← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 14087 | Posts: 52 | Started: 2004-06-07
2004-06-07 11:04 | User Profile
Valley Forge raised an issue on another thread that I didn't get a chance to respond to due to the recent bloodletting here on OD
I can't find the exchange, but it went something like this.
My contention is that the best, and probably the only, chance that we Americans have of ridding ourselves of foreign domination is to form a sort of "Christian Taliban" that will work to achieve total dominance of the Gospel in American society. I pointed out the marketing and PR advantages of such an approach, and an interesting discussion followed.
VF countered that Americans would never accept a "theocracy" and that the idea was therefore doomed to failure (VF, please correct me if I'm wrong about this).
I think that VF raised a very important point that deserves a clear answer.
Three points:
PeeCee is a Marxist (and mostly Jewish) attempt to impose on American society the unquestioned dominance of the Inner Party through the forced conversion of the masses to that ideological mish-mash of Marxism, Fruedianism and Boasian Sociology that has come to be termed PeeCee, and sometimes referred to more appropriately I think as Secular Humanism.
Secular Humanism is all about the denial of any role of Revelation in the life of man, the absolute precedence of "nurture" over "nature", a denial of the organismic component of human society and the implicit assumption that human individuals are basically fungible, etc. Much more could be said about it, but I think it's summed up by SCOTUS in its egregious Planned Parenthood versus Casey ruling, to the effect that the heart of the Constitution is the right of every person to define the meaning, existence, life, and all else on their own. It is all about the right of every individual to indulge personal vice at the price of denying the best interests of their own group.
This ideology is the regnant ideology in America. It has been officially prounounced by the Courts, as I've said, and in addition it's enforced with a vengence at all levels of our society. Our children are force fed this ideology in the schools. We face discrimination in schools and work due to this ideology. We are now being innundated with third world immigrants due to this state religion. We have courts inflicting one outrage on us after the next, including sodomite marriage. The list could go on.
It is clear, then, that we live now in a theocracy, but one in which the theorcrats are savvy enough not to proclaim their own rule, at least not too loudly. And at least not yet. The acolytes of this new religion control our courts, our schools, our media, our legislatures. It's just a question of time before they show themselves, and advance directly on those Churches that remain true to the Gospel.
We live in a theocracy, and one that hates Christ and all that His Gospel stands for. Wake up, my brothers, and smell the latkes.
Let's get real clear about the fact that the fight will not be, and indeed cannot be, about ending all theocracy and replacing it with some fuzzily conceived freedom, as I took my right honorable friend VF to imply.
Theocracy is unavoidable. [B]UNAVOIDABLE[/B]. All societies have a ruling ideology - a religion - that binds them together. As David Sloan Wilson points out in his incredibly important "Darwin's Cathedral", we humans evolved to organize our societies in response to religious symbols and beliefs. This is a matter of instinct, and it simply cannot be gotten around.
All governments everywhere and at any time in history have without fail been theocracies, in that sense of the word. We canot deny our instinct to organize our society around religious beliefs and symbols.
You might as well attempt to build a society based on the denial of our instincts for food and sex. Imagine putting 50 young men together with 50 young women together on an island. There would be no stopping them from finding food, building shelters, pairing off, and forming families, because it's instinct.
But heed this fact well: there would also be no stopping them from organizing their society along religious lines, again because it's instinct.
Thus, we are not facing a choice as the right honorable VF assumes between theocracy and open society. Nonsense. That is pure illusion. The only question we face is which ideology will dominate, and not whether we can jettison ideology altogether. Which religion will rule - our religion or that of a parasitic foreign element?
That is the choice we face.
I say that our ideology - our religion, the Holy Faith of our ancestors - must rule. The Gospel must be established as the unquestioned and unquestionable charter of our society.
Just as the Taliban enforced Sharia on their people, so must we inflict the Gospel on American society. While a forced conversion is no conversion, and we will always have non-Christians among us, the utter right of the Gospel to rule and direct American society must be unquestioned, and indeed unquestionable.
The choice is this: do we rule, or will we be serfs in our fathers' house? That is the choice, it is the only choice, and there can be no middle ground.
We must get over this false choice between theocracy and freedom, and fast.
It distracts us from our single chance to secure our existence as a people and a future for white children.
Forward the Christian Taliban.
Walter
2004-06-07 12:28 | User Profile
Walter, I agree with your main thesis, however, I do see one major challenge. The current reigning religion (secular humanism, cultural Marxism, the Modernist Heresty, or however you wish to define it) is in large part so successful because it is able to hide that it is, in fact, a religious belief. Many of its most fanatical adherents are totally convinced that every single position they hold is based upon pure reason, and that their belief system is merely what naturally occurs when there is lack of an established religion. The tenets of this heresy (militant atheism, radical egalistarianism, idolization of sex, hatred of life, idealization of abnormality and alienation, denigration of the family and tribe, etc.) require at least as much faith as traditional Christianity does, yet they are oblivious to this fact. I have had people fly into a rage when I asserted that their postition was based on faith, or that it was based as much upon faith as any other religion.
PS -- From a marketing standpoint, "Christian Taliban" is probably not going to focus-group well. :wink:
2004-06-07 13:36 | User Profile
I agree with that.
The ability to advance one's religion under the guise of pure reason is one hulluva an advantage. I don't see how we can hope to match it, but we can do all we can to pull the veil from that attack.
Okay, okay, I'll stop using the word Taliban. I agree that we'll have to find a better trademark.
Walter
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Walter, I agree with your main thesis, however, I do see one major challenge. The current reigning religion (secular humanism, cultural Marxism, the Modernist Heresty, or however you wish to define it) is in large part so successful because it is able to hide that it is, in fact, a religious belief. Many of its most fanatical adherents are totally convinced that every single position they hold is based upon pure reason, and that their belief system is merely what naturally occurs when there is lack of an established religion. The tenets of this heresy (militant atheism, radical egalistarianism, idolization of sex, hatred of life, idealization of abnormality and alienation, denigration of the family and tribe, etc.) require at least as much faith as traditional Christianity does, yet they are oblivious to this fact. I have had people fly into a rage when I asserted that their postition was based on faith, or that it was based as much upon faith as any other religion.
PS -- From a marketing standpoint, "Christian Taliban" is probably not going to focus-group well. :wink:[/QUOTE]
2004-06-07 21:59 | User Profile
Walter,
Unfortunately, I can't find the thread with our exchange either.
One thing I can say off the top of my head though is that you didn't answer my main objection to your American "Christian Theocracy" concept.
Namely, who do you propose run this Theocracy? Will it be Catholics, Traditional Catholics, Protestants (if so which ones), Orthodox Christians, or all of the above?
Until that question is clearly answered, it doesn't make any sense to discuss establishing a theocracy on American soil even if we call it something other than a theocracy or the "Christian Taliban" for marketing reasons.
2004-06-07 22:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Until that question is clearly answered, it doesn't make any sense to discuss establishing theocracy on American soil even if we call it something other than a theocracy or the "Christian Taliban" for marketing reasons.[/QUOTE]If the concept is equivalent to Islam, aka "Christian Talibanism" there are more than marketing questions surrounding it Walter.
Alhough there are reasons for reestablishing religion in public life Walter, the whole concept of a "Christian Taliban" is essentially an oxymoron, re: > John 18:36. "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were of this world my servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews, but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm".
2004-06-07 22:26 | User Profile
I think we need to distinguish between exoteric and esoteric ruling theocracies.
The exoteric theocracy is one of theism, the centrality of the individual's experience of God, and of the consequent dignity of the individual, understood in terms of a need for various kinds of de social equality. This theism is combined with severe dislike of any attempts to impose one dominant version of this theism. Given the focus on the individualism, Catholicism can never find a place in this ruling theocracy. Neither can most forms of Islam.
The esoteric theocracy is the 'negative theocracy' of racialist neo-Marxism. Its prime religious tenet is that the less populace races be subsumed into the more populace ones, with the exception of the Chosen.
Neither 'theocracy' has any place for a (small 'o') orthodox Christian theocracy.
If an orthodox Christian theocracy is what we need for white racialism to prevail in America, we are doomed. I suggest looking elsewhere.
One might of course make use of this line of thinking for more limited projects: such as orthodox Christian theocracies in a number of Southern States. But don't hold your breath... and how much would this accomplish, anyway, since these are likely to perverted by the national, esoteric religion?
2004-06-07 22:51 | User Profile
In very broad terms, I, and I think most ODers, agree with Walter.
We need to reestablish Chistianity in the public square, and overthrow the Secular (largely Jewish) Taliban.
My disagreement with Walter is with his proposed method of attaining those goals, and with his suggestion that Christians shouldn't work with non-Christians who agree with us politically if not religiously.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]If the concept is equivalent to Islam, aka "Christian Talibanism" there are more than marketing questions surrounding it Walter.
Alhough there are reasons for reestablishing religion in public life Walter, the whole concept of a "Christian Taliban" is essentially an oxymoron, re:[/QUOTE]
2004-06-07 23:46 | User Profile
I agree, every society is a theocracy. Every society is ruled by a set of ideas that are religions in nature, even if atheistic.
Every society only tolerates only so much deviation from the norm. An atheistic society will hardly tolerate Christians and a Christian society will hardly tolerate atheists. Although, in a more Christian America of early America, atheists were much freer than Christians are now in atheistic America.
Moving from being a neocon to a libertarian seems pretty natural for myself. But, I'm now starting to see that libertarianism is a choice to loose. While you're letting the next guy do his thing, he's not requiting the favor.
For practical purposes, sodomy ceased to be a crime a very long time ago. When the Supreme Court recently put the last nail in the coffin of anti-sodomy laws, that was fine by my libertarian learnings. But, that only cleared the way for other activist judges to create homosexual "marriage" and when you decide you don't want to support homosexual "marriages" you'll start to find that your libertarianism is not returned. You'll be in court and face punishment for hate speech, discrimination, and whatever else they can do to crush you.
2004-06-08 05:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE]My disagreement with Walter is with his proposed method of attaining those goals, and with his suggestion that Christians shouldn't work with non-Christians who agree with us politically if not religiously.[/QUOTE]
I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem working with non-Christians, so long as they are behind the project of creating a Christian America. All that is required is that one be convinced that a Christian America is in their best interests, and even if they can't make the leap of faith to Christ then that's okay, so long as they get behind the effort to establish the Gospel as the undisputed ruler of American society.
I also agree that we Christians have our disagreements, and that these indeed lend themselves to instability and division. How to deal with that? Great question, it's something we need to discuss.
Fortunately, many good men and women of all the Christian camps represented here have delved into these matters and have come up with a sort of outline of points of agreement and disagreement. I posted a link to a First Things series on this on another thread, I'll see if I can dig it up.
The thing that really grabs the eye about these attempts is the very large area of doctrinal overlap. Most of us Christians accept the Creed, although there is some difference in interpretation on some points (for example, the Communion of Saints). We all accept that we are saved by Faith in Christ, we all accept the sacrament of Baptism, we all accept the Divinity of Christ, His virgin birth, and so on.
The disagreements we have are few, but it does no good to downplay them. They are significant. They caused horrible wars in the past, as we all know.
The question is whether we trust each other enough to close ranks and to "agree to disagree" on these points for now and after we win (and we will win).
I have no problem whatever with trusting Tex or Okie or Wild Bill, Perun, and you VF, to watch out for your old pal Walter and his crazy ideas. We're all Americans after all. We American Christians work together across denominational boundaries every day. Think of the Evangelical on his knees reading the Bible in front of an abortion mill with an old Catholic granny kneeling next to him praying the rosary. That's what we are.
And for my part, I swear that I will always respect the rights of my fellow Christians to disagree with the Catholic Church on any number of issues. And, for my friends who fear that we take orders in matters political directly from Rome, I say that if the Pope himself ordered me to do otherwise, I'd have to tell him to kiss my plump, white, downy-soft American butt.
Deal?
As to the conduct of this board, I respectfully suggest that now we've apparently bid a fond adieu to those among us who are not supportive of the Christian Dominance project, we should close ranks and begin to organize in earnest.
Walter
2004-06-09 00:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem working with non-Christians, so long as they are behind the project of creating a Christian America. All that is required is that one be convinced that a Christian America is in their best interests, and even if they can't make the leap of faith to Christ then that's okay, so long as they get behind the effort to establish the Gospel as the undisputed ruler of American society.
Not to be unnecessarily contrarian Walter, but do you honestly not see how adopting this position could alienate many people who agree with us politically, but not religiously?
As Christians, our most immediate pressing problem is the Secular Jewish Theocracy you alluded to and the Jews who run it. Until the Jewish theocrats have been confronted and destroyed in this country, we will never be able to accomplish our objective of leading our people in a Great Awakening to the True Faith.
Or, to be more precise, if it will be possible to lead our people in a great awakening without confronting the Jews, no Christian ODer has yet explained exactly how this will be done given that the Jews control all of our most important opinion shaping institutions. I have thrown down this challenge to Paleoleftist and Texas Dissident among others, and neither has responded that I'm aware of. Yet both have had plenty of bad things to say about the one segment of the Right that is willing to confront the Jews consistently: the hardcore racialists and NSers.
You see Walter, the Jews have earned themselves many well deserved enemies, and although not all of them share our faith, many would be more than happy to join us in driving the sword into the heart of Judah and plunging it in to the hilt.
It is a fact that so far none of the Christians on this board have contested my point that we will never be able to achieve our objective of leading our people in a Great Awakening until the Jews are overthrown, anymore than we could living under an Islamic theorcracy.
Consequently, I say we should work with about anyone on the Right who is willing to oppose Jews (with the exception of Muslims).
Now, you say you'll be glad to work with a group or faction on the Right so long as they accept not just our goal of overthrowing the current Jewish theocracy -- but also our larger long term goal of replacing it with our own version.
Don't you honestly think that is an unnecessarily divisive standpoint? We're doing politics here after all -- and politics is about BUILDING COALITIONS. It is, as the cliche says, the art of the possible.
Again, not to be unnecessarily contrarian Walter, but let me ask you a hard question: do you think it would be constructive or unconstructive for me to go around saying " you know, what we need in this country is a Protestant Theocracy. We're going to have a theocracy anyway, so we might as well have one run by people who agree with us. Catholics are welcome to join us so long as they support establishing unquestioned rule by Protestant Theocrats.
Constructive or unconstructive?
Smart tactics or unwise tactics?
Feasible or unfeasible?
Honestly?
I also agree that we Christians have our disagreements, and that these indeed lend themselves to instability and division. How to deal with that? Great question, it's something we need to discuss.
You write as if this will be easy. Christians have been killing each other for a long time; what makes you think a workable political coalition is possible now when it has rarely been possible in the past?
Respectfully of course (to my right honorable friend), I say -- bring forward your evidence that this idea of yours is actually attainable in the real world.
You are pushing this idea very hard after all, and you're clearly an extremely intelligent, learned man (and I mean that honestly), so I'm guessing you must have given this issue some thought. Who gets to run the theocracy: Protestants, Catholics, or Orthoodox?
In looking to the past, I don't see much in the way of evidence in support of the idea that building political coalitions based on religion is workable.
The founding fathers, who I'm sure you'll agree were far more intelligent and wise than any of us here could ever hope to be in our lifetimes, rejected forming a theocracy, or anything resembling a theocracy, at the beginning because they knew it would never work -- even then.
[SIZE=4]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[/SIZE]
No law respecting an establishment of religion, that's a pretty clear rejection of the theocracy concept.
And when did they do this? They did it in the 1780s -- when the USA was 99% White and protestant.
So even back then, when the USA was 99% White and protestant -- the founders rejected the idea of explicitly linking the new Republic to Christianity.
Clearly then, this issue of getting Christians on the same page must have been a formidable one even in the 1780s. So if establishing a formal theocracy wasn't workable then, what makes you think it will be workable now -- when the USA is more secular, non-White, and divided than ever?
Specifically?
As for the rest of your post, I pretty much agree with it -- except for this.
As to the conduct of this board, I respectfully suggest that now we've apparently bid a fond adieu to those among us who are not supportive of the Christian Dominance project, we should close ranks and begin to organize in earnest.[/QUOTE]
I thought we had already closed ranks here. The people who are still here are still here and the ones who are gone are gone. Believe me, they're not coming back either this time. So I doubt continued debate of this issue will hurt anything.
2004-06-09 00:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Or, to be more precise, no Christian ODer has yet explained how we Christians can ever hope to lead our people in a Christian revival with the Jews controlling all of our opinion shaping institutions.[/QUOTE]
[B]I[/B] have. :tongue: You forgot about it. I said the best strat is taking back the Churches, one person at a time.
In the beginning, that doesnôt amount to much, but it will snowball. And with a majority of the Christian Churches on our side, not only will the Zionists have lost their only ally, but it will be game over. :thumbsup:
edit: left should read lost.
2004-06-09 01:07 | User Profile
Let me make sure I understand your point.
You're saying that Jewish Supremacist control of the major opinion shaping institutions is not an issue that must be dealt with before we can lead our people in a spiritual renewal. On the contrary, going "one person at a time" in the face of Academia, Hollywood, Big Media, Wall Street, and FEDGOVZOG is a perfectly viable strategy.
Is this paraphrase accurate?
2004-06-09 01:09 | User Profile
And by the way, no disrespect intended, but is it really necessary to use those stupid smiley faces?
Stupid smiley faces are not a rebuttal.
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist][B]I[/B] have. :tongue: You forgot about it. I said the best strat is taking back the Churches, one person at a time.
In the beginning, that doesnôt amount to much, but it will snowball. And with a majority of the Christian Churches on our side, not only will the Zionists have left their only ally, but it will be game over. :thumbsup:[/QUOTE]
2004-06-09 01:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]And by the way, no disrespect intended, but is it really necessary to use those stupid smiley faces?
Stupid smiley faces are not a rebuttal.[/QUOTE]
The rebuttal was only directed against your claim I hadnôt made any proposal at all. You are a bit tense today. Lighten up! (Smiley face omitted.)
2004-06-09 01:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Let me make sure I understand your point.
You're saying that Jewish Supremacist control of the major opinion shaping institutions is not an issue that must be dealt with before we can lead our people in a spiritual renewal. On the contrary, going "one person at a time" in the face of Academia, Hollywood, Big Media, Wall Street, and FEDGOVZOG is a perfectly viable strategy.
Is this paraphrase accurate?[/QUOTE]
No. You shouldnôt go 'into the face' of anybody, but work behind the scenes WITHIN the Churches. Thatôs my point. Countersubversion, if you will. If the other side could do it, so can you.
2004-06-09 01:29 | User Profile
That's not how the other side did it.
They didn't subvert just the churches -- they also subverted the opinion shaping institutions.
And it's been all down hill for our side ever since.
Do you think we can win enough people over to our side fast enough to turn the West around without these institutions on our side?
2004-06-09 01:31 | User Profile
I'm not tense at all my friend.
There's no need to suggest that.
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]The rebuttal was only directed against your claim I hadnôt made any proposal at all. You are a bit tense today. Lighten up! (Smiley face omitted.)[/QUOTE]
2004-06-09 01:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]That's not how the other side did it.
They didn't subvert just the churches -- they also subverted the opinion shaping institutions.
And it's been all down hill for our side ever since.
Do you think we can win enough people over to our side fast enough to turn the West around without these institutions on our side?[/QUOTE]
Public opinion is starting to go against the other side already.
With the Churches freed from the clutch of 'Christian Zionism', yes, I think all prospects would look much brighter.
2004-06-09 01:58 | User Profile
One other thing: Once, the Christian Nonzionists :biggrin: (sorry, I couldnôt resist the smiley) have a little gained in numbers, they could also start countersubverting academia and the media.
One could start a Christian Policy think tank right now, or soon. OD is even, perhaps, a nucleus of that.
2004-06-09 02:03 | User Profile
You're becoming famous Walter:
[url]http://www.thephora.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=109707#post109707[/url]
PS: your mailbox is full.
2004-06-09 05:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]You're becoming famous Walter:
[url]http://www.thephora.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=109707#post109707[/url]
PS: your mailbox is full.[/QUOTE]
Interesting, thanks for that. I'm flattered by the attention.
Right now I'm just so glad they're gone, and I'm just trying to savour the warm glow I'm feeling right now.
Besides, all of that distracts us from what we need to do. Paleoleftist said an interesting thing recently about how ENTERTAINING all of this is. Crossing verbal swords with extremely formidible opponents like Wintermute and Il Ragno certainly can be fun, but folks we have work to do.
I think that we should all use this opportunity now to close ranks and focus like a laser beam on what we're about.
Out of sight, out of mind.
As the past two dust-ups have shown, we can't work with Nazis/Pagans (and they can't work with us) on anything practical, and we must cease all attempts at that. We need to narrow our focus. I believe we all agree on that now? Assuming that we do, then we need to get serious about implementing the plan.
VF asks what the plan is, but I think that we have broad consensus on that as well.
First, and foremost, we all must pray more, including especially yours truly. We must commit to leading upright lives beyond reproach, building our own vocations, caring for our families, and building our own wealth. This thing will only work if God wills it, and we pray constantly to keep our own egos out of the way and to let His Holy Spirit do the heavy lifting. And to Him Alone be the glory.
Second, we build OD as the premier (only?) Christian Nationalist forum on the web. We've heard some great suggestions on that, including an advert in Amren. I also think that we should ask Tex to look into getting a server and our own broadband connection. How much would it cost? How much more reliable and independent would it make us? We could do a fundraiser to raise the money, and generally work on getting OD a regular cashflow. This is essential.
Third, we start in earnest working out our program. Obviously, the clearer we can make the message the better our chances of winning converts. I think that we should organize around the principles of nationalism, solidarity, subsidiarity, marriage and family, and private property. These are the pillars of any sane social doctrine, and they are the very things that our enemies attack point for point. Focus, focus, focus. We must hammer home these points in a relentless propaganda barrage.
Fourth, once we reach a critical mass of posters and donors and have the financial means, we must begin our own regular publication. I suggest that we publish only on DVD and focus on cheap mass mailings. This is a major project, and it's a long way down the road, but it would involve founding a sort of mail order business that would work with OD. We could advertise while selling stuff like WMD and Etherzone. But that's the subject of a separate thread.
VF, the ultimate objective is not to drive a stake through the heart of Judah, as you say. The plan is to reinstitute Christendom by any means necessary, and if we have a stake or two to drive along the way then we get out the hammer. But it's a mistake to focus on the problem, and that's what the Pharisees are. A problem. A big problem, to be sure, but nevertheless one of many problems we face. We must quit focusing on the problems, and concentrate instead on solutions.
Our magic magnifying minds make the things we focus on grow. If we focus on problems like the Pharisees, then our problems grow and grow until they block out all else, like a thumb held before the eyes blocks out the sun. We are reduced to bitterness, resentment, self-pity, despair. Conversely, if we focus on the goal - Christendom - and how we can achieve that goal, than the goal steadily approaches and the solutions grow ever larger. We must set our eyes on the prize - the Gospel as undisputed ruler of American society, and very practical steps we can take to achieve that goal. We will deal with problems like the Pharisees as they arise.
VF, you also ask whether I see a Protestant theocracy for America, and the answer is yes I do, and that indeed it won't work any other way. America is a Protestant nation, and we all need to respect that. We Catholics will have to content ourselves with being a significant minority in a larger Protestant body, even as we pray with Christ that we are all made one in Him. I trust my Protestant American brothers to protect my rights, my property, my safety, and my very life.
I can't speak for my fellow Catholics here, but I think that they would have no problems with that.
I hope that I've answered your major points.
Walter
2004-06-09 08:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Not to be unnecessarily contrarian Walter, but do you honestly not see how adopting this position could alienate many people who agree with us politically, but not religiously?
I'm sure Walter does. He does so to deliberately rattle peoples cages. Which as we can see, he's pretty succesful at. :lol:
As Christians, our most immediate pressing problem is the Secular Jewish Theocracy you alluded to and the Jews who run it. Until the Jewish theocrats have been confronted and destroyed in this country, we will never be able to accomplish our objective of leading our people in a Great Awakening to the True Faith.
Or, to be more precise, if it will be possible to lead our people in a great awakening without confronting the Jews, no Christian ODer has yet explained exactly how this will be done given that the Jews control all of our most important opinion shaping institutions. I have thrown down this challenge to Paleoleftist and Texas Dissident among others, and neither has responded that I'm aware of. Yet both have had plenty of bad things to say about the one segment of the Right that is willing to confront the Jews consistently: the hardcore racialists and NSers.
BTW Walter, when you start chasing away people who are deeply paranoid anyway with us about us for some reason, you remind me of Gideon paring down his already tiny army. I certainly hope you've prayed deepy about this at the minimum.
They have legitimate points of course, which I think we've already gone the second mile to address, basically without much results.
[quote=Valley Forge]You see Walter, the Jews have earned themselves many well deserved enemies, and although not all of them share our faith, many would be more than happy to join us in driving the sword into the heart of Judah and plunging it in to the hilt.
It is a fact that so far none of the Christians on this board have contested my point that we will never be able to achieve our objective of leading our people in a Great Awakening until the Jews are overthrown, anymore than we could living under an Islamic theorcracy.
Consequently, I say we should work with about anyone on the Right who is willing to oppose Jews (with the exception of Muslims).
Why count Muslims out, if you include hardcore WN's?
For practical purposes hardcore WN's are well known to make their own overtures in this direction.
[quote=Valley Forge]Now, you say you'll be glad to work with a group or faction on the Right so long as they accept not just our goal of overthrowing the current Jewish theocracy -- but also our larger long term goal of replacing it with our own version.
Don't you honestly think that is an unnecessarily divisive standpoint? We're doing politics here after all -- and politics is about BUILDING COALITIONS. It is, as the cliche says, the art of the possible.
I doubt Walter thinks anything is unnecessarily divisive :lol:
[quote=Valley Forge]Again, not to be unnecessarily contrarian Walter, but let me ask you a hard question: do you think it would be constructive or unconstructive for me to go around saying " you know, what we need in this country is a Protestant Theocracy. We're going to have a theocracy anyway, so we might as well have one run by people who agree with us. Catholics are welcome to join us so long as they support establishing unquestioned rule by Protestant Theocrats.
Constructive or unconstructive?
Smart tactics or unwise tactics?
Feasible or unfeasible?
Honestly?
Walter's tried to address this, but historically its a tough road to hoe, especially for an ultraorthodox Catholic.
[quote=Valley Forge]You write as if this will be easy. Christians have been killing each other for a long time; what makes you think a workable political coalition is possible now when it has rarely been possible in the past?
Respectfully of course (to my right honorable friend), I say -- bring forward your evidence that this idea of yours is actually attainable in the real world.
You are pushing this idea very hard after all, and you're clearly an extremely intelligent, learned man (and I mean that honestly), so I'm guessing you must have given this issue some thought. Who gets to run the theocracy: Protestants, Catholics, or Orthoodox?
In looking to the past, I don't see much in the way of evidence in support of the idea that building political coalitions based on religion is workable.
The founding fathers, who I'm sure you'll agree were far more intelligent and wise than any of us here could ever hope to be in our lifetimes, rejected forming a theocracy, or anything resembling a theocracy, at the beginning because they knew it would never work -- even then.
[SIZE=4]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[/SIZE]
No law respecting an establishment of religion, that's a pretty clear rejection of the theocracy concept.
And when did they do this? They did it in the 1780s -- when the USA was 99% White and protestant.
So even back then, when the USA was 99% White and protestant -- the founders rejected the idea of explicitly linking the new Republic to Christianity.
I think here in this last remark you are making a mistake that someone older and more read in conservative religious literature like First Things wouldn't make VF. It is generally pointed out by opponents of secularism that this principle of Church/State separation, which today is applied broadly to all philosophies was intended for narrowly. The founding father's simply assumed the new republic would be Christian - they just rejected linking it to any particular Protestant sect. This arose of course out of the heritage of our republic being founded by religious dissenters like the Puritans who were persecuted by the established Anglican Church of their day.
[quote=Valley Forge]Clearly then, this issue of getting Christians on the same page must have been a formidable one even in the 1780s. So if establishing a formal theocracy wasn't workable then, what makes you think it will be workable now -- when the USA is more secular, non-White, and divided than ever?
Specifically?
I suspect here Walter is relying mentally at some point on the Gideon analogy. Hopefully I hope he isn't asking us to play the role of the prophets crying in the wilderness, who will achieve their spiritual purpose by being martyred. Which is a more logical result of his programme.
[quote=Valley Forge]]As for the rest of your post, I pretty much agree with it -- except for this.
I thought we had already closed ranks here. The people who are still here are still here and the ones who are gone are gone. Believe me, they're not coming back either this time. So I doubt continued debate of this issue will hurt anything.[/QUOTE] Especially as long as its in the members only section. But I'd like to see us mature our discussion to the point where it can be used as in indicator of our philosophy to others, rather than just a closed discussion among ourselves,outside of the prying eyes of WM and IR.
2004-06-09 08:43 | User Profile
I am interested in overthrowing 'the secular Taliban.' I am not so interested in replacing their rule with a Christian one. What I would like is a society where Christian and pagan, white and non-white, can co-exist and flourish with a minimal of violence. Right now, the massive violence of the government is directed squarely at whites and (what I see as) true Christians. Likewise, the amount of criminal violence directed at whites by non-whites is sickening, to say nothing of non-whites' employment of the government to threaten and bludgeon whites.
It is not that I wouldn't be happen with Christian dominance of the public sphere in America. It is just that I think the attempt to accomplish this will have many negative side effects, and will fail.
America feels the non-Christian pull of Europe, and streams of Christian and non-Christian will prominent in our culture for the forseable future.
Indeed, although I certainly wish to see a more Christian public sphere in America, I think efforts in Europe would be more rewarding. Here it is more a question of allowing for real pluralism; there Christianity may be too weak to survive pluralism, much less to dominate society.
Beyond the greater danger for Europe, there is the historical strangeness of Europe's turn from Christianity (esp. while we have not seen quite the same thing in America). This suggests to me that efforts to evangelize in Europe will, in the long-term, actually win more converts than similar efforts in the US. This is a different issue from gaining 'public power,' but it may be closely related.
2004-06-09 09:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I'm sure Walter does. He does so to deliberately rattle peoples cages. Which as we can see, he's pretty succesful at. :lol:
BTW Walter, when you start chasing away people who are deeply paranoid anyway with us about us for some reason, you remind me of Gideon paring down his already tiny army. I certainly hope you've prayed deepy about this at the minimum.
They have legitimate points of course, which I think we've already gone the second mile to address, basically without much results.
Why count Muslims out, if you include hardcore WN's?
For practical purposes hardcore WN's are well known to make their own overtures in this direction.
I doubt Walter thinks anything is unnecessarily divisive :lol:
Walter's tried to address this, but historically its a tough road to hoe, especially for an ultraorthodox Catholic.
I think here in this last remark you are making a mistake that someone older and more read in conservative religious literature like First Things wouldn't make VF. It is generally pointed out by opponents of secularism that this principle of Church/State separation, which today is applied broadly to all philosophies was intended for narrowly. The founding father's simply assumed the new republic would be Christian - they just rejected linking it to any particular Protestant sect. This arose of course out of the heritage of our republic being founded by religious dissenters like the Puritans who were persecuted by the established Anglican Church of their day.
I suspect here Walter is relying mentally at some point on the Gideon analogy. Hopefully I hope he isn't asking us to play the role of the prophets crying in the wilderness, who will achieve their spiritual purpose by being martyred. Which is a more logical result of his programme.
Especially as long as its in the members only section. But I'd like to see us mature our discussion to the point where it can be used as in indicator of our philosophy to others, rather than just a closed discussion among ourselves,outside of the prying eyes of WM and IR.[/QUOTE]
Okie, thank you for that.
I agree generally with your take on my opinions, although I have to admit that I wasn't imagining anything as poetic as Gideon; I was thinking of my role more in terms of an elder corporate bureucrrat explaining Marketing 101 to a group of new employees who were just making an unholy hash of the central advertising campaign. Banality, all is banality.
My position is that we can't be all things to all people. No group can hope to do that. My slogan is "shoemaker, tend to thy last!" We need an organization that can propagate our core Christian Naionalist message. That means that we urgently must focus on our core message to the exclusion of all else. It's axiomatic that you get the bang for your advertising buck by identifying and hammering over and over and over again the core message to consumers. We must do that. If we allow our message to be associated with other ideological products our potential consumers identify with, then we dilute our message and undermine the value of our own marketing efforts.
Would Coke, for example, include in one of its advertisements a Pepsi symbol? To ask the question is to answer it. We must present Christian symbols packaged with a profoundly Christian message, and if we allow our marketing investment to be associated with Nazi and/or Pagan symbols (or any other non-Christian symbols) then we wind up working against ourselves.
Certain organizational steps follow logically from this fundamental insight, including that we clarify our Christian message, distilling it down to a small set of slogans that we explicate under other cover, and of course we must jettison those who are not behind the program in order to build esprit de coups of our marketing and sales teams.
Everybody has to know exactly what the message is, why we're advancing it, and that we only tolerate inside our group those who are 100% on board with the program.
But that doesn't mean we can't cooperate with our ideological competitors when it is to our advantage, as VF seems to imply. In business competing companies do that all the time. They form various organizations that promote their common interests, and that's fine. It's way down the road, and only after we've created our distinct Christian Nationalist voice, but I'm not against the idea in principle. But at this point, any talk about that is just a distraction. Our most pressing task is to get our own business up and running, and turing a profit. We can talk about inter-company cooperation once we've gone EBITDA positive, as it were. I mean, here we are with scarcely a pulse, and some are talking about spending time and resources on building external networks. Let's get our own house in order first, and then we can talk about all that other good stuff.
We need to focus now on building our Christian Nationalist organization. I'm committed to the project, and I'm hoping to hear the committment from others to build this thing up. Let's do it, guys. Now that we've done our little purge, let's close ranks, fix our eyes on Christ and His Gospel, and make OD happen.
Walter
2004-06-09 10:05 | User Profile
The analogy made below is false. It suggests that what is represented by Christians symbols is in fierce competition with what is represented by all non-Christian symbols. There is no truth to this.
I agree that Christian symbols should almost never be conjoined with certain symbols now identified with Nazism, such as the swastika or the dual lightning bolts. This is because these symbols should generally only be used in contexts where one is criticizing their use.
'Pagan symbols' I take refers to religious symbols of non-Christian religions? I personally don't have a problem with such conjunctions, because I value the type of synergism long practised by Roman Catholics and the Celtic Orthodox. But I can understand where someone might be coming from here, as such synergism can certainly get out of hand (as with vodoo or certain Latin American belief systems); and one can make an at least plausible case for rejecting it in the first place.
"Would Coke, for example, include in one of its advertisements a Pepsi symbol? To ask the question is to answer it. We must present Christian symbols packaged with a profoundly Christian message, and if we allow our marketing investment to be associated with Nazi and/or Pagan symbols (or any other non-Christian symbols) then we wind up working against ourselves."
2004-06-09 10:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]As the past two dust-ups have shown, we can't work with Nazis/Pagans (and they can't work with us) on anything practical, and we must cease all attempts at that.
Perhaps I missed something in the three weeks or so I was absent due to being busy with my new job, but I don't recall reading anything about a suggestion we do some specific practical thing, or there being any consequent difficulty in working together on such a thing. Disagreements in a forum hardly constitute meaningful conflict, in case you've forgotten (and they generally only matter to the people who participated in them). It is objectively true that Job One isn't establishing a Christian Theocracy, but rather it is the liberation of our people from the Judeo-Bolshevist Theocracy. What comes after that, I suspect, is something no one faction (such as Nazis or Christian Nationalists) will be able to solely determine, all grandiose assumptions and detailed policy proposals to the contrary not with standing.
2004-06-09 10:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Perhaps I missed something in the three weeks or so I was absent [/QUOTE]
Looks like you missed the fireworks, Kevin.
Welcome back.
To paraphrase Jesus, it does no good to drive out one demon unless it is replaced by something good, as the ensuing vacuum only invites back 100 new demons.
We need to go on the offensive with our own small, but clearly defined, program. We'll leave the results up to God.
Walter
2004-06-09 10:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]The analogy made below is false. It suggests that what is represented by Christians symbols is in fierce competition with what is represented by all non-Christian symbols. [/QUOTE]
That's not quite it.
I'm merely asserting an axiom of marketing - if you want to get your message through, you have to keep it simple and clear.
Anything that distracts from the simplicity and clarity of the message must be ruthlessly excised.
I understand that we are trying to build here on OD a Christian Nationalist movement.
Maybe I'm assuming too much, and before we get into this any further, could we just clarify that point?
Are we all now on board with OD being a Christian Nationalist forum that concentrates 100% on propagating the Christian Nationalist message?
Walter
2004-06-09 16:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]That's not quite it.
I'm merely asserting an axiom of marketing - if you want to get your message through, you have to keep it simple and clear.
Anything that distracts from the simplicity and clarity of the message must be ruthlessly excised.
I don't understand your approach actually. If it is simply an advertising approach, concepts like "The Christian Taliban", if they are clear, are only so in a negative light. Reminds me of that famous list of advertising slogans that never got off the ground.
Like "Our elevators will never let you down" :lol:
Seriously, advertising, especially in politics, involves realization of one's negatives and liabilities. You can be sure that our enemies will be reciting "Christian Talibanists" against us now for the foreseeable future.
I understand that we are trying to build here on OD a Christian Nationalist movement.
Maybe I'm assuming too much, and before we get into this any further, could we just clarify that point?
Are we all now on board with OD being a Christian Nationalist forum that concentrates 100% on propagating the Christian Nationalist message?
Walter[/QUOTE]I don't know if its an advertising concept specifically, but one basic principle of businesses I think of is that you have to have a products to see, and know what products you are selling.
We have always been identified with paleoconservatism here, which is definitely oriented sympathetically toward our historic western Christian heritage way, but in a way that takes American tendencies and habits into account.
That is one way to work things and interpret "Christian Nationalism" in the context of the discussions that have taken place along this line. But is that your interpretation Walter, or do you really have a fixed, concrete one? What model most directly represents your thinking on this matter, say Franco's Spain? What writers do you follow? Just using the term as a polemical device to drive off people who we're crossing swords with is the easy part.
2004-06-09 19:08 | User Profile
There are some great points made on this thread. My time is limited right now, but I'll make some general comments.
From time to time throughout the history of this discussion board, myself and a few others have looked at the great question of 'what do we do from here, if anything?'. Truth be known, I actually own the rights to another domain name -- westernheritageleague.org. I was looking at using this as an umbrella or front organization of sorts to try and do some activism/local organization type things, but in trying to just get the site off the ground it become too overwhelming a task for my limited resources. But as you can see, this is something I've always looked at doing. Limited resources are one issue and the other is how much real interest there is in lauching such an effort.
We've always operated rather defiantly under the paleoconservative banner. To my mind, like Okie I see paleoconservativsm (or Francis' Middle American Radicals) as encompassing traditional, Western Christendom and all the good things thereof, as well as staying true to our unique American experiences and traditions. With our history here, such as the influx of posters from the defunct SFOF years ago, we've always had a strong racialist or white nationalist influence in our discussions. This has not only influenced the board, but my own thinking in limited ways. Of course I've always tried to walk the line between what I see as responsible racialist opinion and getting all the Hollywood Nazis over here. A difficult task and in my efforts to maintain a high level of discussion it seems that I've pissed off everybody at some point or another. Oh well, what can you do?
Due to the recent fall-out, we may have lost the input of the more doctrinaire national socialist element and to my mind, that is a very good thing. In the wake of that I think it is healthy to take a look at exactly what we want to do using this board as a launching pad if you will.
We have an existing model already, if, as some say, Stormfront is the discussion board supporting the National Alliance-the activist arm of their underlying ideology. I could foresee something similar in our case and would argue that kind of division of organizational purpose is the best way to go if activism is being considered. In other words, if we want to start organizing for activist purposes then another front would serve that purpose better than OD the discussion board. This allows the activist organization to be sharply focused, setting agendas and platforms, etc., while the discussion board is left a little more open in order to bring sympathetic souls into the tent and subsequently plugged into what we're trying to do or accomplish. Of course Free Republic would be another such example.
Operationally, I have a pretty good measure of what it would require for OD to be independently run on its own server and that would requre a significant amount of additional funding as I can't float that kind of money on my own. This is where I get on uncertain ground as I am not at all sure of what is the best manner of legally organizing to start taking in funds for operational cost and activist activities and such. Like I mentioned earlier, I had thought of somehow incorporating Western Heritage League and using it as an umbrella organization for OD, the discussion board. Similar to what Antiwar does with the Randolph bourne Institute or VDARE has with their Preservation non-profit or whatever its name is.
So all that is up in the air and I'm willing to discuss any of it. Ideologically and politically, I think our mix of paleocon/traditional conservatism coupled with 'Christian Nationalism' is unique and could fill a niche with some success to be realized. IOW, I don't see anyone else doing what we do. For my part, Christian ethics have to be at the core because 1) they are my core beliefs and 2) I think that Christianity has to be part and parcel of anything we try and do politically here in America. The second is just common sense reality, in my opinion. Unlike the hard-core racialists I do not believe that we have to see the end of the world before any appreciable gains can be realized. I still believe there are many good things here in America and our American political traditions that are worth conserving, but obviously need to be reformed. The best manner of doing that is trying to win hearts and minds, one by one, one day at a time. Having a healthy, vibrant web presence for activism and discussion would definitely be a good start towards that end.
I also agree that we would first need to get our own house in order before considering what other groups/organizations we could make common cause with in the greater fight.
2004-06-09 22:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] Due to the recent fall-out, we may have lost the input of the more doctrinaire national socialist element and to my mind, that is a very good thing. In the wake of that I think it is healthy to take a look at exactly what we want to do using this board as a launching pad if you will. [/QUOTE]
I would just like to say that I very much agree that, although I do not feel that NS, CI, and pro-violance, anti-Chirsitan types should not generally be banned except for legal reason, it is very good when they go of their own accord.
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Of course I've always tried to walk the line between what I see as responsible racialist opinion and getting all the Hollywood Nazis over here. [/QUOTE]
This is the best part about the board, especially as combined with TeXD's Christianity.
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] This is where I get on uncertain ground as I am not at all sure of what is the best manner of legally organizing to start taking in funds for operational cost and activist activities and such. [/QUOTE]
Perhaps this should be another thread. One possibility is to receive funds as an individual, and simply count tax liability as part of the costs of running the sites that you manage. After you get more funding, you can set up a non-profit.
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] [/QUOTE]
As to the rest of what TexD says: I think it is much better have a forum for discussion of cultural & thus racial 'conservatism' (in a very broad sense), as well as of orthodox Christianity, than a forum limited to 'Christian politics.' On going dialog between Christians and agnostic/atheists is important. Many of the most intelligent white racialists of the future are likely to be agnostics. Christianity is, after all, a very strange belief system, and you have to allow that God may not bring all who are capable to it, for His own reasons. Undoubtedly, the true Christian will base his or her politics in Christian belief in some sense, but these politics should have wider appeal.
2004-06-09 22:05 | User Profile
I don't have time to respond to all these comments tonight. But for now my two cents is this:
An organization -- something independent of OD the discussion forum -- is defintely needed. My vision for this organization would be something akin to a Christian alternative to the National Alliance. Not to disparage the many good people in the NA, including our own Kevin O'Keefe, but at David Duke's EURO conference, I was more than a little irritated to see the atheistic, anti-Christian NA getting so much attention.
In my opinion, the organization should base its activism efforts around traditional Christian principles, paleoconservatism, what Tex characterizes as "responsible" racialism (it will still be called Nazism of course), and open confrontation with the Zionists and Jewish Supremacists.
I strongly believe we shoud go where VDARE and AmRen fear to tread. If we do, that will make us unique, because we will distinguish ourselves from both the VDAREs and the VNNs.
2004-06-09 22:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Are we all now on board with OD being a Christian Nationalist forum that concentrates 100% on propagating the Christian Nationalist message?[/QUOTE]
I believe the forum should concentrate on propagating a NATIONALIST message that is friendly to Christians and non-Christians alike, and that the only people we should drive away are people who are explicitly anti-Christian in both word and deed.
So no, I most assuredly am not on board with this message.
2004-06-09 22:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]This suggests to me that efforts to evangelize in Europe will, in the long-term, actually win more converts than similar efforts in the US. [/QUOTE]
True; but the US have another problem: Winning the Churches back from 'Christian Zionism'.
2004-06-09 22:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I would just like to say that I very much agree that, although I do not feel that NS, CI, and pro-violance, anti-Chirsitan types should not generally be banned except for legal reason, it is very good when they go of their own accord.
True, although we've always taken a strong stand against any inflammatory symbolism like the swastika, klan pictures and such. In and of itself the majority of us are mature enough to overlook it, but the problem is it attracts all the wackos out there like flies on honey. Soon you'd be overrun with "let's kill all the jews and niggers" posts.
This is the best part about the board, especially as combined with TeXD's Christianity.
I would agree with you, but most others wouldn't, unfortunately.
Perhaps this should be another thread. One possibility is to receive funds as an individual, and simply count tax liability as part of the costs of running the sites that you manage. After you get more funding, you can set up a non-profit.
That seems to be the way to go to me as well, but I'm so hesitant in these matters I have no real knowledge of. I would love for some legal minds and accountants to offer their advice in this regard, so I could draw upon their wisdom. That's quite a step up from being just another Joe Blow running a little bulletin board and I want to make sure I do it right.
As to the rest of what TexD says: I think it is much better have a forum for discussion of cultural & thus racial 'conservatism' (in a very broad sense), as well as of orthodox Christianity, than a forum limited to 'Christian politics.' On going dialog between Christians and agnostic/atheists is important. Many of the most intelligent white racialists of the future are likely to be agnostics. Christianity is, after all, a very strange belief system, and you have to allow that God may not bring all who are capable to it, for His own reasons. Undoubtedly, the true Christian will base his or her politics in Christian belief in some sense, but these politics should have wider appeal.[/QUOTE]
I really don't see much disagreement with your position and Walter's. As Walter alluded to, I have no ideological litmus test towards participation on this board and never have. But(!), they've got to at the very least give nominal credence to our two bedrock positions -- paleoconservatism (trad. conservatism) and traditional, orthodox Christianity. That's it and that's all I've ever asked of anyone here. In my opinion, those are the two pillars we rise or fall on, come what may. It is my belief that restoration of Reformational Christianity is the light at the end of the tunnel for our problems here in America, just as it was for Europe in the 1600s. Every policy and prescription we might put forth needs to and should stem from that basic, core doctrine for it alone has the power to light and burn the fuse needed to bring forth the kind of society, culture and government we would wish for ourselves. Atheism is a dead-end and inevitably leads to nihilism. It should be fundamentally denounced as an evil cancer on our people whenever it is encountered.
2004-06-09 22:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]True; but the US have another problem: Winning the Churches back from 'Christian Zionism'.[/QUOTE]
Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sole Christo and amillennialism -- the historic eschatology of the Christian Church.
Disp. premil is on the decline, believe it or not. Each day brings new discomforts for those that still adhere to it. Keep the faith, Paleoleftist, my brother in Christ.
2004-06-09 22:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Due to the recent fall-out, we may have lost the input of the more doctrinaire national socialist element and to my mind, that is a very good thing. In the wake of that I think it is healthy to take a look at exactly what we want to do using this board as a launching pad if you will.
We have an existing model already, if, as some say, Stormfront is the discussion board supporting the National Alliance-the activist arm of their underlying ideology. I could foresee something similar in our case and would argue that kind of division of organizational purpose is the best way to go if activism is being considered. In other words, if we want to start organizing for activist purposes then another front would serve that purpose better than OD the discussion board. This allows the activist organization to be sharply focused, setting agendas and platforms, etc., while the discussion board is left a little more open in order to bring sympathetic souls into the tent and subsequently plugged into what we're trying to do or accomplish. Of course Free Republic would be another such example.
Operationally, I have a pretty good measure of what it would require for OD to be independently run on its own server and that would requre a significant amount of additional funding as I can't float that kind of money on my own. This is where I get on uncertain ground as I am not at all sure of what is the best manner of legally organizing to start taking in funds for operational cost and activist activities and such. Like I mentioned earlier, I had thought of somehow incorporating Western Heritage League and using it as an umbrella organization for OD, the discussion board. Similar to what Antiwar does with the Randolph bourne Institute or VDARE has with their Preservation non-profit or whatever its name is.
So all that is up in the air and I'm willing to discuss any of it. Ideologically and politically, I think our mix of paleocon/traditional conservatism coupled with 'Christian Nationalism' is unique and could fill a niche with some success to be realized. IOW, I don't see anyone else doing what we do. For my part, Christian ethics have to be at the core because 1) they are my core beliefs and 2) I think that Christianity has to be part and parcel of anything we try and do politically here in America. The second is just common sense reality, in my opinion. Unlike the hard-core racialists I do not believe that we have to see the end of the world before any appreciable gains can be realized. I still believe there are many good things here in America and our American political traditions that are worth conserving, but obviously need to be reformed. The best manner of doing that is trying to win hearts and minds, one by one, one day at a time. Having a healthy, vibrant web presence for activism and discussion would definitely be a good start towards that end.
I also agree that we would first need to get our own house in order before considering what other groups/organizations we could make common cause with in the greater fight.[/QUOTE]
Sounds excellent to me.
2004-06-09 22:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]My vision for this organization would be something akin to a Christian alternative to the National Alliance. [/QUOTE]
But without Turner Diaries, skinheads, an attached satanist records business and threats to bury opponents in abandoned mines. :hitler:
Yes, a Christian Patriot alternative is sorely needed. :cheers:
2004-06-09 23:08 | User Profile
Yes, this would be why an alternative is needed.
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]But without Turner Diaries, skinheads, an attached satanist records business and threats to bury opponents in abandoned mines. :hitler: [/QUOTE]
2004-06-09 23:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge][quote=Walter Yannis]Are we all now on board with OD being a Christian Nationalist forum that concentrates 100% on propagating the Christian Nationalist message?
I believe the forum should concentrate on propagating a NATIONALIST message that is friendly to Christians and non-Christians alike, and that the only people we should drive away are people who are explicitly anti-Christian in both word and deed.
So no, I most assuredly am not on board with this message.[/QUOTE] Actually I think you would be on board with Walter if he would rephrase it slightly. [quote=okiereddust]Are we all now on board with OD being a Christian Nationalist forum that concentrates 100% on propagating a Christian Nationalist message?
We al agree on that. The problem is, which creed of Christianity, and which brand of Nationalism?
Not that I think these problems are insurmountable, provided we use our common cultural heritage to guide us and inform us, in the spirit of what paleoconservatism has attempted to articulate. But practically very few people seriously attempt do this, to define what they seriously believe and do not believe, and why. That is why we conscensus is so elusive. Without this ideological conscensus, you simply, at best, just have "rule by the catchword".
"Christian Nationalism" can be a concept with great meaning, or it can simply be another catchword. Its up to us to define and defend the concept.
2004-06-09 23:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]I believe the forum should concentrate on propagating a NATIONALIST message that is friendly to Christians and non-Christians alike, and that the only people we should drive away are people who are explicitly anti-Christian in both word and deed.
So no, I most assuredly am not on board with this message.[/QUOTE]
I'm not so sure of that, VF. Yours is a noble sentiment expressed above and one that I used to share and only adjusted my thinking on dragging my feet, kicking and screaming. Well, figuratively at least. :)
You see, it all revolves around what you believe in and what you want to accomplish. First, as a Christian you cannot help but have that central, core belief (faith) illuminate everything you do, whether it be politics or going to the store for a can of snuff. Therefore if nationalism is your political cause, as a Christian you are a Christian Nationalist. This is essentially what the men who founded this country were. We can quibble about the label, but essentially that is what they were and it was made evident in every founding document they wrote and established from Jamestown to the Declaration of Independence. Not being Injuns, that's our birthright as Americans and has been part and parcel of who we are from day one of the white man coming to shore at Plymouth Rock. I say we need to embrace and reclaim it.
Second, those who don't share our core, central faith are sooner or later at odds with us. Some more outright and upfront than others, but eventually it will surface and you're going to have to shoulder up to it. That's just basic life stuff. You can either try and change their thinking on the matter or walk away and try to avoid them from that point on. Both approaches are valid and scriptural, depending on the circumstance.
Third, one must realize that there are truly enemies of Christ who wish Him and us nothing but ill will. No amount of dialogue and discussion is going to sway them from their appointed task of destroying every vestige of Christ and His visible bride here on earth. I finally learned this hard lesson and that is when I declared the no attacks on traditional Christianity clause to the board guidelines. I could no longer fund and run a board that in my opinion reflected an overall value system so in contradiction to mine own. We have to stand for something, sooner or later, if we want to realize any gains in any venue. Those that ebb and flow with the tide eventually go under and drown.
Fourth, there are alot of boards already doing the 'nationalist' thing and basically anti-Christian in tone and effect. There are none doing the 'nationalist' thing and solidly traditional, orthodox Christian that I'm aware of. So we're unique in that regard. Plus, there can be no denying that Christian roots run deep and strong here in the American soil we ourselves are planted in. As I stated, the Christian faith is part and parcel of who we are as Americans. Therefore, any real-world impact we might have for the nationalist cause has to be similarly rooted and it can be no other way.
If non-Christians want to get on board and jump on the bandwagon, great. That's just more support for our cause. But at bottom we should articulate clear principles and beliefs, stand on them and accept support from those who want to give it, and distance ourselves from those who don't. Granted I'm just a simple type guy, but that's how I see it and I don't think it's rocket science.
2004-06-10 00:56 | User Profile
To me this is the best reason for the Christian Nationalism project:
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Fourth, there are alot of boards already doing the 'nationalist' thing and basically anti-Christian in tone and effect. There are none doing the 'nationalist' thing and solidly traditional, orthodox Christian that I'm aware of. So we're unique in that regard. Plus, there can be no denying that Christian roots run deep and strong here in the American soil we ourselves are planted in. As I stated, the Christian faith is part and parcel of who we are as Americans. Therefore, any real-world impact we might have for the nationalist cause has to be similarly rooted and it can be no other way. [/QUOTE]
But I still don't think we'll get anywhere unless we make opposition to Zionism/Jewish Supremacism one of our founding principles.
2004-06-10 05:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Okiereddust]Actually I think you would be on board with Walter if he would rephrase it slightly. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, probably. I think that Tex's statement is not quite as radical as I'd like, but I'll be on board with it.
[QUOTE]We al agree on that. The problem is, which creed of Christianity, and which brand of Nationalism?[/QUOTE]
As to brand of Christianity, I agree with Tex that this must be a largely traditionally Protestant thing. (whoa! just dodged a lightening bolt!! hey, you up there, cut that out!!!)
But seriously, it's a fact that American society is predominately Protestant. The message has to have Protestant packaging, otherwise we elicit a pavlovian response to shut out our broader message at the sight of Papist symbols.
Remember, I want us to win, and if that means ceding leadership to my orthodox Protestant brothers in Christ, then that's a price I'm willing to pay.
I being as frank on this point as I can.
[QUOTE]Not that I think these problems are insurmountable, provided we use our common cultural heritage to guide us and inform us, in the spirit of what paleoconservatism has attempted to articulate. But practically very few people seriously attempt do this, to define what they seriously believe and do not believe, and why. That is why we conscensus is so elusive. Without this ideological conscensus, you simply, at best, just have "rule by the catchword".[/QUOTE]
I agree, but would add only that there's a lot of work done on inter-faith dialogue by some very good people that we can draw on. There's no need to re-invent the wheel.
I urge all to read the First Things statements on "Evangelicals and Catholics Together." I believe that there are similar documents between the Lutherans and the Orthodox.
We need to unite in what Peter Kreeft called an "Ecumenical Jihad" (but I won't work with Muslims, thanks).
[QUOTE]"Christian Nationalism" can be a concept with great meaning, or it can simply be another catchword. Its up to us to define and defend the concept.[/QUOTE]
I agree. It's up to us.
2004-06-10 05:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]To me this is the best reason for the Christian Nationalism project:But I still don't think we'll get anywhere unless we make opposition to Zionism/Jewish Supremacism one of our founding principles.[/QUOTE]
Opposition to the Pharisees and their works is a big part of the message and ministry of Christ.
With the exception of the Karaites, modern day Jews are of the Pharisaical (Talmudic) tradition. They also were influenced deeply for the past several centuries by the deeply pagan Kabbalistic tradition. Thus, modern day Judaism is a sort of hybrid of the two great enemies of Christendom: Talmudism and paganism. Secular Jews, while perhaps rejecting the articles of faith of those two religious systems, carry on the hatred of Christ and His Church the lie at their very heart. They are deeply "Jewish" in the cultural sense (and all culture derives from "cult"), and are for all practical purposes Pharisees.
One might say that this is the very stuff of the modernist heresy that is killing the Church, but let's leave that aside for the moment.
The point is that by preaching the Gospel straight up without a chaser, we implicity preach against the modern day Pharisees and their pagan overlay. That's exactly why Mel Gibson's "Passion" elicited such a response from our Pharisee media. They know their enemy when they see Him.
We need to preach the Christian truth as it was always understood. We need to fight these modernist heresies in our own communities, and we do that by following Mel Gibson's lead and in our own small way just give it to them straight.
As to Zionism, I'm all for the Jews having a country they will all return to at the earliest opportunity. With full respect to their persons and property, of course, but leave they must. And that means Israel.
Sorry, but I seen no way around it. Himmler's ideas are not welcome in the Yannis household and so physical extirpation is just a non-starter (and a moral abomination), yet just as clearly we Americans cannot share a polity with Jews. Ergo, a country of their own is in order, and that country already exists. We should also keep in mind that the Zionists want the same thing as most of us: to have the naturally subversive Jews live separately from Christians. They want all Jews to go to Israel with all deliberate speed. That's the first thing Sharon says at any public gathering of Jews, in America, Russia, elsewhere: you need to come home to Israel as soon as possible.
I agree with the man on that, and I see no reason to quibble about motivations.
Walter
2004-06-10 18:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The point is that by preaching the Gospel straight up without a chaser, we implicity preach against the modern day Pharisees and their pagan overlay. That's exactly why Mel Gibson's "Passion" elicited such a response from our Pharisee media. They know their enemy when they see Him. [/QUOTE]
Iôd add to this that it would be much preferable if they start attacking us, instead of us starting to attack them. A rule of thumb in all warfare is that the defense has an advantage of 3:1. :thumbsup:
That would be another first: All the other WNs have been too thoughtless to use the passive-aggressive approach: Provoke them to try and storm your bunkers, rather than try storming theirs. This has improved the casualty relation in all the many wargames Iôve played. :D
2004-06-10 20:52 | User Profile
Gentleman,
Having given the matter substantial thought, I've decided that I really can't in good conscience support a forum or a nascent political organization that shuns good people simply because they don't share our religious objectives and are unwilling to submit to Christian rule -- or "Christian dominance" as Walter puts it.
Furthermore, now that I'm at a point in my life where I'm ready to go to law school and get serious about my activism, I can't in good conscience spend my energy working with an organization that plans to rely heavily on paleoconservative ideas. Traditional paleoconservatives have lost every major battle in the political arena for the last 65 years -- a fact which is beyond dispute. So from my point of view, emphasizing general paleoconservative principles, as opposed to racialist principles, will be a complete waste of time.
In any event, I certainly wish you all all the best.
It's been fund sparring with you, and I certainly support your larger objectives if not your methods.
PS. Tex, If you have no objection, I'd like to keep my account active for now, so I can check in from time to time to see how things are going and also check PM.
Best Regards to everyone,
Good luck guys.
2004-06-10 21:01 | User Profile
No matter anything else, stay true and strong in the one true faith of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, VF.
Best regards to you and yours.
Jason
2004-06-10 22:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Gentleman,
Having given the matter substantial thought, I've decided that I really can't in good conscience support a forum or a nascent political organization that shuns good people simply because they don't share our religious objectives and are unwilling to submit to Christian rule -- or "Christian dominance" as Walter puts it.
Furthermore, now that I'm at a point in my life where I'm ready to go to law school and get serious about my activism, I can't in good conscience spend my energy working with an organization that plans to rely heavily on paleoconservative ideas. Traditional paleoconservatives have lost every major battle in the political arena for the last 65 years -- a fact which is beyond dispute. So from my point of view, emphasizing general paleoconservative principles, as opposed to racialist principles, will be a complete waste of time.
In any event, I certainly wish you all all the best.
It's been fund sparring with you, and I certainly support your larger objectives if not your methods.
PS. Tex, If you have no objection, I'd like to keep my account active for now, so I can check in from time to time to see how things are going and also check PM.
Best Regards to everyone,
Good luck guys.[/QUOTE]
VF,
your open, sincere and straightforward statement is appreciated.
I disagree with your analysis because
[B]-Christianity is really the only possible foundation for national revival.[/B]
-I think no one has insisted that type 1950 paleoconservativism is a must in every respect, and [U]must not be improved upon anywhere[/U]. WYôs distributism is an example in point, that most of us are quite willing to consider a new idea or two.
However that may be, I wish you well and take it weôll meet occasionally in the Phora, PL
2004-06-10 23:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Gentleman,
Having given the matter substantial thought, I've decided that I really can't in good conscience support a forum or a nascent political organization that shuns good people simply because they don't share our religious objectives and are unwilling to submit to Christian rule -- or "Christian dominance" as Walter puts it.
You know that's not the real issue VF. You aren't leaving the board because of Walter or religious intolerance.
In fact, the hardcore WN's reject us and Christianity precisely because of that tolerance.
Furthermore, now that I'm at a point in my life where I'm ready to go to law school and get serious about my activism, I can't in good conscience spend my energy working with an organization that plans to rely heavily on paleoconservative ideas. Traditional paleoconservatives have lost every major battle in the political arena for the last 65 years -- a fact which is beyond dispute. So from my point of view, emphasizing general paleoconservative principles, as opposed to racialist principles, will be a complete waste of time. Unless you plan to work on an island in the middle of the Atlantic, I don't expect your supposed alternative is any less viable.
WN's is a dead end, at least from someone interested in morals and legalism. Someone who claims he plans to study law to further WN is at best deluding himself, since hardcore WN fundamentally rejects rule of law. If he was really serious about WN he would be going to mercenary training school or something similar. Law School will make this perfectly clear to you.
And similarly, while paleoconservatism works hard to justify legitimate demands of Whites, hardcore white supremacy is of course almost flatly contridictory to Christianity. Your WN's friends will gradually make that point to you clear. You'll be happy sneaking in the back door with your crucifix only so long. Eventually you will either leave or they wil persuade you to take it off, spit on it, and stomp on it, like their close spiritual friends the Communists.
2004-06-11 05:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]Iôd add to this that it would be much preferable if they start attacking us, instead of us starting to attack them. A rule of thumb in all warfare is that the defense has an advantage of 3:1. :thumbsup:
That would be another first: All the other WNs have been too thoughtless to use the passive-aggressive approach: Provoke them to try and storm your bunkers, rather than try storming theirs. This has improved the casualty relation in all the many wargames Iôve played. :D[/QUOTE]
Great point.
That's exactly what Mel Gibson did. They attacked and attacked and only wound up doing great damage to their own cause.
Christianity is a profoundly "passive-agressive" thing from the get-go.
We must give them "Christian Nationalism" because that way we force them to come out into the open where our people can see them and will understand the lies they've been told.
Remember, that we love our enemies because that pours hot coals on their heads. A pithier statement of the passive-agressive tactic has never been writ.
Walter
2004-06-13 01:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]It was a matter of time before a hysteric, handwringing post about "killing" would be made along these lines. What's more dangerous is carelessly recycling ideas about "killing (whoever) to improve the average genetic heritage." Here's a hint: genetics is about reproduction. You don't have to kill people to stop them from reproducing. Sterilization works just as well.[/QUOTE] Mass and mandatory sterilizations...now THAT has merit!! :rolleyes:
2004-06-13 16:36 | User Profile
Thread continues at
[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=14166]White Nationalism and Paleoconservatism[/url]