← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · toddbrendanfahey
Thread ID: 12731 | Posts: 13 | Started: 2004-03-13
2004-03-13 19:51 | User Profile
Yeah, I know, we all have writers' block and dry spells and nervous breakdowns.
Buck up, fellas!!! You two (particularly) are NEEDED.
Honk to: [email]editor@sianews.com[/email]
At least 10 prominent writers/agitators have been asking about you. I'm calling on you to "call home."
Best, TBF
2004-03-13 20:09 | User Profile
Hey Todd,
Hope you are well.
I'm fairly sure that both of these guys call somewhere else home now, but to be honest I'm not certain where. We've had alot of folks leave here recently for higher ground than this fever swamp of sweaty fundamentalism. :)
Put something up on Liberty Forum as I'm sure both look in there from time to time.
Rgds,
Jason
2004-03-13 23:45 | User Profile
No. Don't come back, Paleo, let the Zion-symps and their 10 best writers lick someone else's. If AY "comes back", whatever that means (give teat to ZOG-omatics), he'll have to tell them where to go, now that TD is coming out for a [B]JEWS OUT![/B] one-issue third party candidate.
Aren't you, TD?
please see:
hmm. was going to link below to my cyberactivism post [B]WHY NOT HERE? --LET TD DO IT (dead serious)[/B] Summary of content: this one-issue rallying point [B]JEWS OUT![/B] would be used as a powerful wedge to drive the ZOG suckers onto the side of Jesus Christ in the religious cold war that the Sharonazi's have declared on America. It's time for them to get off the fence, and this is the way to do it. Let them link here, not vice versa, so we can tell them who and what they are and what they owe humanity for being that way.
DEMOCRACY REQUIRES IT. US-ISRAELI RELATIONS ARE THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE IN THE WORLD, AND THE ZOG SUCKERS WILL NOT LET IT BE RAISED ELSEWHERE. DO NOT FEED THEM, AMERICA. DO NOT FEED THEM AMERICA.
A serious effort could establish contact with those who unite behind a similar banner in other countries. A registration for known 2-Flag loyalists documented in AY's databank, showing complicity with deceiving America into committing war crimes, would be called for.
[B]LETS DO IT![/B]
2004-03-14 00:59 | User Profile
TD: ...but to be honest I'm not certain where.
[url]http://www.thephora.org/index.php?s=[/url]
2004-03-14 03:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Hey Todd,
Hope you are well.
I'm fairly sure that both of these guys call somewhere else home now, but to be honest I'm not certain where. We've had alot of folks leave here recently for higher ground than this fever swamp of sweaty fundamentalism. :)
Put something up on Liberty Forum as I'm sure both look in there from time to time.
Rgds,
Jason[/QUOTE]Some may have left recently, but to my knowlege PA and AY weren't one of them. Haven't seen PA for ages anywhere, here or at LF and as of yesterday, AY was still one of our most active posters, although he tends to post in spurts a little.
2004-03-16 08:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]For the record, I did not quit this board. Though I'm not keen on having an "official" ideology or belief system...
And what is that exactly, AY? From its inception, was this board/site's 'official' ideology paleo-conservatism? From Chilton Williamson, Jr.'s article titled "What is Paleoconservatism?" I quote:
Paleoconservatism is the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture?an identity that is both collective and personal. This identity is missing from the psychological and emotional makeup of leftists of every stripe?including ?neoconservatives??and is now disavowed by mainline conservatives of the Republican variety, seemingly bent on eradicating as much of the primeval stain as they can from their consciousnesses while apologizing for the faint discoloration that remains...In this campaign of chaos and destruction, the chief and most effective tools have been the weakening of the Christian religion and Christian institutions, the promotion of multiculturalism?and virtually uncontrolled immigration from the Third World.
I asked you before and I'll ask you again: when we first started this thing was not our explicit intention to provide a safe haven for paleoconservative thought/ideology? From the Williamson, Jr. quote above from 'Chronicles' we see that the Christian religion and Christian institutions are a cornerstone of paleo-con ideology. Therefore, how is my explicit forum guideline that historic, orthodox Western Christianity will be protected from incessant slander, ridicule and/or debasement here on these pages somehow qualitatively different from the same guideline concerning paleo-conservatism we once agreed upon at the founding of OD? Have your positions changed whereby you no longer consider yourself a paleo-conservative? Has paleoconservatism itself changed in its fundamentals?
I'll grant you that you have never professed belief in the True Faith so I realize that you may not be as sensitive as I to derisions cast upon same here, but two points I would make concerning this: 1) if Christianity or Western Christendom is so fundamental to the paleo-con ideology you have professed, then surely you would lean to sympathize in favor of those whose Christian faith is a real and daily part of their core being, and 2) I've ran this site and board daily for going on three years and my Christian faith is central to everything I am and do. I certainly will not say I have done it on my own as I have depended on you and others for input, advice and guidance on numerous occasions, but the bottom line is that it is my name that is on the bottom line for what happens here. And that is fine. It's part of the deal when one signs on for this kind of venture. Surely my personal beliefs have been no hidden mystery over the lifetime of this board.
Given the two points above and the guidelines we mutually agreed upon at the outset of this site, if I come to the opinion that a handful of members here seem only to have an incessant objective in undermining historic, orthodox Christianity and subsequently Western Christendom itself, then in service to the greater goal of having discussions here actually achieve something worthwhile and of substance would I not explicity state the basic stance of the board so that there is no room for misinterpretation and we won't continue to be mired and bogged down in eternal haggling over basic principles? Emotional attachments aside, isn't this fair to everyone involved? Further, why would those who are openly hostile to the Christian faith want to be a part of a paleo-con board? There are countless other boards whose underlying principles better suit them. Would you come to the same conclusion if it were a jewish neo-conservative constantly posting snide comments about paleo-conservatism and paleo-cons themselves? I know you would not because you have consistently argued for the removal of obnoxious anti-paleos for this board's entire existence.
And let's look at exactly the revision I have made to the guidelines. It boils down to simply this: this is a paleo-con board -- Christianity and Western Christendom are fundamental parts of paleo-conservatism -- both will be given prominence here and will demand basic respect of all members that choose to post here. Seriously, is this so drastic a requirement of mature, responsible men of ideas? It is hardly the Inquisition in my opinion, but evidently for a few of our members it is. In turn I question their true motivations and consider ourselves better positioned and focused for the future. You nor I have ever pretended that this is a libertarian free-for-all. You have your brand of conservatism that you have excellently articulated and it is one that I almost completely share. I also have my Christianity which I have always thought was part and parcel of your conservatism whether you personally believed in it or not. Not once have you ever belittled it, so why is it so grossly unfair to demand the same from everyone here? I'm sorry but I just can't see any illogic in that.
...the guidelines don't really affect my posts one way or another because I generally stay out of the Christian/Anti-Christian flame wars. I now post less frequently simply because there's less going on with some of our more visible and interesting luminaries gone.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that vote of confidence and support.
2004-03-16 15:58 | User Profile
I agree 100% with Tex that being a paleocon is all about protecting our European, Christian and English-speaking identity from internal subversives and external usurpers, and since this is a paleocon board it only makes sense to limit the sort of vile attacks of the Linderites here. We have a tendency, there's never been any question about that, and we need to stick to that line.
Anyway, now that we're over the religious flame wars, we can get down to brass tacks, and indeed how brass tacks are manufactured and marketed. Since Christianity is part of the paleo-con ideology, shouldn't we also have an official economic program?
I'd like to discuss what that should be.
Distributism incorporates a very paleo-con world view. It has the advantages of having been beautifully elaborated by the likes of Chesterton and Belloc, and brought into long and very successful practice by a number of enterprises, including the Mandragon cooperatives.
Best of all, it challenges directly capitalism, which is certainly not working in our interests.
I wish some of you smart guys would tell me what you think about Distributism on [URL=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?p=76344#post76344]THIS THREAD.[/URL]
Now that we have the paleocon identity straight, I respectfully suggest that we hammer out the rest of the program.
Walter
2004-03-17 17:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Showing such people the door is as politically unwise as VNN's effort to alienate every Christian who might otherwise give a sympathetic ear to frank discussion of race and the Jewish question.[/QUOTE]
???
I really don't see how you come to this conclusion, but let me try another angle -- compare it to owning a Japanese restaurant. I'm not kicking any patrons out the door. All I'm doing is making the rule that you have to take your shoes off to come in and eat there. If a customer just can't abide by that basic and simple rule, then they'll just have to go dine at another establishment. I didn't kick them out of the restaurant. They chose to leave on their own because they could not abide by the simple rule of no shoes.
I don't know how to make it any plainer so I guess we'll have to leave it at that.
2004-03-17 18:25 | User Profile
I myself have never thought that AY was a paleoconservative. Such a description would be news to me.
I have always seen AY as a WN or a WN/libertarian/anti-NWO or similar combination. Correct me if I am wrong...
2004-04-04 13:34 | User Profile
[I]I still regard rightwing atheists and pagans as allies in the struggle against the Judaeo-Bolshevik foe in all of its incarnations[/I]
...will you accept a rightwing semi-practicing Zen Buddhist/mystic in The Struggle? :)
2004-04-05 20:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]What all this suggests is that the respective mythical trappings aside, there is a common denominator there of metaphysical and ethical truth.[/QUOTE]
C.S. Lewis termed this 'the Tao' -- temporal, ethical truths recognized by all men universally (Romans 2:15). Of course, like all paganistic philosophies the way to nirvana, or extinguishing oneself, is based on one's own efforts or works. This is in sharp distinction to New Testament Christianity which is entirely based on what God has already done for us, or grace if you will (Romans 3:23-26) - a concept foreign to buddhism and all paganism.
1 John 4
2004-04-06 11:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]C.S. Lewis termed this 'the Tao' -- temporal, ethical truths recognized by all men universally (Romans 2:15). Of course, like all paganistic philosophies the way to nirvana, or extinguishing oneself, is based on one's own efforts or works. This is in sharp distinction to New Testament Christianity which is entirely based on what God has already done for us, or grace if you will (Romans 3:23-26) - a concept foreign to buddhism and all paganism.
1 John 4[/QUOTE]
I know what you mean, but if I understand the thing correctly some kinds of Budhism rely on the grace of the "Boddhisatvas" for salvation. These are Buddhist saints who achieved Nirvana themselves but who (like I think the Buddha himself) reject salvation for themselves out of compassion for the sinners who remain stuck down here in the world of illusion.
If that's right (and I'm no expert) then that would just bolster your point about the great religions of the world coming to very similar conclusions on basic points. The Tao, it would seem, contains a very real requirement that we first admit personal powerlessness or defeat in the face of death before the grace of salvation can be received.
Christianity really turns on this point - salvation is a free gift of God's grace, and not earned by any works of our own, but I'm not sure Christianity can claim a monopoly on that.
Walter
2004-04-06 15:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Christianity really turns on this point - salvation is a free gift of God's grace, and not earned by any works of our own, but I'm not sure Christianity can claim a monopoly on that.[/QUOTE]
Maybe not. I don't know, Walter. However, I do know what the Apostle John warned in 1 John 4:1-3:
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
That's sufficient, I believe.