← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Esoterist

Is Christianity implicitly Judeo-Supremacist?

Thread ID: 16476 | Posts: 128 | Started: 2005-01-28

Esoterist [OP]

2005-01-28 20:07 | User Profile

[color=#000000]I was raised as an indifferentist to religion, and thus am not familiar with the Christian system. However, from a preliminary study of the "Scriptures", I sense an underlying sentiment of radical Semitic ethnic supremacism. I am not trying to be provocative, but I would like to understand, from the Christian perspective, such passages as:[/color]

[color=#000000]John 4: 22, where the Rabbi Jesus says "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for [size=3][size=2]Salvation is of the Jews".[/size] [/size][/color]

[left]Paul, the Judaizer of the Gentiles, also advocates a Judeo-Supremacist philosophy. In such passages as Acts 13:4; 13:14-38; 14:1; 15:16; 17:1; 17:10; 17:16; 18:1-4; 18:5,19; 19:8; 28:17, Paul suggests plainly "Jews are first" and that, if we Gentile heathen cattle are lucky, we can also participate in Israel's mission of "bringing light to the ignorant world", but then only in a very subordinated role. We must remember that God offers his favor to "Jews first, then the Greeks" and Gentiles who follow Christ must never forget their precious Semitic roots: "[size=3][size=2]if the bread offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole loaf. And if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you - a wild olive tree - were grafted in among them and have become equal sharers in the rich root of the olive tree, then don't boast as if you were better than the branches! However, if you do boast, remember that you are not supporting the root, the root is supporting you."[/size] [/size][/left]

[left][size=2]As I said, I am not trying to be excessively provocative, but how can Christianity be interpreted as anything other than as a extreme Semitic supremacism? Is not the strange goal of Christians to be "real Jews" and to "really Judaize the world", to be the "true Israel"? How can Christians approve of such genocidal fanaticism as found in the Jewish Bible? "Yahweh our God delivered him over to us... We captured all his cities and laid whole towns under ban, men, women and children; we spared nothing but the livestock which we took as our spoil" {Deut 2: 33-35}. This murderous Semitism has merely been toned down for political reasons in the New Testament, but the psychotic sense of Jewish superiority is malovolently latent. Christians, how can you accept that this desert-dwelling, genocidal bedouin tribe is "God-sent" and that the meaning of life is to renounce your Indo-European origins and "out-Judaize" the Jews?[/size][/left]

[left][color=#000000][size=2][font=Book Antiqua]"This Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate gospel of love, this "Redeemer" bringing salvation and victory to the poor, the sick, the sinful Ã¢â¬â was he not really temptation in its most sinister and irresistible form, temptation to take the tortuous path to those very Jewish values and those very Jewish ideals? Has not Israel really obtained the final goal of its sublime revenge, by the tortuous paths of this "Redeemer," for all that he might pose as Israel Ã¢â¬â¢s adversary and IsraelÃ¢â¬â¢s destroyer? Is it not due to the black magic of a really great policy of revenge, of a far-seeking, burrowing revenge, both acting and calculating with slowness, that Israel himself must repudiate before all the world the actual instrument of his own revenge and nail it to the cross, so that all the world Ã¢â¬â that is, all the enemies of Israel Ã¢â¬â could nibble without suspicion at this very bait? Could, moreover, any human mind with all its elaborate ingenuity invent a bait that was more truly dangerous?"[/font] [/size][/color][/left] [left][color=#000000][size=2][/left] The Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche

Is Nietzsche wrong?

Please tell me how one should "correctly" understand these Scriptural passages apparently demonstrating Judeo-Supremacist ideology.

[/size][/color]

Okiereddust

2005-01-28 20:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Esoterist][color=#000000]I was raised as an indifferentist to religion, and thus am not familiar with the Christian system. However, from a preliminary study of the "Scriptures", I sense an underlying sentiment of radical Semitic ethnic supremacism.

You start from a perspective completely foreign to the Bible. It may be natural that you have some questions of course. But before you go too far, ask yourself first, if the bible is so "judeo-supremist" why does so much of the Jewish community regard it as incurably anti-semitic?

I am not trying to be provocative, but I would like to understand, from the Christian perspective, such passages as:[/color]

[color=#000000]John 4: 22, where the Rabbi Jesus says "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for [size=3][size=2]Salvation is of the Jews".[/size] [/size][/color]

[left][color=#000000][size=2]Matthew 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30. In this 'story', Jesus employs a racial slur against a non-Jewish woman in the rudest way by comparing her to a "bitch", inherently inferior to Jews. The Rabbi Jesus' feelings on the superior position of Jews in the ethnic hierarchy of the world is evident. "[color=black]I have no commission except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." "Let the children first be fed, since it isn't good to take bread out of children's mouths and throw it to the dogs! [kynaria]".[/color][/size][/color][/left] First, the world used for "dogs", is more accurately translated "puppies". Jesus was being very unusual for a Jew in simply going to the gentile region, but he did not wish to start a ministry there at that time (reasons we can get into.) And of course, he did answer her prayer, but only after a little interpolution

[left]Paul, the Judaizer of the Gentiles, also advocates a Judeo-Supremacist philosophy. In such passages as Acts 13:4; 13:14-38; 14:1; 15:16; 17:1; 17:10; 17:16; 18:1-4; 18:5,19; 19:8; 28:17, Paul suggests plainly "Jews are first" and that, if we Gentile heathen cattle are lucky, we can also participate in Israel's mission of "bringing light to the ignorant world", but then only in a very subordinated role. We must remember that God offers his favor to "Jews first, then the Greeks" and Gentiles who follow Christ must never forget their precious Semitic roots: "[size=3][size=2]if the bread offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole loaf. And if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you - a wild olive tree - were grafted in among them and have become equal sharers in the rich root of the olive tree, then don't boast as if you were better than the branches! However, if you do boast, remember that you are not supporting the root, the root is supporting you."[/size] [/size][/left] Equal sharers, nothing "supremacist" about that.

[QUOTE][left][size=2]As I said, I am not trying to be excessively provocative, but how can Christianity be interpreted as anything other than as a extreme Semitic supremacism? Is not the strange goal of Christians to be "real Jews" and to "really Judaize the world", to be the "true Israel"?[/QUOTE]CI's state that. (Ask Martin Linstadt. I and most Christians here certainly don't.)> How can Christians approve of such genocidal fanaticism as found in the Jewish Bible? "Yahweh our God delivered him over to us... We captured all his cities and laid whole towns under ban, men, women and children; we spared nothing but the livestock which we took as our spoil" {Deut 2: 33-35}.

The OT

This murderous Semitism has merely been toned down for political reasons in the New Testament, but the psychotic sense of Jewish superiority is malovolently latent. Jews think exactly the opposite.> Christians, how can you accept that this desert-dwelling, genocidal bedouin tribe is "God-sent" and that the meaning of life is to renounce your Indo-European origins and "out-Judaize" the Jews?[/size][/left] We don't, although the CI's do. Again you're free to ask them.

The Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche

Is Nietzsche wrong? Your understanding of him is. Nietzsche was viewed as a philo-semite.

Please tell me how one should "correctly" understand these Scriptural passages apparently demonstrating Judeo-Supremacist ideology.

[/size][/color][/QUOTE] Further study, hopefully with some prayer for understanding. First again you might try again to understand why the jews themselves view the New Testament as so anti-semitic.

You've done a certain amount of study, which is a start. I however suggest you don't waste ask us to waste much of our time with these basic repetitive questions the typical unlearned person, especially some in WN have until you do a thorough study and and investigate and hopefully address some of the questions I've posed, chiefly the main one especially "why then do the jews themselves (who've studied the Bible far far than you will ever hope to do) view the New Testament and all its figures as anti-semitic"

Short answer why you don't see the reasons the jews have for their viewpoint is, basically, you're ignorant. You need to do more study on your own really to have much of a productive discussion.

Petr

2005-01-28 21:23 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy][I][B] - "I sense an underlying sentiment of radical Semitic ethnic supremacism." [/B] [/I] [/COLOR]

Like Okie already said, to use terms like "Semitic" (or "Aryan") is completely anachronistic in this issue - why, those nations that Israelites smashed (Midianites, Amalekites, Canaanites) were Semites themselves.

The God of the Bible is [B]hard but fair [/B] - if you study the Old Testament a bit further, you'll see how prophets declare that Israelites [B]themselves [/B] would be destroyed by pagans if they would fall away to sin - Moses himself declares:

COLOR=Indigo

"And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; [B]so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought[/B]; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it." [/COLOR]

This prophesy was fulfilled by Babylonians, who essentially did to Israel what Israel had done to Canaan, just as God had promised they would.

In the same manner, Jesus Christ prophesied that Jews would pay dearly for rejecting Him - by being destroyed again, this time by Romans in 70 AD!

Canaanites were a very decadent and vicious race themselves - God used Israel as His [B]instrument of vengeance [/B] to make them pay their sins, like He later used Spanish conquistadors to crush Aztecs, whose religion of human sacrifice and ritual homosexuality was actually much like that of Canaanites.

As for that Canaanite woman anecdote - Lord Jesus delivered many "hard sayings" on many occasions but He also aimed them at Jews, like the one in Matthew 8; He praises Roman centurion and predicts damnation at obstinate Jews!

[COLOR=Blue]8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, [B]Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. [/B]

8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

[B]8:12 But the children of the kingdom (Jews) shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [/B] [/COLOR]

This is just what Jesus' famous words "[I]the first ones shall be last and last ones first[/I]" mean: Jews, "who came first", shall be last, and Gentiles who are saved through Jesus Christ first!

John the Baptist also makes it abundantly clear that Jews are [B]by no means [/B] inexpendable to God, who may very easily turn Gentiles into "descendants of Abraham" as well:

(And that also happens to be the message that Paul sends in that Romans quotation you cited: "remember how expendable Jews were - you too could be easily cut off should you rise against God!")

(Matthew 3)

[COLOR=DarkRed]3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

[B]3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. [/B] [/COLOR]

Here we can very clearly see what the term "children of Abraham" means in the New Testament context - [I]believers in the Messiah Jesus Christ[/I].

And if you think that Apostle Paul was some kind of "Judeo-Supremacist", then what do you think about this:

(1 Thessalonians 2)

[COLOR=Purple]2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, [B]even as they have of the Jews:

2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: [/B]

2:16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: [B]for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. [/B] [/COLOR]

Paul calls unbelieving Jews as arrogant Christ-killers, and predicts their coming [I]and deserved [/I] desctruction at the hands of Romans!

(And by the way, Nietzsche was quite ignorant about the Bible. His opinion was that of a biased layman, nothing more.)

Petr

2005-01-28 21:48 | User Profile

And such shallow exegetes as Nietzsche who like to claim that Jesus Christ's message was basically that of a modern welfare state - pandering to failure, that is - seem to never have laid their eyes upon this "Parable of the Talents":

[B] KJV Matthew 25:14-30

(14) For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

(15) And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

(16) Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

(17) And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

(18) But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.

(19) After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

(20) And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

(21) His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

(22) He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

(23) His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

COLOR=Indigo Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

(25) And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

(26) His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

(27) Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

(28) Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

(29) For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

(30) And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.[/B][/COLOR]

Bardamu

2005-01-28 22:02 | User Profile

I feel sorry for the one talent guy. It is not like he boozed or gambled it away. I guess I am missing the point of the parable.

Petr

2005-01-28 22:09 | User Profile

Let's interpret the parable this way: the guy with a talent is a believer. He spreads the gospel and converts many other people to the faith, turning one talent into many.

Another guy, supposedly a believer, doesn't do anything with his talent. [B]He frankly doesn't even try. [/B] On the judgment day Jesus declares that his faith was a counterfeit one and sends him to hell.

"Hiding your talent" - those who deny Jesus Christ in the front of people, of whom Jesus said that He would Himself deny them one day, should they persist in their folly.

Petr

albion

2005-01-28 22:21 | User Profile

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#000000][size=3]Of the origin of religion.Ã¢â¬â The metaphysical need is not the origin of religions, as Schopenhauer supposed, but merely a late offshoot. Under the rule of religious ideas, one has become accustomed to the notion of "another world (behind, below, above)" and when religious ideas are destroyed one is troubled by an uncomfortable emptiness and deprivation,Ã¢â¬âand from this feeling grows once again "another world," but now merely a metaphysical one that is no longer religious. But what first led to a positing of "another world" in primeval times was not some impulse or need but an error in the interpretation of certain natural events, a failure of the intellect.[/size] Ã¢â¬âThe Gay Science: 151 [/color][/size][/font]

Petr

2005-01-28 22:24 | User Profile

Nietzsche's comment is meaningless and irrelevant.

Petr

Bardamu

2005-01-28 22:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Let's interpret the parable this way: the guy with a talent is a believer. He spreads the gospel and converts many other people to the faith, turning one talent into many.

"Hiding your talent" - those who deny Jesus Christ in the front of people, of whom Jesus said that He would Himself deny them one day, should they persist in their folly.

Petr[/QUOTE]

Okay, it's clear now. What if the sceptic led a decent life and was considered a good man by his neighbors? Still to hell?

Petr

2005-01-28 22:33 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu]Okay, it's clear now. What if the sceptic led a decent life and was considered a good man by his neighbors? Still to hell?[/QUOTE]

No amount of good deeds can buy a fallen, rebellious man a place in God's heaven if he is not "born again" thorough the Holy Spirit - even and especially for "believers", good works are [U]the fruit [/U] of their salvation, not its guarantee.

Petr

Bardamu

2005-01-28 23:09 | User Profile

Obviously Im no religious scholar but I imagine that this question of good men going to hell has generated a little discussion over the years?

Petr

2005-01-28 23:17 | User Profile

(deleted, double-post)

Petr

2005-01-28 23:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu]Obviously Im no religious scholar but I imagine that this question of good men going to hell has generated a little discussion over the years?[/QUOTE]

Since the day one, probably.

The "goodness" of fallen men (and women) is, however, a quite relative term, and people are prone to self-deception in these matters.

For instance, many atheists are nowadays completely numbed at the sin of abortion - many of the so-called good unbelievers they point out and ask: "how could a man that virtuous go to hell" have been enthusiastically "pro-choice".

Petr

Okiereddust

2005-01-29 00:12 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Since the day one, probably.

The "goodness" of fallen men (and women) is, however, a quite relative term, and people are prone to self-deception in these matters. Petr[/QUOTE] Jesus said not even he was good.

[QUOTE]Mark 10:17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. Ã¢â¬ÅGood teacher,Ã¢â¬Â he asked, Ã¢â¬Åwhat must I do to inherit eternal life?Ã¢â¬Â 18[B]Ã¢â¬ÅWhy do you call me good?Ã¢â¬Â Jesus answered. Ã¢â¬ÅNo one is goodÃ¢â¬âexcept God alone. [/B] [/QUOTE]

Ponce

2005-01-29 00:28 | User Profile

Religion is nothing more than a backpack that most peple carry around in the name of...........what?

You place all that burden in your mind and life only because someone says that you have to.

The one that you call "God" didn't ask for a house of worship or for books to be written about him all he ask is for you to believe and love him and to be good to others.

travis

2005-01-29 02:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Esoterist][color=#000000] As I said, I am not trying to be excessively provocative, but how can Christianity be interpreted as anything other than as a extreme Semitic supremacism? [/QUOTE] I doubt such a conclusion can be reached if one takes more than a cursory look at Christianity, as so many definitions about who "Judeans", "Isrealites" and "Jews" are has been obscured in transalations over the centuries. Biblical study using Strong's Concordance to transalate it's meanings often relults in conclusions very different from today's mainstream denominations and is way over my head.

I'm involved in a discussion about Israel with a Jew on another forum and he keeps stating that American politicians kiss Israel's behind because Christianity is Zionism. (I'm "Awake"):

[url]http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11495&goto=newpost[/url]

Bottom line is that Jews benefit by the notion that our Middle east policies and slavery to Israel is the result of "Christian Zionists", because it detracts from their dominant role in these affairs. My guess is that many of those who we assume are leading "Christian Zionists" are really Marranos, both in politics and in churches.

IronWorker

2005-01-29 05:45 | User Profile

This disgusting alliance between judeo-Christian Zionists and jewish Supremicists is a very recent aberration and if you really wanted to look into the roots of it the best place it start is to look at the history of the creation of the Scofield Version of the Bible which is what spawned the lemming Rapture Bunnies.

A better interpretation of the role of the jew is provided here:

Who Killed Christ? There's Nothing to Debate Compiled by Michael A. Hoffman II 2-22-4

According to the Rabbis of the Talmud

"On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth. The herald had gone forth forty days before [his death], (crying): 'Jesus of Nazareth goes forth to be stoned, because he has practiced magic and deceived and led astray Israel. Anyone who knows anything in his favor should come and declare concerning him.' But they found nothing in his favor."

Source: Tractate Sanhedrin 43a

According to Judaism's most esteemed halachic (legal) authority, Moses Maimonides

"Jesus of Nazareth... impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him."

Source: Maimonides, "Letter to Yemen"

According to the Bible

[color=red]For ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us;[/color] and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

Source: I Thessalonians 2: 14-16

Case closed!

Link: [url]www.rense.com/general49/whol.htm[/url]

albion

2005-01-29 12:27 | User Profile

[font=Arial]World Zionist leaders initiated a program to change [/font]<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />[font=Arial]America[/font][font=Arial] and its religious orientation. One of the tools used to accomplish this goal was an obscure and malleable Civil War veteran named Cyrus I. Schofield. A much larger tool was a venerable, world respected European book publisher--The Oxford University Press.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />[/font]

[font=Arial]The scheme was to alter the Christian view of Zionism by creating and promoting a pro-Zionist subculture within Christianity. Scofield's role was to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters, and on the bottoms of the pages. The Oxford University Press used Scofield, a pastor by then, as the Editor, probably because it needed such as man for a front. The revised bible was called the Scofield Reference Bible, and with limitless advertising and promotion, it became a best-selling "bible" in [/font][font=Arial]America[/font][font=Arial] and has remained so for 90 years. [/font]

[font=Arial]The Scofield Reference Bible was not to be just another translation, subverting minor passages a little at a time. No, Scofield produced a revolutionary book that radically changed the context of the King James Version. It was designed to create a subculture around a new worship icon, the modern State of Israel, a state that did not yet exist, but which was already on the drawing boards of the committed, well-funded authors of World Zionism. [/font] [font=Arial][url="http://www.whtt.org/articles/020807.htm"]http://www.whtt.org/articles/020807.htm[/url][/font] [font=Arial][/font] [font=Arial][font=Arial]Other researchers have examined Scofield's eschatology and exposed his original work as apostate and heretic to traditional Christian views. Among these is a massive work by Stephen Sizer entitled [color=#800080]Christian Zionism, Its History, Theology and Politics.[/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=#800080] [url="http://www.sizers.org/"]http://www.sizers.org/[/url][/color][/font] [font=Arial][color=#800080][/color][/font] [/font]

Quantrill

2005-01-29 13:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu]Okay, it's clear now. What if the sceptic led a decent life and was considered a good man by his neighbors? Still to hell?[/QUOTE] Bardamu, Exact answers to this question will vary depending on whether one is Catholic/Orthodox or Protestant, but a general Christian answer can be given. In traditional, orthodox Christianity, the point of belief was not to 'be a good man' or to 'lead a good life.' If one really had faith, then that was but an inevitable consequence. The point was to receive the Holy Spirit, and to let Him help you learn to commune with God, so that you would be able (though not actually worthy) to be in His Presence in the afterlife. The death of Christ made this possible. Jesus laid out certain ways in which one should do this in the New Testament, including baptism and communion. This is what He told us to do, and this is what we should do. At the same time, however, we cannot presume to know how God will judge each individual, so it is not really our place to be confidently ticking off a list of people who are going to hell. I just wanted to point out that the 'being a good person' bit is wholly secondary.

travis

2005-01-29 14:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=albion] Scofield's role was to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters, and on the bottoms of the pages. The Oxford University Press used Scofield, a pastor by then, as the Editor, probably because it needed such as man for a front. The revised bible was called the Scofield Reference Bible[/QUOTE]It makes me wonder if Scofield was a (wink wink) ScoFELD....

Petr

2005-01-29 14:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=travis]It makes me wonder if Scofield was a (wink wink) ScoFELD....[/QUOTE]

Unlikely; here you can see his photo, and he looks quite a Nordic type to me:

[url]http://poweredbychrist.homestead.com/files/cyrus/scofield.htm[/url]

[SIZE=3][B]"Scofield: The Man Behind The Myth"[/B][/SIZE]

He was just a hustler who saw his opportunity and used it.

Petr

wild_bill

2005-01-29 16:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=travis]It makes me wonder if Scofield was a (wink wink) ScoFELD....[/QUOTE]

Reasonable suspicion, but I don't think its true in this case. But it does go to show that there's plenty of rotten Aryans around.

What the rapture bunnies like to forget is Scofield did time for forgery and an adulterer. He lied about recieving medals in the Civil War. Overall, he was just a shiester and con-man. His passing off false theology and biblical heresies would have been par for the course.

IronWorker

2005-01-30 11:28 | User Profile

I don't think it makes alot of sense to be hard on Scofield personally. I mean do you guys think that he had any idea, the foggiest notion, of the Zionist horrors he was hatching that would later consume the Globe in our life-time, I don't.

wild_bill

2005-01-30 12:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE=IronWorker]I don't think it makes alot of sense to be hard on Scofield personally. I mean do you guys think that he had any idea, the foggiest notion, of the Zionist horrors he was hatching that would later consume the Globe in our life-time, I don't.

As a promoter of false teachings he deserves condemnation. Dispensationalism is definitely a false doctrine. From indications, he was also a pretty disreputable character.

Better to blame the jewish supremacists who have propagated his so-called theology since its inception and on up to this day and continue to create Rapture Bunnies in service to the dread 'zionist entity'.[/QUOTE]

We can't keep blaming everything on the Jews. After all, we continue to be duped by the Jews.

travis

2005-01-30 15:22 | User Profile

Better to blame the jewish supremacists who have propagated his so-called theology since its inception and on up to this day and continue to create Rapture Bunnies in service to the dread 'zionist entity'.[/QUOTE] First of all, a study of his features in the photo does not really clarify that he was an "Aryan type", but if he was one can certainly bet that Jews were there to exploit his weaknesses. Nearly everyone has weaknesses and Jews are quite skilled at identifying and taking full advantage of them. Apparently Scofield had many and was promoted to a position of influence by media censoring of his misdeeds. It's easy to persuade someone who cherishes social position and has a dark history. Had he been a stand up guy, they would have found ways to jerk the rug out from under him. That said, anyone who has social position is suspect.

Okiereddust

2005-01-30 15:33 | User Profile

Better to blame the jewish supremacists who have propagated his so-called theology since its inception and on up to this day and continue to create Rapture Bunnies in service to the dread 'zionist entity'.[/QUOTE]We have quite a few threads on Scofield in the "Dispensationalism" sub-forum. I think they help clarify somewhat what his motives and allies and their role in all this was.

Petr

2005-01-30 16:10 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy][B][I] - "That said, anyone who has social position is suspect."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

..of being a crypto-Jew?

Now this [B]is[/B] honestly some serious paranoia.

Petr

travis

2005-01-30 16:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Navy][B][I] - "That said, anyone who has social position is suspect."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

..of being a crypto-Jew?

Now this [B]is[/B] honestly some serious paranoia.

Petr[/QUOTE]More ad hominem fron Petr the "scholarly", the "professional".

Paranoia is an irrational fear. Once you have studied the system and the media you understand who determines who may or may not have social position.

That said, anyone who has social position is probably a Marrano or a select smear-vulnerable gentile like Scofield (if he was a gentile). What is probable is not always 100% provable, but that doesn't make it any less probable.

Now please demonstrate what is irrational about that, and do so in a "scholarly" way.

Petr

2005-01-30 16:30 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy][I][B] - "That said, anyone who has social position is probably a Marrano or a select smear-vulnerable gentile like Scofield (if he was a gentile)."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Do you mean in America or everywhere else as well?

Petr

travis

2005-01-30 16:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Navy][I][B] - "That said, anyone who has social position is probably a Marrano or a select smear-vulnerable gentile like Scofield (if he was a gentile)."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Do you mean in America or everywhere else as well?

Petr[/QUOTE]Certainly everywhere in the Western world in varying degrees. Their influence may be minimal in Islamic countries, but that is due to change, as we are making sure the ones we conquer will have "freedom of the press".

Petr

2005-01-30 17:12 | User Profile

Well Travis, I can say that in my country there are about 1,500 Jews, and I don't think that Jews are controlling or seriously influencing my country, except indirectly through international media and Hollywood garbage.

There is only one Jewish MP (named Ben Zyskowicz) in Finland, and he's married to a Muslim Tatar, I kid you not.

Petr

travis

2005-01-30 17:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Well Travis, I can say that in my country there are about 1,500 Jews, and There is no way of knowing how many Jews are in your country or mine. They are dispersed as is stratecically needed worldwide. If your country is of little or no strategic value to them, their only objectives may be to enforce their fiat monetary regime and control enough media to keep people from talking about them.

I don't think that Jews are controlling or seriously influencing my country, except indirectly through international media and Hollywood garbage. Hollywood/mass media is far more powerful than most people imagine. I don't know which country is yours, but I doubt anyone could get by with criticizing the Jews control of your monetary system, for example.>

There is only one Jewish MP (named Ben Zyskowicz) in Finland, and he's married to a Muslim Tatar, I kid you not.

Petr[/QUOTE] How do you know the "Muslim Tartar" is not a Marrano? How disarming it appears for an organized Jewry henchman to pretend his wife is a Muslim... Jews are always claiming to be half-this and half-that and married to non-Jews, but you also have to consider that all those Marranos out there are married to someone and they probably aren't gentiles. If they revealed their Jewishness when they married an overt Jew, it would expose their entire family, so they retain their false identities.

Petr

2005-01-30 18:06 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy][B][I] - "How do you know the "Muslim Tartar" is not a Marrano?"[/I][/B][/COLOR]

How can we know for certain that the Moon is not made of cheese?

There are only about 800 Tatars in Finland, and they are a very close-knit community. You are simply not able to "infiltrate" them just like that.

Besides, they came to Finland from an area in northern Russia where there were practically no Jews at all.

Here you can see Zyskowicz and his wife:

[url]http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=26477[/url]

Where do [B]you[/B] live, Travis? Around some major Jewish center?

Petr

travis

2005-01-30 18:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Navy] How can we know for certain that the Moon is not made of cheese? That is an insultingly false analogy. >

There are only about 800 Tatars in Finland, and they are a very close-knit community. You are simply not able to "infiltrate" them just like that. Jews are infiltrated worldwide and have been for centuries. Having Marranos already in place among Tartars is not that much of a stretch and is quite consistent with modus operandi.>

Besides, they came to Finland from an area in northern Russia where there were practically no Jews at all. Even if there were few, you can bet many of them were marranos, and of those that were, many found their way to influential positions.>

Here you can see Zyskowicz and his wife:

[url]http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=26477[/url] Look at the distance between the eyebrows and the tip of the nose, also the angle of the bite. Blond hair is attainable by anyone these days.>

Where do [B]you[/B] live, Travis? Around some major Jewish center?

Petr[/QUOTE]Jews are widely dispersed so there really is no such thing as a major Jewish center. The only thing centralized is their power over us. There are probably more Jews in New York than in Israel. I live in Texas where the US census reports no Jews but they are thick in these parts.

Petr

2005-01-30 19:09 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy][B][I] - "There are probably more Jews in New York than in Israel." [/I] [/B] [/COLOR]

There are about 5,5 million Jews in Israel nowadays. I really doubt there are that many in New York.

But hey, why let dull statistics bother your flights of imagination.

Petr

Angler

2005-01-30 19:16 | User Profile

My response to the original question is a simple "no." Christianity does not hold any race supreme, including the Jews.

In my opinion, if Christianity is potentially harmful in any way, the harm lies in its teaching of pacifism. According to the New Testament, God-made-man said: "Love your enemies...pray for your persecutors...do not resist one who is evil...if someone wants to take you to court over your shirt, give him your cloak as well...." That is pacifism in its purest form.

Some here will probably disagree with the above assessment, but I think Jesus' words are quite clear. To be frank, I find it amazing that many fundamentalist Christians are willing to throw out all of modern biology (and much other science, too) in order to accept word-for-word the Genesis account of creation (firmament and all) while simultaneously trying to dance around Jesus' straightforward command to submit to enemies.

Now, one shouldn't reject Christianity just because Jesus taught pacifism. If one truly believes that Christianity is the true religion, then he should accept it and live accordingly. I left Christianity not because I felt its teachings were too difficult to follow, but because (1) I gradually realized that there's no evidence that Christianity came from God rather than men, and (2) Christian doctrine is full of philosophical and moral problems that cannot be resolved without assuming that Christianity really came from God (i.e., without begging the question). But again, if someone disagrees, more power to him. Everyone has to be honest with himself and follow his own path.

travis

2005-01-30 19:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr] There are about 5,5 million Jews in Israel nowadays. I really doubt there are that many in New York. Perhaps so, but that doesn't really have any bearing on the discussion at hand. You stiil have not addressed the existence of the Marranos, and the fact that covertness of ethnicity is a common practice among Jews and has been since the inquisition. They do exist and they are.....somewhere. Why do you demand we pretend they don't exist?>

But hey, why let dull statistics bother your flights of imagination.

Petr[/QUOTE]More ad hominen from the proffesional scholarly Petr.

Petr

2005-01-30 21:04 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy][I][B] - "More ad hominen from the proffesional scholarly Petr."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

SARCASM. Just what you deserve.

Yes, I think there might exist some sort of Marrano phenomenon in places with large Jewish populations (like America). I think that you are however [B]preposterously exaggerating this phenomenon[/B], for Jews are not some overmen that can resist assimilation forever.

One of the most famous Swedish explorers, Sven Hedin, visited in Germany in the 1930s and wrote a mighty admiring book about the Third Reich. In that same book, he said that he had a Jewish great-great-grandfather, but that didn't influence his opinions.

Have you read Bryan Mark Rigg's "Hitler's Jewish Soldiers"?

[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0700611789/002-9420252-8321647[/url]

Petr

travis

2005-01-30 21:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr] Yes, I think there might exist some sort of Marrano phenomenon in places with large Jewish populations (like America). I think that you are however [B]preposterously exaggerating this phenomenon[/B], for Jews are not some overmen that can resist assimilation forever. We know there are many millions of Jews dispersed thruout the Western world and we know that a large percentage of Jews conceal their ethnicity and we know that concealing their identity has strategic value and we know that Jews have elevated themselves way above us with their media and financial empires......so what exactly is "preposterous" about my assertions? Jews have been dispersed around the world and lived among gentile populations in many cases without the host's population knowing they were Jews and have even been forced to assimilate as in Spain, yet have come out as the dominant world power. Certainly some of them have squirted their seed hither and thither, but one can conclude that no other ethnic group could have managed to avoid assimilation with such skill.

Petr

2005-01-30 21:53 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy][I][B] - "so what exactly is "preposterous" about my assertions?"[/B][/I][/COLOR]

The idea that every Gentile bigshot who has sometimes favored Jews and/or done harm for the White race was either a marrano or a puppet of Jews without a will of his own.

Even much of this Israel-pandering in American politics has been a quite late phenomenon: Eisenhower still had guts in 1956 to tell Israelis to retreat from the Sinai peninsula. Things started to get nastier when Israel nuked up in the 1960s and began its nuclear blackmail...

Did you know that most Marranos who moved out of Spain, to places like Netherlands, almost immediately returned to Judaism, i.e. did not remain as Marranos?

Marranism is not something that can go on for generations, for sooner or later you either assimilate genetically or return to your old faith. I don't think there are hardly any Marrano descendants seriously identifying themselves as Jews in Spain anymore.

Plus, not [B]all[/B] conversions to Christianity were insincere - did you know that St. Teresa, one of the most famous Catholic female saints, came from a Marrano family:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_Avila[/url]

[COLOR=Navy][I][B]- "one can conclude that no other ethnic group could have managed to avoid assimilation with such skill."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Actually Gypsies could easily compete with Jews on this matter...

Petr

travis

2005-01-30 22:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr] The idea that every Gentile bigshot who has sometimes favored Jews and/or done harm for the White race was either a marrano or a puppet of Jews without a will of his own. The Jews have in place the mechanism to destroy anyone's social position as well as elevate marranos and puppets to high places. Why do you think they would be so foolish as to permit independent gentiles to reach high places where they might be able to discredit them as Henry Ford tried?>

Did you know that most Marranos who moved out of Spain, to places like Netherlands, almost immediately returned to Judaism, i.e. did not remain as Marranos? Being a Marrano is not detaching from Judaism in the first place, it is just practicing it covertly. How would anyone even know in the Netherlands when some Jew arrives if he was formerly a Marrano? Being a Marrano has strategic value. There is no reason to throw away something that one has worked so hard for, especially when paper trails have been obscured by moving to another country.>

Marranism is not something that can go on generations, for sooner or later you either assimilate genetically or return to your old faith. I don't think there are hardly any Marrano descendants seriously identifying themselves as Jews in Spain anymore. What are you talking about? Marranos never gave up Talmudism in the first place. Being a Marrano is akin to being in the underworld or being a spy. Such status is not to be thrown away voluntarily.>

Plus, not [B]all[/B] conversions to Christianity were insincere - did you know that St. Teresa, one of the most famous Catholic female saints, came from a Marrano family:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_Avila[/url] True. This is called eugenics. Jews encouraged the defection of their lesser bretheren.

Petr

2005-01-30 22:42 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy][B][I] - "Eisenhower was a sweetheart of the Jews who starved millions of German prisoners of war to death get real." [/I] [/B] [/COLOR]

And you should consider presenting some hard statistical evidence every now and then to support these Marrano fantasies of yours.

For instance, this statement of yours:

[COLOR=Navy][I][B]- "Jews encouraged the defection of their lesser bretheren."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Any evidence for this encouragement?

Petr

travis

2005-01-30 23:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Navy]

I don't believe in James Bacque's stories about millions of starved POWs in the middle of Europe whom everyone managed to miss until he came along. I also notice that you didn't deny my point that he had guts to tell Israelis to back off. As long as the Jews control the media everyone will manage to miss just about everything. Just because something was missed by the TV addled masses does not mean it isn't true.>

And you should consider presenting some hard statistical evidence every now and then to support these Marrano fantasies of yours.

For instance, this statement of yours:

[COLOR=Navy][I][B]- "Jews encouraged the defection of their lesser bretheren."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Any evidence for this encouragement?

Petr[/QUOTE]Who do you think collects almost all the statistics? You can't find the truth from statistics and "sources", you actually have to think and fit the pieces together.

The evidence for Jewish eugenics is the fact that they have an average IQ 15 points above any other race.

IronWorker

2005-01-31 07:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=travis]I live in Texas where the US census reports no Jews but they are thick in these parts.[/QUOTE]

That is correct Travis. One of the largest 'centers' for the jews down there is Waco. Hey check this out.

** Johnson's Hidden Loyalties**

Link: [url]www.jfkmontreal.com/johnson's_hidden_loyalties.htm[/url]

The fact of the matter is that Marranos DO exist and we should all be wary.

Texas Dissident

2005-01-31 07:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=IronWorker]That is correct Travis. One of the largest 'centers' for the jews down there is Waco. Hey check this out.

** Johnson's Hidden Loyalties**

Link: [url]www.jfkmontreal.com/johnson's_hidden_loyalties.htm[/url]

The fact of the matter is that Marranos DO exist and we should all be wary.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the link, IW. That's some interesting info.

Franco

2005-01-31 07:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Navy][B][I] - "Eisenhower was a sweetheart of the Jews who starved millions of German prisoners of war to death get real." [/I] [/B] [/COLOR]

And you should consider presenting some hard statistical evidence every now and then to support these Marrano fantasies of yours.

For instance, this statement of yours:

[COLOR=Navy][I][B]- "Jews encouraged the defection of their lesser bretheren."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Any evidence for this encouragement?

Petr[/QUOTE]

General Eisenhower did indeed starve millions of German POWs. Many of them had to live in holes in the ground that they themselves dug. He got the German prisoners legally/militarily reclassified so that they could be denied medical attention and certain care packages.

And, he also sent around 2 million Russians to their deaths [via Joseph Stalin's hand] during Operation Keelhaul. Have you ever read about that?

Eisenhower was called a Swedish Jew in military school. His yearbook [which I have seen, by the way] calls him a "Swedish-Jew." He was apparently part-Jewish, because why else would they call him that?

Petr

2005-01-31 08:33 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy][B] - "Johnson's Hidden Loyalties"[/B][/COLOR]

Link: [url]http://www.jfkmontreal.com/johnson&...n_loyalties.htm[/url]

That link looks like a bunch of conspiratologist kooks quoting one another - here's a good example of their "scholarship":

[I][B]"Lyndon Johnson began his career in 1931 as the legislative assistant of Congressman Richard M. Kleberg, a wealthy Jewish politician representing the 14th District of Texas." [/B] [/I]

It seems that the only reason this "researcher" thinks Kleberg was Jewish was because he had a "berg" in his name, while it's much more probable that he was a Texas German!

(When I used to have a summer job at one cemetery in Helsinki, I saw many, many Swedish gravestones with some very "Jewish" names like Silverberg in them)

[url]http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=K000257[/url]

[COLOR=DarkRed][I]"KLEBERG, Richard Mifflin, Sr., (nephew of Rudolph Kleberg, cousin of Robert Christian Eckhardt), a Representative from Texas; born on a ranch near Kingsville, Kleberg County, Tex., November 18, 1887;"[/I][/COLOR]

[B]That frankly doesn't seem so Jewish to me.[/B] Texas was full of Jewish ranchers in the 1880s, dontcha know.

And they seem to have a leftist slant as well:

[B][I]"After war, the Hoover exploited anticommunist hysteria of the Cold War to intensify the FBI’s intelligence activities. It is widely known that Hoover leaked derogatory material on Martin Luther King in the 1960s as part of his secret counterintelligence (COINTELPRO) program."[/I][/B]

"Anticommunist hysteria", huh? This is your reliable source?

And that link does [B]not[/B] give us any definite, concrete proof of Johnson's Jewishness - just a bunch of very confused [I]insinuations[/I] about his maternal family tree, and it doesn't even try to prove the Jewishness of his paternal line.

This is frankly an example of just the kind of gossipy "scholarship" that I'd like to [U]weed out [/U] of the WN movement.

Petr

2005-01-31 09:49 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy][I][B] - "Who do you think collects almost all the statistics?" [/B] [/I] [/COLOR]

Mighty convenient excuse. "The Jews ate my homework."

[COLOR=Navy][I][B]- "You can't find the truth from statistics and "sources", you actually have to think and fit the pieces together."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

In other words, once again, why let boring facts spoil a good story.

[COLOR=Navy][I][B]- "The evidence for Jewish eugenics is the fact that they have an average IQ 15 points above any other race."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

(The famous Lynn-Vanhanen study on average IQ of nations gave only 94 points for Israel!)

Petr

wild_bill

2005-01-31 10:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=IronWorker]That is correct Travis. One of the largest 'centers' for the jews down there is Waco. Hey check this out.

** Johnson's Hidden Loyalties**

Link: [url]www.jfkmontreal.com/johnson's_hidden_loyalties.htm[/url]

The fact of the matter is that Marranos DO exist and we should all be wary.[/QUOTE]

Interesting, but I don't find the genealogy info to be too convincing. Unless some evidence can be found that proves some actual Jewish connection, all of it is speculation. It would be good to nail it down with some real proof.

BTW, the Mormon genealogy site is not too reliable as it is merely a database of information submitted by individuals. They do no verification. It would be easy to submit flawed or completely erroneous information. I have found many discrepencies in their information.

IronWorker

2005-01-31 10:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]That link looks like a bunch of conspiratologist kooks quoting one another - here's a good example of their "scholarship":[/QUOTE]

I get a kick out of 'Petrs world' where NO conspiracies have EVER occured, not even a bunch of heebs [u]conspiring[/u] to arrest an outspoken dissident and hand him over to authorities for punishment...

Oh oops, I was talking about the conspiracy to arrest and crucify Jesus Christ... Petr hopefully you at least believe in that one...

Petr

2005-01-31 10:52 | User Profile

Crude strawman, Ironworker. As if I'd have to believe in every single piece of David-Ickean kookery or not in any conspiracies at all.

The fact is, your source has been found spouting unverifiable nonsense, and all you can do is to mope and cry about it.

Do you want to defend this thesis that Lyndon Johnson was a Marrano instead of crying sour grapes?

Petr

IronWorker

2005-01-31 11:29 | User Profile

I wouldn't say it is some Grand Thesis, just an interesting link that I figured I would post for Travis who seems to have a pretty good grasp for how jewish supremacism operates today.

When it comes to the LBJ stuff though (it doesn't really interest me that much, the man has been dead, what, over 30 years) I will post this:

"By their fruits ye shall know them"

Abstract: It was 33 years ago, on Nov. 22, 1963, that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. While a traumatized nation grieved for its youngest president, he was succeeded by Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, who was to become the most pro-Israel president up to that time. A sea change was about to take place in AmericaÃ¢â¬â¢s relations with Israel. Johnson was quick to declare his support for the Jewish state. Shortly after being sworn in as president, Johnson reportedly remarked to an Israeli diplomat: Ã¢â¬ÅYou have lost a very great friend, but you have found a better one.Ã¢â¬Â Commented Isaiah L. Kenen, one of the most effective lobbyists for Israel in Washington: Ã¢â¬Å I would say that everything he did as president supported that statement.Ã¢â¬Â Up to JohnsonÃ¢â¬â¢s presidency, no administration had been as completely pro-Israel and anti-Arab as his. Harry S Truman, while remembered as a warm friend of Israel, was more interested in his own election than IsraelÃ¢â¬â¢s fate. After winning office on his own in 1948 with the support of the Jewish vote, he seemed to lose interest in the Jewish state. Dwight D. Eisenhower was distinctly cool toward Israel, seeing it as a major irritant in AmericaÃ¢â¬â¢s relations with the Arab world and U.S. access to oil. There were no powerful partisans of Israel in his administration and his secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, was a frequent critic of Israel. Kennedy was considerably warmer toward the Jewish state and became the first president to begin providing major weapons to it, breaking an embargo in place since 1947. Yet he valued the U.S. position in the Arab world, particularly with EgyptÃ¢â¬â¢s Gamal Abdel Nasser, and as a result maintained a fairly even-handed policy despite having a number of pro-Israel officials in his administration. All this changed dramatically under Johnson. Not only was he personally a strong supporter of the Jewish state but he had a number of high officials, advisers and friends who shared his view. These included officials within the administration such as McGeorge Bundy, Clark Clifford, Arthur Goldberg, Harry McPherson, John Roche, the Rostow brothers, Walt and Eugene, and Ben Wattenberg. These officials occupied such high offices as the ambassador to the United Nations, the head of the National Security Council and the number two post at the State Department. They were assiduous in putting forward IsraelÃ¢â¬â¢s interests in such memoranda as Ã¢â¬ÅWhat We Have Done for IsraelÃ¢â¬Â and Ã¢â¬ÅNew Things We Might Do in IsraelÃ¢â¬Â and Ã¢â¬ÅHow We Have Helped Israel.Ã¢â¬Â

Link: [url]http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/db.php?aid=2875 [/url]

[quote=Petr]David-Ickean kookery

"Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground."

-- David Icke

Petr

2005-01-31 12:31 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy][B][I] - "Lyndon B. Johnson, who was to become the most pro-Israel president up to that time. A sea change was about to take place in America’s relations with Israel." [/I] [/B] [/COLOR]

Inadvertently this actually shows that Eisenhower, whom Travis and Franco called a Jew puppet or a Marrano himself, was not on Israel's leash...

[COLOR=Navy][B][I]"Dwight D. Eisenhower was distinctly cool toward Israel, seeing it as a major irritant in America’s relations with the Arab world and U.S. access to oil."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Lyndon Johnson was a Freemason, that's for sure.

Petr

Franco

2005-01-31 12:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Navy][I][B] - "Who do you think collects almost all the statistics?" [/B] [/I] [/COLOR]

Mighty convenient excuse. "The Jews ate my homework."

[COLOR=Navy][I][B]- "You can't find the truth from statistics and "sources", you actually have to think and fit the pieces together."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

In other words, once again, why let boring facts spoil a good story.

[COLOR=Navy][I][B]- "The evidence for Jewish eugenics is the fact that they have an average IQ 15 points above any other race."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

(The famous Lynn-Vanhanen study on average IQ of nations gave only 94 points for Israel!)

Petr[/QUOTE]

Alright, I have to wonder about what your true ideology is.

KMacD himself noted that Jews have an IQ roughly 15 points above gentiles. My own research shows that, too [books, news articles, observing which occupations Jews enter, etc.]. Yet nearly every time someone mentions Jews, you seem to show up and argue against whatever is being said.

I have to wonder what your ideology is. What books do you recommend? What websites?

Petr

2005-01-31 12:47 | User Profile

[B][I] - "I have to wonder what your ideology is. What books do you recommend? What websites?"[/I][/B]

My basic "ideology" is orthodox Christianity, and I do not have some "favorite" websites that I slavishly devote myself to. My interests are wide and various, and I despise monomania.

From a WN perspective, I can recommend this blog: "Little Geneva":

[url]http://www.littlegeneva.com/[/url]

And like I've already said, the Jewish Tribal Review is my kind of place:

[url]http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/[/url]

LewRockwellCom often contains quite readable stuff too:

[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/[/url]

I can recommend Rousas J. Rushdoony's "[I]Institutes of Biblical Law[/I]" for a no-nonsense, un-PC adaptation of Biblical laws to modern life:

[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0875524109/002-9420252-8321647[/url]

And no, I don't think Kevin MacDonald is always right about everything. For instance, he seems to think that Stuart Kahan's "[I]Wolf of the Kremlin[/I]" is a reliable source (he quoted it in his 2001 preface to "[I]The Culture of Critique[/I]"), while I think it's dubious.

[I][B]- "Yet nearly every time someone mentions Jews, you seem to show up and argue against whatever is being said."[/B][/I]

Have you ever heard about [I]constructive criticism[/I]? My mission is to weed out those arguments against Jews that will frankly get laughed out of court among educated people, thus backfiring on racialists.

A bit like being an editor of the movie - cutting out those sequences that are not worthy to be included in the final anti-Judaic masterpiece.

:biggrin:

And finally, as a Christian, I have a duty to make sure I'm not making false accusations against [I]anyone[/I], not even against the devil himself.

Petr

travis

2005-01-31 13:28 | User Profile

QUOTE=Petr Silverberg may have been a Jew who defected. It happens.

Texas was full of Jewish ranchers in the 1880s, dontcha know. There was an old Jew rancher in my area that supposedly developed the Red Brangus breed. About ten years ago he subdivided his ranch on the Pedernales river into "ranchettes". His name was Mike Levy. >

And that link does [B]not[/B] give us any definite, concrete proof of Johnson's Jewishness [/QUOTE] What is definite concrete proof of a person's ethnicity if he has concealed it for generations and no government records of such are required?

That's why you have to apply formulas like motive, means, opportunity, modus operandi and modus agendi. With LBJ, too much of it fits.

travis

2005-01-31 13:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]

In other words, once again, why let boring facts spoil a good story. Facts are determined by analyzing the circumstances, not by relying on those who have shown their contempt for the free exchange of information by attempting to monopolize it. MEANS, MOTIVE, (PYSICAL) EVIDENCE, OPPORTUNITY, MODUS OPERANDI AND MODUS AGENDI. Jews want us to think the only way we can determine the facts is by reading their material. I think you have better sense than to fall for that.>

I think this is more or less an urban legend that Jews like to spread about themselves (and you of course believe it uncritically). In Israel, the national average IQ seems to be quite average indeed. Do you think Jews have gotten the upper hand in this world because they are stupid? Vanity is for gentiles, Jews understand the strategic value of concealing their intellect, though a few do succumb to vanity. The high IQ organization Mensa has branches in dozens of countries, but Jews do not allow it in Israel, as it might lead to information leakage to smart gentiles.

Petr

2005-01-31 14:03 | User Profile

[B][I] - "The high IQ organization Mensa has branches in dozens of countries, but Jews do not allow it in Israel, as it might lead to information leakage to smart gentiles."[/I][/B]

Now this is just silly, not to mention inaccurate!

[url]http://www.mensa.org.il/[/url]

[SIZE=3][B]"Welcome to Mensa Israel!"[/B][/SIZE]

:lol:

Petr

travis

2005-01-31 14:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]

Now this is just silly, not to mention inaccurate!

[url]http://www.mensa.org.il/[/url]

[SIZE=3][B]"Welcome to Mensa Israel!"[/B][/SIZE]

Petr[/QUOTE]I stand corrected. Last time I checked, which was 2 years ago, there was no Mensa Israel.

Petr

2005-01-31 14:15 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy][I][B] - "Silverberg may have been a Jew who defected. It happens."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Of course, I should've thought about that. Now that you mentioned it, Reichsminister Alfred [B][U]Rosenberg[/U] [/B] was probably a Marrano too.

:tongue:

[COLOR=Navy][B] [I]- "There was an old Jew rancher in my area that supposedly developed the Red Brangus breed. About ten years ago he subdivided his ranch on the Pedernales river into "ranchettes". His name was Mike Levy."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Perhaps nowadays it isn't such an anomaly as it used to be, but in the [B]1880s?[/B] Please.

Petr

travis

2005-01-31 14:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr] Of course, I should've thought about that. Now that you mentioned it, Reichsminister Alfred [B][U]Rosenberg[/U] [/B] was probably a Marrano too.

Never heard of him. What's the relevance?>

Perhaps nowadays it isn't such an anomaly as it used to be, but in the [B]1880s?[/B] Please.

Petr[/QUOTE]I had heard Levy was 80 years old ten years ago. That puts him only about 20 years away from the 1880's at birth.

Jews are in all walks of life, all professions. But I agree with your point that they are more likely found in professions that suit their high intellect and/or collusion. But one thing for sure is that they are almost always quite successful and often achieved it using controversial means such as coercion and political connections. I don't know if you know much about the King/Kleberg ranch, but the methods used to create/acquire the ranch were extremely unethical and could only have been done with the right political connections and media protection from scrutiny. So it fits modus operandi to the T.

I agree with you that Jewish Tribal Review is a pretty good source. I offer that link to a wide range of people who might be offended by most other racialist sites. But you seem to assert that the truth is what is palatable to others. Truth exists independently of what is palatable. I agree that one should use good strategies (and avoid poor ones) when enlightening the TV addled masses about race, but one should not get confused between what is strategic and what is true.

You seem to be saying, as so many on the phora, that if something would draw poor responses if we were to convey it, then it must not be true. But this site is not fot the masses, it is for racialists, and we should sort out the facts first and then and only then determine the best ways to convey them.

Just because the Jews who have control of the colleges and media tell students that it's "scholary" or "professional" to rely on their regurgitations does not mean that there are no other ways to sort fact from fallacy.

When people discover that almost everything they have read, learned and heard in their life came from an entity that has siezed most of the influence in the world and has ulterior motives, THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP IS TO SHOW THEM THEY NEED TO RE-EVALUATE ALMOST EVERYTHING THEY HAVE READ AND HEARD FROM THESE SOURCES, not look for sugar-coated half-truths that might be palatable to them.

Petr

2005-01-31 15:08 | User Profile

[COLOR=Purple][B][I] - "Never heard of him. What's the relevance?"[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Sorry, it's time to say it to your face - you're an amateur. Anyone who has deeply studied the Jewish question would know this guy.

Alfred Rosenberg was one of the main guys prosecuted and hanged at Nuremberg trials:

[COLOR=Blue][B]"He is considered the main author of key Nazi ideological tenets, including its racial theory, Lebensraum, abolition of the Versailles Treaty, and persecution of the Jews and Christian churches."[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Rosenberg[/url]

In the 1920s, when Hitler was in prison, he was the official leader of the Nazi Party!

[COLOR=Purple][I][B] - "I had heard Levy was 80 years old ten years ago. That puts him only about 20 years away from the 1880's at birth."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

But do you know whether he had spent his whole life in Texas? Many New York Jews started to move to inland (like Atlanta) in the latter part of the 20th century.

[COLOR=Purple][I] [B]- "I don't know if you know much about the King/Kleberg ranch, but the methods used to create/acquire the ranch were extremely unethical and could only have been done with the right political connections and media protection from scrutiny. So it fits modus operandi to the T."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

I don't think that Jews wielded much political power in the South or controlled the American media in the 1880s, and believe it or not, Gentiles can sometimes behave quite unethically too.

[COLOR=Purple][I][B] - "Truth exists independently of what is palatable."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

That applies to you and your sense of palatability as well. Truth also exists independently from your wild imagination and esotericism.

Petr

travis

2005-01-31 15:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][ Truth also exists independently from your wild imagination and esotericism. [/QUOTE] Is means, motive, (physical) evidence, opportunity, modus operandi and modus agendi "wild imagination and esotericism"? Like Fade, you seem to reject any means of seperating the wheat from the chaff besides relying on Jewish sources.

Petr

2005-01-31 15:19 | User Profile

[COLOR=Purple][B][I] - "Is means, motive, (physical) evidence, opportunity, modus operandi and modus agendi "wild imagination and esotericism"?"[/I][/B][/COLOR]

I'd say that your approach is [I]pseudo-rational[/I]. You argue in circles when you assume that since you [B]know [/B] that Jews are all-powerful, all powerful people must be either Jews or their puppets.

Petr

travis

2005-01-31 15:46 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Purple]

Petr[/QUOTE] Anwer the question, please. Do you, like Fade, reject means, motive, (physical) evidence, opportunity, modus operandi and modus agendi as a means of separating the wheat from the chaff in favor of relying on "sources", most of which have strong Jewish influence?

Petr

2005-01-31 15:52 | User Profile

[B][I] - "Do you, like Fade, reject means, motive, (physical) evidence, opportunity, modus operandi and modus agendi as a means of separating the wheat from the chaff in favor of relying on "sources", most of which have strong Jewish influence?"[/I][/B]

What does this blather actually mean? I think I've been dealing with some quite concrete "physical evidence" all the time.

Petr

travis

2005-01-31 16:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]

What does this blather actually mean? I think I've been dealing with some quite concrete "physical evidence" all the time.

Petr[/QUOTE]There is a difference between physical eveidence and just "evidence". A gun with fingerprints, for example is physical evidence. A website or a book is just "evidence", as is someone's word.

If someone stole your handgun and shot your sister, then placed the gun in your car, physical evidence would "prove" you are guilty. But it takes many kinds of proof besides physical evidence to actually prove something beyond any shadow of doubt. In the above scenario, your defence would be that you did not have a motive to shoot your sister, that since you were in China at the time of the murder, you did not have the opportunity to shoot her, you demonstrate that you have no history of emotional violent behavior (modus operandi) etc... If you found yourself in the above sitation, I doubt you would regard means, motive, (physical) evidence, opportunity, modus operandi and modus agendi as "blather". In the US, detectives and prosecutors use means, motive, (physical) evidence, opportunity, modus operandi and modus agendi as a means of uncovering and proving truth. Perhaps in your country they simply pull out the newspapers instead to determine what the facts are.

Petr

2005-01-31 16:47 | User Profile

OK, so where's your physical evidence that Lyndon Johnson, Dubya Bush and even freaking Vladimir Putin are Marranoes?

Petr

Happy Hacker

2005-01-31 18:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Esoterist]"Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for Salvation is of the Jews".

The context looks as if Jesus is explaining that God had revealed himself to the Hebrews and that is the same God the Samaritans need to get to know.

Jesus might have also been refering to himself, the Savior, born of Jewish heritage. Either way, no Jewish supremacy.

"Let the children first be fed, since it isn't good to take bread out of children's mouths and throw it to the dogs!"

This may be parable rather than name-calling. Or, Jesus might have used the phrase to express that he is aware of Jewish bigotry (Jesus was asked to send the woman away) and that his comment was to make a point to Jews. Notice Jesus still granted the woman's request. I guess we can debate whether Jesus gave her some good meat or just crumbs.

If you want to keep points, the balance of Jesus's comments are more anti-Jewish than pro-Jewish. "Ye [unbelieving Jews] are of your father the devil" All that really matters to Jesus is that people accept him as the Son of God. It doesn't matter if you're Jew or gentile.

As I said, I am not trying to be excessively provocative, but how can Christianity be interpreted as anything other than as a extreme Semitic supremacism?

Maybe, if you take a few verses out of context and ignore the vast majority of verses. If Christianity were a form of Semitic Supremacism, it would be wildly popular among Jews, rather than a vile thing to them.

How can Christians approve of such genocidal fanaticism as found in the Jewish Bible?

All the God-approved genocide was done for justice and was tough love for mankind.

If you want to save the white race, you ought to start promoting Christianity. Look at the demographics.

travis

2005-01-31 18:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]OK, so where's your physical evidence that Lyndon Johnson, Dubya Bush and even freaking Vladimir Putin are Marranoes?

Petr[/QUOTE]You're still pushing that Jewish agenda...to focus on "evidence" of the kind they control, instead of means, motive, opportunity, modus operandi and modus agendi, most of which fit LBJ and GWB quite well.

Do the jews have the means to coverty promote Marranos to high positions, including the executive office? Yes. Do Jews have the motive to coverty promote Marranos to high positions, including the oval office? Of course, it has strategic value. Do Jews have the opportunity to promote Marranos to the oval office. Yes. They control most of the media, the means gives them the opportunity. Do Jews have a habit (modus operandi) of using the media to covertly promote their interests at the expense of others? Yes. Do Jews have agendas that they habitually push (modus agendi) at the expense of non-jews? Yes.

Did LBJ and GWB heavily promote Jewish interests and agendas while they were in power? Yes.

I have provided evidence of the non-physical kind, but I suppose it means nothing to you without hearing it from the talking heads on the boob tube.

I have no idea if Putin is a marrano, as I don't follow Russian events that much.

Petr

2005-01-31 18:57 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy][I][B] - "Do the jews have the means to coverty promote Marranos to high positions, including the executive office? Yes."

"Do Jews have the opportunity to promote Marranos to the oval office. Yes. They control most of the media, the means gives them the opportunity."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

This is where we mainly disagree. I do not believe that Jews have power to nominate whomever they want to whatever position they want.

They are not all-powerful movers-and-shakers, just mighty skillful manipulators, wheeler-dealers, and thus manage very often to land on the winning side in conflicts.

(Although they are not too far-sighted, for organized Jewry is going to self-destruct if it keeps up this policy it is now pursuing)

[COLOR=Navy][I][B]- "I have provided evidence of the non-physical kind, but I suppose it means nothing to you without hearing it from the talking heads on the boob tube."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

I watch hardly any TV these days and have almost no respect for "talking heads", but you seem to used to think in crude stereotypes, so why would you make an exception with me?

(And I could have sworn that you said that you suspected Putin to be Jew...)

Petr

travis

2005-01-31 19:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Navy]

This is where we mainly disagree. I do not believe that Jews have power to nominate whomever they want to whatever position they want. They don't need to have to power to nominate when they can selectively and repetitively smear candidates that don't suit their agendas and promote and announce as "front-runner" the ones they like. They can withhold information that might sink their candidates and selectively promote ones with dark secret histories they can use as blackmail, like some of the secret society gentiles in the military industrial establishment that are getting rich under the table. They can shine the spotlight on the silliest issues and completely ignore others when doing so might help their candidates. The opportunities are almost endless and they have had over 150 years of taking notes and perfecting the use of media to these ends. No one knows better the psychological reaction of "news" than they do. >

(Although they are not too far-sighted, for organized Jewry is going to self-destruct if it keeps up this policy it is now pursuing) Are you kidding? Gentiles are focused on instant gratification and Jews have a 10 year plan, a 100 year plan and a 1000 year plan. Planning ahead is a characteristic that generally follows intellect, and they have both. They did not get where they are by accident.>

(And I could have sworn that you said that you suspected Putin to be Jew...)

[/QUOTE]In the real world, nearly anyone who has social position is suspect of being at least part Jewish, but that doesn't mean I'm making a specific assertion that Putin IS a Jew.

Petr

2005-01-31 19:52 | User Profile

[COLOR=Indigo][B][I] - "Are you kidding? Gentiles are focused on instant gratification and Jews have a 10 year plan, a 100 year plan and a 1000 year plan. Planning ahead is a characteristic that generally follows intellect, and they have both. They did not get where they are by accident."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

I am beginning to get tired with your thinly-veiled [B]Gentile self-hatred [/B] and [B]reverse Jew-worship[/B].

Your Jews are mythological super-beings, not humans of flesh and blood.

Petr

travis

2005-01-31 19:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr] I am beginning to get tired with your thinly-veiled [B]Gentile self-hatred [/B] and [B]reverse Jew-worship[/B].

Petr[/QUOTE]Recognizing the enemy's strengths and our own weakness is self-preservation, not self-hatred. Closing your eyes about the enemy's strengths and our own weaknesses is suicidal.

Esoterist

2005-02-01 06:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Like Okie already said, to use terms like "Semitic" (or "Aryan") is completely anachronistic in this issue - why, those nations that Israelites smashed (Midianites, Amalekites, Canaanites) were Semites themselves.[/QUOTE]Different sets of individuals express different hereditary potentials. Semitics, as Middle Old World Herders, are characterized by collectivistic, authoritarian social structures and dogmatic, hyper-ethnocentric ideology.

[url="http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/km-understanding.html"]http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/km-understanding.html[/url]

The designation "Aryan" is valid and is emprically tied to the foraging races and tribes of the Northern-Arctic regions and their descendents. Aryans are characterized by relatively individualistic social structures and a 'Faustian', scientific ideology. Julius Evola, the conservative Roman philosopher, has this to say concerning the Aryan-Nordic type:

"By virtue of the occult relationship that exists between what takes place on the visible plane (which is apparently shaped according to external conditions) and that which conveys a deep and even spiritual meaning, we can refer to environmental and climatic factors in order to explain analogically [racial differentiation]. The experience of the sun, of light, and of fire itself naturally acted in the Northern races as a liberating spirituality, especially during the long glacial winter; Uranian and solar, Olympian, or fiery figures also played a major role in the symbolism of these races. Moreover, the rigorous climate, barren soil, and need for hunting as well as the need to migrate across unknown seas and continents naturally shaped those who innerly retained this spiritual experience of the sun, bright sky, and fire into warriors, conquerors, and navigators, and thus furthered that synthesis of virility and spirituality, the characteristic traces of which were retained in the Indo-European races".

The Semite/Aryan typology is crucially valid and important on various levels. Have you ever wondered why legitimate scientific inquiry and the idea of philosophy only developed in ancient Greece and certain other Indo-European-dominated areas? Jews have never created anything beyond the self-referential hallucinations of their autistic, in-group mass psychosis.

My argument is that Christianity cannot transcend its tyrannical Judaic roots in spite of its Pauline pseudo-universalism, and is incompatible with archetypal Indo-European civilization.

[QUOTE]The God of the Bible is hard but fair -[/QUOTE]Yes, I have some notion of the vicious, genocidal demon-god of the Old Testament and his autocratic arbitrariness and rationalizations. This god is merely a projection of the resentful racial egotism of the perpetually enslaved Jews, whose well-known disgraceful earthly impotence was compensated for by means of a misanthropic and megalomaniacal ideology of racial 'specialness' and satanic self-identification with divinity itself. One only has to glance at the Book of Numbers, wherein the genocidal demon-god delights in blood as his people "waged the campaign against Midian, as Yahweh had ordered Moses, and they put every male to death... the sons of Israel took the Midianite women captive with their young children, and plundered all their cattle, all their flocks and all their goods. They set fire to the towns where they lived and all their encampments... Then, when they took the captives, spoil and booty to Moses..., Moses was enraged.... 'why have you spared the life of all the women...? So kill all the male children. Kill also all the women who have slept with a man. Spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take them for yourselves" {Num 31: 7-19}. Yes, now we have a nice and clear idea of what "Jewish humanity" constitues, and this god's eminent "fairness".

Anyhow, are you aware that the 'inerrant Word' you rely on is made up of the after-the-fact insertions and rationalizations of the 6th century BC revisionist Jewish priesthood which assembled and edited these 'holy scriptures' after Israel's humiliating military subjugations?

[QUOTE]In the same manner, Jesus Christ prophesied that Jews would pay dearly for rejecting Him - by being destroyed again, this time by Romans in 70 AD![/QUOTE]According to your scriptures, the Rabbi Jesus has declared in no uncertain terms "salvation is of the Jews". How can you misunderstand him? It is untenable how you try to set up an opposition between Jesus and his Jewish identity. Jesus faulted the Jews of his time for not adhering to the Torah. Jesus did not oppose the general collectivity of Jews as you imply, but only those 'reactionary' Jews unreceptive to his philosophy. Jesus' prophecy of destruction is convenient, seeing as how the New Testament was written to justify the proto-bolshevist Christian movement to naturally suspicious citizens of the Roman Empire after Jerusalem's annihilation by the Romans. For all we know, Jesus may have been a militant Zionist insurrectionist who perished in Rome's defeat of Judea.

[QUOTE]Canaanites were a very decadent and vicious race themselves - God used Israel as His instrument of vengeance to make them pay their sins, like He later used Spanish conquistadors to crush Aztecs, whose religion of human sacrifice and ritual homosexuality was actually much like that of Canaanites.[/QUOTE]How can you feel morally clean after stating that entire civilizations merit destruction? The pathological hatred of 'pagans' and barbaric destruction-lust of the parasitic Jewish mentality expresses itself in full force here. No matter what possible useful gifts and achievements these civilizations might have made, they are consigned to nothingness in a schizophrenic orgy of self-righteousness. This is a perfect example of the totalitarian, irrational mind-set incompatible with the Western spirit.

[QUOTE]As for that Canaanite woman anecdote - Lord Jesus delivered many "hard sayings" on many occasions but He also aimed them at Jews, like the one in Matthew 8; He praises Roman centurion and predicts damnation at obstinate Jews![/QUOTE] Yes, Gentiles are acceptable to Rabbi Jesus on condition that they recognize their inferior natural place in the order of things and accept Jewish metaphysical supremacy; for, after all, "Salvation is of the Jews" (Jn 4:22). Is Jesus being "merciful" in allowing Gentiles to throw their 'heathen' heritage away and become bondmen to Jews?

John the Baptist was merely critiquing certain imprudently vain Jews, not the Jewish people, and certainly not the significance of the "Abrahamic project for humanity".

Esoterist

2005-02-01 06:41 | User Profile

The following article was written by Marcus Eli Ravage, a Jewish writer who was the RothschildsÃ¢â¬â¢ (the Jewish bankers) approved biographer. It appeared in THE CENTURY MAGAZINE, JANUARY 1928, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 346-350. The original was in two-column format.

A REAL CASE AGAINST THE JEWS One of Them Points Out the Full Depth of Their Guilt

MARCUS ELI RAVAGE

OF COURSE, you do resent us. It is no good telling me you donÃ¢â¬â¢t. So let us not waste any time on denials and alibis. You know you do, and I know it, and we understand each other. To be sure, some of your best friends are Jews, and all that. I have heard that before once or twice, I think. And I know, too, that you do not include me personallyÃ¢â¬âÃ¢â¬ÅmeÃ¢â¬Â being any particular individual JewÃ¢â¬âwhen you fling out at us in your wholesale fashion, because I am, well, so different, donÃ¢â¬â¢t you know, almost as good as one of yourselves. That little exemption does not, somehow, move me to gratitude; but never mind that now. It is the aggressive, climbing, pushing, materialistic sort you dislikeÃ¢â¬âthose, in a word, who remind you so much of your own up-and-coming brethren. We understand each other perfectly. I donÃ¢â¬â¢t hold it against you.

Bless my soul, I do not blame anybody for disliking anybody. The thing that intrigues me about this anti-Jewish business, as you play at it, is your total lack of grit. You are so indirect and roundabout with it, you make such transparent excuses, you seem to be suffering from self-consciousness so horribly, that if the performance were not grotesque, it would be irritating.

It is not as if you were amateurs: you have been at it for over fifteen centuries. Yet watching you and hearing your childish pretexts, one might get the impression that you did not know yourselves what it is all about. You resent us, but you cannot clearly say why. You think up a new excuseÃ¢â¬âa Ã¢â¬ÅreasonÃ¢â¬Â is what you call itÃ¢â¬âevery other day. You have been piling up justifications for yourselves these many hundreds of years and each new invention is more laughable than the last and each new excuse contradicts and annihilates the last.

Not so many years ago I used to hear that we were money-grubbers and commercial materialists; now the complaint is being whispered around that no art and no profession is safe against Jewish invasion.

We are, if you are to be believed, at once clannish and exclusive and unassimilable because we wonÃ¢â¬â¢t intermarry with you, and we are also climbers and pushers and a menace to your racial integrity.

Our standard of living is so low that we create your slums and sweated industries, and so high that we crowd you out of your best residential sections.

We shirk our patriotic duty in wartime because we are pacifists by nature and tradition, and we are the arch-plotters of universal wars and the chief beneficiaries of those wars (see the late Ã¢â¬ÅDearborn Independent,Ã¢â¬Â passim, and Ã¢â¬ÅThe Protocols of the Elders of ZionÃ¢â¬Â).

We are at once the founders and leading adherents of capitalism and the chief perpetrators of the rebellion against capitalism.

Surely, history has nothing like us for versatility!

And, oh! I almost forgot the reason of reasons. We are the stiff-necked people who never accepted Christianity, and we are the criminal people who crucified its founder.

But I can tell you, you are self-deceivers. You lack either the self-knowledge or the mettle to face the facts squarely and own up to the truth. You resent the Jew not because, as some of you seem to think, he crucified Jesus but because he gave him birth. Your real quarrel with us is not that we have rejected Christianity but that we have imposed it upon you!

Your loose, contradictory charges against us are not a patch on the blackness of our proved historic offense. You accuse us of stirring up revolution in Moscow. Suppose we admit the charge. What of it? Compared with what Paul the Jew of Tarsus accomplished in Rome, the Russian upheaval is a mere street brawl.

You make much noise and fury about the undue Jewish influence in your theaters and movie palaces. Very good; granted your complaint is well-founded. But what is that compared to our staggering influence in your churches, your schools, your laws and your governments, and the very thoughts you think every day?

A clumsy Russian forges a set of papers and publishes them in a book called Ã¢â¬ÅThe Protocols of the Elders of Zion,Ã¢â¬Â which shows that we plotted to bring on the late World War. You believe that book. All right. For the sake of argument we will underwrite every word of it. It is genuine and authentic. But what is that beside the unquestionable historical conspiracy which we have carried out, which we have never denied because you never had the courage to charge us with it, and of which the full record is extant for anybody to read?

If you really are serious when you talk of Jewish plots, may I not direct your attention to one worth talking about? What use is it wasting words on the alleged control of your public opinion by Jewish financiers, newspaper owners and movie magnates, when you might as well justly accuse us of the proved control of your whole civilization by the Jewish Gospels?

You have not begun to appreciate the real depth of our guilt. We are intruders. We are disturbers. We are subverters. We have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them. We have been at the bottom not merely of the latest great war but of nearly all your wars, not only of the Russian but of every other major revolution in your history. We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal and public life. We are still doing it. No one can tell how long we shall go on doing it.

Look back a little and see what has happened. Nineteen hundred years ago you were an innocent, care-free, pagan race. You worshipped countless gods and goddesses, the spirits of the air, of the running streams and of the woodland. You took unblushing pride in the glory of your naked bodies. You carved images of your gods and of the tantalizing human figure. You delighted in the combats of the field, the arena and the battle-ground. War and slavery were fixed institutions in your systems. Disporting yourselves on the hillsides and in the valleys of the great outdoors, you took to speculating on the wonder and mystery of life and laid the foundations of natural science and philosophy. Yours was a noble, sensual culture, unirked by the prickings of a social conscience or by any sentimental questionings about human equality. Who knows what great and glorious destiny might have been yours if we had left you alone.

But we did not leave you alone. We took you in hand and pulled down the beautiful and generous structure you had reared, and changed the whole course of your history. We conquered you as no empire of yours ever subjugated Africa or Asia. And we did it all without armies, without bullets, without blood or turmoil, without force of any kind. We did it solely by the irresistible might of our spirit, with ideas, with propaganda.

We made you the willing and unconscious bearers of our mission to the whole world, to the barbarous races of the earth, to the countless unborn generations. Without fully understanding what we were doing to you, you became the agents at large of our racial tradition, carrying our gospel to the unexplored ends of the earth.

Our tribal customs have become the core of your moral code. Our tribal laws have furnished the basic groundwork of all your august constitutions and legal systems. Our legends and our folk tales are the sacred lore which you croon to your infants. Our poets have filled your hymnals and your prayer books. Our national history has become an indispensable part of your pastors and priests and scholars. Our kings, our statesmen, our prophets, our warriors are your heroes. Our ancient little country is your Holy Land. Our national literature is your Holy Bible. What our people thought and taught has become inextricably woven into your very speech and tradition, until no one among you can be called educated who is not familiar with our racial heritage.

Jewish artisans and Jewish fishermen are your teachers and your saints, with countless statues carved in their image and innumerable cathedrals raised to their memories. A Jewish maiden is your ideal of womanhood. A Jewish rebel-prophet is the central figure in your religious worship. We have pulled down your idols, cast aside your racial inheritance, and substituted for them our God and our traditions. No conquest in history can even remotely compare with this clean sweep of our conquest over you.

How did we do it? Almost by accident. Two thousand years ago nearly, in far-off Palestine, our religion had fallen into decay and materialism. Money-changers were in possession of the temple. Degenerate, selfish priests mulcted our people and grew fat. Then a young patriot-idealist arose and went about the land calling for a revival of faith. He had no thought of setting up a new church. Like all the prophets before him, his only aim was to purify and revitalize the old creed. He attacked the priests and drove the money-changers from the temple. This brought him into conflict with the established order and its supporting pillars. The Roman authorities, who were in occupation of the country, fearing his revolutionary agitation as a political effort to oust them, arrested him, tried him and condemned him to death by crucifixion, a common form of execution at that time.

The followers of Jesus of Nazareth, mainly slaves and poor workmen, in their bereavement and disappointment, turned away from the world and formed themselves into a brotherhood of pacifist non-resisters, sharing the memory of their crucified leader and living together communistically. They were merely a new sect in Judea, without power or consequence, neither the first nor the last.

Only after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans did the new creed come into prominence. Then a patriotic Jew named Paul or Saul conceived the idea of humbling the Roman power by destroying the morale or its soldiery with the doctrines of love and non-resistance preached by the little sect of Jewish Christians. He became the Apostle to the Gentiles, he who hitherto had been one of the most active persecutors of the band. And so well did Paul do his work that within four centuries the great empire which had subjugated Palestine along with half of the world, was a heap of ruins. And the law which went forth from Zion became the official religion of Rome.

This was the beginning of our dominance in your world. But it was only a beginning. From this time forth your history is little more than a struggle for mastery between your own old pagan spirit and our Jewish spirit. Half your wars, great and little, are religious wars, fought over the interpretation of one thing or another in our teachings. You no sooner broke free from your primitive religious simplicity and attempted the practice of the pagan Roman learning than Luther armed with our gospels arose to down you and enthrone our heritage. Take the three principal revolutions in modern timesÃ¢â¬âthe French, the American and the Russian. What are they but the triumph of the Jewish idea of social, political and economic justice?

And the end is still a long way off. We still dominate you. At this very moment your churches are torn asunder by a civil war between Fundamentalists and Modernists, that is to say between those who cling to our teachings and traditions literally and those who are striving by slow steps to dispossess us. In Dayton, Tennessee, a Bible-bred community forbids the teaching of your science because it conflicts with our ancient Jewish account of the origin of life; and Mr. Bryan, the leader of the anti-Jewish Ku Klux Klan in the Democratic National Convention, makes the supreme fight of his life in our behalf, without noticing the contradiction. Again and again the Puritan heritage of Judea breaks out in waves of stage censorship, Sunday blue laws and national prohibition acts. And while these things are happening you twaddle about Jewish influence in the movies!

Is it any wonder you resent us? We have put a clog upon your progress. We have imposed upon you an alien book and an alien faith which you cannot swallow or digest, which is at cross-purposes with your native spirit, which keeps you everlastingly ill-at-ease, and which you lack the spirit either to reject or to accept in full.

In full, of course, you never have accepted our Christian teachings. In your hearts you still are pagans. You still love war and graven images and strife. You still take pride in the glory of the nude human figure. Your social conscience, in spite of all democracy and all your social revolutions, is still a pitifully imperfect thing. We have merely divided your soul, confused your impulses, paralyzed your desires. In the midst of battle you are obliged to kneel down to him who commanded you to turn the other cheek, who said Ã¢â¬ÅResist not evilÃ¢â¬Â and Ã¢â¬ÅBlessed are the peacemakers.Ã¢â¬Â In your lust for gain you are suddenly disturbed by a memory from your Sunday-school days about taking no thought for the morrow. In your industrial struggles, when you would smash a strike without compunction, you are suddenly reminded that the poor are blessed and that men are brothers in the Fatherhood of the Lord. And as you are about to yield to temptation, your Jewish training puts a deterrent hand on your shoulder and dashes the brimming cup from your lips. You Christians have never become Christianized. To that extent we have failed with you. But we have forever spoiled the fun of paganism for you.

So why should you not resent us? If we were in your place we should probably dislike you more cordially than you do us. But we should make no bones about telling you why. We should not resort to subterfuges and transparent pretexts. With millions of painfully respectable Jewish shopkeepers all about us we should not insult your intelligence and our own honesty by talking about communism as a Jewish philosophy. And with millions of hard-working impecunious Jewish peddlers and laborers we should not make ourselves ridiculous by talking about international capitalism as a Jewish monopoly. No, we should go straight to the point. We should contemplate this confused, ineffectual muddle which we call civilization, this half-Christian half-pagan medley, andÃ¢â¬âwere our places reversedÃ¢â¬âwe should say to you point-blank: Ã¢â¬ÅFor this mess thanks to you, to your prophets and to your Bible.Ã¢â¬Â

IronWorker

2005-02-01 07:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE][COLOR=Navy][B] [I]- "There was an old Jew rancher in my area that supposedly developed the Red Brangus breed. About ten years ago he subdivided his ranch on the Pedernales river into "ranchettes". His name was Mike Levy."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Perhaps nowadays it isn't such an anomaly as it used to be, but in the [B]1880s?[/B] Please.

Petr[/QUOTE]

Alright lets take another look at that link I have already posted:

The first Jewish settlers of note in Texas were Samuel Issacks (1821) followed by N. Adolphus Sterne (1826).3 By 1838, Jews were living in Galveston, San Antonio, Velasco, Bolivar, Nacogdoches, and Goliad.4 In the early part of the twentieth century, a large of number of Russian Jews migrated to Texas to escape persecution from the Russian Czar. Between 1900 and 1920, the Jewish population in Texas grew from 15,000 to 30,000. Major cities, Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, and San Antonio, experienced enormous growth in Jewish populations.5 The overall number of Jews in Texas has steadily increased ever since. After World War II, the abundance of Jewish residents grew from an estimated 50,000 in 1945 to 71,000 in the mid-1970s and 92,000 in 1988.6

Before 1821, Texas was still a Spanish colony where only Catholics could take up residence. Jews who openly acknowledged their ethnicity could not legally live there.7 Originally, Jews migrated to Texas to seek fortune and freedom. The earliest Jews, who arrived with the conquistadors, came from Sephardic (Spanish-North African-Israel) communities.8 After the Mexican period, Jewry in Texas was essentially populated by immigrants from Germany, eastern Europe, and the Americas.9

Link: www.jfkmontreal.com/johnson's_hidden_loyalties.htm

THERE ARE JEWS IN TEXAS!

Petr

2005-02-01 07:30 | User Profile

[I][B] - "THERE ARE JEWS IN TEXAS!"[/B][/I]

These people were peddlers in cities, not any ranchers.

Petr

IronWorker

2005-02-01 07:35 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Purple][B][I] - "Never heard of him. What's the relevance?"[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Sorry, it's time to say it to your face - you're an amateur. Anyone who has deeply studied the Jewish question would know this guy.

The jewish Question doesn't focus solely around the glorious years of National Socialist Germany, Petr.

These peoples have been an issue since biblical time and there are all sorts of different personages one can be familiar with and STILL be well informed about how jewish supremacism operates.

Frankly, I think Travis is more onto how things work now-a-days then you.

wild_bill

2005-02-01 07:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE=IronWorker]Alright lets take another look at that link I have already posted: Link: www.jfkmontreal.com/johnson's_hidden_loyalties.htm

THERE ARE JEWS IN TEXAS![/QUOTE]

BTW, I've been searching Jewish genealogy resources and can find no support for LBJ being Jewish. All the family names (Perrin, Huffman, and Ament) were used by mostly non-Jews. I suspect if LBJ was in fact a Jew or had any significant Jewish ancestry, the Jews would be bragging about it like they do with any other famous person who has any Jewish ancestry.

The person making this claim needs to produce some actual evidence of Jewishness. Just assuming that a man is Jewish because some ancestor had a name that could be Jewish doesn't prove anything. There needs to be some Jewish document or reference to Jewishness in some official record.

I'm going to check into Lady Bird next.

Petr

2005-02-01 07:41 | User Profile

[COLOR=Indigo][I][B] - "The designation "Aryan" is valid and is emprically tied to the foraging races and tribes of the Northern-Arctic regions and their descendents. Aryans are characterized by relatively individualistic social structures and a 'Faustian', scientific ideology." [/B] [/I] [/COLOR]

Neo-pagan revisionist nonsense. In fact, as N.S. Berdyaev argues, "the Faustian" scientific soul originates rather from Christianity than from Classical culture:

[url]http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1922_059.html[/url]

[COLOR=Blue][SIZE=3][B]"The Pre-Death Thoughts of Faust" [/B] [/SIZE]

...

[B]Spengler's thoughts on antiquity are very insightful. And it mustneeds be admitted, that Greek thought did not know of a philosophy of history. [/B] It was not a matter of either Plato, or of Aristotle. The point of view of a philosophy of history is contrary to the aesthetic ponderings of the Hellene. The world for him was a completed cosmos. Hellenic thought created the Hellenic metaphysics, so inconducive for conceiving the world as an historical process. Spengler senses himself as an European man with a Faustian soul, with its infinite aspirations. He not only sets himself distinct from ancient man, he moreover asserts, that the ancient soul for him is inconceivable, is impenetrable. This however does not prevent him from drawing upon its understanding and insights. But does history exist for Spengler himself, is he one for whom there is a world, as history, and not as nature? I think, that for Spengler history does not exist and for him a philosophy of history is impossible. Not by chance did he call his book a morphology of world history. The morphological perspective derives from nature-knowledge. Historical fate, the fate of culture exists for Spengler only in that sense, that fate exists for a flower. The historical fate of mankind does not exist. There does not exist a single mankind, a single subject of history. Christianity was the first to have rendered possible a philosophy of history, in that it revealed the existence of a single mankind with a single historical fate, having its own beginning and end. Thus first for the Christian consciousness is revealed the tragedy of world history, the fate of mankind. Spengler however turns back to the pagan particularism. For him there is no mankind, no worldwide history. Cultures, races -- are isolated monads with an isolated fate. For him the varied types of culture experience a cyclical turning of their own fate. He returns to the Hellenic perspective, which was surpassed by the Christian consciousness. With Spengler the Baptismal water as it were was missing. He abjures his own Christian blood. And for him, just as for the Hellene, there does not exist the perspective of an historical remoteness. The historically remote distance exists only in this instance, if there exists an historical fate of mankind, a worldwide history, if each type of culture is but a moment of a worldwide fate.

  [B] The Faustian soul with its endless aspirations, with the distance opening up before it, is the soul of the Christian period of history. [/B] [B]This Christianity shatters the boundaries of the ancient world, with its delimited and narrowed horizons[/B]. After the appearance of Christianity in the world, an infinity opened up. Christianity rendered possible the Faustian mathematics, the mathematics of the endless. Of this Spengler is not at all aware. He does not posit the appearance of the Faustian soul in any sort of connection with Christianity. He has made an examination of the significance of Christianity for European culture, for the fate of European culture. This fate however -- is a Christian fate. He wants to push Christianity back exclusively to the sense of a magical soul, to a type of Hebrew and Arabic culture, to the east. And he thus dooms himself to a lack of understanding of the meaning of European culture.

...[/COLOR]

Besides, Persians and Hindus are also "Aryans," and their culture was and is very collectivistic in its nature.

Why, the ancient Persians went even much further than the Hebrews in marrying within the family:

[SIZE=3][B]"On a possible lack of incest regulations in old Iran "[/B][/SIZE]

[url]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/9567/Incest2-1.html[/url]

Petr

IronWorker

2005-02-01 07:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][I][B] - "THERE ARE JEWS IN TEXAS!"[/B][/I]

These people were peddlers in cities, not any ranchers.

Petr[/QUOTE]

Alright, setting aside Kinky Friedman for a moment...

Mensch on the range

Jonathan Kirsch discusses Jewish Life in the American West,the realÃ¢â¬âlife saga of Jewish cowboys and collective farmers: Ã¢â¬ÅThe two young men whose portrait adorns the cover of Jewish Life in the American West are brothers, although they could hardly be more distinct in appearance. One is a dapper urbanite in coat, collar and tie. The other is wearing the iconic apparel of the American cowboy: a set of chaps on his legs, a holstered sixÃ¢â¬âgun on his hip, a bandana around his throat, a Stetson on his head and a lariat in his hand. The arresting image reminds us that the Jewish immigrant experience in America did not always begin (or end) at Ellis Island and the Lower East Side of New York...Ã¢â¬Â

Link: [url]http://www.californiaauthors.com/archives/00000189.shtml [/url]

Petr

2005-02-01 12:02 | User Profile

Ironworker:

These few exceptions only confirm the rule. The chances of being born to a Jewish rancher family in Texas in 1887 were astronomical.

And if Kleberg had really been Jewish, his middle name wouldn't have been "[B]Mifflin[/B]", and he wouldn't have had a cousin named "[B]Robert Christian Eckhardt[/B]".

Petr

2005-02-01 14:25 | User Profile

[I][B] - "The following article was written by Marcus Eli Ravage, a Jewish writer who was the RothschildsÃ¢â¬â¢ (the Jewish bankers) approved biographer."[/B][/I]

I see this stuff often circulated uncritically by anti-Christian Nazis. Ravage shows up hardly anywhere else in the Net except as the author of these two puny articles, and by the number of gross errors he makes I can conclude that he is an entirely worthless source.

I have already ripped this nonsense to shreds in Phora forum, here:

[url]http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5829&highlight=ravage[/url]

and here:

[url]http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4509&highlight=ravage[/url]

[COLOR=Blue][B]"And do you really believe in the crap that Ravage is shoveling in here:

(If he's not just making fun of anti-Semites, trying to make their beliefs look ridiculous, he seems to fit the psychological type of "pathological confessor" to a T.)[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed][I]" We have been at the bottom of not merely the latest Great War but of nearly all your wars, not only of the Russian but of nearly every other major revolution in your history.

"We undoubtedly had a sizeable finger in the Lutheran Rebellion, and it is simply a fact that we were the prime movers in the bourgeois democratic revolutions of the century before the last, both in France and America. "[/I][/COLOR]

[COLOR=Blue]Yeah, American revolution was the work of Jews, dontcha know.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed][I]" Only after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans did the new creed come into prominence. Then a patriotic Jew named Paul or Saul conceived the idea of humbling the Roman power by destroying the morale of its soldiery with the doctrines of love and non- resistance preached by the little sect of Jewish Christians. "[/I][/COLOR]

[COLOR=Blue]OK, now it's clear that Ravage was either entirely ignorant of his subject, or was consciously PARODYING the primitive propaganda of Nietzschean anti-Christian anti-Semites.

You see, Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Paul had already been martyred few years earlier in the Neronian persecution, and had began his evangelism decades before that, around 33 AD.

Elementary, my dear neo-pagans. Ravage was either a moron or making fun of YOU, like Jerry Springer inviting skinheads to his show to embarrass themselves.[/B][/COLOR]"

Petr

2005-02-01 14:42 | User Profile

[B][I] - "Anyhow, are you aware that the 'inerrant Word' you rely on is made up of the after-the-fact insertions and rationalizations of the 6th century BC revisionist Jewish priesthood which assembled and edited these 'holy scriptures' after Israel's humiliating military subjugations? "[/I][/B]

You think these theories are anything new to me? JEDP paradigm is old, moldy, and discredited. The archaic form of Hebrew that the Pentateuch is written with [B]alone[/B] makes it impossible to date [B]any[/B] part of it in the post-exilic era.

You neo-pagans think you are so smart, and that we are so dumb. With [I]way [/I] too much self-confidence, you rely on decades, centuries-old anti-Christian theories and are not even aware that intelligent Christians, and even capable secular scholars, have already refuted them.

Here you can find a wealth of material on the JEDP issue:

[url]http://www.tektonics.org/TK-J.html[/url]

Here's a recent book by a [U]secular[/U] scholar that slaughters one of your another pet theories, the pagan-borrowing:

[COLOR=Blue][B]"Looking back even further, B argues that rather than early Jews inheriting resurrection from Zoroastrianism, later Zoroastrians adopt the notion from Christianity. In a similar vein he argues for the likelihood that a number of pagan cults in late antiquity develop their interest in resurrection from the Christians as well."[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2002/2002-07-04.html[/url]

:lol:

Petr

2005-02-01 15:16 | User Profile

[I][B] - "The Semite/Aryan typology is crucially valid and important on various levels. Have you ever wondered why legitimate scientific inquiry and the idea of philosophy only developed in ancient Greece and certain other Indo-European-dominated areas? Jews have never created anything beyond the self-referential hallucinations of their autistic, in-group mass psychosis."[/B][/I]

I can notice your intentionally offensive attitude. I will smash some of your neo-pagan Aryanist delusions here:

The Semites have created alphabets for [B]both[/B] European and Indo-Persian Aryans.

Yes, for Indians as well. See, the Aramaic script was adopted by Persians when they conquered Mesopotamia and were culturally "conquered by those whom they had conquered". Semitic scribes had monopoly on bureaucracy in the Achaemenian Empire, and the Avesta was written in Aramaic letters:

[url]http://iranianlanguages.com/midiranian/midpersian.htm[/url]

From the Persian empire, Aramaic script spread to northern India, where Brahmins began to use it:

[I][B][SIZE=3]"Brahmi Alphabet[/SIZE][/B] [COLOR=DarkGreen] [B]The Brahmi alphabet is the ancestor of most of the 40 or so modern Indian alphabets, and of a number of other alphabets, such as Khmer and Tibetan. [U]It is thought to have been modelled on the Aramaic or Phoenician alphabets, and appeared in India sometime before 500 BC.[/U] It was used to write a variety of languages, including Sanskrit and Prakrit.

The earliest known inscriptions in the Brahmi alphabet are those of King Asoka (c.270-232 BC), third monarch of the Mauryan dynasty."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.omniglot.com/writing/brahmi.htm[/url] [COLOR=Red] [B]"Until the discovery of the Indus Valley Civilization in 1920, ancient India seemingly had two main scripts in which languages were written, Brahmi and Kharosti. The Brahmi script developed under Semitic influence around 7th c. BC, and was originally written from right to left. The Kharosti script came into being during the 5th c. BC in northwest India which was under Persian rule. Although the origin of the Brahmi script is uncertain, the Kharosti script is commonly accepted as a direct descendant from the Aramaic alphabet. The direction of writing in the Kharosti script is as in Aramaic, from right to left, and there is also a likeness of many signs having similar phonetic value." [/B] [/COLOR]

[url]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2104/scripts.html[/url]

It is not for nothing that Hebrew and Sanskrit scripts look quite alike...

The first major Greek philosopher, Pythagoras, was quite possibly a Semite:

[COLOR=Purple]"[B]Pythagoras's father, Mnesarchus was a merchant who came from Tyre[/B], and there is a story12,13 that he brought corn to Samos at a time of famine and was granted citizenship of Samos as a mark of gratitude. As a child Pythagoras spent his early years in Samos but travelled widely with his father. [B]There are accounts of Mnesarchus returning to Tyre with Pythagoras and that he was taught there by the Chaldaeans and the learned men of Phoenicia and was initiated into the 'Ancient Mysteries' of the Phoenicians c. 548 B.C. and studied for about 3 years in the temples of Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos. [/B] It seems that he also visited Italy with his father."[/COLOR]

[COLOR=Purple]12. Porphyry, Vita Pythagorae (Leipzig, 1886),

Porphyry, Life of Pythogoras in M Hadas and M Smith, Heroes and Gods (London, 1965).. [/COLOR]

[url]http://phoenicia.org/pythagoras.html[/url]

As was the founder of the Stoic school of philosophy, Zeno of Citium:

One Stoic, Zenodotos, wrote an epigram about of Zeno:

[COLOR=Navy][B]"With much toil thou didst found a great new school, Chaste parent of unfearing liberty, And if thy native country was Phoenicia, What need to slight thee? Came not Cadmos thence, Who gave to Greece her books and art of writing?"[/B][/COLOR]

(from Diogenes Laertius' "Lives and Doctrines of Great Philosophers", book 7:30)

Also:

[COLOR=RoyalBlue][B]"These two later developments of Greek philosophy both took root and grew to maturity in Greek soil. But while the seed of the one [Epicureanism] was strictly Hellenic, the other [Stoicism] was derived from an eastern stock. Epicurus was a Greek of the Greeks, a child of Athenian parents. Zeno [the founder of Stoicism] on the other hand, a native of Citium, a Phoenician colony in Crete, and probably of Semitic race, for he is commonly called Ã¢â¬Ëthe Phoenician.Ã¢â¬â¢ Babylon, Tyre, Sidon, Carthage, reared some of his most illustrious of his successors. Not a single Stoic of any name was a native of Greece proper."[/B][/COLOR]

Lightfoot, Philippians, p.273

[url]http://www.askelm.com/people/peo019.htm[/url]

Semitic Neoplatonist Iamblichus was adored by Julian the Apostate, the hero of neo-pagans:

[COLOR=DarkOliveGreen][B]"At a time when most wealthy families chose Greek names, Iamblichus chose to retain his Semitic name, perhaps to honor his noble ancestors, who included several priest-kings of Emesa. This choice was consistent with his general view of Greek culture for, like Plato (Laws 657a), he felt that the Greeks changed ancient traditions too capriciously and had too little respect for the "old nations":[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/pap...lichus-long.htm[/url]

[COLOR=Sienna][B]"By his contemporaries he was accredited with miraculous powers (which he, however, disclaimed), and by his followers in the decline of Greek philosophy, and his admirers on its revival in the 15th and 16th centuries, his name was scarcely mentioned without the epithet divine or most divine, while, not content with the more modest eulogy of Eunapius that he was inferior to Porphyry only in style, the emperor Julian regarded him as not even second to Plato, and said that he would give all the gold of Lydia for one epistle of Iamblichus."[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://60.1911encyclopedia.org/I/IA/IAMBLICHUS.htm[/url]

We could also mention that the Greek temple architecture itself was to a great degree inspired by Semitic Phoenicians (yep, those folks who also built the Temple of Solomon):

[COLOR=DarkRed][B]"Before the Greeks anthropomorphised their gods, the Greek world knew no temples such as these, although they were common in the Near East. Thus the Greek temple as the home of the god108 that held the cult image in the naos was a creation of the 8th century.109

Architecture and temple building was an area where Phoenician influences could certainly be felt and "The Greeks themselves traced much of their originals to Eastern origins, to Egypt and Phoenician communities of the Levant." 110 "

W. Burkert (1985): Greek Religion p 88. Temple and cult image.
Bernard C. Dietrich (1991): "Aegean Sanctuaries: Forms and Functions" p 141
R.A. Tomlinson (1976): Greek Sanctuaries. p 34 [/B] [/COLOR]

[url]http://www.phoenicia.org/greek.html#Temples[/url]

And of course Greeks and Romans adopted a whole bunch of Oriental gods like Afrodite (Astarte) and Adonis (Adon, Adonai).

Would this be enough to pop the illusion of existence of some "pure" Indo-European pagan culture out there that could be revived, or shall I give you some more?

Petr

Texas Dissident

2005-02-01 18:08 | User Profile

It appears that Petr has this well in-hand, but concerning this:

[QUOTE=Esoterist]But I can tell you, you are self-deceivers. You lack either the self-knowledge or the mettle to face the facts squarely and own up to the truth. You resent the Jew not because, as some of you seem to think, he crucified Jesus but because he gave him birth. Your real quarrel with us is not that we have rejected Christianity but that we have imposed it upon you![/QUOTE]

Taking into account the historical record as it relates to post-Christ Jerusalem and Rome/Western Europe, to my mind the above just begs the question of if the jews masterminded Christianity to subvert the latter, why have they done everything in their power to neutralize, distort and stamp it out for over 2000 years? The evidence is overwhelming, but just in our recent days look at organized jewry's reaction to the recent movie 'The Passion of the Christ'.

To believe in the basic thrust of your posted article, Esoterist, implies a belief in the grandest conspiracy theory of all time. Surely you see the delusional mindset this type theory facilitates?

Angler

2005-02-01 19:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Here's a recent book by a [U]secular[/U] scholar that slaughters one of your another pet theories, the pagan-borrowing:

[url]http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2002/2002-07-04.html[/url]

[/QUOTE] First of all, I wouldn't say that arguing against a certain point is the same thing as "slaughtering" it, Petr. Let's not be too tendentious.

Secondly, where did you find out information about that author's personal beliefs? Are you sure he's not a Christian?

As far as I'm concerned, it's all but impossible for a Christian to be unbiased regarding the evidence (or lack thereof) for his faith. Nearly every Christian with whom I've discussed religion gives his beliefs every benefit of the doubt -- far more than would be given in areas other than religion.

The charge of bias could be made against hardcore atheists too, of course. In fact, I daresay that only agnostics are capable of being unbiased.

Anyway, the following is also from your link:

Later Jews develop their ideas in tandem with the Greeks as they inherit many ideas from the Greeks around them. From there these more elaborate ideas of the soul and afterlife are passed from Greek-influenced Jews to Christians to the modern and contemporary world.

This makes sense to me. There is plenty of historical evidence to support the position that the early Christians took their cues regarding heaven and hell from the Greeks. Regarding hell, for example:

[url]http://what.tentmaker.org/AncientHell.htm[/url]

Strabo, the geographer, says: "The multitude are restrained from vice by the punishments the gods are said to inflict upon offenders, and by those terrors and threatenings which certain dreadful words and monstrous forms imprint upon their minds...For it is impossible to govern the crowd of women, and all the common rabble, by philosophical reasoning, and lead them to piety, holiness and virtue - but this must be done by superstition, or the fear of the gods, by means of fables and wonders; for the thunder, the aegis, the trident, the torches (of the Furies), the dragons, &c., are all fables, as is also all the ancient theology. These things the legislators used as scarecrows to terrify the childish multitude." Geog., B. I

Timaeus Locrus, the Pythagorean, after stating that the doctrine of rewards and punishments after death is necessary to society, proceeds as follows: "For as we sometimes cure the body with unwholesome remedies, then such as are most wholesome produce no effect, so we restrain those minds with false relations, which will not be persuaded by the truth. There is a necessity, therefore, of instilling the dread of those foreign torments: as that the soul changes its habitation; that the coward is ignominiously thrust into the body of a woman; the murderer imprisoned within the form of a savage beast; the vain and inconstant changed into birds, and the slothful and ignorant into fishes."

Plato, in his commentary on Timaeus, fully endorses what he says respecting the fabulous invention of these foreign torments. And Strabo says that "Plato and the Brahmins of India invented fables concerning the future judgments of hell" (Hades). And Chrysippus blames Plato for attempting to deter men from wrong by frightful stories of future punishments.

Also, in 130 B.C. the Roman historian Polybius wrote:

But among the most useful institutions, that demonstrate the superior excellence of the Roman government, the most considerable perhaps is the opinion that the people are taught to hold concerning the gods: and that, which other men regard as an object of disgrace, appears in my judgment to be the very thing by which this republic chiefly is sustained. I mean, superstition: which is impressed with all its terrors; and influences both private and public actions of the citizens, and the public administration also of the state, in a degree that can scarcely be exceeded. This may appear astonishing to many. To me it is evident, that this contrivance was at first adopted for the sake of the multitude. For if it were possible that a state could be composed of wise men only, there would be no need, perhaps, of any such invention. But as the people universally are fickle and inconsistent, filled with irregular desires, too precipitate in there passions, and prone to violence; there is no way left to restrain them, but by dread of things unseen, and by the pageantry of terrifying fiction. The ancients, therefore, acted not absurdedly, nor without good reason, when they inculcated the notions concerning the gods, and the belief of infernal punishments; but much more those of the present age are to be charged with rashness and absurdity, in endeavoring to extirpate these opinions.

[url]http://www.zianet.com/godisgood/polybius.html[/url]

In short, it's quite clear that hell and heaven are the stick and carrot invented by ancient people in order to control the common folk. It worked then, and it works today. I have to give credit to those who first came up with those ideas. I can't think of any better method of enslaving people's minds. "Believe and obey -- OR ELSE!" The ancient Hebrews used the threat of divine punishment of one's children for sins rather than eternal punishment of the actual evildoer, but hell is a much more effective threat.

As to the question of whether the idea of Jesus' resurrection was borrowed from the pagans, I consider it moot. It has no bearing on whether or not Jesus' resurrection actually occurred. I do think the evidence against Jesus' miracle-working in general -- e.g., raising Lazarus from the dead -- is extremely strong. That evidence consists of a lack of extra-biblical ancient writings relating those incidents. If Jesus had raised people from the dead, cured the incurably ill, etc., then every single literate person who saw those things happen would have written about them, and every other person would have spread the word across the entire Roman Empire, thus alerting every single Roman and Jewish historian to the news.

[url]http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel1.html[/url]

Esoterist

2005-02-01 20:02 | User Profile

[size=5][size=5][size=1]Petr,[/size]**

[size=1]Thank you for this excess of 'documentation'. Unfortunately, you have a stereotype in your mind through which you categorize 'opponents'. You rubricize according to your past experience. I never mentioned or defended Julian the Apostate, or any of these other subjects you bring up, did I? Your torrent of irrelevant apologia is indicative of an unbalanced state of mind obsessed with merely 'defeating ideological enemies'.[/size]

[size=1]I acknowledge freely that there are many strains of Christianity, some of which try to cleanse themselves of the original barbaric Judaic foundation. No fully human person can fail to admire the heroic helleno-Christianity of the Medieval Crusaders. In a certain sense, Christianity can be seen as a synthesis of Jewish and Greek culture. But the heretic Marcion is the only one to have effectively and completely negated the Jewish setting out of which this movement grew. When Christians decided to integrate the Old Testament in their religion, they decided in favor of the Jewish culture-stream over the Indo-European culture-stream, locating their existential identity in the rival form of Judaism which Jesus represented. Perhaps I should re-emphasize your Savior's words again: `Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews**.' [John 4.22][/size]

[size=1]Berdyaev is a sectarian, and cannot evaluate existence outside of his sectarian outlook. Berdyaev would have us believe that, prior to the Christianization of Europe, the various Indo-European races and tribes were never acquainted with high spirituality and never possessed high culture and sufficiently heroic ideals. This is a profoundly dishonest degradation typical of 'optimistic' Judaistic 'philosophers'. As Schopenhauer has said, "One should not identify Judaism with reason" (World as Will and Representation; Appendix on Kant). Of course, to an insectoid Christian vision of history consisting of unrepeatable and final events, the realistic, pessimistic, tragic, cyclical mentality of the ancient pre-Socratics and Greco-Roman philosophers is 'outdated'. Berdyaev highlights especially the difference between the naturalist cyclical cosmology of the antient Aryan peoples from Europe (Marcus Aurelius) to India (the Upanishads), and the monolinearist-progressivist, human-centered cosmology of the Semitic Jews. Our ancestors understood spirituality as trans-historical and contra-historical, whereas we owe our delusional yet trendy salvific conceptions of 'evolving history' and the 'end of history' to the earthly-utopian Jews and their catastrophic metaphysical inversions. Here's some words from a fellow Judaic convert, Bernard Anderson, on the differences between Indo-European and Semitic religiosities: "According to most classical philosophies and religions, ultimate reality is disclosed when man, either by rational contemplation or mystic ascent, goes beyond the flow of events which we call 'history'. The goal is the apprehension of an order of reality unaffected by the unpredictable fortunes of mankind. In Hinduism, the world of sense experience is regarded as maya, illusion; the religious man, therefore, seeks release from the wheel of life in order that his individuality may coalesce into the World-Soul, Brahma. Or, Greek philosophers looked upon the world as a natural process which, like the rotation of the seasons, always follows follows the same rational scheme. The philosopher, however, could soar above the recurring cycles of history by fixing his mind upon the unchanging absolute which belongs to the eternal order. Both of these views are vastly different from the Biblical claim that God is found within the limitations of the world of change and struggle, and especially that he reveals himself in events which are unique, particular, and unrepeatable. For the Bible, history is neither maya nor a circular process of nature; it is the arena of God's purposive activity." (Rediscovering the Bible)[/size]

[size=1]If one seeks to understand the insurrectionist modern mentality, the intimate connection between Judeo-Christianity, liberalism, and Marxo-Freudian subversion, the careful study of the violently tellurian nature of Judaic metaphysics is absolutely central. Arnold Toynbee: [/size]

[left][size=1]'The distinctively Jewish .. inspiration of Marxism is the apocalyptic vision of a violent revolution which is inevitable because it is the decree .. of God himself, and which is to invert the present roles of Proletariat and Dominant Minority in .. a reversal of roles which is to carry the Chosen People, at one bound, from the lowest to the highest place in the Kingdom of This World. Marx has taken the Goddess "Historical Necessity" in place of Yahweh for his omnipotent deity, and the internal proletariat of the modern Western World in place of Jewry; and his Messianic Kingdom is conceived as a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. But the salient features of the traditional Jewish acalypse protrude through this threadbare disguise, and it is actually the pre-Rabbinical Maccabaean Judaism that our philosopher-impresario is presenting in modern Western costume ..'[/size][/left]

[size=1]I shall deal with the rest later.[/size] [/size][/size]

travis

2005-02-01 21:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill] I suspect if LBJ was in fact a Jew or had any significant Jewish ancestry, the Jews would be bragging about it like they do with any other famous person who has any Jewish ancestry.[/QUOTE] The Jews act according to what has strategic value to organized Jewry. Having a covert Jew in the Oval office is more valuable than having an overt one. An overt one would be busy trying to distance himself from Israel to "dispel any rumors" about his loyalty or that of Jews in general. A covert Jew President could enact programs like "social studies" in public schools and "great society" that are part of their long term brainwashing plan without it being connected to Jewry.

I remember back when I was in the third grade, LBJ was in office and the teacher said "This year we will have to have social studies as well, I know some people are against it but the government has now required it" and we were then told that America was a melting pot and how great it was.

Petr

2005-02-02 00:16 | User Profile

[I][B]- “Jesus' prophecy of destruction is convenient, seeing as how the New Testament was written to justify the proto-bolshevist Christian movement to naturally suspicious citizens of the Roman Empire after Jerusalem's annihilation by the Romans. For all we know, Jesus may have been a militant Zionist insurrectionist who perished in Rome's defeat of Judea.”[/B][/I]

Hah-hah hah. :wacko:

Do you actually believe in such nonsense? That Jesus faked his own death? You are in good company with Hollywood Jews (“Passover Plot”).

It is also quite probable that most Gospels were written before the destruction of Jerusalem:

[url]http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html[/url]

And as for early Christians being proto-Bolsheviks - have you even studied the issue yourself, or have you simply taken some anti-Christian bigot's word for it?

Here's some Bolshevism for you from apostle Paul: (Colossians 3)

[B][COLOR=Indigo]3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. 3:19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them. 3:20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. 3:21 Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged. [I]3:22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; [/I] [/COLOR] [/B]

Also 1 Timothy 6:

[COLOR=Indigo][B]6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 6:2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. [/B] [/COLOR]

[I][B]- “How can you feel morally clean after stating that entire civilizations merit destruction?”[/B][/I]

I just love how you neo-pagans promote "might is right"-nihilism at every turn and then suddenly get all prude and tender-hearted when it comes to the Old Testament? Hypocrisy, anyone?

As Jonathan Sarfati out it in here:

[COLOR=Blue][B]"As with most bibliosceptics, he loves to feign outrage at parts of the Bible. [U]Never mind that if we are all rearranged pond scum as he and all evolutionists believe, then our sense of outrage is just an epiphenomenon of something that evolved for survival advantage in our hypothetical ape-like ancestors. [/U] Nor does he bother to distinguish between reporting of an event and approval of same. And horror of horrors, a holy God who owns His creation and has the right to judge sin is just too much for the poor boy's sensibilities."[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1XLEBP9QSTJCP/002-9420252-8321647?%5Fencoding=UTF8&display=public&page=4[/url]

Do you believe that Jews got what they deserved in the WW II?

(Even most rabid revisionists will admit that the Jewish shtetl-ghetto culture ceased to exist in Eastern Europe)

Are you feeling sincerely sorry that conquistadors wiped out Aztecs?

Did the great pagan Julius Caesar feel himself sorry after wiping out the Gallian culture, with about one million Gauls killed and the Druidian religion abolished?

[B][I]- “John the Baptist was merely critiquing certain imprudently vain Jews, not the Jewish people, and certainly not the significance of the "Abrahamic project for humanity".”[/I][/B]

And how do know that this is so? He clearly says that even rocks could be turned into a "chosen people", which makes Jews look like utterly expendable.

Petr

2005-02-02 00:19 | User Profile

[B][I]- “I never mentioned or defended Julian the Apostate, or any of these other subjects you bring up, did I? Your torrent of irrelevant apologia is indicative of an unbalanced state of mind obsessed with merely 'defeating ideological enemies'.”[/I][/B]

Many of my quotes were directly copied from my earlier debates, for I was in a hurry.

“Irrelevant” – like exactly how? You can’t answer my points, so you use this pathetic little ad hominem about my “[I]unbalanced state of mind[/I].”

And you can bet I intend to defeat Christianity’s “ideological enemies” – what do you think I am doing here, spreading the gospel of relativistic ninniness?

I think you just aren’t used to Christians who do not grovel at your feet and merely spout a few mealy-mouthed platitudes to answer your aggressive blasphemies. I do intend to refute your tendentious pagan nonsense, not to make compromises.

[B][I]- “Perhaps I should re-emphasize your Savior's words again: `Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.' [John 4.22]”[/I][/B]

You keep repeating this verse as it would be the only one in the whole Bible. It does NOT mean that we should “worship Jews”, and you dishonestly tear it out of its context to make Jesus Christ look like some Meir Kahane – the very next verse is already much more indicative of what this salvation is going to be:

John 4:21-4

[COLOR=Red][B]"Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, [U]nor yet at Jerusalem[/U], worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”[/B][/COLOR]

You asked: “[I]Is Jesus being "merciful" in allowing Gentiles to throw their 'heathen' heritage away and become bondmen to Jews[/I]?”

“Bondmen to Jews”? More like bondmen to God Allmighty.

[B][I]- “Berdyaev is a sectarian, and cannot evaluate existence outside of his sectarian outlook.”[/I][/B]

What exactly makes Berdyaev any more biased than Julius Evola? I’m pretty sure we can label him as “sectarian” as well.

Schopenhauer was an overrated (closet gay?) misogynist. What exactly was his contribution to the Western culture, except spreading quasi-Buddhistic nihilism?

(Oswald Spengler himself saw the spread Indian religions in the post-WW I Europe as a sign of the decline of the West)

[I][B]- "Berdyaev would have us believe that, prior to the Christianization of Europe, the various Indo-European races and tribes were never acquainted with high spirituality and never possessed high culture and sufficiently heroic ideals." [/B] [/I]

Sounds like you're putting words to his mouth. Where does Berdyaev claim that?

[B][I]- “This is a profoundly dishonest degradation typical of 'optimistic' Judaistic 'philosophers'.”[/I][/B]

I have never understood why you neo-pagans are so much against “optimism”. Never got the allure of that dark nihilism, you know. That “optimism” is just what made the West so great, and can make great once again!

[I][B]- "Berdyaev highlights especially the difference between the naturalist cyclical cosmology of the antient Aryan peoples from Europe (Marcus Aurelius) to India (the Upanishads), and the monolinearist-progressivist, human-centered cosmology of the Semitic Jews."[/B][/I]

As I have just proven, Stoicism (the philosophy of Marcus Aurelius) with its concept of "eternal return" was started by Semites, and had a close resemblance to Chaldean astrological fatalism.

There is absolutely nothing especially "Aryan" about the cyclical worldview, which also happens to be absolute poison to all kinds of progress, science included.

[I][B]- “If one seeks to understand the insurrectionist modern mentality, the intimate connection between Judeo-Christianity, liberalism, and Marxo-Freudian subversion, the careful study of the violently tellurian nature of Judaic metaphysics is absolutely central. Arnold Toynbee:”[/B][/I]

Argument by authority. Even people like Evola and Toynbee can be wrong, you know.

Absolutely central to modern insurrectionism is the denial of the Original Sin, teaching that men can be perfected in this world. Nazis also believed in such secular messianism via eugenics and natural selection.

And pagans can be revolutionaries too, you know, with their Saturnalian "world-turned-upside-down" traditions.

Dr. Gary North has written a book on the quasi-religious nature of Marxism, available online in here:

[COLOR=DarkRed]"The nature of Marxism as a religion has long been recognized by its critics. But what has not been generally recognized is Marxism's unique fusion of both ancient and modern heresies. [B]It revives the most ancient of religious themes - social regeneration through systematic chaos [/B] - yet it defends this view in the name of modern science."[/COLOR]

[url]http://www.freebooks.com/docs/212a_47e.htm[/url]

North happens to quote Mircea Eliade too on the nature of pagan chaos cults in this book...

Most of these medieval revolutionary movements that people like to point out to demonstrate the "inherently revolutionary" nature of Christianity were in fact Gnostic-Manichean (i.e. half-pagan), pantheistic (via Neo-Platonism) chaos cults like "the Brethren of the Free Spirit".

[COLOR=Purple][B]"The women of Schweidnitz claimed that their souls had by their own efforts attained a perfection greater than they had possessed when they first emanated from God, and greater than God ever intended them to possess. They claimed to have such command over the Holy Trinity that they could 'ride it as in a saddle'. The Swabian heretics Of 1270 said that they had mounted up above God and, reaching the very pinnacle of Divinity, abandoned God. Often the adept would affirm that he or she 'had no longer any need of God'."[/B][/COLOR]

...

[COLOR=Purple][B]"Schwester Katrei sets the social doctrine of the Free Spirit against its Neo-Platonic background. All things, the argument runs, use others: the deer uses grass, the fish water, the bird air. So the person who has 'become God' must use all created things; for by doing so, he or she 'drives all things up to their first Origin'."[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.dhushara.com/book/consum/free.htm[/url]

By the way, the chaos-cult of Dionysus was also regarded as socially subversive in ancient Rome, and the Senate tried in vain to suppress it in 186 BC.

The 1960s hippies were greatly inspired by Dionysian craziness and rebellion, as Jim Morrison himself admitted.

Finally, do you want to defend the reliability of Marcus Eli Ravage as a historical source or any of his kooky theories?

Would you like to define the term “Aryan” to us and tell whether Persians and Indians are part of this glorious “Aryan pagan heritage” that you promote?

Petr

2005-02-02 01:50 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy][B] - "Secondly, where did you find out information about that author's personal beliefs? Are you sure he's not a Christian?"[/B][/COLOR]

I have read this book. Bremmer's unbelief is obvious, and you yourself should have noticed the rationalist manner in which he speaks about the "evolution" of Jewish religion.

[COLOR=Navy][B]- "The charge of bias could be made against hardcore atheists too, of course. In fact, I daresay that only agnostics are capable of being unbiased."[/B][/COLOR]

Not so, for agnostic skeptics are biased for the idea that no final truths can ever be reached, which is a final truth in itself.

Relativism is simply self-destructing.

:biggrin:

Petr

IronWorker

2005-02-02 06:01 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]And you can bet I intend to defeat ChristianityÃ¢â¬â¢s Ã¢â¬Åideological enemiesÃ¢â¬Â Ã¢â¬â what do you think I am doing here, spreading the gospel of relativistic ninniness?

Petr how far are you willing to go to defeat these "ideological enemies" (some of whom may be fellow Occidentals...)

Luckily I as a non-Christian don't need to go out and 'defeat' Christianity, for it is already dying... don't make me post reams and reams about falling Church Attendance, it would be interesting to check that out for where you are located Petr, Findland right???

Texas Dissident

2005-02-02 06:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=IronWorker]Luckily I as a non-Christian don't need to go out and 'defeat' Christianity, for it is already dying... don't make me post reams and reams about falling Church Attendance, it would be interesting to check that out for where you are located Petr, Findland right???[/QUOTE]

Well, I don't know where you're at, IW, but that's sure not my observation down here in the white suburbs of southeast Texas. From what I see, suburban whites not only attend church in great numbers, but also tend to have at least 2, 3 or 4 children in tow. We may be getting swamped by the Messicans, but I do believe in 20 or 30 years the remaining whites will overwhelmingly be baptized and confirmed believers who have been educated in their homes or private, Christian schools.

IronWorker

2005-02-02 08:32 | User Profile

Well TD I would say that The South is probably an exception (and frankly there are not that many Whites there anymore when one looks percentage wise at the Mexican and Black populations). When one surveys so-called Blue States and Europe I definitely believe that Christianity is in decline (In fact this one of squinty eyed Pats main theses in Death of the West).

In case you were curious I am located in Oregon, which is offically the most unChurched State in the Union.

Understanding the orientation of OD I am loath to post about such things, but when Petr posts what could possibly be construed as calls to violence to "defeat ideological enemies" then I feel compelled to let him know that it may be a lost cause anyway. However I have no issues with peaceful attempts at Conversion.

albion

2005-02-02 15:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=IronWorker]Alright lets take another look at that link I have already posted: THERE ARE JEWS IN TEXAS![/QUOTE][center][size=3]KINKY FRIEDMAN CONFIRMED TO ANNOUNCE CANDIDACY[/size] [/center] [left] [url="http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/news/news.html"][size=3][img]http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/Houston%20Chronicle%20Photo.jpg[/img][/size][/url] Kinky is confirmed to appear on MSNBC's 'Imus Show' on February 3rd, from 7AM to 8AM (CST), to announce his candidacy for the governorship. Billy Joe Shaver will give an invocation prior to Kinky's announcement. [/left] [left] [/left] [left] [/left] [left][url="http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/"]http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/[/url][/left]

Texas Dissident

2005-02-02 16:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=IronWorker]Understanding the orientation of OD I am loath to post about such things, but when Petr posts what could possibly be construed as calls to violence to "defeat ideological enemies" then I feel compelled to let him know that it may be a lost cause anyway. However I have no issues with peaceful attempts at Conversion.[/QUOTE]

Alright, a potential convert! You put a target on your back now, IW. :)

No worries about your loathing, amigo. Petr is a good man and one I am very thankful for. He, like most of us Christians who travel in these circles, have probably been conditioned to be on the defensive. I think that's only natural when one is in a hostile environment day in and day out. Ultimately, we just want to brain wash you for Christ. :) Seriously, conversion is entirely the work of the Holy Spirit, yet we as Christians are called to proselytize and be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you."

The only folks I've ever had a problem with were those who made johnny-one note post after post attacking Christianity without ever discussing anything or even acknowledging when one of us would answer the points they raised. You seem to be civil, so I don't think there will be any problems. In fact, at this point I'm just pleased you are even showing an interest in such things. I hope you find something here worthy of your time.

TexasAnarch

2005-02-02 17:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Esoterist][color=#000000]

Is Nietzsche wrong?

Please tell me how one should "correctly" understand these Scriptural passages apparently demonstrating Judeo-Supremacist ideology.

[/size][/color][/QUOTE]

In the passage about the Canaanite woman seeking help for her demon-possessed daughter, Jesus is obviously testing her out with this, to see what she was really about.  Then he helped her.  Canaanites were like the trash, then.  It would be like a Christian saying to the penitent Jew (oxymoron) -- or even to one like yourself, asking for guidance here -- "this isn't for coons"; nobody gives angel food cake to coons (not knocking black folks).

Nietzsche wasn't anything positive except syphillitic. No single coherent, systematic philosophical ideas can be found in that barrage of crap he extruded, so you don't have to worry about whether he ever said anything right or wrong.

Petr

2005-02-02 23:31 | User Profile

[SIZE=3][I][B] - "Christians, how can you accept that this desert-dwelling, genocidal bedouin tribe is "God-sent" and that the meaning of life is to renounce your Indo-European origins and "out-Judaize" the Jews?"[/B][/I][/SIZE]

I'd say that there isn't anything more barbaric in the Old Testament than there is in that oldest of Indo-European epics, RIG-VEDA, which happens to describe how Aryan nomads from Central Asia conquered the fertile Indus Valley and destroyed its Dravidian Harappa/Mohenjo-Daro civilization.

And not only that, but these Aryans loudly brag how they turned this area into a wasteland:

(and this is taken from the same website where you got your Toynbee quotation!)

[url]http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/rig-veda.html[/url]

[I][COLOR=DarkRed][B][I]"The Harappan civilization was bigger in extent than either Egypt's or Sumeria's. It was a literate civilization in communication with Sumeria. After the Aryan invasion, literacy was wiped out, and did not reappear for another 1,000 years or so, when a new script was borrowed from outside."[/I][/B][/COLOR][/I]

(my note: this is the borrowing of the Semitic Aramean alphabet from the Persian Empire that I was talking about!)

...

[COLOR=DarkRed][I]"Stuart Piggott, some decades ago, wrote about the Rig Veda & the destruction of the Harappa Civilization. Since Piggott, the specialists have rejected the view that Mohenjo-Daro was destroyed by the Aryans, preferring an "Ecological" explanation. They say that the Aryans came in AFTER the end of the Harappa civilization.

I, however, argue Piggott was right. In his book Prehistoric Roots of Ancient India (Penguin, Harmondsworth 1950), Piggott wrote

"{p. 257} ... the Aryan advent in India was, in fact, the arrival of barbarians into a region already highly organized into an empire based on a long-

"{p. 258} established tradition of literate urban culture. ... the conquerors are seen to be less civilized than the conquered. [B]In the Rigveda we see ... this conquest from the Aryan point of view alone: they are the heroes, and scant tribute is paid to their contemptible opponents, more skilled in the arts of peace than those of warfare". [/B]

"{p. 261} [B][U]These opponents of the Aryan onslaught, the despicable enemy who dares deny Indra's supremacy in heaven and on earth, are referred to as the dasyus or dasas. [/U] [/B] They have black complexions, no noses to speak of (anasa), they are 'of unintelligible speech' and above all they are infidels. [B][U]They have no 'rites', they are 'indifferent to the gods', they 'follow strange ordinances', they do not perform the Aryan sacrifices, and they probably worship the phallus. [/U] [/B] But they are wealthy, with great stores of gold, they are formed into groups or states, and they live in fortified strongholds." [/I] [/COLOR]

(my note: see, noble Vedic Aryans declare that they were justified to destroy their enemies because they were decadent idol-worshippers! How Hebraic of them!)

...

[B][COLOR=DarkRed][I]"The Rig Veda itself repeatedly boasts of the destruction of the Dasyus. The Harappan economy was based on irrigation from the Indus river, like the Tigris-Euphrates economies of Mesopotamia, and the Rig Veda records the Aryans' destruction of the dams which were the basis of the economy." [/I] [/COLOR] [/B]

(my note: when you look at the map of modern India, you'll see the great desert of Thar in northeastern India, near the Indus Valley. That desert was born when Aryans destroyed the dam system of Harappa people.)

...

SIZE=4 Selections from the Rig Veda (1896 translation by T. H. Griffith) [/SIZE]

...[I]

[COLOR=Indigo]HYMN XXXII. Indra.

1 I WILL declare the manly deeds of Indra, the first that he achieved, the Thunder-wielder. [B]He slew the Dragon, then disclosed the waters, and cleft the channels of the mountain torrents. [/B] {verse 11, below, suggests the Aryans destroyed a dam on a river, a river which flowed to the ocean. Clearly, these are not inland rivers such as those of Bactria and Margiana, which drain to inland seas} 2 He slew the Dragon lying on the mountain: his heavenly bolt of thunder Tvastar fashioned. [B]Like lowing kine in rapid flow descending the waters glided downward to the ocean. [/B] 3 Impetuous as a bull, he chose the Soma and in three sacred beakers drank the juices. Maghavan grasped the thunder for his weapon, and smote to death this firstborn of the dragons. 4 When, Indra, thou hadst slain the dragon's firstborn, and [B]overcome the charms of the enchanters, [/B] {a reference to the religion of the Harappans} Then, giving life to Sun and Dawn and Heaven, thou foundest not one foe to stand against thee. 5 Indra with his own great and deadly thunder [B]smote into pieces Vrtra, worst of Vrtras. As trunks of trees, what time the axe hath felled them, low on the earth so lies the prostrate Dragon. [/B] 6 He, like a mad weak warrior, challenged Indra, the great impetuous many-slaying Hero. He, brooking not the clashing of the weapons, crushed - Indra's foe - the shattered forts in falling. [B]7 Footless and handless still he challenged Indra, who smote him with his bolt between the shoulders. Emasculate yet claiming manly vigour, thus Vrtra lay with scattered limbs dissevered. [/B] 8 There as he lies like a bank-bursting river, the waters taking courage flow above him. The Dragon lies beneath the feet of torrents which Vrtra with his greatness had encompassed. 9 Then humbled was the strength of Vrtra's mother: Indra hath cast his deadly bolt against her. The mother was above, the son was under and like a cow beside her calf lay Danu. 10 Rolled in the midst of never-ceasing currents flowing without a rest for ever onward. The waters bear off Vrtra's nameless body: the foe of Indra sank to during darkness. 11 Guarded by Ahi stood he thralls of Dasas, the waters stayed like kine held by the robber. [B]But he, when he had smitten Vrtra, opened the cave wherein the floods had been imprisoned. [/B]

HYMN XXXIII. Indra.

4 Thou slewest with thy bolt the wealthy Dasyu, alone, yet going with thy helpers, Indra! Far from the floor of heaven [B]in all directions, the ancient riteless ones fled to destruction[/B]. {riteless, i.e. irreligious, from the Aryan point of view, as the Jewish-derived religions consider others pagan or heathen} 5 Fighting with pious worshippers, the riteless turned and fled, Indra! with averted faces. When thou, fierce Lord of the Bay Steeds, the Stayer, blewest from earth and heaven and sky the godless. 6 They met in fight the army of the blameless: then the Navagvas put forth all their power. {blameless, i.e. those loyal to the gods} They, like emasculates with men contending, fled, conscious, by steep paths from Indra, scattered. 7 Whether they weep or laugh, thou hast o'erthrown them, O Indra, on the sky's extremest limit. [B]The Dasyu thou hast burned from heaven, and welcomed the prayer of him who pours the juice and lauds thee. [/B] i.e. those who win the gods' favour} [B]8 Adorned with their array of gold and jewels, they o'er the earth a covering veil extended. [/B] {gold & jewels ... the wealth of Harappa} Although they hastened, they o'ercame not Indra: their spies he compassed with the Sun of morning. 9 As thou enjoyest heaven and earth, O Indra, on every side surrounded with thy greatness, [B]So thou with priests bast blown away the Dasyu, and those who worship not with those who worship. [/B] 14 Indra, thou helpest Kutsa whom thou lovedst, and guardedst brave Dagadyu when he battled, The dust of trampling horses rose to heaven, and Svitri's son stood up again for conquest.

HYMN LI. Indra.

[B]4 Thou hast unclosed the prisons of the waters; thou hast in the mountain seized the treasure rich in gifts. [/B] {mountain ... perhaps a temple?} When thou hadst slain with might the dragon Vrtra, thou, Indra, didst raise the Sun in heaven for all to see. 5 With wondrous might thou blewest enchanter fiends away, with powers celestial those who called on thee in jest. {implies that the Harappans deride the gods} Thou, hero-hearted, hast broken down Pipru's forts, and helped Rjisvan when the Dasyus were struck dead. 6 Thou savedst Kutsa when Susna was smitten down; to Atithigva gavest Sambara for a prey. E'en mighty Arbuda thou troddest under foot: thou from of old wast born to strike the Dasyus dead.

HYMN LIII. Indra.

7 Thou goest on from fight to fight intrepidly, [B]destroying castle after castle [/B] here with strength. Thou, Indra, with thy friend who makes the foe bow down, slewest from far away the guileful Namuci.

8 Thou hast struck down in death Karanja, Parnaya, in Atithigva's very glorious going forth. Unyielding, when Rjisvan compassed them with siege, [B]thou hast destroyed the hundred forts of Vangrida[/B].

9 With all-outstripping chariot-wheel, [B]O Indra, thou far-famed, hast overthrown the twice ten Kings of men, With sixty thousand nine-and-ninety followers[/B], who came in arms to fight with friendless Susravas.

HYMN LIV. Indra.

10 There darkness stood, the vault that stayed the waters' flow: in Vrtra's hollow side the rain-cloud lay concealed. But [B]Indra smote the rivers which the obstructer stayed, flood following after flood, down steep declivities[/B]." [/COLOR] [/I]

...

(my note: Agni is the Hindu god of fire, here personifying how Aryans put cities on fire)

[COLOR=Indigo][I]"HYMN CIX. Indra-Agni.

[B]8 Give, ye who shatter forts, whose hands wield thunder: Indra and Agni, save us in our battles. [/B] This prayer of ours may Varuna grant, and Mitra, and Aditi and Sindhu, Earth and Heaven.

HYMN CXXX. Indra.

8 Indra in battles help his Aryan worshipper, he who hath hundred helps at hand in every fray, in frays that win the light of heaven. Plaguing the lawless he gave up to Manu's seed the dusky skin; [B]Blazing, 'twere, he burns each covetous man away, he burns, the tyrannous away. [/B]

...

HYMN XIV. Indra.

[B]6 Ye ministers, to him who as with thunder demolished Sambara's hundred ancient castles; Who cast down Varcin's sons, a hundred thousand, - to him, to Indra, offer ye the Soma. 7 Ye ministers, to him who slew a hundred thousand, and cast them down upon earth's bosom; [/B] Who quelled the valiant men of Atithigva, Kutsa, and Ayu, - bring to him the Soma.

HYMN XX. Indra.

[B]7 Indra the Vrtra-slayer, Fort-destroyer, scattered the Dasa hosts who dwelt in darkness. [/B] {Prof. Uthaya Naidu translates this as "who sprang from a black womb."} For men hath he created earth and waters, and ever helped the prayer of him who worships. 8 To him in might the Gods have ever yielded, to Indra in the tumult of the battle. {the Gods of the Harappans yielded to Indra} [B]When in his arms they laid the bolt, he slaughtered the Dasyus and cast down their forts of iron. [/B]

...

HYMN XXX. Indra.

16 A cry is beard from enemies most near us: against them send thy fiercest-flaming weapon. [B]Rend them from under, crush them and subdue them. Slay, Maghavan, and make the fiends our booty. [/B] [B]17 Root up the race of Raksasas, O Indra rend it in front and crush it in the middle. [/B] How long hast thou behaved as one who wavers? Cast thy hot dart at him who hates devotion:

...

HYMN XVI. Indra.

13 Thou to the son of Vidathin, Rjisvan, gavest up mighty Mrgaya and Pipru. [B]Thou smotest down the swarthy fifty thousand, and rentest forts as age consumes a garment. [/B]

HYMN XXX. Indra.

13 Valiantly didst thou seize and take the store which Susna had amassed, When thou didst crush his fortresses. 14 Thou, Indra, also smotest down Kulitara's son Sambara, The Dasa, from the lofty hill. [B]15 Of Dasa Varcin's thou didst slay the hundred thousand and the five, Crushed like the fellies, of a car. [/B] {car, i.e. chariot} [B]20 For Divodasa, him who brought oblation, Indra overthrew A hundred fortresses of stone. [/B] {Stuart Piggot says this could also refer to mudbrick} 21 The thirty thousand Dasas he with magic power and weapons sent To slumber, for Dabhiti's sake.

...

HYMN V. Agni.

4 May he with sharpened teeth, the Bounteous Giver, Agni, [B]consume with flame most fiercely glowing. Those who regard not Varuna's commandments and the dear stedfast laws of sapient Mitra. [/B] 5 Like youthful women without brothers, straying, like dames who hate their lords, of evil conduct, They who are full of sin, untrue, unfaithful, they have engendered this abysmal station. [/I] [/COLOR]

(My note: surely those tolerant Aryans are not talking about burning sinners alive, i.e. killing them because of their religion?)

[I]...[COLOR=Indigo]

HYMN CIV. Indra-Soma.

[B]1. INDRA and Soma, burn, destroy the demon foe, send downward, O ye Bulls, those who add gloom to gloom. [/B] [B]Annihilate the fools, slay them and burn them up: chase them away from us, pierce the voracious ones. 2 Indra and Soma, let sin round the wicked boil like as a caldron set amid the flames of fire. Against the foe of prayer, devourer of raw flesh, the vile fiend fierce of eye, keep ye perpetual hate. [/B] {perhaps an accusation of cannibalism} [B]3 Indra and Soma, plunge the wicked in the depth, yea, cast them into darkness that hath no support, So that not one of them may ever thence return: so may your wrathful might prevail and conquer them. 4 Indra and Soma, hurl your deadly crushing bolt down on the wicked fiend from heaven and from the earth. Yea, forge out of the mountains your celestial dart wherewith ye burn to death the waxing demon race. [/B] {implies a missile of some sort, perhaps carrying fire} [B]24 Slay the male demon, Indra! slay the female, joying and triumphing in arts of magic. [/B] {accuses the Harappans of practising magic} [B]Let the fools' gods with bent necks fall and perish, and see no more the Sun when he arises. 25 Look each one hither, look around Indra and Soma, watch ye well. Cast forth your weapon at the fiends; against the sorcerers hurt your bolt. [/B] {brands the Harappans sorcerers}

...

HYMN CXXXVIII. Indra.

3 In the mid-way of heaven the Sun unyoked his car: the Arya found a match to meet his Dasa foe. Associate with Rjisvan Indra overthrew the solid forts of Pipru, conjuring Asura. [B]4 He boldly cast down forts which none had e'er assailed: unwearied he destroyed the godless treasure-stores. [/B] Like Sun and Moon he took the stronghold's wealth away, and, praised in song, demolished foes with flashing dart.

...[/COLOR][/I]

Petr

Angler

2005-02-02 23:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Navy][B] - "Secondly, where did you find out information about that author's personal beliefs? Are you sure he's not a Christian?"[/B][/COLOR]

I have read this book. Bremmer's unbelief is obvious, and you yourself should have noticed the rationalist manner in which he speaks about the "evolution" of Jewish religion. Okay, fair enough. If he's a rationalist, then that's a strong point in his favor, since nothing can be known to humans other than by evidence and reason.

[COLOR=Navy][B]- "The charge of bias could be made against hardcore atheists too, of course. In fact, I daresay that only agnostics are capable of being unbiased."[/B][/COLOR]

Not so, for agnostic skeptics are biased for the idea that no final truths can ever be reached, which is a final truth in itself.

Relativism is simply self-destructing.

:biggrin:

I certainly don't believe in relativism, and I don't think most other agnostics do, either. I believe in absolute, objective reality. Truths about that reality can be uncovered to a greater or lesser degree through the scientific method applied either formally or informally.

I do not believe that "no final truths can ever be reached." For example, I accept all laws and results of properly-applied deductive logic as absolute truth. If A equals B and B equals C, then A equals C; if A implies B and A is true, then B must be true; etc. Such laws of reason are ALWAYS true.

Other truths that can only be known through inductive reasoning supported by evidence -- e.g., scientific truths -- are never considered to be 100% certain. Nevertheless, they can be so strongly supported that no reasonable, well-informed person can doubt them. An example would be the atomic theory of matter.

When it comes to metaphysical questions such as the existence of God, absolute certainty is the beginning of all un-wisdom.

Angler

2005-02-03 00:12 | User Profile

As Jonathan Sarfati out it in here:

"As with most bibliosceptics, he loves to feign outrage at parts of the Bible. Never mind that if we are all rearranged pond scum as he and all evolutionists believe, then our sense of outrage is just an epiphenomenon of something that evolved for survival advantage in our hypothetical ape-like ancestors. Nor does he bother to distinguish between reporting of an event and approval of same. And horror of horrors, a holy God who owns His creation and has the right to judge sin is just too much for the poor boy's sensibilities."

I don't see why being "rearranged pond scum" is any worse than being "dirt" (as the Bible teaches).

In any case, what Jonathan Sarfati fails to grasp is that evolution is a proven fact. It is known that evolution occurred. What's not certain is how it occurred. Evolutionary theory is there to explain the observed fact of evolution. And there is nothing "hypothetical" about the fact that apes and humans have a common ancestor.

It's also worth addressing another misconception here. Evolutionary theory does not address the question of how life came from non-living molecules. Hypotheses about the latter are referred to by the term abiogenesis.

It is well-known that many non-living molecules are capable of self-replication and self-organization into molecules of greater complexity. This does not happen "randomly," but according to the principles of biochemistry (which are reducible to the laws of physics). Nevertheless, abiogenesis is far less well-understood than evolution. Could a God have been involved in abiogenesis? Of course. But science won't look for one, since science by definition never looks for supernatural explanations for phenomena. Science never gives up until it finds a natural explanation (if ever). If scientists stopped searching once someone said "the supernatural is the only explanation for this," then mankind would still think epilepsy and Tourette's Syndrome were caused by demonic possession, even though there are no such things as "demons."

For a thorough debunking of all silly claims made by creationist "scientists," look no further than here:

[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html[/url]

Quantrill

2005-02-03 00:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]If scientists stopped searching once someone said "the supernatural is the only explanation for this," then mankind would still think epilepsy and Tourette's Syndrome were caused by demonic possession, even though there are no such things as "demons."[/QUOTE] At the risk of being pedantic, I must point out that you cannot prove a negative, meaning that your thesis about the non-existence of demons is not the scientific certainty you allege it to be.

Petr

2005-02-03 00:38 | User Profile

[I][B] - "I don't see why being "rearranged pond scum" is any worse than being "dirt" (as the Bible teaches)."[/B][/I]

There's a world of difference between these worldviews. Darwinism teaches that man is a meaningless cosmic accident, utterly expendable, whereas the Bible teaches that man was created in God's own image, possessing some inherent worth of his own. On what material man was originally made of is glaringly irrelevant to this question.

[I][B] - "It is known that evolution occurred. What's not certain is how it occurred. Evolutionary theory is there to explain the observed fact of evolution." [/B] [/I]

Question-begging pure and simple. "We already know that evolution is true", and it's the scientist's job to find stuff to support it, and quietly disregard the stuff that doesn't fit the paradigm!

[I] [B]- "It's also worth addressing another misconception here. Evolutionary theory does not address the question of how life came from non-living molecules. "[/B][/I]

This is a bait-and-switch trick from evo-propagandists, nothing more. Any person with normal IQ/intellectual honesty will realize that abiogenesis is rather intimately connected to the question whether the evolution process was possible to even begin.

[B][I] - "For a thorough debunking of all silly claims made by creationist "scientists," look no further than here:[/I][/B]

[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html[/url]

For the rebuttal of tendentious evo-propaganda at TalkOrigins, look no further than here:

[url]http://www.trueorigins.org/[/url]

[B][COLOR=Blue]"This site was established to provide an intellectually honest response to the claims of evolutionism’s proponents (including, but not limited to, the likes of the “Talk.Origins” newsgroup and website)."[/COLOR][/B]

Petr

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2005-02-03 01:03 | User Profile

It seems to me that the 'intelligent design' thesis has split the difference between the religio-creationists and the Darwinian Fundamentalists, but that both sides are largely inhabited by people not quite bright enough (not intended as an attack, Petr - I'm sure you're quite clever) to see that their basis for disagreement has been largely torn asunder. God created evolution. The end, folks.

na Gaeil is gile

2005-02-03 16:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]It is known that evolution occurred. What's not certain is how it occurred. Evolutionary theory is there to explain the observed fact of evolution.[/QUOTE] Circular logic or semantic slight of hand Angler? Evolution can only be considered fact under the modern reductionist definition, i.e. change that occurs in the genetic makeup of a population over time. The fact that such genetic changes occur is no mystery, such changes can even be artificially initiated and stimulated (a subject of much joy to B movie and pulp writers throughout the '50s). Under the reductionist definition it's not so much the fact that 'evolution' occurred, but that it is occurring relentlessly.

MadScienceType

2005-02-03 20:30 | User Profile

You're quite a smart cookie (biscuits on that side of the pond?), na Gaeil is gile.

The reductionist definition is the one I use, since it's the only one that can currently be demostrated, but beyond that, the rules/processes governing our continuance on this planet are anybody's guess. As much as I give people who think that God put dinosaur fossils on the Earth "to test our faith" or that 1,000,000 Years B.C. was a documentary, short shrift, so do I have little patience with those militantly and dogmatically attached to the idea that the debate begins and ends with "natural selection."* There are other, more complex, factors in the equation at work here, and I'm willing to at least countenance the possibility that there's a Man Upstairs overseeing it all in a manner that makes it run smoothly, at least as far as He's concerned, though it might remain a mystery to usn's. For all we know, we're just a really large PhD dissertation project, though, knowing the average grad student, the thought does scare the hell out of me.

How come you're not running the Emerald Isle, anyway? Does it have anything to do with that quote about smart people shying away from politics, dooming themselves to be lorded over by the idiots? We've taken that to its logical ending over here.

*Fer small instance, an increased level of "fitness" a new mutation may bestow on its carrier is far more likely to be lost than passed on, which runs counter to the idea that natural selection is all.

Petr

2005-02-03 22:50 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkRed][I][B] - "so do I have little patience with those militantly and dogmatically attached to the idea that the debate begins and ends with "natural selection."*" [/B] [/I] [/COLOR]

Darwin also probably plagiarized the whole concept from a creationist scientist:

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=3][B]Darwin the plagiarist?[/B][/SIZE]

"Natural selection is really a very straight-forward, commonsense insight. A creationist, the chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth (1810—1873), wrote about it in 1835—7, before Darwin, who very likely borrowed the idea from Blyth.1

Taylor, I., In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, Toronto, Canada, pp. 125—133, 1984. [/COLOR]

...

[COLOR=Indigo][B]"[I]It cannot be stressed enough that what natural selection actually does is get rid of information. [/I] It is not capable of creating anything new, by definition. In the above example, the plants became better able to survive dry weather because of the [I]elimination[/I] of certain genes; i.e. they lost a portion of the information which their ancestors had. The information for the longer roots was already in the parent population; natural selection caused nothing new to arise in, or be added to, the population."[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/muddywaters.asp[/url]

This is what those supposedly "evolved" bacteria with a newfound immunity to drugs are all about: they have lost some of their genes, and are therefore simpler and less influenced by drugs that can eliminate more complicated forms of life.

This is why [U]mutations[/U] are absolutely essential for the evolutionist paradigm, for without it, there is no mechanism at all to drive the hypothetical evolution process onwards!

Petr

Angler

2005-02-04 10:21 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][I][B] - "I don't see why being "rearranged pond scum" is any worse than being "dirt" (as the Bible teaches)."[/B][/I]

Just because one viewpoint might seem more palatable to you, that doesn't make it correct. If man's existence happens to be without inherent meaning, then that's that -- it doesn't matter whether we like it or not. On the other hand, many people (including myself) have no problem with giving our own lives meaning.

[I][B] - "It is known that evolution occurred. What's not certain is how it occurred. Evolutionary theory is there to explain the observed fact of evolution." [/B] [/I]

Question-begging pure and simple. "We already know that evolution is true", and it's the scientist's job to find stuff to support it, and quietly disregard the stuff that doesn't fit the paradigm!

It's not begging the question. Evolution was an observed fact even before Darwin's time. Here's a nice summary of the lines of evidence (and I suggest you actually read it):

[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html[/url]

As for "begging the question" that's precisely what creationists do by their own admission:

Answers in Genesis accepts the authority of Scripture as an axiom or presupposition: i.e. as a starting point or assumption that requires no proof, and is the basis for all reasoning. All philosophical systems start with axioms. So itÃ¢â¬â¢s not a question of a religious system starting from prior assumptions vs. a Ã¢â¬ËscientificÃ¢â¬â¢ system without any prior assumptions, but which axioms are self-consistent and provide a consistent framework in which to fit the evidence.

[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp[/url]

Creationism relies on the utterly unsupported axiom that the Bible is correct -- an axiom not based on either observations or logic, but on blind "faith." Science relies on the endlessly-tested axioms of deductive logic and the axiom that the laws of the universe are constant (with possible exceptions not relevant to the question of evolution -- e.g., the early universe). The axioms of science have been tested countless times, and the results speak for themselves. Hence, there is NO equivalency between the scientific and the "faith-based" worldview. One is supported literally by all the evidence in the world, and the other is supported by nothing other than wishful thinking.

Furthermore, the writer of the above essay neglected to mention why we shouldn't "interpret the facts" in terms of, say, the Hindu or Zoroastrian creation myths rather than the Bible.

[I] [B]- "It's also worth addressing another misconception here. Evolutionary theory does not address the question of how life came from non-living molecules. "[/B][/I]

LOL, of course it's "propaganda" if it goes against creationism, right? And your second statement makes no sense. Abiogenesis is a FACT -- once there was no life, now there is. Even creationists should be able to admit that. Creation of the first life by God is one theory of abiogenesis. Evolution took over once the first life was formed.

[B][I] - "For a thorough debunking of all silly claims made by creationist "scientists," look no further than here:[/I][/B]

[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html[/url]

For the rebuttal of tendentious evo-propaganda at TalkOrigins, look no further than here:

[url]http://www.trueorigins.org/[/url]

[B][COLOR=Blue]"This site was established to provide an intellectually honest response to the claims of evolutionismÃ¢â¬â¢s proponents (including, but not limited to, the likes of the Ã¢â¬ÅTalk.OriginsÃ¢â¬Â newsgroup and website)."[/COLOR][/B]

You haven't even read the Talk Origins site, judging by your repetition of uninformed and easily-dismissed arguments from creationist propaganda sites. More on that in a moment.

Angler

2005-02-04 10:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=na Gaeil is gile]Circular logic or semantic slight of hand Angler? Neither. The evidence that evolution is responsible for biodiversity is quite overwhelming. Please see here for a concise summary:

[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html[/url]

Evolution can only be considered fact under the modern reductionist definition, i.e. change that occurs in the genetic makeup of a population over time. The fact that such genetic changes occur is no mystery, such changes can even be artificially initiated and stimulated (a subject of much joy to B movie and pulp writers throughout the '50s). Under the reductionist definition it's not so much the fact that 'evolution' occurred, but that it is occurring relentlessly.

Nevertheless that's not the crux of the evolution-creation debate, which is concerned - just as Darwin was - with phylogenisis. The mechanism(s) through which functional bio-diversity is achieved, whether "by means of natural selection" or God's design, is not proven scientific fact.[/QUOTE]The biochemical mechanisms are not fully understood -- that's true. There is still much work being done in that area, and there's plenty of healthy debate among biologists regarding such things. Nevertheless, it is a fact that phylogenesis occurred (we can see it in any zoo), and it is known with certainty to have occurred through evolution. Whether God was involved or not is another question. "Theistic evolution" is a fully tenable position; "anti-evolution" is not.

Angler

2005-02-04 11:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=DarkRed][I][B] - "so do I have little patience with those militantly and dogmatically attached to the idea that the debate begins and ends with "natural selection."*" [/B] [/I] [/COLOR]

You know, those creationists who know their business have no problem with the concept of "natural selection" itself, which is in fact a very [B]conservative[/B] mechanism - it usually nips out those organisms that foolishly try something new, rather than favoring upstarts! I fully agree that natural selection may not be all there is to the process of evolution. Nevertheless, where do you get the idea that mutations are generally harmful?

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation which helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations which once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations don't do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly [Elena et al. 1996].

[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html[/url]

Darwin also probably plagiarized the whole concept from a creationist scientist:

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=3][B]Darwin the plagiarist?[/B][/SIZE]

"Natural selection is really a very straight-forward, commonsense insight. A creationist, the chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth (1810Ã¢â¬â1873), wrote about it in 1835Ã¢â¬â7, before Darwin, who very likely borrowed the idea from Blyth.1

Taylor, I., In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, Toronto, Canada, pp. 125Ã¢â¬â133, 1984. [/COLOR]

Maybe he did plagiarize the concept, and maybe he didn't. That's irrelevant to questions of correctness.

[COLOR=Indigo][B]"[I]It cannot be stressed enough that what natural selection actually does is get rid of information. [/I] It is not capable of creating anything new, by definition. In the above example, the plants became better able to survive dry weather because of the [I]elimination[/I] of certain genes; i.e. they lost a portion of the information which their ancestors had. The information for the longer roots was already in the parent population; natural selection caused nothing new to arise in, or be added to, the population."[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/muddywaters.asp[/url]

A classic creationist claim, and one that is easily debunked:

It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:

* increased genetic variety in a population [Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991]
* increased genetic material [Brown et al. 1998; Lynch and Conery, 2000; Ohta, 2003; Hughes and Friedman, 2003; Alves et al. 2001]
* novel genetic material [Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996]
* novel genetically-regulated abilities [Prijambada et al. 1995]

If these don't qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html[/url]

This is what those supposedly "evolved" bacteria with a newfound immunity to drugs are all about: they have lost some of their genes, and are therefore simpler and less influenced by drugs that can eliminate more complicated forms of life. Wrong. See above.

This is why [U]mutations[/U] are absolutely essential for the evolutionist paradigm, for without it, there is no mechanism at all to drive the hypothetical evolution process onwards! Of course mutations occur and are essential for evolution to take place. So...?

If you want answers to false creationist claims such as the above regarding "loss of information," I again refer you to this archive:

[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html[/url]

It is maintained by people who are actually qualified in fields relevant to evolution. It's based on hard, results-producing science rather than faith, wishful thinking, and question-begging. Before repeating a claim against evolution, please check there first.

Petr

2005-02-04 11:47 | User Profile

You're a one stubborn little evolutionist, huh?

[I][B]- "Creationism relies on the utterly unsupported axiom that the Bible is correct -- an axiom not based on either observations or logic, but on blind "faith."[/B][/I]

A shameless strawman - as if anyone with a major beef with the orthodox Darwinian story of life would be a fundamentalist Christian. You evo-propagandists seem to have an inner need to paint every evo-critic as a medieval Bible-thumper.

("Not that there's anything wrong with that.")

Really, this is not a whit different from other politically correct scare-tactics - if you express concern for the overt Jewish power in media, then you are a secret Nazi who wants to perpetuate another Holocaust.

[I][B] - "You haven't even read the Talk Origins site, judging by your repetition of uninformed and easily-dismissed arguments from creationist propaganda sites. More on that in a moment."[/B][/I]

Are you evos so blind to your hypocrisy and double standards? You are relying uncritically on Talkorigins, as if it were a magic bullet against all creationist arguments.

I doubt that you are all that familiar with creationist arguments yourself.

Btw, have you ever made that response for Jonathan Sarfati's excellent rebuttal of John Rennie's hit-piece in "[I]Scientific American[/I]" that you talked about on Phora? [B] [COLOR=Blue][SIZE=3]15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry:[/SIZE]

A point by point response to Scientific American[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp[/url]

Petr

Angler

2005-02-04 12:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]You're a one stubborn little evolutionist, huh? I'm not stubborn -- the facts are. And you're stubborn in rejecting them.

[I][B]- "Creationism relies on the utterly unsupported axiom that the Bible is correct -- an axiom not based on either observations or logic, but on blind "faith."[/B][/I]

A strawman?!?! I posted a quote directly from AnswersInGenesis that says basically the very same thing!

Nevertheless, every single "evo-critic" IS a religious fundamentalist -- either a Bible-thumper or some other variety of mystic. People who are not beholden to fundamentalist religious dogma have no problems accepting the overwhelming evidence that evolution occurred.

Show me someone who rejects evolution, and I'll show you a religious fundamentalist. It's just that simple.

Really, this is not a whit different from other politically correct scare-tactics - if you express concern for the overt Jewish power in media, then you are a secret Nazi who wants to perpetuate another Holocaust. It has nothing to do with politics. It's a matter of facts and an objective reality that you refuse to accept.

[I][B] - "You haven't even read the Talk Origins site, judging by your repetition of uninformed and easily-dismissed arguments from creationist propaganda sites. More on that in a moment."[/B][/I]

Are you evos so blind to your hypocrisy and double standards? You are relying uncritically on Talkorigins, as if it were a magic bullet against all creationist arguments.

I have read creationist sites. I even quoted from one, for Chrissake! Did you even read my post above?

There is no double-standard. I accept descriptions of reality based on reason and correctly-applied logic. That's how I judge evolution, and that's how I judge creationism.

I don't rely on TalkOrigins uncritically -- I rely on it because the arguments make good scientific and logical sense. They are not based on assumptions or faith, but on evidence and logic. Furthermore, they save me a lot of typing, since creationists tend to rehash the same old arguments over and over again, no matter how many times they are debunked.

I doubt that you are all that familiar with creationist arguments yourself. I am, and they are all nonsense for the reason given above: they rely on the unfounded assumption that the Bible is correct. Furthermore, regarding issues where my technical knowledge is sufficient to judge, I can also see that creationist arguments are scientifically false.

Btw, have you ever made that response for Jonathan Sarfati's excellent rebuttal of John Rennie's hit-piece in "[I]Scientific American[/I]" that you talked about on Phora? [B] [COLOR=Blue][SIZE=3]15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry:[/SIZE]

A point by point response to Scientific American[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp[/url][/QUOTE] I started a thread about it on the Phora, but then, if memory serves, you told me you'd rather I responded directly to him. If I'm wrong about that, please correct me.

I am actually not very interested in responding to Safarti personally, since I am quite convinced that no amount of reasoning or evidence will change his mind. His brain is sealed shut -- he is unwilling to admit that he could be wrong. To me, he has no credibility whatsoever, since his main premise (that the Bible is correct) is without foundation.

The very title of his article proves that he's full of crap. "Materialistic bigotry"? First of all, evolution need not be materialistic (though I think it is). Secondly, there is nothing "bigoted" about relying on evidence and reason exclusively to make one's case.

If you want me to respond to Sarfati on a thread here, then I will (though it may take time and have to be done piecemeal). But first you have to tell me that you're willing to admit that he might be wrong. Otherwise, what's the point?

Angler

2005-02-04 13:00 | User Profile

What the hell, I'm going to do it anyway. Please see my new thread in the Science forum....

MadScienceType

2005-02-04 17:36 | User Profile

You know, those creationists who know their business have no problem with the concept of "natural selection" itself, which is in fact a very [B]conservative[/B] mechanism - it usually nips out those organisms that foolishly try something new, rather than favoring upstarts!

That's just the vagaries of gametic segregation and chance, to a certain extent, which is part of what I was talking about with my "*" above.

[COLOR=Indigo][B]"[I]It cannot be stressed enough that what natural selection actually does is get rid of information. [/I] It is not capable of creating anything new, by definition. In the above example, the plants became better able to survive dry weather because of the [I]elimination[/I] of certain genes; i.e. they lost a portion of the information which their ancestors had. The information for the longer roots was already in the parent population; natural selection caused nothing new to arise in, or be added to, the population."[/B][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/muddywaters.asp[/url]

Sorry, Petr, but the above is patently untrue. Some bacteria escape antibiotics through the loss of genetic information, but most of them evade the drugs by modification or gain of genetic information. For example, some of the bugs resistant to chloramphenicol (a protein synthesis inhibitor) have modified the gene coding for the ribosome (the cell's "protein factory") subunit that the drug attacks so that the drug will no longer bind and have an effect. Most of the penicillin (and its derivatives)-resistant bugs have acquired a gene that produces beta-lactamase, an enzyme that cleaves, thus destroys the drug. Have you ever heard of the F plasmid? That's really the bacterial equivalent of sex. F plasmids often contain resitance genes for antibiotics, since they do confer a selective advatage on those bugs exposed to them. Of course, the equation is orders of magnitude more complex when you are talking about a sexually-reproducing, diploid species.

This is why [U]mutations[/U] are absolutely essential for the evolutionist paradigm, for without it, there is no mechanism at all to drive the hypothetical evolution process onwards!

Petr[/QUOTE]

Mutation is really a rather benign process, from a global view of species. In terms of numbers, most mutations do not have any effect at all, positive or negative. Among those that do, there's a very real chance of the mutation being lost through simple chance, i.e. the gamtes that hold the mutation don't end up producing offspring. The chance of loss goes up in species that don't reproduce in large litters, like humans (Third-Worlders apparently excepted). Also, there are other ways to introduce change, as well as new genetic material: transposons ("jumping genes") and viruses are two examples off the top of my head. That being the case, I'm willing to admit the possibility that there are other, as yet unknown, factors at work governing the progress of life on this planet, of which God might very well be The Big One. I don't disagree with natural selection or evolution, but rather people fanatically attached to the idea that it's the end-all-be-all when it comes to genes and genetic diversity. Supposedly open-minded scientists should know better.

Petr

2005-02-05 16:55 | User Profile

Bump!

Esoterist, where are you?

Petr

Esoterist

2005-02-08 10:14 | User Profile

Petr,

My real point is not to moralize in a liberalistic fashion about the ancient Jews and their rabidness and hubristic racial self-worship--rather, I want to know what a tribe of Arabic desert-nomads has to do with me, my EUROPEAN bloodline, my EUROPEAN heritage?! Or yours!

I have long wearied of the disgustingly deceptive cant about "bringing light to the lightless Gentiles" mouthed thoughtlessly by... non-Jews! The height of absurdity! I know what this utterly insane world-correcting impulse has led to--the terrors of communism and globalism.

What right does Abraham have to Orientalize the Western lands and Semiticize our collective soul? What a massive, monstrous confusion of spheres! Kipling's wisdom should be heeded.

Ã¢â¬ËOh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.Ã¢â¬â¢

In the mist-shrouded past, the ancestors of the Indo-European peoples constructed Stonehenge, developed writing through the non-Semitic Sumerians, created the original Babylonian and Egyptian civilizations, established the Persian Empire, fought for cultivated Athens and heroic Sparta, philosophized in Plato's Academy, erected the deathless image of the Roman State, and eventually became the inheritors of this legacy in the form of the Teutons.

But all this precious harvest of culture means nothing due to some intestine religious dispute amongst the superstious, impudently self-important Jews of the Roman province of Asia 2000 years ago! Now Western Man is supposed to, ingrate-like, annul the meaning of his singularly glorious past and achievements, pretend history began with the birth of a Jewish peasant, and crucify his inner instincts to appease the alien desert-metaphysics of Abraham! I cannot accept this. My conscience is not so weakened.

RowdyRoddyPiper

2005-02-08 11:35 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Esoterist]What right does Abraham have to Orientalize the Western lands and Semiticize our collective soul? What a massive, monstrous confusion of spheres![/QUOTE]

If it's any consolation, at least it was our Anglo-Saxon language that ended up becoming the "language of the world", even if Jewish spirituality is dominant in the sphere of religion. There is something to be said for the argument that there are assumptions, metaphors and conceptual tendencies embedded in language that make it as important (if not more so) in influencing one's worldview as religion.

An English-speaking Jew who only knows a few words of Yiddish is probably just as culturally colonised as an Indo-European Christian who is ignorant of the Pagan customs of his ancestors. I'm not denying the "Semiticization" (if that's a word :) ) of the West through the Christian religion, but it pays to keep things in perspective. Especially since attributing too much significance to the Jewish origins of Western religious tradition seems to me to be indulging Judeo-supremacists in their hubris about having "invented" the Gentile world.

Petr

2005-02-08 16:18 | User Profile

[B][I]- ”My real point is not to moralize in a liberalistic fashion about the ancient Jews and their rabidness and hubristic racial self-worship--rather, I want to know what a tribe of Arabic desert-nomads has to do with me, my EUROPEAN bloodline, my EUROPEAN heritage?! Or yours!”[/I][/B]

Men need some kind of a religion, and the neo-pagan identity is artificial. The first attempt of pagan revisionism during the time of Julian the Apostate was already a pathetic flop, and 20th century neo-paganism is even much shallower posturing.

Like it or not, old pagan religions are dead and buried. Just take Hitler’s word for it:

[COLOR=Indigo][B] "Nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself."[/B] [/COLOR] (14th of October, 1941, Hitler’s “[I]Table Talk[/I]").

Also on the artificiality of volkisch paganism:

[COLOR=Indigo][B]" The characteristic thing about these people is that they rave about old Germanic heroism, about dim prehistory, stone axes spear and shield, but in reality are the greatest cowards that can be imagined. For the same people who brandish scholarly imitations of old German tin swords, and wear a dressed bearskin with bull's horns over their bearded heads, preach for the present nothing but struggle with spiritual weapons, and run away as fast as they can from every Communist blackjack. Posterity will have little occasion to glorify their own heroic existence in a new epic.

" I came to know these people too well not to feel the profoundest disgust at their miserable play-acting. But [U]they make a ridiculous impression on the broad masses[/U], and the Jew has every reason to spare these folkish comedians, even to prefer them to the true fighters for a coming German state. With all this, these people are boundlessly conceited; despite all the proofs of their complete incompetence, they claim to know everything better and become a real plague for all straightforward and honest fighters to whom heroism seems worth honoring, not only in the past, but who also endeavor to give posterity a similar picture by their own actions.

" And often it can be distinguished only with difficulty which of these people act out of inner stupidity or incompetence and which only pretend to for certain reasons. [U]Especially with the so-called religious reformers on an old Germanic basis[/U], I always have the feeling that they were sent by those powers which do not want the resurrection of our people. For their whole activity leads the people away from the common struggle against the common enemy, the Jew, and instead lets them waste their strength on inner religious squabbles as senseless as they are disastrous.

...

" I shall not even speak of the un-worldliness of these folkish Saint Johns of the twentieth century or their ignorance of the popular soul. It is sufficiently illustrated by the ridicule with which they are treated by the Left, which lets them talk and laughs at them.[/B][/COLOR]

([I]Mein Kampf[/I], Chap. 12).

I also asked you to explain why Aryan Kurds, Persians, Gypsies or Hindus are somehow connected to the modern European identity while Christianity is not. J.R.R. Tolkien sure failed to see the logic:

[COLOR=DarkRed][B]"When German publishers RÃÂ¼tten and Loening wished to translate The Hobbit from English, they wrote him, inquiring whether his name was of "Aryan" origin. Tolkien’s reply dripped scorn:[/COLOR]

[COLOR=Purple][I]I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is, Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. [/I] [/B] [/COLOR]

[url]http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID=4127[/url]

The period of Renaissance, so hallowed by neo-pagans, was NOT filled self-righteous Aryan self-worship, but rather veneration of arcane Eastern wisdom. Renaissance period could easily be claimed to be more “Magian” than “Faustian”. The most influential Renaissance intellectuals adored half-Egyptian Hermetic lore and even Kabbalah!

Read some works by Frances A. Yates:

[COLOR=Blue]“In the first part of the book, Yates sets the stage with brief discussions of the thought of Lull, Pico della Mirandola, Johannes Reuchlin, Francesco Giorgi, and Henry Cornelius Agrippa, and she offers a new interpretation of an engraving by Albrecht Durer. At the heart of what Yates calls Christian Cabala were two central ideas: that the name of Jesus is the Tetragrammaton, the "ineffable name" of God; and that there is a unity of truth behind the appearance of things accessible to those afflicted (or blessed) by "inspired melancholy".

“In the second part of the book, Yates examines the influence of Christian Cabala on English philosphers and poets, including John Dee, Edmund Spenser, Shakespeare and Milton. [U]The backlash against the occult philosophy -- signalling the end of the Renaissance [/U] -- is also examined.[/COLOR]

[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415254094/102-0671891-7748103[/url]

[COLOR=Blue]“Bruno himself knocked about Europe, promoting plans for reconciling Catholics and Protestants, spending time -- not very happily -- in Elizabethan England. The Holy Office of the Inquisition eventually became aware that his plan seemed to involve [U]the restoration of Egyptian Sun-worship[/U] -- the True, Original Religion of Mankind, as revealed by the Divine Hermes -- in a Christian cloak. There was also more than a hint of plans to use magic, and astrally empowered images, to achieve this and other goals. The heliocentric theory was for Bruno, it seems, just one more proof of the divine nature of the Sun.[/COLOR]

[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0007DF83Y/qid=1107878480/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/102-0671891-7748103?v=glance&s=books[/url]

[I][B]- “I have long wearied of the disgustingly deceptive cant about "bringing light to the lightless Gentiles" mouthed thoughtlessly by... non-Jews!”[/B][/I]

What is so deceptive about that? The light of Jesus is needed by everyone living ”in the valley of the shadow of death” – that is, in this fallen, mortal world of ours.

[B][I]- “What right does Abraham have to Orientalize the Western lands and Semiticize our collective soul?”[/I][/B]

As even Nietzsche could tell you, true greatness does not ask permissions or give reasons for its actions, it simply does. We have been given orders by Lord Jesus Christ, and that command we follow.

[COLOR=Red][B]28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. [/B] [/COLOR]

Simply put, the Christianization of Europe was justified because it was possible and happened. Vast majority of Europeans happily accepted their new religion without resistance.

Yes, even the much-talked about Saxony. See, if Christianity had [B]really[/B] been alien to the Saxon soul, they would have abandoned it as soon as the Frankish Empire disintegrated – in the same manner as Haitians returned to voodoo when the French lost their control of the island. Yet, Saxons did not behave like Haitians and thought that Christianity was something fundamentally alien to them!

[B][I] - “Kipling's wisdom should be heeded. ‘Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.’[/I][/B]

Hehe – your comment is about to backfire.

No unnecessary disrespect meant, but I think this demonstrates nicely how superficial your knowledge is, for Kipling's “The Ballad of East and West” ends this way:

[COLOR=Navy][B]“Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet, Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat; [I]But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth, When two strong men stand face to face, tho' they come from the ends of the earth!”[/B][/COLOR][/I]

[url]http://www.geocities.com/amitski/ballad_of_east_and_west.htm[/url]

[B][I]- “In the mist-shrouded past, the ancestors of the Indo-European peoples constructed Stonehenge,”[/I][/B]

How do you know it was not built by some pre-Aryan people like Basques, Picts or Pelasgians?

[B][I]- “developed writing through the non-Semitic Sumerians,” [/I] [/B]

Sumerians certainly were not Indo-Europeans either – have no illusions on that one. Besides, their arrowhead writing is as alien to the West as Chinese letters – the revolutionarily comprehensible alphabet (with only 20-30 letters) came from Phoenicians.

[B][I]- “created the original Babylonian and Egyptian civilizations,”[/I][/B]

Nonsense. Can you show some evidence for that? (And by that I do not mean fairytales from Arthur Kemp.)

The closest time that Indo-Europeans ever came to ancient Egypt was during the invasion of “Sea Peoples”, and the Egyptian propaganda celebrates the Pharaoh for crushing these barbarian invaders.

[I][B] - … established the Persian Empire”[/B][/I]

And the Greek literature portrays Persians are the archetypal Other, despotic Orientals par excellence.

(Did you know that the title of the Persian emperor - “[I]Shahanshah[/I]” (the king of the kings) – was a direct loan from the Semitic Assyrian “[I]Melkan Melka[/I]”, meaning the same thing?)

[I][B]- “Now Western Man is supposed to, ingrate-like, annul the meaning of his singularly glorious past and achievements,..[/B][/I]

Annul exactly how? A vast portion of these achievements were performed by pious Christians, so don’t you try to hide behind the deeds of your Christian ancestors!

[B][I] - “…and crucify his inner instincts to appease the alien desert-metaphysics of Abraham!”[/I][/B]

What inner instincts? Crucify how?

What is your ethnic background, btw? I am a non-Indo-European Finn. :smile:

Petr

ErikD

2005-02-08 20:21 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]

Simply put, the Christianization of Europe was justified because it was possible and happened.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and the theft of that woman's purse was justified "because it was possible and it happened".

You make no sense Petr.

Petr

2005-02-08 23:55 | User Profile

[B][I] - "You make no sense Petr."[/I][/B]

I'm just too deep for you.

Petr

ErikD

2005-02-09 00:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "You make no sense Petr."[/I][/B]

I'm just too deep for you.

Petr[/QUOTE]

What's deep about using Nietzschean anti-Christian morality as justification for the spread of Christianity?

That's just silly.

Petr

2005-02-09 00:43 | User Profile

Nietzsche's "might is right" morality is self-refuting, which is one of the messages I'm sending here.

I also pointed out that Europeans didn't seem to feel themselves to be very "oppressed" by Christianity until the 18th century and the Endarkenment.

Petr

ErikD

2005-02-09 19:51 | User Profile

"Endarkenment"... lol

Petr

2005-03-13 14:20 | User Profile

Well Esoterist, are you still around?

Petr

SteamshipTime

2005-03-23 15:53 | User Profile

Without reading thru the thread, I'll just append the following. One of the best metaphors for the Old Testament I've heard came from an LF poster named Babylon:

The Old Covenant was a morality play. Man is evil and God, being wholly good, cannot have communion with him. So God chose a group of people, Abraham and his descendants, and a plot of earth, Palestine, to teach this lesson to man.

The children of Abraham: good. The Amalekites: bad. Good cannot abide evil and all the Amalekites must be slaughtered, man, woman and child. That's how unworthy man is of God.

The Promised Land is Heaven where we will enjoy perfect communion with God. How to get there? Lop off your foreskin. You can choose your foreskin or you can choose God. Don't eat pork. You can choose pork or you can choose God. Have faith in God; don't have faith in numbers of men at arms. You think it's not possible to enter the Promised Land without sufficient numbers? Fine. Go wander in the wilderness for 40 years until all the adults without faith are dead.

To underscore how ornery man is, look at the stink he puts up about lopping off a bit of flesh or giving up certain meats. He'd rather have his foreskin and his pork than perfect communion with God!

With the coming of Christ, the horrible play ended. Christ, being blameless, was the perfect and complete sacrifice for the sins of man. Man is now worthy to enjoy communion with God by accepting that sacrifice thru faith, demonstrated in good works. (Not of good works, "lest any man should boast"). God has made a New Covenant with man. The Old Covenant, Judaism, is no longer applicable.

When the Messiah came, all the Jews could think about was restoring the earthly Throne of David when the whole purpose was to re-establish the communion between God and Man that had been lost after Eden.

Currently, the Jews are too cosmopolitan to believe in a Messiah so their religious creed has become little more than a constant whine about the good old days. It is a religion that contains within it no hope of redemption which, to summarize, explains a lot about the Jewish ethos, IMO.

Texas Dissident

2005-03-23 15:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Needle]That is why any such "Blind Faiths" censor or ban their critics, as do the USUAL SUSPECTS, because they can't stand up to the light of RATIONAL SCIENCE and LOGICAL ANALYSIS and any HONEST or any actual FREE INQUIRY. What else isn't new?[/QUOTE]

Any time you want to post and examine the evidence for Christianity versus whatever it is your talking about, then by all means, please do.

Six

2005-03-24 22:50 | User Profile

Needle,

The trouble with Cosmotheism, it seems to me, is that it doesn't provide religious experience. People like clapping, stamping their feet, jumping around, engaging in silly rituals, and getting all warm and fuzzy inside with the feeling of great affirmation. Cosmotheism seems to be something only a high IQ could get excited about, thus excluding 98% of the population. Thoughts?