|
|
Christianity and Mythical ImperativesThis will be even shorter than my typical posts, because I haven’t thought through the ramifications: We must negotiate a peace with Christianity, because otherwise two eons worth of our history and mythology become a source of shame and derision, rather than pride and faith. Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Sunday, September 6, 2009 at 09:44 PM in Comments:2
Posted by the Narrator... on September 07, 2009, 03:59 AM | #
There is a war? I’ve been out and about of late, so maybe I missed something. .
I guess you could make the same argument about the Civil Rights movement or progressive liberalism in general. Our people have been for ages (and may well be for ages yet to be) spiritual. But a specific religion, such as Christianity, is always a fad. As a social fad, we can look back on it in much the same way we look back on tri-corner hats. But also, as a political movement, we can cast as critical an eye on it as we do on the 1965 immigration overhaul and its consequences. ... 3
Posted by Fharm Grimbolt on September 07, 2009, 06:37 AM | #
What are you smoking? Not every Aryan people has been subjugated to Judeo-Christianity for 2,000 years!! I myself am half-Norwegian and many of us were not forcibly Judeo-Christianized until like 1,200 CE!! And even after that many of my Ancestors maintained the Old Ways in secret! An Aryan should celebrate the brave ones who fought against the plague of the semitic cult of Judeo-Christianity! Julian the Apostate:
King Redbad:
An honorable mention should go to Heinrich Himmler as well! 4
Posted by Leon Boliakov on September 07, 2009, 07:32 AM | # Julian had a bit of bad luck, though, didn’t he? “His attempt to defy the Gospel and rebuild the temple at Jerusalem was brought to nothing by fire and earthquake” Now WHY should he have wanted to do that, I wonder? However, his Famous Last Words were: Nenikekas Galilaie The authority quoted above says also of him: “He was passionate,arbitrary, vain and prejudiced, blindly submissive to the rhetoricians and magicians.” 5
Posted by the Narrator... on September 07, 2009, 08:01 AM | #
That can be said of religionists in general. It’s ironic, is it not, that in the context of a theist vs. atheist discussion, the Christian finds himself in the same camp (and thus on the same side) as Julian. ... 6
Posted by Frank on September 07, 2009, 08:52 AM | #
Paganism isn’t one religion, and anyone proclaiming to know the “ancient ways” should be treated with some caution. We can draw from the wisdom of the ancients and look to them for guidance and foundation, but a rigid faith isn’t existing that’s Euro “pagan”. 7
Posted by Q on September 07, 2009, 09:15 AM | #
Very wise suggestion, Svigor. I’ve always maintained that antagonism towards Christianity is perhaps the most foolish course of action WN’s could embark upon. Given the fact that the majority of whites do in fact identify themselves as Christians, it is a fool’s errand to expect the WN movement to grow if you antagonize and denigrate them ... especially Christians whom are acually in positions to effect influence and change, eg. Pat Buchanan. To take it a step further, we need to not only eschew from alienating Christians (I am Christian btw), we need to include ANYONE whom is pro white-preservationist. That would include Christians, liberals, commies, socialists, yuppies, feminists, easy-online-racialists, etc. In fact, we shouldn’t turn away help if it comes in the form of a non-white either. I can think of blacks such as Ward Connerley, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Rev. Manning, etc. that are more beneficial than not to our cause. If white-preservationists restrict their criteria for authentic “membership” to a narrow set of qualifications, our ranks will constantly remain politically insignificant in numbers, and continually cast out into the outer margins of the social realm. P.S. On the subject of liberals as white-preservationists/race-realists, Fred Scrooby, on another thread linked to this must read essay: 8
Posted by JTaverner on September 07, 2009, 10:59 AM | # If one wants to make peace with Christianity, understand it. Start by reading Augustine’s Confessions, Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, Calvin’s Institutes, and of course, the Bible itself. 9
Posted by the Narrator... on September 07, 2009, 01:59 PM | #
So do the majority of non-Whites in Western lands. But most Whites have moved on and Europeans in general only ever had a tepid infatuation with serious Christian dogma to begin with. .
Yeah that strategy worked so well for the GOP after all. . . .
Take this ringing endorsement of strong family ties from Jesus, for example,
Or take this political advise from the decrepit old jew Paul in one of his love letters to a half-breed named Timothy,
Yeah, that’s how it works. Kiss their ass and they’ll respect you for it and leave you in peace. Funny thing is jews are still giving the same advise to gentiles today, and tragically many are still heeding it. ... 10
Posted by Leon Boliakov on September 07, 2009, 03:39 PM | # The Narrator doesn’t seem to get it, does he? Christ was saying that if you convert and follow him, you may expect the strongest oppositiion from those nearest to you. And yet Christianity is pro-family - a stance that’s earned it many brickbats and much opprobrium from the smart and clever. Those two facts are easily reconcilable. Put together, they signify: Truth first, family second. Or does The Narrator still live with his Mom? I think it’s so sad when the ignorant - the WILFULLY ignorant, that is - try their unpractised hands at Scriptural exegesis. As JTaverner says, get a bit of acquaintance with what you’re reconciling with/attacking. The jibe against Paul and Timothy is so silly, it’s not worth noticing. Odd thing - the 4x2’s are frightened of Christianity - it’s the strongest and in fact the only refutation of their claims. I can’t begin to think how the Narrator puts Christians in the same camp as Julian. We Xtians generally refer to him as ‘Julian the Apostate’.Perhaps the pagan we might line up with more is Cicero, whose ‘On the Nature of the Gods’ clearly presents the ‘argument from design’. Odd how Jews steer clear of Christian ‘given’ names. I expect that Oliver may not be Sachs’ real first moniker: if he’d heard of Oliver Plunkett he mightn’t insist on it. The 4x2’s used to go in big for pagan names: in the late 19th century there was a plethora of Wagnerian names, like Siegrfried Sassoon. Oh, and Oskar Strauss - Oskar Levy et al. - their folks liked romantic Celtic mythology too. Odinic mythologies and Irish fairy-tales hold no worries for them: they don’t compete for the same ground. Revived/invented paganism - and there aren’t really any other sorts in Europe, it’s all an exercise in antiquarian forgery - has strong Jewish connections. Look at the Canaanim, and at the origins of Wicca in Freemasonry. Even poor old God-hater Thomas Hardy based some of his anti-Christian polemic on that opprobious Talmudic tract, ‘Toledoth Yeshuah’ Narrator should stop sounding like an even angrier Revilo Oliver (oh no, it’s that name again!) otherwise he will easily falsify his own claim not to have noticed that he and his like are at war with Christianity. 11
Posted by Svigor on September 07, 2009, 11:18 PM | # Narrator:
Yes, if you haven’t noticed the hostility toward Christianity within WNism, you’ve missed something.
Is this meant as humor? Fharm Grimbolt:
Good point, obviously a single eon is a better way to characterize Christianity’s reign over Europe.
(This is what I was referring to, Narrator) I simply don’t have the time to make an adequate list showing even the broad strokes of who you’re painting as champions of the “plague of the Semitic cult.” The number of brave, strong, true men who fought and died in the name of God, Church, Christendom, etc., cannot be counted. If we recklessly cast away what they fought and died for, if we piss on the banners they carried and bled beneath…who are the cowards again? My forefathers weren’t cowards, or knaves, or fools, or dupes. This is probably no small part of why our enemies so despise Christianity.
I agree, but what really pushed me off the fence was thinking about our ancestors. We make mock of many centuries of our own history if we make mock of the banners they carried and the oaths they swore.
Given the psychology of subcultures, if you haven’t already you might want to consider that a sizable swathe of racialists don’t want to expand beyond the margins (mainstream & popular aren’t kewl). JTaverner:
This is what I was thinking. White men wrote all of it but the Bible, so we should emphasize the former. Narrator:
Good! Excellent! 12
Posted by the Narrator... on September 08, 2009, 04:20 AM | #
Certainly nothing Orwellian about that, is there. .
And occasionally talking with Christians I see no reason to doubt any of the findings in the above.
That wasn’t a jibe. And then there is Augustine whom JTaverner mentioned above. Augustine was a Berber. That’s a helluva group right there!
You can’t? .
If you can contort my sparse comments on the subject in a thread on a blog into an “angry” “war” then heaven help you should you ever find yourself in a linguistic fist fight! As a social fad, we can look back on it in much the same way we look back on tri-corner hats. But also, as a political movement, we can cast as critical an eye on it as we do on the 1965 immigration overhaul and its consequences.
Nope. A little sarcastic, but no the point was meant in all seriousness. The era of Christian political dominance in Europe, from the 13th century to the 17th century, can and should be examined with as much critical assessment as the Industrial Revolution, which also had its helpful and its harmful aspects.
Last time I looked at the statistics, most of our enemies are Christians themselves. It is by far the dominant religion in Latin America and there are more Christians in Africa than there are White people in Western Europe. As for what our forefathers fought and died for, I would hope that is was for their people. That is, after all, what our current struggle is for, is it not? Our people! We don’t have to “cast away” the era in which Christianity was influential in The West. We just need to place it in its proper historical context. Otherwise we might cast away thousands of years worth of Western History (and the ancestors who lived it) that came prior to the Christian era. ... 13
Posted by Al Ross on September 08, 2009, 05:22 AM | # One does not have to believe in Christianity to be able to make assay of its value to the cause of White survival. Many intelligent Whites are nominal, or cultural, Christians who might reasonably imagine a Celestial future to be congruent with a sepia - tinted South Africa circa 1959. The difficulty lies in the separation of the above from the reality of the activist - supported race -blind, proletarianism which by its very , Jew - inspired, nature embraces everything inimical to our EGI. Who knows what Christians will do, but, given the magnitude of the task, any Christian group which identifies with our (in the Aryan sense) EGI should be offered the chance to support us. ps When any major Christian denomination does publicly endorse a White America, perhaps those who imagined this to be possible will jubilantly inform MR and freely admit that this desideratum was subtly mentioned in their letters to Santa Claus. 14
Posted by Andrew on September 08, 2009, 02:10 PM | # Not the mythical Aryans again;- I suppose when you surrender in any war, the Occupation is endless and for near eternity – The Church was only one of the Institutions that was infiltrated by Ideology – Leftism and its Antitheses were the topics of study and adopted as the new Gospel while the actual premise of Christianity was stamped out – “ By Guilt and indoctrination “- 15
Posted by ultra-extra-Libertarian on September 08, 2009, 02:16 PM | # Spirituality is vastly more important than rubbish notions like “race”. I fully understand “white” Christians who feel closer to an Ethiopian Christian than to a western, “white” materialistic atheist. 16
Posted by Roger Gray on September 08, 2009, 05:55 PM | # Now if only Rome had listened to Marcion and jettisoned Christianity’s Jewish baggage in toto. Instead, Christians treat Hebrew tribal myths and the fulminations of the prophets major and minor as holy writ. Housewives from Boise to Dorking consult Ezekiel and memorise chunks of Nehemiah chapter and verse. Christianity as filtered through two millennia of European history is not still a Jewish cult, but it might as well still be when Jews like Howard Jacobson can lecture us in BBC documentaries in precisely those terms, and Simon Sharma can nose his way through a cathedral’s sunlit interior as though he owns the place. What have all the battles, treaties and bloodshed wrought us? It is bad enough that churches are being turned into mosques. It is doubly bad that those structures were laid on a cornerstone put there in good faith. It is yet worse that these structures are objects of beauty that could not now be built by Euros even if they had the will. The masons and ironmongers are all in their graves and the brickworks and quarries are shut. Christianity the launchpad. Western culture in the ascendant the rocket. It is now practically a trope that the faith enabled us to do what we did. To hold on to Christianity is to tether rocket and launchpad. We already made our peace with Christianity. Only with the greatest reluctance, starting in the 17th century, did we begin the task of cutting the apron strings from the “politically ordered cosmology” that is Christianity. From the 19th century we interrogated it to give up its secrets and found it had many. It is not what it claims for itself; it is a confection. The best possible outcome is for those who have read modern scholarship to keep quiet about what they have discovered. If they are of a sophisticated bent, they can become Quakers or Unitarians. The worst possible outcome is for WNs to become fundamentalist Christians. That truly is to make a mockery of what our ancestors went through during the long dark centuries in thrall to Pauline Christianity. 17
Posted by Q on September 11, 2009, 07:23 PM | # Patrick J. Buchanan Is America coming apart? © 2009 Flying home from London, where the subject of formal debate on the 70th anniversary of World War II had been whether Winston Churchill was a liability or asset to the Free World, one arrives in the middle of a far more acrimonious national debate right here in the United States. At issue: Should Barack Obama be allowed to address tens of millions of American children, inside their classrooms, during school hours? Conservative talk-show hosts saw a White House scheme to turn public schools into indoctrination centers where the socialist ideology of Obama would be spoon-fed to captive audiences of children forced to listen to Big Brother—and then do assignments on his sermon. The liberal commentariat raged about right-wing paranoia. Yet Byron York of the Washington Examiner dug back to 1991 to discover that, when George H.W. Bush went to Alice Deal Junior High to speak to America’s school kids, the left lost it. “The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props,” railed the Washington Post. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was called before a House committee. The National Education Association denounced Bush. And Congress ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate. Obama’s actual speech proved about as controversial as a Nancy Reagan appeal to eighth-graders to “Just say no!” to drugs. Yet, the episode reveals the poisoned character of our politics. We saw it earlier on display in August, when the crowds that came out for town hall meetings to oppose Obama’s health-care plans were called “thugs,” “fascists,” “racists” and “evil-mongers” by national Democrats. We see it as Rep. Joe Wilson shouts, “You lie!” at the president during his address to a joint session of Congress. “You Lie!” Get the bumper sticker that immortalizes American opposition to Obama We seem not only to disagree with each other more than ever, but to have come almost to detest one another. Politically, culturally, racially, we seem ever ready to go for each others’ throats. One half of America sees abortion as the annual slaughter of a million unborn. The other half regards the right-to-life movement as tyrannical and sexist. Proponents of gay marriage see its adversaries as homophobic bigots. Opponents see its champions as seeking to elevate unnatural and immoral relationships to the sacred state of traditional marriage. The question invites itself. In what sense are we one nation and one people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry, faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays and share the same music, poetry, art and literature? Yet, today, Mexican-Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo, a skirmish in a French-Mexican war about which most Americans know nothing, which took place the same year as two of the bloodiest battles of our own Civil War: Antietam and Fredericksburg. Christmas and Easter, the great holidays of Christendom, once united Americans in joy. Now we fight over whether they should even be mentioned, let alone celebrated, in our public schools. Where we used to have classical, pop, country & Western and jazz music, now we have varieties tailored to specific generations, races and ethnic groups. Even our music seems designed to subdivide us.
But the old holidays, heroes and icons endure, as the new have yet to put down roots in a recalcitrant Middle America. We are not only more divided than ever on politics, faith and morality, but along the lines of class and ethnicity. Those who opposed Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court and stood by Sgt. Crowley in the face-off with Harvard’s Henry Louis Gates were called racists. But this time they did not back down. They threw the same vile word right back in the face of their accusers, and Barack Obama. Consider but a few issues on which Americans have lately been bitterly divided: school prayer, the Ten Commandments, evolution, the death penalty, abortion, homosexuality, assisted suicide, affirmative action, busing, the Confederate battle flag, the Duke rape case, Terri Schiavo, Iraq, amnesty, torture. Now it is death panels, global warming, “birthers” and socialism. If a married couple disagreed as broadly and deeply as Americans do on such basic issues, they would have divorced and gone their separate ways long ago. What is it that still holds us together? The European-Christian core of the country that once defined us is shrinking, as Christianity fades, the birth rate falls and Third World immigration surges. Globalism dissolves the economic bonds, while the cacophony of multiculturalism displaces the old American culture. “E pluribus unum” – out of many, one - was the national motto the men of ‘76 settled upon. One sees the pluribus. But where is the unum? One sees the diversity. But where is the unity? Is America, too, breaking up? 18
Posted by Q on September 12, 2009, 10:26 AM | # This is how the sick twisted liberal diversatoids are treating the Christian dead in England: Proposed Muslim Cemetery in London Will Relocate 350,000 Christian Bodies 19
Posted by Andrew on September 12, 2009, 06:22 PM | # It is obvious Q that the U K is under Ideological Occupation – there were whispers in the senior ranks of the British defence forces that were voicing their sever concern; Next entry: Hitler and a Historian Previous entry: Is This All the Argument They Have? |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. marloe commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 01:11 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 11:34 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 11:20 AM. (go) (view) the river commented in entry 'Soren Renner at VoR' on 02/08/12, 11:08 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 11:05 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 10:51 AM. (go) (view) arguerplayday commented in entry 'SAT State Ranking Adjusted for Participation Rates' on 02/08/12, 10:46 AM. (go) (view) John commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 10:43 AM. (go) (view) Mr Voight commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 10:40 AM. (go) (view) Mr Voight commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 10:36 AM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:32 AM. (go) (view) Mr Voight commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 10:30 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 10:26 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:06 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:04 AM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:55 AM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 09:48 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 08:14 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 07:22 AM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 06:30 AM. (go) (view) MOB commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:25 AM. (go) (view) anon commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 01:42 AM. (go) (view) Rusty commented in entry 'Will someone arrest, and prosecute, this fine lady?' on 02/08/12, 12:40 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/07/12, 11:41 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/07/12, 11:16 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/07/12, 11:03 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/07/12, 10:58 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/07/12, 10:53 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/07/12, 10:52 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/07/12, 10:17 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/07/12, 10:12 PM. (go) (view) anon commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/07/12, 09:49 PM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/07/12, 09:15 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/07/12, 08:59 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/07/12, 08:59 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Lurker on September 06, 2009, 10:21 PM | #
I think you are right.
You were kind of saying something like this on isteve or pointing in that direction anyway.
Its all very well throwing off the more recent depredations of multicultralism but trying to reach year zero, grinding the culture down to bare metal and starting again* is not practical or desireable. We have to accept, like it or not, that part of what we are is our history and work with that.
*One could argue that is what our cultural marxist pals have actually done.