← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Quantrill
Thread ID: 14166 | Posts: 61 | Started: 2004-06-09
2004-06-09 12:32 | 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. There is no truth to this. [/QUOTE] I must disagree. "What is represented by Christian symbols" is Christianity. If we are backers of a Christian Nationalist agenda, then that entails setting up Christianity as the framework around which the society is based. To do this requires it to compete with other belief systems that would set themselves up as the framework of the society. That means competition.
2004-06-09 21:45 | User Profile
Christian symbols represent more than Christianity. The sign of the cross, for example, is thought by Roman Catholics to represent the trinity. Thus it represents God. So do sun-symbols in many cultures. Thus the cross and sun-symbols represent some of the same things.
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I must disagree. "What is represented by Christian symbols" is Christianity. If we are backers of a Christian Nationalist agenda, then that entails setting up Christianity as the framework around which the society is based. To do this requires it to compete with other belief systems that would set themselves up as the framework of the society. That means competition.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-09 22:20 | User Profile
[quote=Valley Forge]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.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]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..[/QUOTE]
I didn't mean to suggest that I buy into the contemporary understanding of separation of church and state. As I wrote the other day when Walter and I exchanged words on this issue on another thread, the modern notion of separation of church and state today is just Jewish code for anti-Christianity. That's why we need to make opposing Jews a central part of our activism.
Apart from that, my point still stands: the founders clearly realized that there was enough disagreement among Christians to warrant including the no establishment clause in the Constitution -- so no Christian faction could lay claim to the new Republic.
2004-06-09 22:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] 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. [/QUOTE]
Exactly.
2004-06-10 02:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]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. :)
Hopefully at least it will stay that way. :ph34r:
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.
Well we don't have to argue about that now.
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.
Yes, occasionally we realize we've all had our encounter with Mephistopheles. Its not 24 years, but sometimes it feels like it.
Walter's methods may have been rather impolitic at times, but one does recognize, by events, he recognized certain truths which we perhaps tried to deny and now cannot deny.
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.[/QUOTE]
At the bottom I consider it unlikely, clearly conservative nationalists like ourselves tend to find it tough to compete with National Socialism and its pomp and circumstance. That was historically the case for instance with Dolfuss in Austria, or the people in Germany who naively thought they could use the NSers for their own ends. Clearly, it is almost impossible to deal with these people on terms other than their own.
2004-06-10 05:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]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.[/QUOTE]
Well, that's basically what I've been trying to say.
So, a big ditto to you, Tex.
Walter
2004-06-10 22:42 | User Profile
I think it is one thing to rely upon certain paleoconservative principles, and another to advocate a paleoconservative 'movement.'
The central reason conservatism has failed as a movement is because it fails to focus upon radical means for bringing the issue of race to the fore. Very little in OD, at least, strikes me as having much to do with 'the consevative movement,' other than the tendency of posters to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to issues such as protectionism and rejection of the British capitalist inheritance.
[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]
2004-06-10 23:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]...the tendency of posters to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to issues such as protectionism and rejection of the British capitalist inheritance.[/QUOTE]
But protectionism is necessary! I canôt believe you really want 80% of all jobs to go to the 3rd world?!
The only alternative to protectionism would be paying 3rd world wages to American workers. This would be pure capitalism, sure.
But it wouldnôt float politically, nor would it be moral.
2004-06-10 23:50 | User Profile
Perhaps some protectionism is necessary. There is plenty of evidence that this is not the case (you can look to the Economist, Mises.org, and Reason Magazine for recent discussion). But no matter. What I object to is an unwillingness to work with others who believe it is not, and centering protectionism in the core of one's political movement. That is the problem with Buchanan and AmCon.
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]But protectionism is necessary! I canôt believe you really want 80% of all jobs to go to the 3rd world?!
The only alternative to protectionism would be paying 3rd world wages to American workers. This would be pure capitalism, sure.
But it wouldnôt float politically, nor would it be moral.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-10 23:55 | User Profile
White nationalism is a 'dead end'? How would one determine this, exactly? What is the evidence?
And if 'hardcore' white supremacism is not compatible with Xtianity, what about the 'softcore' kind (probably more what VF would favor, for one)?
I think these are strange claims to make given how ill defined you leave 'white nationalism,' and given the lack of address given to this 'softcore white supremacism' that you imply exists.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust] 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.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-11 00:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]White nationalism is a 'dead end'? How would one determine this, exactly? What is the evidence?
He did add the qualifier "at least from someone interested in morals and legalism." I think that is fairly clear statement in that if your highest qualifier is being of the white race, then concepts such as rule of law and morality have no place and are basically shoved out the door.
And if 'hardcore' white supremacism is not compatible with Xtianity, what about the 'softcore' kind (probably more what VF would favor, for one)?
If it is rooted in and flows out of a higher and greater Christian ethics, then I would argue that it is compatible and scripturally valid. But 'supremacism' would have to be changed to 'separatism' I think.
2004-06-11 01:01 | User Profile
I don't see how it obvious that white nationalism involves the belief that one's highest good is the white race. That is not clear to me at all.
Likewise, white supremacism is one thing, and white separatism another. I don't think whie supremacism is today very important politically, but I think that it defined the worldview of the white Christian of the 18th and 19th Centuries, and is a still a quite plausible belief.
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]He did add the qualifier "at least from someone interested in morals and legalism." I think that is fairly clear statement in that if your highest qualifier is being of the white race, then concepts such as rule of law and morality have no place and are basically shoved out the door.
If it is rooted in and flows out of a higher and greater Christian ethics, then I would argue that it is compatible and scripturally valid. But 'supremacism' would have to be changed to 'separatism' I think.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-11 05:31 | 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]
So long, VF.
It's been great.
Good luck at law school.
And keep the Faith.
Walter
2004-06-11 06:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I don't see how it obvious that white nationalism involves the belief that one's highest good is the white race. That is not clear to me at all. You obviously haven't listened to Franco or any other VNNer/NSer very much.
Likewise, white supremacism is one thing, and white separatism another. I don't think whie supremacism is today very important politically, but I think that it defined the worldview of the white Christian of the 18th and 19th Centuries, and is a still a quite plausible belief.[/QUOTE]Except when White Seperatist is just used as cover phrase by the Supremacist's to make them politicaly less unpalatatable. NS ideology has obviously never changed.
2004-06-11 06:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]White nationalism is a 'dead end'? How would one determine this, exactly? What is the evidence? Well there has never been a real WN ideoogy actually. We have the two brands most commonly knowm, CI and NS. Both are bogus, and basically function by just expropriating a mish-mash of paleo or proto-paleo (people like Spengler) ideas.
The best articulation of a real NS ideology was by Trisk. The ideology is as bogus as the persona.
And if 'hardcore' white supremacism is not compatible with Xtianity, what about the 'softcore' kind (probably more what VF would favor, for one)?
I think these are strange claims to make given how ill defined you leave 'white nationalism,' and given the lack of address given to this 'softcore white supremacism' that you imply exists.[/QUOTE] Well the porn lingo is a regrettable artifact or our knowtowing to the de facto NSers so long. Really there's no alternative, paleoconservative or NS.
The "softcore" WN might be thought of as I suppose someone like Jeron Taylor./Am.Ren would favor. Given the fact that the NSers despise Am.Re, just like they despise conservatives, the distinction is academic anyway.
As to what VF believes is anything, its probably an eclectic, rather contradictory mish-mash of ideas, if he'd seriously attempt to articulate it I suspect, although right now I'd suspect its just some vague sentiments.
Its unfortunate the discussion must continue in the members only section, absent from the world, but right now the NSer's have at least proven not only their visceral resentment and rage at us for their frank criticism of them, but their potential for irrational hatred and vengence. They are not people to attempt coffeehouse political discussions with, as we've found out. The WN movement is clearly gone.
2004-06-11 16:13 | User Profile
Because 'white nationalism' is a very ambiguous term, we must be careful in how we criticize it. That was my main objection to what you wrote.
White nationalism can refer either to the desire to have a nation for whites, or the desire to campion the interests of the already existing white nation (a cultural entity built on race). The first goal was shared by the New England secessionists, Lincoln, and countless European intellectuals who feared the influx of non-white servant and slaves to Europe. It is hardly something that NS has a lock on. The second goal we all share, as did most whites up until quite recently. So I think it is wrong to attack 'white nationalism.'
White supremacist refers to the belief that white white are or should be supreme. I don't think Taylor believe in the first point--he mentions the East Asians as having higher IQs, for example. But most white up in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th Centuries were white supremacists in this sense. As to the second sense, Taylor is such a white supremacist, at least as regards America (and also as regards what whites should have done in the past, e.g., as regards keeping India British). Again, most whites most white up in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th Centuries were white supremacists in this sense as well.
'White supremacism' in the first sense may be the case. I think it probably is. However, the issue is not very important, except as a way of rousing some to the flag of the white racialist cause. 'White supremacism' in the second sense sounds very dangerous. To desire to be 'supreme' might be taken as a desire for all others to be utterly at your mercy. Working toward such a goal would probably make non-whites rather anxious, and rightfully so. It would also therefore never win over much of the white population. It is sufficient to be a partisan of the white race, and to advocate its safety and ability to flourish. In Europe, one might further demand that the white race be the dominant race; in the US, such a situation is better postulated as a useful means to an end.
2004-06-11 16:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]Because 'white nationalism' is a very ambiguous term, we must be careful in how we criticize it. That was my main objection to what you wrote.
White nationalism can refer either to the desire to have a nation for whites, or the desire to campion the interests of the already existing white nation (a cultural entity built on race). The first goal was shared by the New England secessionists, Lincoln, and countless European intellectuals who feared the influx of non-white servant and slaves to Europe. It is hardly something that NS has a lock on. The second goal we all share, as did most whites up until quite recently. So I think it is wrong to attack 'white nationalism.' [/QUOTE] Words have meaning the way they are used. In this case WN is a word pretty much used in contrast to conservatism. And if you think NS doesn't have a lock on self-styled WN ideologues look over at our Phora thread, and how our old "friends", freed from the constraints of this forum, now behave.
2004-06-11 16:56 | User Profile
The meaning of words derives primarily from how they have been used over time.
In any case, I don't think some posts at OD or 'Phora' quite define a lock on an ideology.
This urge to distance on-self from 'white nationalism' because a few vocal white nationalists are neo-Nazi's or otherwise crude and hateful--this is a very dangerous urge. It is the same urge that causes most Americans to want to distance themselves entirely from anyone who publically claims that race matters, and that whites are in danger.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Words have meaning the way they are used. In this case WN is a word pretty much used in contrast to conservatism. And if you think NS doesn't have a lock on self-styled WN ideologues look over at our Phora thread, and how our old "friends", freed from the constraints of this forum, now behave.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-11 17:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]The meaning of words derives primarily from how they have been used over time.
In any case, I don't think some posts at OD or 'Phora' quite define a lock on an ideology.
This urge to distance on-self from 'white nationalism' because a few vocal white nationalists are neo-Nazi's or otherwise crude and hateful--this is a very dangerous urge. It is the same urge that causes most Americans to want to distance themselves entirely from anyone who publically claims that race matters, and that whites are in danger.[/QUOTE] Maybe. Jews would say the same thing about themselves, only " a few of us" are crude and hateful. Actually we aren't really talking about crude. But they sure are different.
Speaking of different,does anyone know about the meaning of Wintermute's avatar, which apparently is related to a book called [url=http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/science_fiction/neuromancer.html]Neuromancer[/url]?
2004-06-11 17:21 | User Profile
I agree, only a few Jews are hateful. Most just have 'the best of intentions.' What this says about white nationalist is not too clear, however, particularly as white nationalism is an ideology that has been the subject of state oppression for decades, and thus can hardly not be expected to attract some overly-angry white men.
As to Wintermute's avatar--where is it? He's not in the member list any longer.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Maybe. Jews would say the same thing about themselves, only " a few of us" are crude and hateful. Actually we aren't really talking about crude. But they sure are different.
Speaking of different,does anyone know about the meaning of Wintermute's avatar, which apparently is related to a book called [url=http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/science_fiction/neuromancer.html]Neuromancer[/url]?[/QUOTE]
2004-06-11 22:19 | 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 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]> 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.
No, I don't endorse the full spirit of these sentiments, because it is regrettable to see long-time posters leave because they no longer feel comfortable posting. I, for one, mourn their loss. No political movement can be assured of total hegemony--that's an illusion.
For me, it is irrelevant what a person's internal motivations are when dealing with politics. To speculate on the impact of someone's religion on their politics is about as productive as using Freudian psychoanalysis to determine these things. This is why I intend to confine my commentary to the political threads at OD, and leave the religious ones to those who step up to that particular plate as "The Experts." My interest is in the political position one advocates, not the underlying religious/psychological/sexual/whatever reasons one may advocate their position.
Obviously, Christianity in various forms has been predominant in America historically, even if only in the form of lip-service that gets paid to it in these "modern" times. If those "under the influence" of Christianity advocate public policy changes I agree or disagree with, then I will discuss those policies on their own merits, on political grounds. A man's religion is his own business and not likely to change anyway, or at least not by means of overt, external pressure. I know that if someone takes the "bad cop" approach to me, I'm less likely to be open to their message.
2004-06-11 22:55 | User Profile
I used to believe in 'inclusiveness' as far as running web-boards and web-lists goes. Now I just believe in sanity--the trick is to have proper judgment about when to give people the boot, or cause them to give themselves the boot. Most boards do not have this judgment, and zealously guard the most narrow-minded viewpoints. OD is nowhere near to facing such a problem.
I think we should all be happy to see OD becoming more sophisticated and, in the broad sense of the term, more Christian in spirit. Obviously, this can be taken to far, but a general move in this direction is desirable.
As far as Christianity and politics go: I agree that it is dangerous to place to much hope in a general Christian revival at the level of national politics. And, as I have stated before, I believe that agnostic and atheists will have a large role to play in the future of white racialism.
But one can give religious reasons for taking this or that politcal or moral view, even religion itself involves more than reason. It is not so much a question of motivation, as one of worldviews. What is going to motivate people to take effective actions? Very often, it is going to be religion, and there is a need to appeal to the Christian ethos in this country and in other Western nations (even where that ethos has grown rather disconnected from its source).
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]No, I don't endorse the full spirit of these sentiments, because it is regrettable to see long-time posters leave because they no longer feel comfortable posting. I, for one, mourn their loss. No political movement can be assured of total hegemony--that's an illusion.
For me, it is irrelevant what a person's internal motivations are when dealing with politics. To speculate on the impact of someone's religion on their politics is about as productive as using Freudian psychoanalysis to determine these things. This is why I intend to confine my commentary to the political threads at OD, and leave the religious ones to those who step up to that particular plate as "The Experts." My interest is in the political position one advocates, not the underlying religious/psychological/sexual/whatever reasons one may advocate their position.
Obviously, Christianity in various forms has been predominant in America historically, even if only in the form of lip-service that gets paid to it in these "modern" times. If those "under the influence" of Christianity advocate public policy changes I agree or disagree with, then I will discuss those policies on their own merits, on political grounds. A man's religion is his own business and not likely to change anyway, or at least not by means of overt, external pressure. I know that if someone takes the "bad cop" approach to me, I'm less likely to be open to their message.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-11 23:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]No, I don't endorse the full spirit of these sentiments, because it is regrettable to see long-time posters leave because they no longer feel comfortable posting. I, for one, mourn their loss. No political movement can be assured of total hegemony--that's an illusion. [/QUOTE]
Yes, it certainly is a great loss losing all these great minds, genial spirits, and dashing wits. :lol:
[url]http://www.thephora.org/showthread.php?threadid=10154&perpage=15&pagenumber=25[/url]
They're already getting tired of the Phora and the mini-forum they've created for themselves. Which of course is purely a function of their own perpetually quarrelsome personalities.
PA, look at what they're posting over there, now that they're free to speak their minds without our disconcerting presence hanging over their heads and makng them uncomfortable. Tell me that is a great loss.
I too, regret losing what they could have been. but I don't miss who they are. AY is already seeing the writing on the wall for Fade's little experiment.
2004-06-12 20:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]Perhaps some protectionism is necessary. ... What I object to is an unwillingness to work with others who believe it is not, and centering protectionism in the core of one's political movement. [/QUOTE]
I sort of agree with this, and for the following reason: I think to view economical issues as important enough to be at the core of a political movement is in itself materialist. Iow, the economy shouldnôt occupy the centerstage of life at all.
Letôs perhaps make Christianity and Patriotism the only unmoveables for us, and stay open and flexible on everything else.
2004-06-12 21:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]If those "under the influence" of Christianity advocate public policy changes I agree or disagree with, then I will discuss those policies on their own merits, on political grounds. [/QUOTE]
But, to paraphrase Pilate, what are merits? If you leave religion/morality out of the debate, how to define the meritorious?
2004-06-12 21:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]But, to paraphrase Pilate, what are merits? If you leave religion/morality out of the debate, how to define the meritorious?[/QUOTE]
I can determine the merits of a policy by analyzing its impact on the genetic heritage of future European-Americans. A good policy is defined as one that secures and advances the existence of our people, and a bad policy is defined as one that doesn't.
2004-06-12 22:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]I can determine the merits of a policy by analyzing its impact on the genetic heritage of future European-Americans. A good policy is defined as one that secures and advances the existence of our people, and a bad policy is defined as one that doesn't.[/QUOTE] How does that differ from Mugabe's mindset? Would you consider Mugabe a moral man? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe[/url]
2004-06-12 22:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]How does that differ from Mugabe's mindset? Would you consider Mugabe a moral man? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe[/url][/QUOTE]
As far as Mugabe goes, he's just doing what comes natural to his race--morality is not the correct barometer here, since the moral and the natural can be at odds (in some systems). I don't oppose or condemn Mugabe for "being immoral," I oppose him because he's persecuting those of European descent in Zimbabwe, something that I perceive as contrary to my circle of interests.
2004-06-12 23:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]I can determine the merits of a policy by analyzing its impact on the genetic heritage of future European-Americans. [/QUOTE]
Hm, a dangerous mindset. Killing the infirm may improve the average genetic heritage. I donôt think this would make such a policy meritorious. :frown:
2004-06-13 00:23 | User Profile
It would be a mistake to allow ourselves to be hemmed in by moral precepts that our enemies do not recognize.
This is war. That means no rules.
2004-06-13 00:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]Hm, a dangerous mindset. Killing the infirm may improve the average genetic heritage. I donôt think this would make such a policy meritorious. :frown:[/QUOTE]
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.
2004-06-13 00:47 | User Profile
Killing the infirm may so distrurb our culture as to harm the genetic inheritance of whites.
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]Hm, a dangerous mindset. Killing the infirm may improve the average genetic heritage. I donôt think this would make such a policy meritorious. :frown:[/QUOTE]
2004-06-13 04:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]As far as Mugabe goes, he's just doing what comes natural to his race--morality is not the correct barometer here, since the moral and the natural can be at odds (in some systems). I don't oppose or condemn Mugabe for "being immoral," I oppose him because he's persecuting those of European descent in Zimbabwe, something that I perceive as contrary to my circle of interests.[/QUOTE]
So then do you likewise refuse to oppose or condemn the immorality of Jewish manueverings and subversion of western society?
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]It would be a mistake to allow ourselves to be hemmed in by moral precepts that our enemies do not recognize.
This is war. That means no rules.[/QUOTE]
Unnecessarily hemmed in perhaps. But as a Christian and conservative I must never allow myself to forget the esentially moral nature of my cause.
If we lose our moral purpose, we lose everything, including that very identity as western peoples we wished to defend.
That is the problem with not just all NS but all WN nihlism.
2004-06-13 15:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]So then do you likewise refuse to oppose or condemn the immorality of Jewish manueverings and subversion of western society?[/QUOTE]
My only conflict with the Jews arises from the manner in which their maneuverings imperil the West. The interests of the two groups are irreconcilable. In a sense, I don't "blame" the Jews for what they do, since they aim at their own survival and advancement like any other healthy creature on this planet. I can't begrudge them that. If I were a Jew, I'd be with the ADL or JDL or whatever, but I'm not, so I play my cards accordingly. I could care less what the Jews do, as long as they do it elsewhere and to some other civilization than my own.
The multiracialists out there can't stand the idea that one should "play one's cards" based on the way they've been dealt by nature, since they view the entire concept as "unfair and arbitrary." This is why you often hear certain people whine that "no one can control the circumstances they're born into." They seek to "liberate" men from the influence of all external imperatives, be they biological, economic, environmental, and so on.
Of course, their notion of the "liberated human being" is a pipedream, and one that can significantly hobble any Western instincts toward self-defense--if taken too seriously. Sentiments of "morality" can have the same disabling effect--if taken too seriously. Statements of moral sentiment can be useful as a tactical tool, especially in rallying one's own troops (a process akin to a "Platonic Lie," since some people are unable to rise above the need for these fictions). One has to be very careful when making moral declarations not to forget that this is largely "lip service," or else one will come to be trapped within one's own beliefs, and their ability to act independently may become clouded.
An excellent article that runs along these lines is to be found at American Renaissance, titled "The Morality of Survival": [url]http://www.amren.com/957issue/957issue.html#cover[/url]
2004-06-13 17:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]My only conflict with the Jews arises from the manner in which their maneuverings imperil the West. The interests of the two groups are irreconcilable. In a sense, I don't "blame" the Jews for what they do, since they aim at their own survival and advancement like any other healthy creature on this planet. I can't begrudge them that. If I were a Jew, I'd be with the ADL or JDL or whatever, but I'm not, so I play my cards accordingly. I could care less what the Jews do, as long as they do it elsewhere and to some other civilization than my own.
Of course what they do invariably will have some impact on our own. Even if one does not retain some since of a "common humanity" as Christians do through our belief in a common creator and liberal humanists do for other reasons, there still is the reality of our limited planet. No two peoples are completely autonomous.
Plus there is the fact of their prominent role in the ideological creation of multiracialism, and moreover the use of deception and deceit. among other things, in doing so, re:
The multiracialists out there can't stand the idea that one should "play one's cards" based on the way they've been dealt by nature, since they view the entire concept as "unfair and arbitrary." This is why you often hear certain people whine that "no one can control the circumstances they're born into." They seek to "liberate" men from the influence of all external imperatives, be they biological, economic, environmental, and so on
Of course, their notion of the "liberated human being" is a pipedream, and one that can significantly hobble any Western instincts toward self-defense--if taken too seriously.. As notedby MacDonald, ideas in which jewish intelectuals figured very prominently in their formulation, and retaining a strong jewish self-interst. > Sentiments of "morality" can have the same disabling effect--if taken too seriously. Statements of moral sentiment can be useful as a tactical tool, especially in rallying one's own troops (a process akin to a "Platonic Lie," since some people are unable to rise above the need for these fictions). One has to be very careful when making moral declarations not to forget that this is largely "lip service," or else one will come to be trapped within one's own beliefs, and their ability to act independently may become clouded.
An excellent article that runs along these lines is to be found at American Renaissance, titled "The Morality of Survival": [url]http://www.amren.com/957issue/957issue.html#cover[/url][/QUOTE]
I'll have to read this article. Maybe it deserves a separate thread. But I can't believe that you have not read MacDonald's account of how the "moral imperative" is an essential part of the western worldview, which it both needs to rediscover to survive and which is essential to its self-identity.
True, the "moral imperative" can be exploited. But to consider it superflous, as nihlism does, is to undercut a basic part of human nature, and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
2004-06-13 19:13 | User Profile
I think the situation is more complex. In one sense, the ADL does 'aim' at the survival and advancement of Jews -- just as I am 'aiming' my bow and arrow when I am trying to hit a target, even though I may be pointing the arrow 30 degrees wide of the mark. But, as my example indicates, I do not think the ADL and like-minded organization have a very good conception of how to benefit Jews.
The ADL constantly puts Jews and Jewish interests in danger with its high-profile attacks on the majority white Christian culture. Likewise, leftist Jewish attacks on traditional morality pose a risk of harming Jewish reproduction, and certainly do push toward a situation in which both whites and Jews are submerged into an Asian-Latino-African gene-mix. Perhaps certain Jewish genes will survive this well, but the totality of Jewish race and culture will be severly harmed.
The mechanisms of Jewish culture are very strange, so I can only speculate. But it seems to me that a typical Jewish survival strategy is to become alienated from the wider culture while taking steps to maintain or increase negative feelings toward Jews. By creating a harsher but separate environement, Jewish genetic fitness is improved, but also kept from being overwhelmed by the host gene-pool. Likewise, Jewish cultural forms are stengthened.
This strategy is not a conscious one. It may have been once sensible from a purely genetic standpoint, or even from a larger genetic-cultural one -- although probably not from the standpoint of the Jews involved. Today, it seems both un-fortunate from the perspective of conscious, embodied Jews, and also from a genetic one. There are negative feelings toward Jews, but this has no apparent, positive effect on reproductive choices. And while the negative feelings my stengthen Jewish culture, it is more in the sense of ossifying cultural features disliked by many Jews, while the general cultural pervsion stemming from leftist activities (which most Jews play a central role in) goes un-checked.
Nature and tradition have given us many drives and regulatory systems. However, often our stance on them needs to change as conditions do. For example, we have drive to have reproduce, and English Protestants reigned in this drive to have smaller families with increased survival rates and greater economic prospects. What made sense earlier, no longer made sense. Likewise, today the regulatory systems limiting family size make no sense for whites, and we need to modify them.
It is the same with Jews. They have inherited many drives and regulatory systems, and they act from them. But, owing in part to their sense of being under threat, they (as a community) do not take enough time to critically reflect on the no-longer-functional, core features of their character.
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar] [The Jews] aim at their own survival and advancement like any other healthy creature on this planet. I can't begrudge them that. If I were a Jew, I'd be with the ADL or JDL or whatever, but I'm not, so I play my cards accordingly. [/QUOTE]
2004-06-13 22:15 | User Profile
PaleoconAvatar
Great Post!
[QUOTE] The multiracialists out there can't stand the idea that one should "play one's cards" based on the way they've been dealt by nature, since they view the entire concept as "unfair and arbitrary." This is why you often hear certain people whine that "no one can control the circumstances they're born into." They seek to "liberate" men from the influence of all external imperatives, be they biological, economic, environmental, and so on.
Of course, their notion of the "liberated human being" is a pipedream, and one that can significantly hobble any Western instincts toward self-defense--if taken too seriously. Sentiments of "morality" can have the same disabling effect--if taken too seriously. Statements of moral sentiment can be useful as a tactical tool, especially in rallying one's own troops (a process akin to a "Platonic Lie," since some people are unable to rise above the need for these fictions). One has to be very careful when making moral declarations not to forget that this is largely "lip service," or else one will come to be trapped within one's own beliefs, and their ability to act independently may become clouded.
An excellent article that runs along these lines is to be found at American Renaissance, titled "The Morality of Survival": [url]http://www.amren.com/957issue/957issue.html#cover[/url] [/QUOTE]
2004-06-14 02:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]It would be a mistake to allow ourselves to be hemmed in by moral precepts that our enemies do not recognize.
This is war. That means no rules.[/QUOTE]
In how far is that relevant? My debate with Paleoconavatar was about the morality we want to establish after winning. :rolleyes:
2004-06-14 02:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]It was a matter of time before a hysteric, handwringing post about "killing" would be made along these lines.[/QUOTE]
Come on! If you say morals should be based on utility only, itôs not hysterical to carry the thought to its logical conclusion. :rolleyes:
Once again: My question was: what are, in your view, the [U]ultimate[/U] values; those that are not merely tools to accomplish something else? This is the decisive question, I think, where Christians and WNs will differ. I am surprised that neither you nor VF nor Faust saw that. :huh:
2004-06-14 02:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]In how far is that relevant? My debate with Paleoconavatar was about the morality we want to establish after winning. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
And that depends upon when you decide to declare victory. Some struggles are eternal. ;)
2004-06-14 02:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]And that depends upon when you decide to declare victory. Some struggles are eternal. ;)[/QUOTE]
So you say there will always be a frontier. Fair enough. I rephrase: What is the morality applying to the territory safely behind our own lines?
Values obviously become interesting precisely where necessity stops forcing your hand.
2004-06-14 17:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]Values obviously become interesting precisely where necessity stops forcing your hand.[/QUOTE]
That's an outstanding and insightful statement, PL. It goes right to the heart of a debate that is sorely needed in my opinion.
2004-06-14 18:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]So you say there will always be a frontier. Fair enough. I rephrase: What is the morality applying to the territory safely behind our own lines?
Values obviously become interesting precisely where necessity stops forcing your hand.[/QUOTE] Sounds to me though like there is never going to be any territory safely behind our own lines, if "the struggle is eternal". Which makes values, morals, and ethics eternally superflous if not negative. The logic of nihlism.
Communism of course mirrors this denial of truth, values and morality. Lenin said for instance "Communism dispenses with all eternal truths etc." Critical theory and multicultural/postmodern ideology hardens this principle into practicaly its raison de etre.
I think really it is this common moral relativism/nihlism, rather than the more commonly cited economic/government principles, that truly explains the similiarities between National Socialism and Marxism. And perhaps why some ODers seem to feel so much more comfortable, in spite of their superficial bluster, interpolating with Raina/Esther than with paleoconservatives.
2004-06-14 20:38 | User Profile
The 19th Century witnesses the emergence of profound hatred of universal values for individual morality, such as are found at the center of Christianity. Much of this hatred came from confusing the institutions promoting these values with the values themselves. As to why the institutions of Christianity were so despised to begin with, I am not sure. For some reason, there was a feeling of destiny among Westerners, that the Promised Land could be achieved now. One can point to rapid technological change (outstripping any sense of what it all meant), but this is not very satisfying answer.
It is from the 19th Century hatred that the totalitarian ideologies were born. Probably the only thing keeping us from returning to them are the horrors of the Revolution, and of WWII.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Sounds to me though like there is never going to be any territory safely behind our own lines, if "the struggle is eternal". Which makes values, morals, and ethics eternally superflous if not negative. The logic of nihlism.
Communism of course mirrors this denial of truth, values and morality. Lenin said for instance "Communism dispenses with all eternal truths etc." Critical theory and multicultural/postmodern ideology hardens this principle into practicaly its raison de etre.
I think really it is this common moral relativism/nihlism, rather than the more commonly cited economic/government principles, that truly explains the similiarities between National Socialism and Marxism. And perhaps why some ODers seem to feel so much more comfortable, in spite of their superficial bluster, interpolating with Raina/Esther than with paleoconservatives.[/QUOTE]
2004-06-14 23:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]Come on! If you say morals should be based on utility only, itôs not hysterical to carry the thought to its logical conclusion. :rolleyes:
Once again: My question was: what are, in your view, the [U]ultimate[/U] values; those that are not merely tools to accomplish something else? This is the decisive question, I think, where Christians and WNs will differ. I am surprised that neither you nor VF nor Faust saw that. :huh:[/QUOTE][quote=Paleoleftist]Values obviously become interesting precisely where necessity stops forcing your hand.
If you're asking what I think should happen after we're all safe and all the "alien threats" are gone, well, then Westerners are left free to pursue their own self-development. That's a Quest I don't think I can prescribe for every individual. Personally, I want what Johnny Depp's character wanted when he was headed into that French castle at the end of the movie The Ninth Gate. It's very hard to find something that doesn't lead to the accomplishment of something else, though, at least maybe until I reach the state Depp sought. Then I imagine my work would be completed. But there's a long way to go, and the journey itself is to be valued, ultimately, in that case. Maybe that's all anyone truly has.
2004-06-15 02:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]If you're asking what I think should happen after we're all safe and all the "alien threats" are gone, well, then Westerners are left free to pursue their own self-development. That's a Quest I don't think I can prescribe for every individual. Personally, I want what Johnny Depp's character wanted when he was headed into that French castle at the end of the movie The Ninth Gate. It's very hard to find something that doesn't lead to the accomplishment of something else, though, at least maybe until I reach the state Depp sought. Then I imagine my work would be completed. But there's a long way to go, and the journey itself is to be valued, ultimately, in that case. Maybe that's all anyone truly has. [/QUOTE]
So we should all start looking for 'the God within' and become good little Satanists? In a purely cineastic sense, the Ninth Gate is well done, sure, but as an outright occult propaganda movie it surpasses even the DaVinci Code novel. Depp starts out as a crook and ends up as Satanôs most favoured disciple, but what else would you expect from an Atheist Jewish director who loves underage girls and mockery of religion? :closedeye
[QUOTE]In Hollywood, Polanski made the psychological thriller Rosemary's Baby in 1968. However, in 1969 his wife Sharon Tate was murdered by the infamous Manson gang and the director decided to return to Europe. He returned once again to the US to make the classic 1974 film Chinatown, but a conviction for the statutory rape of a 13-year old model, forced Polanski to escape to Europe to avoid prison. He has not been back to the United States since 1978.
Polanski's films often incorporate religious symbolism and religious themes. Beginning with his 1962 Polish film, Knife in the Water, and continuing through Rosemary's Baby (1968), The Ninth Gate (1999) and The Pianist (2002). The religion portrayed either supports evil or is powerless against it.
In his autobiography, Roman by Polanski, the director describes himself as an atheist. He says he intentionally made Rosemary's Baby ambiguous so that it could be interpreted as all taking place in Rosemary's head. In the film, the title character learns that her husband and all her friends are part of a Satanist coven; she is impregnated by the devil and even shares a meal resembling a Christian communion.
Rosemary's Baby was condemned in the US by the Roman Catholic Office For Motion Pictures, which criticized the "perverted use which the film makes of conventional Christian beliefs and its mockery of religious persons and practices."
In a March 2000 New York Post interview about The Ninth Gate, Polanski claims to have no interest in the occult:
'I'm totally disinterested, personally, with that sort of thing. ... It does absolutely nothing for me. I'm neither religious nor superstitious. At best I can be counted as an agnostic. Science and technology get me a lot more excited.'
In a 2001 Pop Matters interview about the same film, critic Cynthia Fuchs asks Polanski, "The movie brings together exoticism and menace, religious and sexual passions, in Corso's seduction," to which Polanski replies, 'That's what the whole movie is about. I can only look at religion with a certain dose of irony, because I'm not a religious person. And of course, sex and religion, they're always connected. Each religion has some sort of hangup about sex.'
A survivor of the Warsaw ghetto himself, Polanski makes the story of his 2002 film, The Pianist — about the perseverance of pianist Wladyslaw Szpilman, a Polish Jew — a tribute to human will, talent and intelligence. Szpilman escapes hell, but it is a hell of human design and human cruelty; a hell without God and without a devil. In fact, God is irrelevant to Szpilman's salvation. [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0918almanac.htm[/url]
2004-06-15 02:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]So we should all start looking for 'the God within' and become good little Satanists? In a purely cineastic sense, the Ninth Gate is well done, sure, but as an outright occult propaganda movie it surpasses even the DaVinci Code novel. Depp starts out as a crook and ends up as Satanôs most favoured disciple, but what else would you expect from an Atheist Jewish director who loves underage girls and mockery of religion? :closedeye
[url]http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0918almanac.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
Ad hominems and hysteria...both expected and amusing. Funny thing about the Jewish director angle: the world works in ironies. Actually some months ago Alex Linder over at VNN mentioned that it's probably going to be something that an Orthodox Jew does that unwittingly saves the White race. I found his concept of the way irony and paradox works within the multiverse to be quite pregnant.
2004-06-15 03:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]Ad hominems and hysteria...[/QUOTE]
Really? So The Ninth Gate is NOT a satanist movie? Can you enlighten me how its story/message would contribute to Christian Nationalism? :wacko:
2004-06-15 03:24 | User Profile
I think the attack on the director as lover of underage girls and a Jew were the ad hominems.
according to adastra137: 'The Ninth Gate" is an excellent movie that suffers from one daunting handicap--few of the viewers will have the vaguest idea what the story is about. The film is based on a particular branch of occult study, the philosophy/religion of "Thelema" expounded by Aleister Crowley. Much of the imagery is drawn directly from the Thoth Tarot deck designed by Crowley and Lady Frieda Harris. The tale is an allegory of the soul's quest for union with God, a journey up the Tree of Life (a symbol from the ancient Jewish mystical tradition), combined with the search for attaining "The Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel", aka "enlightenment," "the new birth," "transcendence," etc. The nature of the symbolism is unmistakable for those who are familiar with it, but almost impenetrable for those who are not. The key facts to notice in understanding the film is that it is not about Satanism. Please notice that by the end of the movie, all the Satanists are dead, either by murdering each other or by a particularly bizarre form of suicide. The one who succeeds in the quest, played by Johnny Depp, is the non-believer, who becomes a much better person in the course of the movie than the rather sleazy character we began with. He encounters assistance from his Holy Guardian Angel, played by Emmanuelle Seigner, who helps him, often unobtrusively, and from whom the Satanists tend to run if they can. The high point of the film is his gaining the knowledge of his Angel in a highly erotic scene which displays the activation of his chakras and leads him to the full awakening of kundalini. Then he gains the final clue from her to understand the illustrations in the book he has been studying. He enters into the light and is gone from this world--which ends the movie. This one can be enjoyable for a viewer moderately educated in occultism, but full appreciation of the subtleties of the plot is reserved for initiates. I hope some of these notes may help to make the movie clearer, but full understanding of some of these points would take years of study. Sorry, folks, some things simply can't be explained in ten minutes.'
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]Really? So The Ninth Gate is NOT a satanist movie? Can you enlighten me how its story/message would contribute to Christian Nationalism? :wacko:[/QUOTE]
2004-06-15 03:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]Really? So The Ninth Gate is NOT a satanist movie? Can you enlighten me how its story/message would contribute to Christian Nationalism? :wacko:[/QUOTE]
It's more the context that I was thinking of, especially with the references to underage girls and the like. Not saying it's not all true, but it's just the stringing together of all the "facts" that makes the tapestry. You'll note that I maintain a more clinical tone. Lessons in detachment and proportion are worth their weight in gold, apparently.
As far as The Ninth Gate contributing to Christian Nationalism, I can't see a direct relation there. Maybe it could serve as a target to "rally the troops?"
2004-06-15 03:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I think the attack on the director as lover of underage girls and a Jew were the ad hominems.
according to adastra137: 'The Ninth Gate" is an excellent movie that suffers from one daunting handicap--few of the viewers will have the vaguest idea what the story is about. The film is based on a particular branch of occult study, the philosophy/religion of "Thelema" expounded by Aleister Crowley. Much of the imagery is drawn directly from the Thoth Tarot deck designed by Crowley and Lady Frieda Harris. The tale is an allegory of the soul's quest for union with God, a journey up the Tree of Life (a symbol from the ancient Jewish mystical tradition), combined with the search for attaining "The Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel", aka "enlightenment," "the new birth," "transcendence," etc. The nature of the symbolism is unmistakable for those who are familiar with it, but almost impenetrable for those who are not. The key facts to notice in understanding the film is that it is not about Satanism. Please notice that by the end of the movie, all the Satanists are dead, either by murdering each other or by a particularly bizarre form of suicide. The one who succeeds in the quest, played by Johnny Depp, is the non-believer, who becomes a much better person in the course of the movie than the rather sleazy character we began with. He encounters assistance from his Holy Guardian Angel, played by Emmanuelle Seigner, who helps him, often unobtrusively, and from whom the Satanists tend to run if they can. The high point of the film is his gaining the knowledge of his Angel in a highly erotic scene which displays the activation of his chakras and leads him to the full awakening of kundalini. Then he gains the final clue from her to understand the illustrations in the book he has been studying. He enters into the light and is gone from this world--which ends the movie. This one can be enjoyable for a viewer moderately educated in occultism, but full appreciation of the subtleties of the plot is reserved for initiates. I hope some of these notes may help to make the movie clearer, but full understanding of some of these points would take years of study. Sorry, folks, some things simply can't be explained in ten minutes.'[/QUOTE]
A fascinating interpretation. I viewed the process as one based more on levels of maturity, so to speak--arranged in a hierarchical format.
You have the black-robed crowd in the widow-leader's chateau citing "mumbo-jumbo" from a book. I saw them as the lowest-level of the possible types of "seekers" since they seemed to understand only the form and not the substance.
Next, you have the billionaire guy that hired Depp who bursts into the room, condemning the chanters for their "mumbo-jumbo." He's the next level, because he at least understands there is more to it all. His failing, though, comes toward the end when he allows himself to be distracted by the profane. Those who've seen the movie will remember the way this guy poured gasoline on himself and lit himself on fire so that he could "show off" to Depp by proving he was "invulnerable"--clearly squandering and abusing what could have been his, in pursuit of a mere parlor trick.
This leaves Depp as the highest manifestation of the three possible modes of "seeker"--one that is quiet and disciplined and purely in it for his own growth, not the comfort of the widow's clubby society or the adolescent self-congratulation displayed by the billionaire. Thus, Depp gets the gold.
2004-06-15 05:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I think the attack on the director as lover of underage girls and a Jew were the ad hominems.
They are in fact true, n'est ce pa?
[QUOTE=darkstar]according to adastra137: The film is based on a particular branch of occult study, the philosophy/religion of "Thelema" expounded by Aleister Crowley. ......The key facts to notice in understanding the film is that it is not about Satanism. Please notice that by the end of the movie, all the Satanists are dead, either by murdering each other or by a particularly bizarre form of suicide........The high point of the film is his gaining the knowledge of his Angel in a highly erotic scene which displays the activation of his chakras and leads him to the full awakening of kundalini...... This one can be enjoyable for a viewer moderately educated in occultism, but full appreciation of the subtleties of the plot is reserved for initiates. I hope some of these notes may help to make the movie clearer, but full understanding of some of these points would take years of study. Sorry, folks, some things simply can't be explained in ten minutes.'[/QUOTE]
Duh Right. It features Satanists very prominently, requires years of study in the occult to understand fully but is not about Satanism. Sure
Maybe we should revisit those old "Nazi's and the Occult" threads.
2004-06-15 05:48 | User Profile
Hey, ad hominems don't have to be false!
As to the movie--I can barely remember it. So I can't say if the analysis I quote is correct. Nor am I in fact really sure that Crowley was not a Satanist, but this may be the case. I am not up on these kinds of things. Nice Tarot deck, though.
2004-06-15 13:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]Hey, ad hominems don't have to be false!
As to the movie--I can barely remember it. So I can't say if the analysis I quote is correct. Nor am I in fact really sure that Crowley was not a Satanist, but this may be the case. I am not up on these kinds of things. Nice Tarot deck, though.[/QUOTE] Crowley was not a Satanist in the Anton Lafey Church of Satan kind of way, but he definitely served evil spirits. His dictum, "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," pretty much summed up his philosophy.
2004-06-15 17:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Crowley was not a Satanist in the Anton Lafey Church of Satan kind of way, but he definitely served evil spirits. His dictum, "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," pretty much summed up his philosophy.[/QUOTE]That statement seems to pretty equate to the basic Satanist creed "All things are lawful" .
Ths rejection of law of course is one of the basic tenat's of nihlism also. As was said of National Socialism "behind a facade of lawfulness they rejected all law. Behind a superficial spirituality they projected a new secularism".
2004-06-15 18:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]"All things are lawful" . "behind a facade of lawfulness they rejected all law."[/QUOTE]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these statements essentially true of any supposed system of law or moral code that is not universal and rooted in the transcendent?
2004-06-15 18:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]A fascinating interpretation. I viewed the process as one based more on levels of maturity, so to speak--arranged in a hierarchical format.
You have the black-robed crowd in the widow-leader's chateau citing "mumbo-jumbo" from a book. I saw them as the lowest-level of the possible types of "seekers" since they seemed to understand only the form and not the substance.
Next, you have the billionaire guy that hired Depp who bursts into the room, condemning the chanters for their "mumbo-jumbo." He's the next level, because he at least understands there is more to it all. His failing, though, comes toward the end when he allows himself to be distracted by the profane. Those who've seen the movie will remember the way this guy poured gasoline on himself and lit himself on fire so that he could "show off" to Depp by proving he was "invulnerable"--clearly squandering and abusing what could have been his, in pursuit of a mere parlor trick.
This leaves Depp as the highest manifestation of the three possible modes of "seeker"--one that is quiet and disciplined and purely in it for his own growth, not the comfort of the widow's clubby society or the adolescent self-congratulation displayed by the billionaire. Thus, Depp gets the gold.[/QUOTE]
Your cleverly-phrased interpretation is true, as far as it goes. However, you leave out three most important facts:
1) None of the types of 'seekers' in the movie are remotely Christian. 2) ALL are entirely ego-motivated. But Depp is the most sophisticated Luciferian, thatôs why he gets the gold. 3) The gold is having sex with the devil (Emmanuelle Seigner).
Calling the devil an 'angelic creature' is an euphemism. :blink:
[IMG]http://www.celebritywonder.com/mp/2000_The_Ninth_Gate/emmanuelle_seigner_the_ninth_gate_001.jpg[/IMG]
2004-06-15 19:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these statements essentially true of any supposed system of law or moral code that is not universal and rooted in the transcendent?[/QUOTE]
In a certain sense I suppose that would be true. For a theist the validity of our law as something transcendent is related to its ultimate source, the ultimate lawgiver. But any real law rests on the assumption of absolutes, theistic or not. Without absolutes there certainly can be no real morals, and without morals I don't think there can be substantative law, although of course anyone can institute a code of arbitary rules and regulations.
So law is only as good as its relation to its source. If this relation is flawed the law becomes imperfect or inconsistent, and ultimately inconsistent law is not law. That doesn't mean of course though, practically that law has to be perfect to be of value. Human knowledge of law and of our absolutes, from anyone, will always be imperfect. It is one thing to fail to understand the law and its nature, another thing to have lost the whole idea of law, i.e. with relativism. And it is one thing to have lost belief in univerals and truth (i.e. relativism) and another thing to gratuitusly attack it and celebrate its loss. This last feature is what characterizes the occult, most notoriously in Satanism.
Wurmbrand in Marx and Satan always argued among political ideologies Communism was uniquely Satanic in this respect, although Nazism certainly had its aspect here as well.
2004-06-15 19:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]This last feature is what characterizes the occult, most notoriously in Satanism.[/QUOTE]
...and 'postmoral' atheism, as well.
2004-06-15 20:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Crowley was not a Satanist in the Anton Lafey Church of Satan kind of way, but he definitely served evil spirits. His dictum, "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," pretty much summed up his philosophy.[/QUOTE] Actually Richard Wurmbrand describes Crowley almost as the quintessential Satanist
To gain an insight into the life and thinking of a Satanist, one need only read a few mild excerpts from the writings of Alister Crowley (1875-1947) notorious for his involvement in occult practices...
"I have feasted on the blood of saints, but I am not suspected of men to be their enemy, for my fleece is white and warm, for my teeth are not of one that tears flesh, and my eyes are mild, and they know me not as the chief of the lying spirits"....
Crowley quotes a number of sayings like this from completely unknown older Satanist works, unavailable to the unitiated - Richard Wurmbrand in Marx and Satan
2004-06-15 20:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]...and 'postmoral' atheism, as well.[/QUOTE]Interesting along these lines that Nietzsche included a Black Mass in Thus Spake Zarastrutha - The Awakening
Hitler also of course seemed to dabble in the occult. Here's apoem he composed as a youth, quite similar to the poetry of the young Karl Marx
On rough nights I go sometimes To the Oak of Wotan in the still garden To make a pact with the dark forces The moonlight makes runes appear Those that were sunbathed during the day Become small before the magic formula
Mullern-Schonhausen in The Solution to the Riddle quoted in Marx and Satan