← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident

Ecumenism

Thread ID: 11562 | Posts: 106 | Started: 2003-12-21

Texas Dissident [OP]

2003-12-21 11:26 | User Profile

Though usually used in a religious context, I believe the term ecumenism can also be applied to the political and cultural efforts of greater white nationalism. So looking beyond the simple poll question, if ecumenism is a worthwhile pursuit, exactly on what key issues can we agree and also agree to disagree? I know we've touched on this here and there throughout the board, but I thought it was high time we focused our collective efforts into one thread.

Please, serious replies only, but everybody put your two cents in. We don't really have any hard-core disrupters here, but if they jump in on this topic with distracting comments their replies will be erased. This is for the sober-minded men among us who are looking forward to growing this thing in 2004 and beyond.

Walter Yannis

2003-12-21 18:01 | User Profile

I used to think that it is, but my experience on OD and elsewhere has convinced me that I can't work with Nazis.

My efforts will be restricted to working with Christians, of all stripes. And agnostics of good will, I guess. But it's really pointless to try to make common cause with people who hold your religion in contempt. And vice versa, I should add.

So, my opinion is that we should focus on building a Christian nationalist movement, and keep out all others.

I know that this is a change in opinion for me, but so be it. It's getting too late in the day for the debating society. It's time to move on to more concrete actions.

Walter

theaustrian

2003-12-21 20:47 | User Profile

--As someone who has wondered from Christianity, to 'evangelical agnosticism' (i.e., I didn't know that God didn't exist, but I knew you didn't know either), back to Christianity, I would say it is imperative that we be more ecumenical than is allowed by a purely Christian white nationalism. The fact is, youth and Christianity are often feuding cousins, and you have to wait for people to return to the fold, even while they might be good white nationalists while in the wilderness.

--I am more interested in excluding fans of big government. I can tolerate some swipes at 'capitalism,' which I see often, but those who actually want a greater level of state involvement in the economy than we already have are making arguments that put a smile on Mr.Zionist-Jew-CIA-agent's face, along with the faces of all the equality-harping race-traitors out there.

Thus ecumenism on classical liberalism vs. anarcho-capitalism vs. some kind of Bismarckian arrangment is fine; it's a big tent. But those who want white nationalism with a socialist face need to burned alive.

--No Muslims who do regularly lie down on the ground in shame at the horrors of their co-religionists.

--No one who advocates genocide as a solution.

--Those who think Jews are no longer the main threat need to be allowed to occupy the center of the white nationalist movement, should they choose to move toward that area.

Valley Forge

2003-12-21 21:35 | User Profile

Yes, an ecumenical approach to White Nationalism is desperately needed.

We all need to put aside our differences and work to further the interests of our race.

Nazis and other strict biological racialists who who hold Christians in contempt, and Christians who hold Nazis and other strict biological racialists in contempt, only play into the hands of our real enemy.

Unfortunately, at this point it appears that both sides will probably go down together.

Valley Forge

2003-12-21 21:44 | User Profile

The only people who should be excluded from the movement are those who don't believe that fighting for White interests must be placed above all if any of us are to achieve our goals -- whatever those goals may be (practicing Christianity, praticing atheism, living in a Capitalist society, living in a Socialist society, etc.).

theaustrian

2003-12-21 21:58 | User Profile

Nazis are a bit more than strict biological racialists. The Nazis were further mass murderers who denigrated human freedom (yes, even for Aryans).

If white nationalists, Christian or otherwise, do not reject un-reformed Nazism--it is THEN that we will go down in flames. As it stands, we have a bright future of genetic engineering, ocean and subterranean dwelling possibilities, and space colonization ahead of us. So save your pennies.

[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Yes, an ecumenical approach to White Nationalism is desperately needed.

We all need to put aside our differences and work to further the interests of our race.

Unfortunately, at this point it appears that both sides will probably go down together.[/QUOTE]

wild_bill

2003-12-21 22:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Yes, an ecumenical approach to White Nationalism is desperately needed.

We all need to put aside our differences and work to further the interests of our race.

Unfortunately, at this point it appears that both sides will probably go down together.[/QUOTE]

I tend to be against ecumenicalism in religion, but I would work politically with any racialist who isn't anti-Christian. I refuse to support any person or organization who's eventual goal is the eradication of Christianity. Besides, any pro-white group that wants to destroy Christianity will fail anyway.

Regards, Wild Bill

madrussian

2003-12-21 22:59 | User Profile

This pre-emptive qualifying "agnostics of good faith" by Walter Yannis doesn't work very well to break the barriers. And why this focus on the "Nazis"? Do you have to talk about the same subject as the zhids?

This model of Christians being Elder Brothers won't work in the increasingly secular white society. To give you an example, many Eastern Europeans are secular, mostly the result of the Bolshevik rule; does that make them inferior, while many like to point out how people from that area don't have the same inhibitions about naming the zhid or seeing the world in a more tribal way?

Franco

2003-12-22 01:40 | User Profile

My thoughts: sounds great. Ecumenicalism in a pan-European-culture context is a good idea.

I only bash Christian people who drop the race-ball. Which is too often, as a general rule in Amerikwa 2003 [a Goldsilverfeldwitzberg production featuring white leftists and mainstream conned-swervatives as eager helpmates, yep-yep-yep].

If you carry the race-ball to the end zone each time, hey, we be pals, bro! Word, my brotha-man! But if ya don't carry the race-ball all the way each time, we ain't pals, no siree. See that diff?? Word! Jus' keepin' it real, yaknowswhatumsayin? Gitdown!

If you be a Christian, fine, jus' don't go 'round sayin' dat peepo be eeeekwal! Dey ain't! Yo, betta recognize...

:king:

Okiereddust

2003-12-22 08:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]My thoughts: sounds great. Ecumenicalism in a pan-European-culture context is a good idea.

If you be a Christian, fine, jus' don't go 'round sayin' dat peepo be eeeekwal! Dey ain't! Yo, betta recognize...

:king:[/QUOTE]You talk more like a bro. :afro: :lol:

I still remember you're definition of friend vs. enemy - friend names joo 100% of the time - enemy names joo only 9% of the time.

Franco, I wouldn't mind you talking like a bro, if you didn't seem to think like one too :lol:

Okiereddust

2003-12-22 08:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]I tend to be against ecumenicalism in religion, but I would work politically with any racialist who isn't anti-Christian. I refuse to support any person or organization who's eventual goal is the eradication of Christianity. Besides, any pro-white group that wants to destroy Christianity will fail anyway.

Regards, Wild Bill[/QUOTE]I tend to agree with you on eucumenicalism. Eucumenicalism was basically the belief that religious groups could come together, because the things that divided them i.e. their religious cultures and traditions, weren't very important. Only problem was that was also the only thing that united them, at least as religious groups, or in a genuine sense according to the word eucumenicism.

Nationalism faces the same problem. How are say paleo's believing in the restoration of constitutional rights, real democracy, and Christian values, going to work with Nazi's believing constitional rights, democracy, and Christian values are all Jewish tricks, to be destroyed ASAP? Its a tough thing.

I think the only thing that can unite us is real flexibility and understanding. People have to be willing to go beyond their superficial pampheteers slogans to the transcendent cultural, historical, and spiritual values that unite us.

In practice I think that is quite difficult, which is why ultra-nationalist movements tend to be dictatorial. To paraphrase Al Capone, sometimes, kind words between groups just don't work. A kind word and a gun goes quite a bit further.

Texas Dissident

2003-12-22 08:28 | User Profile

Franco,

As I stated, this is to be a suit and tie thread. Please consider an edit.

Texas Dissident

2003-12-22 08:52 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Nationalism faces the same problem. How are say paleo's believing in the restoration of constitutional rights, real democracy, and Christian values, going to work with Nazi's believing constitional rights, democracy, and Christian values are all Jewish tricks, to be destroyed ASAP? Its a tough thing.

A difficult (impossible?) task, no doubt. I think it is impossible to have every member of every faction, from top to bottom, completely in agreement. That is why I would tend to focus more on the various leaderships involved. A little bird recently told me that in Poland at the very earliest stages of the solidarity movement, there were perhaps no more than 100 leaders putting their minds together on what and where to go. The Church was obviously a central rallying point, but others not of the faith were certainly not excluded with the consideration of the larger problem looming over all others.

I wonder what is possible if we had 100 influential leaders on the same page in such a fashion. I agree with Walter and wild bill in the difficulty of working with those whose main or close to main goal is to stamp out the True Faith. But if co-respect can be attained in the eternal questions, then I am of the mind that temporal alliances can be forged if the various leaders of different factions are sensible and sober-minded enough to agree to disagree on some things and responsible enough to refrain from counter-productive attacks and petty disputes. It is of course human nature for leaders to jealously guard their respective turf, but perhaps we can influence the hearts and minds of a new leadership class that is yet to come of age.

Okiereddust

2003-12-22 09:01 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]This pre-emptive qualifying "agnostics of good faith" by Walter Yannis doesn't work very well to break the barriers.

Good faith is a minimum in an coalition, you don't need to distort him to make him sound patronizing.

And why this focus on the "Nazis"? Do you have to talk about the same subject as the zhids? The example of this forum is ample evidence that Nazi's and the Nazi threat to western civilization is not just something that the Zhids thought up out of their imagination.

This model of Christians being Elder Brothers won't work in the increasingly secular white society.

Again, he wasn't trying to be patronizing. Is requesting pending basic common courtesy patronizing to you? (I know you're Russian - still ;)

To give you an example, many Eastern Europeans are secular, mostly the result of the Bolshevik rule; does that make them inferior, while many like to point out how people from that area don't have the same inhibitions about naming the zhid or seeing the world in a more tribal way?[/QUOTE]I don't think I'm being patronizing to say it definitely makes them different. Ones history always does affect you. It seems somewhat to this American mind that the there is a certain amount of insouciance toward Christians central and eastern europeans have picked up from their jewish bolshevic masters of many years, just as eastern europeans see a similar jewish lameness that westerners have picked up from being ruled by jewish media and worshipping in a predominantly philojewish religious culture.

Its a barrier of understanding. In the short term, I think we have so much to learn from each other it can and will be overcome. Long term I think though we'll have to come up with something better. Both of our societies I think need to not only discover but make positive progress in returning to our pre-philojewish spiritual roots to survive.

TexasAnarch

2003-12-22 12:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Though usually used in a religious context, I believe the term ecumenism can also be applied to the political and cultural efforts of greater white nationalism. So looking beyond the simple poll question, if ecumenism is a worthwhile pursuit, exactly on what key issues can we agree and also agree to disagree? I know we've touched on this here and there throughout the board, but I thought it was high time we focused our collective efforts into one thread.[/QUOTE]

Granted: a. everyone here merits higher seats in the throne Beyond, just for the excellence of work on a sustained basis done to bring it to this point; and b. saying the right thing straight-out, directly, at the right moment in the right way is something I never got the hang of; neverless .. I post here because it is, like the university, where the full-mix of wave-fronts are allowed to clash, honestly. Like rare trace plants in the herb garden, all species should get to put in roots. The spicier the better. To have survived this long is to have been opposed by forces weaker than one's own individuality,

It keeps coming back to that, and that keeps coming back to "South" (and "Southwest"), with threads here exploring "Why"?, which is imminently reasonable to address. It is because The Force resides where there is continuous individuality through thrauma; wars of independence are defining group-traumas; and those who identify historically with the South's cause (independence and self-determination) -- which ought to include open-minded and fair Northrens -- have had families marred by two of them, and never intend to forget it. The ones who have monied into power today have taken something that was not theirs, but ours, as a governing idea. They violated codes of decency, morality, statescraft, to a staggering degree; have now exhausted their intellectual, psychological, material capital; but show no awareness of what they have caused or their accountability for causing it. They have opened "the storehouses of world hatred" against America.

We are living, you are guiding this spacecraft, through a true wrinkle in time, TD. What Carl Jung called a "catraspohic enantiodromia" -- the turning of direction of a psychological process into its opposite; reversal -- can be documented to have occurred. This precipitates (according to him) a crisis counter-response. the reality-collapse of the official grammar bringing chaos and disunity, compensated by Iron Man on White Horse, Napoleon, or Hitler syndrome. One of the chief things that drove him up the wall is occurring now, in case OD members hadn't noticed: Jews pushing identity politics (theirs) behind cover of various (what are called here) ideological movements. Divisions on issues here should not be made on the basis of conflicts originating there, IMO. I have never been scared of "communism", "socialism", "liberalism", any more than by "Nazism", "fascism", "KKK"ism, "White Nationalist", "FBI", or "CIA", all of these, and more, as mere labels, amounting on my scale of reality determinants, as "-X" magnitudes. As long as I stand my Southern, White, Protestant, Confederate, (west) Texas male ground, by history, blood, and truth, other labels that others use, for themselves and each other, fall in line. In a way I respect them all. It must be the same with them, which is why (or should be why) there is democracy. I refuse to become encoiled in other's karmic intrigues, and advocate saying this out loud. At this stage, the way it looks to me, no objective person, leader or otherwise, can relate to the reality of what has taken place unless they understand this particular forum. That should be enough karma to sail home on, be it beyond Sirius B. There is a lot of stuff here.

By keeping it as open and free as you can, you provide the greatest service, and the strongest force, for defining ("grammatizing") the highly volatile situation honestly.

For times to come.

Walter Yannis

2003-12-22 16:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]This pre-emptive qualifying "agnostics of good faith" by Walter Yannis doesn't work very well to break the barriers. And why this focus on the "Nazis"? Do you have to talk about the same subject as the zhids?

Hey, if the Nazis can help us win our freedom, then I won't stand in their way.

I'm just saying that it's pointless for me to try to work with them. And I think for other Christians.

Walter

Walter Yannis

2003-12-22 16:27 | User Profile

Thanks for the above, Okie.

I should add that a shared religion is essential to our success.

Humans organize themselves naturally around religious symbols and beliefs. Once we have that commonality of belief and practice, then the actions will flow naturally from that. Organization is natural - organic - for humans in this way. It's as natural as our talent for language or our propsensity for trade. Commerce arises naturally and it expands organically under a few simple rules. It's the same for any social movement the proceeds from religion.

Read "Darwin's Cathedral" - the author does a great job of describing this startling fact of our existence.

I'm convinced that we will succeed only to the extent we can unite in common religious belief and cult. The Nazis succeeded temporarily because they believed and worshipped in a uniform way, and because those beliefs and rituals lead organically to spontaneous organization on a vast scale. The same with Jewish Bolshevism. You didn't have to tell a German Nazi or a Jewish Bolshevik what to do or how to organize - they did it naturally out of a response to their deepest instinctive longings.

We need to replicate that. And that means for me Christianity. Indeed, I think if viewed objectively Nazism and Bolshevism are both just bad fits for our circumstances and our needs, and that Christianity fits the bill.

Walter

theaustrian

2003-12-22 17:40 | User Profile

Consider the situation in Asia, where a person may follow and respect many religions. So it should be with white nationalist: yes, we need unity of a common spirituality, but it may be spread over Christian and post-Christian belief systems both.

Especially in Europe, Christianity is a tough sell. But changes in Christian can be the rudder that drives changes in wider white spirituality.

The fact is, Christianity is the moral compass of the West. It sets the core guiding beliefs for the masses, not more reason-based approaches. Even the Europeans are still bound by Christian spirit--indeed, in some ways, more than Americans are. Change the compass, the whole ship will move.

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Thanks for the above, Okie.

I should add that a shared religion is essential to our success.

Read "Darwin's Cathedral" - the author does a great job of describing this startling fact of our existence.

Walter[/QUOTE]

madrussian

2003-12-22 19:06 | User Profile

You can take my input or dismiss it. As far as I am concerned, the mentality exhibited by some is already a failure. Don't make Okie a designated negotiatior :lol:

Ragnar

2003-12-22 20:45 | User Profile

Saying the movement needs this religion or that is useless till there actually is a movement. Elites define the revolution. In 1776 the crucial elites were Freemasons. Masonry is ecumenical up to a point.

The most successful "pamphleteers" are harbingers of the revolution, again using 1776 as a guide. Tom Paine and his brothers set the agenda fairly well in those days.

In ours, it seems there is a huge market being developed by the likes of David Icke, Jeff Rense and Australia's Nexus magazine. The latter has already infuenced policy Down Under, and Icke has been thrown out of Canada (for anti-semitism?!?) even as his books and videos sell in the millions. Far more than VNN or the NA, these people are creating a widespread change in the way people are thinking.

The thing about Rense, Icke and Nexus is that they are not Christian in the least but are appealing to the people mainstream Christianity has abandoned, the ones dismissed as "New Agers." It's a fact that dispossession infuences people to join new cults, as the history of Christianity seems to suggest.

There's where the ecumenism is right now, though. It's the fringe where people agree that the current situation is untenable and accept everything else as moot while they work to change it. Applying a religious litmus test to this situation - which at the moment is both fragile and fluid - would make no sense at all.

My guess is that there will be a revolutionary elite equivalent to the Masons of '76. Likely they will be vaguely New Age in some parts and fairly Christian elsewhere, and they will learn to get along for the duration. And this assessment isn't as strange as it sounds. The last article I read by Texx Marrs sounded like outtakes from David Icke's new book.

Ecumenism might be a good attitude for alliances when the shooting starts.

Texas Dissident

2003-12-22 20:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]We are living, you are guiding this spacecraft, through a true wrinkle in time, TD. What Carl Jung called a "catraspohic enantiodromia" -- the turning of direction of a psychological process into its opposite; reversal -- can be documented to have occurred. This precipitates (according to him) a crisis counter-response. [/QUOTE]

Had to look up 'enantiodromia', TA. Interesting concept and something I'd be interested in reading more about if you had a link or something. If I'm understanding you correctly, I'm getting your basic point to be making sure the dialogue stays free and open and most of this stuff will work itself out(?).

Franco

2003-12-22 23:59 | User Profile

Tex --

Ok, I will post a serious post to counter my prior, less-serious post.

All Whites must put aside their differences and work together. Yes, I know that is tough to do sometimes. But it must be stressed that our freedom flows from race. Our culture flows from race. Meaning? Meaning that race must trump all other factors when you view an issue. When you see something happen, you must think, "how does this effect Whites as a whole?" And then warn others, and explain how that event effects them racially.

Sadly, many paleos/Christians do not put race as the central issue. Big mistake. Jews put Jews-as-a-race first, not simply Judaism the religion. See? Big difference. That's the nugget. Focus, people, focus! Eye on the ball!

I can work with anyone who puts race first, and I will work with them.

Valley Forge

2003-12-23 01:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] the Nazi threat to western civilization is not just something that the Zhids thought up out of their imagination.[/QUOTE]

The Nazi threat to Western civilization?

Isn't that a little harsh, given that thus far Hitler and the Nazis have been the only ones with the courage to stand toe to toe with the great destroyers of Western civilization: world Jewry and Bolshevism.

Let's give credit where credit is due.

Valley Forge

2003-12-23 02:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]

Sadly, many paleos/Christians do not put race as the central issue. Big mistake. [/QUOTE]

You're right. This stubborn refusal on the part of most paleos/ Christian conservatives to make race the main issue is very foolish.

What none of them seem to want to admit is that unless they're operating within an all White social context, the chance that paleos/ Christian conservatives will achieve their goals is ZERO.

On the other hand, Alex Linder and the hardcore anti-Christian VNN types can be just as short sighted. They don't make the mistake of not putting race first, obviously -- they just do everything in their power to drive away the majority of the world's Whites -- White Christians.

Bottom line:

-- The paloes/ Christian conservatives won't accomplish anything unless they make race the main issue in the political/ social realm.

-- Howver, the VNN/ modern-day Nazi types won't accomplish anything either unless they find a way to appeal to Christians.

madrussian

2003-12-23 04:04 | User Profile

The majority of the world's whites are probably areligious.

Okiereddust

2003-12-23 05:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Valley Forge]The Nazi threat to Western civilization?

Let's give credit where credit is due.[/QUOTE]

Since the hard-core Nazi sympathizers have been epleted, maybe its just time to come out and say it.

Yes, I'll give credit, where it is due. Hitler lost all of Europe to Marxism. H lost all of Eastern Europe to Stalinist Bolshevism (eastern marxism), and all of western europe to cultural or western marxism.

So he uttered some nice-sounding words. Ye shall know a prophet by his fruits. Hitler was the occultic priest of nationalism who, while he did incalculate the proper religion in his followers, promptly sent them off to sacrifice themselves.

Hitler was no friend of nationalism, and those who get wet when we utter unkind words on der fuehrer are the ones who prevent nationalism from ever going anywhere.

Okiereddust

2003-12-23 05:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]The majority of the world's whites are probably areligious.[/QUOTE]

And they are also philosemitic, are they not? Ever tie the two together? Who created this secularism?

Judaism after all is the weltenshaung summa cum laude of secularism.

I don't think any secular doctrine will ever be able to offrer serious resistance to Judaism. You can't out-Joo the Joo's. Either the movement will be taken over by Jews, (secular conservatism) or will just turn out to be mirror-image Judaism (National Socialism) and thus basically ineffective at the core.

Walter Yannis

2003-12-23 05:46 | User Profile

We need to form a Christian-nationalist core group that acts independently from all others, yet that can cooperate with other groups - and move to defend itself from same - as the situation develops.

I have no idea how that will happen, but I would certainly be willing to join such a group and work hard to ensure its success. Just as a matter of pure speculation, we might consider looking at the movement of Evangelicals to Orthodoxy that made considerable gains in America. A "meeting in the middle," so to speak. Maybe. It's something I'd consider carefully.

As it is, far too many conversations here devolve into useless bickering because we don't agree on the fundamentals. Oh, we agree that blacks are a problem and that the Tribe is trying to destroy us, but those are merely symptoms and not the disease itself. Our problems are far deeper than that. We're soul-sick as a people, and only religion can address the underlying problem.

The question is not whether we will have a religion, because Evolution decided that question for us aeons ago. We will have a religion because we are hardwired for that - you might as well ask your computer to erase its operating system. The only question is which religion we will choose.

Nazism and Christianity are conflicting religions, and there can be no common ground between them. While war makes strange bedfellows and we Christian nationalists could make temporary alliances with the Nazis (or even the Communists for that matter if it suits us), the time and place would ultimately come when the knives would come out. It does no good to deny that fact. There really can be no peace with an Alex Linder - not in the long run, at least. It would always come down to him or us.

And I choose us.

So, what's the point of even trying in the first place? The best hope that we have is to form a Christian movement, and jettison all others. I say light that one little candle and let it shine. And may a thousand flowers bloom - heck, they're with us so long as they're not against us.

But the point I'm trying to make is that we'll be far more effective on our own, without the constant distraction caused by endless disagreement on the most fundamental questions of our own souls.

IMHO.

Walter

madrussian

2003-12-23 05:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]And they are also philosemitic, are they not? [/QUOTE]

Why do you think so? Secularism doesn't promote philo-semitism unlike Judeo-"Christianity".

If I to take the members of this board as an indicator, the most hardcore "anti-semites" are secular, it seems.

Walter Yannis

2003-12-23 05:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]And they are also philosemitic, are they not? Ever tie the two together? Who created this secularism?

Judaism after all is the weltenshaung summa cum laude of secularism.

That's exactly right.

The problem is the anti-Christian animus that drives both Judaism and its kabbalistic gentile form freemasonry. The American founding was flawed from the beginning, precisely because as pointed out above so many of the Founders were infected with masonic gnosticism.

America will never be a good country so long as it carries pagan-masonic symbols on its money and in its state architecture.

As I said, the disease runs deep, and the only antidote to the infection of demonic lesser gods of freemasonry, Nazism and the kabbalah is Christ and Him Crucified.

Give it to them straight up without a chaser, I say.

Walter

madrussian

2003-12-23 05:57 | User Profile

How do you work around the majority in your respective denominations to form a Christian-Natioalist group? To form a group which spans several denominations united by their nationalism? Then is Christianity going to be any more than a requirement to qualify, but not actually something that is an intrinsic ideology?

madrussian

2003-12-23 06:01 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]You can't out-Joo the Joo's. [/QUOTE]

It's not only about the zhid. It's about other parasites too. There is no doubt in my mind that whites will have to become more tribal. Tribal isn't the same as zhid.

And you haven't addressed the issue of Christianity in America, that has largely degenerated into Judeo-"Christianity", and as such is promoting philo-semitism.

Metternich

2003-12-23 06:10 | User Profile

Working with people like this is neither possible or desirable:

[url]http://www.vnnforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26[/url]

Walter Yannis

2003-12-23 06:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]How do you work around the majority in your respective denominations to form a Christian-Natioalist group? To form a group which spans several denominations united by their nationalism? Then is Christianity going to be any more than a requirement to qualify, but not actually something that is an intrinsic ideology?[/QUOTE]

Those are all great questions that we'll have to answer. I don't know how that will unfold.

The point is, however, that it's an intramural question that non-Christians need not concern themselves with.

Walter

Walter Yannis

2003-12-23 06:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]Why do you think so? [I]Secularism doesn't promote philo-semitism unlike Judeo-"Christianity".[/I] If I to take the members of this board as an indicator, the most hardcore "anti-semites" are secular, it seems.[/QUOTE]

You're getting it exactly backwards.

Before the masonic-secularist infection, popular Christianity was virulently anti-Pharisee. Luther, Rome and Orthodoxy had that in common.

The French Revolution and its violent secularism was the vehicle for the emancipation of the Tribe in Europe and their entry into the polity. The tribe with their simmering hatred for Christ and His Church gained a voice amplified a hundred fold by their money, tribal cohesion, and predatory ways.

This suggests that the answer to Tribal domination is to smash secularism and to re-institute the Church Triumphant, and most emphatically NOT a further accomodation of secularism.

Walter

Okiereddust

2003-12-23 07:50 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]Why do you think so? Secularism doesn't promote philo-semitism unlike Judeo-"Christianity".

If I to take the members of this board as an indicator, the most hardcore "anti-semites" are secular, it seems.[/QUOTE]Well I don't think you're really knowledgable to say what Christianity basically does politically. Modern American Scofield dispensationalism has ben adapted to a sort of philosemitism (although even that is considerably overrated) but that doesn't mean Christianity is philosemitic and needs to be secularized. Au contraire it is the cultural and theological secularization of Christianity that has made it philosemitic.

Anyway, secular-anti-semites seem fixated on Robertson and Farwell. Really the vast majority of Christendom in the US think Robertson and Farwell are a joke, and privately and very often publically berate them at every opportunity. When anti-semitites become fixated on the Jerry and Pat show they become a joke too.

Philosemitism is not intrinsicically apart of Christianity, never was, for 1900 years. Sure Jews dominate the culture and they bully it to their own ends, just like in Soviet Russia seminary education was basically communist ideology. But that didn't make real Christianity communist.

While Christianity is intrinsically antithetical to philosemitism, secularism seems to me to have a hard time differentiating itself from Judaism. Like secularism, Judaism is a world view fixated on material success, acquisition, and political hegonomy, which has no concept of life after death.

Secular antisemitism just seems to be degenerative philosophically into just basic tribal rivalry as you allude. That's something Jews have perfected for centuries, with the goyim and among themselves. It doesn't excite me.

Okiereddust

2003-12-23 08:05 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Those are all great questions that we'll have to answer. I don't know how that will unfold.

The point is, however, that it's an intramural question that non-Christians need not concern themselves with.

Walter[/QUOTE]I know this may sound a little snippy Walter to MR. I don't think you meant to sound this way.

Basically I think there are two aspects of philosemitism in American Christianity, the Scofieldism type (f the premils) and the liberal type (of the mainstream Churches.

That of the mainstream Churches isreally no differentthan contemporary left-wing secular philosemitism (that of the protolerance people). As a religious matter I consider it to be a non-issue.

That of the Scofieldites tends to be overrated, but I think it has obtained a little bit of cultural traction because of popular literature. (The left-behind series).

I think legitimately nationalists have a right top be concerned about this. It is a serious internal issue in Christianity that concerns non-believers, the same way Child molesting priests is an issue for non-believers. Maybe not as an internal Church related aspects, but it definitely is when these priests start working in the community with our kids. Non-believers don't really have a concern about Church doctrinal but they certainly do have a concern about the safety of their kids.

I do think orthodox Christians need to do more to expose the heretical Israelo-idolatry of the Scofieldites and Christian Zionists. Maybe we should start circulating a letter pronouncing anathema's on the Israeli-firsters or something. I don't know.

Although I do think that there are a lot of anti-Israeli firster activiy among Christian Churches the Linderites don't ever seem to give us much credit for.

TexasAnarch

2003-12-23 17:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Had to look up 'enantiodromia', TA. Interesting concept and something I'd be interested in reading more about if you had a link or something. If I'm understanding you correctly, I'm getting your basic point to be making sure the dialogue stays free and open and most of this stuff will work itself out(?).[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.anton-heyboer.org/i_ching/hex_17-32/29-30.htm[/url]

This is a quote from where I took it, gleaned off google "feeling lucky"! Don't want to say "great minds", but will sure risk "great threads"!

I see the concept of "reversals" in sign-use, when the texts of words don'r jibe with, but actually turn into the opposite (in some respect) what they apply to ... as in sight gags, or ludicrous agit prop scenarios. Rudy Giuliani on CNN this am, for instance, telling Soledad O'brian "That's the way life is", after she asked "How can you say 'go on with your daily affairs, when the terror alert is so high?" What has been reversed is the assumption about what it is to go on normally with daily life.

Similarly, use of single words to bridge opposed domains, as "ecumenism" does religion and politics. (OK, unless both get "faith-based", and its Bush's. Actually, I disapprove of it for (what jews call) "your religion", holding that Baptists, for instance, should share communion only with those of like confession, since doing it together is part of the act of doing it at all (as opposed to citizenship responsibilities, done from necessity).

That could well be a key. It is the necessities imposed by collective existence (what each person invokes by references to "the planet" and "mythological motifs" (!), "world soul", and the like -- never challenging themselves to take responsibility for a single one of these, or their implications) that requires an "ecumenical" outlook in politics. (Remember that great line of Walter's back somewhere -- how pro-zionist christians burden his soul, just being American, and who could disagree?)

By keeping the gates of discourse wide open here, letting everybody go off on everybody else to their hearts content, with cell-phones to Neo-Malvo's dark-tinted Lexus pop-up head turrets (I know - blacktie and tails, but like FBI chief Mueller said of Israel suicide bombers last summer, coming here: "It's inevitable" -- and remember Burl Ives as Big Daddy crashing the Colonel's daughter party?!), the future default position is established. It is a rock propaganda can only splash against. There is something about sheer truth, objectivity, and accuracy that automatically puts jewishness and cryto-jewishness on the other side, existentially, conceptually, and perceptually. Although I did not know that two years ago (except the objectivity part).

[SIZE=2]..his hands froze to the reins he could of made it, but he couldn't leave old Dan It was just a 100 yards to Mary Ann[/SIZE]

madrussian

2003-12-23 17:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] This suggests that the answer to Tribal domination is to smash secularism and to re-institute the Church Triumphant, and most emphatically NOT a further accomodation of secularism. [/QUOTE]

Sounds good, but too good to be feasible. You'll HAVE to work with non-Christian whites if you want to have any hope for success.

White nationalism needs Christians of good faith, brother :whstl:

madrussian

2003-12-23 17:53 | User Profile

Okie,

Okiereddust

2003-12-23 19:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]Okie,

you've made a great effort to sound reasonable. As far as the issue of how popular the nutty Judeo-"Christianity" is in the US, you can go from forum to forum and see numerical superiority of "Jesus was a Jew" crowd over sane individuals. How come?[/QUOTE]Well for starters very few forums, besides this (at least on thhis issue) and Liberty Forum of course, are free speech forums. And I think it is an issue (the religious significance of the state of Israel to Christians) where most people are not highly knowledgable (actually not knowledgable at all) and public discourse is easily framed by a few highly opinionated and reasonably knowledgable (about religion and politics) people, i.e. the extremists.

Now which is easier to be in public (or forum) life, judeophilic or judeophobic, Israelo credulous or Israelo skeptic? That's why the left-behind school so dominates.

Now privately, Christian leaders are not suckers about what Judaism is up to. Look at the book Pat Robertson published, The New World Order.

I think someone sat down with him after that and made it clear the consequences if he continued to talk about subjects like that. And like so many preachers, in the words of Jesus

They loved the praises of men more than the praise of God

madrussian

2003-12-23 19:21 | User Profile

You'd think the censored zhid-aware traditional Christians would create a formidable presense on free-speach forums. The same LF, for example. Care to compare the number of Judeo-"Christians" on FR to zhid-aware public on LF?

Come on, the problem is there and it's been admitted as much by the Church-going public on this forum. Now, of course there is a vision of the future more traditional Church, and the glorious past of the zhid-aware Church.

Okiereddust

2003-12-23 20:25 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]You'd think the censored zhid-aware traditional Christians would create a formidable presense on free-speach forums. The same LF, for example. Care to compare the number of Judeo-"Christians" on FR to zhid-aware public on LF?

Well "zhid-aware" Christians are a substantial force if you look at the number of posters overall. But IMO they suffer from a lack of a forum really sympathetic to their viewpoint. Even this forum, which is really as good as any, is off course hardly any cakewalk, even for the administrators.

Christians I think by nature prefer to discuss "the jewish question" in a broader overall context, rather than just being single-issue johny's. This limits their participation, strongly discouraging it in fact IMO, in forums that tend to be anti-Christian, like albeit in different ways both libertarians and Linderites are. Christians aren't comfortable at the smut-filled pro-pornography Liberty Forum, much less the rapidly anti-Christian VNN and Stormfront.

Come on, the problem is there and it's been admitted as much by the Church-going public on this forum. Now, of course there is a vision of the future more traditional Church, and the glorious past of the zhid-aware Church.[/QUOTE] There is a problem of course. But I don't know exactly how to solve it. Too much overt hostility actually can turn off, not just the Noadite imbeciles, but even Christian people who are knowledgable and sympathetic to our cause.

The poster named after our innermost planet as we all know is a prime example.

madrussian

2003-12-23 21:16 | User Profile

Excuses, excuses...

What next, you'll complain about turning off GOP suporters?

Ragnar

2003-12-23 22:09 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Too much overt hostility actually can turn off, not just the Noadite imbeciles, but even Christian people who are knowledgable and sympathetic to our cause.[/QUOTE]

Hostility and disagreement aren't synonyms. There's way too much sensitivity on this issue sometimes. From both sides.

White Christians and white pagans have lots in common. They keep forgetting that. Ecumenism, at the very least, should acknowledge that the godman duelism of the ancient European tribes had lots of similarities to the much-later arrival of Christianity.

If we do not acknowledge facts like this, we are stuck with believing that our ancestors were building, creating and developing in Europe for around 40,000 years waiting for word from Canaan so they could be "good".

Better to give and take on this issue.

TexasAnarch

2003-12-24 01:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ragnar]Hostility and disagreement aren't synonyms. There's way too much sensitivity on this issue sometimes. From both sides.

Better to give and take on this issue.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand. As if to go back behind 0 a.d. is to go back to a Jewish pre-history? Or to some undocumented 34,000 year old preparation period? No. The prehistory of the Hebcrew Bible is in Sumaria -- certified. (Where US soldiers now guard the Menorah.) The Old Testament, at the Genesis end, opens out onto the pre-flood, pre-Noahitic period (before division of the then-known world into Shem, Ham and Japheth territories). No one knows just what happened during the 4,000 years in between, with the Abraham, Joseph, Moses, King David, Daniel and Joseph of Aramathea, but it relates to Melchizideks (separate lineage of heaven-earth beings at "Salem" when Abraham passed through originally) and can be viewed as preparatory. The further one goes back in history, the more primitive the conditions of child-rearing become, and that's across the board. (cf L. deMause, Foundations of Psychohistory, Ch. 1). Routinely killed, abused, beaten and eaten. Its been a long struggle to get adults to leave their kids alone. The Jews represented an advance in this respect, earlier; then Christians did, later. Like genetic boosts. Everything preceding as "godsaviorhero stories" for the little ones is like archtypal sagas, hardly about "humans" at all. (Osiris, for instance, invariably cited by the its-all-myth crowd, was cut up into 14 pieces by his brother Seth with a Sethknife; then, his body-parts re-assembled and brought to life somehow by sister Isis, who supplies a wooden phallus for the revived 13 minus 1 mummy-part guy, with which she impregnates herself and gives birth to Horus, another KRSHNACHRISTOS godman from antiquity. Semi-learned wiseacring, all of it.) Names of Ages, and Places become personified and personalized, presumably in personality types some individuals represent [B]par excellence[/B]. There wasn't, couldn't have been but One for Pisces. Boost lasted 2,000 years and had something in it belonging to the cosmos itself, going over into Aquarius if it can escape "Zion".

Ragnar

2003-12-24 03:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]I don't understand. As if to go back behind 0 a.d. is to go back to a Jewish pre-history? Or to some undocumented 34,000 year old preparation period? No. The prehistory of the Hebcrew Bible is in Sumaria -- certified.[/QUOTE]

Didn't other sources creep in? There's a lot of time between Sumer and the Babylonian redacters.

[QUOTE]Everything preceding as "godsaviorhero stories" for the little ones is like archtypal sagas, hardly about "humans" at all. (Osiris, for instance, invariably cited by the its-all-myth crowd, was cut up into 14 pieces by his brother Seth with a Sethknife; then, his body-parts re-assembled and brought to life somehow by sister Isis, who supplies a wooden phallus for the revived 13 minus 1 mummy-part guy, with which she impregnates herself and gives birth to Horus...[/QUOTE]

That was the story as it was told by the Roman Plutarch centuries after the Osiris religion went to the dogs. The Pyramid Texts, older than Plutarch by at least 2000 years, never hints at any of this. It's a metapaignia. What had been a religion under Thutmose III had turned into tall tales by the time the Caesars took over.

[QUOTE]There wasn't, couldn't have been but One for Pisces. Boost lasted 2,000 years and had something in it belonging to the cosmos itself, going over into Aquarius if it can escape "Zion".[/QUOTE]

But I agree! The spirit of Orion is restive and giving birth to something new. One of the reasons it is our understanding of the pre-Christian era has gone up several notches. Trans-Atlantic travel in the 14th century BC is still not well-known even among historians - but it's getting there. The light from the past creates illumination for the future.

weisbrot

2003-12-24 04:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Modern American Scofield dispensationalism has ben adapted to a sort of philosemitism (although even that is considerably overrated) but that doesn't mean Christianity is philosemitic and needs to be secularized. Au contraire it is the cultural and theological secularization of Christianity that has made it philosemitic.

Which returns us back to the exposure obtained by Falwell, Robinson, and other dispensationalist apostates. Even to Billy Graham, who at one time seemed to know the score.

These Christian Zionists are in front of the nation constantly, presented as the wise and sage leadership of the 20-million strong Ralph Reed Clone Army. It is perhaps more important for Christians to see these images than for non-Christians, for then those of faith in this country will continue to harbor a false image of what their faith should be about and how their "leaders" should lead. It is no big struggle to imagine how these "leaders" might in large part obtain their financing, access to media, and mostly positive spin from government (while phony opposition from Hollywood/left "secularists" only tends to give these beasts more credibility with their flock.)

The question is why anti-Christian nationalists like Linder- who know the true extent of Falwell et al influence, or should- make such an effort to identify all of Christianity in America with dispensationalists.

Makes one wonder.

Valley Forge

2003-12-24 04:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Yes, I'll give credit, where it is due. Hitler lost all of Europe to Marxism. H lost all of Eastern Europe to Stalinist Bolshevism (eastern marxism), and all of western europe to cultural or western marxism.[/QUOTE]

Hitler and the Nazis waged war against Bolshevism. Not Christians. Nazis. Had it not been for the Nazis, Bolshevism would have taken Europe unopposed.

Valley Forge

2003-12-24 05:03 | User Profile

Hitler and the Nazis were anti-slavic, and their Nationalism was too German-centric (as opposed to Pan-Aryan). Other than that, there really isn't too much to object to in the Nazi program -- at least not if one's goal is the preservation of the races and traditions of the West.

You don't have to be a Nazi to acknowledge this obvious truth. In principle, the Christians that see nothing of value in Nazism are no different than the VNN-types who see nothing of value in Christianity.

Valley Forge

2003-12-24 05:09 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] I think someone sat down with him after that and made it clear the consequences if he continued to talk about subjects like that. And like so many preachers, in the words of Jesus[/QUOTE]

That didn't stop Pat, one the most visible Christian leaders in the last 25 to 30 years, from caving in to Jewish pressure. Just like Billy Graham. Billy Graham had an opportunity to strike a blow against Jewry that would be remembered for all time. Instead, he groveled and apologized for telling the truth.

weisbrot

2003-12-24 05:38 | User Profile

[url]http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no3/ws-connor.html[/url]

The South under Siege 1830Ã¢â¬â2000: A History of the Relations between the North and the South Frank Conner Newnan, GA: Collards Publishing Company, 2002 $34.95 752 pp.

Reviewed by William Scott

...ConnorÃ¢â¬â¢s book is notable for covering topics other writers have avoided.
His discussion of the role of certain Jewish groups in attacking not only the South but much of Western tradition will surprise many Southerners, who regard Jews as virtual co-religionists because of their centrality to the Bible. Connor finds balance, drawing a distinction between generations of Sephardic and German Jewish immigrants in the 1600s and 1700s vs. the wave of socialist-minded Russian Jews who entered America beginning in the 1880s. Earlier immigrants, he believes, joined the fabric of American life just as did tens and hundreds of thousands of British, Scottish, Irish, German, French, and Scandinavian colonials. Connor contends that many within the Russian group differed in that they were ideologically attuned to the same secular humanist pseudo-gospel that had inspired liberals since Rousseau. They quickly allied themselves with Northern liberals, forming a coalition that continues to this day.

ConnorÃ¢â¬â¢s proposed way ahead is public activism in opposition to liberalismÃ¢â¬â¢s excesses, motivated by restored Calvinist morality. He is certainly correct about activism. Any restoration of Western cultural norms can result only from a popular movement grounded on the legitimate expression of cultural grievances. In fact, Southern organizations are gaining strength as they champion Confederate heritage issues. Equally important is the question of the Christian perspective as the basis for cultural restoration. So degenerate are many mainline denominations that the Social Gospel has replaced the real one. It seems likely that a sense of cultural identity must accompany any religious sentiment, else the movement will fall short of its goal.

This leads to a key question: What inspires Southerners to cling to the Lost Cause long after its memory has grown cold? A thoughtful neutral observer might say that the losers of any war remember the outcome longer than the winners. A Southerner might counter that, in the fundamental points contended by the war, the South was right. But the truth is likely to be found at a deeper, more fundamental level. While the South lost its struggle for separation, it did not lose its sense of identity. This sense of identity is a valuable commodity as immigration remakes America into a Third World country; as non-Christian and anti-Christian values displace AmericaÃ¢â¬â¢s historical European (and predominantly British) culture; and as growth of corporate and government power erodes the freedoms Americans once took for granted. Ultimately, the war was not about slavery vs. freedom, or about tariffs vs. free trade, or about states rights vs. a consolidated federal government, or even about Christianity vs. secular humanismÃ¢â¬âall of which causes have been suggested at one time or another.

Rather, the War for Southern Independence was a desperate struggle for the survival of a distinct people. In other words, it was a war for national existenceÃ¢â¬âwhere Ã¢â¬ÅnationÃ¢â¬Â is defined, as it has been throughout history, as a collection of related peoples, united by language, faith, culture, traditions, values, and, most important, shared bloodlines.

Connor has tapped into the early stages of a potentially important political developmentÃ¢â¬âan emerging resurgence of Southern consciousness. There already exist several organizations operating within the political systemÃ¢â¬âthe League of the South, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and the Council of Conservative Citizens, among others. **The driving force behind each group is dissatisfaction with a nation remade in the image of global mercantilism, centralized government, secular humanism, and radical multiculturalism.

Standing against this onslaught, the Southern awakening is arguably the only truly revolutionary movement in America today.**

To be sure, conventional conservatismÃ¢â¬âin the form of Second Amendment organizations, the Christian community, home schoolers, anti-abortion activists, anti-gay groups, fiscal conservatives, Tenth Amendment advocates, immigration control activists, and othersÃ¢â¬âwields considerable influence. (If it did not, neo-conservatives would not be working so assiduously to co-opt it from within.) Elections are still won and lost as these groups energize members to work for issues and candidates and to show up at the polls. But most of these groups are single-issue oriented. The idea that their battle is part of a larger culture war and that strategic alliances are necessary for victory is beyond their ken. It can be legitimately asked: If any of these groups achieved complete victory, would AmericaÃ¢â¬â¢s trajectory through history change in any meaningful way? With the exception of the movement for immigration reformÃ¢â¬âwhich is at least as important as cultural renewal and certainly as urgentÃ¢â¬âa complete victory for any of these groups would serve as little more than a temporary dam across one tributary of the flood that is sweeping America.

Not so Southern resurgence. While still embryonic in form, the Southern awakening carries with it the historical, cultural, and moral legacy of an ultimate struggle for political sovereignty by a culturally distinct people. The Confederate Battle Flag, under increasing attack as a supposed symbol of slavery, is in reality the symbol of a nation in being through four years of conflict, pain, and tragedy. The FlagÃ¢â¬â¢s supporters view it is as the legitimate symbol of the aspirations of AmericaÃ¢â¬â¢s republican foundersÃ¢â¬âa mantle that supporters of the unitary state created by Abraham LincolnÃ¢â¬â¢s war of economic and cultural hegemony cannot claim despite some of the most bizarre rhetorical contortions ever uttered. While some may question the value of fighting heritage battles, in reality they serve a vital purpose. All struggles must have symbols and issues that arouse people from lethargy and inspire their participation. Southern heritage is such an issue. Its symbols are potent icons of cultural identityÃ¢â¬âan explicit and unmistakable rallying point for resistance.

Once set in motion, who is to say where this struggle will leadÃ¢â¬âor whether it will remain confined to the South? Indeed, many Southern activists would argue that they are already on the front line of the wider culture war. It is not surprising that the left fears the South and devotes inordinate resources to its suppression. Its intentions set firmly on global empire, the ruling oligarchy is not so foolish as to miss the meaning of Southern symbolsÃ¢â¬âor the power they convey to their defenders. Though still small, fragile and divided, the new Southern consciousness has the latent potential to completely thwart the leftÃ¢â¬â¢s goalsÃ¢â¬âa destiny directly attributable to the one characteristic that distinguishes it from all other conservative ideals. Unlike its apparent siblings, it is not about a single issueÃ¢â¬âthe immediate focus of Battle Flag defenders notwithstanding. Indeed, the Southern cause is not about an issue at all. It is about the cultural identity of a people and the intrinsic sense of distinctiveness they must possess in order to survive. It is about nationhoodÃ¢â¬âthe one force that, throughout history, has stood between oligarchies and their consolidation of empire.

TexasAnarch

2003-12-24 08:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ragnar]Didn't other sources creep in? There's a lot of time between Sumer and the Babylonian redacters.

Wow. Now we're getting somewhere! I know anyother guy who is into old Egyptian religion. That Orion stuff is incredible, Ragno, as you know. Do you follow Bauval et al? What about Sitchin? I agree about the long stretch of time between Sumer and Biblical Genesis stories, but who do you count as "Babylonian redactors"? There are 30 layers of history under Baghdad's streets. I agree (without expert credentials, but on the basis of a lot of "compatible with"'s) that So. American/Andes (Peruvian, now, Machu Pichu) gold mining operation by Thothians connected the continents early on, if that is what you are saying.

"...our understanding of the pre-Christian era has gone up several notches." Hasn't it just. That's what lights my bulb, dim as it no doubt is. It is an incredible cosmic historical blunder that American military is guarding jewish icons on the Euphrates, and I hope to live to 2012 to see the bastards responsible pay for it. Just to see how bloody it is, and try to protect my own, but its going to be up to them now. The South rising, as in the article Weisbrot posted, is part of the same thing, because they/we/our ancestors learned how to say "no" on a deep basis -- though let themselves be pulled around in re Vietnam, for which they are having and will have to pay heavily. Don't deserve to survive, really, IMO. Pushing around a little country like that because it is "communist" or something. ("secular humanist" mongers -- as if...) sniffing McCain's jockstrap.

Defining the fault-lines for When The Big Cleaver Cleaves the Cabbage. It has to break open along some lines, might as well be those cut on OD. Cut new ones out here every day.

Walter Yannis

2003-12-24 08:46 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Tex --

Ok, I will post a serious post to counter my prior, less-serious post.

I can work with anyone who puts race first, and I will work with them.[/QUOTE]

I disagree.

I'm a Christian, as as such I place my faith in Christ first. To accept your invitation to make race the be-all and end-all would constitute a de facto conversion to Nazism.

The non-existence of race is perhaps the leading BIG LIE now, and we must fight that. Race is real, nations are real, and we Christians (at least traditionally) believe that our national identity is an integral part of our individual salvation. On that limited one-issue basis, I have no problem with working with you or others.

But you seem to suggest - Nazi-like - to turn race into an idol.

But this is the first sin of idolotry. There is no God but I-AM-WHO-AM, and we shall put no person, thing or idea between Him and ourselves, including race or nation. All in Heavens above and on Earth below are subject to Him and to Him alone.

This again goes to underscore the vast chasm that separates Pagans/Nazis/Bolsheviks/Freemasons from the believers in the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and the fact that there can be no organic unity among us, although political coalitions are probably feasible.

I say that reluctantly, but experience compels me to the conclusion.

Walter

Walter Yannis

2003-12-24 12:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]Sounds good, but too good to be feasible. [B]You'll HAVE to work with non-Christian whites if you want to have any hope for success.[/B]

White nationalism needs Christians of good faith, brother :whstl:[/QUOTE]

Success at what?

Are you suggesting that you or other of these "non-Christians" will assist me in re-instituting the true worship of God through the Church Triumphant?

Because that is my goal. The recognition of the cosmic importance of nationality to our individual salvation is merely a subsidiary (although very welcome) by-product of that.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you share my goal.

In fact, and again kindly correct me if I'm wrong about this, but it seems to me that you are adamantly opposed to the entire project.

So exactly how is it that I'll have to work with non-Christians to succeed? Obviously, my fellow Christians are the only ones who are interested in my success, and all others are at best indifferent or at worst violently opposed to it.

Clearly, my ultimate goals differ fundamentally from those of Alex Linder. Mr. Linder is - ahem! - right up front about that fact, so whence this notion that Christians like me should somehow dance around it?

Walter

Mithras

2003-12-24 18:23 | User Profile

The conflicts of Christianity vs. Paganism and of Fascism vs. Conservatism are merely two symptoms of a much larger and more threatening problem. And that is what seems to be a common occurrence of infighting and disruption. A WN with an idea, view or like which another WN disagrees with or doesnÃ¢â¬â¢t like is often viciously attacked even to the point of physical assault. There is a steady stream of bestiality and outright rudeness among many WNs. And this has been allowed to continue because it firstly is a problem of education but moreso is the complete lack of folks with true leadership skills who can keep order amongst people, provide a greater vision, and root out the disrupters. We need to allow folks to have their own ideas and coexist peacefully rather than feel threatened by the mere existence of other ideas. Christians will work more for Christian causes and Pagans will work more for Pagan causes. To deny either of them their right to do so is not only foolish but seriously weakens the activism they may provide. It takes Christians to recruit Christians and Pagans to recruit Pagans. We need to work towards freedom of the Christian and Pagan religions and stamp out disrupters who attack others for their beliefs. Now there is a difference between holding a view and attacking someone. And some people may view the mere holding of a certain opinion or idea as an attack against their idea or person. If so this person needs to step back and to go his own way and let things be discussed in their proper forum.

Mithras

2003-12-24 18:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Success at what?

Are you suggesting that you or other of these "non-Christians" will assist me in re-instituting the true worship of God through the Church Triumphant?

Because that is my goal. The recognition of the cosmic importance of nationality to our individual salvation is merely a subsidiary (although very welcome) by-product of that.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you share my goal. [/QUOTE]

That is not the goal of folkish nationalism or White nationalism or whatever you want to call it. It makes up a percentage of Conservatism but there are many equal goals that are probably more important.

Your goal is mainly that: [I]your[/I] goal. You're free to work towards that but that is a spiritual matter and not a political matter. It has nothing to do with folkish nationalism which is seen through the eyes of a Pagan.

The spiritual matter would better be served if you worked with the Christian Churches and those who are Christians. But I thought as did many here that we were talking about Racial Nationalism.

For one to transform a purely Racial matter into a purely Religious matter would totally change the entire goal of the movement and therefore it would not make sense to be allied. On the contrary, Pagans would be counterproductive to their own personal and spiritual causes, and this would deny them of their rights.

madrussian

2003-12-24 19:32 | User Profile

Walter, you are a tiny fringe in your religious community. Christianity will not be the vehicle to push white nationalism, because it never has. At best, the state churches have been vehicles for state nationalism, often whites fighting whites in various wars. I don't know about Protestants and Catholics, but in Orthodoxy serving Christ implies certain detachment from the earthly matters (correct my understanding, Orthodox among us).

As far as how I would define success, how about creating conditions where white countries would remain white, and where traditional culture (with traditonal church being understood as the religion of white countries) is promoted? If "re-instituting the true worship of God through the Church Triumphant", however you define it, is going tol be a natural by-product, I don't oppose that. If this proposition isn't good enough to you, then good luck recruiting among Judeo-"Christians" and nominal Christians for whom visiting church is just a matter of habit. If you want to shoot yourself in the foot so early in the game, and your position is typical, I don't hold much hope for divided whites achieving much in terms of getting their countries back.

Read the thead about "racist Russians" I posted. Those developments must be meaningless to you, because the article talks about "Nazis" and "skinheads", and not about religion causing those.

TexasAnarch

2003-12-24 20:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Mithras]The conflicts of Christianity vs. Paganism and of Fascism vs. Conservatism are merely two symptoms of a much larger and more threatening problem. And that is what seems to be a common occurrence of infighting and disruption. A WN with an idea, view or like which another WN disagrees with or doesnÃ¢â¬â¢t like is often viciously attacked even to the point of physical assault. There is a steady stream of bestiality and outright rudeness among many WNs. And this has been allowed to continue because it firstly is a problem of education but moreso is the complete lack of folks with true leadership skills who can keep order amongst people, provide a greater vision, and root out the disrupters. We need to allow folks to have their own ideas and coexist peacefully rather than feel threatened by the mere existence of other ideas. Christians will work more for Christian causes and Pagans will work more for Pagan causes. To deny either of them their right to do so is not only foolish but seriously weakens the activism they may provide. It takes Christians to recruit Christians and Pagans to recruit Pagans. We need to work towards freedom of the Christian and Pagan religions and stamp out disrupters who attack others for their beliefs. Now there is a difference between holding a view and attacking someone. And some people may view the mere holding of a certain opinion or idea as an attack against their idea or person. If so this person needs to step back and to go his own way and let things be discussed in their proper forum.[/QUOTE]

No. This is the EWuropean way, and it leads to their inevitable Likkudnization (by any other name the same...) of warring religious factions whose iconic "alignment buttons" -- christian this, pagan that, orthodox or jewish the other -- create perpetual [B]psycholinguistic conflict and chaos[/B] .

NO[B]NO USE OF "RELIGIOUS" TERMS OF ANY KIND BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS ACTING IN AUTHORIZED GOVERNMANT CAPACITY[/B] -- the way it was always assumed since the original Protestant founding fathers shoved the YAHWAY/JEEZUS SPOUTERS out of provisions made for the public life, except for support they can dredge up on their own entirely independently of help from the U.S. government. To do what this Bush did is a reversal -- not just corruption: a reversal of text by use of tokens -- of the founding idea. (referring to BAUT-SWITCHING "compassionate" to "faith-based" as the Rove-inspired GW's "initiative" styled itself for public consumption.

We're dealing with a situation here, Mithras, historically unprecedented (though not unplanned, along For Zionist Eyes Only historical eyes) in which those who use the language of Christianity are using it against the beliefs, good will, heritage, and trust placed in these "leaders." One point you are overlooking, apart from the uniqueness of the American problem vrs sign-use in Europe (which has allowed old-world, old-ways heritages to dominate its politics and now want to bind with American White Nationalists and kin through the blood-tie alone) is this: the situation has been caused by an externally originating spiritual ("religious") source (in Boazian anthropological terms -- Luciferian, in traditional Christian anti-zionist), and it must be confronted metaphysically, from the definitional basis of what it is to, [I]per se[/I] , since that is what is distorted by their grammar. As Hertzl himself noted, I've just been reading, non-Jews would finally be driven by the motive of self-defense -- forgetting all the b.s. between lofty "anti-semitism" and outright gut revulsion -- to attack Jews. Wonder if he knew they would attack first, pre-emptively, when it got to that point? Well, the attack is through language, discourse itself -- "propaganda", when that is everything seen on Beelzebub TV. I don't see how you or anyone else can tell an American now not to stick to his guns to keep the weasals from scurrying into new cover when the cabbage gets cleaved. What you say will come about, but not by being named and brought about.

(This position reflects an academic point I have long argued: names used in official givernmental discourse can have only public, not private, communication meanings, [B]as a matter of principle[/B] . This is not "secularism" -- except to the external hate driven opportunists. You are soft on YHWH. Its not just another thing. Its the millenium, man. MM, M & M, em 'n em, Malvo and the Matrix doin' Britney's Red String on the Left Wrist Kaballa swamp root stomp. You've got to understand what they mean in order to understand what they do, and the fact that we are their enemy. To speak their language is suicidal. They convert every show of conciliation into self-serving capital. The first movement has to be drawing back, as you say; then, cutting loose. Allowing sacral overtones to be verbalized, in re the 'holocaust' fantasies for instance (been reading the sites on that, too), is a way of allowing one's own unconscious memory process to be wrongly imprinted, thus creating another level of 'laws' burdening honest, instinctual being-manifestation. (That's [B]not[/B] just American. That's what it is to be, at all (human).

Walter Yannis

2003-12-25 07:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE]That is not the goal of folkish nationalism or White nationalism or whatever you want to call it. It makes up a percentage of Conservatism but there are many equal goals that are probably more important.[/QUOTE]

I agree that this is not the goal of "folkish nationalism." I'm not a "folkish nationalist" - whatever that means.

[QUOTE]Your goal is mainly that: your goal. You're free to work towards that but that is a spiritual matter and not a political matter. It has nothing to do with folkish nationalism which is seen through the eyes of a Pagan.[/QUOTE]

I agree that my goal to re-institute the Church Triumphant has nothing whatever to do with "folkish nationalism" seen "through the eyes of a Pagan." Paganism in its many forms - Kabbalistic Judaism, Freemasonry, Nazism, neo-Marxist Feminism, neo-Marxist Ecologism, New Age Psychobabble, to name but a few - is the problem, it's most emphatically not the solution.

Paganism is the enemy to be conquered - it's not a friend of the Church.

[QUOTE]The spiritual matter would better be served if you worked with the Christian Churches and those who are Christians. [/QUOTE]

I agree. Which is why I'm posting on a forum owned and operated by one of my brothers in Christ.

[QUOTE]But I thought as did many here that we were talking about Racial Nationalism.[/QUOTE]

I'm glad you brought up that point, because there indeed seems to be a misunderstanding. While I can't speak for our gracious host Texas Dissident, he is a Christian like me and he seems to approach all aspects of his life from that Christian perspective. I think that Tex's nationalism - like my own - is but a corrollary to his Christian Faith. It is subsidiary to his Faith, it doesn't take precendence over it. Tex, please correct me if I'm wrong on that (just in case I'm missing something big!).

Anyway, you thought that this forum is about "Racial Nationalism." That's not my understanding. I understood that this Forum was about Paleo Conservatism - the conservatism of Edmund Burke and his progeny. It's about Christendom, and America's unique part in Christendom. It's about the American nation - European, Christian and English-speaking - in its struggle for survival.

Racial nationalism is the wrong goal, IMHO. I think that you're aiming at the wrong thing, Mithras. Racial and national integrity are but one aspect of a healthy society, but there are many others, including a common culture that can only spring from a common "cult" of worship. For Christendom that can only be the Church.

As Jesus said, we must "seek first the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness" and all the rest will follow automatically from that.

This underscores yet again that we have so little in common in terms of ultimate goals that forming a single political unit is probably not in the cards for us.

Sad, maybe, but true.

[QUOTE]For one to transform a purely Racial matter into a purely Religious matter would totally change the entire goal of the movement and therefore it would not make sense to be allied. On the contrary, Pagans would be counterproductive to their own personal and spiritual causes, and this would deny them of their rights.[/QUOTE]

Again, I think that I agree for the most part. I would take exception to the notion of "transforming a purely Racial matter into a purely Religious matter," because no transformation took place from my perspective. As I've written above, all of my beliefs and actions proceed from my Faith in Christ (at least, I want them to) and I've always thought that was understood. I agree with you that this wouldn't work out for Pagans, because Paganism (including Kabbalistic Judaism, Freemasonry and Nazism) is fundamentally at odds with Christ and His Church. In short, there is no common ground. One will vanquish the other. It's really just that simple.

As an aside, I note that you talk about "rights." That's interesting. From whence derive the rights of Pagans? Please expand on that idea. This approaches a challenged posed several times to our own dear resident Pagan Wintermute (where is he?) to recognize the very Christian assumptions about human dignity that he smuggled into his Paganism, which on its own tends strongly to devolve into slavery and child sacrifice (abortion on demand is of a piece with Carthaginian child sacrifice and flows directly from the very Paganism you urge upon us). After surreptitiously smuggling in Christian notions of the cosmic value of the individual soul and personal integrity, he then turned around and used them to critique Christianity from a Pagan perspective! I never did receive a satisfactory answer from the Frosty One on that, perhaps you could explain to me where a Pagan would ever get a notion like "human rights." Perhaps you could explain that one to me. How did we get from Roman slavery to American freedom in purely Pagan terms, and again without the influence of Christ and His Church???

Anyway, back to the main topic at hand, clearly an insuperable chasm yawns between us. I repeat that this doesn't mean that we can't form temporary coalitions to achieve tactical goals. It does mean, however, that there is simply no way that Christians and Pagans can join forces to form a broad-based organic movement.

I'm pleased that we appear to agree on that.

Merry Christmas!

Walter

Acorn

2003-12-25 07:39 | User Profile

I have been trying to wrap my mind around betting on the Christian bandwagon and I just can't do it. Until I can find a brand of Christianity that talks about Jesus driving a fiery chariot across the sky pulled by gutted non-Whites with harness made of the skins of non-Whites etc., forget it. Until there is a type of Christianity where White = godly and non-white = evil and the ideal is to rid the earth of evil, forget it!

There are signs of hope, however. There's Identity Christianity, and a growing splinter movements in Catholicism and other conservative forms of Christianity that are against race-mixing. So, who knows, one of them might catch me.

But, call me a Nazi. I'll wear the title proudly. Nazis were a case of the most civilized nation in Europe waking up to the Jewish threat as the Jews had their knives to their throats, and throwing them off! And the battle is not over, it's just gone very low-level. To me, MY RACE IS MY RELIGION. I do believe in a God, of course, where else do Whites come from, and in Whose image were they made? The fact that we Whites, God's Image and Creation, are under an evil spell, make to believe up is down, black is white, suicide is life, is hopefully temporary. Perhaps the old tales and legends where the good person is under an evil spell was an attempt to pass down a form of Jew-proofing by those of our forebears who survived.

More evil spells will not undo the original evil spell!

Interesting article on VNN as I speak on how the Founding Fathers of the US were deists, not necessarily Christians. May we take up again, and continue, their noble Pan-Aryan vision!

Franco

2003-12-25 07:59 | User Profile

Acorn wrote:

Yes! Man, that is a great quote!

Look at America today. It is a free, capitalistic society that is growing darker each year. In about 30 or 40 years, Blacks and Browns will hold important positions in ALL government agencies. Half of Congress will be Black/Brown. Multiculturalism will be the RULE, and strictly enforced. Picture it.

As Revilo Oliver has said, whether you are religious or not, reality is reality. Race trumps all, and we must admit that. An America that is half-Black is NOT what our Founders wanted.

Walter Yannis

2003-12-25 08:12 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Walter, you are a tiny fringe in your religious community. Christianity will not be the vehicle to push white nationalism, because it never has. At best, the state churches have been vehicles for state nationalism, often whites fighting whites in various wars. I don't know about Protestants and Catholics, but in Orthodoxy serving Christ implies certain detachment from the earthly matters (correct my understanding, Orthodox among us).[/QUOTE]

I agree that there are not many of us, but I respectfully point out that we Traditional Catholics vastly outnumber whatever group you identify with (what group do you identify with?).

Mel Gibson is one of mine, and he did far more that all the Nazis in America put together ever did to expose the Tribe and the threat they pose to our people. Please name me similar accomplishments by your group, and I'll be sure to tip my hat.

I think that you're right that Orthodoxy tends away from social activism (as opposed to Catholicism) but that doesn't mean that there haven't been very important Orthodox-lead social movements. There have been many, and Orthodoxy even now as it recovers from 75 years of Jewish Bolshevik repression plays a very key role.

Russian society will be healthy to the extent it will be co-extensive with the Church.

[QUOTE]As far as how I would define success, how about creating conditions where white countries would remain white, and where traditional culture (with traditonal church being understood as the religion of white countries) is promoted? [B]If "re-instituting the true worship of God through the Church Triumphant", however you define it, is going tol be a natural by-product, I don't oppose that.[/B] If this proposition isn't good enough to you, then good luck recruiting among Judeo-"Christians" and nominal Christians for whom visiting church is just a matter of habit. If you want to shoot yourself in the foot so early in the game, and your position is typical, I don't hold much hope for divided whites achieving much in terms of getting their countries back.[/QUOTE]

Re-instuting the Church's leading role in society is the goal, it's not a by-product. Social health - including nationalism, private property (both capitalism and socialism are diametrically opposed to private property), subsidairy civil organizations and devolved political structures - follow from that.

As to the Judeo-Christians (oxymoron!), the Church has always dealt with heresies, and has had considerable success in dealing them. Judeo-Christianity is a very troubling heresy, and a very powerful one. I can't predict our broad success, and it may very well be that we will lose vast territories and populations. I merely point out that this is our only hope, and we might as well place all of our money on that number, because it's the only one we have.

At least, so it would seem to me. What is your suggestion? An impossible coalition of Pagans and Christians? Or maybe making nice with Alex Linder, who despises my Faith? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. That's just a non-starter.

We need something that has a chance of success, and that is the Faith. There is no other choice. Deal with that, my friend. And join us.

[QUOTE]Read the thead about "racist Russians" I posted. Those developments must be meaningless to you, because the article talks about "Nazis" and "skinheads", and not about religion causing those.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand what you mean here. I read your post, but don't make whatever connection you're trying to make.

I point out that Nazism is a religion, so I don't understand where you're seeing a contradiction with my statements about religion in regard to the Nazis. The Nazis are enemies because Nazism is a competing religion.

I don't know what the skinheads are about in terms of religion. My experience in Moscow indicates that they're mostly just a bunch of stupid, cowardly thugs ganging up on the defenseless. Perhaps useful in a pinch, and it certainy underscores an elemental reaction to the multicultural and multinational aspects of the Russian Federation, but nvertheless Moscow skinheads aren't the kind I'd want over for tea, if you know what I mean.

There are far, far more healthy examples of resurgent Russian nationalism than those pitiful losers, incuding especially the very traditional Orthodox priests who hold key positions in the incredibly powerful Russian Orthodox Church, may God save her. I can't imagine that any self-respecting Christian minister would encourage these young thugs in beating people up in the Moscow metro.

Merry Christmas!

Walter

madrussian

2003-12-25 17:50 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I agree that there are not many of us, but I respectfully point out that we Traditional Catholics vastly outnumber whatever group you identify with (what group do you identify with?).

Nice try. You may be a part of tradcaths, but that doesn't mean that tradcaths share your views as far as WN is concerned.

Mel Gibson is one of mine, and he did far more that all the Nazis in America put together ever did to expose the Tribe and the threat they pose to our people. Please name me similar accomplishments by your group, and I'll be sure to tip my hat.

My group is people of reason, and as far as I am concerned, Mel Gibson may be there, but you may not.

At least, so it would seem to me. What is your suggestion? An impossible coalition of Pagans and Christians? Or maybe making nice with Alex Linder, who despises my Faith? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. That's just a non-starter.

As far as your vocabulary goes, it's not very different from the ADL when "Nazis" are concerned. You've tried too hard to frame the argument in terms of believers and "Nazis" only. OD is a good example where an "impossible" coalition exists. You may think it's a Christian forum, while de-facto it's a trad conservative forum with a heavy WN flavor. The "pagan" faction here is a highly intellectual and eloquent bunch, with some exceptions of course.

We need something that has a chance of success, and that is the Faith. There is no other choice. Deal with that, my friend. And join us.

I have faith in the power of human intellect to study the universe. I don't have literal faith in what "Holy Books" describe.

I don't understand what you mean here. I read your post, but don't make whatever connection you're trying to make.

Very simple: common sense can be found outside organized religions, and much of it may be missing within.

Ragnar

2003-12-25 20:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]"...our understanding of the pre-Christian era has gone up several notches." Hasn't it just. That's what lights my bulb, dim as it no doubt is. It is an incredible cosmic historical blunder that American military is guarding jewish icons on the Euphrates, and I hope to live to 2012 to see the bastards responsible pay for it... Defining the fault-lines for When The Big Cleaver Cleaves the Cabbage. It has to break open along some lines, might as well be those cut on OD. Cut new ones out here every day.[/QUOTE]

I've been thinking along those same lines and here's the best article on the subject I've seen during the holidays:

[B]The Tree of Life and The End of Time[/B]

(From Ancient Science by Laura Knight-Jadscyk)

One of the very ancient aspects of the idea of Celestial Archetypes was the concept of the Ã¢â¬ÅAxis Mundi,Ã¢â¬Â or Ã¢â¬ÅCenter of the WorldÃ¢â¬Â. This was a point where Heaven, Earth and Hell met and where Time was abolished and passage to one region or another was possible. At any point where there was a convergence of the three realms, a Ã¢â¬ÅtempleÃ¢â¬Â was considered to exist whether one was constructed there or not. This center was the zone of the sacred Ã¢â¬â of absolute reality Ã¢â¬â and was symbolized by trees, fountains, ladders, ropes, and so forth. Interaction with these symbols was considered initiatory and took place in a timeless state. Thus, it has been theorized that religious rituals were developed in an attempt to Ã¢â¬ÅconnectÃ¢â¬Â to this Divine Model or archetype. In this way, a sacrifice was not only an imitation of the original sacrifice of the god, it somehow was seen to be an alignment of the three realms, the creating of a Ã¢â¬ÅpassageÃ¢â¬Â of some sort along the Axis Mundi. So, for a moment, during the ritual or sacrifice, the supplicant was identifying him or her self with the primordial gesture and thereby abolishing time, the burden of the Terror of History, and regenerating him or her self and all the related participants. There are endless examples of scapegoats and dying gods and sacrificed kings, as well as a host of Ã¢â¬ÅsubstitutesÃ¢â¬Â in terms of a variety of animals and other products offered to the gods. We are going to suggest that it is, indeed, through Ã¢â¬ÅsacrificeÃ¢â¬Â that man Ã¢â¬Åidentifies with the gods,Ã¢â¬Â and Ã¢â¬Åaligns himself with the Axis Mundi.Ã¢â¬Â But, it is in a sacrifice of a very different sort Ã¢â¬â one that sacrifices our Ã¢â¬Åanimal nature,Ã¢â¬Â and that this has been corrupted to mean that an Ã¢â¬ÅexternalÃ¢â¬Â sacrifice or ritual is required. We are going to suggest that this Ã¢â¬ÅladderÃ¢â¬Â or Ã¢â¬Åtree Ã¢â¬Â image is a reflection of our very own DNA , and that it is through the DNA that man regains his Ã¢â¬ÅTimeless State.Ã¢â¬Â

[B]What is important, however, is that the myths are only a much later formulation of an archaic content that presuppose an absolute reality, or levels of reality which are extra-human or hyper dimensional .[/B]

There is another interesting key to the ancient myths and rituals: in nearly every case, everywhere there is a conception of the end and the beginning of a Cyclical Temporal Period; and, coincidental to this idea, is the expulsion of demons, diseases and sins. These ideas are demonstrated by the ubiquitous carnival celebrations of the New Year.

[I]...This annual expulsion of sins, diseases, and demons is basically an attempt to restore Ã¢â¬â if only momentarily Ã¢â¬â mythical and primordial time, Ã¢â¬ÅpureÃ¢â¬Â time, the time of the Ã¢â¬ÅinstantÃ¢â¬Â of the Creation. Every New Year is a resumption of time from the beginning, that is, a repetition of the cosmogony. The ritual combats between two groups of actors, the presence of the dead, the Saturnalia, and the orgies are so many elements which denote that at the end of the year and in the expectation of the New Year there is a repetition of the mythical moment of the passage from chaos to cosmos.*

At this period, the expulsion of evils and sins takes place by means of a scapegoat, and the cycle is closed by the Hierogamy (Ã¢â¬Åsacred marriageÃ¢â¬Â), which initiates the new creation. The more ancient ceremonies are nearly global in their proliferation among Ã¢â¬Åprimitive Ã¢â¬Â societies, and it could be conjectured that it is to these Ã¢â¬ÅpurerÃ¢â¬Â examples we should look for the more common elements to discover if there is any hidden meaning that might serve as a clue.

For the most part, the beginnings of these rites comprise a series of dramatic elements that represent a condition of universal confusion, the abolition of order and hierarchy , and the ushering in of chaos. [B]There is a Ã¢â¬Åsymbolic DelugeÃ¢â¬Â that annihilates all of humanity in order to prepare the way for a new and regenerated human species. In numerous myths and rites we find the same central idea of the yearly return to chaos, followed by a new creation. The chaos that preceded the rebirth was as essential as the birth itself. Without chaos there could be no rebirth.[/B]

In many of the more Ã¢â¬ÅmodernÃ¢â¬Â versions, the Deluge and the element of water are present in one way or another as either libations or baptism. [B]Baptism is the subjective , microcosmic equivalent of a macrocosmic level deluge : a return to the formless state.[/B]

This formlessness, this chaos, was exemplified in many ways: fasting, confession, excess grief, joy, despair or orgy Ã¢â¬â all of them only seeking to reproduce a chaotic state from which a New Creation could emerge.

It is also interesting to note that, at the time of renewal, the New Year festival, it was thought that the fate of men was fixed for a Ã¢â¬Åwhole year.Ã¢â¬Â In short, it was the Ã¢â¬Åformation of the Ark Ã¢â¬Â that determined if and how and who would pass through the deluge .

What is important in the preceding idea is that the end of a past year and the beginning of a new year are predicated upon the idea of an exhaustion of biological resources on all cosmic planes, a veritable end of the world. In this view, the Ã¢â¬ÅendÃ¢â¬Â is not always occasioned by a deluge , but can also occur through the effects of fire, heat and other causes. Fulcanelli writes:

[B]Nature herself gives us the unequivocal signs of weariness: she is becoming lazy. It is only by dint of chemical fertilizers that the farmer now obtains average value crops. Ask a peasant, he will tell you that Ã¢â¬Åthe earth is dying,Ã¢â¬Â that seasons are disturbed, the climate modified. Every growing thing lacks sap and resistance. Plants wither and prove unable to react against the invasion of parasitic insects or the attack of diseases.[/B]

In Le Probleme des centaures, Georges Dumezil studies and discusses the scenario of the end and beginning according to a large selection of material derived from the Indo-European world including Slavs, Iranians, Indians and Greco-Romans. He noted several elements from initiation ceremonies that have been preserved in more or less corrupt form in mythology and folklore. Another examination of the myths and rites of Germanic secret societies by Otto Hofler brought out similar relationships. Both of these researches point up the importance of the twelve intercalary days, and especially New YearÃ¢â¬â¢s Day.

...We shall recall only a few characteristic facts:

(1) the twelve intermediate days prefigure the twelve months of the year;

(2) during the twelve corresponding nights, the dead come in procession to visit their families;

(3) it is at this period that fires are extinguished and rekindled;

(4) this is the moment of initiations, one of whose essential elements is precisely this extinction and rekindling of fire;

(5) ritual combats between two opposing groups; and

(6) presence of erotic elements, marriage, orgies.

Each of these mythico-ritual motifs testifies to the wholly exceptional character of the days that precede and follow the first day of the year, although the eschato-cosmological function of the New Year (abolition of time and repetition of creation) is not explicitly stated... Nevertheless, this function can be shown to be implicit in all the rest of these mythico-ritual motifs. How could the invasion by the souls of the dead, for example, be anything but the sign of a suspension of profane time, the paradoxical realization of a coexistence of Ã¢â¬Ëpast Ã¢â¬â¢ and Ã¢â¬Ëpresent ?Ã¢â¬â¢ This coexistence is never so complete as at a period of chaos when all modalities coincide. The last days of the past year can be identified with the pre-Creation chaos, both through this invasion of the dead Ã¢â¬â which annuls the law of time Ã¢â¬â and through the sexual excesses which commonly mark the occasion.

Take particular note of the ideas of Ã¢â¬Åexhaustion of physical resources, invasion by the souls of the dead, and sexual excessÃ¢â¬Â as being indicative of the suspension of time. These are significant in our present time wherein it seems there are a veritable Ã¢â¬ÅinvasionÃ¢â¬Â of Ã¢â¬ÅotherworldlyÃ¢â¬Â visitors masquerading as Ã¢â¬Åaliens Ã¢â¬Â as well as a rapid descent of morality into greater and greater sexual excesses; a veritable frenzied Ã¢â¬Åreturn to chaos,Ã¢â¬Â as it were!

[B]The rites still mark the abolition of all norms and violently illustrate an overturning of values and a reversion of all forms to indeterminate unity. The very locus of the orgies, when the seed was buried in the ground, demonstrates the dissolution of form into orgiastic chaos. We are in the presence of a very ancient idea: a return to primordial unity, the end/beginning in which limits, contours, distances, no longer hold sway. What is primordial and essential is the idea of regeneration through chaos, repetition of creation: a Time Loop.[/B]

[url]http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/signs.htm[/url]

Metternich

2003-12-25 20:22 | User Profile

Hitler and the Nazis were anti-slavic, and their Nationalism was too German-centric (as opposed to Pan-Aryan). Other than that, there really isn't too much to object to in the Nazi program -- at least not if one's goal is the preservation of the races and traditions of the West.

Much is made of the Nazis being anti-Slavic. Then again, the Allies were also anti-Germanic. Look at their war propaganda. War never brings out the best in peoples.

Walter Yannis

2003-12-25 20:26 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Nice try. You may be a part of tradcaths, but that doesn't mean that tradcaths share your views as far as WN is concerned.[/QUOTE]

This is incorrect. If they are "traditional Catholics" then by definition they accept the traditional Catholic teaching on the central importance of "nation" in God's plan of salvation. They recognize the very ancient tradition of the rights of nations. No, madrussian, my views on race and nation are simply those that were proclaimed by the Church (both Orthodox and Roman) until very recently.

[QUOTE]My group is people of reason, and as far as I am concerned, Mel Gibson may be there, but you may not.[/QUOTE]

Again, your argument fails by definition. Mel Gibson is a Catholic, and so he is by definition not "reasonable" in terms of his religious beliefs. St. Paul tells us that we Christians are fools before the world to believe that a 1st century Rabbi was the Incarnate God. Yet we believe in Christ, and in Him crucified. We're fools - a stumbling block to the rational Greeks (a category you seem to claim) and a scandal to the Pharisees.

Let me point out that, in case you didn't realize this, Mel Gibson as a traditional Catholic believes that he consumes the crucified flesh of his God King at mass every Sunday morning. He believes that he drinks His blood.

Just so there's no misunderstanding about this: Mel Gibson as a traditional Catholic believes that he is a cannibal. Literally. No ifs ands or buts.

Traditional Christianity is superlatively weird, madrussian. In its fundamentals it has nothing to do with "reason" or "reasonable" since (again by definition) such things precede reason and exist in one of those first places where reason (much less the whitebread "reasonablness" you seem to urge upon us as a replacement) cannot tread.

Making a movie about this God-Man funded by his own funds and in the teeth of the Pharisees is also not "reasonable" in the eyes of the world.

None of that is "reasonable." Indeed, from the world's point of view it's stark raving nuts.

You've been in America too long, I fear. You seem to take "niceness" for "reason." They're not the same.

[QUOTE]As far as your vocabulary goes, it's not very different from the ADL when "Nazis" are concerned. You've tried too hard to frame the argument in terms of believers and "Nazis" only. [/QUOTE]

I agree with that, I guess, except the "too hard" part. It's a simple fact that the Nazis are neo-pagans and are the enemies of Christ and his Church. Ne'er the twain shall meet.

You're the one that's trying too hard - you're trying to be very nice and not speak the simple truth about things in the hopes of achieving some unity that never was and can never be.

[QUOTE]OD is a good example where an "impossible" coalition exists. You may think it's a Christian forum, while de-facto it's a trad conservative forum with a heavy WN flavor. The "pagan" faction here is a highly intellectual and eloquent bunch, with some exceptions of course. [/QUOTE]

OD is great. And nobody loves the pagans here more than me. I have often expressed my admiration for the intellect and learning of the very formidible Wintermute, and I enjoyed immensely sparring with the doughty Neo-Nietzsche.

And that I suggest is an end in itself. The conversation is good, just because there's probably no other place on the web where it happens.

But that doesn't mean that there is reasonable hope for a coalition in the political sense - organizing, printing propaganda, influencing politics - between Christians and our pagan friends of various stripes.

[QUOTE]I have faith in the power of human intellect to study the universe. I don't have literal faith in what "Holy Books" describe.

Very simple: common sense can be found outside organized religions, and much of it may be missing within.[/QUOTE]

Our crucified King is a stumbling block to the rational Greeks, and a scandal to the self-righeous Pharisees.

I can only say that faith of necessity precedes reason. As St. Augustine put it, we believe so that we can understand, for reason cannot inform our ultimate value judgements about what we should apply our reason to, or why we should value reason in the first place.

Metternich

2003-12-25 20:38 | User Profile

Walter, as a Catholic, why do you oppose the mass immigration of fellow Roman Catholics from Latin America? I would just like to know. I find this interesting.

Metternich

2003-12-25 20:50 | User Profile

How did we get from Roman slavery to American freedom in purely Pagan terms, and again without the influence of Christ and His Church???

It was a long process Walter. For instance, slavery and the slave trade persisted in the British Isles until well after the Norman Conquest. Let it be noted that Britain was converted to Christianity, for the most part, as early as the 7th century.

Okiereddust

2003-12-25 22:12 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Acorn]I've Acorn wrote:

I've lived in the real world, and RACE TRUMPS ALL. An "evil" communistic, wife-swapping vegan commune, if all White, would run great. An ideal, free-market with sensible, best-of-all-possible-worlds society if polluted by non-whites will suck ass. Always has, always will. [/QUOTE] I can't really agree with you there. If that is what you really thought, you would be living in a Scandavian country now, and finding it paradise. Au contraire we have a Finnish comrade who assures us life in basically all-white Finland, is anything but, especially for a white nationalist. Unless you appreciate life from a jail cell. Ditto for Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland, and in the past, East Germany.

Race certainly doesn't trump all. That actually is a quintessentially jewish viewpoint, not a western one at all. That was why Jesus rebuked the Jews

"And say not we are all sons of Abraham, for the Lord God is able to create Sons of Abraham from the very earth itself" .

As a Christian I believe our battle is not ultimately with a race of people, however depraved. It is against the forces of darkness which depraved races of people serve. As a result no purely physical battle, however well fought, will ultimately be successful.

madrussian

2003-12-25 22:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]This is incorrect. If they are "traditional Catholics" then by definition they accept the traditional Catholic teaching on the central importance of "nation" in God's plan of salvation. They recognize the very ancient tradition of the rights of nations. No, madrussian, my views on race and nation are simply those that were proclaimed by the Church (both Orthodox and Roman) until very recently.

Nation as in nation-state. I refered to it earlier as state nationalism. Since the times have changed and nominally white states are no longer mono-ethnic, the model no longer works. You can counter by modifying what you mean by state and saying that "white" is implied, but that will be just a roundabout way of stating the same.

Traditional Christianity is superlatively weird, madrussian. In its fundamentals it has nothing to do with "reason" or "reasonable" since (again by definition) such things precede reason and exist in one of those first places where reason (much less the whitebread "reasonablness" you seem to urge upon us as a replacement) cannot tread.

If you use the libertarian definition of reason, then perhaps you are right. For a realist, the unwashed masses may need religion to maintain cohesiveness, and if the "unreason" is reqiured for the ultimate survival, reason will approve of the dogmas as a necessary "opium for the masses". But you'll always have people going outside the dogma, because the dogma boundaries may be too narrow for some.

But that doesn't mean that there is reasonable hope for a coalition in the political sense - organizing, printing propaganda, influencing politics - between Christians and our pagan friends of various stripes.

That seems like your personal opinion. Our host may think otherwise re: this thread.

Walter Yannis

2003-12-26 06:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Nation as in nation-state. I refered to it earlier as state nationalism. Since the times have changed and [I]nominally white states are no longer mono-ethnic, the model no longer works. [/I] You can counter by modifying what you mean by state and saying that "white" is implied, but that will be just a roundabout way of stating the same.[/QUOTE]

You seem to be advocating a sort of whites-only multiculturalism, erasing our distinctive national characters into a sort of white version of the Roman Empire. Is that correct?

If so, I reject that, as would any real nationalist. Nations are defined by the indicia of blood, culture, and sovereign territory. The Germans are the Germans and the Poles are the Poles, despite the fact that they're white. I in no way want to see the abolition of either of those nations, if that is what you imply. In fact, I want the Germans to be even more German and the Irish to be even more Irish. And that doesn't apply only to whites - I think that the Vietnamese should be deeply Vietnamese, and the Ethiopians even more profoundly Ethiopian.

I ask you to consider whether the Marxism of your education is not playing an unrecognized role in your thinking. Nations are real, living, breathing entities, just as individuals are. They're not mere "constructs" that can be engineered out of the way of progress - at least not without committing genocide. You seem to make the same assumptions as our multicultural neo-Marxist enemies, but then arbitrarily apply the analysis only to whites.

Again, I ask you to meditate on that.

[QUOTE]If you use the libertarian definition of reason, then perhaps you are right. For a realist, the [B]unwashed masses [/B] may need religion to maintain cohesiveness, and if the "unreason" is reqiured for the ultimate survival, reason will approve of the dogmas as a necessary [B]"opium for the masses".[/B] But you'll always have people going outside the dogma, because the dogma boundaries may be too narrow for some. That seems like your personal opinion. [B]Our host [/B] may think otherwise re: this thread. [/QUOTE]

First, I'm unaware of any distinct "libertarian definition of reason." Please define that term and explain in detail how it differs from the other type (or other types?) of reason. Perhaps you mean the "dialectic?" Please explain.

Second, your (very snide and presumptuous) comment about the "unwashed masses" needing their "opium" proves the point more eloquently than my blacksmith prose ever could. If that's your opinion of the the Church of Christ - the very essence of Christendom and the center of my soul - then how exactly is it that you can work with Christians on anything more than a purely tactical level? Are we smelly Christians supposed to look to you and your superior "reason" for leadership and inspiration? Do you see yourself as a member of a "vanguard of the Christian proletariat?"

Your elitist-atheistic thinking certainly leads me to suspect that you're more of a Marxist than you care to admit. Again, I sincerely ask you to consider whether you are not suffering from what Peter Brimelow (?) called "Marxitis."

As to our gracious host, Texas Dissident, perhaps we should ask him to settle this question, but I suggest only after he's taken a good, long bath and washed the stench of those smelly, Christian masses from his person.

I wouldn't want you to be inconvenienced in any way.

Merry Christmas.

Walter

Walter Yannis

2003-12-26 07:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Metternich]It was a long process Walter. For instance, slavery and the slave trade persisted in the British Isles until well after the Norman Conquest. Let it be noted that Britain was converted to Christianity, for the most part, as early as the 7th century.[/QUOTE]

It was a long and painful process that was guided by the Church and informed by Christian teaching.

My point is that slavery is considered wrong because - in modern jargon - the Church imposed a cultural meme that slavery is an outrage on the dignity of the human person - a dignity that is a corollary of the pre-rational belief in the Incarnation. After all, if God Himself deigned to become human and suffered a horrible death so that all men could be saved, then no mere man could challenge that dignity in any absolute way.

This is precisely why Christendom broght the world freedom as it is now understood. It is also why Judaism and Islam countenance slavery, and why the West's loss of the Christian faith results directly in our loss of freedom. Indeed, slavery - the absolute right of one human to the arbitrary disposal of another - was de facto re-instituted in the United States in 1973 with Roe v. Wade, but that's for another thread.

Anyway, I really must insist that all of my Pagan friends here acknowledge their own Christian moral assumptions in their often breathless condemnations of Christianity. In this they display the modern liberal tendency to take moral assumptions that are deeply Christian in their etiology, and then to turn around and use them to critique Christianity itself. But that is absurd. One cannot very well hope to occupy the towering edifice of Christian morality while taking a wrecking ball to its very foundations.

If you truly are Pagans, then get honest about it, and celebrate slavery and child sacrifice (especially abortion) as your cultural heritage. Because in moral terms (and while recognizing the tremendous intellectual achievements of Paganism) that's what it is.

Walter

Walter Yannis

2003-12-26 07:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Race certainly doesn't trump all. That actually is a quintessentially jewish viewpoint, not a western one at all. That was why Jesus rebuked the Jews[/QUOTE]

Ditto.

As Jesus said "seek ye first the Kingdom of God and its Righteousness, and all the rest will be multiplied unto you."

As I've written above, we must aim much higher than "race." We must seek to do God's will, and as it happens God's will as revealed in Scriptures and in Holy Tradition includes the "economy of the nations," of humanity divided into distinct groups defined by blood, culture and sovereign territory. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that this division into "nations" is an integral part of God's plan of salvation, and is of "cosmic" importance.

The difference between an ardent patriot and a mere fanatic is this focus on something higher than the cause of the day. We must focus on doing God's will in all things, both in our personal and public lives.

And God willing, He will renew our European, Christian and English-speaking American nation, and indeed all the nations of the world.

Walter

Metternich

2003-12-26 08:43 | User Profile

It was a long and painful process that was guided by the Church and informed by Christian teaching.

I would agree that Christianity definitely played a role in the elimination of slavery, however, I would be more prone to pin the abolition of slavery on economic changes myself. As I noted before, Christianity came to the British Isles (by and large) in the 7th century. Slavery, however, persisted in the British Isles until well into the 11th century. That's a gap of about 500 something years. Now if Christians were all that opposed to slavery, why did it take several hundred years to abolish white slavery in Britain?

My point is that slavery is considered wrong because - in modern jargon - the Church imposed a cultural meme that slavery is an outrage on the dignity of the human person - a dignity that is a corollary of the pre-rational belief in the Incarnation.

Which Church was this? The Church itself used to actually purchase slaves all the time. Christian rulers also enslaved pagans for centuries and sold them to the Moslems in Spain. This was a quite lucrative trade in the Early Middle Ages.

After all, if God Himself deigned to become human and suffered a horrible death so that all men could be saved, then no mere man could challenge that dignity in any absolute way.

What about the men who do not want to be saved Walter? Is it okay for Christians to enslave them and barter them like commodities?

This is precisely why Christendom broght the world freedom as it is now understood.

Explain to me how the Christians who enslaved pagans and sold them to international slave traders brought them freedom? I have in mind here specifically the West Slavs.

It is also why Judaism and Islam countenance slavery, and why the West's loss of the Christian faith results directly in our loss of freedom. Indeed, slavery - the absolute right of one human to the arbitrary disposal of another - was de facto re-instituted in the United States in 1973 with Roe v. Wade, but that's for another thread.

Did white Christian Southerners own black Christian chattel slave property for several centuries? Did not Southerners use biblical arguments to justify slavery?

Anyway, I really must insist that all of my Pagan friends here acknowledge their own Christian moral assumptions in their often breathless condemnations of Christianity.

I haven't condemned Christianity. I haven't suggested that I am a pagan either.

In this they display the modern liberal tendency to take moral assumptions that are deeply Christian in their etiology, and then to turn around and use them to critique Christianity itself. But that is absurd.

Once again, if Christianity is so deeply opposed to slavery, how were Southern slaveowners able to justify the enslavement of African Christians on biblical grounds?

One cannot very well hope to occupy the towering edifice of Christian morality while taking a wrecking ball to its very foundations.

What is Christian morality?

If you truly are Pagans, then get honest about it, and celebrate slavery and child sacrifice (especially abortion) as your cultural heritage. Because in moral terms (and while recognizing the tremendous intellectual achievements of Paganism) that's what it is.

Walter

I don't personally understand how Walter is associating paganism with slavery and Christianity with freedom given that slavery did not expire for centuries in Western Europe after the introduction of Christianity. I do not understand how Christianity can be so deeply antithetical to slavery either given the enormous role played by Christian monarchs, not to mention the Church itself which profited from such enterprises, in selling pagan slaves to Muslims. There is also, of course, the pivotal role played by Christians in the Transatlantic slave trade not to mention the enslavement of the American aboriginies. Christopher Columbus never brought 'freedom' to the island of Hispanolia.

Walter Yannis

2003-12-26 08:56 | User Profile

I didn't mean to imply that you are a pagan, sorry if my post came off that way.

For background on the slavery question, please see this [URL=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=11439]THREAD[/URL]

Walter

Metternich

2003-12-26 09:13 | User Profile

Indeed, the word Ã¢â¬ÅslaveÃ¢â¬Â comes from Ã¢â¬ÅSlavÃ¢â¬Â precisely because so many Slavs were forcibly enslaved.

The article does not mention that "slave" began to be associated with "slav" because the Carolingian and the Ottonian Christian Empires enslaved so many of the West Slavic pagans and sold them to international slave traders in the 9th and 10th centuries.

Metternich

2003-12-26 09:17 | User Profile

More on Christianity and freedom while the thought is on my mind. I would be interested in hearing the opinion of Texas Dissident on this issue since he seems to have such an anathema to Nazism.

"All Protestant regimes were stiffly doctrinal to a degree unknown Ã¢â¬â until now Ã¢â¬â in Rome. John CalvinÃ¢â¬â¢s Geneva, however, represented the ultimate in repression. The city-state of GenÃÂ¨ve, which became known as the Protestant Rome, was also, in effect, a police state, ruled by a Consistory of five persons and twelve lay elders, with the bloodless figure of a dictator looming over all. In physique, temperament, and conviction, Calvin (1509-1564) was the inverted image of the freewheeling, permissive, high-living popes whose excesses had led to the Lutheran apostasy. Frail, thin, short, and lightly bearded, with ruthless, penetrating eyes, he was humorless and short-tempered. The slightest criticism enraged him. Those who questioned his theology he called Ã¢â¬Åpigs,Ã¢â¬Â Ã¢â¬Åasses,Ã¢â¬Â Ã¢â¬Åriffraff,Ã¢â¬Â Ã¢â¬Ådogs,Ã¢â¬Â Ã¢â¬Åidiots,Ã¢â¬Â and Ã¢â¬Åstinking beasts.Ã¢â¬Â One morning he found a poster on his pulpit accusing him of Ã¢â¬ÅGross Hypocrisy.Ã¢â¬Â A suspect was arrested. No evidence was produced but he was tortured day and night for a month till he confessed. Screaming with pain, he was lashed to a wooden stake. Penultimately, his feet were nailed to the wood; ultimately he was decapitated.

CalvinÃ¢â¬â¢s justification for this excessive rebuke reveals the mindset of all Reformation inquisitors, Protestant and Catholic alike: Ã¢â¬ÅWhen the papists are so harsh and violent in defense of their superstitions,Ã¢â¬Â he asked, Ã¢â¬Åare not ChristÃ¢â¬â¢s magistrates shamed to show themselves less ardent in defense of the sure truth?Ã¢â¬Â Clearly, he would have condemned the Jesus of Matthew (5:39, 44) as a heretic. In CalvinÃ¢â¬â¢s Orwellian theocracy, established in 1542, acts of God Ã¢â¬â earthquakes, lightning, flooding Ã¢â¬â were acts of Satan. (Luther, of course, agreed.) Copernicus was branded a fraud, attendance at church and sermons was compulsory, and Calvin himself preached at great length three or four times a week. Refusal to take the Eucharist was a crime. The Consistory, which made no distinction between religion and morality, could summon anyone for questioning, investigate any charge of backsliding, and entered homes periodically to be sure no one was cheating CalvinÃ¢â¬â¢s God. Legislation specified the number of dishes to be served at each meal and the color of garments worn. What one was permitted to wear depended upon who one was, for never was a society more class-ridden. Believing that every child of God had been foreordained, Calvin was determined that each know his place, statues specified the quality of dress and the activities allowed in each class.

But even the elite Ã¢â¬â the clergy, of course Ã¢â¬â were allowed few diversions. Calvinists worked hard because there wasnÃ¢â¬â¢t much else they were permitted to do. Ã¢â¬ÅFeastingÃ¢â¬Â was proscribed; so were dancing, singing, pictures, statutes, relics, church bells, organs, altar candles; Ã¢â¬Åindecent or irreligiousÃ¢â¬Â songs, staging or attending theatrical plays; wearing rouge, jewelry, lace, or Ã¢â¬ÅimmodestÃ¢â¬Â dress; speaking disrespectfully of your betters; extravagant entertainment; swearing, gambling, playing cards, hunting, drunkenness; naming children after anyone but figures in the Old Testament; reading Ã¢â¬Åimmoral or irreligiousÃ¢â¬Â books; and sexual intercourse, except between partners of different genders who were married to one another.

To show that Calvinists were merciful, first offenders were let off with reprimands and two-time losers with fines. After that, those who flouted the law were in real trouble. The Consistory made no allowances for probation, suspended sentences, or rehabilitation programs, and Calvin assumed that everyone enjoyed community service without being sentenced to it. Excommunication and banishment from the community were considered dire, though those living in a more permissive age might find them less appalling. In any event, there were plenty of other penalties, some of them as odd as the offenses they punished. A father who stubbornly insisted upon calling his newborn son Claude spent four days in the canton jail; so did a woman convicted of wearing her hair at an Ã¢â¬ÅimmoralÃ¢â¬Â height. A child who struck his parents was summarily beheaded. Abortion was not a political issue because any single woman discovered with a child was drowned. (So, if he could be identified, was her impregnator.) Violating the seventh commandment was also a capital offense. CalvinÃ¢â¬â¢s stepson was found in bed with another woman; his daughter-in-law, behind a haystack with another man. All four miscreants were executed.

Of course, it proved impossible to legislate virtue. Some of CalvinÃ¢â¬â¢s devoted followers were insisted that it was possible, that the ConsistoryÃ¢â¬â¢s moral straightjacket worked; Bernardino Ochino, an ex-Catholic who had found asylum in the city-state, wrote that Ã¢â¬ÅUnchastity, adultery, and impure living, such as prevail in many places where I have lived, are here unknown.Ã¢â¬Â In fact they were widely known there; the proof lies in the councilÃ¢â¬â¢s records. A remarkable number of unmarried women who worhispped with Ochino managed to carry their pregnancies to term undetected. Some abandoned their issue on church steps or alongside forest trails; some named their male co-conspirator, who them married them at swordÃ¢â¬â¢s point; some lived as single parents, for not even Calvinists could orphan an innocent infant.

On other issues they were adamant, however. The ultimate crime, of course, was heresy. It was even blacker than witchcraft, though sorcerers could not be expected to appreciate the distinction; after a devastating outbreak of plague, fourteen Geneva women, found guilty of persuading Satan to afflict the community, were buried alive. But because the soul was more precious than the flesh, the life expectancy of an apostate was even shorter. Anyone whose church attendance became infrequent was destined for the stake. Holding religious beliefs at odds with those of the majority was no excuse in Geneva, or, for that matter, in other Protestant theocracies. It was a consummate irony of the Reformation that the movement against Rome, which had begun with an affirmation of individual judgment, now repudiated it entirely. Apostasy was regarded as an offense to God and treason to the state. At such it was punished with swift, agonizing death. One historian wrote, Ã¢â¬ÅCatholicism, which had preached this view of heresy, became heresy in its turn.Ã¢â¬Â

-- Manchester, William [I]A World Lit Only By Fire, The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance[/I] (Boston, 1992), pp.190-193

Mithras

2003-12-26 17:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I agree that my goal to re-institute the Church Triumphant has nothing whatever to do with "folkish nationalism" seen "through the eyes of a Pagan." [/QUOTE]

I mean Racial nationalism is not exclusive to Christians.

[QUOTE]Paganism in its many forms - Kabbalistic Judaism, Freemasonry, Nazism, neo-Marxist Feminism, neo-Marxist Ecologism, New Age Psychobabble, to name but a few - is the problem, it's most emphatically not the solution. [/QUOTE]

Marxism is atheist, Paganism is not atheist, its polytheist. I don't know what judaism has to do with European paganism, it has more to do with Christianity than anything.

[QUOTE]Paganism is the enemy to be conquered - it's not a friend of the Church.[/QUOTE]

Treating me as your enemy makes me your enemy. Perhaps you are the problem. For I have not come at you with sword. Jesus never treated Pagans as enemies. He loved Pagans and worked with them. He was called "pagan" by the jewish elders. Jesus is more pagan than not. Creating enemies out of pagans is a jewish phenomena, and should not be the aim of Christianity. This is what Jesus fought against and you are doing the complete opposite.

[QUOTE]Anyway, you thought that this forum is about "Racial Nationalism." That's not my understanding. I understood that this Forum was about Paleo Conservatism - the conservatism of Edmund Burke and his progeny. It's about Christendom, and America's unique part in Christendom. It's about the American nation - European, Christian and English-speaking - in its struggle for survival. [/QUOTE]

Let's hear what TD says his forum is about. I believe we were talking about alliance within the Racial Nationalist movement not TD's forum.

[QUOTE]Racial nationalism is the wrong goal, IMHO.[/QUOTE]

This is the source of our disagreement. Look at the thread: Original Dissent Forum > Original Dissent > Politics > [B]White Nationalism[/B] > Ecumenism

[QUOTE]I think that you're aiming at the wrong thing, Mithras. Racial and national integrity are but one aspect of a healthy society, but there are many others, including a common culture that can only spring from a common "cult" of worship. For Christendom that can only be the Church.[/QUOTE]

Discuss this in the Christian section.

[QUOTE]As Jesus said, we must "seek first the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness" and all the rest will follow automatically from that.[/QUOTE]

I do, I just have different Gods who run the Kingdom than you yours.

[QUOTE]This underscores yet again that we have so little in common in terms of ultimate goals that forming a single political unit is probably not in the cards for us.[/QUOTE]

But isn't this the subject of this thread?

[QUOTE]As an aside, I note that you talk about "rights." That's interesting. From whence derive the rights of Pagans? [/QUOTE]

Are you saying that Pagans do not deserve any rights?

madrussian

2003-12-26 18:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]You seem to be advocating a sort of whites-only multiculturalism, erasing our distinctive national characters into a sort of white version of the Roman Empire. Is that correct?

Incorrect. Address the point about how Christianity can oppose third-worldization via import of Christians or nominal Christian converts.

First, I'm unaware of any distinct "libertarian definition of reason." Please define that term and explain in detail how it differs from the other type (or other types?) of reason. Perhaps you mean the "dialectic?" Please explain.

Just making fun of the libertarian tendency to make simplistic arguments and derive dogmas arbitrarily applied despite the obvious real-world data contradicting their "analysis".

Second, your (very snide and presumptuous) comment about the "unwashed masses" needing their "opium" proves the point more eloquently than my blacksmith prose ever could. If that's your opinion of the the Church of Christ - the very essence of Christendom and the center of my soul - then how exactly is it that you can work with Christians on anything more than a purely tactical level? Are we smelly Christians supposed to look to you and your superior "reason" for leadership and inspiration? Do you see yourself as a member of a "vanguard of the Christian proletariat?"

I am just a realist and believe that survival may warrant the faith. My choice of the terminology may have been unfortunate, but note that I used the quotes. I realize one isn't supposed to use any humor when corresponding with you.

Your elitist-atheistic thinking certainly leads me to suspect that you're more of a Marxist than you care to admit. Again, I sincerely ask you to consider whether you are not suffering from what Peter Brimelow (?) called "Marxitis."

Being a non-Christian is the only thing that is common. Unlike the marxists, I am for Christianity (despite not believing in the Bible), ethnic nationalism etc. etc. I am as close your ally as it can get, only without faith in Christianity. What more do you expect?

Texas Dissident

2003-12-26 19:25 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Metternich]I would be interested in hearing the opinion of Texas Dissident on this issue since he seems to have such an anathema to Nazism. [/QUOTE]

Calvin? For what it's worth here's a past thread on [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=9515]John Calvin[/url] where it was pretty much established that Calvin was pure, unfettered evil and probably a sodomite. However, it's worth a review simply because my compatriot Okiereddust had some great lines throughout it.

With regards to nazism, I would say that it is anathema to me and fellow American, Christian patriots simply because of its rigid ideological totalitarianism, especially in relation with Christianity but not solely limited to it. We can of course read Bonhoeffer or NiemÃÂ¶ller and try to dismiss their objections to national socialism as relics of a particular and bygone nazi Germany, but dialogue with those who still advocate that philosophy on some level (and we've had it here a number of times) quickly reveals the same rigidity and totalitarian bent in my observation.

I don't think it's any secret where I am on certain issues. To reiterate, I wanted this thread to explore and focus on exactly where anyone who even remotely identifies as a white nationalist could find practical areas of agreement or issues to cooperate with each other on. So far and once again I might add, it seems that Christianity is the bellweather stumbling block issue. Nevertheless, a great thread and a compliment to our community here at OD.

madrussian

2003-12-26 19:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] So far and once again I might add, it seems that Christianity is the bellweather stumbling block issue.[/QUOTE] We have had a very small statistical sample so far. Only Walter Yannis has been unequivocal on this issue. I see that most just know better than to post on this thread. And some have voted with their feet and moved to VNN forum.

Texas Dissident

2003-12-26 19:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]We have had a very small statistical sample so far. Only Walter Yannis has been unequivocal on this issue. I see that most just know better than to post on this thread. And some have voted with their feet and moved to VNN forum.[/QUOTE]

That's true, mr, and I didn't mean to sum-up anything with my post. That's why I hadn't made any replies on this thread. I hope the dialogue continues.

Metternich

2003-12-26 21:04 | User Profile

I don't have any problem with Christianity myself, or paganism. It is not my goal to attack Christianity. It is hard for me to see, however, how Christianity, as a universalist religion, is compatible with white racialism, a particularist movement. Why should Walter Yannis, as a Catholic, be opposed to the mass immigration of mestizo Catholics into the United States from Latin America? Christianity is also rapidly becoming by and large a nonwhite religion and as the composition of Christians at large changes, so will Christianity itself, as evidenced by the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s.

"The Faith is Europe. And Europe is the Faith."

-- Hilaire Belloc, The Catholicity of the Church

TexasAnarch

2003-12-26 22:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ragnar]I've been thinking along those same lines and here's the best article on the subject I've seen during the holidays:

[B]The Tree of Life and The End of Time[/B]

(From Ancient Science by Laura Knight-Jadscyk)

..... The very locus of the orgies, when the seed was buried in the ground, demonstrates the dissolution of form into orgiastic chaos. We are in the presence of a very ancient idea: a return to primordial unity, the end/beginning in which limits, contours, distances, no longer hold sway. What is primordial and essential is the idea of regeneration through chaos, repetition of creation: a Time Loop.[/B]

[url]http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/signs.htm[/url][/QUOTE]

Great post. A few succinct, pertinent comments.

The entire magnificent schema of Celestial Archetypes would have to be regarded, metaphysically, as a psychological projection -- a reading, or seeing (=relating to through the five senses in a systematic illusion -- 'divine hallucination') of the actual physical space-time "sky" as "heavens" (nurtured by Nuut). There is an objective "absolute, transpersonal, transdimensional" ground for these representations, explaining how what is called "myth" can have actually mediated a kind of 'knowledge' of the over-lapping, millenial cosmic reality. Thus, relating to reality through these (virtually universally shared Archetypal templates, in the Zodiacal schema, for instance) Forms defines humanity objectively relating to itself. The ancient dictum "As above, So below" says this.
Modern psychology and neonatany have discovered something unknown, and unknowable, to the ancients: the fetal origins of experience. (L. DeMause: [I]Foundations of Psychohistory[/I] ). This explains rebirth-rituals as repetition-compulsions caused by birth-trauma. History is the story of humans overcoming the curse of this Eternal Return. To get it out of the human psyche as an irrational compulsion ("overcoming the birth trauma").
"Gods" are projections of the split-off post-birth "phantom Placenta": it is established that the fetus relates to its blood-cleansing/renewal rhythms [I]in utero[/I], and this would be the basis for understanding "grace" from the "heavenly Father in the Skies", by later re-projection of neural memory-retained cyclic rhythms.
The growing sense of "sin" and "pollution" the ancients attributed to the passing of time as such, is a re-play of the growing discomfort, restricted [I]lebensraum[/I], 'pressure', 'heat' and loss of oxygen in the blood due to increasingly dysfunctional placental membrane. The build up of "toxins" is retro-jectively attributed, psychologically, to helplessness, guilt, "sin", and strategies of defense against the [B]POISONOUS PLACENTA[/B] are elaborated and later carried out in fantasy.
A [B]COSMIC BATTLE BETWEEN THE HYDRA-HEADED, DRAGON PROTOTYPAL BEAST = POISONOUS PLACENTAL IS CARRIED OUT AS "STRUGGLE FOR BIRTH"[/B] (Marduk v. Klingsor/Tiamat; Osiris v. Seth; Ahriman v Omazd; etc.). The blood of actual fetus, and youth, representing sacrifice of Hero-Savior and virility, both (Jesus muscle), is the illusory/delusional magical VICTORY AT SEA that identification with, or submission to, provides re-birth, like an Ark on an amniotic ocean, burst open and flooding. You have to sumbit to the trauma, go with it, give up one life in the womb-surround in order to get "OUT" -- escape to the glorious, outside, Light world Beyond (the symbolic death, with great struggle, from which we would perish were it not for grace -- and with the first breath, the flow of sorely depleted oxygen, again.)
War is a satanic (poisonous placenta cult rite) group ritual of child/youth sacrifice, arranged by an old-and-dying-fetal "King/Queen" regime, bringing in the Good God to defeat the Bad God and Restoring the group-regime's Vigor and Vitality. :wallbash:
The "story" of One man achieving maximum humanity in the act of eleminating that bloody unconscious repetition-compulsion of adults to kill their children in order to delusionally restore their dying order(s) defines "Christianity", as a myth. It is not, of course, just a "myth" if it has been realized. The belief in "myth" is the myth of "belief". Now that particular Light, and the blood shed to bring it to earth -- one man's fully conscious act to kill the YHWY -- is used to fire up the menorah in Baghdad.
What neither Jews nor pagans get is the idea that the eternal return isn't forever, but ran its course 0 a.d (which is why they call it 0 a.d.). Only once, in this life for each one, if at all. Like Calvin taught, its up to you. He reports. You decide.

Walter Yannis

2003-12-28 16:35 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Metternich]Why should Walter Yannis, as a Catholic, be opposed to the mass immigration of mestizo Catholics into the United States from Latin America? [/QUOTE]

I've said it many times here, and I guess it bears repeating yet again.

Traditional Christian doctrine holds that man exists not only as an individual, but as a member of a "nation" - in Biblical terms as men grouped "in their lands, with their languages, in their families." Nations are in fact organisms as much as are individuals, that at defined in terms of blood (in their families), culture (with their languages) and territorial sovereignty (in their lands). Each nation is given over by God to the guardianship of an angel, and our personal salvation is intimately bound up with the fate of our nation.

The division of mankind into nations is an essential part of God's plan of salvation.

Violation of this "devine economy of the nations" constitues the sin of Babel, and like the story of the Tower of Babel the desire to tear down national boundaries results from man's pride, desire for worldly power, and the seduction of paganism.

This is all spelled out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Articles 56-58.

Applying these indicia of blood, culture and territorial sovereignty to my own country, the American nation was always understood to be white in blood, English in language and culture, and occupying the territory within boundaries recognized under international law. At least until the Tribe began redifining our nation back in the 1960's.

The Mexicans are another nation. They have other (Indian) blood, are Spanish in language and culture (and of course Indian as well), and occupy a separate sovereign territory.

The willful failure to respect the national divisions the God Himself willed between the Mexican and American nations is obviously then powerful sin and in the teeth of clear Catholic teaching.

Plainly, then, the "open borders" policy with Mexico is, aside from being a clear oxymoron, the very Sin of Babel. Note that the fall of the borders coincide perfectly with America's growing worship of Mammon and adoption of pagan practices such as abortion on demand (aka child sacrifice).

Catholic doctrine clearly requires us to enforce our southern border.

See a letter I wrote that VDARE published on this topic
[URL=http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_123001.htm]HERE[/URL]

For your convenience, here are the relevant Articles of the Catechism.

"After the unity of the human race was shattered by sin God at once sought to save humanity part by part. The covenant with Noah after the flood gives expression to the principle of the divine economy toward the 'nations', in other words, towards men grouped 'in their lands, each with (its) own language, by their families, in their nations'.[Gen 10:5 ; cf. Gen 9:9-10, 16 ; Gen 10:20-31 .]"
"This state of division into many nations, each entrusted by divine providence to the guardianship of angels, is at once cosmic, social and religious. It is intended to limit the pride of fallen humanity [Cf. Acts 17:26-27 ; Dt 4:19 ; Dt 32:8 vLXX.] united only in its perverse ambition to forge its own unity as at Babel.[Cf. Wis 10:5 ; Gen 11:4-6 .] But, because of sin, both polytheism and the idolatry of the nation and of its rulers constantly threaten this provisional economy with the perversion of paganism.[Cf. Rom 1:18-25 .]"

Walter

Walter Yannis

2003-12-28 17:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE]I mean Racial nationalism is not exclusive to Christians.[/QUOTE]

Two points. First, the question posed by this thread, at least as far as I understand it, is to what extent if any Christians can work with Nazis like neo-Nitzsche and Pagans like Wintermute. By conclusion is that we can't do very much together beyond the merely tactical, because any real movement must tap into man's instinctive ability to organize himself socially by means of religious symbols and beliefs. Insofar as Christianity is radically at odds with Nazism, Marxism and other neo-pagan systems, no successful organization is either possible or desireable.

Second, I am not a "racial nationalist" in the sense that I think you mean. While as a traditional Christian I recognize the fundamental role national identity plays in God's plan of salvation, and indeed I go further in recognizing nations as living, breathing entities, this is merely an incident to Catholic theology. It is most emphatically not the driving force. It is not, to repeat, the thing that animates Christians.

I like to use the analogy of Mother Theresa. Her many critics, while finding much to admire in her career, also reproach her with "failing to strike at the roots of poverty." They can't understand why, for example, she ordered her nuns to stop feeding a dying man when the bell tolled for matins, or why she insisted that birth control was sinful. The problem is that such critics don't understand Mother Thersa at all. They look at the situation as secular social workers. They see a problem to be solved (poverty), and while they applaud Mother Theresa's work in alleviating suffering, they just can't wrap their minds around why she would exert such heroic effort so ineffectively. Of course, the point that they miss is that Mother Theresa wasn't there to end poverty. In fact, as her leaving a hungry and dying man in mid-bite to attend to her recital of the Rosary clearly illustrates, she wasn't even there to alleviate suffering per se. She was there to WORSHIP GOD and that worship took the form of picking maggots off street beggars in Calcutta at 0900 and the rosary sharply at 1000, then that's what she did. Mother Theresa aimed at something entirely different than her secular critics, and by doing so she did much more to alleviate suffering than all of her critics put together. But they'll never get that, because they don't share the terrible madness that is her Faith.

It is the same with you "racial nationalists", I think. You wonder why it is that Christians who seem to want the same thing (here, national integrity) are so difficult to understand and work with, and it seems to me it's because we are shooting at different things. You aim at national and racial integrity, we aim much higher and see national and racial health as a mere incident to our Christian Faith.

[QUOTE]Marxism is atheist, Paganism is not atheist, its polytheist. I don't know what judaism has to do with European paganism, it has more to do with Christianity than anything. [/QUOTE]

As E.O. Wilson and others pointed out, Marxism is a religion with its own rituals and beliefs. It's god is a mysterious force/process called the dialectic, which, as I'm sure you're aware, derives directly from Hegel's neo-Pagan specualtions.

It's pagan in the deepest sense.

[QUOTE]Treating me as your enemy makes me your enemy. Perhaps you are the problem. For I have not come at you with sword. [/QUOTE]

I don't consider you an enemy. The question posed by this thread, again insofar as I understand it, is whether and to what extent Christians and pagans can work together. My conclusion is that we can cooperate on a limited basis, but we can't for anything like an organic movement, for the reasons detailed elsewhere on this thread.

[QUOTE]Jesus never treated Pagans as enemies. He loved Pagans and worked with them. He was called "pagan" by the jewish elders. Jesus is more pagan than not. Creating enemies out of pagans is a jewish phenomena, and should not be the aim of Christianity. This is what Jesus fought against and you are doing the complete opposite.[/QUOTE]

You're inventing a Jesus who never existed. Jesus came to save us all, and asks that we all believe in Him. He called the pagans to faith in Him. When exactly did He work with Pagans? Indeed, he even called them "dogs" - although the context of that makes me wonder how much he meant it.

Let me add that I use the term "Christianity" advisedly. In a sense there really is no such thing. There is Christ, and there is His Church. That's it.

[QUOTE]I do, I just have different Gods who run the Kingdom than you yours.[/QUOTE]

The fact that you have "different gods" is not "just" anything. It is the ultimate reality with which we deal. There can be no more fundamental difference than that.

[QUOTE]Are you saying that Pagans do not deserve any rights?[/QUOTE]

No, I'm asking what rights you believe men have, and from whence they derive.

And I admonish you in a very friendly way to first weed out the Christian assumptions about the individual's worth and dignity that you no doubt breathed in from the surrounding culture from your infancy, just as my friend madrussian imbibed (but roundly fails to recognize) deep, refreshing draughts of Karl Marx.

Walter

Mithras

2003-12-28 21:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I don't consider you an enemy. [/QUOTE]

Well, if you want to "conquer" me as you put it, what else would I be?

[QUOTE]You're inventing a Jesus who never existed.[/QUOTE]

Do you remember the Jesus of the gospels? That is the real Jesus of the gospels. That was his mission. The "save us all" bit is what I perceive to be hype. His core mission was as I described.

The books in the bible are not absolute. Some are disputed, others were left out entirely, but the books are not 100% correct. There are things written in them which are, may be, may not be, and are totally not, correct.

Walter Yannis

2003-12-29 12:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Well, if you want to "conquer" me as you put it, what else would I be?[/QUOTE]

He who is not against us is with us.

As long as you don't violently oppose my goal of restablishing the Church Triumphant, then we'll likely get along just fine. For my part, I will not violently oppose your right to engage in any pagan worship or any other consensual private behaviour that doesn't directly impinge on the rights of non-consenting third parties (abortion especially).

I think that's plenty of room for enduring and positive relationships to develop.

Of course, it's also not the stuff that great movements are made of, but that's exactly the point I'm trying to make.

I'm not your enemy, but that doesn't make me your supporter.

And vice versa, I'm sure.

[QUOTE]Do you remember the Jesus of the gospels? That is the real Jesus of the gospels. That was his mission. The "save us all" bit is what I perceive to be hype. His core mission was as I described.[/QUOTE]

This is extraordinarily interesting. Please explain to me how the Jesus of the Gospels tried to work closely with Pagans.

The best example of His interaction with a (supposed) Pagan was his over-the-moon praise for the Roman Centurian (whose words - "Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, speak but the word and my servant shall be healed" - are recited at the most solemn moment of the Mass) but this was only after the Roman Centurian recognized the Lordship of Jesus.

He called the (semi-pagan?) Samaritain woman a "dog", but I think that was a test of His Apostles to see if they'd heard His message to drop the animus against the gentiles.

Anyway, please explain exactly what you mean by this, providing examples from the text.

Walter

Mithras

2003-12-29 16:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I'm not your enemy, but that doesn't make me your supporter.

And vice versa, I'm sure. [/QUOTE]

On this we agree!

[QUOTE]Please explain to me how the Jesus of the Gospels tried to work closely with Pagans.[/QUOTE]

I wrote that he worked with them but I don't know how closely he did this. I think he was a pagan himself, since he wanted to return the religion of Judea to the ideals of its founders, the 12 tribes of Israel. Those are considered Pagan ideas.

But also, the Roman occupation influenced the Jews in Roman Pagan ideas.

Mainly, the mission of Jesus was to overthrow the Elders and their corrupt religion. Under then current religious laws it was a crime to even associate with Gentiles. Gentiles were viewed as impure and evil. The temple also rejected the sick, poor, frail, etc. Jesus targeted all outcastes for the reason that (a) the Elders were against them and (b) their numbers were large.

Never did Jesus say that Pagans should be conquered. He said that the Jewish Elders should be conquered.

Hatred and intolerance against Gentile Pagans is Jewish.

[QUOTE]He called the (semi-pagan?) Samaritain woman a "dog", but I think that was a test of His Apostles to see if they'd heard His message to drop the animus against the gentiles.[/QUOTE]

I don't remember this. Can you cite the passage?

The Samaritans were mortal enemies of the Jews and so his embracing of them was also a form of silent protest against the Elders.

weisbrot

2003-12-29 17:20 | User Profile

Pagans and Christians alike ignore Matthew 23. Good observations from Ygg below, reminding us of Eliot's Christ the Tiger imagery.

I discussed this topic with committed Southern Baptists from Texas over the holidays, and there was some surprising, reflective responses. Those who continue to view Christianity as weak universalism due to the popularity of modern TV/celebrity clergy are missing an opportunity to build bridges.

[url]http://home.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-18.htm[/url]

YGGDRASIL

Deep Cultures - Part III - Christ the Tiger!

"In the juvenescence of the year came Christ the Tiger."

Gerontion T. S. Eliot

As I demonstrated in earlier posts entitled "Deep Cultures - Part I" and "Deep Cultures - Part II," the Jews have a rather powerful fear of Christianity.

Many young White Nationalists have developed a contempt for Christianity. They view it as passive, weak and ineffective. They argue that it is a "semitic religion" designed to weaken us.

They turn instead to Christian identity or paganism.

Ironically, while the Jews are frightened of Christianity, White Nationalists view it as too wimpy and passive. Who is right?

In the spirit of Easter, it is time to ask whether T.S. Eliot's poetic image is accurate. Do we really have "Christ the Tiger?"

In part, we have become the victims of our own declining literacy. Few Christians understand that all modern Jews are "Pharisees," believers in the "oral law" passed down in the Talmud.

Christ the Tiger had a few words about the Talmud and Talmudic (Halachic) reasoning.

Let's review them:

*"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,

"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."*

Could Christ the Tiger give a more clear warning about double dealing and saying one thing while doing another? Must Christians ignore his words?

"Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in mens faces. You yourselves do not enter nor will you let those enter who are trying to."

Doesn't Christ the Tiger clearly say that the Pharisees do not enter heaven themselves and prevent the faithful from entering as well?

"Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to make a single convert and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."

Talmudic Rabbis sons of hell? - Strong words Christ!

*"Woe unto you blind guides!

"You say, if anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath! You blind fools: which is greater, the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, 'if anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath. You blind fools! Which is greater, the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it, and by everything on it. And he who swears by the temple, swears by it and the one who dwells in it."*

Apparently Christ the Tiger doesn't like halachic logic. Probably would not like the Marxist incarnation of it either. He is telling you that Talmudic reasoning is just complexity that enhances rabbinical power and twists the commandments of God into their opposites.

*"Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of greed and self- indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

"Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."*

Again it is hard to conceive of words that more clearly command us to be on the alert for hidden agendas and double meanings. Any hint here that Christ the Tiger wants his followers to be gullible and stupid?

Would Christ the Tiger feel comfortable at a dinner meeting of the Conference of Christians and Jews?

*"Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets, and decorate the graves of the righteous, And you say, 'If we had been in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets, and stone those sent to you. How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"*

Indeed it is hard to imagine language that more clearly un-chooses the Talmudic Jews. "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

It is a major rant!

Indeed Christ the Tiger spends many more words warning us away from the dangers and deceptions of Talmudic Judaism than he does of, for example, pre-marital sex.

In those bibles that print Christ the Tiger's words in red, you will see that it fills an entire page.

Most modern clergy are so busy attending banquets of the Conference of Christians and Jews that they have little taste for attending the words of Christ the Tiger. Indeed, Matthew 23 is an embarrassment to them.

I am afraid that many of you hot-heads who are turning away from Christianity are reacting to cowardly modern clergymen.

But if you look closely, you may see a Tiger lurking.

Mithras

2003-12-29 20:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=weisbrot] Jews have a rather powerful fear of Christianity. [/QUOTE]

This myth that Jews fear Christianity is not completely true. In Israel Jesus is celebrated as a Messiah by many Jews. Christ and his original followers were all Jews. Not all Jews are against Christ, and since mainstream Christianity has "made up" with the Jews, most of the Jews have no fear whatsoever of the religion as it has been known and still continues to support the Jews and work with them.

Even Traditional Catholics are not "anti-semitic".

We shouldn't make things into what they're not. What was true in the past is not completely true today.

weisbrot

2003-12-29 20:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Mithras]This myth that Jews fear Christianity is not completely true. In Israel Jesus is celebrated as a Messiah by many Jews. Christ and his original followers were all Jews. Not all Jews are against Christ, and since mainstream Christianity has "made up" with the Jews, most of the Jews have no fear whatsoever of the religion as it has been known and still continues to support the Jews and work with them.

Even Traditional Catholics are not "anti-semitic".

We shouldn't make things into what they're not. What was true in the past is not completely true today.[/QUOTE]

Yes, "the Jews" certainly have no fear of or corresponding animosity towards Christianity. One only has to view the overwhelming Jewish support for presenting Christmas as a religious holiday to tumble to that bit of knowledge.

Guess I just misunderstood all those "Happy Holidays"-spouting 6-nosers in my community; maybe they were just somehow telling me that we are brothers in Christ.

I don't have figures on Messianic congregations in the US or in Israel, but I don't think it's a stretch to call their numbers miniscule- or to question their committment to Christ, for that matter.

Okiereddust

2003-12-29 22:17 | User Profile

Even Traditional Catholics are not "anti-semitic".

We shouldn't make things into what they're not. What was true in the past is not completely true today.[/QUOTE]

You're off your rocker. :wacko: See for instance [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=11656]Leonard Zeskind[/url] > Leonard Zeskind argues that Americans don’t need a Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell to soften them up with “soft-core” anti-Semitism. “There’s already 1000 years of Christian history on that” he explains. .

Mithras

2003-12-29 23:33 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]You're off your rocker. :wacko: See for instance [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=11656]Leonard Zeskind[/url] .[/QUOTE]

I think you're the one that's completely lost it. You're calling those two nutcases "responsible for the rise of the far-right"? :dung: :drool:

Okiereddust

2003-12-30 03:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Mithras]I think you're the one that's completely lost it. You're calling those two nutcases "responsible for the rise of the far-right"? :dung: :drool:[/QUOTE]Hey, it was your ADL friends that said it, not mine. :huh:

Mithras

2003-12-30 03:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Hey, it was your ADL friends that said it, not mine. :huh:[/QUOTE]

And you were the one bragging about it. :thumbsup:

weisbrot

2003-12-30 06:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Mithras]And you were the one bragging about it. :thumbsup:[/QUOTE]

The braggadocio/chutzpah actually started here:

*In Israel Jesus is celebrated as a Messiah by many Jews. Christ and his original followers were all Jews. Not all Jews are against Christ, and since mainstream Christianity has "made up" with the Jews, most of the Jews have no fear whatsoever of the religion as it has been known and still continues to support the Jews and work with them. *

Misrepresentation and ad hominem from the same source to undoubtedly follow. David Horowitz fans unite...

Walter Yannis

2003-12-30 06:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=weisbrot]The braggadocio/chutzpah actually started here:

Misrepresentation and ad hominem from the same source to undoubtedly follow. David Horowitz fans unite...[/QUOTE]

Nice Work, weisbrot.

Digging beneath the surface even a little bit, we see that Judaism - especially its Orthodox Kabbalistic variety - is just another incarnation of the pagan spirit, and that Chrsitianity (and, giving credit where it's due, Islam) are the carriers of true monotheism.

The Pharisees are Anti-Christ precisely because Christ is the Anti-Pharisee.

I'm speculating here, but I suspect that on the spiritual plane something very fundamental happened when Christ was crucified. The Jews somehow went from being the carriers of God's message of Salvation to the world to being the agents of Satan. It was a total flip-flop that we can only dimly guess at since, as St. Paul teaches us, we see but through a glass darkly. But who could argue that the shadows cast in this world from the lightening war in the other do not evince just such a result? Clearly the Tribe's influence has been wholly evil since that time. The Talmud - compiled in the first few centuries after Christ - exerts and evil influence on all who approach it. The Kabbalah is the purest smoke of Satan. The Jewish Bolsheviks are the purest incarnation of evil that the world has ever seen, IMHO.

Anyway, the main point is that we Christians don't need to import anything into our Faith to arrive at the conclusion that the Pharisees are the enemies of the Gospel (St. Paul again), and that any sane Christian society must remove the Tribe from its ranks or injest the lethal cultural poisons they excrete.

Hitler ain't got nothin' on the Spanish Inquisition.

Walter

Mithras

2003-12-30 17:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=weisbrot]The braggadocio/chutzpah actually started here:

Misrepresentation and ad hominem from the same source to undoubtedly follow. David Horowitz fans unite...[/QUOTE]

What I said is [I]Reality[/I] whether you agree with it or not.

Mithras

2003-12-30 17:28 | User Profile

In case anyone was wondering I was one of the 3 to vote no. I have been doing some thinking about this whole issue and have come to the conclusion that it is indeed a waste of time for pagans and fascists to unite with paleocons and [I]evangelist[/I] Christians. Not [I]all[/I] Christians are anti-pagan, but at least on this forum people like Walter, Okierddust, wild_bill, and others definitely are living in some sort of fairy-tale world disconnected from reality.

I will be the first one to tell you that the most important issue is "Blood and Soil." Paleocons and the Christian Crusaders don't seem to agree. There is no other way to look at this but to acknowledge that we are working towards very different goals, which are actually counter to each other.

Because of this I will no longer be posting here on OD forum and will no longer pay any attention to plaeoconservatism or to the special type of Christian who seeks to convert me and the "pagans".

It's been fun, but all good things must come to an end. :1eye:

TexasAnarch

2003-12-30 17:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=weisbrot]The braggadocio/chutzpah actually started here:

Misrepresentation and ad hominem from the same source to undoubtedly follow. David Horowitz fans unite...[/QUOTE]

[B]David Horowitz fans unite[/B]

GREAT LINE! Wish I had thought of it. And Walter's post: so excellent! The Christ in Jesus killed the jews as a religion. Leaving them eternally writhing.

However, IMHO ("H" to WY, only), the kabala is residual old pre-Biblical material. Adam Kadmon (their Man In the Sky) is "satanic", yes -- in this transitional age into Aquarius, "He" (= Adam Kadmon) is another sky-god projected onto the Zodiac which "pagans" (not useful term for pre-Biblical people, really) use as a superstitious rival for the object of Christian belief, which is not encountered this way (through the senses). But "in Christ, all things are new", so Adam Kadmon can come in somewhere. The Hollywood Jews will no doubt have something of the sort appearing for us [B]OUT THERE[/B] to marvel at, as soon as Reagan and the Pope shuffle off this mortal coil (new age motif: this heiros gamos will be homo -- joined in cyberheaven with Daniel Pearl's head, talkin' trash.)

Walter Yannis

2003-12-30 19:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Mithras]In case anyone was wondering I was one of the 3 to vote no. I have been doing some thinking about this whole issue and have come to the conclusion that it is indeed a waste of time for pagans and fascists to unite with paleocons and [I]evangelist[/I] Christians. Not [I]all[/I] Christians are anti-pagan, but at least on this forum people like Walter, Okierddust, wild_bill, and others definitely are living in some sort of fairy-tale world disconnected from reality.

Because of this I will no longer be posting here on OD forum and will no longer pay any attention to plaeoconservatism or to the special type of Christian who seeks to convert me and the "pagans".

It's been fun, but all good things must come to an end. :1eye:[/QUOTE]

We agree.

It's been a pleasure.

All the best.

Walter

Walter Yannis

2003-12-30 19:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=TexasAnarch][B]David Horowitz fans unite[/B]

GREAT LINE! Wish I had thought of it. And Walter's post: so excellent! The Christ in Jesus killed the jews as a religion. Leaving them eternally writhing.

I know a guy (Irish, not Jewish) who's into all that Kabbalistic stuff, and he explained to me some really fascinating things about the films of Stanley Kubrick and Kabbalistic influences/symbols in them.

Clockwork Orange is filled with them, as is his last film Eyes Wide Shut.

I see Kabbalistic themes in AI, the film he started (?) and Speilberg finished.

Walter

weisbrot

2003-12-31 03:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Mithras]What I said is [I]Reality[/I] whether you agree with it or not.[/QUOTE]

Small "r" reality, and a highly selective slice to boot.

TexasAnarch

2003-12-31 03:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I know a guy (Irish, not Jewish) who's into all that Kabbalistic stuff, and he explained to me some really fascinating things about the films of Stanley Kubrick and Kabbalistic influences/symbols in them.

Clockwork Orange is filled with them, as is his last film Eyes Wide Shut.

I see Kabbalistic themes in AI, the film he started (?) and Speilberg finished.

Walter[/QUOTE]

You're amazing, WY. No, I am not up on Kubrick, but would believe almost anything. Since Dec. 8, my interest has been focused on John Lennon's assasination. His album Double Fantasy had just been released, and three cuts had gone top 10, first few weeks, first time in music history. Bam. Chapman found in tranced-out state, reading Catcher in the Rye. Hinckley, few months later, banging Reagan had retraced many of Chapman's steps. Big deal unexplained here. The Dakota, where Lennon was shot -- Nixon hated him with a passion -- is where Roman Polanski had filmed Rosemary's Baby in l968, which appears to be an exposure of Khazar jews. Arthur Koestler -- an honest Jew -- had just published The Thirteenth Tribe (great reading!). He and wife then committed double suicide. Rosemaery's Baby shows a buch of Metro jewish sterotypes doing the blood libel, and more, to the white gentile girl. Like, Polanski, a French Jew himself, was exposing the New York descendants of Kagan Bet (law 'n order muscleman for the Kagan, which must surely have taken a bit of doing, for a mob of really hard-scrabble, worse-than-Kurd up-land barbarians of KHAZARIA, newly converted (circa 750 a.d.) to some form of "Judaism". (Then driven by the Russ into eastern Poland, etc., as you know.) Well, as you recall, his beautifuil pregnant wife Sharon Tate was slaughtered, in a kind of rampage staged to convict "the Manson family", who seem to have been mysteriously got together from pieces of the ambient drug-sex-control California culture. I think they have ways of making people go into states and believe they have commidtted crimes, because it has been put into their minds that they would do them ("psychic driving"), then put such prepared "Manchurean candidate" type individuals in the vicinity of an atrocity, where they are "discvered" (like "ptasies").

Like saying to Polanski, or whoever would expose the non-Semitic roots (Japheth? - they had the Hebrew alphabet, were supposed to have been "convereted" at the behest of an "angel" appearing to Baulg (? - the one who ordered the rest to start practicing Noahitic law or die)) "Here is what happens to bloodtraitors". According to tales from Khazarland, the act so excoriated as gross heinous calumny, eating Christian babies, would be among the most civilized, and delectable, of their imaginations.

I don't know whether interchange is possible along these lines, but it sure as hell reels my mind. The Polish bros who made The Matrix movies would be connected. And all that group around the Beach Boy's Denis Wilson, and the early Beatles.

Speilberg: Yes. "JAWS" is "JEWS" -- dentata vagina, they knew what they were going to do. "RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK" is exactly that. They were planning use of Reagan as their Ark. (There was always something fishy about that guy "Harrison Ford", to me -- and the name: avatar to make old Henry Ford pay for his "anti-Semitism", like "Forrest Gump" was a way of idiotizing Nathan Beford Forrest, one of the finest warriors of the Old South, noted for saying "If you can ride a horse and want to kill Yankees, come with me" -- according to Shelby Foote.) And then Speilberg's cinematic attempt to convert World War Two into a Holocaust museam good-folks-hate-Nazis adjunct.)