  If only he had the lodestar of English Moralism to light his way.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:22 | #

Virgil Cain,

The British government humiliated itself prior to 1st September 1939 in giving Hitler repeated opportunities to pursue his objectives peacefully.  But his objectives were not peaceful.  The British and French governments guaranteed Poland against German military aggression because a line had, in their judgement, to be drawn.  The declaration of war was made inevitable by the German crossing of that line.

The British government was not happy that Poland was ceded to the Soviets by Roosevelt at Yalta.  But Britain incurred a heavier war debt than any member of the Allies, including the Soviet Union.  By January 1945 she was completely exhausted and war-weary.  Neither she nor anyone else was going to prolong the agony of war by attempting to drive back the Red Army (Truman could have done it, of course, with nuclear blackmail).

In terms of a final settlement, the three options available after Barbarossa were all dreadful.  Nazism was scarcely less disgusting and unnatural than Marxism-Leninism, the difference being in the end product of a racial inferiority sans the Jewish ubermenschen.  And if American neoliberal hegemony has revealed its face today, that face was not suspected in 1945.  None of these are appropriate to European peoples.  What is truly appropriate has still to be outlined.