Christian patriots smeared by Church Marxists

Posted by Matra on April 01, 2006, 04:07 PM | #

The Orthodox Church is probably the most patriotic of all branches of Christianity. Gallup did a survey asking the question: ‘Generally speaking, do you think immigration is a good or a bad thing for your country?”  Of the Christian countries Serbia, Bulgaria and Russia had the highest percentage saying immigration is bad. The EU’s only Orthodox country, Greece, is the EU state that is most hostile to immigration.

http://rmh.ru/en/news/res_results/66.html

Posted by Guessedworker on April 01, 2006, 04:22 PM | #

Fine post, Steve.

If any brave and forthright reader cares to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) Churches Together in Britain and Ireland to ask by what scriptural authority they have declared racism a sin and racial Marxism a religious duty, I’d like to hear their reply.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 01, 2006, 04:26 PM | #

The Church of England is an abomination run by homosexuals.

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 01, 2006, 04:52 PM | #

“The Church of England is an abomination run by homosexuals.”

LOL! Robert Mugabe couldn’t have said it better.

“The Gay Government of the Gay United Gay Kingdom”

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 01, 2006, 04:54 PM | #

On reflection, it’s hardly surprising that the mainstream churches are riddled with child-molesters and criminals - their entire doctrine is now criminal.

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 01, 2006, 04:57 PM | #

If you want real Christianity, Christianity at its soaring non-corrupted best, you should go no further than here:

http://www.ianpaisley.org/

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 01, 2006, 05:02 PM | #

Steve,

Our Roman Catholic friends may disagree with that very vehemently.

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 01, 2006, 05:12 PM | #

They might, Phil, they might. But the Catholics (and the Catholic hierachy) are hardly exempt from criticism on many important issues, especially the sorts of issues we like to cover on this website, now, are they?

Listen to some of Paisley’s sermons on his website - definitely one of the greatest modern preachers.

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 01, 2006, 05:17 PM | #

Let me put this another way - do you think Ian Paisley is for or against the New World Order and all its attendant corruptions?

Posted by Matra on April 01, 2006, 05:24 PM | #

what scriptural authority they have declared racism a sin and racial Marxism a religious duty

Like Catholics they would probably quote Paul speaking to the Colossians:

Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all and in all.

A plea for us to live together in a multiracial paradise?

The good news is that hardly anybody goes to liberal Protestant churches. It is the conservative fundamentalist Protestant denominations that have all the followers.

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 01, 2006, 05:49 PM | #

“A plea for us to live together in a multiracial paradise?”

No, he is saying that anyone from any race can be a Christian, not that they must be genocided out of existence.

That Christ is in the Greeks and the Jews does not imply that the Greeks or Jews must be destroyed and replaced by the Scythians or Barbarians.

Posted by Matra on April 01, 2006, 05:52 PM | #

Steve Edwards - Let me put this another way - do you think Ian Paisley is for or against the New World Order and all its attendant corruptions?

The Paisleyites talk a lot about the NWO believing it to be a Catholic conspiracy. They believe the RC Church is the force behind a United States of Europe and plans for world government. Here’s an example of their thinking from the website Steve has a link to:

The Pope’s plan to recover the Vatican’s European losses necessary for reconstructing the Empire is being graciously facilitated by Tony Blair, who is on record for his ‘closeness’ to Romanism and is handing the United Kingdom to the Vatican on a plate, whitewashing Irish terrorism, destroying British national identity and sending our troops to fight against our Serb allies of World War II. At the same time, Clinton, who has been photographed taking the Papist mass, is conditioning Americans for the Vatican’s planned subsequent move – to rule the world by Romanising America.

Returning to the article by Pierce, we find him mentioning two further significant things which Blair and Clinton have in common apart from their association with the shady Church of Rome. One is that they are both Bilderbergers – members of that exclusive club of the most influential and fanatical New Order promoters steered by the Illuminati, a secret fraternal society with origins in 16th-century Spanish Roman Catholic mysticism…Interestingly, the Encyclopaedia Britannica states that they “came primarily from among the reformed Franciscans and the Jesuits”. As we know, Clinton was educated at the Jesuit Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

The Bilderberg Conference is an annual three-day conference attended by more than one hundred of Europe’s and North America’s most influential bankers, economists, politicians, and government officials. The magazine Freedom Today [Vol. 22, No. 2] reports that Bilderberg membership is selected from the power élite of Europe and North America, and that Bilderbergers are conspiring to establish a ‘new world order’ with world government…

Scrutiny of Bilderberg Conference membership reveals that it is infested with Jesuits and Nazi sympathisers. The conferences were initiated by the Roman Catholic Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and took their name from the hotel in the Dutch town of Oosterbeek, where the first conference was held in 1954.

Posted by ben tillman on April 01, 2006, 06:05 PM | #

They have eschewed all Commandments except for the most sacred Commandment of all, “Thou Shalt Not Discriminate”.

Actually, they discriminate fiercely against the self.

Posted by ben tillman on April 01, 2006, 06:10 PM | #

Unadulterated Christianity and “kinism” from an American Southerner who has read MacDonald:

http://littlegeneva.com/

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 01, 2006, 06:52 PM | #

Let me put this another way - do you think Ian Paisley is for or against the New World Order and all its attendant corruptions?

Strangely I have never shown any interest in Northern Ireland, which is odd. I have read more about America than I have about Northern Ireland.

I have no doubt that Rev. Paisley would against the NWO. But in the larger scheme of things, he’s fighting one of yesterday’s battles. The enemy isn’t Roman Catholicism (despite all the problems that Catholics and Protestants have had un Ulster) but liberalism in its post modern variation. The NWO is a product of that.

Posted by Mark Richardson on April 01, 2006, 07:45 PM | #

Nineteenth century Anglican theologian F D Maurice:

an Englishman has as much right to speak of his own nation as holy as had the Hebrew patriots of theirs

Let us be sure that if we would ever see a real family of nations, such as the prophets believed would one day emerge out of the chaos they saw around them ... this must come from each nation maintaining its integrity and unity

no man has ever done good to mankind who was not a patriot

Will the Church of England now condemn its own theologian Maurice for such “sinful” statements?

The truth is that the spiritual man will always feel connected to his own race and nation.

The current leadership of the Church of England are not so much heretics as uninspired poseurs.

Posted by Al Ross on April 01, 2006, 11:06 PM | #

Only Irish Catholics or UK adherents of Irish descent would be certain to disagree vehemently with Paisley.

The Northern Ireland question is one of national identity and English Catholics like Paul Johnson, Piers Paul Read and the Scot, Michael Ancram have defended the right of Ulstermen to remain British.

Posted by WJG on April 01, 2006, 11:40 PM | #

Mr. Edwards,

I want to also commend you for an excellent post.  The sad thing is this Gospel according to St. Leon Trotsky is the norm most everywhere in the Establishment Church in the White World.  Even the “right wing” Evangelical churches such as the Southern Baptist Convention are pathologically anti-racial.  It goes further since the normative interpretation of the Bible on the ‘Right’ today is called Dispensationalism which, among other things, returns Jewry to the exalted position of God’s Chosen People.  They are to be catered to and not challenged so as to avoid God’s wrath be they Zionists or good old fashioned white-hating leftists.  The sophomoric Left Behind book series, which swept through the US a few years ago - especially amongst ‘conservatives’, fictionalized this interpretation to a fawning extreme.

Harry Seabrook, the host of the Little Geneva web site is constantly under attack by many self-styled “conservative Christians” who view the virtue of White racial replacement no less highly than the Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, ... Establishments.  They have all sold us out for a season of ‘relevance’.  According to these folks blaspheming the Holy Spirit is no longer the only unforgivable sin.

I consider myself a Christian but I despise what the contemporary ‘Church’ has become.  As you say it is a simple pawn of the NWO, though they no doubt think it is God’s will.  Cowards and scum they are.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 02, 2006, 12:05 AM | #

I just want to say, in the excellent Kalb entry linked toward the end of my comment of 12:39 AM, ego and ille are Latin for I and he respectively.  In other words, Ego is Kalb, and Ille the person he’s talking to there.  The use of “ego” in that dialogue is not meant to imply “egoïsm” on the part of the person expressing “Ego’s” opinions.  (I clarify that because of an e-mail I’ve just received.)  (Never realized the person who sent it lived in Rio Linda ....)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 02, 2006, 02:59 AM | #

The ideas of Kinism, which I view as basically on the right track, need a lot of refinement.  I also don’t view Kinism as a separate branch of Christianity but something whose ideas need to start influencing the existing branches of Christianity—that is, need to be incorporated into them, in refined form (Kinists have many of the basics right, and many of the details wrong).  Here for example are some of my reactions to the first few paragraphs of
What is Kinism and Why Does it Matter? at their web-site:

In the attempt to create a One World, Babylonian government, a relentless campaign is now underway throughout the world to eradicate racial and ethnic distinctions. White Christians are the foremost targets of this campaign.  [So far, white Christians are the only targets.  Why do I have a sneaking suspicion the campaign will suddenly end after white Christians have been eradicated (leaving all other races and ethnicities intact)? ...]

Kinism is the belief that the ordained [I’d put some other word in place of “ordained”—“normal,” for example, or “natural,” or “healthy”—something like that.] social order for man is tribal and ethnic rather than imperial and universal. Mankind was designed by God to live in extended family groups.  [Same problem:  I dunno about the “designed by God” thing—but this stuff can be worked on and refined.] The Jacobin doctrine of Equality is destructive, is antithetical to liberty, and is ultimately unachievable. Blood ties are the only natural and workable basis for a healthy society not subject to the ideologies of fallen man. We believe this is the normative system for our people.  [Basically has the right idea, but needs a fair amount of refinement.]

We at the Kinist Institute believe that our White people have a God-given right and duty to seek their own prosperity and existence as a distinct nation. This is primarily to be achieved by converting our people to the religion of our only Savior, Jesus Christ. Therefore, we denounce the sin of miscegenation as a violation of God’s created order [I don’t think miscegenation is a sin or a violation of God’s created order.  This I’d take out completely.] which has permanent consequences for every heritable trait. [What they should say is simply that reasonable, humane measures taken by a community or nation aimed at preserving their traditional racial and ethnocultural identities are not unchristian; that races exist, are very dear to people, and wanting to preserve them is legitimate and no violation of Christianity.]  We appeal to God’s creation mandate of kind after kind. [The description of “kind after kind” in Genesis certainly is one piece of evidence potentially bolstering the view that Christianity at least does not frown on racial self-preservation by communities and nations.  It’s possible it means that, although we’re not sure.  It is not clearly a “mandate” that people not miscegenate.  But its presence in the Bible does at least make it harder to argue that Christianity necessarily condemns the taking of reasonable, humane steps aimed at the preservation of a community’s traditional race.] 

It is the obligation of both church and state to forbid mixed unions according to biblical laws prohibiting unequal yoking.  [I disagree entirely.  The fault of the state in today’s world does not lie in its failure to forbid mixed unions—which it has no business forbidding in any case—but in its imposition of race-replacement immigration on unconsulted, unwilling traditional populations by means of whole programs of totalitarian and coercive measures of varying severity.  Individuals wishing to marry individuals of a different race are no legitimate business of the state’s on an individual level.  National immigration policies that are both unwanted by majorities and threaten the racial undoing of their traditional communities and nations are the legitimate business of the state’s.]

And so on—the rest of their stuff can be discussed and criticised in like fashion, with proposals made for further refinement.  The main thing is, they’re explicitly calling into question the attitude of mainstream branches of Christianity toward Christians who express concern over forced race-replacement by governments.  The importance of this cannot be overstated.

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 02, 2006, 03:36 AM | #

Fred - the UN is beginning to stir things up with Japan. Somehow I don’t think Europe will be the end of it.

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 02, 2006, 03:51 AM | #

“...an Englishman has as much right to speak of his own nation as holy as had the Hebrew patriots of theirs…”

Oh boy! Is that totally relevant today or what?

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 02, 2006, 05:22 AM | #

Fred - the UN is beginning to stir things up with Japan. Somehow I don’t think Europe will be the end of it.

The only way Japan goes the same way as the rest of the first world is if the Japs let it happen. The UN can whinge and moan for decades and that won’t change a thing.

Posted by Alan on April 02, 2006, 06:36 PM | #

IMMIGRANTS, NOT BRITS MUST ADAPT.
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on the 7th/7th we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Brits. However, the disgust about the attacks had barely settled when the ‘politically correct’ crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.

I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Britain, Our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants. (The Danes, Romans etc.) However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of Britian being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Britons we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

We speak ENGLISH, not Indian, Urdu, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language! “Land of Hope & Glory” is our motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

If the Union Jack offends you, or you don’t like our QUEEN, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and haven no desire to change, and we really don’t care how you did things where you came from. This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle. Our Laws give every citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so! But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our lifestyle our government, or our way of life, I highly recommend you take advantage of one other great BRITISH freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 02, 2006, 07:02 PM | #

“But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our lifestyle, our government, or our way of life, I highly recommend you take advantage of one other great BRITISH freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.”  (—Alan)

I wish they’d take advantage of that right before they’re “done complaining, whining, and griping”—before they even start, in fact.  Actually, to tell the truth, I wish they’d take advantage of it the very instant their plane wheels touch down at Heathrow.  Let them turn around and LEAVE ON THE NEXT FLIGHT without even setting foot outside the Arrivals terminal onto British soil.  Save us all a lot of aggravation, frankly ...

Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 02, 2006, 07:04 PM | #

And send Blunkett, Blair, and yes Cameron with them on the same flight.

Posted by Al Ross on April 02, 2006, 07:17 PM | #

Alan should have written - “Our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of EUROPEAN immigrants”.

  However, “almost entirely” is somewhat of an exaggeration.

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 03, 2006, 05:09 AM | #

“And send Blunkett, Blair, and yes Cameron with them on the same flight.”

What? And deny us the pleasure of placing them on trial for high treason?

Posted by Guessedworker on April 03, 2006, 06:14 AM | #

Alan,

You have set your foot upon the road.  But now you must keep walking.  “I am not against immigration” is not yet a philosophy of survival, and “nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Britain” still betrays an acceptance of our (political) enemy’s language.  It is NOT necessary to apologise for holding healthy, natural opinions.  It is the other side which should apologise to you and to all English natives for inflicting a perverse and destructive philosophy upon you.

I support Al’s all too terse comment on that “nation of immigrants” scam.  We are not, of course, a nation of immigrants.  The north Germans, Danes and Norse-French came to these shores to profit by force and to conquer and occupy.  They were not “migrants” looking for a better life but people of a proud martial nature and North European lineage.  There is nothing in the great heritage they bequeathed us that meshes with or justifies our deracination and dispossession by Negroes and Asiatics today.

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 03, 2006, 06:30 AM | #

Good point GW. Alan - that’s a good start. You’ll get there eventually.

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 03, 2006, 06:31 AM | #

BTW - that wasn’t meant to be a patronising remark (and it wasn’t). I just know the “road” all too well, and have seen many souls walk it. It’s a lonely journey.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 03, 2006, 03:28 PM | #

It’s a lonely journey.

And a LONG journey.

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 03, 2006, 03:38 PM | #

Well, I’m only 24 and I was a hippy at ages 17-18!

There is hope for everyone.