← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Valley Forge
Thread ID: 11978 | Posts: 51 | Started: 2004-01-22
2004-01-22 03:23 | User Profile
As a Christian, I despise Linder's anti-Christian rhetoric, but love him or hate him, the man tells it like it is.
In a world...where vicious jews...murder the Son of God...one brave man...steps forward to make a difference.... Prepare to suffer all over again...the Original Hate Crime. Prepare to have your name taken...by sons of the same Semites...who silenced your Savior. Prepare for the most dramatic moment of yours or any life...Prepare for...the "Passion." The fantastic and unprecedented success this movie is going to enjoy is something jews for a year have been puzzling over how best to spin philosemitically, having realized belatedly their usual dismissive kiking wouldn't get the job done. They can't. This film was made against every jewish attempt to destroy it; to deny it funding, deny it content, deny it distribution. It has survived over a year of nonstop kike canting, and the uncomliest criticism these professional liars, smearers, and defilers of all that is good and holy could come up with. Jews tried to abort "Passion" just the way they short-circuited Jesus. When they couldn't murder it, they denounced it. As a VNN reader, you are required to see this movie on point of honor. I'm going at least once, and I never go to movies. Our attendance will be a big * you to jewish Hollywood, no matter what anybody says. It will be a mass demonstration that we detest and reject Hollywood, the jewish nightmare factory -- and, most important, that we reject the jews themselves, all of them. Attending this movie is a way to throw Jesus' blood on the filthy jews, just as they agreed they deserved. *"His blood be on us and our children," as they said -- the line Gibson removed for fear of being murdered by jews, the sorry creatures whose papers fail to report the sicko jewish religious doctrine that Jesus now boils in shit. Literally. Boils in shit. What kind of a "religion" teaches such? Judaism. Only judaism, a religion of hate befitting a nation of paranoid parasites. Mel made it 4/5 of the way with his film. It's up to all good Aryans and Christians to help him finish the job. As Edmund Burke would say to you if he were living with us today, "All that is necessary for evil jews to triumph is for White men to do nothing." The jews will understand very well the NJJR behind your attendance. It will gall and frighten them, for there's not a goddamn thing they can do to stop it. Attendance at this movie is White Solidarity against Organized Jewish Hate. DEATH TO JEWS.
[url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com[/url]
2004-01-22 05:05 | User Profile
Consensus?
Alex Linder:
[QUOTE]"... we detest and reject Hollywood, the jewish nightmare factory ..."[/QUOTE]
Upton Sinclair:
"In olden times, Jewish traders sold Christian girls into concubinage and into prostitution, and even today they display the same activity in the same field in southern California where I live."
F. Scott Fitzgerald on Hollywood: "a Jewish holiday, a Gentile tragedy."
2004-01-22 06:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]As a Christian, I despise Linder's anti-Christian rhetoric, but love him or hate him, the man tells it like it is.
...Attendance at this movie is White Solidarity against Organized Jewish Hate. DEATH TO JEWS.
[url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com[/url][/QUOTE]Yes, very nice. I hope a lot of WN's see this movie and become Christians.
After all, they'd never see it if the jews hadn't raised such a big stink against it. :lol:
2004-01-22 08:27 | User Profile
[INDENT]This film was made against every jewish attempt to destroy it; to deny it funding, deny it content, deny it distribution. It has survived over a year of nonstop kike canting, and the uncomliest criticism these professional liars, smearers, and defilers of all that is good and holy could come up with.[/INDENT] The New Zealand Jewish Chronicle reported that Jim Caviezel - the actor playing Jesus - was struck by lightning. It seems even God smote it.
2004-01-22 14:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Julian the Apostate][INDENT]This film was made against every jewish attempt to destroy it; to deny it funding, deny it content, deny it distribution. It has survived over a year of nonstop kike canting, and the uncomliest criticism these professional liars, smearers, and defilers of all that is good and holy could come up with.[/INDENT] The New Zealand Jewish Chronicle reported that Jim Caviezel - the actor playing Jesus - was struck by lightning. It seems even God smote it.[/QUOTE]
Two people involved in the movie were hit by lightening, but both lived. What's the odds of that happening?
-
2004-01-23 03:58 | User Profile
[INDENT][FONT=Arial]Two people involved in the movie were hit by lightning, but both lived. What's the odds of that happening[/FONT]?[/INDENT]
I'm not sure of the odds but I guess it meant God was really doing some smiting.
2004-01-23 19:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Yes, very nice. I hope a lot of WN's see this movie and become Christians.[/QUOTE]
Good comment, Okie. I was getting ready to fire off a salvo, but your reply made me reconsider. It was the proper one in this case.
2004-01-23 19:10 | User Profile
By the way, how did "Jesus Christ, Superstar" did in the US? It was popular behind the Iron Curtain.
2004-01-24 18:59 | User Profile
Alex Linder, the same guy who recently declared bankruptcy?
-Jay
2004-01-25 01:41 | User Profile
His blood be on us and our children,
I was reading something the other day which spoke of this famous line still being included. Oh well, guess we will just have to pay to see the movie and find out.
It will be interesting to see what movie Gibson does next, if any. Will the chewies make an example of him?
"You'll never work in this town again, boy..."
2004-01-25 01:53 | User Profile
[I]Here's the article[/I]:
Gibson has included the most offensive verse in the entire Bible to Jews in his movie.
[url]http://www.nyjournalnews.com/newsroom/012304/a0123jewsonpassion.html[/url]
Rabbi James Rudin, the AJC's senior inter-religious adviser, who saw a screening this week, said the current cut of "The Passion" was worse than a version he saw last year because Gibson included a controversial line that is only in the Book of St. Matthew.
In the passage, Pontius Pilate washes his hands to show he is innocent of Christ's impending death, and the crowd cries out, "His blood be on us and on our children."
For centuries, this passage was interpreted to mean that Jews are collectively guilty of Christ's death.
In a September interview in The New Yorker, Gibson said he regretted leaving the scene out of his movie.
"It happened; it was said," he said. "But, man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house; they'd come kill me."
Rudin said he was taken aback to see that Gibson included the scene.
"I was surprised and disappointed to see the inclusion of the infamous, to some, passage from Matthew, the so-called blood curse," he said. "The crowd is a mob, a howling, vicious mob. You see the Jews driving Pontius Pilate, even though it was the reverse in history."
Rudin attended a screening this week in Orlando, Fla., by the Global Pastors Network, an evangelical ministers group. Neither the Global Pastors Network nor Willow Creek Community Church returned calls yesterday seeking comment on how the film was received.
The Anti-Defamation League, which has attacked the movie for months, did so again yesterday after National Director Abraham Foxman and Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, an interfaith consultant, saw the screening in Orlando.
"At every single opportunity, Gibson's film reinforces the notion that the Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob are the ones ultimately responsible for the Crucifixion," they said in a statement.
2004-01-25 03:03 | User Profile
Cool. There is no point in pulling the punches once the hive is already buzzing.
Smash the zhid!
2004-01-25 05:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Yes, very nice. I hope a lot of WN's see this movie and become Christians.[/QUOTE]
Like the original members of the Nazi party, many WN are already Christians.
After all, they'd never see it if the jews hadn't raised such a big stink against it. :lol:
Maybe not, but at least the non-Christian wing of WN is confronting the Jews over their treatment of Mel Gibson while the Christian leadership, as usual, remains silent in the face of the onslaught.
2004-01-25 05:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]Alex Linder, the same guy who recently declared bankruptcy?
-Jay[/QUOTE]
So he declared bankruptcy.
BFD.
What's your point?
2004-01-25 07:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]By the way, how did "Jesus Christ, Superstar" did in the US? It was popular behind the Iron Curtain.[/QUOTE]
I checked around. I was curious too.
The movie didn't do as well as expected because it started off on a bad foot. There were touring companies performing the show live when the movie came out, because the rights were in the hands of America's dumbest lawyers (it was an English product; Americans only had rights to it in America.) For some reason they did not serve injunctions to cease and desist live performances till the movie was already out.
Lots of bad blood about that. The usual bickering ensued. The theatrical companies said they performed the show with more devotion and pointed out that the movie was made by a Jew. Notwithstanding that fact, Jews also hated it and said it was (sit down for this one!) anti-Semetic. This is logical because the whole of J.C. Superstar is based on the Gospel of John, which is the least kind to the tribe.
The only time I saw it was on a late-night local TV station and I was surprised how cheesy it was. I'm assuming it did good behind the Iron Curtain for the novelty value of Jesus + rock and roll.
2004-01-25 15:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Cool. There is no point in pulling the punches once the hive is already buzzing.
Smash the zhid![/QUOTE]
Heh, just so.
2004-01-25 18:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar]I'm assuming it did good behind the Iron Curtain for the novelty value of Jesus + rock and roll.[/QUOTE] Exactly. But the reason I remembered that musical was that the role of the Jews was that of Christ-killers in that one. So of course it was "anti-semitic".
2004-01-25 19:14 | User Profile
VF,
Nice job posting the Linder commentary on Gibson's passion. As you may or may not recall (if you blinked you may have missed it) I posted the very same spintro about a week ago, whereupon it was immediately pulled by our magnanimous JudeoKristian Kommisar, Jim Robin- er, I mean Texas Dissonance. As far as I can tell, my only offense, besides being disliked by the the unholy triumvirate of unregenerate Bible thumpers controlling this board and being so impudent as to post ANYTHING written by evil incarnate Linder, was that I added an explanatory note at the bottom for the benefit of the uninitiated expanding the acronym NJJR. Of course, in light of the brutal frank and brazen statement
"Good comment, Okie. I was getting ready to fire off a salvo, but your reply made me reconsider. It was the proper one in this case. " (To what purpose, oh Sky Jew worshipping Judeo-Bapto-soon-to-be-Lutheran TD (Sounds like something you get from too vigourous intercourse with JudeoBaptists)? To make manifestly plain your severe displeasure that Linder is attacking Jews AND defending Christians???)
there is nothing incongruous in their actions. One gets the sense that they would rather have Western Civilization, including Christianity itself, perish rather than admit that someone as unfashionable as Alex Linder might be doing the Lord's work, to use the catchy phrase of Uncle Wolf.
2004-01-25 19:36 | User Profile
Have a nice day, Marcus.
Jesus loves you. :heart:
2004-01-25 19:45 | User Profile
Marcus Cato:
Nice job posting the Linder commentary on Gibson's passion. As you may or may not recall (if you blinked you may have missed it) I posted the very same spintro about a week ago, whereupon it was immediately pulled by our magnanimous JudeoKristian Kommisar, Jim Robin- er, I mean Texas Dissonance. As far as I can tell, my only offense, besides being disliked by the the unholy triumvirate of unregenerate Bible thumpers controlling this board and being so impudent as to post ANYTHING written by evil incarnate Linder, was that I added an explanatory note at the bottom for the benefit of the uninitiated expanding the acronym NJJR. Of course, in light of the brutal frank and brazen statement
"Good comment, Okie. I was getting ready to fire off a salvo, but your reply made me reconsider. It was the proper one in this case. " (To what purpose, oh Sky Jew worshipping Judeo-Bapto-soon-to-be-Lutheran TD (Sounds like something you get from too vigourous intercourse with JudeoBaptists)? To make manifestly plain your severe displeasure that Linder is attacking Jews AND defending Christians???)
there is nothing incongruous in their actions. One gets the sense that they would rather have Western Civilization, including Christianity itself, perish rather than admit that someone as unfashionable as Alex Linder might be doing the Lord's work, to use the catchy phrase of Uncle Wolf.
Well, I think your tone is unnecessarily nasty, but I can't really disagree with your point. Clearly, there are very serious problems within the church when the only one publically standing up for Mel Gibson against the Jews is the atheist Alex Linder.
2004-01-25 20:29 | User Profile
Leaving this up was one of my first attempts at the new ecumenical approach I've been mulling over for some time.
Everyone here can witness the reply I/we get. It's the same every time. Like a rainbow after a hard rain, you can take it to the bank. This is why I state that certain elements in the WN camp have to be shunned and discarded. Yet I'm sure some will still continue to point the finger and blame at us 'intolerant' Christians.
2004-01-25 20:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Clearly, there are very serious problems within the church when the only one publically standing up for Mel Gibson against the Jews is the atheist Alex Linder.[/QUOTE]
Anti-Christians that try to piggy-back on, exploit and make political hay out of the Gospel message are infinitely more offensive to me than any mere lost disbelieving soul.
The majority of Christendom probably still have no clue about the movie yet and Linder only stands up for Linder. He doesn't give a rat's behind about Gibson or Catholicism or Christianity or white families and communities. Why can't you see through his charade?
2004-01-25 21:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Valley Forge:
What does the current pontiff have to lose by not following his example, given that the ADL already hates him for a) being Catholic, b ) being Polish c) being anti-abortion and anti-homosexual and d) supporting the Palestinian state and opposing Gulf War II.[/QUOTE]
Well because most of these principles that you list are feel-good principles. Whereas the charge of anti-semitism is a fearsome calumny to many. The list of public figures who buckle under its imprecation is a long and shameful one. And this pope isn't exactly vigorous. Why do you suppose it is now that the Mossad demands a warrant to search the Vatican? They sense weakness like the human hounds that they are.
2004-01-26 01:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]So he declared bankruptcy.
BFD.
What's your point?[/QUOTE]
What do you mean, 'what's my point'? It's pretty self-evident, is it not? The guy is a charlatan who doesn't conduct himself with any dignity.
When you declare bankruptcy, you're basically saying, "I ran up debts that I don't intend to pay." That's swindling, no? And this clown would never hesitate to bash Jews who swindle society (rightly so, IMO). But when he delcares himself, he loses ALL rights to bash Jews for doing what he did.
So, in summary: it's o.k. for him to swindle his credittors, who extended him credit to buy things he didn't have the means to buy. But if a Jew swindles someone, it's evil punishable by death. That Linder dude best not ever talk about Jews and money-grubbing again - b/c simply put, he's exactly the same! :wallbash:
-Jay
2004-01-26 01:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu] ...Whereas the charge of anti-semitism is a fearsome calumny to many. The list of public figures who buckle under its imprecation is a long and shameful one. And this pope isn't exactly vigorous. Why do you suppose it is now that the Mossad demands a warrant to search the Vatican? [/QUOTE]
This reinforces the point that Alex Linder is not afraid of the Mossad but the Pope is. Which makes this thread interesting.
What's clear to me is that nearly all European/American elites are either bought or terrified and therefore useless to us. As a gadfly Linder points this out, which might be good or bad depending on your taste and deportment.
What's not good is that Europeans & Americans have no tradition of dumping treacherous elites peacefully.
The ride might get interesting real soon. :shocking:
2004-01-26 02:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]The majority of Christendom has no clue about the movie yet and Linder only stands up for Linder. He doesn't give a rat's behind about Gibson or Catholicism or Christianity or white families and communities. Why can't you see through his charade?[/QUOTE]
You may very well be right. I'm still thinking about it.
2004-01-26 02:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]What do you mean, 'what's my point'? It's pretty self-evident, is it not? The guy is a charlatan who doesn't conduct himself with any dignity.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps Linder has more important things to worry about than hoarding money.
2004-01-26 02:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Perhaps Linder has more important things to worry about than hoarding money.[/QUOTE]
Or, paying his bills. Like the rest of us have to. he "hoards" money alright - other people's money.
So, in short, you'll agree with me that Linder has no right to ever bring up Jewish swindlers again. Right?
-Jay
2004-01-26 02:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar]What's clear to me is that nearly all European/American elites are either bought or terrified and therefore useless to us. [/QUOTE]
It's shameful. Many of these cowards are independantly wealthy, yet they cower like puppies. Wouldn't it be nice to see some European princes of the blood speak up? What else have they got to do? But no nothing. It all reminds me of Raspail's book Camp of the Saints. Shameful cowardice.
2004-01-26 05:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Or, paying his bills. Like the rest of us have to. he "hoards" money alright - other people's money. So, in short, you'll agree with me that Linder has no right to ever bring up Jewish swindlers again. Right?
-Jay[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Credit cards come in the mail all the time. Get about 12 and max them out before leaving.
-Jay[/QUOTE]
Advising someone to max out 12 credit cards and then leave the country is willful abetment to commit fraud. Shame on you! In short, someone who urges another to commit a felonious act punishable by imprisonment and/or fines has no right to ever bring up Linder's perfectly legal declaration of bankruptcy (if, indeed, he did so declare), again. Right?
2004-01-26 14:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Valley Forge:
You're right that something is clearly wrong when the Catholic Pope won't endorse what is probably the most visible Catholic interpretation of scriptures to make it into the mass media. I have no doubt that Pius XII would have vocally defended the film against the machinations of ADL hooligans. What does the current pontiff have to lose by not following his example, given that the ADL already hates him for a) being Catholic, b ) being Polish c) being anti-abortion and anti-homosexual and d) supporting the Palestinian state and opposing Gulf War II.[/QUOTE]
Maybe part of the problem is that JPII is so old and feeble (the poor man looks terrible) that he's really not physically capable of playing a decisvie leadership role. I think that the Vatican's contradictory statements evince fundamental disagreement on strategy over this issue by the parties jockeying for position even as JPII's eyesight continues to fade. I doubt that JPII is directly in control of the situation, which probably means that nobody is really in charge of the situation. Hey, one of the reasons we Catholics tend to get our a$$es kicked by well-organized movements is that we're not, well, terribly well organized. At least not usually. Every now and then, after we've had the living snot beaten out of us by the latest attack, we manage admit that we're a bunch of slovenly wastrels, regroup and launch a counter offensive that will knock your socks off. So, don't count us out yet. We just need to get hammered some more, I guess, before we PULL OUR HEADS OUT OF OUR PAPIST A$$ES and realize that we're under attack (again!) by the Pharisees.
Like, duh. I mean, is it at all possible that our Elder Brothers in Faith are trying to destroy us? What a bunch of pollyannas.
JPII was a great thinker, philosopher, and quite possibly a saint, but he was no administrator. Oh, he could play high politics with the best of them (including playing a key role in the demise of the Soviet Union), and to his credit he did manage to get the Catechism approved by the Vatican bureaucracy, which was quite a task. But he never really was a tough administrator of the cadres upon which all depends, as Stalin used to say. JPII just wasn't capable of cracking the whip on our miserable arse-bandit clergy or putting the kabosh on openly heretical theologians. As the Big Daddy of all the Catholics, he failed by sparing the rod and spoiling that child. Sometimes you gotta be hard, and this man just didn't have it in him. As a result we've accumulated all sorts of dead (and rotten) wood that will have to be ruthlessly pruned if we are to have a future outside the catacombs.
In short, we need a major purge of the ranks. Cull that herd of faggots masquerading as our clergy, I say. The problems that we face now in the American Church have much to do with JPII's unwillingness to make tough decisions, kick ass on faggot bishops, silence "Catholic" theologians who deny the Ressurection, strip American colleges like St. Mary's of their Catholic brandname for staging the "Vagina Monologues" and so forth over the past 25 years. We literally have decades of administrative dross clogging our corporate plumbing, so to speak. I hope that the next pope is one mean, tough, orthodox mutha who finished B-school and studied under the gentle tutelage of Chainsaw Al.
Walter
2004-01-26 14:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Leaving this up was one of my first attempts at the new ecumenical approach I've been mulling over for some time.
Everyone here can witness the reply I/we get. It's the same every time. Like a rainbow after a hard rain, you can take it to the bank. This is why I state that certain elements in the WN camp have to be shunned and discarded. Yet I'm sure some will still continue to point the finger and blame at us 'intolerant' Christians.[/QUOTE]
Does this mean that you agree that we Christian Nationalists cannot work effectively with Nazis?
Last time I checked, you hadn't chimed in forcefully on the Ecumenism thread.
My right honorable friend Cato's screed above proves the point that we Christians really can't work together with those who ridicule our faith and despise our Lord.
I mean, like you I wish MPC well, and I certainly admire his intellect and erudition, but let's be clear that it's pointless to try to build a movement with this sort of virulent hatred for all that we hold dear.
My suggestion is that OD narrow its focus.
Walter
2004-01-26 17:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Does this mean that you agree that we Christian Nationalists cannot work effectively with Nazis?
Last time I checked, you hadn't chimed in forcefully on the Ecumenism thread.
My right honorable friend Cato's screed above proves the point that we Christians really can't work together with those who ridicule our faith and despise our Lord.
I mean, like you I wish MPC well, and I certainly admire his intellect and erudition, but let's be clear that it's pointless to try to build a movement with this sort of virulent hatred for all that we hold dear.
My suggestion is that OD narrow its focus.
Walter[/QUOTE]
Hello Walter. I hope all is well with you and yours.
You know wintermute once commented to me that he envisioned OD at some point evolving into a 'Christian' board. And you're right, I didn't comment too much on the ecumenism thread because I was interested in how it developed of its own accord. It may well be that we ultimately cannot work with unbelievers. At the same time, I don't think Marcus is a good representation of your average non-believer, so I'll keep holding out hope that their betters will rise to the top. I hate to keep automatically excluding folks or else it's going to be down to you and me talking to each other here.
2004-01-26 18:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I hate to keep automatically excluding folks or else it's going to be down to you and me talking to each other here.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget Okie. Oh, and Mercuria may come back too :yes:
I see some new smileys. Still don't see :shmuel: icon. Or is it supposed to work as :shmuel: = :dung:?
wintermute is thin-skinned. I am not ever going to leave you alone :tnguess:
2004-01-26 20:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]I see some new smileys. Still don't see :shmuel: icon. Or is it supposed to work as :shmuel: = :dung:?
wintermute is thin-skinned. I am not ever going to leave you alone :tnguess:[/QUOTE]
Good to hear. I wouldn't want you to.
As far as the smiley goes, somebody that knows how to do it needs to make one. If they do I'll put it up, for sure.
2004-01-26 23:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]I see some new smileys. Still don't see :shmuel: icon. Or is it supposed to work as :shmuel: = :dung:?[/QUOTE]
Something like this? [URL=http://www.judaicaheaven.com/Detail.bok?no=25]Don't Worry, Be Jewish[/URL]
2004-01-26 23:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Recluse]Something like this? [URL=http://www.judaicaheaven.com/Detail.bok?no=25]Don't Worry, Be Jewish[/URL][/QUOTE]
Not ugly enough, but it might do (just add a hooknose): [img]http://www.judaicaheaven.com/stores/judaicaheaven/catalog/dontworryts_2small.jpg[/img]
2004-01-26 23:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]You may very well be right. I'm still thinking about it.[/QUOTE]
After re-reading my reply to you, VF, I wanted to say that I did not mean to sound like I was attacking or coming at you, a Christian brother. This subject, which I view as a great distraction, gets me frustrated sometimes and that frustration shows in my comments. I'm sorry for that and I'll have to do a better job of not letting my emotions show on the board. You're an asset to this community and I've always enjoyed your input.
2004-01-27 00:20 | User Profile
As someone who has been both a devout Christian for many years and, much more recently, a skeptic, I think there's room for a bit more tolerance on both sides of the Christian/non-Christian issue.
There is no reason why someone like Linder should constantly harp on the "Jewish roots of Christianity" -- and certainly not to Christians who are already in his camp on the Jewish issue. What's the point of offending those who already agree with you on every important issue except that of religion? It's not like Christian WNs are suggesting that Whites allow the Jews to have their way with us on earth so we can receive our reward in heaven. Most Christian WNs seem to agree that the Jews' plots should be stopped here, on earth. So why try to offend Christian WNs or talk them out of their beliefs?
At the same time, Christians (I'm not directing this at anyone here, BTW) should refrain from constantly telling unbelievers that a loving God is going to roast them in hell for having honest intellectual doubts about Christianity. Not only is it tiresome, it's counterproductive. In fact, the very idea of Hell is primarily what turned me into a skeptic, as I fail to see how a perfectly just God could punish people infinitely for not being able to force themselves to believe in a story based entirely on word-of-mouth. No one knows who wrote the Bible. No one knows what happens after death. Truth has nothing to fear from even the harshest questioning, but a case that needs to be bolstered with threats of hellfire is exceedingly weak. Maybe Christianity is true, but if you want someone to believe as you do, then give them solid facts and evidence to support those beliefs.
I once saw a cartoon on the VNN site by a guy who called himself "Razor." Its message was something to the effect of, "Christian and non-Christian Whites might not always see eye-to-eye...but we should always fight back-to-back!" Linder himself hasn't always upheld that ideal, but he should, and so should the rest of us. The Jews are strong enough as it is; why weaken ourselves by bickering with each other?
2004-01-27 00:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=seq]Advising someone to max out 12 credit cards and then leave the country is willful abetment to commit fraud. Shame on you!
I believe that thread....LONG ago.....was in reference to how whites should react if slavery reparations were enacted. This quote of mine was actually a direct quote from a member of the old SFOF anyway. Now you know.
n short, someone who urges another to commit a felonious act punishable by imprisonment and/or fines has no right to ever bring up Linder's perfectly legal declaration of bankruptcy (if, indeed, he did so declare), again. Right?[/QUOTE]
Wait wait wait wait wait.....[U]you're equating words with deeds[/U]? YOu are a [COLOR=DarkOrange]fool[/COLOR] of monumental proportions if that is your logic. Fact is, Linder spent money he didn't have and then squeals "HELP!" to Daddy Government. He is both a liberal and a Jew for doing this - if the Linder-Lovers are to be consistent.
I have 100K in student loans. I mail my payment every month. I guess Linder doesn't have to pay his bills. He's stealing money like they do.
-Jay
2004-01-27 01:54 | User Profile
I still don't see the relevance of bankruptcy to anything, but maybe you can explain it to me and everyone else here Jay.
Suppose two people are debating affirmative action (or any issue for that matter).
Person A: "I think affimative action should abolished, because it's unfair to Whites."
Person B: "Well, that can't be right, because after all you declared bankruptcy -- and everyone knows people who declare bankruptcy are bunch of irresponsible swindlers."
Is that a well reasoned response, in your opinion, or stupid ad hominen attack worthy of the school yard? Let's assume for the sake of this example that it's true that person A declared bankruptcy. How is that relevant to the argument being made?
2004-01-27 02:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]After re-reading my reply to you, VF, I wanted to say that I did not mean to sound like I was attacking or coming at you, a Christian brother. This subject, which I view as a great distraction, gets me frustrated sometimes and that frustration shows in my comments. I'm sorry for that and I'll have to do a better job of not letting my emotions show on the board. You're an asset to this community and I've always enjoyed your input.[/QUOTE]
I appreciate that TD, but I didn't perceive your comments as an attack. I am beginning to think, however, that in this palecon versus White Nationalism/ National Socialism debate, perhaps you and I are talking about two very different groups of people. When I think of these two groups, I have in mind people like Don Black, David Duke, and Yggdrasil -- people who are much further to the Right than the typical palecon, but who don't evince any particular hostility toward Christians.
I guess you could call this group "soft racialists" to distinguish them from the hardcore anti-Christian Linder faction, but does it really make sense to call Duke & Black "soft" racialists"? I would argue no; they're clearly a species of hard racialist (NS?) that it makes sense for paleocons to work with, IMO.
2004-01-27 02:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I once saw a cartoon on the VNN site by a guy who called himself "Razor." Its message was something to the effect of, "Christian and non-Christian Whites might not always see eye-to-eye...but we should always fight back-to-back!" [/QUOTE]
Yup. What's terrific for the enemies of whites is how well we divide ourselves. Nobody needs to practice salami tactics on us, we come sliced & diced by nature.
Let's see, Christian versus Nazi would be the tip of the iceberg. Then you got Celt versus Anglo, North versus South, German versus French, Slav against... about everybody, Canucks dumping on Americans, Boston Irish against Boston Brahmins, City versus Town versus Country, Army against the Navy, and so on and so on forever.
Enkidu (where'd you go, brother?) was thinking out loud (I think here) that maybe these forums can only go so far. Perhaps we placed too much premium on simple communication instead of being more specific about goals and means.
From where I am, any white who demonstrates a reasonable level of nationalist consciousness is a plus. I doubt much else is possible while the Telescreen rules the world. Seriously. Till the hammer drops, there will be a tiny minority and that's it.
2004-01-27 02:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]...Don Black, David Duke, and Yggdrasil...I guess you could call this group "soft racialists" to distinguish them from the hardcore anti-Christian Linder faction, but does it really make sense to call Duke & Black "soft" racialists"? I would argue no; they're clearly a species of hard racialist (NS?) that it makes sense for paleocons to work with, IMO.[/QUOTE]
I couldn't agree with you any more, VF. Hence my posts of late on the subject of coalitions/ecumenism, etc. If there is any work that can be done together, then all hardcores from every side need to be put at arm's length. That's basically all I'm saying.
2004-01-27 02:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar]Yup. What's terrific for the enemies of whites is how well we divide ourselves. Nobody needs to practice salami tactics on us, we come sliced & diced by nature.[/QUOTE]
That's true, Ragnar. And even more so for those on the greater 'hard right'. Let's face it, you don't get here ideologically unless you're more than a little individualistic, iconoclastic and ornery.
2004-01-27 03:43 | User Profile
I am gonna do something odd here: I am going to defend Tex against a WN [Marcus]. At least, it is my understanding that Marcus is a WN; if he is not, then I apologize beforehand.
Re: Marcus' comments about Tex, I do not think that Tex is a Judeo-Christian, and I think Marcus was a little out of line about Tex [although if his post was pulled I understand his anger].
WNs must work with paleos. Tex has allowed me to post some good stuff at OD, to reach many, many people; some of my posts at OD were, to my surprise, not pulled by Tex. So, let us be fair to Tex...
2004-01-27 04:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The Anti-Defamation League, which has attacked the movie for months, did so again yesterday after National Director Abraham Foxman and Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, an interfaith consultant, saw the screening in Orlando.[/QUOTE] Dja see where Fauxman and his bud signed as with fake names -- AS IF they were Christian pastors -- since the eeeeewws weren't invited?!
2004-01-27 06:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar]The only time I saw it was on a late-night local TV station and I was surprised how cheesy it was. [/QUOTE]
After reading this thread, I watched Jesus Christ Superstar. It was better than I expected, considering it is a low-budget, hippie operetta.
Pontius Pilate was trying to wiggle out of killing Jesus, but the Jews insisted that Jesus be executed and that they have no king but Caesar, Pilate asked why, "You [the Jews] hate us [the Romans] more than you hate him [Jesus]." That really made me think about how wicked the Jews were that they really hated Jesus, who did no wrong, so much that they were willing to put aside their hatred of Rome to get Jesus killed.
2004-01-27 06:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]That's true, Ragnar. And even more so for those on the greater 'hard right'. Let's face it, you don't get here ideologically unless you're more than a little individualistic, iconoclastic and ornery.[/QUOTE]
The point that I've been trying to make is really just administrative/organizational in nature.
OD has been a great discussion board, but so long as it tries to be all things to all of us natioalists it will lack the focus it needs to actually achieve anything practical.
"Shoemaker, tend to thy last!" By focusing on building a Christian nationalism we'd end these endless and pointless flame wars and actually move on to more practical activism.
Look, that's what happened with Free Republic. We all agree that they went the wrong way, but let's face it by focusing on the neo-con cause they actually managed to raise money, begin radio broadcasts on the internet, Freep polls, organize rallies, and so on and so forth. Like it or nor, only a focused group can hope to achieve anything real or substantial.
This is all first day of B school stuff, guys. You have to identify your goal, work on developing core competencies that you can do better than anybody else, and CONCENTRATE on that to the exclusion of all else, for everything else is a distraction.
Speaking of distractions, gotta catch a plane!
Walter
2004-01-27 10:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE]"Shoemaker, tend to thy last!" By focusing on building a Christian nationalism we'd end these endless and pointless flame wars and actually move on to more practical activism.[/QUOTE]
No, you'd simply marginalize yourselves even further - Boutique Dissent - and you'd be publicly disowned by the church (small [I]and[/I] capital c) besides. Somehow I can't see [I]praying for chaos and apocalypse[/I] being endorsed by any of the major faiths.
But maybe this Christian Nationalism would be a good thing after all, in that the rank-and-file faithful might [I]finally [/I] be forced to trade bent-knee mumbo jumbo for looking at the deep mess this world is in rationally and without blinders. If public policy and cultural trends are manipulated by Jews...well....it takes two to dance that tango: one to shape and one willing to [I]be [/I] shaped. The next time you walk down your street counting Bantus and Pakis, remind yourself that they would not [I]be [/I] here but for the efforts of the churches and their flocks; as is the case with our miltary adventurism on Israel's behalf.
And if you subscribe to the theory that says, "no, the Chrstians are being used by Jews and internationalists far more clever and adept at trickery than they could ever hope to be" - doesn't that indicate that faith-based dissent is [I]not [/I] the answer here?
Jesus didn't get us [I]into[/I] this mess and He won't dig us out of it either. The more I hear Christians insist that he can and he will, the more I am reminded of fools who think God takes sides in football games.
2004-01-27 19:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]The next time you walk down your street counting Bantus and Pakis, remind yourself that they would not [I]be [/I] here but for the efforts of the churches and their flocks
Maybe, but they certainly wouldn't be here if we did not have a federal government that encouraged and facilitated the immigration process. Nevertheless, while the Bantu situation is extremely unfortunate, especially for the local communities affected, you're really talking about a very small drop in the bucket when considering all of our problems on the whole. Of course those who like to hang all of our ills on Christianity, the Bantu thing makes for great copy and hyperbole in the greater effort to hammer the Faith.
Jesus didn't get us [I]into[/I] this mess and He won't dig us out of it either. [/QUOTE]
I would respectfully disagree with you here, IR. America was founded as a white, Christian country as my current signature makes so evidently clear. Back when a buck was still silver and this country was strong and consisted of rock-ribbed Protestant white men and women who weren't afraid to assert themselves and their corresponding value-system, we didn't have all the crap we have today, much less any jewish cultural distortion to speak of. Like the Germans who look back to National Socialist Germany as a time in their country's history where the people and state resisted jewish influence, we here in America can likewise look back to our own historical period where we also fluorished with a healthy and vigorous cultural life immune to parasitical undermining.
Now we can certainly find fault in those that came before us for wavering in their principles and convictions that have led us to where we are now, but if we are going to talk about what will work to get us back to where we need to be, then we have history as our guide. In America's case, that is restoration of our Christian Republic and putting God back in His proper place at the head of our national cause.