← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln
Thread ID: 10322 | Posts: 150 | Started: 2003-10-07
2003-10-07 20:44 | User Profile
Death to the Jews, it's been said. The only way out of our problems to kill each and every last Jew, no exceptions, no delays.
Alright, let's assume that's actually true. How successul a rallying cry does anyone expect this to be? I don't pretend to be a poltical strategist myself, but the "death to all Jews now" plan seems a little, well, nuts. Even the hardcores would balk.
Why not BEGIN by saying, "We want a White country for White people." Then, anyone who stands in the way deals with whatever problem comes along.
2003-10-07 22:08 | User Profile
There's little doubt that many Jews deserve death (or worse). However, I agree that calling for their death is counterproductive, and I personally don't like the idea of killing anyone except as a necessary response to a violent aggressor.
In my opinion, at this stage of the game our modus operandi should be to tirelessly spread the word about Jewish control of nearly all major American institutions, including government, media, academia, etc. This should be done without references to Hitler or Nazi Germany, without the use of slogans such as "White Power," and without any other inflammatory displays that will frighten the sheeple away from hearing our message. People who want to participate in that sort of thing should do so after the sheeple have been awakened.
So, how best to awaken the sleeping masses? Well, what finally woke me up was reading about the USS Liberty attack at the website of one of the survivors ([url]http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/[/url]). There is, of course, no question that the attack was deliberate. I urge people to spread the word about this website in every way possible. The masses need to hear OVER AND OVER about how the Israelis deliberately attacked a US ship and about how the Jew-controlled US government covered up the crime.
The current Iraq war/occupation is also obviously a Jewish scheme, and the fact that a lot of American sons and daughters are in harm's way to benefit Israel needs to be stressed. American soldiers and their families, as well as the average Joe Sixpacks, need to be told straight up that they are being used as slaves and that they are NOT fighting for the USA (or even for oil per se).
Again speaking only for myself, I think the main goal (for now) should be to get Jews out of the government. In the shorter term, US taxpayer aid to Israel should be challenged on a Constitutional basis (such aid is "respecting an establishment of religion"), and dual citizenships should be done away with. But first, we all need to wake up a hell of a lot more Americans.
2003-10-07 23:10 | User Profile
There is room in the world for all groups, including Jews, so no, I don't agree with a blanket notion of "death to Jews" either.
Wiping out entire ethnic groups is, in fact, a very sickening, very Jewish concept.
If anyone is to be killed for crimes against the White race, I say death to the shabbos goyim.
No exceptions on that one.
2003-10-08 03:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]There's little doubt that many Jews deserve death (or worse). However, I agree that calling for their death is counterproductive, and I personally don't like the idea of killing anyone except as a necessary response to a violent aggressor.
In my opinion, at this stage of the game our modus operandi should be to tirelessly spread the word about Jewish control of nearly all major American institutions, including government, media, academia, etc. This should be done without ......any other inflammatory displays that will frighten the sheeple away from hearing our message......
The masses need to hear OVER AND OVER about how the Israelis deliberately attacked a US ship and about how the Jew-controlled US government covered up the crime.
The current Iraq war/occupation is also obviously a Jewish scheme, and the fact that a lot of American sons and daughters are in harm's way to benefit Israel needs to be stressed......
. But first, we all need to wake up a hell of a lot more Americans.[/QUOTE]
The Liberty incident is powerful and provocative, but even that quickly becomes jaded and identified with hard-cores, as it already has.
In general, the conclusion you reach is pretty much along the lines of Linder's "Name The Jew" campaign. It is good as it goes, but the obstinancy and dogmatism with which its opponents have employed it seem to have made it in practice little different than the other slogans.
In fact, Linder and Co seem to have used it mainly as a device to attack paleo's like Sam Francis, Jerod Taylor, Pat Buchanan, and other who aren't dogmatic enough. In fact, to attack pretty much anyone less dogmatic then The Fuhrer himself.
The ideas which you put out, but even these, which seem moderate enough, aren't going to be successful unless employed in a moderate way by people like the Francis's and Buchanan's which in the past hard-core VNNers have mainly concentrated on attacking and denigrating. What is needed in other words is some indication of flexibility and the willingness to form coalitions of the Linderites which in the past has been lacking.
2003-10-08 12:19 | User Profile
I agree that advocating the extermination of Jews is highly counterproductive. A WN on another site suggested that the best and most humane solution would be to create laws prohibiting Jews from intermarrying with anyone other than blacks. LOL, this idea is rather thought provoking as it sentences them to the same fate that they wished on us.
2003-10-09 21:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=travis]A WN on another site suggested that the best and most humane solution would be to create laws prohibiting Jews from intermarrying with anyone other than blacks.[/QUOTE]
Funny. Or how about, they may ONLY marry blacks? Seriously, one reason for the death call is the realization that Jews will ALWAYS cause problems, and if stripped of citizenship, etc., they will find another way to wreak havoc. But damn, we don't even stay NEUTRAL on Jews in America: we embrace them, lick them, and fight their wars. Let's start with OPPOSING the bastards, for Godsakes. Surely there's something between calling for the death of all Jews and being afraid to utter their name in public.
2003-10-09 22:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]Surely there's something between calling for the death of all Jews and being afraid to utter their name in public.[/QUOTE]
Well, that's the problem, Hugh. Their agenda has advanced so far in our culture that anything short of adulation and fawning over jewry is equated with calling for their genocide. Reference Buchanan's travails.
2003-10-11 21:34 | User Profile
The current problems of society are are only 50% Jewish related, while the other 50% is the result of psychopathic White elites (not all White elites) working for their own interests at the expense of the interest of the average person. History shows how psychopathic White elites have greatly harmed the average people for their own self gains.
So, I believe that the Jews need the psychopathic White elites, and the psychopathic White elites need the Jews. They work together voluntarily, with the belief that the average human is "sub-human garbage" and not worthy of any legal rights: they are cannon fodder, to be used for exploitation.
Kevin MacDonald has traced the history of White elite/Jews in which he shows that White elites used to keep the Jews around to help exploit the common man for money/labor. So, one solution would be to also keep the White elites under control. For example, not allowing them to get so rich or to monopolize resources. Then there is the option of removing the mental disease of psychopathology which leads to criminal behavior in the elites, as well as in average people.
Conservative.
2003-10-12 03:03 | User Profile
There are several letters in between A and Z. It thus follows that those who are at this moment jumping out to Z are getting a little ahead of themselves. I would be more concerned about the destruction of the rainforest than if every single Jew in this world were to vanish from this world tommorrow. It would not affect me, much less concern me, in the slightest. I would still wake up in the morning, drink myself a glass of iced tea, and go about my daily business.
The Jewish problem simply cannot be solved by deporting them to some remote place and going about our daily business. The Jews have a long memory. They are still pissed off about things that happened 2,000 years ago. They will simply entrench themselves in other nations and manipulate those nations into lashing out against us. Even if we were to deport them to somewhere in darkest Africa and out of every single Western nation, eventually, as the generations go by our attention will naturally begins to wonder, the Jews will be let right back in and our descendants will find themselves in the exact same situation we are in today with all the guilt tripping. Learn something from history, it has mean lessons to teach.
The Jew is an international phenonmena and must be dealt with internationally. Simply ridding Germany of the Jews or ridding America of the Jews solves nothing. If anything, it probably creates more problems because it puts the Jews beyond our immediate control. They must be be either race-mixed out of existence, in their entirety, or sterilized out of existence, in their entirety. Sterilize them all and let them live out their remaining years on Earth amongst Negroes in Uganda I say.
2003-10-12 17:07 | User Profile
I highly doubt that problems would be solved if every Jew in the world were dead. A treacherous gentile elite with absolutely no loyalty to anything but $$$ would simply fill in the gaps. Would all of the couch potatoes, yuppies, wiggers, cheap labor seeking businessmen, soccer moms, etc all suddenly become enfused with some sense of ethno-cultural loyalty the moment the last Jew on Earth draws his final breath? No, they'll go on like they did before, completely atomized. Ethno-cultural loyalty springs from necessity for extended family. For that to be brought back, life must get much harder to bring people together to survive. The Social Democratic government + Corporatist economic system needs to go first.
2003-10-12 17:57 | User Profile
If the Jews were somehow removed from the equation, 95% of the repression of ethno-cultural loyalty would disappear. Under these circumstances, our loyalties would instinctively revive, and with the following history of what happened being disseminated by gentile-controlled schools, third world immigrants would feel out of place and leave.
The treacherous gentile elite that exists now will continue to exist to some degree unless we follow through with the elimination of secret societies.
If we try to change the system first, Jews will play the dominant role in the changes and thus nullify any gains.
2003-10-12 18:15 | User Profile
Who is oppressing the Swedes, Travis? Who is oppressing Canadians? Swedish schools are controlled by gentiles. What are they teaching their kids?
You know who it is oppressing the European people and White North American people? Themselves and their governments full of treacherous, deracinated power whores. They're not liberal (in the modern sense) because they'd be sent to a gulag if they weren't. They're liberal because they've bought it all hook, line and sinker and the long term costs don't mean much to them compared to the short term gains and good "feelings". Modern Whites do not base their lives around extended family and community (which is the main source of ethno-cultural loyalty), but around themselves and getting the next paycheck. It's deracinated rich white people who want the cheap third world labor, cheap third world restaurants, cheap third world whores, cheap third world products, and cheap third world votes.
2003-10-12 18:50 | User Profile
I doubt that there are any White countries in which Jews don't have a very disproportionate level of influence in media and schools. If there was, White Nationalists would be flocking to them in great numbers.
Sure, there are gentiles who think they benifit from third world whores/ labor/votes but Jews have been the promoters of multiculturalism worldwide (with the exception of Israel).
I don't think you have given full consideration to the power of influence. A gentile media would point negative scrutiny at third world immigration and it's promoters. It would censor material suggestive of homosexuality and degeneracy, it would no longer use the power of suggestion to promote things purposely destructive to us and would no longer smear Whites who advocate a racial future.
The lack of White family values and community might still be a small problem. Hopefully the recruitment and promotion of female WN's would help solidify families.
The Jews have helped enrich the deracinated white people at the expense of all whites, but things would change in the absense of Jewish influence.
2003-10-12 19:28 | User Profile
I doubt that there are any White countries in which Jews don't have a very disproportionate level of influence in media and schools. If there was, White Nationalists would be flocking to them in great numbers.
Why would White Nationalists flock to these countries if they're ruled by corrupt white gentile Social Democrats who think it's cute to have millions of Muslims in their country?
Sure, there are gentiles who think they benifit from third world whores/ labor/votes but Jews have been the promoters of multiculturalism worldwide (with the exception of Israel).
There are gentiles who do benefit, which is why this is happening. Why do you think elite Jews and elite White gentiles are joined at the hip? Because elite White gentiles are unthinking, powerless little sheep or because of a mutual benefit in screwing everyone else? Social Democratic politicians get votes to stay in power and fill their pockets with so many tax dollars that they don't have to live around the "diversity". Businessmen can fill their factory with cheap labor and go live on an island - again, benefiting while escaping what everyone else has to put up with.
I don't think you have given full consideration to the power of influence.
I have dwelt on the power of influence a great deal, read up the issue, etc. However, I'm becoming jaded with very simplistic thinking that promotes a quick fix. Nothing is simple, and unless we are able to look at the problems within ourselves, nothing will be accomplished.
A gentile media would point negative scrutiny at third world immigration and it's promoters. It would censor material suggestive of homosexuality and degeneracy, it would no longer use the power of suggestion to promote things purposely destructive to us and would no longer smear Whites who advocate a racial future.
I do not have much faith that a gentile media headed by atomists and socialists that are more loyal to the dollar and power than to any ethno-culture will be much different than the Talmudvision. The most corrupt gentiles are the ones likely to fill up the gap if every Jew poofed away today, not Texas Dissident and David Duke.
I have bigger hopes that the internet will make the mass media irrelevent altogether, in the same way that the RIAA is dying.
The lack of White family values and community might still be a small problem.
Small problem? It is one of the problems from which multiple other main problems flow.
2003-10-12 20:11 | User Profile
>>>I highly doubt that problems would be solved if every Jew in the world were dead.
I never said all our problems would be solved if every Jew in the world were dead via sterilization. The world would be looking better by the day however. :p
2003-10-12 20:15 | User Profile
Edana,
you've hung around LF too much :lol:
2003-10-12 20:43 | User Profile
I guess certain rabidly socialist Swedish nutcases have convinced me that we'll still be left with the same goofs making the same mistakes and believing the same bullshit if every Jew went to Pluto.
I also highly doubt that it's the Canadian Jewish community forcing the Canadian Liberal government (French and Anglos) to welcome large numbers of Muslims into Canada. Ditto Europe. Therefore, from the perspective of the country I'm living in now, deporting every Jew would solve absolutely nothing here, even if I would personally like the idea of them being dropped into the Gaza strip by helicoptor. The Social Democrats and business leaders would still be chanting the same mantras about diversity because they want votes and cheap labor. Agribusiness in California would still want Mexicans. This system needs to go.
2003-10-12 20:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]Why would White Nationalists flock to these countries if they're ruled by corrupt white gentile Social Democrats who think it's cute to have millions of Muslims in their country?
As I stated before, I really don't think there are any White countries in existence that are immune from Jewish domination.
There are gentiles who do benefit, which is why this is happening. Why do you think elite Jews and elite White gentiles are joined at the hip? Because elite White gentiles are unthinking, powerless little sheep or because of a mutual benefit in screwing everyone else?
Both. But there is another reason; Jews need corrupt gentiles around them and their operations to help absorb the blame. In order to facilitate this modus operandi they have engineered circumstances that create motives for elite gentiles to benifit by treason. The power of media makes it all possible. Without Jewish media control 90% of these problems would melt away. Even if the corrupt gentiles monopolized the media in the absense of Jews, which is unlikely, their only motives would be power and money, not to destroy the White race. They would follow the path of least resistance and go for the easy pickings. Most of these elite Whites don't have it in them to cooperate with one another with enough skill to avoid being nullified by infighting, nor do they have the self-determination that comes with Jewish supremacism to keep the corruption alive for generatios on end.
I have dwelt on the power of influence a great deal, read up the issue, etc. However, I'm becoming jaded with very simplistic thinking that promotes a quick fix. Nothing is simple, and unless we are able to look at the problems within ourselves, nothing will be accomplished. The problems within ourselves are our vulnerability to manipulation, indoctrination and the power of suggestion, all of which are currently in the hands of the Jews, who happen to be the only ones who even know how to use them. I'm not trying to oversimplify the problem, I'm trying to get to the root of the problem.
In any case, how can we fix anything anyway as long as we have Jewish influence as an obstacle? First things first.
I have bigger hopes that the internet will make the mass media irrelevent altogether, in the same way that the RIAA is dying.
The internet seems to be our only hope, but I doubt we will have this freedom for long, terrorism will be the vehichle to censor it.
2003-10-12 21:50 | User Profile
Edana,
if someone is fat and then goes on a diet, does that mean that one's going to be slim tomorrow? Of course not. And perhaps even after dieting the success will be limited. One thing is absolutely certain though: no success without trying.
2003-10-12 22:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]I also highly doubt that it's the Canadian Jewish community forcing the Canadian Liberal government (French and Anglos) to welcome large numbers of Muslims into Canada. Ditto Europe. [/QUOTE] The Canadian and Swedish governments consist of individuals, and media has the power to control individuals.
Media plays an astronomical role in the election process of a democracy and has the same kind of influence on appointed positions. If you don't know the means of application, I can explain.
Media is force. Politicians are puppets. Do you understand how all this works?
The Muslims are not the enemy, they are only being used as a weapon against Whites, just as Whites are being used as a weapon against Muslims.
[url]http://www.abbc.com/islam/svenska/svensk.htm[/url]
2003-10-12 22:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Edana,
if someone is fat and then goes on a diet, does that mean that one's going to be slim tomorrow? Of course not. And perhaps even after dieting the success will be limited. One thing is absolutely certain though: no success without trying.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, trying to "kill all Jews" is a sure way to turn most Whites even more against you and strengthens support for Jews through the victim charade. In the meantime, Jewish power is reducing through the increasing irrelevancy of mass media in favor of the internet - without killing a single one and without creating any sudden mass sympathy.
2003-10-12 22:59 | User Profile
Travis, I know that politicians have not a shred of honor, but do you really think all White Gentile elites are completely retarded? In the case of Canada and Europe, Jews must be extremely retarded too if they're the ones responsible for using Muslims as a weapon against Whites. Yeah, switch a generally pro-Semitic population with a notoriously anti-Jewish/Zionist population. Good thinking, Jews! I just can't shake this strange hunch that large numbers of White gentile elites have sold out their people for personal gain and wealth and would continue to do so without Jewish support. In the modern corporate model, cheap labor is profitable to both Jew and Gentile. The current system needs to go and sources of Jewish and corrupt Gentile power need to be neutralized.
2003-10-12 22:59 | User Profile
I am not talking about "killing Jews", but about a hypothetical situation if they dissappeared tomorrow. I would certainly not miss them.
2003-10-12 23:09 | User Profile
LoL, I definately wouldn't either. If there were mass support for me to put the Canadian Jewish community into a helicoptor and toss them into the Gaza Strip, I would not turn everyone down.
I'm mainly addressing people who seem to think that the #1 goal for us should be to just physically remove Jews from our living space or planet, whereas I would concentrate on changing or supporting changes in the current system which neutralize sources of Jewish power without creating any mass sympathy for them. I'm very pessimistic that anything of substance will occur within the current system, since it rewards atomization and discourages ethno-cultural loyalty. However, I'm optimistic that the system will eventually collapse and White people will get back into a healthy extended family/community system which promotes ethno-cultural loyalty out of necessity for survival... and that they will do this whether there be the circumcized ones left floundering about or not.
2003-10-12 23:45 | User Profile
Changing the system without eliminating Jews in their entirety will solve nothing. They will only agitate afterwards to undermine the new system. The attention of the public will wane. The masses can only become politically active for so long. Eventually, the Jews will be let back in and they will simply corrupt the system all over again. History has proven the futility of simply expelling the Jews or simply trying to solve the problem on a national basis. The Jews have been kicked out of most European nations in the past only to be let right back in a few centuries later. As I pointed out before, it is probably even more futile to try to expel them, since they will only be beyond our control and free to agitate against us. Just look what they did to Russia in the early 1900's. Safe and comfortable from their perch in NYC, they provided the financing that allowed the Japanese to defeat the Russians in the war between those two nations. They agitated against the Russians for decades until the Communists finally over the Tsar just as they agitating against Germany thoughout the West when Hitler came to power.
As for massive public support for eliminating the Jews, why is such a thing even necessary? The masses are ordinarily contented to go about their own lives. If power was obtained, somehow, I really do not see the public itself being much of a problem, that of course presupposing the elimination of Jews from power in the media beforehand. It wasn't really a problem in Germany, Spain, Russia or elsewhere. As for eliminating the Jews in their entirety, sure, one might feel bad about it for a few days, but it is not like it is the end of the world. In fact, many of our own people might feel quite satisfied taking the positions formerly held by Jews for themselves! This is especially true of the professional classes who would most likely raise the strongest protest. They would be the principal beneficiaries of such a change in policy and would be more occupied with adjusting to the new order than anything else.
It all boils down to what should be done with the Jews. If the Jews were to disappear tommorrow, like the dinosaurs, how many people who understand the Jewish question would honestly care? I know I wouldn't. I would not lose any sleep knowing that every Jew in the world had been sterilized. Species and races disappear everyday. That is the world in which we live. Do we sit around and cry every single day an entire race of frogs disappears from this world? As for the altruists, if they want to save something, save the whales. Why save something as vile as Jewry?
2003-10-13 00:14 | User Profile
Who's talking about saving Jews or mourning Jews if they die? I'm talking about goals and priorities. Killing all Jews is simply not a realistic goal right now, at all, and I doubt it will ever be a realistic goal (though the optimists among us may hope Jewry goes extinct or becomes neutralized through other means). I'm sure none of us would even begin doing it. If someone did, the backlash would likely hit them hard enough that they are unable to finish the job and provide fodder for endless sympathy movies and parades. A lot good that would do.
2003-10-13 03:12 | User Profile
How about simply calling for the removal of Jews from places of power and placing them instead in humble jobs where they can't cause any problems?
Conservative
2003-10-13 03:37 | User Profile
>>>How about simply calling for the removal of Jews from places of power and placing them instead in humble jobs where they can't cause any problems?
Simple. That solves absolutely nothing. They will simply agitate and work to undermine the government until they re-establish themselves in their old positions.
>>>Who's talking about saving Jews or mourning Jews if they die? I'm talking about goals and priorities.
That is precisely what I am talking about as well. As I pointed out before, it is useless to simply remove Jews from positions of power. It is useless to simply expel them from a given area. It solves nothing. Countless historical examples just go to show the Jews will worm their way right back into the system.
***>>>Killing all Jews is simply not a realistic goal right now, at all, and I doubt it will ever be a realistic goal (though the optimists among us may hope Jewry goes extinct or becomes neutralized through other means). ***
I would like to see them collectively sterilized honestly and incarcerated until they cease their existence in this world. Jews are some of the biggest fans of abortion anyway. Its not like they have any real serious objection to neutralizing unborn generations.
***>>>I'm sure none of us would even begin doing it. ***
Would I care if every Jew was rounded up and sterilized, and then incarcerated in some place like Uganda until they perished from this world? Absolutely not. In fact, I would quite enthusiastically welcome such action.
>>>If someone did, the backlash would likely hit them hard enough that they are unable to finish the job and provide fodder for endless sympathy movies and parades. A lot good that would do.
Who makes all the sympathy movies Edana? That right there is one of our principal problems that must be overcome, this insane idea of moral universalism. There will be no substantial political change until this entire idea of univeralism is absolutely critiqued and destroyed forever. The values that rule today must by ruthlessly attacked and systematically discredited. I refer in particular to "humanity" and "morality." Almost all the anti-racist arguments are traced back to these two fundamental ideas, this disgusting humanitarianism and repugnant sense of moral righteousness. "Humanity" and "morality" must be criticized as much as "race" is today by Jews.
2003-10-13 04:01 | User Profile
Would I care if every Jew was rounded up and sterilized, and then incarcerated in some place like Uganda until they perished from this world? Absolutely not. In fact, I would quite enthusiastically welcome such action.
There is a vast difference between not caring if someone else manages to do something and actually going out and doing it yourself.
2003-10-13 04:38 | User Profile
Is it realistically possible for me to have every single Jew in the world sterilized by myself? Of course not. I am however a firm believer that morality has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with politics. It is a serious error of leadership, so common in America these days, to confuse moral notions of right and wrong with political judgements of friend and enemy. Jewry is most definitely an enemy. The shabbos goy are not enemies. They are misguided antagonists. You are right about the gentile elite allying itself with Jewry. This has not always been the case however according to Ginsberg in The Jews and the State. During World War 2, the Eastern Protestant establishment pretty much loathed the Jews but aligned themselves with them against Germany because of their Anglophilia. The Eastern establishment abandoned the Jews pretty much entirely at the end of the Gilded Age however. It was only around the Roosevelt era when the Jews seriously began to recover from being knocked down a peg or two.
Who is the weakest link here? It is the gentile establishment. When their power has been imperiled before they have betrayed the Jews on numerous occassions. It can happen again. It would probably be more fruitful to attack these people for associating with Jews than the Jews themselves.
2003-10-13 05:33 | User Profile
When someone comes from a mindset (forged in childhood) that "Hitler was the greatest monster in history", "Jews have been persecuted for 5000 years", "without Jews,we would have no Nobel prize winners". etc, etc, etc....and then later in life begins to research and learn and understand the history, nature and tendencies of Jews as an inbred, unified race...and this new understanding was prompted by one too many first-hand shitty encounters with Jews that planted a seed of doubt that maybe...just possibly...Everything You Were Told Was True Is Wrong....I think the natural first-flush reaction after that is to take steps to sweep them [B]all [/B] out with a new broom.
If you never go down in the cellar - and then one day, you do and see rats running wild down there - your immediate reaction isn't going to be [I]deport them to Madagascar.[/I]
On the other hand, there is a tendency to overrate the Jew-free European model. There are a few folks out there deluding themselves that a society free of Jews would result in a society of Mozarts and DaVincis. Or,even more deluded, one of strong virile peasants, fecund as all get-out and eminently happy with their lot in life. I grew up in one of those all-gentile -100% Irish & Italian - neighborhoods and it was no utopia. I remember well such virulent strains of anti-intellectualism that it was common to hear adults- [I]parents [/I] -dismissing the importance of getting an education as some kind of decadent softness. People who mixed only, and I mean [B]only[/B], with their own - shanty micks who despised the lace-curtain Irish and brillo-headed dagos who didn't trust guineas who had originally emigrated from different [B]towns [/B] in Italy, even when it was two towns over! Such bitterness and false-pride-as-a-way-of-life...so many drunken shouts of "what,you think you're [I]better [/I] than me?"I don't think it was much different for Slavs in Pennsylvania steeltowns, or Swedes in rural Minnesota, or gentiles in the provinces anywhere, really. History is not written by clannish peasant-duchies ruled by local strongmen, nor are they pleasant places to live. So there's something to Shakespeare's notion that "our fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves". (I also don't entirely trust anti-Semites who have never themselves interacted with or even MET a Jew.)
What I've come to believe is that -as a whole - Jews have become much worse, much more of a death-force to society since the founding of Israel. While they have always dominated certain fields, always preyed upon certain weaknesses in gentiles, the creation of Israel has kicked that into overdrive; ratcheted up their efforts to control and shape the flow of information. It's as if they can smell world domination now, where prior to 1948 (or 1917, take your pick really) "world domination" seemed a far-away, untenable ideal like the coming of the Messiah...an in-group fable to cling to. Which is why I believe Israel must be destroyed, or at least isolated from the world and left to be overrun by fanatical Arabs. Cut off the head and the arms and legs pose little threat.
But that doesn't really address OUR problem. Any sort of movement that fosters and builds white identity is a good idea, but not at the expense of Individualism, Rugged or Otherwise. Look at the blacks, who have been neck-deep in Black Power, Black History and Black Identity for a generation now- most of them are still ghetto-dwelling scum, only with a falsely inflated notion of their own importance, and significance in world history. Pretty much the only blacks who have earned the right to look at themselves in the mirror are those who break away from that type of clannishness and opt for being individuals.
2003-10-13 06:00 | User Profile
"Individualism" has become a buzzword that everyone fits into their own agenda. Individualism to libertarians, for example, means open borders and I-am-ecstatic-to-have-my-job-shipped-oversees-since-it-proves-my-convictions and other bunch of nonsense.
2003-10-13 06:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]I remember well such virulent strains of anti-intellectualism that it was common to hear adults- [I]parents [/I] -dismissing the importance of getting an education as some kind of decadent softness...[/QUOTE]
Yeah. When I found it was really decadent indoctrination, it bummed me out too.
Some of the suspicions old crabs like Philip Wylie had about higher education have turned out to be so true that Wylie's books are now on a sort of unofficial censored list (or long out of print.) America has been goverened by liberal arts grads since 1970 -- I rest my case.
Not quite: All the old crabbies belching about college put together will never add up to even one yuppie's disgust for men who do honest physical work for a living. (Check anymedia if you doubt.) Is this an improvement?
2003-10-13 06:27 | User Profile
***>>>But that doesn't really address OUR problem. Any sort of movement that fosters and builds white identity is a good idea, but not at the expense of Individualism, Rugged or Otherwise. ***
What is "individualism" again? I well tell you what the individual is. The individual is an overrated abstraction, form detached from substance. Individualism, its political manifestation, is a serious misunderstanding that leads to political errors. These "individuals" are immersed in a social context, a habitat. They are not abstracted, autonomous, asocial little interchangable units - quantifiable numbers - disconnected from all reality that can be thrown up on a chalkboard for an instruction in logic at will. All those symbols you just spit out, the symbols that become words, words that become sentances, sentances which express concepts and ideas that are comprehensible to others, did you come up with those ideas on your own? Who here creates their own gasoline? Who here assembles their own computers from scratch? Did you construct the highway that takes you to and fro to your job. Who here hunts down the criminals who may rob one's home? Does anyone here raise their own cows, butcher their own meat, knit their own clothes, plant their own cotton? We are actually immersed in a highly complex social system which we are heavily reliant upon. We also have a tendancy to give ourselves too much credit for the lifestyle which we live. I don't like the concept "individual" myself to be honest. It denotes nothing more than an atomized form that does not accurately describe reality.
Forests do not exist, they are simply aggregates of individual trees! Human beings are mere aggregates of cells. Molecules are nothing but aggregates of atoms. Jewry is simply an aggregate of individual Jews which cannot be evaluated. An ant bed is an aggregate of ants, each ant being an individual and judged accordingly. What is this? It is materialism.
2003-10-13 07:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]>>>How about simply calling for the removal of Jews from places of power and placing them instead in humble jobs where they can't cause any problems?
Simple. That solves absolutely nothing. They will simply agitate and work to undermine the government until they re-establish themselves in their old positions.[/QUOTE]
Taking a position any more extreme than this will alienate most Whites from Paleo-Conservatism.
Conservative
2003-10-13 07:54 | User Profile
I didn't think my little rant was going to find many takers here. But the replies have been riddled with inconsistencies.
Ragnar sneers at education and venerates the "man who works with his hands". But there can be little doubt [I]he [/I] acquired an education...and what could possibly epitomize the softness and decadence of the Modern Liberal Arts grad he despises more than having a home computer with which to hold court on the Great Issues of the Day? Oh, I get it...do as I say, not as I do.
Likewise, Fade and Madrussian sneer at the notion of 'individualism"...when they're not busy blaming Jews for socialism, communism & collectivism. Err- which way do you [I]want [/I] it, fellas?
To all who reject the idea of the Individual as the Fallacy That Destroyed, Not Built, the West - how eager would you be to all take orders from [I]me[/I]?
Yeah...I didn't think so. Suddenly, you're not so crazy about being a faceless component of the forest; being a tree's a lot better - if you're not the top dog giving the orders.
Fade,your explanation of 'complex social systems' is well-meant but entirely irrelevant to the conversation. I never said "we should all be atomized units occasionally colliding against each other"....I said fostering white identity is fine, but not so it subsumes the Individual. You wanna be a a black cipher, waving his bean pie in the air cheering for Minister Farrakhan? Be my guest. I'd rather be Farrakhan.
2003-10-13 10:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]Killing all Jews is simply not a realistic goal right now, at all, and I doubt it will ever be a realistic goal (though the optimists among us may hope Jewry goes extinct or becomes neutralized through other means).[/QUOTE]
Killing all jews is a realistic goal now for [I]muslims[/I]. Two massive blasts in NYC and 'the sh*tty little country' would decimate world jewry. [I]With Irans nuclear program this is possible. [/I]
Of course the collateral damage to Whites in NYC would be horrible, and this is why in [B]no way, shape, or form do I endorse[/B] such possible muslim activity.
Probably the best thing for Whites to do right now would be to go back to the original definition of 'ghetto' and place all jews inside a walled area.
2003-10-13 15:16 | User Profile
I agree with you Il Ragno. I think one of the problems is the modern understanding of the world individualism vs the classic understanding. The classic meaning, as I understand it, is a degree of self-reliance and thinking for yourself. The modern meaning is a denial that groups exist or are useful. The modern meaning paints "groups" as the enemy, which is completely goofy.
Self-reliance is a good goal that we could work for individually. No one is going off to "Kill all Jews". At most, they'll sit at the computer and talk/fantasize it all day while changing nothing. I think it would be a good idea for Whites to divorce themselves from the urban corporate society and learn self-reliance. Grow your own food, learn how to shoot and hunt, learn basic survival skills and frugal living (stop buying junk), have kids, homeschool them, and never stop educating yourself.
2003-10-13 17:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno] Likewise, Fade and Madrussian sneer at the notion of 'individualism"...when they're not busy blaming Jews for socialism, communism & collectivism. Err- which way do you [I]want [/I] it, fellas? [/QUOTE]
Hmm, no. Sneering at the semantic games where multi-kulti, divershity and open borders are proclaimed to be following from individualism is more like it.
You aren't alone who grew up in a more or less homogenious environment with humble roots.
It's not an either-or proposition, as presented by our enemies.
2003-10-13 18:31 | User Profile
"On the other hand, there is a tendency to overrate the Jew-free European model. There are a few folks out there deluding themselves that a society free of Jews would result in a society of Mozarts and DaVincis. Or,even more deluded, one of strong virile peasants, fecund as all get-out and eminently happy with their lot in life. I grew up in one of those all-gentile -100% Irish & Italian - neighborhoods and it was no utopia. I remember well such virulent strains of anti-intellectualism that it was common to hear adults- parents -dismissing the importance of getting an education as some kind of decadent softness."
Yes, a dirty secret of White folk... maybe not so secret, really. This pretty much described the attitude at my midwestern, nearly-all-White high school. People who read books were p*ssies. That's why I include a healthy dose of elitism into my White nationalism, being careful not to carry that to race traitorhood (Elite gentile preference for witty Jews over callous-handed, thick-bearded Whites explains a good measure of the dispossession).
"People who mixed only, and I mean only, with their own - shanty micks who despised the lace-curtain Irish and brillo-headed dagos who didn't trust guineas who had originally emigrated from different towns in Italy, even when it was two towns over! Such bitterness and false-pride-as-a-way-of-life...so many drunken shouts of "what,you think you're better than me?" I don't think it was much different for Slavs in Pennsylvania steeltowns, or Swedes in rural Minnesota, or gentiles in the provinces anywhere, really."
This exists today, especially in places like NYC and its outer boroughs and rural White America. I would by lying to the whole OD community if I said I watched some of their attitudes and behavior and thought it spoke well of our race. It makes me want to shake them and yell. Is it possible to be a cosmopolitan racist?
"History is not written by clannish peasant-duchies ruled by local strongmen, nor are they pleasant places to live. So there's something to Shakespeare's notion that "our fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves".
England was a collection of clannish peasant-duchies ruled by local strongmen, but it developed into something bigger and better.
2003-10-13 19:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Is it possible to be a cosmopolitan racist?[/QUOTE]
There had better be, or we're all wasting our time on a board like this.
I hold no animus for the common man....many are better men than I'll ever be....but we should all be striving towards the model of the [B]un[/B]common man.
At least, if we intend to seize back the West.
2003-10-13 22:16 | User Profile
>>>Likewise, Fade and Madrussian sneer at the notion of 'individualism"...when they're not busy blaming Jews for socialism, communism & collectivism. Err- which way do you want it, fellas?
I don't believe I have blamed the Jews for Socialism, Communism, or Collectivism.
>>>To all who reject the idea of the Individual as the Fallacy That Destroyed, Not Built, the West - how eager would you be to all take orders from me?
The individual is the fallacy that has destroyed the West. Why? These Westerners that now come to think of themselves as "individuals" are most vulnerable to tyranny when they are atomized and isolated from one another which is exactly the sort of society this ideology produces.
>>>Yeah...I didn't think so. Suddenly, you're not so crazy about being a faceless component of the forest; being a tree's a lot better - if you're not the top dog giving the orders.
Why are you so afraid of authority? In reality, both trees and forests exists. The tree is a part of the forest, interconnected with it and the surrounding ecosystem. It is the context in which the tree exists, and this context to a large extent determines its behaviour, its fate. The tree simply cannot be understood by ripping it out of this context. The individualist sees only the trees. The collectivist sees only the forest. BOTH are materialists and for that reason BOTH misunderstand reality.
>>>Fade,your explanation of 'complex social systems' is well-meant but entirely irrelevant to the conversation.
It is not irrelevent. It just goes to show the error of building an ideology upon a complete and total abstraction and the political confusion such an ideology can cause.
>>>I never said "we should all be atomized units occasionally colliding against each other"....I said fostering white identity is fine, but not so it subsumes the Individual. You wanna be a a black cipher, waving his bean pie in the air cheering for Minister Farrakhan? Be my guest. I'd rather be Farrakhan.
What precisely is this "individual" again? The "individual" is an abstraction that exists in a rationalist world detached from substance. In real life, however, form is not detached from substance. These "individuals" live within a social, economic, historical, and political context. These individuals have both self-concepts and social-concepts, not to mention various other social identities that determine their behaviour. Individualism ignores this by confusing political reality.
Jews, after all, they are simply all individuals right. Here the rationalists start the process of abstraction where the substance of the individual Jew is discarded and the form of the individual is emphasized. It is not easily recognized that the individual Jew has a group identity which is of extreme importance to him, that the Jew is more than a mere individual.
2003-10-14 06:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno] Ragnar sneers at education and venerates the "man who works with his hands". But there can be little doubt [I]he [/I] acquired an education...and what could possibly epitomize the softness and decadence of the Modern Liberal Arts grad he despises more than having a home computer with which to hold court on the Great Issues of the Day? Oh, I get it...do as I say, not as I do...[/QUOTE]
You're confusing me with George maybe? He was the one that went to college and I was the one that didn't which is why we has so much fun squaring off now and then. (Where did he go?)
BTW, Modern Liberal Arts grads took up 'puters way, way after grease monkeys like me made them easy to use. You got the wrong guy here.
2003-10-14 08:23 | User Profile
I likewise did not attend college so we're [I]both [/I] tilting at windmills this time, Redbeard.
As for George, obviously one of the wheels came off his shopping cart on the way back from the liquor store. Ain't that a [I]bith-ch.....[/I]
2003-10-15 07:37 | User Profile
This is an extraordinarily interesting discussion.
I find Fade's arguments both alarming and compelling.
I agree that human socieities are in fact organisms. Indeed, science has proved this to my satisfaction. The work done in computer modeling of societies and the insights of Darwinists like David Sloan Wilson (Darwin's Cathedral - a must read) convince me that our free will is 90% illusory.
Leo Tolstoy struggled with this intution in War and Peace 140 years ago, by the way. He saw that there was much more to enormous movements like the French nation invading the Russian nation and the Russian nation's response to that attack than the sum total of the individual men participating in those events - even great men like Napolean and Kutuzov.
The Napoleanic wars were movements of ORGANISMS called France and Russia - the individuals played the parts of organs in a body perfectly, while believing individually that they were somehow acting by their own free will. In fact, it was precisely this self-delusion on the part of the individual actors that allowed the organisms called Russia and France to work their will through them. Tolstoy's towering genius intuited these truths that modern science has since described, and he synthesized it into the greatest novel that's ever been written, but I digress.
Yet, despite the very real organismic nature of human groups, one of the great discoveries of all time was the Enlightenment's realization that GROUPS work better when a large degree of freedom is granted to individuals. Inherited privilege is a terrible threat to group health, due simply to the scientific fact (described much after Adam Smith) of "regression to the mean" - the marked tendency of highly talented individuals to produce more average offspring.
The problem with inherited privilege, then, is that the talented, ambitious and virtuous - whom Jefferson referred to as the "natural aristocracy" - were prevented from rising to their rightful leadership roles by the dead hand of prior generations of the talented and virtuous protecting the social position of their "mean regressed" progeny at the expense of the tribe/organism's good ordering. The American Revolution - the lovliest daughter of the British Enlightenment - was conceived by a self-conscious Natural Aristocracy made up of individual geniuses like Jefferson and Franklin, pitted against an aristocracy of inherited mediocrities personified by King George III.
The point is that herein lies the true value of that which we call "individualism" - it is not an end in itself, but rather (as I think Jefferson himself understood) the means to attaining maximum group functioning. [I]Properly understood, therefore, the concept of "individualsim" is in no wise at odds with the organistic model of human societies. [/I] The latter reflects the scientific fact that genetic groups are indeed separate organisms when viewed from a macro perspective, whereas the former reflects the empirical fact that the tribe/organism functions more efficiently when individuals are allowed to rise or fall within the tribe/organism based only on their own talent and initiative and without artificial hindrances to this natural hierarchical ordering process.
This disposes, I think, of the argument between those "collectivists" who would grant the individual no instrinsic value and the "individualists" who deny not only the rights but the very existence of the collective. Both sides are demonstrably wrong.
The collective indeed exists - pace Ayn Rand (Alisa Rosenberg) there really and demonstrably exists a "collective mind" - and thus the interests of the group are paramount inasmuch as the group gives rise to and contains the individual, providing the context for the entirety of every individual's life. Surely, the collective's interests, then, transcend the interests of the individual.
I find doctinaire libertarians and their talk of "individual rights" particularly tedious - especially the more atheistic among them - since they illogically posit individual rights out of thin air while denying the very collective human existence that alone lends them exigency. Individual rights exist precisely because groups exist and broad latitude for individuals to display and profit by their own talents and work is a concomitant of optimal group functioning. Individual rights are thus a moral inference reasonably drawn from the empirical facts - the Natural Law. It is this Natural Law that the Declaration of Independence referred to; human rights truly are self-evident truths arising from our observations of Nature and reflection on the Will of Nature's God.
Conversely, the extreme all-for-the-state collectivists are clearly wrong, inasmuch as they fail to see that only by SHARPLY limiting state/collective action vis a vis the individual and extending the individual ironclad guarantees of property and procedural immunities can the state/collective hope to achieve anything approaching optimal functioning. This terrible collectivist error is the thing that made the Nazis and Bolsheviks so similar to each other in method and appearance, including their eerily similar art (I use the term advisedly), but again I digress.
But this is all elementary, and proved beyond doubt by the most casual glance at even the dimmest outlines of history. I can't for the life of me understand how anybody beyond, say, the college sophomore level could be either a Randian/libertarian or a Nazi/Facist/Bolshevik collectivist.
In short, both the Nazis with their statist submersion of the individual in the group mind and the Randian individualists with their bizarre rejection of any group interest have nothing whatever to do with the scientific truth and just good common horse sense of traditional Americanism. Nature and Nature's God, indeed.
That said, I am compelled to agree with Fade that the endless conflict between us gentiles and the Tribe is, quite literally, the struggle of an organism to rid itself of a parasite. I'm distressed to admit that, however, as my heart rebels at the harsh remedies Fade prescribes.
Surely, there must be some other way. Surely, open discussion of these issues could lead us all to reason: the expatriation of the Tribal Diaspora to their homeland, where they will reject their parasitic ways and assume their rightful place among the nations of the Earth. This is, after all, nothing but the vision of the great Zionists of the past and present, including Theordor Herzl and Ariel Sharon. The institution of good education, stressing especially the insights of sociobiology as to the inevitability of such conflicts in the absence of territorial separation, could prevent yet another repetition of the tragic events of the last 4,000 years.
At least, so one would hope.
I guess there are some things I won't do for my country.
Walter
2003-10-15 15:22 | User Profile
Well Walter you're analysis of Tolstoy's "War and Peace" is admirable.
My views on idividualism are reflected by Doestovesky, who believed that idividual talent and development should be encouraged but for the good of the collective. As he once said: ** "Understand me: a voluntary, totally conscious sacrifice of oneself in the interests of all, made under no sort of compulsion, it is in my opinion a sign of the highest development of the personality. Voluntarily to sacrifice one's life for all, to die on the cross or at the stake, is possible only with the very strongest development of the personality."**
So the individual does merit respect, but the individual can only achieve true development within the collective. I believe in individuality in service of the collective, not the narcissicism we see today in Ayn Rand and others.
2003-10-15 15:58 | User Profile
Good post, Walter, Being an individualist in the strictest sense and only recently recovering from libertatian suckerhood, I, too have come to understand that for a majority of the population, being vulnerable to the power of suggestion and mass consciousness, their free will is an illusion, and as Fade stated "the endless conflict between us gentiles and the Tribe is, quite literally, the struggle of an organism to rid itself of a parasite". I admit there is much merit in the notion that an authoritarian White dictatorship as a means of securing our future and even restoring our freedoms is an acceptable option. But I can't ignore that an authoritarian personality is a psychological disorder and I have utter contempt for those afflicted. Any gains we would have from employing authoritarianism would be at the cost of losses suffered by squelching free will. Whether or not it would be a justifiable tradeoff hinges greatly on our choice of leaders.
2003-10-15 16:01 | User Profile
What a bunch of collectivists we have here! Fade has us toiling about like worker ants in service to the queen. That kind of extreme leaves a bitter taste in this Protestant's mouth.
Walter, you do make some good points. Certainly the group has an effect on the individual. But the fact that the individual can ultimately opt out of the group makes all the difference to me and tells me which is the 'higher truth' in the end. Further, surely we will stand before Christ to be judged as individuals and not part of some collective tribe or race. Note that I am speaking of eternal truths and not temporal. In temporal matters the family, clan and community have their place and well they should. We are here to be fruitful and multiply, after all.
Like il ragno, I don't want to lose this sense of Western individualism. It's one of our birthrights as white Westerners. Perhaps more of a Protestant thing, though. I don't know. I do also realize the nature of the enemy, but let's not disavow the better parts of our natures and lose sight of the good, in search of some collective movement or some other such nonsense that would in a sense, kill off that which we are trying to preserve.
But the category of 'the individual' is and remains the fixed point which is able to resist the pantheistic confusion, it is and remains the weight which turns the scale...
ethically and ethically-religiously the crowd is untruth, the untruth of wishing to work by means of the crowd, the numerical, of wishing to make the numerical the criterion which decides what truth is.
2003-10-15 16:39 | User Profile
TD, please check your PM. Thanks.
2003-10-15 22:00 | User Profile
***>>>What a bunch of collectivists we have here! Fade has us toiling about like worker ants in service to the queen. That kind of extreme leaves a bitter taste in this Protestant's mouth. ***
I think you are confusing my argument here Tex. I do not consider myself to be a collectivist or an individualist. I do not advocate either of these philosophies which I find to be fundamentally mistaken. The point I am actually getting at is that what both the collectivists and the individualists have in common is materialism, although they apply it quite differently. The individualist sees nothing but separate human beings, existing materially, and thus he assumes that groups are nothing but aggregates of atomized, asocial, totally disconnected individual beings. The collectivist, on the other hand, notices that the individuals are not really disconnected at all, that the individuals are immersed in a context they simply cannot be abstracted out of, but he thus draws from this the erroneous conclusion that social being determines individual consciousness. In this respect, Ayn Rand would occupy one pole and Karl Marx would occupy the other pole of thought. The source of the confusion is ultimately rationalism, which leads to materialism, which leads to either individualism or collectivism. The problem is this constant thinking in terms of abstractions, when in fact, in real life, we are not abstractions at all. In this way my own view is much closer to Aristotle's, that man is a social creature. It is his nature to live within a state. He is both a person in his own right and a member of a community. He operates within both spheres. He is not simply a worker ant, an indistinguishable number, in essence, an abstraction. Likewise, he is not simply a lone wolf totally in control of his own life and his own surroundings.
***>>>Walter, you do make some good points. Certainly the group has an effect on the individual. ***
It is the context within which the individual, person I find to be a much more accurate word, operates. To a large extent, this determines his behaviour, but not entirely. He experiences reality from his own perspective. He is also genetically distinct.
>>>But the fact that the individual can ultimately opt out of the group makes all the difference to me and tells me which is the 'higher truth' in the end.
He can disconnect, that is, to an extent. Even if I were to be dropped on a desert island in the middle of nowhere at this very moment I would still be a social being. My accumulated knowledge would still exist, knowledge derived from other beings. I would retain my self-concept, which is determined at an early age by interacting and reacting to others.
>>>I do also realize the nature of the enemy, but let's not disavow the better parts of our natures and lose sight of the good, in search of some collective movement or some other such nonsense that would in a sense, kill off that which we are trying to preserve.
As I pointed out before I do not like the terms "individualism" or "collectivism." They are abstractions which really do not accurately describe reality and this leads to confusion. "Social being" and "person" I find to be must better. One simply cannot build a practical theory of government upon a complete and total abstraction, form detached from substance.
2003-10-15 23:08 | User Profile
"Isn't the Jew a human being too?" Of course he is; none of us ever doubted it. All we doubt is that he is a decent human being."
-Joseph Goebbels, Der Angriff, July 30, 1928
2003-10-16 06:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]I think you are confusing my argument here Tex. I do not consider myself to be a collectivist or an individualist.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for your clarification, Fade. I don't read anything here that I would strongly disagree with. Indeed, I usually find myself in general agreement with much of what you comment on here on the board. Sorry for my misunderstanding.
2003-10-16 06:15 | User Profile
***>>>As I pointed out before I do not like the terms "individualism" or "collectivism." They are abstractions which really do not accurately describe reality and this leads to confusion. ***
Let me elaborate on this idea while I am thinking about. Other than the fact they are both Jews, and that they are both wrong, what do both Ayn Rand and Karl Marx have in common? Answer: they are rationalists. They live in a world of abstractions and end up building complex systems of thought upon total abstractions. Therein lies the error. What is the "bourgeoisie" again? What is the "individual" as we know it? They are abstractions, and what is an abstraction? It is a form detached from substance, an aspect of reality cut off from its totality and put under the microscope. Thus the criticism that naturally follows is that a being simply cannot understood in this way, by totally disregarding the substantial aspect of its nature. Can Jane,as a person, be understood simply by recognizing that Jane is a woman? No, of course not. Can Jane, as a person, be understood by ignoring the fact Jane is a woman? No, that does not work either. Jane can only be understood by examining the totality of Jane and this cannot occur by simply abstracting out the aspects of Jane that interests us and disregarding all other dimensions of Jane. Can a person, much less a people, be understood by disregarding all aspects of the person with the exception of the rational? This simply does not work just as a person cannot be understood on the basis of one's "socioeconomic" class either.
2003-10-16 08:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]That said, I am compelled to agree with Fade that the endless conflict between us gentiles and the Tribe is, quite literally, the struggle of an organism to rid itself of a parasite. I'm distressed to admit that, however, as my heart rebels at the harsh remedies Fade prescribes.
Surely, there must be some other way. [/QUOTE]
Sadly, the only way to free ourselves of this situation is to heed Alex Linders call for [B]Boxcars and B[/B]
2003-10-16 09:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=travis]I admit there is much merit in the notion that an authoritarian White dictatorship as a means of securing our future and even restoring our freedoms is an acceptable option. But I can't ignore that an authoritarian personality is a psychological disorder and I have utter contempt for those afflicted.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]In his new book The Death of the West, Patrick J. Buchanan examines the origin of what he contends is the modern decline of America. He asserts that while Soviet style Marxism is largely dead, our society remains enthralled by Cultural Marxism, which is strangling our freedom, and threatening our future. This threat to our culture and way of life accelerated to a deadly speed with the establishment, in 1933 at Columbia University, of the Institute for Social Research, originally called "The Institute for Marxism." This institution became known as [B]the Frankfort School. [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Erich Frommââ¬â¢s "Escape from Freedom" and Wilhelm Reichââ¬â¢s "The Mass Psychology of Fascism" and "The Sexual Revolution" are central texts of Critical Theory according to Buchanan, who also calls [B]"The Authoritarian Personality" by Theodor Adorno the "altarpiece of the Frankfurt School." Adornoââ¬â¢s thesis is that anyone imbued with middle class, conservative, or Christian values is a racist and a fascist.[/B] Charles Sykes, senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Center, says Adornoââ¬â¢s book is "an uncompromising indictment of bourgeois civilization, with the twist that what was considered merely old-fashioned by previous critics was now declared both fascistic and psychologically warped."[/QUOTE]
Link: [URL=http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/society/cultural_marxism.htm.]http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/society/cultural_marxism.htm.[/URL]
The concept of 'psychological disorder' and labeling of others as such is an old trick by the Frankfurt School jews.
Who gets to decide who has this disorder?? [B]Surely the Zionist that wishes to control the world, push multiculturalism until every gentile is a mulatoo zombie is right up there on this 'authoritarian personality' scale. [/B]
[COLOR=Red]Critical Theory is a game everyone can play now, hear that Zionists??[/COLOR]
2003-10-18 05:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Fade the Butcher: Thus the criticism that naturally follows is that a being simply cannot understood in this way, by totally disregarding the substantial aspect of its nature. Can Jane,as a person, be understood simply by recognizing that Jane is a woman? No, of course not. Can Jane, as a person, be understood by ignoring the fact Jane is a woman? No, that does not work either. Jane can only be understood by examining the totality of Jane and this cannot occur by simply abstracting out the aspects of Jane that interests us and disregarding all other dimensions of Jane. Can a person, much less a people, be understood by disregarding all aspects of the person with the exception of the rational? This simply does not work just as a person cannot be understood on the basis of one's "socioeconomic" class either.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that.
Pope John Paul II places the blame for this at the feet of the idol "consciousness." Rene DesCartes said "I think, therefore I am." Clearly, this is a tautology, inasmuch as "think" presupposes and contains "am." The philospher is in fact saying "I am, I think, therefore I am."
In other words, being of necessity antecedes consciousness. Duh.
Yet, this patent absurdity gained broad currency, and lead to what is often referred to as the "reification of consciousness" - the turning of consciousness into a thing and making it the ultimate reality. It leads directly to the notion that what really matters is individual thinking and feeling, and not REALITY. This leads, ultimately, to the terrible solipcism that afflicts us.
How often have we heard absurdities like "it's true if you believe it's true," "it's true for him, but not for you," "it's a baby when the mother believes it is?" Another example is PETA's campaign equating animal suffering with human suffering. It's all about thinking and feeling, you see, not about concrete reality. Consciousness is all, animals are conscious, therefore animal suffering equals human suffering.
Of course, there can be no talk of objective morality so long as our people buy into this nonsense. The Natural Law is mooted by definition. It's patently nuts-o when one reflects on it a bit, but I challenge all here to examine how much of this crap we've absorbed just by breathing the cultural air. I know I've been thoroughly poisoned by it.
This solipcism is the very essence of Protestantism, which arose contemporaneously with rationalism, its psychic twin. Protestantism is based on the notion that only Scripture is authoritative, combined with the idea that "every man has the right to read and interpret Scripture as he wishes" (that fact that Scripture arose from human tradition and was canonized by ecclesiastical authority, and thus cannot be understood outside the context of Tradition and the Magisterium, is ignored by blinking very hard). Sola scriptura is soul killing heresy, and constitutes the most awful of all sins, idolotry.
Sola scriptura takes the already-reified individual consciousness and DEIFIES it, placing it over Scripture and the God that is Reality, inviting all to walk in the Garden with the Christ of their own imaginings, where the Christ of Reality is confused forever with the Christ that I Want. The notion of sola scriptura implies that every man is an absolute moral authority within the jurisdiction of his own life, and that consequently tradition matters not a whit. Tradition becomes a straightjacket for individual autonomy, and arguments from tradition are derided and shouted down. But tradition is a concrete group's identity moving through time. Cut off from its vital taproot in human tradition, the group loses its identity and begins to wither and die. Ultimately it is absorbed by other groups who have not bought into the Modernist heresy.
[I]But only consciousness matters. Blacks are conscious. Therefore it matters not whether one is black or white, and even recognizing the color line is a terrible threat to the autonomy of each individual god. It's a baby when she says it is. She has absolute authority in her own jurisdiction - which extends over her entire body - after all. Reality isn't important - the fact that the fetus is objectively human matters not. What the mother - the individual god with all the power - thinks and feels is important. [/I] Get it?
All of the philosophers you mention are indeed rationalists - they place their own consciousness above REALITY. This makes them the spiritual kin of John Calvin, whether they know it or not.
Flame away!
Walter
2003-10-18 06:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=FightinWhitey#2]Sadly, the only way to free ourselves of this situation is to heed Alex Linders call for [B]Boxcars and B[/B][/QUOTE]
As I wrote above, there are some things I won't do for my country.
Murder is always wrong. Killing Jews just because they're Jews is morally reprehensible.
The Jewish nation has the same rights as any other nation. The right to cultural autonomy, genetic integrity, and territorial sovereignty. The Jewish nation must continue to exist - the Diaspora must end.
That felt good, I'll say it again. [B]The Diaspora must end.[/B]
Theodore Herzl was right.
The fact that the Jews, as a group, work tirelessly to deny the rest of us these same rights understandably causes us to react in kind, but we have to rise above that. We're a noble race, after all, and such talk only demeans us.
The Jews' own tragic history - and the fact that a billion Muslims in the world relish the idea of "boxcars and b" - proves that they're as much prisoners of history as we. They need to go home.
As far as I'm concerned, "out of sight, out of mind."
Walter
2003-10-18 10:13 | User Profile
It's a pure joy for me to read Fade's posts -- we're really on the same wave-lenghts! What kinship of spirit!
Keep them coming!
-FB
2003-10-18 16:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]This solipcism is the very essence of Protestantism, which arose contemporaneously with rationalism, its psychic twin. Protestantism is based on the notion that only Scripture is authoritative, combined with the idea that "every man has the right to read and interpret Scripture as he wishes" (that fact that Scripture arose from human tradition and was canonized by ecclesiastical authority, and thus cannot be understood outside the context of Tradition and the Magisterium, is ignored by blinking very hard). Sola scriptura is soul killing heresy, and constitutes the most awful of all sins, idolotry.
Alright, now we're talking! The icon/pope-worshipping Catholic accuses the Bible-based Protestant of idolatry! How rich! :)
Sola scriptura takes the already-reified individual consciousness and DEIFIES it, placing it over Scripture and the God that is Reality, inviting all to walk in the Garden with the Christ of their own imaginings, where the Christ of Reality is confused forever with the Christ that I Want. The notion of sola scriptura implies that every man is an absolute moral authority within the jurisdiction of his own life, and that consequently tradition matters not a whit. Tradition becomes a straightjacket for individual autonomy, and arguments from tradition are derided and shouted down. But tradition is a concrete group's identity moving through time. Cut off from its vital taproot in human tradition, the group loses its identity and begins to wither and die. Ultimately it is absorbed by other groups who have not bought into the Modernist heresy.
[I]But only consciousness matters. Blacks are conscious. Therefore it matters not whether one is black or white, and even recognizing the color line is a terrible threat to the autonomy of each individual god. It's a baby when she says it is. She has absolute authority in her own jurisdiction - which extends over her entire body - after all. Reality isn't important - the fact that the fetus is objectively human matters not. What the mother - the individual god with all the power - thinks and feels is important. [/I] Get it?
All of the philosophers you mention are indeed rationalists - they place their own consciousness above REALITY. This makes them the spiritual kin of John Calvin, whether they know it or not.
Oh boy. One might make an argument if there was any truth found in any of this diatribe. Spiritual kin of Calvin indeed. You enjoy the right to spout such drivel because of the ideological/religious fruit of great men like Calvin. If Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the Anabaptists did not do what they did we'd probably all be illiterate peasants living in mud huts, like most all of Catholic Latin America still is.
2003-10-18 18:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Alright, now we're talking! The icon/pope-worshipping Catholic accuses the Bible-based Protestant of idolatry! How rich! :)
Oh boy. One might make an argument if there was any truth found in any of this diatribe. Spiritual kin of Calvin indeed. You enjoy the right to spout such drivel because of the ideological/religious fruit of great men like Calvin. If Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the Anabaptists did not do what they did we'd probably all be illiterate peasants living in mud huts, like most all of Catholic Latin America still is.[/QUOTE]
Well heres the whole Protestant debate from an Eastern Orthodox point of view
** [url]http://www.orthodox.net/articles/orthodox-mind.html#n1_1[/url]
II. Protestant Ethos. Now some might dispute the need for studying the Protestant way of thinking -- perhaps it might be OK for the purpose of winning converts, but why should those already Orthodox be bothered? The reason is simple: we live in a society that is thoroughly Protestant. Furthermore, the Protestant ethos is to be found even among many who have been Orthodox all their lives.
There is a Chinese proverb which says:"Know the enemy and know yourself, and in a thousand battles you will not see defeat" [These words were written over 2,000 years ago by the great Chinese military strategist, Sun Zi in his book which is usually called in English "The Art of War."]
The first duty of every Orthodox Christian is to "know yourself", in other words, to know the Orthodox Faith, as well as to be aware of our own strengths and weakness and to so walk in humility -- which is not a false humility, but is actually a very realistic appraisal of ourselves in comparison with the examples of the saints and in the light of God's standards of Holiness and Righteousness.
In addition to knowing ourselves, we must know the enemy -- the scriptures teach us in many places that we are to be vigilant and fully aware of Satan's devices.
To get a handle on the prevailing Protestant / Secular worldview, I would like to focus on four major characteristics that identify it and distinguish it from an Orthodox frame of reference.
A. Humanism/ Individualism/ Secularism The first characteristic of the Protestant Worldview is that it is Humanistic.
Now for conservative Protestants this statement will come as quite a shock, and no doubt they would hotly dispute it -- but the statement is an historic truth as well as an observable fact. Protestantism was birthed out of and became the religious expression of the humanism of the Renaissance, and as Frank Schaeffer has put it: it has been the engine of the Secularization of Western Culture. Humanism is characterized by its idealization of individual autonomy and it promulgation of secularization. Church authority was rejected in favor of the subjective judgment of the individual. The idea of a Christian nation was replaced with the concept of separation of Church and state -- and for those who would argue that this was a later development, while it is true that Luther and Calvin saw no need for the separation of Church and State (because they were in power) the earliest Anabaptists championed this from the beginning.
What is amazing is how conservative Protestants have viewed humanism and secularization as a foreign invader that is completely at odds with their faith -- when in fact it is the fruit of their own intellectual wombs.
For example, every Western Christmas, you can hear Protestants loudly bemoaning the fact that Christ has been taken out of Christmas and replaced with Santa Claus -- but where did that come from? It was the English Puritans who opposed the idea of a religious calendar, and who opposed Christmas and all other holidays as "pagan" and so sought to replace those holidays with secular observances. It was these Puritans who invented Father Frost, and replaced the idea of going to Church on Christmas to celebrate Christ's birth with the family fun, games, gifts, and food observance that characterizes the common Protestant observance of Christmas. So in their quest to get rid of the "pagan" Christian calendar of feasts, it was in fact the Protestants who developed the truly pagan secular calendar that our culture has come to know and love.
The Protestant tendency toward individualism is also seen manifested in the Charismatic movement and in other pietistic circles in the form of emotionalism and an elevation of emotionalism. In contemporary denominational Protestantism, the worship services is not so much a service to God, but a service that meets the needs of the people. People look for the church that will best serve them, rather than a Church in which they can best serve God. If you take a look at the modern Protestant "Mega Churches" you'll find bowling alleys, swimming pools, Karate classes, singles groups that will help you find a date, youth groups that will entertain your kids -- what more could Madison Avenue have to offer?
The focus on entertainment can be seen in the layout of most modern Evangelical Churches -- they are set up like theaters. You can take you pick of a Church that offers Country Western Worship, Pop, Rock and Roll, or classical if you like. It's as easy as choosing a radio station. How alien this is to the Biblical view of worship in terms of Sacrifice, and service to God. You'll not find any of the Psalms talking about how the writer was entertained at the temple, or a focus on how his needs were met.
One need not look to hard in the Bible to see how foreign the concepts of Secularism, Humanism, and Individualism are to the minds of the Biblical writers.
There was no separation of Church and state in the OT. In fact the kings of Israel and Judah were judged by their defense of the Faith against pagan and heretical religious expressions. Repeatedly we read in the Scriptures, "such and such king did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, he pulled down the high places which the Lord had forbidden..." etc.
The worldview of the Bible is not man centered, but is clearly Theocentric. Individualism would have been a completely foreign concept -- a fact that even Protestant Biblical scholars do not hesitate to concede. In fact they point out that the Israelites had a concept of a corporate personality. Certainly they believed in individual responsibility, but it is clear that the Israelites viewed themselves as parts of their family unit, their clan, their tribe, and their nation -- and they recognized that God dealt with them not only as individuals but as groups.
B. Modernism. The second chief characteristic of Protestantism is Modernism.
From the very beginning Protestantism has been marked by a complete contempt for ancient Christianity and Tradition. It must be conceded that Protestantism was not without justification in protesting the form of tradition that it was confronting -- because far from being faithful to Ancient Christianity, Papism was itself an innovation. But rather than return to the authentic Christianity of Orthodoxy, Protestantism sought to remedy the situation by ostensibly returning to the ancient purity of the Scriptures, but in reality it was simply replacing the arbitrariness of a single pope with democratic papism -- in which each individual was his own infallible pope -- receiving direct revelation from the Holy Spirit.
Protestants claimed that they held Scripture to be the only authority, and rejected the interpretations of the Fathers whenever they contradicted the Scriptures -- but in reality they were really placing their interpretations of the Scriptures above that of the Fathers, and in essence saying that when the Fathers contradict their individual interpretations -- their interpretations are to be taken as more authoritative.
In its fight against Romanism, Protestantism sought to discredit all the ancient wisdom of the Church. The previous period was termed pejoratively as "the dark ages." "New" became synonymous with "good"; "Newer" with better; and "New and Improved" as better still. "Change" is used almost like a magic amulet, that justifies whatever it is associated with. The ancient Christian view was that novelty and innovation were absolute proofs of error, but in Protestantism this was turned on its head to the point that innovation is to them proof of truth. While Protestants attacked (often with justification) the Roman Tradition for its post apostolic additions -- they developed new Traditions at a rate that would make any Papist's head spin.
At heart, Modernism is not really at war with the past nearly so much as it is at war with God.
Modernism is simply the lever with which Humanists and Secularists have sought to unseat God from His throne and place man in His stead.
The Secular Humanism that conservative Protestants view as their mortal enemy is simply a more highly developed form of Protestantism. The pietist Protestantism of the past has now outlived its usefulness for the Secularization process, and so has been discarded by the more advanced Protestant Secularists.
The Reformers rejected Tradition, and said that they only needed the Bible and their own reason as their guide. Later Protestants turned their knives on the Bible itself, whittling away at it until they now have only their own reason and sentimentality as their guide. More Primitive religious Protestants, having been spurned by Modernity has ever since been trying to catch up with the spirit of the age by becoming "relevant". To become "relevant" they have sought to further accommodate their religion to appeal to the broader culture. Today, even among conservative Evangelicals, it is Madison Avenue that determines their worship -- not any Scriptural mandates. There has been a continuous parade of fads that have swept this country as Protestants have tried to keep things entertaining and "new".
C. Arrogance/ Hubris/ Prelest Closely associated with both Anthropocentric individualism and secularism, as well as Modernism, comes arrogance, hubris, and spiritual delusion (or prelest). This is most clearly seen when one examines Protestant Biblical scholarship.
When I was a student at Southern Nazarene University preparing to become a Protestant Minister, when I was taught how to study the Bible, we were not taught to consult sacred Tradition or the writings of the Fathers -- not even those fathers that knew the Apostles personally. We were told that the Church fathers were all allegorists, and that they really didn't have a clue as to what the Bible was really saying.
In fact, it became apparent to me that not even the Apostles followed Protestant principles of exegesis when interpreting the OT -- and indeed my liberal professors did not hesitate to point out when the Apostles had misinterpreted the OT. When I asked one of my professors if he thought that he understood the Bible better than the Apostles -- he without hesitation answered "Yes!"
More conservative Protestant scholars would explain this discrepancy between Apostolic exegesis and Protestant Exegesis by saying that the Apostles were inspired to find spiritual meaning in the OT that was beyond its actual meaning to the OT writers -- but that we must not interpret the OT like that because we are not so inspired.
The bottom line however, is that Protestant exegesis is clearly unbiblical, and those who advocate it must acknowledge, like my more honest professor did, that they do indeed think that they know the Bible better than those who wrote it.
More liberal Protestant scholars, such as Rudolph Bultmann claimed to know more about who Jesus was than Jesus himself knew. They claim to be able to distinguish what Jesus really said, from what he did not. In essence, 2,000 years after the fact -- they claim that only now has the Bible really been understood. The Early Church, the Fathers of the Ecumenical councils, etc. etc., they have all been fooled and deluded -- it took these clever modern Biblical scholars to unmask the Truth.
D. Reductionism / Empiricism The fourth and final characteristic of Protestantism that I want to highlight is its reductionism, and its rationalistic and Empiricists assumptions.
Protestantism is reductionist in a number of ways. It has always sought to get back to the "primitive" NT Church, to discard any aspect of the faith that cannot be proven to have been in place in the NT. Protestants use the truncated OT canon of the Jews -- in fact if Luther had his way, he would have truncated the NT as well discarding James especially, along with a few other books that he didn't like.
Protestants have also sought to define the Christian Faith in terms of "essentials" -- i.e. what is the bare minimum that one must believe or do to be a Christian.
In essence, Protestants have always been marked by rationalism, and western rationalists have always sought to boil reality down to that which could serve as the firmest foundation upon which to build a sound rationalistic structure.
For example Descarte, using methodological doubt, found that he could doubt everything in the universe except his own existence --thus the famous line: I think, therefore I am. Upon this one sure basis -- his own existence -- he then proceeded to build his philosophical system.
The Reformers were at first content to view the Bible as the irreducible basis for their rationalism to be built upon, but later Protestants, like Descarte, using methodological doubt and the criterion of suspicion, began to examine the Bible to see what could be certainly known in it. Eventually, using their critical tools, there foundation of Sola Scriptura poured out of their hand like a handful of dust. Taken from its context within Holy Tradition, the Bible was a Castle built on thin air -- it didn't take long for it to come crashing down.
Modernists, in their arrogance have presumed to critically analyze the assumptions of all previous writers and philosophers -- but they have failed to critically assess their own underlying assumptions.
When I was a ministerial student, I was given the assignment of writing on the relationship between Empiricism and Biblical studies -- this turned out to be one of the most revelational studies I had ever conducted. The first amazing discovery I made was that there was almost nothing written on the subject. It became very clear that Empiricist and Positivist thought was a basic underlying assumption in Protestant Biblical studies, but I found nothing that directly examined the relationship between the two. Another discovery, which came as quite a shock to me at the time, was that the extreme rationalism and modernism that I personally rejected when I encountered it in the field of Biblical studies, was actually very much kin to the Humanistic assumptions that had always been present in Protestantism. What I came to realize was that the liberals were simply more consistently Protestant than I was as a conservative trying to hand on to some absolute truths.
Empiricism is based upon the assumption that the ultimate basis of knowledge is experience, or sense perception. Empiricism, as the term is most commonly used, does not refer to a specific philosophy, but rather to the most fundamental assumptions of the Modern Western worldview. Empiricism seeks to know what can be known with "certainty" and can be "verified" "scientifically."
The biggest assumption of the empirical worldview is that one can have a scientific method that operates without assumptions. That sounds ridiculous, but remember a worldview is a set of assumptions that we are usually unaware of. A further extension of the assumption that all knowledge is derived from experience is that reality is determined by what we can observe with our senses and can empirically test. The result of this belief [!] is that one must deny the possibility that one could know anything transcendent or supernatural--thus the reality of the transcendent and supernatural is denied. Empiricists do not produce evidence that falsifies transcendent reality, or miracles; rather their presuppositions, from the very outset, deny the possibility of such things.
Most conservative Protestants would object that they do not think this way at all. They believe in the Bible, and believe in the miracles of the Bible. Of course, if you are a Christian, then you could never accept all the conclusions of empiricism, but most Western Christians have adopted many of its assumptions -- to varying degrees. For example, a Christian could not have a worldview which denied the transcendent, but many hold a radical dualism in which the transcendent and the empirical realms are radically separate, seldom come into contact, and when they do, only on very limited scale.
A pure Empiricist sees only the empirical level as knowable or real.
A Christian cannot deny the transcendent level, because to be a Christian one must believe in God; but a Christian who operates with empirical assumptions is blinded to the middle level. It is primarily on the level of the supernatural that the transcendent and the empirical come into contact; but a Christian empiricist cannot have the transcendent messing up the empirical realm, and so he sees God as having little to do with everyday life in the real world. This worldview is largely responsible for the compartmentalization of religion in the life of so many Western Christians.
An Animist, on the other hand, is culturally blind to empirical reality.
If someone is sick, then it is an evil spirit at work. Everything is connected with the supernatural. By the same token, a Christian empiricist immediately credits the sickness to natural causes, and so is blind to any supernatural factors at work. An Orthodox worldview, on the other hand, takes both factors into account -- all sickness is not spirit related, but neither is all sickness caused by natural factors alone.
Despite the obvious problems of using Empirical assumptions in the presumably theological field of Biblical studies, Protestants have embraced methodologies grounded in Empiricist thinking without examining the inconsistency of doing so because they were in search of some air of scientific objectivity in what would be otherwise a subjective and individualistic endeavor -- which clearly lacked any claim to consistency.
The great fallacy in the this so called "scientific" approach to the Scriptures lies in the fallacious application of empirical assumptions to the study of history, Scripture, and theology. Empirical methods work reasonably well when they are correctly applied to natural sciences, but when they are applied where they cannot possibly work, such as in history (which cannot be repeated or experimented upon) they cannot produce either consistent or accurate results.
Scientist have yet to invent a telescope capable of peering into the spirit world, and yet many Protestant scholars assert that in the light of science the idea of the existence of demons or of the Devil has been disproved -- where is the scientific study that has proven this? Were the Devil to appear before an Empiricist with pitch fork in hand and clad in bright red underwear, it would be explained neatly in some manner that would easily comport to his worldview, for although such Empiricists pride themselves on their openness to the truth, they are blinded by their assumptions to such an extent that they cannot see anything that does not fit their version of reality.
If the methods of empiricism were consistently applied it would discredit all knowledge (including itself), but empiricism is permitted to be inconsistent by those who hold to it because "its ruthless mutilation of human experience lends it such a high reputation for scientific severity, that its prestige overrides the defectiveness of its own foundations." [Rev. Robert T. Osborn, "Faith as Personal Knowledge," Scottish Journal of Theology 28 (February 1975): 101-126.]
Conservative Protestants have happily been much less consistent in their rationalistic approach, and thus have preserved among themselves a reverence for the Scriptures and a belief in their inspiration -- never-the-less their approach (even among the most dogged Fundamentalists) is still essentially rooted in the same spirit of rationalism as the Liberals.
A prime example of this is to be found among Dispensational Fundamentalists, who hold to an elaborate theory which posits that at various stages in history God has dealt with man according to different "dispensations," such as the "Adamic dispensation," the "Noaic dispensation," the "Mosaic dispensation," the "Davidic dispensation," and so on it goes. Thus far, one can see that there is a degree of truth in this theory, but beyond these Old Testament dispensations they teach that currently we are under a different dispensation than were the Christians of the first Century, and so though miracles continued through the New Testament period, they now longer occur today.
Now this is very interesting, because (in addition to lacking any Scriptural basis) this theory allows Fundamentalists to affirm the miracles of the Bible, while at the same time allowing them to be Empiricists in their every day life. Thus, though the discussion of this approach may at first glance seem to be only of academic interest and far removed from the reality of dealing with the average Protestant, in fact even the average piously conservative Protestant laymen is not unaffected by this sort of rationalism.
The connections between the extreme conclusions that modern liberal Protestant scholars have come to, and the more conservative or Fundamentalist Protestants will not seem clear to many -- least of all to conservative Fundamentalists! Though these conservatives see themselves as being in almost complete opposition to Protestant liberalism, they none the less use essentially the same kinds of methods in their study of the Scriptures as do the liberals, and along with these methodologies come their underlying philosophical assumptions which the conservatives have unwittingly bought into.
Thus the difference between the liberals and the conservatives is not in reality a difference of basic assumptions, but rather a difference in how far they have taken them to their logical conclusions. Like the Gadarene swine, together they are rushing headlong toward the edge of a precipice -- though the liberals may have already gone over the edge, the conservatives are heading in the same direction, they just haven't gone as far. The Protestant denominations that today are ordaining homosexuals as ministers were just as conservative a hundred years ago, and the more conservative denominations are following the same path.
If Protestant exegesis were truly scientific, as it presents itself, its results would show consistency. If its methods were merely unbiased "technologies" (as many view them) then it would not matter who used them, they would work the same for everyone; but what do we find when we examine current status of Protestant biblical studies? In the estimation of the "experts" themselves, Protestant biblical scholarship is in a crisis. In fact this crisis is perhaps best illustrated by the admission of a recognized Protestant Old Testament scholar, Gerhad Hasel [in his survey of the history and current status of the discipline of Old Testament theology, Old Testament Theology: Issues in the Current Debate], that during the 1970's five new Old Testament theologies had been produced "but not one agrees in approach and method with any of the others." In fact it is amazing, considering the self proclaimed high standard of scholarship in Protestant biblical studies, that you can take your pick of limitless conclusions on almost any issue and find good scholarship to back it up. In other words, you can just about come to any conclusion that suits you on a particular issue, and you can find a Ph.D. who will advocate it. This is certainly not science in the same sense as mathematics or chemistry! What we are dealing with is a field of learning that presents itself as objective science, but which in fact is a pseudo- science, concealing a variety of competing philosophical and theological perspectives. It is pseudo-science because until scientist develop instruments capable of examining and understanding God, objective scientific theology or biblical interpretation is an impossibility. This is not to say that there is nothing that is genuinely scholarly or useful within it; but this is to say that camouflaged with these legitimate aspects of historical and linguistic learning, and hidden by the fog machines and mirrors of pseudo-science, we discover in reality that Protestant methods of biblical interpretation are both the product and the servant of Protestant theological and philosophical assumptions -- and like hoses they simply spew forth whatever is pumped into them.
With subjectivity that surpasses the most speculative Freudian psychoanalysts, Protestant scholars selectively choose the facts and evidence that suits their agenda and then proceed (with their conclusions essentially predetermined by their basic assumptions) to ply their methods to the Holy Scriptures; all the while thinking themselves dispassionate scientists. And since modern universities do not give out Ph.D.'s to those who merely pass on the unadulterated Truth, these scholars seek to out do each other by coming up with new outlandish theories. This is the very essence of heresy: novelty, arrogant personal opinion, and self deception.
Rather than discrediting ancient Patristic Christianity or Tradition, Protestantism has become the most vivid vindication of Tradition that the Church could have hoped for. Protestantism itself now stands thoroughly discredited. Twenty Three Thousand denominations after the Reformation, Protestants are becoming aware of the spiritual bankruptcy that constitutes denominational Christianity. I think that this is one of the biggest reasons for the influx of Protestants into the Church.
III. The Orthodox Mind Coming to the point where a Protestant realizes the spiritual bankruptcy of the Western Worldview may bring them to the doors of the Church, but simply rejecting Protestantism is not enough. For that matter, being convinced that Orthodoxy is the true Faith is good enough to have you made a Catechumen, but much more is needed. One must enter into the Spirit of Orthodoxy. Even when one reaches the point at which they are ready to receive Holy Baptism, this process must continue -- Baptism is the beginning of your life in the Church, it is a spiritual birth, but only a stillborn baby will not continue to grow spiritual. For a convert, must not only struggle against demons and against the flesh to accomplish this, but one must still contend with the modes of thought that he operated in prior to conversion.
Before we deal with how one goes about acquiring an Orthodox mind, however, let me briefly describe what an Orthodox mind is, especially as distinct from the Protestant mindset we have been discussing.
A. Corporate / Theocentric Rather than the Humanism and Individualism of Protestantism -- Orthodoxy is Theocentric, and corporate in its focus.
The focus of Orthodox worship is not on the personality of the priest, nor is it focused on meeting the needs of individuals, or on contrived emotional experiences -- the focus is on God. Unlike Protestant churches, in which the church rises or falls on the personality of the minister -- one need not even like the priest personally, and he can still worship in that parish, because we are there to worship God, not to hear a good and stirring sermon. It certainly a nice touch to have a priest with a good personality and who can give a good sermon -- but that is icing on the cake, not the cake itself.
The Church is not the sum total of individuals who are Christians, it is a community. Christ came to build His Church, not to establish a school of thought, or to save individuals apart from a community. This does not negate individual responsibility -- the Orthodox Church firmly believes that you can go to hell all by yourself, if you want to, without any help from anyone else -- but if you want to be saved, the Scripture is clear... you need the Church.
An Orthodox Christian is also held accountable by the Church. Christ spoke of Church discipline, and said that if someone would not "hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen and a publican" (Matt 18:17).
Christ also gave the Apostle the power to forgive sins in John 20:23 when He said: Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whose sins you retain, they are retained. It is amazing how Protestants, who say that they take the Bible literally, blow this verse off -- and when pressed, will flatly deny the plain meaning of this verse.
But far from being the horrible thing that Protestants think confession is -- it is both Biblical, and a great gift. Because we must humble ourselves, we gain victory over pride, and because we are held accountable we are given a powerful tool to help us advance in the Christian life.
One of the biggest criticisms Protestant make of confession is they claim that we can go out and sin all we want, and then have it all forgiven at confession -- that therefore confession is a license to sin. Obviously no one who has ever gone to confession would think this -- because although we should be shamed just by the fact that God knows we have sinned, in fact in our flesh we are more shamed when other men know our sins. When you go to confession to the same priest week after week -- we have added to our fear of God (which is something that we must develop) a witness who will call us to task for it. When temptation comes, the fact that we know we will be shamed to confess this sin next weekend is adds further strength to our resistance.
B. Antiquity / Unchanging Rather than the Modernists continual desire to be relevant, and their valuing of innovation. In the Orthodox Church, we view innovation as the mark of heresy. St. Jude says that the Faith was once delivered unto the saints -- we can expect no new revelation until the second coming.
We are taught that it is our duty to live and pass on the Orthodox Faith in its purity -- just as we have received it without changing it either by adding to it, or taking from it. We Orthodox have no need to be relevant to the Modernist spirit -- because we have seen heresies come and go. Long after Modernism has been completely discredited and is a faint memory -- the Orthodox Faith will still be standing. Rather than trying to hitch our wagon to the latest fad (such as environmentalism) we hold fast to the Traditions we have received from the Apostles, just as we have received them.
C. Humility, Repentance. Because Orthodoxy is not individualistic, rather than the arrogance that goes with that individualism, in Orthodoxy we are taught to humbly listen to the teachings of the Fathers of the Church. We are taught not to think ourselves more holy or clever than the Fathers of the Church who have clearly shown themselves to be doers of the Word, and men of holiness -- and so when we read the Bible, we read it in accordance with the testimony of the Church rather than in the vanity of our individualistic minds.
As I said earlier, this is not a false humility, but is simply a realistic assessment of things. When there are 23,000 denominations that all claim to believe the Bible, but which cannot agree on what it is that the Bible says -- it is humility that is realistic, and arrogance that is fanciful. Obviously they cannot all be right, and so humility with regard to one's own interpretations of the Scriptures is the only reasonable approach to the subject.
This is not to say that all Orthodox Christians are truly humble, or that all Protestants are arrogant themselves and lack humility. I have known many Protestants who were themselves very humble, and I know that I myself am often very prideful. But having operated in both ways of thought, I can say experientially that the Orthodox approach to theology and spirituality is the path of humility and repentance.
D. Maximalism / Full Worldview. Rather than the minimalism of Protestantism, which asks questions like "What are the essentials? What is the minimum requirements to be a Christian?" The Orthodox ask what is the most I can do as a Christian?
The Orthodox Faith is a lifestyle, rather than a weekend hobby. We affirm the Inspiration of the Scriptures as firmly as any Protestant, but we also affirm the Apostolic Tradition that St. Paul told us included both written Scripture and oral Tradition -- both of which we are to hold fast to. Christianity is not reduced to a book, we have received our worship, as well as our theology from the Apostles.
Rather than the Empiricism of Western Rationalism, that makes Christ and the Apostles out to be primitive thinking men who were foolish enough to believe in such phenomena as Demonization and miracles, the Orthodox Church affirms Christ as maker of all things visible and invisible -- both of the empirical and of the supernatural. We pray for healing and call on physicians -- because God is not limited to either to natural or to supernatural means to accomplish his purposes. God can heal through the wisdom and skill of a doctor, and through the anointing of oil from St. John Maximovitch's tomb.
In the Orthodox Church, we affirm that there are demons that influence people and that people are responsible for their own actions. Our worldview can allow that a man could be driven insane by demons, and that a man could be insane because of a physical disease. We see no contradiction between the Empirical and the Supernatural -- and so we are not blind to either reality. Miracles are in fact such an accepted fact of life in the Church, that we do not go ga ga just because a miracle takes place -- because we realize that it is not just God that works miracles, but demons as well. Our society in general has been so closed to the supernatural, that when they are confronted with an undeniable supernatural happening -- they automatically assume it to be divine, and so many have fallen into demonic deception in our times. **
2003-10-18 18:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]Because Orthodoxy is not individualistic, rather than the arrogance that goes with that individualism, in Orthodoxy we are taught to humbly listen to the teachings of the Fathers of the Church. We are taught not to think ourselves more holy or clever than the Fathers of the Church who have clearly shown themselves to be doers of the Word, and men of holiness -- and so when we read the Bible, we read it in accordance with the testimony of the Church rather than in the vanity of our individualistic minds.
As I said earlier, this is not a false humility, but is simply a realistic assessment of things. When there are 23,000 denominations that all claim to believe the Bible, but which cannot agree on what it is that the Bible says -- it is humility that is realistic, and arrogance that is fanciful. Obviously they cannot all be right, and so humility with regard to one's own interpretations of the Scriptures is the only reasonable approach to the subject.
This is not to say that all Orthodox Christians are truly humble, or that all Protestants are arrogant themselves and lack humility. I have known many Protestants who were themselves very humble, and I know that I myself am often very prideful. But having operated in both ways of thought, I can say experientially that the Orthodox approach to theology and spirituality is the path of humility and repentance. [/QUOTE]
In other words, sit down, shut up and do what the priest/government minister/fuedal lord tells you to do and be happy about it, serf!
No thanks. Give me a few acres, a squirrel gun and a Bible and leave me and mine the hell alone. That's my ideal.
2003-10-18 19:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]In other words, sit down, shut up and do what the priest/government minister/fuedal lord tells you to do and be happy about it, serf!
No thanks. Give me a few acres, a squirrel gun and a Bible and leave me and mine the hell alone. That's my ideal.[/QUOTE]
Hey at least the neo-Marxists haven't been able to infiltrate the Orthodox church and turn it into an apostate organization, unlike many Protestant denominations. Hell not even the Stalinists locking up and executing priests was able to bring the Church to it knees. That alone deserves praise!
Now if your assestment of the Orthodox church is correct, you can explain why so many Orthodox saints were matyred protesting many policies of the Tsars? Take St. Basil the Great for example. During Lent, he went up to Ivan the Terrible(a man you did not want to piss off) and thru down a big piece of beef covered in blood(it just came from the butcher shop). The Tsar was appalled, claiming that he did not eat meat during Lent. To which the saint replied "With the blood of innocent christians on your hands, you do not need worry about that."
Since we're on the topic of Ivan the Terrible, the Patriarch refused to publically bless Ivan because of his bloody policies. To which Ivan took a terrible revenge on the Church at the town of Novgorod. Basically his forces slaughtered all but around 17 people in the city. He killed 3 saints and a Metropolitian.
The attitude taken by Father Michael Azkoul in his piece "what is secularism" is one we desperately need nowadays in the Christian faith, yet lack in so many places.
** [url]http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/what-is-secularism.html[/url]
The Faith we preserve has not developed or changed. The Church has not been seduced by Plato or Aristotle or Freud or Darwin or Marx. She has never found it necessary to follow current trends and fashions to make Her Message appealing. Indeed, She is no beggar of souls. Moreover, She belongs to no century. She is not, therefore, a Twentieth century Church, but the Church in the twentieth century. She exists to change, not to be changed. The Orthodox Church has a Message for the modern world, the same one Christ preached almost two thousand years ago---ââ¬ÅRepent! The Kingdom of God is at hand!ââ¬Â Here is the essence of the Gospel, here is the answer to poverty, crime, racism, war, leadership, mores and manners, sex and feminism, egalitarianism, fraternalism and supposed liberty---to all the human problems, national and international. The Churchââ¬â¢s answers are sacred not secular, because Her voice is the voice of eternity. **
2003-10-19 02:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201] Now if your assestment of the Orthodox church is correct, you can explain why so many Orthodox saints were matyred protesting many policies of the Tsars? [/QUOTE]
That could be the point, prerun. People out in the sticks with squirrel guns close at hand don't get martyred very often.
2003-10-19 03:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar]That could be the point, prerun. People out in the sticks with squirrel guns close at hand don't get martyred very often.[/QUOTE]
Try and challenge the Fed.
2003-10-19 05:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]In other words, sit down, shut up and do what the priest/government minister/fuedal lord tells you to do and be happy about it, serf!
No thanks. Give me a few acres, a squirrel gun and a Bible and leave me and mine the hell alone. That's my ideal.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's fair, Tex.
The Orthodox Serbs didn't exactly sit down, shut up, and do what the feudal lord said. Neither did the Irish.
Medieval Christendom was in many ways a model of devolved power. The Empire was a legal (but very important) fiction. The Kings had to deal with local knights and squires, who in turn had to take care of their peasants. The whole thing was bound together with the cement of blood relations, guilds, and a myriad of religious orders who had their own agendas and property. It was chaotic yet orderly. It was, in a word, an ORGANISM and not an organization. It's hard for us to get that point, precisely because the victory of Protestantism and its atomistic view of human society is so complete that we can't conceive of another way.
I urge you to read David Sloan Wilson's "Darwin's Cathedral." Wilson describes the organic social organization of the Balinese around their temple - it regulates planting, watering, rodent control, and every other major issue of rice planting in a very large area. He talks about how when viewed from the air the whole area looks eerily like an ant colony. The reason is that we as a species have an instinct to organize ourselves socially around a common relgion. Once we have the commonality of religion, social organization arises spontaneously. Our religous instinct to organize ourselves around religious beliefs and symbols is as astonshingly powerful as our instinct for language.
I should add that Wilson devotes a whole chapter to the organistic aspects of Calvin's Geneva. Perhaps we both are misunderstanding Calvin. You seem to think that he was some champion of religious liberty, but that ignores the totalitarian character of his Geneva, including famously burning a Spanish non-trinitarian at the stake. For my part I must admit that Calvin himself assumed the corporate nature of humanity by his actions, although this I think was at odds with his doctrine of individual salvation, rejection of Holy Tradition, and denigration of the Holy Eucharist as a merely solemn memorial rite.
Christendom was an organizational model that, despite its many defects, ensured a place for all. I know the objections, and I know of the abuses of the Ancien Regime and I appreciate the advances made in our understanding of the importance of human rights that Protestantism made possible. But please also keep in mind that our history was written by people who had an axe to grind with the old order, and so we get this message drummed into our heads that the Old Regime was nothing but a nightmare of superstition and poverty. It's as false and misleading as the official version of WWII or the Russian Revolution. There's more to the Middle Ages than that. 13th century France was one of the great civilizations of all times.
Anyway, the idea of living alone with a squirrel rifle and a Bible is nice, but it roundly fails to take any real accounting of the corporate nature of man. That's just not the way the human species is designed. We're profoundly social animals. We are hardwired with an instinct to organize our societies around religious beliefs and symbols. Cult and doctrine is the very stuff of social organization. Any attack on that is an attack on our peoplehood. Without religious unity, we are sure to fail.
Thanks to Perun for posting that lovely piece from my Orthodox brothers. I think that we agree in general, although I think the writer is too categorical in his claims that the RCC was somehow "seduced" by Aristotle. Hmmmm . . . I mean, the great Greek Church Fathers were very much indebted to the Greek philosophers, right? Where did that come from?
Warmest regards,
Walter
2003-10-19 05:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Try and challenge the Fed.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. When I hear "martyr", though, I usually don't think of David Koresh or those like him. He may have been a strange one but he died with his boots on. We tend to think of martyrs as going willingly, wrong as that is.
2003-10-19 09:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]Hey at least the neo-Marxists haven't been able to infiltrate the Orthodox church and turn it into an apostate organization, unlike many Protestant denominations. Hell not even the Stalinists locking up and executing priests was able to bring the Church to it knees. That alone deserves praise! [/QUOTE]
Maybe I need to recheck my history, but not only did it infiltrate, Jewish communism took root and eventually took over lock, stock and barrel historical orthodox Russia. [url=http://www.samford.edu/groups/global/ewcmreport/articles/ew08201.htm]"We paved the way for Communism," a radical Orthodox told me in 1990. "We trained people to give their souls away to the Church; and then when the State came and demanded their souls instead, they were used to it."[/url] > Instead, Russians turned Marxism into a religion. "Lenin lived, Lenin lives, Lenin shall live" ran the often-quoted words of the revolutionary poet Mayakovsky. Children's propaganda that still decorated schools in the 1990s presented Lenin as a bearded, gentle Christ-figure, kind to birds and little children. "He was my grandfather, they told me at kindergarten," a friend said recently, "and I loved him. He was my god. He was everywhere."
Indeed, it was mainly protestant organizations like the [url=http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/aboutibs/index.php]International Bible Society[/url] that distributed the Gospel to the people suffering under the officially atheist Red State. Just because the orthodox church does not ascribe to the current apostasy of radical dispensationalism that is infecting modern-day American Protestant churches, don't think it is or was somehow immune to Jewish influence. Here in the States we have yet to experience anything on the scale of the Soviet communist state, although we are certainly moving in that direction. But that is because our formerly held rock-ribbed Protestant psychi is disappearing in favor of a more herd-like mentality as examplified by the typical Russian under commie rule.
2003-10-19 16:41 | User Profile
Now Okie should chime in and say that you are bashing Chriistianity and that you are no different from Abe Foxman. And once we are on the subject of non-critical thinking, atheists can say a few words about blind faith.
Indeed, it was mainly protestant organizations like the [url=http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/aboutibs/index.php]International Bible Society[/url] that distributed the Gospel to the people suffering under the officially atheist Red State. Just because the orthodox church does not ascribe to the current apostasy of radical dispensationalism that is infecting modern-day American Protestant churches, don't think it is or was somehow immune to Jewish influence. [/QUOTE]
So the Orthodox were under a commie state for 70 years, and they are less PC and subject to secular influences than the Protestants and their various sects. So who preserved their religion?
Here in the States we have yet to experience anything on the scale of the Soviet communist state, although we are certainly moving in that direction. But that is because our formerly held rock-ribbed Protestant psychi is disappearing in favor of a more herd-like mentality as examplified by the typical Russian under commie rule.
Who prepared Americans for taking commands from televitz/holliwitz? No Orthodox Church, no herd-like mentality. It must have been the Protestants, then!
2003-10-19 17:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Who prepared Americans for taking commands from televitz/holliwitz? No Orthodox Church, no herd-like mentality. It must have been the Protestants, then![/QUOTE]
Nope, immigrants. Diluting and distorting the culture.
2003-10-19 17:42 | User Profile
By the way, you parrot the line about some cranks doing much more for spreading the gospel than the Orthodox. There was no problem finding a bible, at least during the time when I lived there. There were functioning Churches.
The missionaries from the West were probably the most pathetic people I encountered, with their zombie-like persistance and looks. Really preying on those morally unstable.
2003-10-19 17:48 | User Profile
Another point that could be made is that had orthodox Russia resisted Jewish communism then American fidelity to Israel would have been greatly reduced since they would not have been seen as the only ally in the region of Soviet Arab client states during the Cold War.
2003-10-19 17:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Nope, immigrants. Diluting and distorting the culture.[/QUOTE]
I must respectfully take issue with that.
The liberals of the late 19th and early 20th centuries who denigrated all religion weren't immigrants.
Dewey with his social engineering wasn't an immigrant. Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr. with his judicial nihilism wasn't an immigrant.
It was precisely the great-great-grandchildren of the Pilgrims who lost their religion altogether who brought us to this point, who made a deal with the traditional enemies of our civillization against us in the hopes of ruling the world.
Quite to the contrary, Catholic thinkers resisted the Protestant Deformation, although it seems clear that they lost. Carroll Quigley called them the Eastern Establishment. They sneered at Murray like they sneer at Buchanan today.
No, Tex, this is a home grown phenomenon. We've met the enemy, and he is us. The problem is deeper than you seem to think.
Walter
2003-10-19 18:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Another point that could be made is that had orthodox Russia resisted Jewish communism then American fidelity to Israel would have been greatly reduced since they would not have been seen as the only ally in the region of Soviet Arab client states during the Cold War.[/QUOTE]
That's hitting below the belt.
They did resist the Jewish Bolsheviks. It was called the Russian Civil War. They lost, and were slaughtered. Thousands of priests and nuns were machine gunned or worked to death in prisons. Millions of Orthodox peasants were starved, shot, tortured.
They lost in no small part by the financing Jacob Schiff and the other Jewish bankers provided for them - who operated out of New York.
Walter
2003-10-19 18:02 | User Profile
There are just two absolut pro-capitalistic western religions: Calvinist Protestants and Jews.
Just think why these people were expelled out of many European countries, maybe not without reason.
They tend both to superficial thinking, high egalitarism, and the idea that the diligent own the world, but in reality they mean the rich which use the diligent people. This kind of Plutacrazy doesnt like to much control, and that hyper-individualism leads to feminism, "all humans are equal", individualistic life concepts, absurd ideas about the reason and goal of human life = to be diligent and make much profit.
In the Northern European protestant countries this extreme was never the case. They were always real Nordic societies which had not just the respect for humans, for individuals, but also a strong common sence which the US lacked very soon.
Even if you think that the US independence began mainly because of the taxes...
And thats still the major factor in American politics. Just a few rich people which own all, mainly Calvinists and Jews, and the rest can be diligent for them, but get not too much back and the folk which made this "dream" true will be exterminated by this "dream".
And the worst thing is that this nightmare is coming to Europe now. First to GB, than western Europe, now to all of Europe and may be the world. This Neo-Liberal idioty will destroy all European culture and heritage, will exterminate the races and morale.
And its not by chance that it is coming from the US. I dont speak against all US citizens, but every US citizen should be very critical about his state, history, religion and morale.
Liberalism, Liberal capitalism, egalitarian structures, morale and family destruction, denying of common sence in its traditional European form, the idea of a "panmixing of all mankind" and so on...
Thats all just possible in a society formed mainly by Calvinism and Judaism. The liberal Jews and some Neo-Christians which remind on Calvinists have more in common than some seem to want to accept.
Liberal capitalism and the ideology of hyper-individualism and general liberalism are so much interdependent that nobody can deny why all was coming up just in the US and GB.
2003-10-19 18:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Agrippa]There are just two absolut pro-capitalistic western religions: Calvinist Protestants and Jews.[QUOTE]
I agree in general.
The problem that we face is an alliance between the remnants of the WASP establishment and the Jews.
Howard Dean is emblematic. He's an old Yankee blueblood who married a nice Jewish girl. It think that he's even raising his children as Jews, but I could be wrong.
We're up against a plutocracy of about equal parts Jews and Bushites.
The public corporation made it possible - vast wealth belonging to faceless multitudes fo stockholders are run - in effect, owned - by a vanishingly small clique of plutocrats. These are largely Calvinist (Bill Gates, the Waltons) and Jews like Eisner.
I don't know the answer. Things will get far worse before they get any better.
Walter
2003-10-19 18:44 | User Profile
The only way out is to learn all good from old ideologies and relgions, and form a new rational and collectivistic society which refuses both, meaningless Liberal-capitalism and egalitarian Marxism.
With a good education, social programs and Eugenic programs mankind, and I hope the Europeans first, will reach new heights of a progressive society and better mankind.
I dont refuse capitalism or individualism 100 percent, but I just want to bring both back into a rational and utilitarian system for collective of similar, I hope European people with their different folks, but united in the will to change what has to be changed if mankind wants to have a brighter future.
With some Calvinists and even Jews you can work together, and these people we must show their advantage of being member of the new order, and let them play out against those we cannot use. People like Kissinger, Wofowitz, Sharon, Wiesenthal, Friedman, Soros and scum like that are not usable.
2003-10-19 19:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar]That could be the point, prerun. People out in the sticks with squirrel guns close at hand don't get martyred very often.[/QUOTE]
Typical American knee-jerk remark! Here, read thru this list of 146 Russian martyrs during the Communist yoke and tell me they were just cowards and such.
The only one I have a problem with in the list is Maria Bochkareva. Contrary to popular view, theres no evidence that her Womens' battalion ever saw combat and I believe Denikin himself said that the women had to be locked up in order to prevent them from being raped. She was loyal to the White cause and tried to build up support for it in the West, and for that she should be remembered and honoured. But she was not a combatant.
[url]http://www.orthodox.net/russiannm/index.html[/url]
It's always much easier to bash people's sacrifices when you've never gone through what they had to go through. Hell, by your standards Christ himself was a coward. :angry:
2003-10-19 20:06 | User Profile
In my opinion the Whites in Russia had some serious problems, if they would have been able to solve them, the Bolshevik revolution could have been prevented.
A big problem for them was, that the Reds had the industrial centers of Russia mostly in their hands right from the beginning. The next problem was that they were divided and did not often fought together, but even against each other. If they would have had one great leader like the Reds, maybe they would have made it. And dont forget the false Plutacrazy in the West didnt enough too! The corps and Czech Legion etc. should have been much more supported and they should have send much more troops into Russia and help them to make a unified White resistance.
But especially in the beginning there was very hard resistance and many people sacrified themselves in a way I dont think too much in this forum would do it the same way, and with the same dignity. And the orthodox church fought and lost with them.
2003-10-19 20:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Agrippa]In my opinion the Whites in Russia had some serious problems, if they would have been able to solve them, the Bolshevik revolution could have been prevented.
Yes and its so much easier in retrospect to talk about what was needed to do this or that.
But especially in the beginning there was very hard resistance and many people sacrified themselves in a way I dont think too much in this forum would do it the same way, and with the same dignity. And the orthodox church fought and lost with them.[/QUOTE]
The Church lost the battle but it won the war. Need we forget the USSR is no more and the Church is in the middle of a revival.
2003-10-19 20:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]Yes and its so much easier in retrospect to talk about what was needed to do this or that.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, you are absolutely right. But you would agree with me that it was at least not very useful that they didnt coordinated the fightings together and fought as one resistance?
Thats nothing you can just say today, some noticed that even at this time, they just didnt act like they should.
Maybe the main reason was because the had no leading personality or even group.
2003-10-19 21:20 | User Profile
>>>It was precisely the great-great-grandchildren of the Pilgrims who lost their religion altogether who brought us to this point, who made a deal with the traditional enemies of our civillization against us in the hopes of ruling the world.
We call them the "Yankee" around here. Yes, the Jews simply cannot be blamed for everything. It was, after all, the Yankees in one of their periodic eruptions of moral fanatacism that introduced Negro equality into the South. It was also the Yankee that permanently destroyed the Constitution with the 14th Amendment, which in actuality, is a separate Constitution unto itself. This does not mean the Yankee can be blamed entirely either however. The cheapness and short-term outlook of the Southern oligarchy has always been a problem as well. I speak specifically of the free trade policy. There is no better repudiation of free trade and its cheapness than the experience of the CSA. Why build our own manafactures here in the South? Why not specialize in King Cotton and trade away our surplus for the goods we need? We can always simply purchase all the guns we want from the North! Why do we need our own navy? Why not just let the Yankees control our commerce abroad? Comparative advantage!! As far as I am concerned, the War Between the States answered the Protectionism vs. Free Trade debate forever. Protectionism as an economic policy, with its self reliant long term outlook, is by far superior to cheap, cosmopolitan, rootless disgusting race to the bottom free trade. As for slavery and its racial contamination of the South, nothing much needs to said about that other than it was brought about by the same reason as free trade, the cheapness and tendancy to exploitation you see everywhere in the South to this day, which isn't suprising, for the Southern colonies were founded principally as commerical enterprises and have always been this way. Much of the South's racism has always been superficial amongst the upper classes here. It was used as a means to control the white Southern population by the oligarchy to ensure the continuation of its economic exploitation of cheap Negro labour. This is why it is not really suprising to see these people so gung ho about the Mexicans that are flooding in here to further cheapen everything today. It suits them just fine to sell out their own people to employ hordes of Mexicans as agricultural workers, construction workers, in service jobs and so on and so on. Much of the Southern support for all these wars also has to do with all the military spending that props up the local economy as well. What is that other than the same cheapness? Its disgusting to see our politicians so eager to turn our people into mercenaries for the Jews so long as it is profitable for the local oligarchs. This was especially the case leading up to WW2, when Germany threatened Great Britain, which imperiled the markets of the empire for Southern cotton and produce, which imperiled the local oligarchy which became rabble rousers for war against Germany. Why is there such an anti-government tendancy in the South? A strong government, a strong state, can be weilded against the oligarchy. This is especially true if the Yankees control the government but not the case if the South seceded, which explains the war socialism of the Confederacy. Individualism and Christianity are also used and promoted for the same purpose, they enhance the power of the oligarchy and make the population easier to control.
When the "masters" could become Christians. - It lies in the instinct of a community (family, race, herd, tribe) to feel that the conditions and desires to which it owes its survival are valuable in themselves, e.g., obedience, reciprocity, consideration, moderation, sympathy - consequently to suppress everything that contradicts or stands in the way of them.
Likewise, it lies in the instinct of the rulers (be they individuals or classes) to patronize and applaud the virtues that make their subjects useful and submissive (-conditions and affects which may be different as can be from their own).
The herd instinct and the instinct of the rulers agree in praising a certain number of qualities and conditions - but for differing reasons: the former from direct egoism, the latter from indirect egoism.
Submission of the master races to Christianity is esentially the consequence of the insight that Christianity is a herd religion, that it teaches obedience: in short, that Christians are easier to rule than non-Christians. With this hinkt, the pope recommends Christian propaganda to the emperor of China even today.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will To Power
2003-10-19 21:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Individualism and Christianity are also used and promoted for the same purpose, they enhance the power of the oligarchy and make the population easier to control.[/QUOTE]
Thats absolutely right! Especially that kind of useless Neo-Christendom which is promoted today in the US.
A strong and social state with a collectivistic believe would never do the things the liberal US establishment is doing now and today the European countries do more and more too.
[QUOTE]It was, after all, the Yankees in one of their periodic eruptions of moral fanatacism[/QUOTE]
Thats even more true! The average American seem to me a naiv and emotional, quite religious and simple thinking man, which isnt able to look behind the structures.
Its so easy for the corrupt establishment, superficial capitalists of Calvinist and Jewish provinience to betray and lie the average American. With the new media its even much easier than it was in the past.
I'm just thinking about some TV shows I saw, its really horrible how emotionalized and religious fanatized many of them are. They are just not able to think logical and just make the poor and tax responsible for everything, or the atheists and non-mosaic-non-religious people. So naiv, its really unbelievable.
And the poll system is a catastrophy too in the US. Just the majority poll is decisive, their can be no small opposition, just within the big paries which corrupt everything. This system is really perfect in its amorality.
2003-10-19 21:45 | User Profile
Why should we support the Jews? If God says it, then it has to be true! LOL that is the funniest thing about these judeo-christians these days in America. They actually believe they have a religious obligation to support and defend the people who are opposed to virtually every single thing they believe in. That is why the agenda of these naive fools goes nowhere and why they are politically irrelevant. There is no group in America that has done more to take the Christian religion out of the schools than the Jews. There is no group that has done more to ensure abortion is provided on demand than the Jews. There is no group that has done more to spread what the Christians would consider to be immorality throughout our culture than the Jews. There is no group that attacks the "religious right" and their values more than the Jews. For instance, just recently the Ten Commandments were removed from the Alabama Supreme Court. It was of course a Jew who filed the lawsuit who was supported by Jew lawyers from the SPLC and ACLU. Martin Luther despised the Jew liars with a passion. You never hear the "religious right" bring that one up. Furthermore, the entire notion of "Judeo-Christianity" is nonsense as Jewish rabbinical scholars themselves admit. I made a post about this on The Phora before it went down. I will try to recover it.
2003-10-20 00:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Thanks to Perun for posting that lovely piece from my Orthodox brothers. I think that we agree in general, although I think the writer is too categorical in his claims that the RCC was somehow "seduced" by Aristotle. Hmmmm . . . I mean, the great Greek Church Fathers were very much indebted to the Greek philosophers, right? Where did that come from?[/QUOTE]
Well Walter, I know of a good Orthodox article that explains this further, but right now I can't find it. Basically the Orthodox Church is not against Plato, Aristotle, and such per se. Many Orthodox theologians and philosophers have praised them for their wisdom. The Orthodox Church has the belief that the RCC, especially with St. Thomas Aquinas, began thinking of Christianity too much within a Platonic and Aristolian perspective, rather than approaching both from a Christian point of view. Thats the best I can explain it, I'll try to find some good sources that explain this much better.
[quote=FadetheButcher]
We call them the "Yankee" around here. Yes, the Jews simply cannot be blamed for everything. It was, after all, the Yankees in one of their periodic eruptions of moral fanatacism that introduced Negro equality into the South. It was also the Yankee that permanently destroyed the Constitution with the 14th Amendment, which in actuality, is a separate Constitution unto itself. This does not mean the Yankee can be blamed entirely either however. The cheapness and short-term outlook of the Southern oligarchy has always been a problem as well. I speak specifically of the free trade policy. There is no better repudiation of free trade and its cheapness than the experience of the CSA. Why build our own manafactures here in the South? Why not specialize in King Cotton and trade away our surplus for the goods we need? We can always simply purchase all the guns we want from the North! Why do we need our own navy? Why not just let the Yankees control our commerce abroad? Comparative advantage!! As far as I am concerned, the War Between the States answered the Protectionism vs. Free Trade debate forever. Protectionism as an economic policy, with its self reliant long term outlook, is by far superior to cheap, cosmopolitan, rootless disgusting race to the bottom free trade. As for slavery and its racial contamination of the South, nothing much needs to said about that other than it was brought about by the same reason as free trade, the cheapness and tendancy to exploitation you see everywhere in the South to this day, which isn't suprising, for the Southern colonies were founded principally as commerical enterprises and have always been this way. Much of the South's racism has always been superficial amongst the upper classes here. It was used as a means to control the white Southern population by the oligarchy to ensure the continuation of its economic exploitation of cheap Negro labour. This is why it is not really suprising to see these people so gung ho about the Mexicans that are flooding in here to further cheapen everything today. It suits them just fine to sell out their own people to employ hordes of Mexicans as agricultural workers, construction workers, in service jobs and so on and so on. Much of the Southern support for all these wars also has to do with all the military spending that props up the local economy as well. What is that other than the same cheapness? Its disgusting to see our politicians so eager to turn our people into mercenaries for the Jews so long as it is profitable for the local oligarchs. This was especially the case leading up to WW2, when Germany threatened Great Britain, which imperiled the markets of the empire for Southern cotton and produce, which imperiled the local oligarchy which became rabble rousers for war against Germany. Why is there such an anti-government tendancy in the South? A strong government, a strong state, can be weilded against the oligarchy. This is especially true if the Yankees control the government but not the case if the South seceded, which explains the war socialism of the Confederacy.
You know Fade, as a Northerner myself I must say I agree with you. I've always admired the old South and I believe the Confederacy was probally the last stand of the true American identity. Unlike the cosmopolitan Yankees, the Southerners actually retained much of their European folk heritage and maintained close cultural/economic ties with Europe. Even in the film "Gettysburg" this is noted when the British military attache remarks that the Confederates are just like the English.
When the Confederacy fell, the long march to this cosmopolitan mass-consumer society we see today began. Sad really!
2003-10-20 01:56 | User Profile
>>>You know Fade, as a Northerner myself I must say I agree with you. I've always admired the old South and I believe the Confederacy was probally the last stand of the true American identity. Unlike the cosmopolitan Yankees, the Southerners actually retained much of their European folk heritage and maintained close cultural/economic ties with Europe. Even in the film "Gettysburg" this is noted when the British military attache remarks that the Confederates are just like the English. When the Confederacy fell, the long march to this cosmopolitan mass-consumer society we see today began. Sad really!
Its a trade off in my view. Both the North and the South have their virtues and their vices. Southern whites still to this day feel themselves more as a race than whites in other parts of America. This probably has to do with constant exposure to the Negro more than anything else. When one has to live amongst these people, when one has always lived amongst these people, the differences that exist between us are quite obvious and not so easily shrugged off. I have noticed as well that the closer the contact between Northern whites and Negroes, usually in the cities, the more racist they tend to be. The further away one gets from such "diversity," into places like New Hampshire or Vermont, the more liberal the attitude usually.
A big part of this in my view is also the extent to which the South has remained agrarian. Only recently did big cities begin to arise in the South, many of which like Atlanta, are really indistinguishable from some the more racially disgusting aspects of the North. Urban areas seem to sap the identity out whites. It strips them of their ethnicity, folk, culture, identity and so forth. Cosmopolitanism always thrives in urban areas, amongst the degenerates. This is the rottenness the Jew comes to infest and the material he uses for his purposes, why the countryside has always been an anathema to him.
The principal vice of the South, as I pointed out before, is its cheapness of short-term outlook which is a product of the libertarian oligarchy. The economy here tends to be quite exploitive, slavery being the best historical example. Still to this day one will find this cheapness attitude amongst Southerners, in many cases for economic reasons. Foreign markets are needed both for agricultural produce and the products produced by Southern industry. This type of backward export based economy is what has always made "free trade" so attractive to the oligarchy, not anything so inherently great about the ideology itself.
What made the old South so great was its authoritarian side, the aristocratic military tradition still associated to this day with people like Robert E. Lee. Its unfortunate that the military has been so infiltrated and degraded into what it is today. The paternalism of the old South also comes to mind as well as something good, its sense of social obligation, responsibility, and duty instead of whining and quibbling over rights.
In short, whatever that was great about the old South never really had anything to do with the rotten libertarian element, the Jeffersons and the Calhouns and so forth, that still permeates to this day with its third world immigration, its rootless free trade, everything that comes to mind with the words "Atlanta" and "Republican."
The rotten libertarian element is even worse in the North because people believe in it, where it takes on a religious, although secular, evangelical nature. Freedom is something so absolutely wonderful in itself it is beyond question. Democracy is more than a form of government, it is something that feels religious. Everything must be interpreted in moral terms. The world-improvers - these are Northerners. Every so often they go on one of their crusades. It has been different things at different times - witches, drunks, the Irish, Catholicism, slave owners, National Socialism, the Southern segregationist. The "righteous" must overcome the "evil." What is this other than Puritanism?
Whatever that was great about the North came in the form of its industry, its work ethic, the exact opposite of everything in this area that is Southern - idleness, cheapness. It nutured these industries with the protectionist policy. That increased both wealth and and power substantially. This was conservative, anti-liberal, or authoritarian. It worked and prevailed over the free trade ideology of idleness, exploitation, and cheapness that so paralyzed and retarded the South.
2003-10-20 05:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]It's a pure joy for me to read Fade's posts -- we're really on the same wave-lenghts! What kinship of spirit!
Keep them coming!
-FB[/QUOTE]
Ditto.
Nice work, Fade.
Keep it coming.
Walter
2003-10-20 05:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]That's hitting below the belt.
[/QUOTE]
More gratuitous than laying the entire blame for the decline of Western Man on sola scriptura, Walter?
I don't think so.
2003-10-20 05:48 | User Profile
I posted in Christianity a recent op-ed piece from the tres-gay "Conservative" writer, Andrew Sullivan. I think that it embodies quite well the heretical notion that thinking and feeling somehow equal being, and how this is used to justify homosexuality. The Catholic Church officially describes homosexuality as "objectively disordered", but this is lost on Sullivan because for him there can be no objective order. Reality is how he thinks and feels, and nothing else.
Here's the quote - I highlight the key parts:
[QUOTE][B]I know what I am inside. [/B] ([I]a corrollary of "cogito ergo sum" - Walter[/I]) I do not believe that my orientation is on a par with others' lapses into lust when they also have an option for sexual and emotional life that is blessed and celebrated by the church. I do not believe I am [B]intrinsically sick or disordered, as the hierarchy teaches, [/B] ([I]note that what he belives trumps objective truth. The real is what he feels and thinks, not what is. - Walter[/I]) although I am a sinner in many, many ways. I do not believe that the gift of human sexuality is always and everywhere evil outside of procreation. (Many heterosexual Catholics, of course, agree with me, but they can hide and pass in ways that gay Catholics cannot.) ([I]note that truth is decided by consensus. It's all about how these "heterosexual Catholics" feel about it. - Walter[/I]) I believe that denying gay people any outlet for their deepest emotional needs is wrong. I think it slowly destroys people, hollows them out, alienates them finally from their very selves.
But I must also finally concede that this will not change as a matter of doctrine. That doctrine — never elaborated by Jesus — was constructed when gay people as we understand them today were not known to exist; but its authority will not change just because gay people now have the courage to explain [B]who they are and how they feel[/B]. ([I]there it is for all to see. The Church is saying "you're sodomy is objectively sinful" assuming that Sullivan understands that there is a reality outside himself, and Sullivan replies that "but that's not how I FEEL" assuming that this is the only thing that really matters. Walter[/I]) In fact, it seems as if the emergence of gay people into the light of the world has only intensified the church's resistance. [/QUOTE]
They're talking past each other. Sullivan and millions like him have drunk deeply of the modernist heresey. Sullivan may have some nostalgic feelings about the Church of his (I presume, Irish) ancestors, but he is no Catholic. Never has been, by the looks of it.
Come back to us, Andrew.
Walter
2003-10-20 05:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Agrippa]Thats absolutely right! Especially that kind of useless Neo-Christendom which is promoted today in the US.
A strong and social state with a collectivistic believe would never do the things the liberal US establishment is doing now and today the European countries do more and more too.
Thats even more true! The average American seem to me a naiv and emotional, quite religious and simple thinking man, which isnt able to look behind the structures.
Its so easy for the corrupt establishment, superficial capitalists of Calvinist and Jewish provinience to betray and lie the average American. With the new media its even much easier than it was in the past.
I'm just thinking about some TV shows I saw, its really horrible how emotionalized and religious fanatized many of them are. They are just not able to think logical and just make the poor and tax responsible for everything, or the atheists and non-mosaic-non-religious people. So naiv, its really unbelievable.
And the poll system is a catastrophy too in the US. Just the majority poll is decisive, their can be no small opposition, just within the big paries which corrupt everything. This system is really perfect in its amorality.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, and the Euros have their act together so much better. I think not. Run a board like this from almost any European state and you have a good chance of spending some time in prison. Working fairly closely with Europeans and it seems to me that their thoughts mainly gravitate towards the next big football match, techno music and a few pints down at the pub. Not to be totally hostile, I do feel comraderie with the English first and other Euros to a lesser extent, but I certainly do not see anything going on in Europe worthy of emulating for American nationalistic revival.
2003-10-20 06:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The Jewish nation has the same rights as any other nation. The right to cultural autonomy, genetic integrity, and territorial sovereignty. The Jewish nation must continue to exist - the Diaspora must end.
That felt good, I'll say it again. [B]The Diaspora must end.[/B]
Theodore Herzl was right.[/QUOTE]
One problem though. The 'zionist entity' has existed for almost 55 years now. The jew has had time to move back. [B]He hasn't.[/B]
The jew wishes to use 'the sh*tty little country' as the head of their multi-tentacled diaspora [I]hydra.[/I]
Israel is like a club med to visit when he wishes to take a vacation.
The actions of the jew show that they don't want the diaspora to end.
2003-10-20 07:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]a board like this from almost any European state and you have a good chance of spending some time in prison.QUOTE=Texas Dissident]
I wrote this post for another forum, but it seems also applicable to the statement above:
ââ¬ÅIn other countries [than the American colonies], the people . . judge of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a distance and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.ââ¬Â ââ¬â Edmund Burke, On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies, Speech to Parliament, Mar. 22, 1775.
ââ¬Å[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our libertiesââ¬Â
--James Madison
Some of the previous posts exhibit a remarkable degree of paranoia and pusillanimity. Surely our tent is broad enough to accommodate genteel sophisticates such as Jared Taylor and in-your-face street fighters like Alex Linder, no?
The postulate that WNs must do the utmost to appear nice and cuddly and inoffensive and huggable to the ââ¬ÅBig Jewââ¬Â and his helpmates and associates because otherwise they might all get irate at the entire WN movement and decide to take away our most fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the freedom of speech, seems a bit limp-wristed and cowardly.
The fact is that no matter what we say, or do, in defence of the White race and western civilization, such a discourse, or action, is liable to displease the abovementioned ââ¬ÅBig Jewââ¬Â and his helpmates and associates, right? They shouldnââ¬â¢t be allowed to draw the parameters of what is, and what is not, ââ¬Åacceptableââ¬Â. The fact that they have succeeded in doing so in many western countries should, if anything, make us more determined than ever to fight for those rights and freedoms wherever they still exist, and not sink into defeatism and apathy.
2003-10-20 07:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Surely our tent is broad enough to accommodate genteel sophisticates such as Jared Taylor and in-your-face street fighters like Alex Linder, no?
That depends on the self-styled street fighters giving respect to the genteel sophisticates. No quarter given, no quarter should be given in return. And I've only seen hostility flow in one direction on that continuum.
The postulate that WNs must do the utmost to appear nice and cuddly and inoffensive and huggable to the ?Big Jew? and his helpmates and associates because otherwise they might all get irate at the entire WN movement and decide to take away our most fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the freedom of speech, seems a bit limp-wristed and cowardly.
The only poster I've seen taking that line here is Ares. Enough said.
The fact is that no matter what we say, or do, in defence of the White race and western civilization, such a discourse, or action, is liable to displease the abovementioned ?Big Jew? and his helpmates and associates, right?
Right.
They shouldn?t be allowed to draw the parameters of what is, and what is not, ?acceptable?.
Agree, and I don't think they do that here. Not to get on any high horse or anything like that, but the bottom line to what is or is not acceptable here is what I decide it is.
The fact that they have succeeded in doing so in many western countries should, if anything, make us more determined than ever to fight for those rights and freedoms wherever they still exist, and not sink into defeatism and apathy.
I'm not sinking into defeatism and apathy, so I really don't understand your point if it is directed at me. I am more than a bit tired of the anti-American slant that seems to be a by-product of the active Europeans on the board. But what can I say about that except to question where are all the Americans here?
2003-10-20 13:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Ah yes, and the Euros have their act together so much better. I think not. Run a board like this from almost any European state and you have a good chance of spending some time in prison. Working fairly closely with Europeans and it seems to me that their thoughts mainly gravitate towards the next big football match, techno music and a few pints down at the pub. Not to be totally hostile, I do feel comraderie with the English first and other Euros to a lesser extent, but I certainly do not see anything going on in Europe worthy of emulating for American nationalistic revival.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that there were 3 waves: 1st world war, 2nd world war, propganda and culture change in the 60s.
Who decided all of this 3 things for Europe? The U.S. Now the Europeans are on the ground and are totally scholars of what their US and Brit masters are saying.
Guess what, who was mainly responsible for the first Governments in Germany and Austria, who made the laws against National movements.
That all happened long ago, and now, the most of the people here dont just fear it, they believe it.
They are now in some parts even more liberal and amoralic than in US, thats right, but never forget how this could happened.
Nothing aginast US citizens, but the US government since 1914 just killed the European independence and another way for Europeans to live. Ok, they defeated communism too, thanks, but if I look at the next wave, the most extreme movement of the last decades, the political and economic Neo-Liberalism, I tend to ask myself if the Communism wouldnt have preserved more European tradition and lifestyle than this evil thing.
I hope you can change US policy, and I know what is up here in Europe, sure, but I can never forget what this US policy has done to Europe. And I never forget what you did when in my country was a national movement stronger than today with international propaganda against our president Waldheim, against the (at the time more national) FPOE, and thank for financing Wiesenthal and his assholes who did expelled many professors and I know some personally which are in real danger today. They made the universities free of nationalists and a place for Neo-Marxists and old 68s. So our Elite always just hear this "truth". There are many other things, but the common people here often say today, if there would be a change in one European country, than what would happen? ...they are partly really frightened of the consequences.
If all Europeans will be exterminated or the small rest lives without culture and tradition, yes, I'm sorry, the US did it. They broke our nations the backbone.
2003-10-20 15:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Agrippa] If all Europeans will be exterminated or the small rest lives without culture and tradition, yes, I'm sorry, the US did it. [/QUOTE]
I've spotted the familiar Golden Arches in several German cities. Many of them were in the Altstadt sections, the old town: fifteenth century church here, slow moving shoppers in the four-hundred year old apotheke there, and oh, hey, lines going out the door of the Mickey D's, the German citizens exiting the establishment with tears running down their faces, uttering lamentations over the loss of their culture. Ein Big Mac is only a couple of Euros, but the super-size truth of the matter is that those evil Amercuns are the ones forcing the Hamburglar to move in next door to the biergarten. Right?
I haven't been able to question any German citizens about the worship of blacks that seems to permeate the culture, but I'm sure when I do they'll tell me that this also is the fault of the Americans.
I think the common enemy has to be recognized and targeted. Parceling out blame amongst ourselves is counter-productive.
2003-10-20 15:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Agrippa]The problem is that there were 3 waves: 1st world war, 2nd world war, propganda and culture change in the 60s.
Who decided all of this 3 things for Europe? The U.S. Now the Europeans are on the ground and are totally scholars of what their US and Brit masters are saying.
If all Europeans will be exterminated or the small rest lives without culture and tradition, yes, I'm sorry, the US did it. They broke our nations the backbone.[/QUOTE]
Oh come on, Agrippa. You make Europe sound like Honduras or some starving African state, completely innocent and helpless in resisting the evil forces swirling about. The three waves were all birthed in Europe and they should've won if they wanted the results differently.
I will agree with you in that America did make a mistake ever getting the least bit involved in the European morass to begin with. Like our support of Israel, it's cost us much blood and treasure and ever-diminishing benefits.
2003-10-20 15:56 | User Profile
I've found the European contingent on OD to split their time evenly between singing lusty centuries-old battle anthems and blaming the US for every boo-boo they've incurred on their finger.
[I]Schizophrenic[/I] is putting it mildly. Hey, at least here in the States we only [I]pretend[/I] to love blacks!
On the other hand, I personally learned quite a bit from such all-Euro intramural threads as that beaut involving Poles, Germans and Slavs, in which the only point agreed upon by all parties was that the right to perpetuate age-old vendettas and slaughters supercedes [I]every other [/I] prerogative, including uniting to stave off demographic obsolescence. Tell you what, guys - you restore [I]your own [/I] right to speak freely, in [I]your own [/I] homelands, and then resume lecturing the rest of us. You can't say "Jew" without curtseying first in Europe - and then you have the onions to blame your own collective lack of will on others. Pretty funny stuff.
I also continue to get a bang out of the long-running homegrown brawl between Tex and Walter, ie, [I]the snake-handlers vs the ring-kissers. [/I] Andhere I always thought the American tradition of freedom of religion was the Founders' way of acknowledging that, while religion is at best, a crutch, and at worst, a club - but in any case a roadblock to human freedom - [I]de gustibus non est disputandum[/I] among the groundlings and it's probably best to allow people the superstitions of their choice. Ie, if religion was [I]that [/I] important to the Founders, they'd have surely established a state religion at the outset and ended the official debate once and for all.
2003-10-20 16:07 | User Profile
These threads are always entertaining. Well Americans it's your board and you can cry if you want to. I'm expecting a Deutscher Gegenangriff at any moment though.
[QUOTE=weisbrot]Ein Big Mac is only a couple of Euros, but the super-size truth of the matter is that those evil Amercuns are the ones forcing the Hamburglar to move in next door to the biergarten.[/QUOTE] Ein Big Mac und Volk Fries!
2003-10-20 16:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=na Gaeil is gile]These threads are always entertaining. Well Americans it's your board and you can cry if you want to. I'm expecting a Deutscher Gegenangriff at any moment though.
Who's crying? My take on the response is that Americans on this board are tired of Euros whining and blaming all their self-inflicted troubles on us. Kneejerk anti-Americanism is stupid, although it seems to be epidemic in Europe. But it helps no one here in the States or abroad. Informed critique, on the other hand, is invaluable. There isn't much of that evident in statements supporting Communism as a cultural preservation society as compared to the U.S.
Ein Big Mac und Volk Fries![/QUOTE]
That would be Freiheit Frites to you, me Spud-eating friend...
2003-10-20 16:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]... if religion was [I]that [/I] important to the Founders, they'd have surely established a state religion at the outset and ended the official debate once and for all.[/QUOTE]
They did, Freemasonry. It ain't their problem that nobody below 33rd Degree has noticed yet.
2003-10-20 16:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Ie, if religion was [I]that [/I] important to the Founders, they'd have surely established a state religion at the outset and ended the official debate once and for all.[/QUOTE]
The new Republic was so overwhelmingly Protestant and white, I'm sure they saw no need to do so, IR.
2003-10-20 16:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar]They did, Freemasonry. It ain't their problem that nobody below 33rd Degree has noticed yet.[/QUOTE]
Well, you've noticed it, are you 33rd? :smartass:
2003-10-20 17:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]beaut involving Poles, Germans and Slavs,
Poles are Slavs too, you ignorant 'mercun :lol:
[I]the snake-handlers vs the ring-kissers. [/I] [/QUOTE]
That's a keeper.
2003-10-20 17:33 | User Profile
You're correct, MR...but not in this case. Definite demarcation lines were drawn all around, if you'll recall the thread in question.
2003-10-20 17:38 | User Profile
The only thing I remember is Zvaci, who is a Croat (or hrvat according to Alka), insisting on Croats' nobler origins.
2003-10-20 18:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Ah yes, and the Euros have their act together so much better. I think not. Run a board like this from almost any European state and you have a good chance of spending some time in prison. Working fairly closely with Europeans and it seems to me that their thoughts mainly gravitate towards the next big football match, techno music and a few pints down at the pub. Not to be totally hostile, I do feel comraderie with the English first and other Euros to a lesser extent, but I certainly do not see anything going on in Europe worthy of emulating for American nationalistic revival.[/QUOTE]
** [url]http://oag.ru/views/shtepa.html[/url]
The "West" Will Go Out with the Second Millennium
by Vadim Shtepa
Novaya Pobeda
April, 1999
Translated from the Russian
They love to talk about the "Millennium", the "New Age", "Y2K", etc., etc. Only recently they hoped to enter the New Century with the whole weight of their liberal baggage hanging on the neck of our still-unconquered, still not entirely idiotized planet.
But an awakening has suddenly occurred. Here it's impossible not to see the hand of Providence. The answer to today's riddle is that there won't be any "New Age", or rather, there will be ... just not for them. It will be a New Age without that ugly chimera which for the duration of the Second Millennium has gone by the name of "the West".
In the First Millennium A.D., and before that, the concepts of "West" and "East" were unburdened with cultural or political associations. The Chinese didn't call themselves an "Eastern Civilization", but simply the the residents of the Land Under the Heavens, Vikings were just Vikings, and not "Western Vikings", not to mention the native inhabitants of that continent later renamed in honor of a certain Spanish seaman. "The West" announced its own existence only in the Second Millennium, and this illusory entity (you see, there are no East or West Poles on the globe) continued to proclaim itself the "most perfect reality" for a long time.
But today it's finally burst like a soap bubble, screeching, with a burst of missile shrapnel, with the desire to sell itself just to prolong its already numbered days a bit more. Now there have appeared forces in the world which are above buying and selling. The forces of the Third Millennium can be seen in the eyes of the children of Belgrade dancing under the bombs.
Stock markets, the exchange rate, the Dow-Jones Index, advertising, plastic politicians and similar virtual non-reality brilliantly described by Pelevin in his new novel are dissolving before our eyes. A cleansing, liberating revolution has begun in the World. Today "Western Civilization" has become just as 'invisible' as the 'Stealth' which was shot down over Yugoslavia. As before, the West continues to portray itself as tough, invincible. But just look into the eyes of Clinton or Solana, or of one of 'our' Westernizers, and you'll see only one thing: simple inhuman fear. No, Yegor, the "plastic world" has not emerged victorious.
They're robots, golems. For that reason nothing is more sacred for them, more valuable, than their pitiful earthly existence. I could have quoted the Russian proverb "there's nothing there behind the soul", but they themselves don't believe in the existence of their souls. They know about heroism only from sentimental Hollywood action films. Theirs is a world of cowardly, but cruel phantoms. Their pilots, upon seeing the three captured soldiers on TV, asked to be sent home but were forced back into battle, because this is the "West's" last chance. The World Community, in its true sense of the other 85% of the Human Race, has woken up from its brooding lethargy and is learning to read between the lines.
In Russia this Resurrection has taken the form of a patriotic revolution in the soul of the youth. Not long ago we were still arguing about 'democrats', 'fascists' and 'anarchists' among us. Today that all seems like children's amusement. The world has been stood on its head. Many who were singing the ideals of "Make love not war" only yesterday have turned out to be the most rabid hawks in defense of their beloved "West". (A certain Khramov, leader of the "Antimilitarist Radical Association" has been especially visible of late as a 'pacifist' in favor of air strikes.) On the other hand, some of yesterday's 'fascists' have turned out to be conscionable and principled today.
The "West" has quite brazenly borrowed and inverted the idea of Hitlerism by removing its patriotic element but exalting its cult of violence and cynical self-justification to the maximum. Evidently this re-tooled Fascism is to serve as its last ideological weapon. But Russia has already set out on her own path, the path to her New Victory.
Those who have perceived with a shudder of awe the new balance of power taking shape are like the hero of Carpenter's film "They Live", when he puts on his magic spectacles. He begins to see enormous billboard slogans everywhere, invisible to the naked eye: "CONSUME", "SUBMIT", "MULTIPLY", and begins to notice that many of the people surrounding him are not people at all, but hellish monsters, united only by their feeling of collective inviolable power. The main difference now is that all of that can be seen today not by the donning of magic spectacles, but simply by removing the shrouds over one's eyes.
We are the people of the Third Millennium. We've fused Tradition with the will toward the bright future (without the smirking quotation marks). Those who are ready to go to Serbia today are the warriors of the Great Victory, for whom spirit and honor are more important than all the money on Earth. In all of us the "noble rage roils up like a wave", but we are too many for Serbia to hold. No matter. The fact is we're already there, living and breathing only for her. We've begun our liberation here in Russia, with ourselves.
Our first demand must be the total and absolute deportation beyond the borders of our holy land all accomplices of "the West", all those golem-collaborators from the mass-media and other structures of power (structures of power for the time being, that is). Let them hightail it to their beloved "West", that diabolical kingdom of illusion. This will be truly humanitarian of us. You see, we'll be liberating real people.
But all is not well with the people among us either. Vegetables preoccupied only with their dull survival and hiding behind their daily routine have lost the right to call themselves Russians, and deserve corresponding treatment. But on the other hand everyone's on our side today against the common enemy, as it was during the Second World War. In Europe unheard-of alliances against NATO are forming, from Le Pen to the Communists, to regionalists like the Scots and the Lombards.
The developing split in Israel between pro- and anti-NATO forces also says a good deal: on our side are all those who retain a conscience and the memory of the last World War, on the other side the Jewess Albright in the role of Himmler of the Serbian Holocaust along with a pile of mass-media Goebbelses of the same extraction. Russians in the Great Patriotic War were not fighting with the German people, and so it will be this time with the Jews, but their warriors and warmongers will have to get used to the word "Yid", just as the Germans did to the word "Fritz".
From now on Russians are an awakening, elemental force of resistance, conscious of the nature of the Evil being committed in the world. And no cops or any other of the vermin who defend only money can stop us now. This is no call for the 'overthrow of the government'. What kind of 'overthrow' can there be of a 'government', the 'constitution' of which was written with the blood of the last 'overthrow'? The old world is simply caving in and yet another epoch in human history is being born, that's all. Of course the old world has hung on too long, playing desperately for time, but in the face of the Rising Sun it's powerless. The Sun has already set on the west. **
2003-10-20 19:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]From now on Russians are an awakening, elemental force of resistance, conscious of the nature of the Evil being committed in the world. And no cops or any other of the vermin who defend only money can stop us now. This is no call for the 'overthrow of the government'. What kind of 'overthrow' can there be of a 'government', the 'constitution' of which was written with the blood of the last 'overthrow'? The old world is simply caving in and yet another epoch in human history is being born, that's all. Of course the old world has hung on too long, playing desperately for time, but in the face of the Rising Sun it's powerless. The Sun has already set on the west. [/QUOTE]
perun, no disrespect intended, but haven't we read the same type 'revolutionary' diatribe from some Russian or another every decade since about 1912? I think the Russians specialize in it.
2003-10-20 19:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]The new Republic was so overwhelmingly Protestant and white, I'm sure they saw no need to do so, IR.[/QUOTE]
Tex:
Moreover, they didn't want to establish a certain doctrinal supremacy under a Federal "Church." Calvinist vs. Protestants. I urge people to familiarize themselves with the colonial history pre-Nationhood.
I'm constantly surprised by those who are most allegedly concerned with Jewish rhetoric parroting the lines when it suits an anti-Christian agenda.
2003-10-20 20:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]perun, no disrespect intended, but haven't we read the same type 'revolutionary' diatribe from some Russian or another every decade since about 1912? I think the Russians specialize in it.[/QUOTE]
Oh and we haven't heard some diatribe of "making the world safe for democracy", "enlighten those in darkness", "McDonalds equals freedom" type crap from the Americans for at least the past 100 years since Teddy Roosevelt.
Americans specialize in thinking that their way is the only way for the world, and everybody else is ....well a savage. Neil Postman once said that the typical American honestly believes that Jesus Christ spoke fluent English and would've chosen to be an American if given the chance. I find that very much true and many American paleo-conservatives agree with that assestment!
2003-10-20 20:49 | User Profile
Actually, given his waistline, I think "McDonalds equals freedom" was one of [I]Taft's[/I] - not Teddy's.
2003-10-20 20:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]Oh and we haven't heard some diatribe of "making the world safe for democracy", "enlighten those in darkness", "McDonalds equals freedom" type crap from the Americans for at least the past 100 years since Teddy Roosevelt.
Americans specialize in thinking that their way is the only way for the world, and everybody else is ....well a savage. Neil Postman once said that the typical American honestly believes that Jesus Christ spoke fluent English and would've chosen to be an American if given the chance. I find that very much true and many American paleo-conservatives agree with that assestment![/QUOTE]
I thought you said you were an American, perun? I don't think you believe what you write here. If so I must go and chastise Okie and AY for not presenting paleo-conservatism properly, if not just effectually. Hell, if we paleos are guilty of anything it is the exact opposite of what you describe above. I'd say a better description of what I believe concerning the rest of the world is that ultimately I couldn't give a rat's you-know-what about it. The neo-cons use it as a term of derision, but I wear the label 'isolationist' quite proudly as a staunch advocate of armed neutrality.
2003-10-20 22:07 | User Profile
Notice how large proportion of the ODers are first-generation immigrants, or foreigners. That may be what's causing the friction here: the truly "diverse" crew.
Now what could be the reason that the red-blooded Americans are so underrepresented? Are they all watching Faux?
2003-10-20 22:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I thought you said you were an American, perun?
Yes I'm an American by birth. I'm also of Russian/Ukrainian decent. Slavic Americans have always passionately remained true to the old country. For example, many Polish-Americans fought in the Blue Army for Polish independence during the 1920's. Ukrainian-Americans have always been fiercely nationalistic towards the old country.
Same thing with the Irish-Americans, who actually flaunt their patriotism more than the Irish in Ireland do. Same thing with the Italian-Americans.
I don't think you believe what you write here.
Don't tell me what I actually believe or not! Unless you have some secret access to my brain and my thought process.
If so I must go and chastise Okie and AY for not presenting paleo-conservatism properly, if not just effectually. Hell, if we paleos are guilty of anything it is the exact opposite of what you describe above.
What does AY and Okie have to do with this discussion?
I'd say a better description of what I believe concerning the rest of the world is that ultimately I couldn't give a rat's you-know-what about it. The neo-cons use it as a term of derision, but I wear the label 'isolationist' quite proudly as a staunch advocate of armed neutrality.[/QUOTE]
Good, Great! What does this have to do with the discussion here? Did I say you believe in all those things? No. I was replying to your little knee-jerk remark.
2003-10-20 23:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Notice how large proportion of the ODers are first-generation immigrants, or foreigners. That may be what's causing the friction here: the truly "diverse" crew.
Now what could be the reason that the red-blooded Americans are so underrepresented? Are they all watching Faux?[/QUOTE]
Sad truth, probally. That or watching stupid sitcoms.
BTW, I'm not a recent immigrant or anything, I'm actually a 4th generation Russian-American.
2003-10-20 23:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]Good, Great! What does this have to do with the discussion here? Did I say you believe in all those things? No. I was replying to your little knee-jerk remark.[/QUOTE]
My apologies, perun. Looking back at your initial reply to my post and coupled with your misspelling of assessment, I misunderstood your comment to mean paleos advocated the 'exporting America' philosophy. This is why I responded with an affirmation of paleo commitment to isolationism with regards to foreign policy. My reference to Okie and AY was a light-hearted aside, given my consideration of them as two of the best advocates of the paleo ideology on the board.
But given your overwhelming fondness for the land of your distant ancestors, perhaps you would be enriched by going to live abroad there to better soak-up its rich cultural heritage. Just a passing thought and one you may have already given consideration.
2003-10-20 23:45 | User Profile
I should have specified the context of that post from another forum (SF). Someone started a thread saying Linder was a Jewish operative and an agent provocateur (this occurred at a time when Linder was trying to take over the NA -- or as some people thought); then a few limp-wristed p**sies jumped in moaning and groaning and weeping like a bunch of old women about Linder's "extremism".
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]That depends on the self-styled street fighters giving respect to the genteel sophisticates. No quarter given, no quarter should be given in return. And I've only seen hostility flow in one direction on that continuum.The only poster I've seen taking that line here is Ares. Enough said. Right. Agree, and I don't think they do that here. Not to get on any high horse or anything like that, but the bottom line to what is or is not acceptable here is what I decide it is. I'm not sinking into defeatism and apathy, so I really don't understand your point if it is directed at me. I am more than a bit tired of the anti-American slant that seems to be a by-product of the active Europeans on the board. But what can I say about that except to question where are all the Americans here?[/QUOTE]
2003-10-20 23:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]My apologies, perun. Looking back at your initial reply to my post and coupled with your misspelling of assessment, I misunderstood your comment to mean paleos advocated the 'exporting America' philosophy. This is why I responded with an affirmation of paleo commitment to isolationism with regards to foreign policy. My reference to Okie and AY was a light-hearted aside, given my consideration of them as two of the best advocates of the paleo ideology on the board.
WOW! You really misunderstood what I meant. I didn't say(or mean to say) that paleos advocated exporting American democracy. Actually I was commenting on how self-centered Americans tend to be, especially with the comment about Americans believing that Jesus spoke English and such. I said that many American paleos agree with that assetment of their own people nowadays.
But given your overwhelming fondness for the land of your distant ancestors, perhaps you would be enriched by going to live abroad there to better soak-up its rich cultural heritage. Just a passing thought and one you may have already given consideration.[/QUOTE]
Yes I have given it consideration. Untill that day, I try my best to work within the American paleo scene. This again is not new, many White Russian emigres to Europe and America were active in their prospective countries' far-right movements. One Russian far-rightist Vonsiatsky even had a comission in the US army and worked with American paleos.
There was even a group of Russian fascists in Germany that marched alongside the Nazi SA on May Day in 1933. In fact heres a picture of them [url]http://www.earthstation1.com/History/Russia/Fascism/Pics/ROND1933Berlin-MayDayRally.jpg[/url] (for Leland and Friederich)
2003-10-21 01:52 | User Profile
Good find Perun!
I'm very pro-Russian in my outlook and for several reasons.
[QUOTE=perun1201]WOW! You really misunderstood what I meant. I didn't say(or mean to say) that paleos advocated exporting American democracy. Actually I was commenting on how self-centered Americans tend to be, especially with the comment about Americans believing that Jesus spoke English and such. I said that many American paleos agree with that assetment of their own people nowadays.
Yes I have given it consideration. Untill that day, I try my best to work within the American paleo scene. This again is not new, many White Russian emigres to Europe and America were active in their prospective countries' far-right movements. One Russian far-rightist Vonsiatsky even had a comission in the US army and worked with American paleos.
There was even a group of Russian fascists in Germany that marched alongside the Nazi SA on May Day in 1933. In fact heres a picture of them [url]http://www.earthstation1.com/History/Russia/Fascism/Pics/ROND1933Berlin-MayDayRally.jpg[/url] (for Leland and Friederich)[/QUOTE]
2003-10-21 03:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]Oh and we haven't heard some diatribe of "making the world safe for democracy", "enlighten those in darkness", "McDonalds equals freedom" type crap from the Americans for at least the past 100 years since Teddy Roosevelt.[/QUOTE]
"Making the world safe for democracy" was Woodrow Wilson, a very different person.
2003-10-21 03:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Notice how large proportion of the ODers are first-generation immigrants, or foreigners. That may be what's causing the friction here: the truly "diverse" crew.
Now what could be the reason that the red-blooded Americans are so underrepresented? [/QUOTE]
Are Americans under-represented here? Perhaps it's time for a new poll. As for me, I'm native born, the son of native born parents. However, all four of my grandparents were immigrants. I love both America and Europe. After all, isn't this country an extension of Europe?
At least, it used to be.
2003-10-21 05:05 | User Profile
It seems that the uncivil and counter-productive religious feud that consumes so much time among theocratic absolutists on this board is off and running yet again. As some that has functional relations with racialists of Christian, non religious and Heathen backgrounds and has committed quite a bit of time, with some success, to coalition building I will not intervene in the dogmatic disputes underway. I will say however, that it is unfair in the extreme to condemn the Orthodox Church for being a tool of communism. Someone else pointed to the Russian Civil War as an example of Orthodox inspired resistance to Bolshevism which it was in large measure but the same can be said or resistance throughout the entire eras of Lenin and Stalin and we should recall that Orthodoxy played a large roll in Fascist/NS/NR/RC movements throughout the ââ¬Ë30s and ââ¬Ë40s. Also, the Orthodox priests that held public office during the post war period were selected by the state and were religious in name only so TD's characterization is simply not fair.
Getting back to the more pertinent issue of "death to jews: a tractionless cause" I'd say that's far to limited a statement. As a racialist and a National Socialist I believe in racial separation and self determination for all so I reject the notion out of hand that destroying other races is desirable. Basically, it makes no sense to decry oppression and the evils of genocide while promoting the same thing so I don't. In practical terms, calling for the extermination of other races makes one sound inflexibly extreme in a self indulgent matter and psychotic. Politics is all about building coalitions and convincing others that your solutions to the problems of our era are better understood by your ideology and better resolved by your policy prescriptions. Calls for mass murder and the destruction of those that don't share your disposition is nothing other then a road to self marginalization and deserved impotency.
2003-10-21 06:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=triskelion]Also, the Orthodox priests that held public office during the post war period were selected by the state and were religious in name only so TD's characterization is simply not fair.[/QUOTE]
It's every bit as fair as laying the blame for Western Man's decline on sola scriptura and the Reformation, or weilding dispensationalists' support for Israel as a club to hammer American protestant Christianity as a whole.
Therefore I will stand by my statement concerning the Orthodox church in Russia's capitulation to Jewish communism. What's good for the American goose is also good for the Euro gander.
2003-10-21 07:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Well, you've noticed it, are you 33rd? :smartass:[/QUOTE]
Close; I dropped out. The part where the Masons tell you that the United States was "created for a reason, known only to a few" actually comes from an older scam told about the Knights Templar. The reason is dubble-plus ungood and convoluted. But people do forget they are a religion.
Issue of "Americans" and "Europeans" on OD:
This is a bloody good issue! Better I think than the ethic one which I skipped though it's lots of German, Hungarian, and less but some of Russian, Scots and a English merchant. Which generation into America seems to matter a great deal. The dynamics are a lot like this:
[B]First Generation Americans[/B] Came over and tried to fit in. Never quite did. Waved the flag and fought in wars to prove they belonged. Good, old stock European. Never thought of as much else besides European but took the shot.
[B]Second Generation Americans[/B]: Felt great about being Americans and embarrassed about their not-fitting-in parents. Tended to ignore the "old country" and work hard NOT to know the language or customs their parents kept. Wanted to be the ones to totally assimilate. In the case of the Germans and Italians (etc) who came over to Ellis Island before the 20s or so, the succeeded in assimilating with a vengence: They fought for America in World War II in massive numbers, assimilating by conquering (in some cases) their own former homeland.
This generation includes my pappy and all my uncles. My one uncle, gentle but strong German, was so fluent they made him Special Forces and he saw much that never made official history. Every one of the second generation men were exceptions in that they had their liguistic heritage -- ordinarily they like to have NO ties to the old country.
[B]Third Generation[/B]: This includes myself, and third generation often looks back to the home country and what the second generation tried to throw away. We're likely to call ourselves "European Americans" (or even more specifically German or Hungarian or Irish or Italian Americans). We find out what the second generation wanted to hide, because we're curious about the past, the family past. We cannot be anything but American -- but we will be sensitive to America losing its "Europeanness" and it's logical we should: It took three generations to become us, we notice our context.
Third Generation Americans are lucky and find out odd things. In my case it's that I'm a total Accidental American. My grandfather was trying to regain his business in Berlin, thought he'd make some money in America to do so, and died in a Pennsylvania coalyard before he scraped up the necessary cash. My father was born three months later, and orphan, and his mother was able to parlay what little money she had and become a shopkeeper. It worked, and here I am. I'm typically third generation in that I wonder what would have happened if his plan had worked out.
2003-10-21 07:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Well, you've noticed it, are you 33rd? :smartass:[/QUOTE]
Close; I dropped out. The part where the Masons tell you that the United States was "created for a reason, known only to a few" actually comes from an older scam told about the Knights Templar. The reason is dubble-plus ungood and convoluted. But people do forget they are a religion.
Issue of "Americans" and "Europeans" on OD:
This is a bloody good issue! Better I think than the ethic one which I skipped though it's lots of German, Hungarian, and less but some of Russian, Scots and a English merchant. Which generation into America seems to matter a great deal. The dynamics are a lot like this:
[B]First Generation Americans[/B] Came over and tried to fit in. Never quite did. Waved the flag and fought in wars to prove they belonged. Good, old stock European. Never thought of as much else besides European but took the shot.
[B]Second Generation Americans[/B]: Felt great about being Americans and embarrassed about their not-fitting-in parents. Tended to ignore the "old country" and work hard NOT to know the language or customs their parents kept. Wanted to be the ones to totally assimilate. In the case of the Germans and Italians (etc) who came over to Ellis Island before the 20s or so, the succeeded in assimilating with a vengence: They fought for America in World War II in massive numbers, assimilating by conquering (in some cases) their own former homeland.
This generation includes my pappy and all my uncles. My one uncle, gentle but strong German, was so fluent they made him Special Forces and he saw much that never made official history. Every one of the second generation men were exceptions in that they had their liguistic heritage -- ordinarily they like to have NO ties to the old country.
[B]Third Generation[/B]: This includes myself, and third generation often looks back to the home country and what the second generation tried to throw away. We're likely to call ourselves "European Americans" (or even more specifically German or Hungarian or Irish or Italian Americans). We find out what the second generation wanted to hide, because we're curious about the past, the family past. We cannot be anything but American -- but we will be sensitive to America losing its "Europeanness" and it's logical we should: It took three generations to become us, we notice our context.
Third Generation Americans are lucky and find out odd things. In my case it's that I'm a total Accidental American. My grandfather was trying to regain his business in Berlin, thought he'd make some money in America to do so, and died in a Pennsylvania coalyard before he scraped up the necessary cash. My father was born three months later, and orphan, and his mother was able to parlay what little money she had and become a shopkeeper. It worked, and here I am. I'm typically third generation in that I wonder what would have happened if grandfather's plan had worked out.
2003-10-21 08:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=weisbrot]That would be Freiheit Frites to you, me Spud-eating friend...[/QUOTE] :) At least I get the satisfaction that it's McGlobalisation. I fully expect this highly entertaining girlââ¬â¢s pillow fight of Deutschland (et al.) uber alles versus AmericKwan indignation to drag intermittently with much hearty abuse of italics.
[QUOTE=triskelion]Getting back to the more pertinent issue of "death to jews: a tractionless cause" I'd say that's far to limited a statement. As a racialist and a National Socialist I believe in racial separation and self determination for all so I reject the notion out of hand that destroying other races is desirable. Basically, it makes no sense to decry oppression and the evils of genocide while promoting the same thing so I don't. In practical terms, calling for the extermination of other races makes one sound inflexibly extreme in a self indulgent matter and psychotic. Politics is all about building coalitions and convincing others that your solutions to the problems of our era are better understood by your ideology and better resolved by your policy prescriptions. Calls for mass murder and the destruction of those that don't share your disposition is nothing other then a road to self marginalization and deserved impotency.[/QUOTE]
Thank you Triskelion! I havenââ¬â¢t seen you post in a while. I hope you will continue to keep us updated us on your real world political activism. Iââ¬â¢m still waiting for part two of Tsunââ¬â¢s interview with you.
2003-10-21 09:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE]It's every bit as fair as laying the blame for Western Man's decline on sola scriptura and the Reformation, or weilding dispensationalists' support for Israel as a club to hammer American protestant Christianity as a whole.[/QUOTE]
Sure Reformation had some strong influence, but not just bad one. I would just distinguish Calvinists and the most of the other Protestants.
Fact is, that the materialistic Calvinism is in some respect not that dissimilar to Judentum.
I dont blame all Calvinists, but in the end, if you look back in history, the Calvinists didnt do to much good things on the long term for Europeans. Especially this religious, fanatical and emotionalized ideology is not very rational in many respects.
And what the US did, they did it, it was bad for Europe, and it still is. But no offense against all Americans. Just your policy and lifestyle of the average Americans is really...well, lets say awful. This lifestyle and the American influence is not good, not for Euro-Americans and not for Europeans.
2003-10-21 12:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Good find Perun!
I'm very pro-Russian in my outlook and for several reasons.[/QUOTE]
Good! I'm very much pro-German for many reasons(political, military, cultural, etc.). Just stop invading our country so much! :lol:
2003-10-21 12:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar]
[B]Third Generation[/B]: This includes myself, and third generation often looks back to the home country and what the second generation tried to throw away. We're likely to call ourselves "European Americans" (or even more specifically German or Hungarian or Irish or Italian Americans). We find out what the second generation wanted to hide, because we're curious about the past, the family past. We cannot be anything but American -- but we will be sensitive to America losing its "Europeanness" and it's logical we should: It took three generations to become us, we notice our context. [/QUOTE]
Thats a good describtion of me, except that I'm 4th generation. What characterises 4th generations usually?
2003-10-21 13:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Agrippa] But no offense against all Americans. Just your policy and lifestyle of the average Americans is really...well, lets say awful. This lifestyle and the American influence is not good, not for Euro-Americans and not for Europeans.[/QUOTE]
Neoconservative foreign policy and American lifestyle as-seen-on-TV surely isn't good for Europeans and isn't good for most Americans, whether or not "conservatives" will put down their flag long enough to admit it. How much the neocons and the lifestyles presented on US television exports represent the "average" American is a matter of some debate.
I won't question your judgement on American influence, but how did you come by your knowledge of U.S. lifestyle?
2003-10-21 15:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I won't question your judgement on American influence, but how did you come by your knowledge of U.S. lifestyle?[/QUOTE]
Doubtless from watching tv....
2003-10-21 15:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Doubtless from watching tv....[/QUOTE]
Sure TV is important, I can confess that without problems. But I read some books and studies about America too, I see what have changed under American influence in Europe. I'm a historian student, and I think I can really see the difference before, and after the American influence was getting massive.
And the new wave of Neo-liberalism, the whole Holocaust instrumentalisation and so on, thats all nothing I just know from TV, I know it from my real life in Austria and Germany.
Furtherone I know some Americans, not to good, but I know them. Well, they are good guys, quite open minded nice people (typical middle class leftiest often coming to Europe). But I see how they are very often influenced by some kind of religion and morality which didnt really exist to such an extend in Europe before 1945. I mean parts of this morality are not too bad, but other parts are just so naive, so emotionalized and irrational, that its hard too believe that this are normal people sometimes. The only people here which are thinking in the same way are mostly Jews. Thats a fact.
[QUOTE]US television exports represent the "average" American is a matter of some debate.[/QUOTE]
If I would believe too much on what some TV stations saying about America and the American people, I would probably gone to the Islamists and fighting US.
The main reasons why I dont do that, is that they dont represent my people and culture and they are irrational in many parts, and in a way I dont accept and the second main reasons are that I know the Americans as people too, and I see that they not too bad as individuals.
But if I would lost my believe that America can change its policy and character in the future, I would have to fight the US with all means. Because one future I really dont want, not for Europeans and not for the world and thats the Neoliberal plantage of plutocrazy all over the world with panmixed masses of cheap workers under the rule of corrupt and selfish people which hide themselves behind superficial ideals of pseudoreligious provinience.
Really, that future I dont want to see...by no means and never.
2003-10-21 17:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]Thats a good describtion of me, except that I'm 4th generation. What characterises 4th generations usually?[/QUOTE]
Third Generation is (allegedly) where you're Americanized and it's no longer a threat to look to where you came from and the story of your people. From then on it should be one of total assimilation; that's the part that is breaking down because America is becoming non-European.
The first two generations after immigration have an anxious relationship with the past. They're new and want to fit in. The process can be quite painful yet very creative and fecund. At the same time Sam Francis and others are noting that what was true for old stock Europeans is not true of the newer immigrants, and I'm sure VDARE will be looking into this issue in the future.
2003-10-21 17:22 | User Profile
One error: first generation means [I]first generation born here. [/I]
Immigrants are immigrants; their children are first generation, grandchildrenare second-gen, great-grandchildren are third-gen, and so forth.
2003-10-21 17:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar] The first two generations after immigration have an anxious relationship with the past. They're new and want to fit in. The process can be quite painful yet very creative and fecund. At the same time Sam Francis and others are noting that what was true for old stock Europeans is not true of the newer immigrants, and I'm sure VDARE will be looking into this issue in the future.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the desire to fit in is as strong as before. European immigrants included. After all, what's there to look forward to, beer belly and brainwashed flag-humping?
2003-10-21 17:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]One error: first generation means [I]first generation born here. [/I]
Immigrants are immigrants; their children are first generation, grandchildrenare second-gen, great-grandchildren are third-gen, and so forth.[/QUOTE]
OK, decrement the generation counter above. I am a zero-generation immigrant then :lol:
2003-10-21 18:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]One error: first generation means [I]first generation born here. [/I] ...[/QUOTE]
That's probably right. Some of the literature I've read makes the same error unless (like me) they think of "first generation" as the arriving one.
[QUOTE=madrussian] I don't think the desire to fit in is as strong as before. European immigrants included. After all, what's there to look forward to, beer belly and brainwashed flag-humping? [/QUOTE]
I can't understand how the elite can miss that either. The entire assimilation process broke down with the new open borders and multicultural fetish. It's such a break with the past that there's no continuity at all, no pretense that we have a culture of our own (or even should).
The beer belly and flag humping can't possibly take the place of what America had. Not for long anyway.
2003-10-21 18:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The beer belly and flag humping can't possibly take the place of what America had. Not for long anyway.[/QUOTE]
In no country and at no time this was enough on the long run.
2003-10-21 18:15 | User Profile
Thanks for the reply. Good thought-provoking comments.
[QUOTE=Agrippa]I'm a historian student, and I think I can really see the difference before, and after the American influence was getting massive.
And the new wave of Neo-liberalism, the whole Holocaust instrumentalisation and so on, thats all nothing I just know from TV, I know it from my real life in Austria and Germany.
If you'll spend some time reading this the archives of this board, you'll find that very few Americans contributing here would characterize this influence as typically American. It's an influence of an alien nature, and you're perhaps coming to recognize that fact as evidenced by your next comment:
But I see how they are very often influenced by some kind of religion and morality which didnt really exist to such an extend in Europe before 1945. I mean parts of this morality are not too bad, but other parts are just so naive, so emotionalized and irrational, that its hard too believe that this are normal people sometimes. The only people here which are thinking in the same way are mostly Jews. Thats a fact.
What parts of this peculiar morality do you find so objectionable? And are you aware of the neoconservative/Jewish partnership with Christian Zionists, and how this affects U.S. foreign policy?
But if I would lost my believe that America can change its policy and character in the future, I would have to fight the US with all means. Because one future I really dont want, not for Europeans and not for the world and thats the Neoliberal plantage of plutocrazy all over the world with panmixed masses of cheap workers under the rule of corrupt and selfish people which hide themselves behind superficial ideals of pseudoreligious provinience.
Really, that future I dont want to see...by no means and never.[/QUOTE]
Agreed and seconded.
If you haven't read any of the trilogy authored by Kevin MacDonald, I suggest that now might be an appropriate time.
2003-10-21 18:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE]What parts of this peculiar morality do you find so objectionable? And are you aware of the neoconservative/Jewish partnership with Christian Zionists, and how this affects U.S. foreign policy?[/QUOTE]
Yes, I know that. But that this could happen so easily and quite fast is not by chance, thats because of the similarities of Jewish and parts of the Calvinist or Neo-Christian ethic.
Lets say it that way, there are many people, not just whites but even Jewish, Black and Hispanic people too which dont really like this Neoliberal society.
But the main difference between the USA and Europe is, that the most parts of this ideology are rooted in the US no matter if the majority is thinking the same way.
Maybe just a minority of Italy in Roman times wanted to conquer and change Noricum f.e. So if then this country is changed who did it? At least the Romans no matter if all or just a minority identified themselves with this goal.
Only if the government and culture of America would change this would make a huge difference. Jews knew too that not all Germans were Anti-Semits, but do you think they loved the Germans for what they did? So how could the world love this country of the U.S.
Your voice should be heard all over the world, but all what the world is hearing are these Neoliberals from the left and right wing.
2003-10-21 20:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]It's every bit as fair as laying the blame for Western Man's decline on sola scriptura and the Reformation, or weilding dispensationalists' support for Israel as a club to hammer American protestant Christianity as a whole.
Therefore I will stand by my statement concerning the Orthodox church in Russia's capitulation to Jewish communism. What's good for the American goose is also good for the Euro gander.[/QUOTE]
Given that I never "placed the blame for Western Man's decline on sola scriptura and the Reformation, or weilding dispensationalists' support for Israel as a club to hammer American protestant Christianity as a whole" and in fact take a very untilitian view of religion in general and refute those that make global condemnations of Christianity your defense has nothing to do with my previous statement. In any case, your basically saying that because some chose to make innane condenations of protestantism it their for is alright to make an equally baseless assault upon Orthodoxy. I am sure you not that such a position is fatally flawed in both cases.
2003-10-22 01:16 | User Profile
I never tire of repeating this simple identity:
Judeo-"Christianity" = :dung: :dung: :dung: :disgust: :yucky:
2003-10-22 01:25 | User Profile
Great wintermute! Fantastic article!
It didnt began with Jews, and Jews are not the only responsible group.
In fact there is a coalition of Jewish with the heart of America, which is currupted and lives in an absurd illusion what the thruth should be = liberal-capitalistic-multiculturalism. The only difference between the right and the left wing is (and that just in very small portions) how they want to reach the goal.
America is sick, and maybe it was sick from independence. But at that time the roots of the Europeans prevented the worst, they could still remember were they came from and they knew that there land was big but not too strong.
Now, generations later when Americanism is the total perversion of European traditions, they did not only lost their roots, but they are also arrogant in their strength and idiotic believe in the superiority of their system. Just the ressources and European traditions allowed them to get big, not their superficial believe. As soon as they lose their roots totally and will just be superficial there will no longer be a strong state called the USA.
2003-10-22 06:56 | User Profile
Did anyone else here go and see the new movie about Luther and the Reformation?
2003-10-22 07:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]I kind of wanted to, last week, when I was being quite productive, orderly, civic-minded, and otherwise full of initiative - in other words, very Protestant!
But then the mood faded. The thought of Luther being passed off on the big screen as a soft-focus saint was a real mood killer.
If they had gotten Bill Paxton instead of Joe Finnes, and there was an inkpot throwing scene with a CGI devil, you can bet I would have been there!
Wintermute[/QUOTE]
Gene Hackman would have been my first choice.
Yes, he did fight the Devil while translating the Bible.
How did they spin him having a bunch of illegitimate kids with a nun?
2003-10-22 09:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]Weisbrot, shame on you.
How dare you refer to the Old Testament and Puritanism as 'an influence of an alien nature'! What would General ('our religion comes from Judaism')Boykin say?
You might be interested in the following article, 'America is a Religion', from the Guardian.
Jimmy Cantrell's comments in response to the article, posted below, are also quite interesting, and to my mind, persuasive.
The 'Judeo-Saxon complex', as I call it, (simply put: 'I am my brother's keeper/jailer' plus some cringing, idolatrous philosemitism), has been on these shores since the seventeenth century, being the result of a poison released into the UK by Cromwell. Most of the complaints lodged on this board are against features of the modern world which are a logical outgrowth of the malignant seeds of Jewish religion. -[/QUOTE]
I think your comments along this line in general are really quite similar to what Gottfried spoke of in [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=1652&highlight=gottfried]America's Decaying Protestants[/url]
2003-10-22 13:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]
Please pardon my rhetoric, it is entirely for the benefit of newcomers, and is not intended personally. I do think you will find both articles edifying.
Pardon granted. I did find both articles to be interesting. Cantrell's comments especially on Universalism are well-taken, although his hatred of all things English once again take a star turn. Such attitudes will surely be useful in the coming struggle against a common enemy. What doesn't kill us can only make us stronger, or some such rot.
Allow me to join other forum members in congratulating you on your subtle Jewish apologia (a la Gottfried), your commentary notwithstanding.
2004-02-15 21:27 | User Profile
Being a native of the Pelican State, I recently read the definitive biography of Huey Long. As he was preparing to run for the Presidency, he announced his "Share the Wealth" program:
All other taxes would be substantially lowered, meaning nearly everyone would pay little to no taxes. Though he never got a chance to work out the details, I can think of a number of implications of such a policy.
A. The media could not become concentrated into a few hands. B. "Dead money" inherited by mean-regressed heirs would be freed up. C. More economic opportunity for entrepreneurs (for example, there could not be a Wal-mart on every corner) in fields currently dominated by large corporations flexing economies of scale and barriers to entry to maintain lower prices that would be unsustainable for a small business. D. More entrepreneurism means a more independent electorate.
I don't endorse these policies, but it is interesting to see that Long may have been more of a visionary than generally given credit for. Media monopolies cannot be built on $130 million.
Overall, I had a positive impression of Huey; if conservatives would have stopped playing nice 5 decades ago and truly hated their enemies the passion and fire of Huey Long, then we would not be in our current position. Politics is war by other means, but it seems that our leaders see it as a minor inconvenience on the way to cocktail parties where they will fraternize gaily with the enemy.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Yet, despite the very real organismic nature of human groups, one of the great discoveries of all time was the Enlightenment's realization that GROUPS work better when a large degree of freedom is granted to individuals. Inherited privilege is a terrible threat to group health, due simply to the scientific fact (described much after Adam Smith) of "regression to the mean" - the marked tendency of highly talented individuals to produce more average offspring.
The problem with inherited privilege, then, is that the talented, ambitious and virtuous - whom Jefferson referred to as the "natural aristocracy" - were prevented from rising to their rightful leadership roles by the dead hand of prior generations of the talented and virtuous protecting the social position of their "mean regressed" progeny at the expense of the tribe/organism's good ordering. The American Revolution - the lovliest daughter of the British Enlightenment - was conceived by a self-conscious Natural Aristocracy made up of individual geniuses like Jefferson and Franklin, pitted against an aristocracy of inherited mediocrities personified by King George III.
[/QUOTE]
2004-02-16 04:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Medieval Christendom was in many ways a model of devolved power. The Empire was a legal (but very important) fiction. The Kings had to deal with local knights and squires, who in turn had to take care of their peasants. The whole thing was bound together with the cement of blood relations, guilds, and a myriad of religious orders who had their own agendas and property. It was chaotic yet orderly. It was, in a word, an ORGANISM and not an organization. It's hard for us to get that point, precisely because the victory of Protestantism and its atomistic view of human society is so complete that we can't conceive of another way.
I urge you to read David Sloan Wilson's "Darwin's Cathedral." Wilson describes the organic social organization of the Balinese around their temple - it regulates planting, watering, rodent control, and every other major issue of rice planting in a very large area. He talks about how when viewed from the air the whole area looks eerily like an ant colony. The reason is that we as a species have an instinct to organize ourselves socially around a common relgion. Once we have the commonality of religion, social organization arises spontaneously. Our religous instinct to organize ourselves around religious beliefs and symbols is as astonshingly powerful as our instinct for language. [/QUOTE] Wilson's thesis is that well-structured religions have proven to have temporal value; in the context of multilevel selection, they have proven adaptive in selection at the group level. Accordingly, it is plausible that psychological mechanisms such as those you posit should have evolved.
But I am more interested in your comments on medieval society and "natural order". This is a term of political philosophy that is illuminated by the writings of evolutionary biologists. At p. 240 of [I]Darwin's Cathedral[/I], Wilson acknowledges the connection between his ideas and those of Hayek:
"...group selection may have evolved mechanisms that cause individuals to participate in an adaptive economy with no more awareness of their roles than bees performing their waggle dances. The Nobel prize-winning economist F. Hayek (1988) speculated along these lines, properly invoking group selection."
More recently, Hans-Hermann Hoppe has elaborated on the concept of "natural order" in his excellent [I]Democracy: The God That Failed - The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order[/I] .
Returning to the biologists, Matt Ridley's [I]The Origins of Virtue [/I] offers considerable food for thought. His ultimate conclusion: a healthy community requires ... devolution.
2004-02-16 04:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]I highly doubt that problems would be solved if every Jew in the world were dead. A treacherous gentile elite with absolutely no loyalty to anything but $$$ would simply fill in the gaps. Would all of the couch potatoes, yuppies, wiggers, cheap labor seeking businessmen, soccer moms, etc all suddenly become enfused with some sense of ethno-cultural loyalty the moment the last Jew on Earth draws his final breath? No, they'll go on like they did before, completely atomized. [/QUOTE] You're overlooking the operation of cultural group selection.
Though it may seem a bit facile, one can characterize the effect of the Jewish community as akin to that attributed to HIV (though I do not dismiss Duesberg's contentions out of hand). The attack on cultural ties (as discussed in MacDonald's chapter on the Frankfurt School) constitutes, essentially, an attack on society's immune system. Part of this immune system includes mechanisms whereby both the commoners' and the elite's behavior is kept in line, with each stratum exercising social controls over the proximate strata. The centralization common to Jewish state-building enterprises destroys the mechanisms of bidirectional control; [I]i.e[/I]., it destroys the societal immune system. You may speculate that in the absence of influence from the Jewish community hyperindividualism (to use MacDonald's term) would continue. From a theoretical perspective, this cannot be true.
Societies possessing excessively hyperindividualistic elites would be disadvantaged in competition with societies with mechanisms that caused the elite to identify more closely with the group and, accordingly, temper their individualism. Groups with less exploitive elites would win out.
2004-02-16 07:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Wilson's thesis is that well-structured religions have proven to have temporal value; in the context of multilevel selection, they have proven adaptive in selection at the group level. Accordingly, it is plausible that psychological mechanisms such as those you posit should have evolved.
But I am more interested in your comments on medieval society and "natural order". This is a term of political philosophy that is illuminated by the writings of evolutionary biologists. At p. 240 of [I]Darwin's Cathedral[/I], Wilson acknowledges the connection between his ideas and those of Hayek:
"...group selection may have evolved mechanisms that cause individuals to participate in an adaptive economy with no more awareness of their roles than bees performing their waggle dances. The Nobel prize-winning economist F. Hayek (1988) speculated along these lines, properly invoking group selection."
More recently, Hans-Hermann Hoppe has elaborated on the concept of "natural order" in his excellent [I]Democracy: The God That Failed - The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order[/I] .
Returning to the biologists, Matt Ridley's [I]The Origins of Virtue [/I] offers considerable food for thought. His ultimate conclusion: a healthy community requires ... devolution.[/QUOTE]
Extremely interesting. Man, I wish I could keep up with this blistering reading pace you're setting for me!
I'll look into it as soon as I'm through with IRC Supart F!
Walter
2004-02-22 09:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TominTX]Being a native of the Pelican State, I recently read the definitive biography of Huey Long. As he was preparing to run for the Presidency, he announced his "Share the Wealth" program:
All other taxes would be substantially lowered, meaning nearly everyone would pay little to no taxes. Though he never got a chance to work out the details, I can think of a number of implications of such a policy.
A. The media could not become concentrated into a few hands. B. "Dead money" inherited by mean-regressed heirs would be freed up. C. More economic opportunity for entrepreneurs (for example, there could not be a Wal-mart on every corner) in fields currently dominated by large corporations flexing economies of scale and barriers to entry to maintain lower prices that would be unsustainable for a small business. D. More entrepreneurism means a more independent electorate.
I don't endorse these policies, but it is interesting to see that Long may have been more of a visionary than generally given credit for. Media monopolies cannot be built on $130 million.
Overall, I had a positive impression of Huey; if conservatives would have stopped playing nice 5 decades ago and truly hated their enemies the passion and fire of Huey Long, then we would not be in our current position. Politics is war by other means, but it seems that our leaders see it as a minor inconvenience on the way to cocktail parties where they will fraternize gaily with the enemy.[/QUOTE] It is no accident that whites at large know nothing of Huey P. Long.. This bio was written by T.Harry Williams, try to get a Hard Cover copy.. I say it is a very important missing/unknown part of our country's political history.. Truly the best bio I have ever read, and it truly affected me about my out look on our country.. I read this book in 1975, and I could find no one at the time that wanted to talk about it, including Bolshevik so called Univeristy History professor's. It is was a fact that F.D.R. was after him, and a Dr. Henry Wiess shot Huey....