YAHWEH AS THE EATER OF NATIONS

Posted by PF on September 12, 2007, 06:18 PM | #

A rising atheistic “emotional ardour” replaced by an ever growing welfare Leviathan appears to pretty much re-affirm the assertion. Declining religiosity negatively correlates with racialism.

Does declining religiosity also correlate with increasing predilection for science?

Posted by Guessedworker on September 12, 2007, 06:32 PM | #

I might be able to rustle up a few features of Christianity that do not seem to me to be well-fitted to the Northern European mind.  But off the top of my head, the principal ones appear to be monotheism - a competitive evolutionary strategy of Old Testament Hebrews - and Paulian universalism.

B.C.: How does performing the blood-eagle sacrifice on your co-ethnic express our evolutionary group interests?

Now that’s not worthy of you, BC.  Here’s what Wikipedia says about the sources of our knowledge of German paganism:-

Most sources documenting Germanic paganism have presumably been lost. From Iceland there is a substantial literature, namely the Nordic Sagas and the Eddas, relating to the pagan period, but most of this was written long after Iceland’s conversion to Christianity. Some information is found in the Nibelungenlied. The literary source closest to the pagan period is probably Beowulf, which seems to have been composed about 680-730 CE, and therefore within the lifetime of pagans from the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Suffolk, which remained officially pagan until 680. Limited information also exists in Tacitus’ ethnographic work Germania.

Further material has been deduced from folk customs found in surviving rural folk traditions that have either been mildly superficially Christianized or lightly modified, including surviving laws and legislature (Althing, Anglo-Saxon law, the Grágás), calendar dates, customary folktales and traditional symbolism found in folk art.

A great deal of information has been unearthed by recent archaeology, including the pagan Sutton Hoo royal funerary site in East Anglia and the royal pagan temple at Gefren/Yeavering in Northumberland.

The traditional ballads of the Northumbrian/Scottish borders, and their European counterparts, have also preserved many aspects of Germanic heathen belief. As York Powell wrote, “The very scheme on which the ballads and lays are alike built, the hapless innocent death of a hero or heroine, is as heathen as the plot of any Athenian tragedy can be.”

The majority of the literary evidence for Germanic paganism was likely intentionally destroyed when Christianity slowly gained dominant political power in Anglo-Saxon England, then Germania and later Scandinavia throughout the mediæval period.

Although perhaps singularly most responsible for the destruction of pagan sites, including purported massacres such as the Bloody Verdict of Verden and the subsequent dismantling of ancient tribal ruling systems, the Frankish emperor Charlemagne of The Holy Roman Empire is said to have acquired a substantial collection of Germanic pre-Christian writings, which was deliberately destroyed after his death.

So it is impossible to formulate a reliable model in answer to your question.  Christianity was too jealous of its singular rights to the minds of men.  That said, cognitive psychology strives after a view of all evolved mind-functions.  The faith faculty is not immune to such considerations, and is generally explained as a high-trust mechanism that underpins/advantages group action.

Posted by Scimitar on September 12, 2007, 06:33 PM | #

A rising atheistic “emotional ardour” replaced by an ever growing welfare Leviathan appears to pretty much re-affirm the assertion. Declining religiosity negatively correlates with racialism.

Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the supernatural. It does not entail any particular ethical worldview. It is on the same level as “a-Elvisism” or “a-fairyism.” There are all sorts of atheists. I’m willing to wager that atheists and agnostics are overrepresented here at MR.

Barnett demonstrates in painstaking detail how evangelical Christianity enervated Britain - locked the British in a “spiritual corset” - from the early nineteenth century down to the present. Eventually, this sort of mentality undermined the Empire itself. He cites Britain’s willingness to condemn and alienate Mussolini over his invasion of worthless Abyssinia as an example of how evangelical moralizing came to determine British foreign policy.

This doesn’t come as any surprise to me. The moralizing, evangelical crusade against “racism” in our own times is merely the latest outlet for the same impulse that informed the anti-slavery movement. Another example would be the campaign in Britain during the early twentieth century against the wickedness of King Leopold II’s Congo Free State. At various times, it has been different things. The Yankees of New England have the same problem.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 12, 2007, 06:38 PM | #

Scimitar,

On Barnett, it’s getting late here and I am tired.  I will read those passages you excerpt and perhaps offer a comment in the morning.

Posted by PF on September 12, 2007, 07:20 PM | #

Scimitar wrote:

He cites Britain’s willingness to condemn and alienate Mussolini over his invasion of worthless Abyssinia as an example of how evangelical moralizing came to determine British foreign policy.

I’ll have to look into Barnett.

The book I read about The Dilessi Murders reviewed the change between British foreign policy in the time of Palmerston (1850s) and in the time of Gladstone.(1870s)

In a word, it was this: Palmerston practiced “gun-boat diplomacy”, and cared only for the interests of Britain. Gladstone, on the other hand, believed in Constitutional principles, which became evident in his dealing with the Greeks during the Dilessi hostage crisis. He could have overrided the Greek constitution and demanded that the brigands receive official pardon- which would have won Freedom for the English hostages. Instead he refused to use a show of force to coerce the Greek government—he did this out of respect for the Greeks and their fledgling Constitutional government. That this is the motivation is illustrated by quotes from Gladstone relating to this crisis, where he makes clear his commitment to Constitutional Sovereignty.

As far as I could tell, that was one indicator of the beginning of England’s tradeoff of power for principle- a thing which only did not draw laughter because of the enormously high reputation and respect that the British commanded in those centuries. The power of the British reputation and the respect accorded to it in the 19th century are something you have to reconstruct through quotes and contemporary sources- a person in our era could hardly be persuaded to recall the prestige in Europe and elsewhere which once attached to being British. I think the Nietzschean and Spenglerian quotes we all know against England were all the more self-consciously provocative and against the grain, for being voiced at a time when the suspicion lingered, as it almost still does today in some odd corners of Germany, that the British actually occupy some kind of higher level of existence than the rest of the world. I suppose that is the suspicion held of all people who represent for a time the nexus of progress, manners and power, be they Greek, Roman or English.

I’ve met some Americans on this board whose conviction of the infallibility of the Germans has a religious element- and maybe in 1890 it was the Germans who were the envy of the world. Some people felt the same way about Americans- that they are all sexy, energetic, etc., before the world got better acquainted with American culture.

Posted by Scimitar on September 12, 2007, 08:38 PM | #

Barnett on liberalism below. He sounds like GW here. This is a bit long, but very much worth the read. I remember reading Barnett as an undergraduate. His book was a formative influence upon my own views.

“This swift decline in British vigour at home and the failure to exploit the empire were not owing to some inevitable sensecent process of history. They shared a specific cause. The cause was a political doctrine; a doctrine blindly believed in long after it had ceased to correspond with reality.

The doctrine was liberalism, which criticised and finally demolished the traditional conception of the nation-state as a collective organism, a community; and asserted instead the primacy of the individual. According to liberal thinking a nation was no more than so many human atoms who happened to live under the same set of laws. From such a belief it followed that the State, instead of being the embodiment of a national community as it had been under the Tudors and the Commonwealth, was required to dwindle into a kind of policeman, standing apart from the national life, and with the merely negative task of keeping the free-for-all of individual competition within the bounds of decorum.

Liberalism, like evangelical religion, flowed from a late-eighteenth century intellectual spring. Like evangelical religion again, it was a manifestation of the middle-class mind, and arose with the middle classes before 1850 and with them prevailed. Indeed liberalism and evangelical Christianity were head and tail of the same idealism, often expoused by the same persons, as in the case of Richard Cobden, and fueled from a common reservoir of moral passion.

Central to liberalism was the belief that human progress and human happiness were best assured by leaving individuals to compete freely with each other: laissez-faire; let them get on with it. What was socially necessary could be safely entrusted to spontaneous creation by private initiative. As Adam Smith, the founder of liberal economics, put it in 1776: ‘By pursuing his own interest [an individual] frequently promotes that of society the more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.’ It was Adam Smith who formulated the doctrine of Free Trade, keystone of liberalism, which was to exercise as long-lived and as baneful effect on British power was Wesley and Whitefield’s preaching. Adam Smith attacked the traditional ‘mercantilist’ belief that a nation should be generally self-supporting: ‘If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage.’

Therefore the State should not protect home markets or industries from competition:

To give the monopoly of the home market to the produce of domestic industry, in any particular art or manafacture, is in some measure to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, and must, in almost all cases, be either a useless or hurtful regulation. 

Adam Smith thus looked forward to a division of labour between different countries, whereby each specialised in certain trades and industries, and therefore became dependent on one another. Nevertheless he agreed that the State should continue to regulate shipping so that the nation might always be sure of a supply of seamen, ships and naval stores, because ‘. . . defence, however, is of much greater importance than opulence’. This vital distinction was totally forgotten by the nineteenth-century apostles of Free Trade. Indeed Richard Cobden so lost sight of national security that he believed that Free Trade was ‘the international law of the Almighty’, and that ‘the honest and just interests of this country, and of her inhabitants, are the just and honest interests of the whole world’.

In any event, Adam Smith erected a ‘scientific’ theory out of the passing circumstances of his own era. He could not forsee that national defence would come to depend not just on seamen and naval stores, but on total industrial and economic capability. He could not forsee the effects of the most revolutionary technological developments in the history of mankind, just beginning when he was writing. Thus, to give one small example, he believed that Free Trade could not ruin British cattle-raising because it was impossible to transport enough meant on the hoof into the country. Yet a hundred years after this confident judgement refrigerated steamships began to bring in meat in immense quantities from all over the world.

Nevertheless Adam Smith’s doctrine of Free Trade was to win unqualified acceptance by 1850, and British economic policy - or, rather - non-policy - was henceforth to be based on it, without giving the least priority to defence over opulence. It was part of the general triumph of liberalism, which confidently left all social and industrial questions to solutions by private individuals by private initiative—the layout of towns, the future of industry and agriculture, the housing, health and education of the people.

The doctrines of liberal individualism were congenial to the English temperament. Since the early seventeeth century the English had nourished a deep suspicion of the state that had hardly diminished with the waning of monarchical power. As foreigners noted, the English were anarchical and quarrelsome, renowned for their love of liberty. ‘Liberty’, put another way, meant dislike of being organised; a dislike vividly manifested by the extraordinary illogic and localism of English institutions in the eighteenth century. Liberal doctrine provided a new and ‘scientific’ justification for this English dislike. The English therefore entered the industrial era—the era of organisation—with a deep-seated horror of organisation, and the larger the organisation the greater the horror.

In fact it proved impossible to carry out liberal doctrines in unsmirched purity; awkward realities would keep breaking in. For example Acts of Parliament were passed controlling the hours and conditions of work and female and infant labour in factories, to be enforced by government inspectors. Local government was reformed. Public sanitation was undertaken. Yet such matters as these were only incidental details, and under the young Victoria the British State abandoned any pretence of generally guiding the national destiny or expressing a collective national will. As Matthew Arnold, intellectual, poet and Her Majesty’s Inspector of Schools, expressed it in 1869:

. . . we are left with nothing but our system of checks, and our notion is of its being the right and happiness of an Englishman to do as far as possible what he likes, we are in danger of drifting towards anarchy. We have not the notion, so familiar on the Continent and to antiquity, of the State,—the nation in its collective and corporate character, entrusted with stringent powers for the general advantage, and controlling individual wills in the name of an interest wider than that of individuals. 

Thus religious moralism and political liberalism advanced together, and in foreign and home affairs alike the conception of the nation and the national interest was lost to sight. Worse, liberal doctrine, which had begun as speculative theory, ended as a national faith with a truly religious force. Yet liberal doctrine did not accord with fact. What liberal theorists saw as the beneficent working of a free market was in reality (as is now well known) appalling industrial anarchy—wasteful, redundant, scrambling effort, often small in scale and local of vision.

During the same period as liberal economic and social doctrine came to prevail, a national myth was being woven according to which British leadership in the Industrial Revolution was owing to the British being innately better engineers and businessmen than foreigners. This too was nonsense, glorifying a generation of resourceful, ingenious but often ill-educated men—jumped-up craftsmen, greedy entrepreneurs of narrow mind. For the spirit of the amateur inspired the character of British industrialism from the beginning. Both the machinery and the business methods of which the British were so proud were crude and primitive, put together by rule-of-thumb and trial-and-error—hardly surprising since this was only the first stage of the industrial era. It was not superior native genius that put the British in the lead after 1760 but a happy set of historical and geographic coincidences—the combination of abundant investment capital, absence of internal trade barriers, abundant water power, coal and iron conveniently adjacent to each other and plenty of labour because the destruction of the peasantry by enclosure of the old common fields.

The British faith in the ‘practical man’ who had learned on the job was therefore, like liberal doctrine, based on a congenial but fallacious reading of events. But he faith was not the less absolute for being misplaced. By 1860 the British were committed hears and minds to the already passing primitive phase of the industrial era— they were like calvarymen continuing to believe devotedly in the horse despite the advent of the machine-gun and the tank.

The cult of the ‘practical man’ led to a positive distrust of the application of intellectual study or scientific research to industrial problems. In 1850 The Economist could write that ‘the education which fits men to perform their duties in life is not got in public or parish schools but in the counting-house and lawyer’s office, in camp or on board ship, in the shop or factory’.

It was otherwise in Europe. In following Britain into the Industrial Revolution, European nations operated on different political and economic principles. Whereas the British had solved the problem of the inefficiency of the State by abolishing the State as far as possible, European countries like Prussia instead modernised the State and made it efficient. Whereas the British dissolved the nation into individuals and left their destiny to the free market, European countries stuck to the old notion that the State should embody the collective will of the people and guide the national development. Whereas the British believed in unrestricted international trade, European countries imposed tariff regulations to protect their infant industries, home markets and agriculture. In a word, countries like Prussia still believed, like Elizabeth I and Cromwell, that a nation was a single strategic and commercial enterprise and that the national interest as a whole came before private profit.

So European industries grew up in partnership with the State. Railways for example were planned as national systems to serve national purposes, social and strategic as well as economic. European industry was conceived from the start on a much larger scale than the small, highly individualist firms of Britain. Countries like Prussia, which had always valued good large-scale organisation in the army and the State, naturally created it in industry.

The most important—indeed in the long run decisive—contribution of the European States to their countries’ industrial progress lay in elaborate and coherent systems of national education—elementary, secondary, technical and university. From the beginning European (and American) industry was served by thoroughly well-trained, well-informed, high-quality personnel—from boardroom to factory floor. Its operations were based on sophisticated intellectual study, and above all on close liason with scientific research.

British industry and its ‘practical’ men were no more fit to meet this formidable attack than the British militia would have been to meet the Prussian army . . .

Posted by Al Ross on September 13, 2007, 12:00 AM | #

Unusually for an academic Jew, Correlli Barnett only managed a Second Class Degree (Oxford) and his writing on the subject of Britain’s decline contains undertones of host-resenting Schadenfreude.

Posted by desmond jones on September 13, 2007, 12:45 AM | #

The influential anti-Semitic historian and political activist Heinrich von Treitschke viewed Germany’s self-conception as a Christian civilization as a critical component of his overarching goal of producing a politically and culturally unified Germany. Treitschke stated that although many Germans had ceased being active Christians, “the time will come, and is perhaps not so far off, when necessity will teach us once more to pray. . . . The German Jewish Question will not come to rest . . . before our Hebrew fellow-citizens have become convinced, by our attitude, that we are a Christian people and want to remain one” (in Pulzer 1988, 242).

Christianity as a unifying force was also central to another important late19th-century anti-Semitic leader, Adolf Stoecker:

I found Berlin in the hands of Progressives-who were hostile to the Church—and the Social Democrats—who were hostile to God; Judaism ruled in both parties. The Reich’s capital city was in danger of being de-Christianized and de-Germanized. Christianity was dead as a public force; with it went loyalty to the King and love of the Fatherland. It seemed as if the great war had been fought so that Judaism could rule in Berlin. . . . It was like the end of the world. Unrighteousness had won the upper hand, love had turned cold. (In Telman 1995, 97)

National unification was a component of the “Volkische” intellectual tradition. Rather than accepting the pan-national, universalist ideology that characterized the Christian Middle Ages, the Volkische ideal of social cohesion was often combined with nationalistic versions of a peculiarly Germanic form of Christianity, as in the writings of Treitschke, Paul de LaGarde, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Thus for Chamberlain, “Christianity was an indispensable cohesive force in a class-torn nation; religious rebirth alone. . . could renew the spiritual basis of society, reaffirming the principles of monarchy, social hierarchy, loyalty, discipline, and race. . . . [R]eligion, not politics, was the basis of a new Germany” ( Field 1981, 302).

Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism

Book by Kevin MacDonald

Posted by Al Ross on September 13, 2007, 01:14 AM | #

That alien Jewish heresy, Christianity, came, after much resistance, to Europe’s last holdouts, the admirable Prussians, courtesy of the warrior Teutonic Knights in 1226. This conversion at sword-point ensured that the wicked, hitherto pagan, Prussians were guaranteed a comfortable billet in old Yahweh’s stratospheric retirement home.

Posted by Scimitar on September 13, 2007, 08:08 AM | #

Barnett is pro-British. He makes a lot of good points:

1.) How evangelical Christianity and the highmindedness it encouraged came to triumph over British interests and enfeeble the British up to the World Wars. A good example of this would be the abolition of slavery in the West Indies which ruined that colonial plumb to the benefit of Cuba and Brazil. Another, as noted above, would be how Britain created a third front for itself in the Mediterranean by alienating Mussolini over Abyssinia, for no other reason than to uphold the “League of Nations.”

2.) How the liberal dogma of free trade left the Empire underdeveloped and unprepared to meet the challenges of the 20C. He contrasts Britain in this respect to the U.S., Germany, and Japan.

3.) How the British Empire was undermined by the quarrelsome dominions like Ireland, Canada, and South Africa who wrecked centralized authority before WW2.

4.) How Romanticism had so completely triumphed over British strategic interests. He discusses the worthless African colonies and India here which Britain was committed to defending.

Posted by _jimbo_ on September 13, 2007, 10:29 AM | #

Klassen called the OT ‘patriarchs’ “a bunch of whore-mongers, mass-murderers and serial rapists”.....an objective reading of the OT inevitably leads to this conclusion; the few good bits in it(and they ARE few!) were probably ‘purloined’ from ancient Aryan Scriptures!

Posted by _jimbo_ on September 13, 2007, 10:38 AM | #

the ‘tenets’ of xtianity only work amongst European peoples who are naturally good any-way(when left to their own devices!); when applied inter-racially, they are a disaster: all the ‘preaching & sermonising’ in the world will never turn a nigga or a jew into a ‘christian’; niggaz will always act like niggaz(violent, sub-human apes!) & jewz will always act like jewz(repulsive reptillian, aliens scum with a highly evolved level of ‘rat cunning’!)......even Martin Luther didn’t trust jewz ‘professing Christ’!

Posted by Matra on September 13, 2007, 11:59 AM | #

How the British Empire was undermined by the quarrelsome dominions like Ireland, Canada, and South Africa who wrecked centralized authority before WW2.

In Canada’s case, it was growing up and had interests that were not deemed important in London. Indeed in the late 19th and early 20th century the British were more interested in appeasing the Americans than with protecting Canadian interests - eg. the Alaska boundary dispute only a few years after so many Canadians had died in the Anglo-Boer War.  WW1 made Canada feel like a player in its own right on the world stage. Feelings of national self-reliance grew in NZ & Australia after WW2 when they decided they also wanted the right to change their constitutions without going through Westminster. One shouldn’t compare white Dominions to a bunch of African anti-colonialists.

Posted by Scimitar on September 13, 2007, 04:50 PM | #

Matra,

There was undoubtedly a movement in Canada for a looser relationship with Britain. I’m not criticizing Canadians for that. It is understandable that Canadians would desire to be more than just soldiers and subjects of Crown. That’s fine by me.

Why should Canadians (or better yet the Irish) always be on stand by whenever British foreign policymakers want to play Risk with Germany? What interest does Canada have in the German/Polish border? Personally, I don’t think Canadians should be involved in the war in Afghanistan either.

The principle of the equality of the Dominions though did have a disintegrating effect upon the Empire. Irish independence set a precedent. From what I gather, and I am no expert on the subject, feel free to fill in the blanks here, Canada’s contribution to WW2 wasn’t on the same level as its contribution to WW1, and this was a source of much resentment in Britain.

As for WW1, it was nothing but a tragic loss of life, one of the worst episodes of European history. Personally, I think the U.S. and Canada (and Britain) should have sat out that conflict, if that had been possible. What say you?

Posted by desmond jones on September 13, 2007, 05:30 PM | #

Let’s try again.

Another British/Russian/Jew outlines the implications of FDR’s lend-lease programme to the British and the sustainability of the Empire.

John Maynard Keynes: Fighting for Britain 1937-46
Robert Skidelsky A review

  Above all, Keynes was disabled by a rationalist innocence that ignored the depth of America’s suspicions about Britain. Skidelsky notes that America’s third war aim after the defeat of the German and Japanese empires was the dissolution of the British version. In 1939-40 it mistook Britain for an opulent empire - one that had, moreover, defaulted in 1933 on its first world war American debts. Internationalist in trade when it had suited, in leaner times Britain had contracted into protectionism. America had made the same journey, but in an opposite direction. Now it wanted the abolition of imperial protection - both economically and politically.

  “Lend-lease” was the background to Keynes’s failure. Roosevelt’s shifty improvisation was a solution to both Britain’s penury and American isolationism. America’s loan of equipment would help Britain “put out the fire”; it would also edge America towards war since the transport across the Atlantic would be vulnerable to U-boat attack. But behind the offer was a Democratic Party dominated by immigrant communities who hated all empires - including Britain’s. In return Britain had to accept limitations of both its exports and its gold and dollar reserves, meaning that it started the peace with the largest external debt in its history.

  Keynes was the negotiator of grudging loans to avert the financial Dunkirk that loomed in the war’s second half. Justice mattered to him. It was important that Britain had suffered disproportionately during the war - but waving medals was a failure of tone. He had to deal with an American treasury official, Harry Dexter White, who thought that the world should be conveniently parcelled between the Americans and the Soviets. It was White’s proposal that Germany be “pastoralised” after the war and its industrial capacity destroyed. The critic of the Versailles Treaty’s vengeance was again among the barbarians.

  There is comedy in Skidelsky’s account of all those Keynesian quips falling dead from his lips as the illusionless bosses look down from the saddle. But the keynote is pathos - that of a high-minded liberal unable to understand the gut-instinct hostility of a strange new world. At its most cynical interpretation, lend-lease enabled Britain to protect its empire in the Middle and Far East - but at a cunning cost. The means of immediate preservation were also designed to be those of the eventual enslavement of Britain’s domestic economy to the new imperium.

“The negotiations did not go smoothly,” Eden recalled, “nor did I altogether approve of the details of the final settlement. At one time the suggestion was put forward in Washington that the entire British West Indies should be handed over for the cancellation of our war debts. I thought this less than friendly bargaining. At another, the destroyers were to be exchanged for a public assurance that the British fleet would sail to North American waters if H itler gained control of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister rightly protested that such an announcement would have a ‘disastrous effect’ on British morale. The West Indian bases alone were certainly worth more than 50 or 60 old destroyers… Our desperate straits alone could justify its terms.”

Churchill at the time called it “the most un-sordid act in the history of any nation”, but Eden noted: “Later the same month documents handing over bases in Newfoundland, Bermuda and the West Indies were signed.”

Posted by desmond jones on September 13, 2007, 05:39 PM | #

And the final nail in the British Imperial coffin was pounded in by Eisenhower over Suez.

Harold Macmillan (Chancellor of the Exchequer and soon to become Prime Minister)

In late September, at the Annual Meetings of the Boards of Governors of the IMF and the World Bank in Washington, Macmillan [Harold Macmillan (Chancellor of the Exchequer and soon to become Prime Minister)] sounded out his U.S. counterpart, Treasury Secretary George Humphrey, on the prospects for U.S. assistance. Although Humphrey gave Macmillan no promises, the chancellor returned home confident that he could count on his American friends to help him maintain “the strength of sterling.”

Macmillan took no further action during October, as the Bank of England continued to sell off its dollar reserves to maintain the $2.80 exchange rate and the cabinet continued to prepare for war. Through this period, the Bank of England’s reserves were not so much under attack as merely dripping away. Israel’s invasion of the Sinai on October 29 and the opening of the Franco-British military offensive two days later solidified U.S. and world opposition to this military intervention and greatly accelerated the drain on U.K. reserves, which increased to a pace that clearly constituted a speculative attack. On November 2, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly approved a U.S. resolution calling for a cease-fire and withdrawal of forces. Four days later, the British cabinet bowed to the relentless financial and diplomatic pressure and agreed to a cease-fire. As subsequent events demonstrated, however, the U.S. government was insisting not just on a cease-fire, as Macmillan believed, but also on full compliance with the UN resolution—that is, on an immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Egypt.

To get the help he needed, Macmillan was forced into supplication. The U.S. government wanted the British and French troops out of Egypt, and the United Kingdom’s need for financial assistance gave the Americans the perfect lever to force an immediate withdrawal. Macmillan tried unsuccessfully to arrange a meeting with Humphrey in late November, but he also tried to convey to him through emissaries that a failure to support sterling could have catastrophic political consequences, including a triumph for international communism. Such threats doubtless seemed fanciful to Humphrey, who replied simply that the United States would support the United Kingdom when the latter was “conforming to rather than defying the United Nations.” Even then, he warned that a drawing on the IMF of more than $561 million (the most it could draw in relation to its quota without having to apply for a stand-by arrangement) would be problematic. A larger drawing, Humphrey argued, could cause “a run on the Monetary Fund, which might be as serious as a run on sterling.”

Posted by desmond jones on September 13, 2007, 05:47 PM | #

“The United States should loan what articles were needed, as a man would loan his garden hose to help his neighbor to put out a fire without reference to payment, but with the expectation that the hose itself would be returned.”—FDR   17Dec41.

Posted by Scimitar on September 13, 2007, 07:27 PM | #

Desmond,

I had noticed your post in the other thread, and had considered responding to it, but decided not to do so. If you insist, however . . .

Churchill at the time called it “the most un-sordid act in the history of any nation”, but Eden noted: “Later the same month documents handing over bases in Newfoundland, Bermuda and the West Indies were signed.”

For the record, Churchill had offered to hand those islands over to the U.S. in exchange for Lend-Lease, but FDR was smart enough not to add to our negro problem. You are complaining here about a few leases on some military bases. I’m not sure how that translates into destroying the British Empire, but this seems more apparent to you than it does to me. I can’t think of any British colony that was put under one of FDR’s U.N. trusteeships. Apparently, you can’t either.

The Empire was already unravelling before WW2 in the form of granting the Dominions equality with the metropole and ceding Ireland its independence. Canada played a starring role in this.

And the final nail in the British Imperial coffin was pounded in by Eisenhower over Suez.

No, that doesn’t work either. Egypt was independent before Suez.  The Suez Canal Zone was distinct from Egypt itself. That wasn’t the final nail in the British Imperial coffin either. It doesn’t explain why Britain granted any of its African colonies their independence. Ghana wasn’t even independent then.

Posted by Matra on September 13, 2007, 07:49 PM | #

As for WW1, it was nothing but a tragic loss of life, one of the worst episodes of European history. Personally, I think the U.S. and Canada (and Britain) should have sat out that conflict, if that had been possible. What say you?

I agree that Canada and the US should have stayed out not only of WW1 but its sequel. For the UK it’s not as easy to call given that events were much closer to home. In hindsight we can see WW1 was a mistake for the UK too but I can understand how entry into the war was seen as the proper course of action at the time.

For an alternative view of Britian’s alliance with France sociologist Christie Davies Britain’s Entrapment by the French

Posted by calvin on September 13, 2007, 08:28 PM | #

“In hindsight we can see WW1 was a mistake for the UK too but I can understand how entry into the war was seen as the proper course of action at the time”

Why was it not seen as the “proper course of action” to go to war with Russia over the invasion of Finland, or to go to war with Poland for its territorial infringements of its neighbours? It seemed like a good idea to go to war with Germany because a minority of financially interested parties used their control of the media to promote war against Germany, and even then it is doubtful that a democratic consultation would have endorsed a declaration of war over a territorial dispute between a democratically elected leader and a rapacious military junta with openly declared designs on German territory.

Posted by desmond jones on September 13, 2007, 09:05 PM | #

Indeed, he (Skidelsky) makes two deeply fascinating remarks in his introduction which demand more amplification than he provides. He observes that the Anglo-American rivalry was accentuated by the fact that “the man with whom Keynes mainly negotiated in Washington, Harry Dexter White of the US Treasury, wanted to cripple Britain, in order to clear the ground for a post-war American-Soviet alliance.”

It begets the question, why would White, the son of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants, would ally with the Soviet Union? Allegedly, he was a Soviet agent.

  “The concentration of Communist sympathizers in the Treasury Department, and particularly the Division of Monetary Research, is now a matter of record. White was the first director of that division; those who succeeded him in the directorship were Frank Coe and Harold Glasser. Also attached to the Division of Monetary Research were William Ludwig Ullman, Irving Kaplan, and Victor Perlo. White, Coe, Glasser, Kaplan, and Perlo were all identified as participants in the Communist conspiracy ...”

The committee also heard testimony by Henry Morgenthau’s speechwriter, Jonathan Mitchell, that White had tried to persuade him that the Soviets had developed a system that would supplant capitalism and Christianity.

He (Skidelsky) comments, also, that had Hitler not been “a moral barbarian” who “lacked every genuine attribute of statesmanship”, Britain might have been able to avoid the financial shipwreck that total war wrought, by making a settlement with him in 1939, or even 1940. Hitler being as he was, however, Britain was thrown “into the arms of America as a suppliant”, leading to a subordination “which continues to this day.”

Posted by desmond jones on September 13, 2007, 09:53 PM | #

British diplomatic historian John Charmley writes that “Churchill’s alternative to appeasement was unrealistic and his actions as Prime Minister in World War II were a failure.” In his ” Churchill: The End of Glory” he asserts that “dissengagement” in the war with Germany portended salvation for Britain and Empire.

After the fall of France, a variety of people were interested in peace. Beaverbrook said, “He could see no alternative at that time but to negotiate an honourable settlement, retire behind our Empire frontiers, arm ourselves to the teeth, leave the Continent to work out its own destiny and defend the Empire with all our strength”. Lloyd George believed that once Hitler saw that Britain could not be defeated with ease, the time would come to discuss terms. Britain was isolated on the Continent in a way she had never been before. In order to defeat Germany, she would need to equip, raise and land a massive army on the Continent and wage war for years. By that time Britain would be bankrupt.

“A.J.P Taylor wrote a book hinting that Hitler was not a madman intent on world domination…Approx. 400,000 people were killed, and to this must be added the number of maimed and injured. The UK had incurred debts to the rest of the world to the tune of ?4 billion (figures relate to the 1946 value of Sterling). Slightly over ?1 billion had been raised by the sale of foreign assets. ?3 billion of foreign debt was uncovered and therefore a debt to future generations. Invisible income had fallen by half to ?120 million per year and exports were 40% of their pre-war figure.”

Charmley’s critics suggest his views are…“absurd…that instead of going to war Britain could, and should, have lived with Wilhelmine Germany’s domination of western Europe. This is glibly clever but actually preposterous as his claim…that Britain could and should have unilaterally withdrawn into neutrality in 1940-41.”

The critic, the “pro”-British, Correlli Barnett

Posted by torgrim on September 14, 2007, 02:01 AM | #

BC.: “How does performing the blood-eagle sacrifice on your co-ethnic express our evolutionary group interest?”

GW.: “Most sources documenting Germanic paganism have presumably been lost.”

BC. To address your statement, “blood eagle”, it has been challenged and found to
    be a myth. Just another example of propaganda by those that controlled the
    “Press” so to speak.
    But this really isn’t the point, the point is just who invaded, evangilized
    N. Europe.
    The Papacy could not brook *any* competition to it’s “authority”.

Gw.:

    As you presented from Wikipedia, paganism was under assault by an organized
    state/religion and had given much resistance.
    It was a long battle, 300 years of resistance with the Saxons, Danes and what
    became the Viking era.
    I think a time-line will add some reference to my therory….

Time-line, by torgrim, oct.1, 2002.

Cause and effect; “Viking Age”

772-Charlemagne starts war with Saxons, by destroying their holy sites.
774-Saxons retaliate with an attack on Hesse.
777-Diet of Paterborn, Saxons compelled to swear alligiance to the new law.
    Chieftain, Widukind flees to Denmark, under protection of king Sigred.
778-Widukind with the help of the Frisians and Danes start a new uprising.
779-Battle of Bocholt, ends in the subjugation of Saxons, “Capitulare Saxonicum”.
782-Loss of land to the Empire causes an new rebellion. Battle of Santegrbirge.
    Saxons beaten, Widukind flees to Denmark for protection, alleged leaders
    were rounded up by Charlemagne. 4500 freeholders were be-headed in one
    day.
784-Widukind is baptized.
792-A new uprising which was to last for twelve years, long and bloody, many
    deported and replaced with men from Francia.
793-Viking attack on Lindnesfarne.
795-Wholescale deportation of Saxon men, 7,070, one third of the male pop.
798- 4000 Saxons killed in battle, 1600 deported.
799-Whole areas “depopulated”, now even women and children disappear.
    Women and children placed in state control in cloisters.
800-Charlemagne is crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope.  King Sigfred
    dies, Viking raids start in Francia, one leader is Ragnar Lodbrok of Denmark.
    Attacks Paris, then England.
810- Charlemagne has 10,000 men women and children deported ,Saxons
      overwhelmed for good.
      Saxons flee to Denmark for safety. Charlemagne calls for negotiations with
      the new king of Denmark, Charlemagne demands the extraditions of the
      Saxons from Denmark. The new Danish king, Godfred, declines. Godfred
      attacks Charlemagne, the Church now calls Godred the “Audacious”

Biblio:
      “A History of the Vikings”, Gywn Jones
      “The Franks, a Critical Study in Christianization and Imperialism”, F.J. Los

Posted by desmond jones on September 14, 2007, 03:07 AM | #

A History of the Vikings

Book by T. D. Kendrick; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930

When the Viking Period opens, that is to say at the turn of the eighth and ninth centuries, the northerners, or at any rate their chiefs and nobles, were already aware that the Christian faith was not the special religion of one particular foreign nation but was rather some tremendous and all-pervading belief that bound together the diverse peoples of two huge empires. Everywhere that travellers from the north went, whether they journeyed south or west, when they entered the civilized world they found themselves among Christians. Their brother Germans, they knew, were already forsaking the old gods; the Franks and the Frisians had long been Christians; the Saxons were now Christians; the English were Christians; only in the darkest and furthermost shadows of the barbarian domains did heathendom still linger. Christianity was a passport into a world of wealth and splendour, a permit to tread safely upon the golden roads that led to the markets of Byzantium and the court of the western Emperor.

The kings of the north were not slow to perceive the advantages of adopting the new faith, and in Louis the Pious (814840) they discovered an emperor who prized a convert dearly. Harald of Denmark (p. 92 ), whose kingdom had already been visited by the missionary Archbishop Ebbo of Rheims, was the first to become a Christian and he was baptized at the imperial palace of Ingelheim, close to Mainz, in 826 with several hundreds of his followers amid scenes of pomp and enthusiasm over which Louis himself presided. Then in 829 came a Swedish delegation to the emperor asking for missionaries to be sent to Sweden, for King Björn, like King Harald none too sure of his throne, needed the friendship of the Frankish empire; so the missionary Anskar, who for two years had been preaching the gospel in Hedeby, was bidden to move on to Birka, and there he built a church. But neither these kings, nor the missionaries whom they introduced, made any substantial progress in overthrowing the heathendom of the north. Certain kings changed their faith, and no doubt their courts did likewise; the missionaries, established and protected by these kings, preached; yet the people remained pagan and indifferent. Moreover, succeeding kings themselves turned from Christianity, preferring their fathers’ ancient faith. Indeed, heathendom must have seemed established in unassailable strength when, at the end of twenty years of Christian endeavour, a huge Danish fleet under Horik seized Hamburg (p.  203 ) and drove Anskar, now an archbishop, from this his archiepiscopal seat.

During the viking raids, the trading enterprises, and the colonial expeditions of the ninth century, the adventurers who stayed to bargain or take land abroad found themselves dwelling in close contact with Christians, and this not only on the shores of the Western Empire or on the borderlands of the Byzantine world, but also in the fervently Christian provinces of Ireland and Scotland, and in north England, where the Northumbrian Danes had their own Christian king at York, one Guthred, as early as 883. Some of these Northmen in foreign countries took Christian women to wife; by the ‘50s many prominent viking aristocrats had themselves become converts, and one result of this was that when Iceland was colonized in the last quarter of the century there were Christian families among the new settlers. Also a number of Swedish and Danish merchants who were accustomed to trade with such Christian ports as Dorstad in Frisia received baptism and on their return became members of the tiny Christian colonies in Birka and Hedeby, the chief trade-towns of the north; indeed, on the island of Gotland, as the Gutasaga attests, it was the missionary work of the returning merchants of Gotland that first introduced Christianity into the island. Yet these small Christian communities had little real influence; for the early Christianity of Iceland was engulfed and lost in the heathendom of the majority, and in Scandinavia the worship of that new and potent deity Christ made no significant progress, lessening in no wise the common respect for friendly Thor and Odin. Nearly two hundred years were to pass since the day when Ebbo had first preached in Denmark before the heathen Northmen were suddenly bidden by their rulers to abandon, one and all, their old faith and to receive baptism in the new.

Posted by desmond jones on September 14, 2007, 03:18 AM | #

cont’d…

It was, in fact, wellnigh at the end of the Viking Period that the peoples of the north awoke to find themselves assailed not merely by the entreaties of a few venturesome missionaries as of old but by the thunder and majesty of the king’s own command; for within the space of the ever-memorable halfcentury that began about A.D. 970 three great princes stood forth determined there and then to enrol their countries among the Christian nations of the world. It was King Harald Gormsson (died 986) ‘who made the Danes Christian’, as he declares of himself on the Jellinge stone (p.  100 ); it was King Olaf Tryggvason who in the five amazing years before the tenth century closed bullied his Norwegian subjects into accepting the new faith, and saw to it, moreover, that the Norse colonists of the Faroes, Iceland, and Greenland, likewise accepted Christianity; it was King Olof Skotkonung ( 995-1022) who no less energetically, though much less successfully, sought to convert the Swedes. [...]

Up to this point the conversion of the Northmen had been for the most part an affair of social expediency and a result of a salutary respect for the king’s personal authority; for the king’s much-vaunted God had been matched against the old gods and by the king’s strong arm it had been effectively demonstrated to all who doubted that Jesus Christ was indeed a more powerful deity than Thor or Odin. But of Christian doctrine the Northmen, as yet unprovided with sufficient priests and without any proper ecclesiastical organization, knew next to nothing. It was the work of a new generation of leaders, in particular of Saint Olaf of Norway (p.  123 ) and Bishop Odinkar of Denmark, to found national churches that were able in a small measure to control popular opinion according to the precepts of Christ, and this second phase in the conversion of the north, the years wherein a respect for Christian conduct gradually replaced the lawless spiritual freedom of pagan life, began about A.D. 1020 and lasted far into the Middle Ages. But in the very first century that Christian precept began to influence public thought the Viking Period came to an end.

It is not true, of course, that Christian teaching was in itself sufficient to put a stop to bloodthirsty and unnecessary adventures overseas. Yet unquestionably some allowance must be made for the effect of the preaching of the newly imported clergy inasmuch as the preachers were for the most part drawn from countries, England and Germany in particular, that had had sore experience of viking attacks; therefore when the character of northern warfare changes, when expeditions abroad are only undertaken as affairs of grave national import, the possible influence of the holy fathers of the Church must count for something. But it can only have been very slowly that their influence made itself felt, and as a factor directly contributing to the surrender of viking habits the Church acted imperceptibly rather than noticeably; for it is not until the twelfth century, when the Viking Period was past and the Middle Ages begun, that there are momentous signs of Christian piety governing the warlike inclinations of a viking chief. Then it was that King Sigurd of Norway sailed forth not to harry his neighbours but to seek adventures as a crusader in the Holy Land, and that the mettlesome patron saint of Sweden, Eric, sought his beloved fighting not in the territories of his fellow-Christians, but instead found outlet for his martial zeal in war against the heathen Finns, leading his armies to battle under the banner of Christ Militant.

Posted by B.C. on September 14, 2007, 05:51 AM | #

The blood-eagle is described in the Icelandic poem Knutsdrapa c.1038 and describes an event that took place 200 years earlier. But we don’t need the sagas or Adam of Bremen to demonstrate the frequency of human sacrifice. It’s in the archaelogical record.

Other than the Rig-Heimdall creation story, I still don’t see how Northern paganism expresses our evolutionary group interests. Historic Christianity was adaptive for Euroman.

Posted by torgrim on September 17, 2007, 04:36 PM | #

From a History of the Vikings, TD Kendrick 1930

....“it was the king Olaf Tryggvason who in just five amazing years before the tenth century closed bullied his Norwegian subjects into accepting the new faith…”

Olaf Tryggvason was according to the accounts in the “Heimskringla” a torturer, pg. 201, (the burning of warlocks). He also broke the law by traveling about the land with a band of men, “The Earliest Norwegian Laws”, being the Gulathing Law and The Frostathing Law, translated from the Old Norwegian by Laurence M. Larson, Professor of History, University of Illinois, 1935. (Pg. 411, glossary, Band of Men;
flokkr, five men constituted a band or gang, Gulathing Law, 142,154,183.

Again from a History of the Vikings, TD Kendrick 1930

....“In particular of St Olaf,(Haraldsson), of Norway and Bishop Odinkar of Denmark founded national churches that were able in a small measure to control popular opinion according to the precepts of Christ and the second phase in the conversion of the north, the years wherein a respect for Christian conduct gradually replaced the lawless spiritual freedom of a pagan life.”

Herein the author shows his lack of knowledge of the pagan people of the north and his obvious bias.
The pagan people of the north had law, namely the eldest, The GulaThing Law which was exported to Iceland when Iceland was settled and there called the Gragas, (Eng. Gray Goose). The Church Law is small and was added after the Conversion Period, however, Merchant Law, Law of Tenancy, Inheritance Law , MIsc. Provisions, The Law of Personal Rights, The Weregild System, (payment of debt due to wrong actions), The Law of Theft, The Redemption of Odal Land,(Eng., Allodial Title), The Law of Coastal Defence, “The Earliest Norwegian Laws, Professor Laurence M. Larson, 1935.
Lawless, hardly!

Here, from a much more recent study of the Conversion Period, some information from the work of Professor Titlestad, “Kampen Om Norvegen” 1999, from chapter I..
A King among Jarls….
...” Sola, situated on the north Jaer coast, was no less strategic in connection with passage to the Baltic, the Continent and to England. Today it is generally believed that at that time there was active communication both to the east and south and west. Grave findings indicate that Rogaland, as far back as 3500 years ago, was part of the northern European cultural area, and reacted quickly to new impulses from abroad.(160) Towards the close of Roman imperial dominance (300-400AD), Rogalanders were trading with the Romans via the Germans in Hamburg.(17) The archeologist Odmund Mollerop writes that “A probable ripple effect, generated by Imperial Rome’s need for wares and services, made itself most clearly felt in Rogaland.”(18) The archeologist Per Hernaes concludes that contact across the North Sea was largely peaceful—“until Christianity was introduced to Norway….”(19)
During Horda-Kare’s lifetime, conditions on the continent were turbulent. The Vikings, with their forays, were, in part, responsible for the upheaval.(20) However, the earlier, one sided, continental European view, in which the Vikings were blamed for initiating the unrest, seems, today, to be largely abandonded. The leading Spanish historian, Joseph Fontana, writes in a recent work that it is “a distorted image” to portray the Vikings as a people dependent only on pillage and piracy.(210) Another recent European work states, for example, that the Vikings took advantage of the “anarchy of the period”.(220) Fontana presents a similiar view, when he says that, for the Vikings, trade gradually shifted over to piracy when the ruling Caliphate collapsed.(23) Probably, Charlemagne’s battles(ca. 747-814) had a destabilizing effect on the heart of Europe that, in turn, provoked violence on the periphery of the Continent. But because the Vikings were pagan, Christian Europe labeled them as the cause for all the adversity. Herein lies, without doubt, an important point—which also bears examination.
Ideologically it was not the Vikings who attacked. The Christian Church evangelized—often with the sword in hand; “Sword Christianizing”, as the church historian and former bishop of Stavanger, Fridtjov Birkeli, calls it. Using murder and arson, the Church forced baptism upon non-Christians. Charlemagne set the standard for this procedure. After having encircled 4500 heathen Saxons near the city of Verden, he be-headed all of them in one single day.(24) But first he baptized them so that their souls would be saved. The Danish historian Thorkild Ramskou calls this atrocity “one of history’s most shocking mass murders” and writes: “These kinds of actions can make it difficult to distinguish between who was not the barbarian.”(25)
Ramskous goes on to say that torture and abuse as punishment came to the north with the attempt to introduce Christianity by force—following the model of continental Christianity. Scandinavians encountered a religious intolerance to which tey were not accustomed. The pagan religion offered equal status to the White-Christ. But the pope in Rome seemed to share the psychology of so many other authoritarian rulers; he considered whatever lay beyond his power and control as a threat. The Scandinavians noted, too, a connection between the church and the concept of a single king. For a decentralized society such as was found particularly in Norway, the new, aggessive religion was a provocation that some of the chieftains believed had to be dealt with before it was too late. The archeologists Bjorn Myhre and Per Hearneas believe that an ideological and military strategy lay behind the Viking attacks on Christian cloisters(26)
Herneas writes:(27)
“Would it not, then, be logical to try to eliminate the Christian provocations there, at their source?”
Seen from this perspective, there is nothing puzzling about the raid against Lindisfarne. The Vikings were not a gang of ragged thieves who accidentally discovered a rich monastery on the west coast of England. On the contrary, theirs was a carefully planned military action led by Norwegian commanders who wished to eliminate Christian influence across the North Sea.
Herneas explains the outrage the British priests expressed when they experienced the attack on Lindisfarne in 793, by pointing out that : “For years they been accustomed to amiable contacts with the peaceful traders and friendly chieftains from across the North Sea. Religious faith had been excluded as a possible point of contention [A quotation mark is missing in the Norwegian]“And then an invasion fleet arrived and methodically destroyed one of the largest and richest cloisters in that part of the Christian world….”(28) New research indicates that, in the attack on Lindisfarne, the Vikings did not plunder the monastary to the degree claimed by the propagandistic Church sources of the time.(29) This fact supports the theisis of Myhre and Hernaes that this was a preemptive, military campaign.
In connection with our inquiry, then, Sola was important as a military bas. It is possible that men from Jaer were part of the fleet that invaded Lindisfarne.

Proud to be from the Horda-Kari Clan.

Posted by Fr. John on September 17, 2007, 05:09 PM | #

Guessed Worker:

You asked “We can, however, ask you why it is this Christian religion. once so alien to the European mind, to which you have pledged that evolved trait.”

Simply, because it is true.

And Christianity does not ‘evolve’. While Roman Catholi-schism does believe in a ‘development of doctrine,’ the Eastern [Orthodox- or ‘right-believeing’] Church does not. They hold (and as it can be verified from Scripture) that all the conciliar dogmas were present at the birth of the Church at Pentecost.

Thus, precisely because Christ rose from the dead (and both scripture as well as secular history attests to at least the fact that His followers believe this to be true) all other faiths, (such as ‘Wodinism’) were felled, as St. Boniface felled the ‘sacred oak’ when he first spoke to the Teutons of the ‘White Christ’. IN short, all other faiths are neither: a) linear (and thus, continuous, ‘what we have seen and heard from the beginning,’ as the Apostle says) b)cosummatory (heading toward that much vaunted Capaitalist vision of a final utopia, heaven, or ‘alabaster cities’ gleam’) and c) truly salvatory (it purports to save those who believe, clearly doing so, from the incorrupt relics of numerous saints, and the visits of those holy ones over time to others, for “God is not the god of the Dead, but of the living.)

BUt, of course, the ‘natural mind cannot understand these things’ so I am sure that all of that is so much blah blah to you. I cannot help that. I can only attest to the truth of men whose minds are far better than mine.

Posted by Fr. John on September 17, 2007, 05:16 PM | #

Scimitar: “He sided with the Jews and against the Egyptians. His very own Son was a Jew.”

Afraid not. Christ came from the area of Judea called “Galilee of the Gentiles.’ We have a clue that perhaps CHrist’s ancestry is different from that of the Sannhedrin and the Pharisees, for whom ALONE modern Jewry traces their ‘religious’ heritage, if not their ‘ethnic’.

Did you not note my reference to Koestler’s book? Clearly, “Jews” have known for over a millenia that they are NOT ethnically related to the Israelites of the OT.

Therefore, Jesus is NOT a Jew, while he most certainly was an Israelite, and a Galilean.

MOdern Jewry is an imposter religion, and has been since at least 800 A.D., when the Khazars began interbreeding with the sons of Edom- for the leaders of Judea during the time of CHrist, who were those who sided with the Romans to crucify Him, were ethnic miscegenated half-breeds (mamzerim- the Hebrew calls them) that had taken over the rule and voice of authentic Jewry. Josephus clearly writes of this, and was apalled. So did CHrist, in calling them the sons of the father, the Devil. [John 8:44]

Please use proper terms devoid of duplicitious meaning when dealing with these religious and racial realities.

Posted by Fr. John on September 17, 2007, 05:25 PM | #

B.C.- “God did indeed create Africans. Even the primitive Khoisan speakers are just as capable of possessing God’s grace as you or I.”

That may be. But capability can never overcome ELECTION, and without that biblical imperative, NO ONE can claim Christ or Heaven.

The heresy of Protestantism is believing that God did NOT create ONE body, ONE theanthropic organism to be his Incarnated Self on Earth, while He prepares ‘a place for us’ in Heaven. Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, as well as Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Knox, and all the great later theologians such as Whitefield (Wesley, who waffled) and Kuyper, as well as the American Scots-Irish Majority KNEW that Christianity was (and truly still IS) a “White Man’s religion.”

Orthodoxy and RC’s also saw the boundaries of Christendom as synonymous with the Boundaries of the Caucasian Race.

It is only as Marxism, and the relaxing of the strictures to ‘be ye separate’ from the Jews and their Talmudism, did the ‘unitarian Universalism’/ of both civilization (free the slaves after 1860) and religion (the ‘black man is my brother’) start to demolish the Biblical, Patristic, Reformation and Caucasian distinctives of CHristianity.

NO, one concentrated look at the modern multicultural church, their subservience to Israel/Talmudism, and their sheer ugliness in the miscegenated hordes now infecting our lands of Christendom, as well as the excesses of personal greed, immorality, and sheer stupidity, would clearly lead ANY normal, intelligent White man to denounce as Heretical and Aberrant, the inclusion of non-whites in the Christian church. I have come to this conclusion late, but I have come to it, and am teaching my children to ‘be ye separate’ as are more and more Euro-aware Christians.

Posted by torgrim on September 17, 2007, 05:25 PM | #

BC.
“Other than the Rig-Heimdall creation story, I still don’t see how northern paganism expresses our evolutionary group interests.”

The Rig-Heimdall creation story is all about an upward evolution, from the eldest or ‘grandparents’, as an example, from the, old, dark bent with brutish hands,.. to   the ‘grandchildren with fair skin, tall and blond with intellect….Mythic language, a short story that survived the bonfires.  Heathens survived many millenia in the North before Christianity just fine, as their beliefs and world view were obviously survival friendly, until the foreign God, YWHW came North.
Christianity has set Euro-Man up for Islam, the second God from the Desert.
Heathenry is adaptive, it is nature based, it is logical and will survive many more millenia.

Our evolutionary group interests are promoted when a culture such as this produced the Anglo Saxon, Norse, concepts of private property, women having rights, opposed to being considered chattel,..... or for just brief view of how the Northern Europeans thought of an assassin, here from the Frosta- Thing Law written down first around 1030, however, was originally an orally transmitted code, revealed, by the Law Speaker.

Assassin: flugumadr. A hired assistand in crime; literally a “fly-man, one who is like a fly, an insect which to the Northmen symbolized cajolery and seduction. Frost.,V,c.45

Atonement: rettr. Money, goods or land received as compensation for injuries suffered at the hands of another. Gul.

Community: felag. Common ownership or control of property. The term is used particularly of the union of properties within the family, when the wife’s possessions were merged with the husband. Gul.

Freeman: bondi. A general term for any free householder who was not attached to the service of a king, bishop or any other man, but applied more specifically to the free farmer (not of the Hauld class) who held land by right of lease or purchase.

Hand sold: handsalad. Concluded with a handclasp in the presence of witnesses. Agreements made in this way acquired a peculiar sanction. Gul.

Posted by Fr. John on September 17, 2007, 05:30 PM | #

“This doesn’t come as any surprise to me. The moralizing, evangelical crusade against “racism” in our own times is merely the latest outlet for the same impulse that informed the anti-slavery movement. Another example would be the campaign in Britain during the early twentieth century against the wickedness of King Leopold II’s Congo Free State. At various times, it has been different things. The Yankees of New England have the same problem.”

Scimitar: Do you read www.spiritwaterblood.com?

Talking about the foolishness of ‘racism’ and the Congo, and how white men used to rule in Africa has been the topic over there for about the last two weeks. Perhaps a more ‘virile’ form of Christianity is what you men are all looking for, and don’t know it!

LOL

Posted by desmond jones on September 17, 2007, 06:40 PM | #

Re: Lindisfarne

‘it was
not thought possible that they could have made the voyage’,
wrote Alcuin, the Northumbrian scholar at the court of Charles
the Great, and ‘never before’, he said, ‘in the three hundred
and fifty years that we and our forefathers have dwelt in this
fair land has such a horror appeared in Britain as this that we
have just suffered from the heathen’.

A strange statement if earlier engagements had been solely for peaceful trade and the Lindisfarne attack a pre-emptive strike against Christianity.

...in the year A.D. 516, nearly three centuries before the Viking Period begins, there had taken place the raid of the Scandinavian Hygelac (or Chlochilaic, as the Franks called him) upon Frisia; he had attacked the lower Rhine country, laid waste a part of the realm of Theuderic, King of the Franks, and had taken many prisoners and loaded his boats with plunder before he was caught and overthrown by Theuderic’s son.

Pre-emptive strikes, on Christian kingdoms, three centuries apart?

Christianity has set Euro-Man up for Islam, the second God from the Desert.

Only since the passing of Nostra Aetate, the Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions.

Posted by Al Ross on September 17, 2007, 06:53 PM | #

GW, in the interests of enlightenment, how about linking to this site ?:

http://www.godisimaginary.com

Posted by Tommy G on September 17, 2007, 07:09 PM | #

Hey Al, why don’t you keep you obnoxious anti-Christ beliefs to yourself?

Posted by Al Ross on September 17, 2007, 07:17 PM | #

Pray for it to happen, Mattoid.

Posted by Scimitar on September 17, 2007, 07:30 PM | #

Fr. John,

Yes, I link to Spirit Water Blood. They link to my site. I like what they are doing. If all Christians were like that, I would have no problem with Christianity, although I would still be an atheist. I’m the one who has been kicking up so much dust about the Congo in the racialist blogosphere.

Posted by Tommy G on September 17, 2007, 07:30 PM | #

LOL. Okay, Al, I’ll do that!

Maybe you and Slavyanski can get together and via “http://www.eharmony.com/” and form a perfect union?

Posted by derp on September 17, 2007, 07:46 PM | #

EXPOSER, THEM SHO’ SOUNDS LIKE FIGHTIN’ WORDS

IS GW GONNA LAY DOWN AND TAKE THAT? WE’LL HAFTA WAIT AND SEE

Posted by Al Ross on September 17, 2007, 07:49 PM | #

Tommy G’s belief that because I am an atheist I must axiomatically make common cause with Communism indicates a worldview not usually encountered on this blog.

Christopher Hitchens, atheist and pundit, who is correct in some of his interpretations of world affairs, once said that even if God existed, he, Hitchens, would be against Him and when one encounters His American cheerleaders one can understand why this would be the case.

Posted by Tommy G on September 17, 2007, 08:05 PM | #

I respect you, Al. But anyone who truly observes Hitchens—an alcoholic—objectivly, truly has to categorize him as a mattoid.

Posted by Al Ross on September 17, 2007, 08:19 PM | #

That great American hero Winston Churchill prosecuted the suicidally insane WW2 in a state of perpetual inebriation, so one has to be diligently selective in criticizing those who choose to be alcoholics.

Posted by Tommy G on September 17, 2007, 08:34 PM | #

“That great American hero Winston Churchill prosecuted the suicidally insane WW2 in a state of perpetual inebriation…”

Are you suggesting Winston Churchill wasn’t a hero of the English people? Al, your really confusing the readers at MR. Please clarify your ambiguous comments.

Posted by Al Ross on September 17, 2007, 08:45 PM | #

Winston Churchill was such a hero of the English people that they voted him out at the very earliest opportunity, viz July 1945, even before VJ Day. Churchill lost by a record margin, 145 seats. Does that resolve any ambiguities, TG ?

Posted by Tommy G on September 17, 2007, 08:58 PM | #

Good answer, Big Al. But all that proves is how fickle the the electorate is!

Posted by Al Ross on September 17, 2007, 09:27 PM | #

I am gratified that you consider my answer to be “good” by your doubtless intellectually rigorous lights, TG. The UK electorate were, in fact, so fickle that, with the exception of the brief Labour Party sojourn in government (January - November 1924), the party of Churchill was in power from 1922-1945.

Of course when it became apparent that the Marxist-influenced Labour Party were useless in government, the Conservatives, led by the dissembling old soak, Churchill, won power again but Churchill’s position as leader owed much more to the Conservative Party’s valuing loyalty above sensible pragmatism than to any fickleness on the part of the electorate.

Any charge of fickleness should be preferred against Churchill who was, variously, a Conservative MP,  a Liberal MP, then a Conservative MP again.

Posted by Tommy G on September 17, 2007, 09:58 PM | #

I agree, you’re exactly correct Mr Ross.

Posted by Al Ross on September 18, 2007, 08:29 AM | #

A piece of advice, TG. Remember never to allow the Communion host to touch your teeth because here is the body of Christ and if you go and bite Him. well then you’re obviously Hellbound, no doubt about it at all.

Posted by Tommy G on September 18, 2007, 09:13 AM | #

Okay Al, I’ll remember that.

Posted by Odinsman on September 18, 2007, 02:32 PM | #

Concerning the evolutionary advantages of Germanic paganism:

It is pro-family.

It is pro-reproduction (a natural result of the emphasis on both ancestors and descendants.)

It is inherently racial, believing that the religion of one’s ancestors is the best on for the individual.

It promotes the rule of law.  (The word “law,” of course, comes to us from the Germanic languages.)

It is inherently non-pacifist.

It teaches the value of human effort -  humans have free will and at least some control over their destiny.  (The Old Norse “orlog” is sometimes glossed as “fate,” but this is erroneous.) See _The Well and the Tree_ by Professor Paul Bauschatz.

It values wisdom (Odin), sacrifice for the group interests (Tyr), personal and group empowerment (Thor), joy, wealth, and fertility (Frey, Freya, and Njord).  Some will recognize the three Dumezilian functions in this list.

Germanic paganism is much more than just the Vikings -  they are a tiny slice of Germanic history.  While modern reconstructed Germanic religion acknowledges their contribution to the whole, most of its modern practiitoners have long outgrown the “Viking wannabee” syndrome. 

Sincerely,

Odinsman

Posted by Rusty on September 18, 2007, 04:14 PM | #

How does the average college-edumacated man or woman in the US find out more about the native northern European religions or meet practicioners, other than Googling the Web?  Are there organizations that actually get together, like normal people, and do things besides drink Mead from the Horn and re-enact Viking combat?  I imagine that that’s fun when one is young, but the middle-class middle-ager needs something different.  I know of one very tiny org but it’s over two hours from me.  Real, meaty info and normal people seem hard to find.  I don’t want to meet people blindly over the Internet to discuss such things, for fear of accidentally getting mixed up with the wrong sort.  I don’t even want to “join” anything; I’m just curious.  Danke.

Posted by Steiner on September 19, 2007, 09:07 AM | #

Although he may be a humanist and an evolutionist,  CVH is using a Christian perspective to judge.

Yet, he then implicitly wishes to make us conclude the case that his darwinism is the better course. This is a strange way of defending darwinism, since ultimately, darwinism or evolution would have everything and nothing to say regarding genocide. Hitler not only liked Nietzche, but also the implication of his argument: that the more advanced race has indeed the right of its godness to remove that which is inferior. Keep this thought and play with it for a while.

Yet, how could YHWH be both the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament? if indeed genocide was committed…how could Jesus then be good, if Jesus is God?

What we are beginning to see in our western culture today, may explain the cultures of the past.  Those who are not Christian are beginning to come to the same conclusions (that is of the cultures before Christianity)..First, as Christianity recedes, or is polluted with humanism, human life has become trivialized..It has lost much of its currency. Let me try to explain.

The most obvious case is the abortion rate in our nations. In the past 70 years, over 90 000 000 children have been aborted in Europe. Has CVH ever written a paper or cared to think of the human life expended? I think not. I may be wrong, but I think not. So, it is not human life that CVH is here to defend.

This is ok, but it shows how he, an atheist, steps in and out of the Christian shadow w/o any real notion of what he is all about. An opportunist that he is for sure. Sucking from here and there, and growing fat on the fruits of others…and then championing his way of life….but a life that cant preserve much of anything else…

I will continue tomorrow…

Posted by Odinsman on September 19, 2007, 10:03 AM | #

Rusty -

One organization that has worked hard to leave the mead-swilling and pretend Viking image behind can be reached at http://runestone.org  Thei.r whole focus is to express Germanic religion in a way that appeals to “normal” people and especially to families.

Of course, the number of people who follow native European religion is small (an unknown number of thousands in the U.S., most of whom seem to be solitary practitioners) so it can be hard to make contacts face-to-face in many places.

Odinsman

Posted by B.C. on September 19, 2007, 11:40 AM | #

Would a sacrifice of blutwurst on the backyard grill satsify the bloodlust of the old one-eyed wanderer?

Posted by odinsman on September 20, 2007, 10:01 AM | #

B.C.  -

Er…no.

The true sacrifice is “our might, our main, our troth”  -  that is to say, our efforts/personal energy and our loyalty to the old ways.  Generally, this is symbolized by a libation of honey wine poured onto the ground or, if outdoors, into a fire (which the Vedas…to skip elsewhere in the Indo-European world…called “the mouth of the Gods”).

Odinsman

Posted by torgrim on September 21, 2007, 12:55 AM | #

Re; Lindnesfarne, Desmond Jones;

I see…suggesting that the “Scandinavian” Hygelac raided Frisia three hundred years before Lindnesfarne, supposes that the Franks were justified in, “pacifying” the Northmen with Christianity?

We could go back and forth with this argument to the point of boring everyone…Lindnesfarne, and the military reprisal form the North as stated by Professor Titlestad, is a theory, one which I believe holds merit.

If you may, could you enlighten me on the, “passing of the Notra Aestate”?

With respect, Torgrim.

Posted by desmond jones on September 21, 2007, 02:20 AM | #

Torgrim,

This link is interesting, IMO, vis-a-vis Nostra Aetate, although most contemporary Catholics probably reject it.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/8_VaticanII.pdf

Christians were viewed as bigots by pagans. They were intolerant of all other religions including pagan deities. Christianity/the Catholic church from the beginning was exclusionary. It set up very distinct boundaries for ingroup/outgroup (which paganism did not, ultimately leading to its downfall). No Jews, Muslims,Sikhs, Hindus, Budhists etc. because they did not believe that Jesus Christ, the son of God, was God. Nostra Aetate basically adopted the pagan philosophy. It’s live and let live. All roads lead to heaven but ours has less potholes. However, my interpretation is not a religious one, but built upon how such a shift might impact on an evolutionary level. In other words it appears maladaptive.

It’s largely an academic exercise because neither Thor nor Christ miltant can be resurrected in an effort to save Euroman.

Islam and its potently fundamentalist core is another matter. Euroman may end up weighing proximate and ultimate costs in an effort to survive. Religions come and go but extinction is forever.

Respectfully,
DJ

Posted by Steiner on October 10, 2007, 10:15 AM | #

Although he may be a humanist and an evolutionist, CVH is using a Christian perspective to judge.

Yet, he then implicitly wishes to make us conclude the case that his darwinism is the better course. This is a strange way of defending darwinism, since ultimately, darwinism or evolution would have everything and nothing to say regarding genocide. Hitler not only liked Nietzche, but also the implication of his argument: that the more advanced race has indeed the right of its godness to remove that which is inferior. Keep this thought and play with it for a while.

Yet, how could YHWH be both the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament? if indeed genocide was committed…how could Jesus then be good, if Jesus is God?

What we are beginning to see in our western culture today, may explain the cultures of the past.  Those who are not Christian are beginning to come to the same conclusions (that is of the cultures before Christianity)..First, as Christianity recedes, or is polluted with humanism, human life has become trivialized..It has lost much of its currency. Let me try to explain.

The most obvious case is the abortion rate in our nations. In the past 70 years, over 90 000 000 children have been aborted in Europe. Has CVH ever written a paper or cared to think of the human life expended? I think not. I may be wrong, but I think not. So, it is not human life that CVH is here to defend.

This is ok, but it shows how he, an atheist, steps in and out of the Christian shadow w/o any real notion of what he is all about. An opportunist that he is for sure. Sucking from here and there, and growing fat on the fruits of others…and then championing his way of life….but a life that cant preserve much of anything else…

In the same way, multiculturalist ideals have sapped from the Christian ethos and are ultimately responsible for taking us down to this very crossroad. While Christianity is exclusivist, multiculturalism isnt.  What has multiculturalism done to Europe? it has allowed in our society those values that have shown themselves to be unable to support those very societies from which they were spawned.

We have accepted all values to be equal and to hold equal weight. Hence, whoever thinks that this is the Christian way has been deluded or is trying to delude.
1. Christianity does value people, but its fight has always been against ideologies.
It has succeeded in breaking down ideologies, and freeing people from slavery, from cannibalism, from prostituting women…etc. and for establishing that men are equal….but not their ideologies.

Multiculturalism and its prophets have decided that the values of cannibals living in remote places ought not to be questioned…but allowed to continue; for multiculturalists dont believe that they ought to interfere in other cultures. In fact they have preached that all ideologies are equal, they ought to be celebrated and people ought not to differentiate or question them… what bastard of an ideology is this?

And from what camp has this idea been spawned? and who has believed it? Multiculturalists have preached and made people believe that when we give to those in need…we ought to without a word…without a reason…but simply to give. What fools would not wish to be given reason? what fools would not give reason?

So they say..give but do not try to make desciples…..Hence, those that are saved from their terror ought not to know, ought not to see any differences although they may exist.

Christians must reject this form of giving. For there are cultures that believe that if something occurs to you, you deserve it, and hence no help should be given…but in fact whatever left that you may have should be stolen.

Multiculturalists have done much to stifle the Christian message, and as a result have allowed and accepted in our midst those cultures that are not our equal and hate us for what we are…and labled them as useful cultures that ought to be respected..

Who are these multiculturalists in whose name we in Europe have allowed over 90000000 abortions, in whose name we have allowed to go unchallenged the failed cultures of others and given them our success as a way to support failed ideologies…that have strengthened themselves at our expense…and dont wish to be questioned?

Who are the multiculturalists? They are the very atheists and darwinists that would have us believe that God is dead, and that our societies are no better than those of chimps and dogs. they are those that preach that values are not needed.

And for this their judgement comes whether they now profess a false christianity or their own blind and deaf valueless system that allows homosexuals to marry, and gives bestiality an equal footing in the scheme of our value system…

The day has come for these people to change their ways, to accept Christ and to live lives that are based on Christian virtues. Will they heel? no, most likely not, for they are too arrogant…

But God is not dead…and just like their prophet Nietzche, they too will have to check into an insane asylum for the insanity that they have brought upon us, and themselves. Yes, how sad that the darkness has overtaken the light…how sad that people like the multiculturalists would not know the difference.