← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Stigmata
Thread ID: 17721 | Posts: 140 | Started: 2005-04-11
2005-04-11 04:44 | User Profile
[center][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=1][color=#000000][size=3][font=verdana][size=5]The divine revelation of Adolf Hitler[/size][/font][/size][/color][/size][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=1][color=#000000][size=3][size=4][/center] [/size][/size][/color][/size][/font]
[left][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=1][color=#000000][size=3][size=4][size=2]By David Myatt[/left] [/size][/size][/size][/color][/size][/font]
[url="http://myatt.port5.com/texts/the_divine_revelation_of_adolf_hitler.htm"]http://myatt.port5.com/texts/the_divine_revelation_of_adolf_hitler.htm[/url]
2005-04-18 01:18 | User Profile
Hitler was a bad man. Only the ignorant can dispute that. That's all I need to say.
2005-04-18 01:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hippopizzapie]Hitler was a bad man. Only the ignorant can dispute that. That's all I need to say.[/QUOTE]
What???
Since Hitler is the only person in recent years who came close to stopping the Jewish wrecking of Western culture [e.g. racial issues, politics, literature, the arts, gender issues], that, to me, is an amazing statement.
For example, today's Western literature is written largely by Jewish authors with sex and/or toilet fixations. Today's science is really Jewed science which insists that "race" doesn't exist [e.g. Ashley Montagu or Stephen J. Gould].
And as for the "holocaust," which one does society always talk about? The first one, carried out by Jews in Russia [1917-1953, carried out by racially-Jewish men serving under both Lenin and Stalin, with 20 million non-Jewish victims]? Nope. Society only mentions the second, smaller holocaust, which was a response to the first one.
2005-04-18 02:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE]For example, today's Western literature is written largely by Jewish authors with sex and/or toilet fixations. [/QUOTE] Franco,
This quote of yours reminds me of something. How long has it been since you heard someone hollering that Hitler was a homosexual, among other sexual claims? (i.e., "golden showers", [I]ad nauseam[/I]) I don't think I have read or heard claims like this made for years with the advent of "gay rights" in a big way over the past 20 years.
2005-04-18 03:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Franco,
This quote of yours reminds me of something. How long has it been since you heard someone hollering that Hitler was a homosexual, among other sexual claims? (i.e., "golden showers", [I]ad nauseam[/I]) I don't think I have read or heard claims like this made for years with the advent of "gay rights" in a big way over the past 20 years.[/QUOTE]That's a common bit of liberal folklore I think, which I think was raised most notably recently in [I]the Pink Swastika[/I]. However, Triskelion put me to task for quoting these little bits of folk wisdom which turned out to be at best rather speculative and often basic fabrications originating from Frankfurt School psychoanalytic types..
2005-04-18 03:22 | User Profile
Like I read one time on a statetment made by Herr Hitler "I am saving the German people and the World from the Jews".....he was right on the money and is a shame that he never finished his labor of love, labor of love? lol even I think that's funny.
2005-04-18 03:30 | User Profile
Okie,
I forgot about [I]The Pink Swastika[/I]. I was actually thinking of that trash written by Walter Langer and others that came out when I was in highschool.
2005-04-18 03:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stigmata][center][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=1][color=#000000][size=3][font=verdana][size=5]The divine revelation of Adolf Hitler[/size][/font][/size][/color][/size][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=1][color=#000000][size=3][size=4][/center] [/size][/size][/color][/size][/font]
[left][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=1][color=#000000][size=3][size=4][size=2]By David Myatt[/left] [/size][/size][/size][/color][/size][/font]
[url="http://myatt.port5.com/texts/the_divine_revelation_of_adolf_hitler.htm"]http://myatt.port5.com/texts/the_divine_revelation_of_adolf_hitler.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
Interesting to see how this came about
[QUOTE]The NSWPP's ideology was largely written by Matt Koehl. As a Nazi theorist, Koehl stood above his contem*poraries and his missives became standard texts for the new NSWPP and for the World Union of National Socialists. His writings appear to be the basis of American Nazi thinking and even rival groups echo his postulates. An examination of Koehl's major writings unravel the essence of American Nazism in the Post-Rockwell period.
Koehl authored four major texts: Some Guidelines For The Development Of The National Socialist Movement, Adolf Hitler, German Nationalist Or Aryan Racialist?, The Future Calls and America: A Racial Mission. He argued that there was (and is) but one National Socialist ideology. It was ushered into history in Germany in 1919 and "revived" by Rockwell forty years later. "One man gave National Socialism to the world. Our Doctrine did not exist until, drawing upon the great eternal truths of nature, Adolf Hitler proclaimed it." (9)
Koehl maintained that National Socialism was Hitler, expressing a sort of Carlyle-style Great Man theory of history. [B]Koehl accepted the rhetoric of Rudolf Hess, who proclaimed at Nuremburg in 1934: "The Party is Hitler just as the Party is Germany and Germany is Hitler". Koehl added that any person calling himself a National Socialist must acknowledge Hitler as the pivot of his world-view. (10) Nowhere does American Nazi literature discuss German Nazism as a movement which arose out of certain crises in German history, or as a product of various antecedents. In this respect the U.S. Nazis are akin to German Nazi race-theorist Alfred Rosenberg, who argued for a theory of limited roots for his movement; Rosenberg sought to maximise the role of Hitler and deny the NSDAP's connection with several philosophers and ideologies of the time.[/B] The only antecedents permitted for National Socialism were those which contributed to Hitler's personal development, ideas which Hitler absorbed in his youth and during the Great War. (11) The intellectual origins of National Socialism have been torturously analysed by scholars and certainly there was more to the movement than the dynamism of Hitler. (12) The important point here is that the American Nazis proclaimed National Socialism a doctrine - like Marxism - and not simply a manifestation
10 ibid., pp. 13-14. 11 ibid., pp. 14-15. 12 Fritz Stern, The Politics Of Cultural Despair, New York, 1951, passim; George L. Mosse, The Crisis Of German Ideology, New York, 1964, passim. National Socialism was understood by Stern and Mosse as a product of a peculiar German intellectual crisis.
of concrete intellectual, social and political undercurrents of early twentieth century Germany. Divorcing German National Socialism from its natural historical, cultural and political terrain would obviously be very important for U.S. Nazis; it would provide an explanation for their very existence. [B]In other words, if National Socialism was a doctrine, then it could appear anywhere on the globe, in any time period; but more importantly, the doctrine was the creation of one man, Adolf Hitler, and consequently the party was imbued with a rampant Hitlerphilia which engendered a certain missionary zeal. Americans were asked, not to adopt a German ideology, but to accept a universal faith. Perhaps, this was a concession to the American fundamentalist psychology.[/B]
Of course, a sort of Hitler-worship had appeared in the old American Nazi Party. However, it had appeared in a particular way: as a reference. Hitler was con*sistently praised by Rockwell for his courage, his dynamism and his political techniques. (13) Matt Koehl's attitude became very different, reflecting also a fundamental difference in personality and style between himself and Rockwell. In the 1972 publication, The Future Calls, Koehl wrote:
83 years ago this month a child was born in the small Austrian town of Braunau on the River Inn. With his arrival on earth
13 George Lincoln Rockwell, This Time The World, , pp. 154-157.
there began a new era in human history. For He was more than just another man. Into a world which had lost its sense of direction, He came to show the Way. Into a world of decadence and false values He came to proclaim great eternal truths. Into a world grown cynical and materialistic, He came to proclaim a new birth of radiant idealism... He came to offer hope, and salvation for an entire race... He was sent into this world with a message... (14)
Koehl then proceeded directly to compare Hitler with Christ:
Never in the past 2000 years has there been a man more reviled... than this man. Adolf Hitler fought and died so Aryan man might live. By paying with the supreme sacrifice, by shedding his life's blood, he has assured our race of a glorious future. (15)
[B]Koehl was arguing that Hitler was a type of messianic redeemer figure for the white race. No historian has ever argued that Hitler had sought to appropriate for himself that particular mission. Neither has any variety of postwar fascist movement (save the Nazis in the U.S. and elsewhere) held to this position. The U.S. Nazis have not seen Hitler's essential elements:[/B] that he was a European provincial of the pre-Great War vintage brought into politics through the experiences of the war and its effects. Joachim Fest and John Toland have bot>h seen him as dualistic in nature: a modernist and a reactionary, perhaps even a "great" man. (16)[B] Hitler never announced himself the racial messiah; people were drummed out of the NSDAP for comparing[/B]14 Matt Koehl, The Future Calls, Aarhus (Denmark), 1976, p. 6. 15 ibid., pp. 6-7. 16 Joachim C. Fest, Hitler, London, 1977, passim; John Toland, Adolf Hitler, New York, 1976, passim.
[B]their fuhrer to Jesus Christ. [/B] (17) Rockwell made various allusions to Jesus in reference to Hitler; he once called Hitler "the greatest man in two thousand years," but he never went any further than this. Rockwell perhaps made such references for the benefit of the U.S. rightist, since such a person was usually a Christian. Koehl, however, turned these utterances into concrete expressions of the new Nazi ideology. The tendency to blatant Hitler-worship in the NSWPP has grown stronger since 1972. It is possible that as the party entered a leadership crisis, Koehl turned to "faith in the party of Hitler and Rockwell" as justifica*tion for his authority. The "Hitler-wave" in the United States between 1973 and 1975 may have strengthened Koehl in this attitude, though it is impossible to judge this accurately. (18)
[URL=http://www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/usanazis/chapter3.html]Chapter Three - The Post-Rockwell Period[/URL][/QUOTE]
Face it Stigmata. Your god is dead.
2005-04-18 06:53 | User Profile
As I've stated previously on this board, I believe that Hitler was most likely a homosexual. The most solid piece of evidence for this are the Viennese police records of the 1920s, which listed him as a homosexual based (presumably) on his intimate relationship with associates such as Ernst Rhoem and his frequenting of known hotspots of homosexual activity (including a certain notorious bathhouse).
I don't want to labour this point too long because it will touch off a flame war, but there is evidence of other sexual deviancies/pathologies in Hitler's psychological makeup. For example, 3 out of 3 of his female sexual partners attempted suicide after sexual relations with him. There was a classified psychological assessment of Hitler performed by the OSS psychologist Dr. Henry A. Murray during WW2 that was recently declassified. It was undertaken to try to predict likely weaknesses in his military strategy, and also to assess the best way to deal with him post-war in the event of a negotiated surrender or ceasefire. The profile was based on his public behaviour, as well as more private observations obtained through spies. The profile declares him a sexual masochist.
It's an interesting read if you can be bothered with the 18 meg download. It's as interesting as much for what it reveals about the Allied opinion of Hitler as for what it claims to reveal about the man himself.
[url]http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/library/donovan/hitler/[/url]
I have to say that aside from any clinical observations, Hitler just comes across as gay to me on a gut (turning) level. The fixation with uniforms, the worship of virile young men and the exaggerated masculine body language all just scream gay to me. Or at the very least $#&%ed in the head.
2005-04-18 07:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]As I've stated previously on this board, I believe that Hitler was most likely a homosexual. The most solid piece of evidence for this are the Viennese police records of the 1920s, which listed him as a homosexual based (presumably) on his intimate relationship with associates such as Ernst Rhoem and his frequenting of known hotspots of homosexual activity (including a certain notorious bathhouse).
I don't want to labour this point too long because it will touch off a flame war, but there is evidence of other sexual deviancies/pathologies in Hitler's psychological makeup. For example, 3 out of 3 of his female sexual partners attempted suicide after sexual relations with him. There was a classified psychological assessment of Hitler performed by the OSS psychologist Dr. Henry A. Murray during WW2 that was recently declassified. It was undertaken to try to predict likely weaknesses in his military strategy, and also to assess the best way to deal with him post-war in the event of a negotiated surrender or ceasefire. The profile was based on his public behaviour, as well as more private observations obtained through spies. The profile declares him a sexual masochist.
It's an interesting read if you can be bothered with the 18 meg download. It's as interesting as much for what it reveals about the Allied opinion of Hitler as for what it claims to reveal about the man himself.
[url]http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/library/donovan/hitler/[/url]
I have to say that aside from any clinical observations, Hitler just comes across as gay to me on a gut (turning) level. The fixation with uniforms, the worship of virile young men and the exaggerated masculine body language all just scream gay to me. Or at the very least $#&%ed in the head.[/QUOTE]
Why didn't you tell the OD posters that Murray was an admirer/colleague of the infamous Jewish psychologist Kurt Lewin?
I am getting rather tired of your anti-Hitler "theories." Either prove your theories or stop mentioning Hitler. If you have issues with Hitler, why not try a leftist message board?
2005-04-18 09:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Why didn't you tell the OD posters that Murray was an admirer/colleague of the infamous Jewish psychologist Kurt Lewin?[/QUOTE] To tell the truth, I didn't know that. But in any case I qualified my post with this sentence "it's as interesting as much for what it reveals about the Allied opinion of Hitler as for what it claims to reveal about the man himself" so I'm not putting it forward as irrevocable proof, merely as an interesting source on the matter. Since the document was only recently declassified I'm sure many people on the board hadn't read it. [QUOTE=Franco]I am getting rather tired of your anti-Hitler "theories."[/QUOTE] I'm getting rather tired of your thin skin whenever I mention Hitler in a negative light. [QUOTE=Franco]Either prove your theories or stop mentioning Hitler.[/QUOTE] I've given reasons for why I think Hitler was a homo, and also acknowledged that the evidence is inconclusive. It's impossible for me to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. What am I supposed to do, post photographs of Hitlers meat-and-one-veg with Rhoem's teeth marks on them? [QUOTE=Franco]If you have issues with Hitler, why not try a leftist message board?[/QUOTE] Sorry, is this a National Socialist board or a traditional conservative one? There is plenty of room to criticise Hitler while still opposing Marxo-leftists. I disagree with National Socialism because I think it's a psychotic death-cult that is more of a manifestation of Hitler's mental illness than a respectable political philosophy, so I think bringing up Hitler's homosexuality (and all around fruitiness) is perfectly valid in this context. If you think calling NS a "cult" is going too far, look at the title of this thread! :lol:
2005-04-18 09:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Sorry, is this a National Socialist board or a traditional conservative one? There is plenty of room to criticise Hitler while still opposing Marxo-leftists. I disagree with National Socialism because I think it's a psychotic death-cult that is more of a manifestation of Hitler's mental illness than a respectable political philosophy, so I think bringing up Hitler's homosexuality (and all around fruitiness) is perfectly valid in this context. If you think calling NS a "cult" is going too far, look at the title of this thread! :lol:[/QUOTE]I certainly agree. There is of course a great deal of material out there on Hitler's sexual life, and you're free to discuss it, even if Franco types don't like it, but it is my experience that a lot of this material is on analysis partisan and speculative, even the stuff stamped "official", and must be used with considerable care.
2005-04-18 10:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Face it Stigmata. Your god is dead.[/QUOTE]About as likely to be resurrected as your mighty Jeebo.
2005-04-18 10:43 | User Profile
Hitler was homosexual; Hitler fathered children by his niece; Hitler only had one testicle; Hitler was a bum; Hitler was a madman; Hitler was a drug addict; Hitler died a virgin....
all totally [u]baseless[/u] allegations put out by guess what ethnic/"religious" group?
btw, Rowdy -- I'd be more than grateful if you could post any and all police records detailing AH's arrests for homosexual activity.
2005-04-18 10:55 | User Profile
[font=Arial][size=2]HITLER IN HISTORY: IRVING, WEBER TO ADDRESS CALIFORNIA MEETING [/size][/font]
|
[font=Arial][size=2]At a special April 17 meeting in southern California, two independent historians will take a fresh look at Hitler and his place in history.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]David Irving, international best-selling historian, is widely recognized, even by his adversaries, as an outstanding expert on Hitler and the Third Reich. His major work, Hitlerââ¬â¢s War, has been published in all major languages. He will speak on:[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]ââ¬ÅThe Faking of Adolf Hitler for Historyââ¬Â[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]Mark Weber, director of the IHR, has written extensively on twentieth century European history, and is a court-recognized expert on Germanyââ¬â¢s ââ¬ÅFinal Solutionââ¬Â policy. He will speak on:[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]ââ¬ÅIs an Objective View of Hitler Possible?ââ¬Â[/size][/font] [font=Arial][/font] [url="http://www.ihr.org/news/050417_meeting.shtml"]http://www.ihr.org/news/050417_meeting.shtml[/url]
2005-04-18 11:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stigmata]About as likely to be resurrected as your mighty Jeebo.[/QUOTE]We do have the body of Hitler Stiggy. That evidence is incontrovertiable. As is the absense of Christ's body.
2005-04-18 20:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]We do have the body of Hitler Stiggy. That evidence is incontrovertiable. [/QUOTE]
Horse hockey! Hitlers body has never been located, although there have been frauds perpetrated that claimed evidence to the contrary. Hitlers body is missing every bit as much as that of U.S. Grant.
2005-04-18 21:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96]Horse hockey! Hitlers body has never been located, although there have been frauds perpetrated that claimed evidence to the contrary. Hitlers body is missing every bit as much as that of U.S. Grant.[/QUOTE]Wrong -- the Soviets carted off AH's remains to Moscow after the pit in which he and Eva Braun was buried was dug up. They still have the skeletal remains.
2005-04-18 23:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ledhead V-2]Wrong -- the Soviets carted off AH's remains to Moscow after the pit in which he and Eva Braun was buried was dug up. They still have the skeletal remains.[/QUOTE]Wherever it is, all this fascination about Hitler's body proves how much of a crazy religious cult American national socialism is.
Get over it. It doesn't matter really where his body is - its a dead body.
This reminds me of all the hoopola over rock stars grave sites, like Jim Morrison's in Paris. His fans come up to the gravestone with a bottle of spirits, so "Jeem" can have a drink.
At least they have the excuse they're stoned out on drugs. :lol:
2005-04-18 23:29 | User Profile
Deranged Hollywood Nazi tripe...Adolf was nobody's Avatar.
2005-04-18 23:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Wherever it is, all this fascination about Hitler's body proves how much of a crazy religious cult American national socialism is.
Get over it. It doesn't matter really where his body is - its a dead body.
This reminds me of all the hoopola over rock stars grave sites, like Jim Morrison's in Paris. His fans come up to the gravestone with a bottle of spirits, so "Jeem" can have a drink.
At least they have the excuse they're stoned out on drugs. :lol:[/QUOTE]Get over what? Did I say I was "fascinated" by the whereabouts of AH's body? No, I just corrected Opera96.
Don't read into things that are'nt there....okay?
2005-04-18 23:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ledhead V-2]Get over what? Did I say I was "fascinated" by the whereabouts of AH's body? No, I just corrected Opera96.
Don't read into things that are'nt there....okay?
2005-04-19 00:37 | User Profile
Who is buried in Grant's tomb? :jester:
2005-04-19 00:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Who is buried in Grant's tomb? :jester:[/QUOTE]
Elvis Presley :wink:
2005-04-19 02:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Elvis Presley :wink:[/QUOTE]You mean the King is really dead?
I'm all shook up :wink:
2005-04-19 06:44 | User Profile
Sorry, is this a National Socialist board or a traditional conservative one?
Republican is more like it. It's a pity they don't realize how indebted they are to deviant elite like George H. Bush who laid the groundwork for augmenting "hereditary quality" and averting the "down breeding" that our well-intentioned social programs had wrought.
It takes Real Men like George H. Bush and the Republicans to actually make the case for a "moral" obligation to depopulate. Never ceases to amaze me that more folks don't sport GHB taglines lifted straight from the Congressional Record.
If you think calling NS a "cult" is going too far, look at the title of this thread!
Don't confuse them.
2005-07-27 10:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]To tell the truth, I didn't know that. But in any case I qualified my post with this sentence "it's as interesting as much for what it reveals about the Allied opinion of Hitler as for what it claims to reveal about the man himself" so I'm not putting it forward as irrevocable proof, merely as an interesting source on the matter. Since the document was only recently declassified I'm sure many people on the board hadn't read it. I'm getting rather tired of your thin skin whenever I mention Hitler in a negative light.
I've given reasons for why I think Hitler was a homo, and also acknowledged that the evidence is inconclusive. It's impossible for me to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. What am I supposed to do, post photographs of Hitlers meat-and-one-veg with Rhoem's teeth marks on them?
Sorry, is this a National Socialist board or a traditional conservative one? There is plenty of room to criticise Hitler while still opposing Marxo-leftists. I disagree with National Socialism because I think it's a psychotic death-cult that is more of a manifestation of Hitler's mental illness than a respectable political philosophy, so I think bringing up Hitler's homosexuality (and all around fruitiness) is perfectly valid in this context. If you think calling NS a "cult" is going too far, look at the title of this thread! :lol:[/QUOTE]Sorry, but there is no proof of Hitler having any homosexual tendencies at all. Much of the phony speculation centers around his relationship with Rudolf Hess. American spandau prison guard Eugene Bird interviewed Hess for his 1974 book [u]Hess: Prisoner Number 7[/u] and it is the most in depth study of Hess/Hitler. Hess doesn't speak of Hitler very personally at all and even says that Hitler didn't really have friends exactly, so the perceived closeness of the Hitler/Hess relationship has been highly exaggerated. Hitler clearly wasn't that close to either Hess or Roehm, they were merely colleagues working for a common struggle.
The other thing seems to be people wondering about Hitler's lifestlye in Vienna from 1909-1914? Are you saying that every poor young male is automatically a male prostitute? What is that based on?
Two things you need to consider about the "Hitler was gay" agenda, it is motivated by propaganda desires from two sides:
A) Christians want to prove that Hitler was gay in order to take the heat of the Holocaust off of their backs. If they can label Hitler both a homosexual and a Pagan they expect the Jews to stop criticizing all of those German Christians who willingly supported Hitler. If Hitler is gay it also stops Gay Rights groups from calling Christians "Nazis" whenever Christians oppose sodomy and gay marriage. If Hitler is gay, the Christians can shout back at them, "We aren't the Nazis, you QUEERS are the Nazis, Hitler was gay!" (notice how immature this kind of tactic is?)
B) If the Left Wing Jews can prove that Hitler was gay they can prevent any of the stereotyped "pickup truck driving White rednecks" from supporting Hitler or Nazi ideology. With these "hicks" unable to support the GAY Hitler or homosexual-led Nazism, they have no means of opposing Jewish race propaganda because they certainly don't want to be called "Nazis" which would link them with the much hated GAYS. And you shouldn't forget that Jews still do have the stereotype that all potential "Nazis" and resistance to multiracial propaganda will arise from the White rural areas.
2005-07-27 14:47 | User Profile
Obviously, the Zionist dominated media is never going to give Hitler a fair shake in the historical sense. This is why we need men like David Irving to glean the truth. But, having met Mr. Irving, I would hardly say that he, as one of the foremost experts on WW2, is enamored with Hitler or NS philosophy. Another Englishman, Nick Griffin made a great point that when he was younger he wrote a lot of revisionist history and no one cared; when he started talking about the here and now, people listened up. My point: Hitler is dead and the only way we're ever going to get a fair accounting of his life is when we break through the Zionist backed media. Until then, this discussion is pretty much moot.
2005-07-27 14:56 | User Profile
Hitler may have had some good ideas in Mein Kampf but as a ruler, he wasn't a good guy. Of all the anti-semites in the world, pick someone else. You could pick Martin Luther or Richard Wagner or Ben Franklin, but why Adolph Hitler, when he really overall was not that good of a person?
I don't think he was a homosexual, but I do not see why anybody would follow him after seeing his rule. I could understand being attracted to his writings but I can't understand being attracted to what he did once he got into power.
2005-07-27 16:38 | User Profile
As the old saying goes "Everyone is talking about the weather but no one is doing anything about it", Herr Hitler came at the right time with the right words after seeing the condition of Germany and specially the finacial colapse and who was behind it.
Only mistake that Her Hitler made was not to listen to his generals by fighting to many fronts at the same time...... the same that is happening in the US with the so called "war" on terror.
2005-07-27 17:32 | User Profile
Well, if today you read Hitler's and Goebbel's predictions/warnings in the '30's of what the Jewish World Order would be like in the late 20th to early 21st Century, you'd damn near well call them prophets.
2005-07-27 17:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kane123123]Hitler may have had some good ideas in Mein Kampf but as a ruler, he wasn't a good guy. Of all the anti-semites in the world, pick someone else. You could pick Martin Luther or Richard Wagner or Ben Franklin, but why Adolph Hitler, when he really overall was not that good of a person?
Because Hitler was the only one who actually freed a Western nation from Jewish control. He beat the Jews at their own game. The Jews don't want to see anyone repeat his example, hence their vilification of him.
Note that admiting the truth of these facts about Hitler does not mean that one is a "nazi" or agrees with everything that Hitler did. Most of the people who get called "nazi" on this forum - for instance, Alex Linder - aren't nazis. For one thing, they oppose socialism and big government; the number of people today in this country who actually support all parts of the nazi program are very few, a tiny number of cultists. There is a much larger group of people who appreciate Hitler's example of how to fight Jewish power, without mindlessly thinking that everything Hitler did was good or that one has to ape everything he did or believed.>
I don't think he was a homosexual, but I do not see why anybody would follow him after seeing his rule. I could understand being attracted to his writings but I can't understand being attracted to what he did once he got into power.[/QUOTE]Of course he wasn't a homosexual.
Look at homosexual behavior: they are sex addicts. They can't help themselves. They have huge numbers of sexual partners. If Hitler was a homo, his sex partners would have been coming out of the woodwork, before Hitler came to power, to "tell all" to the Jewish newspapers about Hitler's sexual history. The same thing would have happened outside of Germany after Hitler came to power, and after Hitler was dead.
Note that there was plenty of material published proving the homosexuality of prominent Nazis such as Ernst Roehm, published in Germany before the Nazis came to power. We are to believe that Hitler was "doing it" with men like Roehm, and left not a shred of evidence for his political enemies to seize on?
A homosexual who is so celibate that he doesn't have a single ex-sexual partner willing to "spill the beans" and be paid handsomely for it by the Jewish media, is a homosexual who is so asexual that he's not a homosexual at all. We have definite, well documented evidence of Hitler's sexual involvement with women; but with men, we have nothing but a bunch of Frankfort School psychobabble, inneundo, speculation, and vilification.
Surely there are more than enough flaws in Hitler's personality and policies, without having to resort to these tired Jewish-inspired innuendos.
2005-07-27 18:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]We do have the body of Hitler Stiggy. That evidence is incontrovertiable. As is the absense of Christ's body.[/QUOTE]You forget all those foreskins of the baby Jesus that are still around. So we have plenty of evidence "of Christ's body". Of course, if Christ never existed, we would still have "absence of Christ's body".
Evidence is easy to create. You want evidence of Hitler's body? I'll be happy to supply the evidence.
Observe that the communists were still so frightened of Hitler that they dug up and destroyed Hitler's remains in the 1970's, IIRC. The only alleged remains of Hitler are the skull fragments sent to Moscow.
Communist destruction of Hitler's body reminds me of the way the Church used to scatter ashes of burned heretics: they were frightened that people would venerate the remains. So even if Hitler's followers didn't think he was "holy", Hitler's enemies were afraid that people might come to think so.
2005-07-27 18:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Brian Hassett]Obviously, the Zionist dominated media is never going to give Hitler a fair shake in the historical sense. This is why we need men like David Irving to glean the truth. But, having met Mr. Irving, I would hardly say that he, as one of the foremost experts on WW2, is enamored with Hitler or NS philosophy. Another Englishman, Nick Griffin made a great point that when he was younger he wrote a lot of revisionist history and no one cared; when he started talking about the here and now, people listened up. My point: Hitler is dead and the only way we're ever going to get a fair accounting of his life is when we break through the Zionist backed media. Until then, this discussion is pretty much moot.[/QUOTE]
[quote=kane123123]Hitler may have had some good ideas in Mein Kampf but as a ruler, he wasn't a good guy. Of all the anti-semites in the world, pick someone else. You could pick Martin Luther or Richard Wagner or Ben Franklin, but why Adolph Hitler, when he really overall was not that good of a person? The "Hitler (and by extension NS) is dead" argument of course is one I make myself from time to time, especially when someone gets too carried away with Hitler worship, like I did for the notorius Hitler-idolator Stigmata at the start of this thread.
However as a hard paleo board with a strong WN component here, one cannot help address the Hitler issue repeatedly. First, for practical reasons, a great deal of the WN world still is, and if only for that reason we'd be stuck with the issue of discussing what the WN world is discussing and emphasizing, whether its Adolf Hitler or Donald Duck.
But separate and apart from the "everybody else is doing it" theory, the fact of the matter of course is that there is a very good reason for politically minded people of all sorts, and WN especially, to study Hitler. Firsty he is after all far and away the most popular and successful WN leader ever in the modern world, winning close to a majority of the vote in a modern country quite similar in most ways to our country today culturally. This in a time when today's WN have only the remotest dreams of power. And the bottom line is since for those interested in national and cultural reform political power is pretty much where its all about, we are all interested in the Hitler era, if for no other reason than we hope someday, quite understandably, for the recognition that comes from talking and being listened to by more than each other.
The real question I think is not whether there are things to learn about and discuss about the Third Reich, it is, what exactly are these lessons?
2005-07-27 18:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]No I didn't say you were, or that it had any religious significance to you. But they certainly do to Stiggy types.[/QUOTE] I thought the reigning orthodoxy here was that Stigmata was Raina in disguise. I don't visit here regularly, so I suppose that has changed.
2005-07-27 18:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]I thought the reigning orthodoxy here was that Stigmata was Raina in disguise. I don't visit here regularly, so I suppose that has changed.[/QUOTE]Yeah, among the buzz on Stiggy, being a Raina morph wasn't one of them I'd heard, at least lately. I'm not the Raina tracker, so I rely on others, most importantly of course Tex with his feel for I.P. origins.
2005-07-27 18:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]As the old saying goes "Everyone is talking about the weather but no one is doing anything about it", Herr Hitler came at the right time with the right words after seeing the condition of Germany and specially the finacial colapse and who was behind it.
Only mistake that Her Hitler made was not to listen to his generals by fighting to many fronts at the same time...... the same that is happening in the US with the so called "war" on terror.[/QUOTE]More particularly, Hitler had a strange admiration for the British Empire. He could have captured virtually the entire BEF at Dunkirk, and let them get away to fight another day. He thought that the British would "see reason" and come to the negotiating table, for their own best interests and for the common interest of Western Civilization. Hitler naively expected that after his attack on the USSR, the British would come to their senses. Thus he got a multifront war due to his naivete about the British.
Oddly, in spite of his anti-semitism, Hitler only seemed to really understand this in relation to Germany. Had Hitler been a little more the "good European" and a little less the "good German" he would have recognized the inherent corruption of the British ruling classes and why they would not agree to peace with him; he would also have recognized his natural allies in Eastern Europe, and would not have let the lunatic anti-slav fanatics within his own party ruin Germany's chances for winning over allies in the fight against the USSR.
Hitler had a lot of flaws, not all of which were of the "evil paranoid carpet chewer" variety. In fact his flaws and his qualities were closely related. The qualities that made him well suited to winning power and creating a revolution of affairs in Germany, were not the qualities well suited to creating a new order of affairs in Europe.
2005-07-27 18:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]The "Hitler (and by extension NS) is dead" argument of course is one I make myself from time to time, especially when someone gets too carried away with Hitler worship, like I did for the notorius Hitler-idolator Stigmata at the start of this thread.
However as a hard paleo board with a strong WN component here, one cannot help address the Hitler issue repeatedly. First, for practical reasons, a great deal of the WN world still is, and if only for that reason we'd be stuck with the issue of discussing what the WN world is discussing and emphasizing, whether its Adolf Hitler or Donald Duck.
But separate and apart from the "everybody else is doing it" theory, the fact of the matter of course is that there is a very good reason for politically minded people of all sorts, and WN especially, to study Hitler. Firsty he is after all far and away the most popular and successful WN leader ever in the modern world, winning close to a majority of the vote in a modern country quite similar in most ways to our country today culturally. This in a time when today's WN have only the remotest dreams of power. And the bottom line is since for those interested in national and cultural reform political power is pretty much where its all about, we are all interested in the Hitler era, if for no other reason than we hope someday, quite understandably, for the recognition that comes from talking and being listened to by more than each other.
The real question I think is not whether there are things to learn about and discuss about the Third Reich, it is, what exactly are these lessons?[/QUOTE] Simply speaking, NS philosophy will never fly in America. Even those WNs who praise Hitler to the hilt get upset when the government passes a law telling them where and when they can smoke. Whatever its merits, this form of government died in Germany in 45 and should be left to that. The rest of the baggage surrounding Hitler would take so many years to unwind that there is no practical use for it outside of academic debate. When we argue Hitler, we are playing by the rules and definitions of our opponents; when you let the other team call the conditions, you are bound to lose.
2005-07-27 18:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]More particularly, Hitler had a strange admiration for the British Empire. He could have captured virtually the entire BEF at Dunkirk, and let them get away to fight another day. He thought that the British would "see reason" and come to the negotiating table, for their own best interests and for the common interest of Western Civilization. Hitler naively expected that after his attack on the USSR, the British would come to their senses. Thus he got a multifront war due to his naivete about the British......
Hitler had a lot of flaws, not all of which were of the "evil paranoid carpet chewer" variety. In fact his flaws and his qualities were closely related. The qualities that made him well suited to winning power and creating a revolution of affairs in Germany, were not the qualities well suited to creating a new order of affairs in Europe.[/QUOTE]Re: my earlier quote
[QUOTE]The real question I think is not whether there are things to learn about and discuss about the Third Reich, it is, what exactly are these lessons?[/QUOTE]Its interesting to speculate and theorize about the fighting of WWII, but actually as WN's I think that's the least of our worries today. Its fun to imagine were generals and replay WWII war games. That's still significant and intersting at least, but obviously the real significant lessons for us are the period before 1933 when Hitler was a dictator with a mammoth security army to keep him in power, or actually really even 1923, when the nationalist movement had already consolidated around Hitler.
More like the days described early in [I]Mein Kampf[/I] when Hitler sat around a table with the handful of NSDAP members, wondering if they would ever get anybody but themselves to come to their meetings.
2005-07-27 18:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Re: my earlier quote
Its interesting to speculate and theorize about the fighting of WWII, but actually as WN's I think that's the least of our worries today. Its fun to imagine were generals and replay WWII war games. That's still significant and intersting at least, but obviously the real significant lessons for us are the period before 1933 when Hitler was a dictator with a mammoth security army to keep him in power, or actually really even 1923, when the nationalist movement had already consolidated around Hitler.
Relations between different white nations and ethnic groups is very much something we have to think about. The strengths and weaknesses that led to Hitler's rise and fall are certainly something that we can learn from.
More like the days described early in [I]Mein Kampf[/I] when Hitler sat around a table with the handful of NSDAP members, wondering if they would ever get anybody but themselves to come to their meetings.[/QUOTE] Not really, since we don't live in a comparable situation of turmoil and government collapse.
I do agree that study of the NSDAP is of limited immediate import, but there's nothing wrong with larger discussions on history and its applicability, if any, to today.
Surely no one thinks that under current conditions, anonymous internet discussion forums are going to lead to any kind of political turnaround, short term.
2005-07-27 18:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]Because Hitler was the only one who actually freed a Western nation from Jewish control. He beat the Jews at their own game. The Jews don't want to see anyone repeat his example, hence their vilification of him.[/QUOTE] Actually, the Spanish Inquisition did a pretty good job of freeing Spain from Jewish control, although your point about vilification is still valid.
2005-07-27 19:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Actually, the Spanish Inquisition did a pretty good job of freeing Spain from Jewish control, although your point about vilification is still valid.[/QUOTE] I don't think the level of Jewish influence in Spain was comparable to what was going on in Weimar Germany, with Jews openly mocking the native population and lording it over them as Jews (as opposed to Marranos).
However I'll happily admit your point and modify my statement to Hitler being the only example in modern history.
2005-07-27 20:57 | User Profile
Hitler killed Jews; Hitler also killed Christians and whites who did not agree with him. Somehow, I doubt he's a good figure for paleoconservatives in the US, especially since we are so heavily Christian. In the case of Hitler, I do not think that the statement "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies. While he did destroy the Jewish infestation, he certainly would have turned the same vigor on folks such as ourselves, with our calls for less government control, and our Christian faith. God knows he would have had absolute hatred for the limited government and economy of the Confederacy, the political ideal for so many of us.
If I were a German in the 1930s with the same ideologies as I now possess, I would have opposed Hitler fully. Socialism and huge, oppressive governments are not things I would want. Let us not forget Hitler's view of gun control; as the Alex Jone's t-shirt says, "Dictators love disarmed peasants", and "Mass Murderers everywhere agree, gun control works". The shirt is graced with pictures of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler.
In short, I oppose the NS cult because I would have been sent to the camps for my views under Hitler's Reich. Many fellow WNs and paleoconservatives in this country would have suffered the same fate. I thought the whole point of this board was for those who opposed tyrannical, oppressive, excessive goverments (like the one we have here now), not for those who love them.
I find it hard to see how a WN ought to idolize a man responsible for the murder of millions of whites, never mind the Jews. Don't try to pass this off as the actions of his Slav-hating subordinates or whatnot. The first rule of leadership that you learn in the Army, and should learn anywhere, is that you alone are solely responsible for the actions of all your subordinates.
2005-07-27 22:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=johnthepaleocon]Hitler killed Jews; Hitler also killed Christians and whites who did not agree with him. Somehow, I doubt he's a good figure for paleoconservatives in the US, especially since we are so heavily Christian. In the case of Hitler, I do not think that the statement "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies. While he did destroy the Jewish infestation, he certainly would have turned the same vigor on folks such as ourselves, with our calls for less government control, and our Christian faith. God knows he would have had absolute hatred for the limited government and economy of the Confederacy, the political ideal for so many of us. You are thinking backwards about this. Hitler was a German of his time; he had absolutely no interest in American politics or any desire to impose his system of government on us: as he said, German National Socialism was for Germans only. Nor did he attempt to destroy Christianity in Germany; the handful of Christian clericals who ran afoul of the Nazis did so for political reasons, not because they were Christians.
If I were a German in the 1930s with the same ideologies as I now possess, I would have opposed Hitler fully.
If you were a such a German, you would have been part of an absolutely invisible minority. There simply was no small government, American style limited government conservative tradition in German politics in the 1930's. You have to understand history in context; trying to impose your own current assumptions and beliefs on to the past results in historical absurdities.
Socialism and huge, oppressive governments are not things I would want. Let us not forget Hitler's view of gun control; This is false. There was no "gun control" in Germany except for some laws passed under Weimar and modified somewhat by the Nazis. Ordinary Germans could, and did, buy pistols, rifles, and shotguns in Nazi Germany, and use them for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense (although this was hardly necessary as violent crime rates, low in Weimar, dropped to next to nothing in Nazi Germany). "Hitler confiscated German's guns so he could oppress them" is a lie. It was the victorious allied armies who disarmed German civlians, who remain disarmed to this day.> as the Alex Jone's t-shirt says, "Dictators love disarmed peasants", and "Mass Murderers everywhere agree, gun control works". The shirt is graced with pictures of Mao, Stalin, and Hitler.
And it's complete bullsh_t as it applies to Hitler; Hitler did not disarm the German people. > In short, I oppose the NS cult because I would have been sent to the camps for my views under Hitler's Reich. No you would not. Small government libertarians would have been entirely invisible in Nazi Germany; their views had about as much traction in German politics of that period as flat earthers would have had. Hitler did not bother to repress the politically irrelevant. Hitler's main opposition in electoral politics were the communists and the social democrats; his main allies were German nationalists and conservatives, all of whom supported big government programs and socialism of one kind or another. Classical liberalism was a distinct no-show in the context of German politics (and generally, all politics) of that era.> Many fellow WNs and paleoconservatives in this country would have suffered the same fate. I thought the whole point of this board was for those who opposed tyrannical, oppressive, excessive goverments (like the one we have here now), not for those who love them.
Your post illustrates why we have these debates: even though most of us agree that Hitler and the Nazis are now irrelevent and are of mere historical interest only, you repeat so many of the lies and propaganda of the War Party of FDR, that it needs to be debunked. Debunking the lies used by the War Party to get us into war with Germany, does not mean that one approves of Hitler. But these lies do need to be refuted, thoroughly.> I find it hard to see how a WN ought to idolize a man responsible for the murder of millions of whites, never mind the Jews. Don't try to pass this off as the actions of his Slav-hating subordinates or whatnot. The first rule of leadership that you learn in the Army, and should learn anywhere, is that you alone are solely responsible for the actions of all your subordinates.[/QUOTE]Yes, and who forced/goaded/tricked Hitler into that particular war at that time? You need to read up on the causes of the war; it's not the simple black and white morality tale that you seem to think it is.
I don't know where you get this idea we are "idolizing" Hitler, but I'll hold Hitler's feet to the fire about white casualties in WWII just as soon as the media and academia do the same for FDR, Churchill, Stalin, and all the others who are at least equally guilty, if not much more so, as Hitler, but none of whom are ever really held to account, because, after all, they "won the war" and only the losing side is ever "guilty" of anything, a "logic" we are still seeing applied today, for instance, in Iraq.
2005-07-27 22:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]You are thinking backwards about this. Hitler was a German of his time; he had absolutely no interest in American politics or any desire to impose his system of government on us: as he said, German National Socialism was for Germans only. Nor did he attempt to destroy Christianity in Germany; the handful of Christian clericals who ran afoul of the Nazis did so for political reasons, not because they were Christians. If you were a such a German, you would have been part of an absolutely invisible minority. There simply was no small government, American style limited government conservative tradition in German politics in the 1930's. You have to understand history in context; trying to impose your own current assumptions and beliefs on to the past results in historical absurdities. This is false. There was no "gun control" in Germany except for some laws passed under Weimar and modified somewhat by the Nazis. Ordinary Germans could, and did, buy pistols, rifles, and shotguns in Nazi Germany, and use them for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense (although this was hardly necessary as violent crime rates, low in Weimar, dropped to next to nothing in Nazi Germany). "Hitler confiscated German's guns so he could oppress them" is a lie. It was the victorious allied armies who disarmed German civlians, who remain disarmed to this day.And it's complete bullsh_t as it applies to Hitler; Hitler did not disarm the German people. No you would not. Small government libertarians would have been entirely invisible in Nazi Germany; their views had about as much traction in German politics of that period as flat earthers would have had. Hitler did not bother to repress the politically irrelevant. Hitler's main opposition in electoral politics were the communists and the social democrats; his main allies were German nationalists and conservatives, all of whom supported big government programs and socialism of one kind or another. Classical liberalism was a distinct no-show in the context of German politics (and generally, all politics) of that era.Your post illustrates why we have these debates: even though most of us agree that Hitler and the Nazis are now irrelevent and are of mere historical interest only, you repeat so many of the lies and propaganda of the War Party of FDR, that it needs to be debunked. Debunking the lies used by the War Party to get us into war with Germany, does not mean that one approves of Hitler. But these lies do need to be refuted, thoroughly.Yes, and who forced/goaded/tricked Hitler into that particular war at that time? You need to read up on the causes of the war; it's not the simple black and white morality tale that you seem to think it is.
I don't know where you get this idea we are "idolizing" Hitler, but I'll hold Hitler's feet to the fire about white casualties in WWII just as soon as the media and academia do the same for FDR, Churchill, Stalin, and all the others who are at least equally guilty, if not much more so, as Hitler, but none of whom are ever really held to account, because, after all, they "won the war" and only the losing side is ever "guilty" of anything, a "logic" we are still seeing applied today, for instance, in Iraq.[/QUOTE] Excellent post. You are right, there simply was no small government movement in Europe during that era.
I find it odd that so many current Republicans are still believing the lies about Nazi Germany which were spoonfed to us by Liberal Hollywood in the late 1930's and early 1940's. Hitler killing White men? **How many times do we have to repeat that it was Britain and France who declared war on Germany?** Why is it that only about 1 out of every 100 people that I meet are aware of that? The typical person speaks of it as though Hitler just woke up one morning and decided to bomb London because that looked like good fun! :rolleyes:
And Hitler put German Christians in concentration camps? Doesn't sound too realistic, **97% of Germany's population was Christian**. The only Christians who opposed Hitler were the ones who were extremely naive about the perceived goodness of the "chosen people". I consider a Christian priest standing up to defend Marxist Jews as a traitor to his own people.
2005-07-27 22:25 | User Profile
Someone said here that being for small Government is liberal. It's not, it's the other way around. Supporting small Government is conservative.
If you look on a spectrum, the communists would be on the left, the national socialists in the center, and us American would be on the right.
By the way there are a lot of leaders who dealt with the Jewish problem. Over in Uganada, and obviously this is the Black race, Idi Amen forced every Jew to convert to either Islam or Christianity. Even Stalin, a communists, dealt with Jews (ever hear of the Jewish doctor's plot). So this is not anything unique to Hitler to have leaders who fight against Jewry. They come from all races and from all Governmental forms, leaders who oppose Jewry.
2005-07-27 22:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]Excellent post. You are right, there simply was no small government movement in Europe during that era.
Indeed. We too often project our modern assumptions back on to the past. That's one of the most basic historical errors one can make.
I find it odd that so many current Republicans are still believing the lies about Nazi Germany which were spoonfed to us by Liberal Hollywood in the late 1930's and early 1940's. They have forgotten about the America First movement; they have forgotten how much their forebears hated FDR and how much they tried to prevent him from getting us into the war. They think of WWII the way they think of those old Norman Mailer paintings: as a wonderful time when we all "came together as a nation", forgetting that our current mess is directly related to WWII and the creation of a de facto America empire, which we are still paying for today in Iraq.> Hitler killing White men? How many times do we have to repeat that it was Britain and France who declared war on Germany? Yes, but your more savy types will responds as Basil Fawty did in "The Germans" episode of Fawlty Towers:
German guests: "Would you stop talking about the war!" Basil Fawlty: "Well you started it!" German guests: "No we did not!" Basil Fawlty: "Yes you did! You invaded Poland!"
What most people do not realize is that Poland was being deliberately set up to start a war with Germany, by encouraging massacres of ethnic Germans within Poland (well documented, but denied by Western Allied propaganda), border incursions, and flat out refusal to negotiate about Danzig, which was de facto German territory anyway, over which Poland had no claim.
Polish leaders boasted they would goad Germany into war so as to destroy Germany; they expected to march into Berlin within weeks of declaring war. They were off by about 5 or 6 years, and it was Soviet troops, not Polish, who did the marching into Berlin.
In reality it was Britain and France who gave lying, false assurances to Poland to promote the war; behind them, FDR was urging Britain and France to get a war with Germany going, giving promises of American aid. We all know who was behind FDR. Again, this has all been documented, but it doesn't fit the WWII Allied propaganda story, so it gets chucked down the Orwellian memory hole.
Why is it that only about 1 out of every 100 people that I meet are aware of that? The typical person speaks of it as though Hitler just woke up one morning and decided to bomb London because that looked like good fun! :rolleyes: Yes, and as anyone who has read FJP Veale's book Advance to Barbarism knows, it was the British who first began deliberate strategic bombings of civilians. Hitler only eventually responded in kind when it was obvious that Churchill was doing this deliberately and refused to stop. And Hitler put German Christians in concentration camps? Doesn't sound too realistic, 97% of Germany's population was Christian. The only Christians who opposed Hitler were the ones who were extremely naive about the perceived goodness of the "chosen people". I consider a Christian priest standing up to defend Marxist Jews as a traitor to his own people.[/QUOTE]Undoubtably there were some harsh measures against some dissenting clerics, but Christians point to these examples today to try to distance themselves from Hitler, and for no other reason. The reality is that these handful of incidents were unrepresentative of the relationship between the NSDAP regime and the vast majority of German Christians.
2005-07-27 22:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kane123123]Someone said here that being for small Government is liberal. It's not, it's the other way around. Supporting small Government is conservative.
If you look on a spectrum, the communists would be on the left, the national socialists in the center, and us American would be on the right.
By the way there are a lot of leaders who dealt with the Jewish problem. Over in Uganada, and obviously this is the Black race, Idi Amen forced every Jew to convert to either Islam or Christianity. Even Stalin, a communists, dealt with Jews (ever here of the Jewish doctor's plot). So this is not anything unique to Hitler to have leaders who fight against Jewry. They come from all races and from all Governmental forms, leaders who oppose Jewry.[/QUOTE] I'm not bothered by people who don't like Hitler, but I wish they would offer legitimate reasons for their feelings and not falsely created ones. Just look at how Pat Buchanan was demonized in the media for suggesting that America should have remained Isolationist during WWII in order to let Hitler and Stalin wear each other down on the Eastern front, thus weakening both Fascism and Communism, the media was outraged!!!! People who don't know anything at all about the politics of WWII shouted Buchanan down as though he had violated the Universal Hollywood enforced Jewish rule of "Everyone must believe that Hitler wanted to conquer the world and therefore was the ultimate evil and had to be stopped."
The propaganda bias is so extreme in this direction that I even get weird looks from people if I mention that the America First Committee was doing the right thing by looking out for America's own best interests.
If someone doesn't like Hitler, dislike him for what he was, not what he wasn't.
2005-07-27 22:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kane123123]Someone said here that being for small Government is liberal. It's not, it's the other way around. Supporting small Government is conservative. You need to read more history, friend. The original meaning of liberal, in the political sense, meant small government, free markets, etc. 19th century liberals in England, Europe, and the USA, were small government types. In England and Europe at least, conservatives were opposed to this type of small government ideology, in the name of Throne and Altar. It was only with the 20th century irrelevence of this old monarchial conservativism, and the rise of socialism as a successful political movement, that liberals abandoned small government, free market ideas, and adopted socialism and the welfare state in one form or another.
Only in the USA do you have this liberal, big government, vs. conservative, small government opposition. Outside the USA, references to liberalism usually refer to small government, free market ideas. In Australia, the Liberal Party still defends these ideas, and thus, is thought of as "conservative" in the American sense.
If you look on a spectrum, the communists would be on the left, the national socialists in the center, and us American would be on the right.
All such attempts to put things into neat little "spectrums" radically oversimplify the matter.> By the way there are a lot of leaders who dealt with the Jewish problem. Over in Uganada, and obviously this is the Black race, Idi Amen forced every Jew to convert to either Islam or Christianity. Even Stalin, a communists, dealt with Jews (ever hear of the Jewish doctor's plot). So this is not anything unique to Hitler to have leaders who fight against Jewry. They come from all races and from all Governmental forms, leaders who oppose Jewry.[/QUOTE]We were talking about successfully defeating Jewry, not merely "fighting" them. All the examples you cite are pretty piss-poor examples of "fighting against Jewry". We were referring to actually and totally removing and defeating Jewish influence in a nation's politics and cultural life, and in modern times, only Hitler achieved that. Idi Amin is a Joke. Stalin lost, if you believe the "Jewish doctor's plot" story.
2005-07-27 22:54 | User Profile
Well but since we are Americans we might as well use the American terminology.
I agree that politics is not one dimensional and that putting things on a sprectrum does over-simplify things, but that is the general tendency. Sure in some areas Stalin was conservative (abortion, gays). But overall the tendency I have there is correct.
Also its not just the Jewish Doctor's plot. Stalin openly did oppose Jews saying they were "more loyal to Israel then they were to him." I'm no fan of his or of communism but it's not my oppinion that he fought Jewry, its a fact.
2005-07-27 22:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kane123123]Well but since we are Americans we might as well use the American terminology. We were discussing European politics; I made it quite clear in context what kind of liberalism I was talking about.
2005-07-27 22:59 | User Profile
If it wasen't for the Jews Herr Hitler would have been nothing more than another little dictator but thanks to the Jews he will live for ever.
As a matter of fact by talking all the time about the Zionists as I do I am doing the same thing that the Jews are doing in order to keep Herr Hitler 's alive and to perpertuate his memory.
I never said that I was perfect, only right.
2005-07-27 23:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w] You have to understand history in context; trying to impose your own current assumptions and beliefs on to the past results in historical absurdities.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe this to be the case at all, grep14w. My ideologies very much define who I am, and how I see the world and its history. I don't think I can disassociate myself from them. For precisely the reason that I do view history from my "own current assumptions and beliefs" led me to paleoconservative politics in the first place. I already knew I didn't like taxes, that I favored decentralized political structures, et cetera. For this reason, I became interested in the cause of the Confederacy. It's rather obvious where study along that line of thought brought me.
I am not afraid to admit that my assumptions and beliefs color my view of the past. As I said in my post, " If I were a German in the 1930s with the same ideologies as I now possess, I would have opposed Hitler fully." Look, I said as much in my post, that I was viewing it from my vantage point in time, with my ideologies. View it in that light. If you don't think that's a proper way to look at history, fine. If you don't think that anything would have been done to me for vocally opposing the Nazi regime, fine. I disagree.
I'd also disagree that I'm repeating "so many of the lies and propaganda of the War Party of FDR". I never claimed FDR or Stalin, or any country for that matter, as the "good guys". I don't subscribe to a black and white tale of morality. All I said was I heartily disagree with the politics of the Nazi Regime, and that I was certain that I myself, the current me, if suddenly placed in Nazi Germany, would have been a vocal dissident and would not have merited a warm reception. I said nothing about who started the war, et cetera. Please don't put words in my mouth.
2005-07-28 00:00 | User Profile
What most people do not realize is that Poland was being deliberately set up to start a war with Germany, by encouraging massacres of ethnic Germans within Poland (well documented, but denied by Western Allied propaganda), border incursions, and flat out refusal to negotiate about Danzig...
I have heard this, but where do I find a good account?
2005-07-28 00:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The original meaning of liberal, in the political sense, meant small government, free markets, etc. 19th century liberals in England, Europe, and the USA, were small government types.[/QUOTE]I'm not sure I can go along with you there. Who are your 19th-c. "liberals"? And can we not identify 18th-c. "liberals"? A common theme of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau was to oppose atomised individuals (left defenseless by their atomising ideologies) against an all-powerful state. My English friends tell me these are the sources of liberalism.
2005-07-28 00:44 | User Profile
I will say that Locke was more conservative than Hobbes though.
2005-07-28 00:52 | User Profile
And I will say that your sentiments concerning Pat Buchanan are fine indeed, Kane123123. He is my political hero, and has had elections stolen from him as flagrantly as Wallace's.
Not that it really counts for anything substantial, but I am proud of the fact that I graduated from the same high school as Pat Buchanan, in the same class as one of his nephews.
2005-07-28 02:53 | User Profile
I love the way Pat doesn't mix his message for anyone. He's like a one-man wrecking crew. You can never accusing him of trying to suck up to a particular base of people.
My Dad went to school close to where he was Born, cuz he was born in DC I believe.
2005-07-28 03:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kane123123]I love the way Pat doesn't mix his message for anyone. He's like a one-man wrecking crew. You can never accusing him of trying to suck up to a particular base of people. [/QUOTE]That's not what our dear departed friend [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/member.php?u=394]Triskelion[/URL] claimed, who once had many open admirers here. :lol:
2005-07-28 04:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]I'm not sure I can go along with you there. Who are your 19th-c. "liberals"? And can we not identify 18th-c. "liberals"? A common theme of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau was to oppose atomised individuals (left defenseless by their atomising ideologies) against an all-powerful state. My English friends tell me these are the sources of liberalism.[/QUOTE]I think modern political and social liberalism was pretty much defined by writers such as Jeremy Benthem and John Stuart Mill in Britain, and comparable writers such as Reinke(?) in Germany. They were also strong supporters of the notion of public/governmental interventionism.
That liberalism must be distinguished of course from classic liberalism, which I think is almost a Renaissance term referring to the development and freedom of the human mind and spirit, such as with "liberal arts".
2005-07-28 17:42 | User Profile
The Hitler as a homosexual line of thought was made at a time when homosexuality was considered a personality aberration. It was used as a perjorative against Hitler by those who probably couldn't think of anything else, and were attacking Hitlers morality. For those who follow Jewish criticism, you will notice the consistency of the attack upon the individual, and not his/her ideas.
However, today when such thinking about homosesuality has changed, the idea has become irrelevant, and Hitlers sexuality is no longer a serious issue. Besides, Hitler had several liasons with women.
Today, I suspect Hitler would be criticized because he molested children as child molestation is considered the ultimate evil.
I think what really pisses people off about Hitler is he had a good point about race and society. Then folks are left with the inconsistency of their own thinking, that is, how could such an evil man be correct about something so important.
2005-07-28 18:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ron]The Hitler as a homosexual line of thought was made at a time when homosexuality was considered a personality aberration. It was used as a perjorative against Hitler by those who probably couldn't think of anything else, and were attacking Hitlers morality. For those who follow Jewish criticism, you will notice the consistency of the attack upon the individual, and not his/her ideas. However, today when such thinking about homosesuality has changed, the idea has become irrelevant, and Hitlers sexuality is no longer a serious issue. Besides, Hitler had several liasons with women. Today, I suspect Hitler would be criticized because he molested children as child molestation is considered the ultimate evil. I think what really pisses people off about Hitler is he had a good point about race and society. Then folks are left with the inconsistency of their own thinking, that is, how could such an evil man be correct about something so important.[/QUOTE]Yes, because the masses are so addicted to this idea that a human is either ALL BAD or ALL GOOD. This faulty perception that everyone fits an extreme goes back to their initial childhood programming of evil witches against pure as snow Princesses. Unfortunately it is also rooted in Christianity in which God fights against the Devil. Darth Vader/Luke Skywalker is just another pop culture depiction of the same simplistic childish mindset. I've noticed that the less mature a person is, the more they buy into this hardline Good/Bad stuff.
So if Hitler is "Bad" he must have done nothing positive, the Devil certainly didn't do anything positive.
If Hitler was bad, then the people he killed, the Jews must be the good side! :wallbash:
2005-07-28 18:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]Yes, because the masses are so addicted to this idea that a human is either ALL BAD or ALL GOOD. This faulty perception that everyone fits an extreme goes back to their initial childhood programming of evil witches against pure as snow Princesses. Unfortunately it is also rooted in Christianity in which God fights against the Devil. Darth Vader/Luke Skywalker is just another pop culture depiction of the same simplistic childish mindset. I've noticed that the less mature a person is, the more they buy into this hardline Good/Bad stuff.
So if Hitler is "Bad" he must have done nothing positive, the Devil certainly didn't do anything positive.
If Hitler was bad, then the people he killed, the Jews must be the good side! :wallbash:[/QUOTE] Hans schmidt talks about the American all or nothing mentality in SS Panzergrenadier. This mindset of all good vs all evil probably is a vestige from our puritanical past.
2005-07-28 18:39 | User Profile
[FONT=Arial][B][I] - "This mindset of all good vs all evil probably is a vestige from our puritanical past."[/I][/B][/FONT]
As if Nazi Germany didn't have a dualistic worldview...
Petr
2005-07-28 18:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][font=Arial] - "This mindset of all good vs all evil probably is a vestige from our puritanical past."[/font]
As if Nazi Germany didn't have a dualistic worldview...
Petr[/QUOTE] You should really try using the quote button sometime when commenting on someone's post.
Of course, the NS party had their own black and white version of the world; but that mindset wasn't nearly as pervasive in the German population as with Americans. Some causes of this are religious doctrine, America's youth and inexperience in dealing with war; and a naivete that comes from shutting a country off to the world. The German soldier saw us as an enemy, but knew that one day America and Germany would be at peace and hopefully friends. They fought us tooth and nail, but treated our POWs far better than we did theirs. Americans, on the other hand, made up nonsense about Germans killing babies for fun and turning Jews into lampshades.
2005-07-28 22:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Brian Hassett]You should really try using the quote button sometime when commenting on someone's post.[/QUOTE]Ditto!
[QUOTE=Brian Hassett]Americans, on the other hand, made up nonsense about Germans killing babies for fun and turning Jews into lampshades.[/QUOTE]You left off the part about making soap from dead jew carcasses, and raping ugly jewesses.:caiphas:
2005-07-28 23:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]Yes, because the masses are so addicted to this idea that a human is either ALL BAD or ALL GOOD. This faulty perception that everyone fits an extreme goes back to their initial childhood programming of evil witches against pure as snow Princesses. Unfortunately it is also rooted in Christianity in which God fights against the Devil. Darth Vader/Luke Skywalker is just another pop culture depiction of the same simplistic childish mindset. I've noticed that the less mature a person is, the more they buy into this hardline Good/Bad stuff.
So if Hitler is "Bad" he must have done nothing positive, the Devil certainly didn't do anything positive.
If Hitler was bad, then the people he killed, the Jews must be the good side! :wallbash:[/QUOTE]:lol: The Nazi's epitimized the good/bad antithesis, as do the people who admire them, such as yourself.
I think you're really creating your own antithesis:
Nazi absolute good/bad - perfectly good and mature American good/bad - perfectly bad and immature
And you seem to be using Eric Hoffer "true believer" logic against religious motivations, ignoring or overlooking the fact that Hoffer used the Nazi's as epitimies of brainwashed "true believers".
You seem to have the attribute, not uncommon on these boards, of repeating notions and ideas you really don't have a very good handle on, so you often end up taking opposing sides on the same issue without even realizing it.
2005-07-29 02:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]:lol: The Nazi's epitimized the good/bad antithesis, as do the people who admire them, such as yourself.
I think you're really creating your own antithesis:
Nazi absolute good/bad - perfectly good and mature American good/bad - perfectly bad and immature
And you seem to be using Eric Hoffer "true believer" logic against religious motivations, ignoring or overlooking the fact that Hoffer used the Nazi's as epitimies of brainwashed "true believers".
You seem to have the attribute, not uncommon on these boards, of repeating notions and ideas you really don't have a very good handle on, so you often end up taking opposing sides on the same issue without even realizing it.[/QUOTE]I think you are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I am not saying that the Nazis were all good, but you are wrong to not see through the PLE game of rejecting NS. This H. Michael Barrett himself has the motive of wanting to get close to his Pro-Churchill Dad. In other words, he is using his selfish family/social needs to justify the rejection of NS. I can't respect that..H. Michael Barrett admires Oswald Mosley simply because he owns a comb which belonged to the late British Fascist leader!! LAME!! H. Michael Barrett is a glory-seeking CON-ARTIST who cares more about brushing shoulders with FAME than dedication to ideological truth.
Also, who defines what NS is? Hitler? Rosenberg? Goebbels? Hess? There are numerous interpretations.
When did I ever say that Nazis were all good? I have never been personally asked on here which specific aspects of Nazism were flawed. The people here who have denounced Nazism had no specific reasons either, they reject it for the exact reason that H. Michael Barrett does, to "fit in"
I don't even define myself as a "Nazi" but I will not engage in lame/people pleasing rituals of denouncing aspects of Nazism solely for the purpose of "fitting in".
2005-07-29 03:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]I think you are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I am not saying that the Nazis were all good, but you are wrong to not see through the PLE game of rejecting NS. This H. Michael Barrett himself has the motive of wanting to get close to his Pro-Churchill Dad. In other words, he is using his selfish family/social needs to justify the rejection of NS. I can't respect that..H. Michael Barrett admires Oswald Mosley simply because he owns a comb which belonged to the late British Fascist leader!! LAME!! H. Michael Barrett is a glory-seeking CON-ARTIST who cares more about brushing shoulders with FAME than dedication to ideological truth.
Also, who defines what NS is? Hitler? Rosenberg? Goebbels? Hess? There are numerous interpretations.
When did I ever say that Nazis were all good? I have never been personally asked on here which specific aspects of Nazism were flawed. The people here who have denounced Nazism had no specific reasons either, they reject it for the exact reason that H. Michael Barrett does, to "fit in"
I don't even define myself as a "Nazi" but I will not engage in lame/people pleasing rituals of denouncing aspects of Nazism solely for the purpose of "fitting in".[/QUOTE]
Hello OttoR, you seem like a decent sort so I'm just butting in here to let you know not to take Okie too seriously. He's on a mission these days to bash the dreaded [I]White Nationalist[/I] wherever he or she may be found. It has something to do with a terrible drubbing he received at the hands of a bare knuckles brawler by the name of NeoNietzsche. He blames us all for the sins of the one. :yawn:
2005-07-29 07:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]It has something to do with a terrible drubbing he received at the hands of a bare knuckles brawler by the name of NeoNietzsche.[/QUOTE]
When and where did that happen, Bardamu?
I will concede that NN was the pound for pound champ of obtuse verbiage, but Okie capably countered with flurries of power smilies.
2005-07-29 08:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Hello OttoR, you seem like a decent sort so I'm just butting in here to let you know not to take Okie too seriously. He's on a mission these days to bash the dreaded [I]White Nationalist[/I] wherever he or she may be found. It has something to do with a terrible drubbing he received at the hands of a bare knuckles brawler by the name of NeoNietzsche. He blames us all for the sins of the one. :yawn:[/QUOTE]Bardy, I don't remember you being around then much, and obviously you have no idea of what went on then. NN of all the pagan WN's was actually the one I personally had the least beef with, and argued very little with, as he was unlike at least a lot of pagan WN's an intelligent man about religion and philosophy, who put forth arguments that at least were logical and could be taken seriously. He did more in other words than drag his knuckles on the ground, pound his chest, or howl endlessly like a hyena.
My reputation as a baitor of WN I think basically evolves out of one thing, my interpolations with Triskelion, and the way I think it was rather cleverly showed, I regarding his logic and others regarding his personna, that he on both counts superficially looked good but on clpose inspection was a complete fraud. The Trisk defenders had a hard time recovering from their bitterness at seeing their pet idol dethroned and defrocked.
2005-07-29 13:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]If Hitler was bad, then the people he killed, the Jews must be the good side! :wallbash:[/QUOTE]You seem to take the standard WN tack of knocking Christianity and Christians to some degree
To get to the bottom, why wouldn't Christians think Hitler and NSers were among the most evil of men? The contempt pagan WN's or whatever else they like to call themselves comes through loud and clear. Most definitely NSers (or whatever else the like to call themselves) feel Christians if they are to have any part in the Nationalist caravan, will be riding in the back of the bus. Re: Franco as he mentions it
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]But it never seems to bother you that people in general don't mention race, only Christians. And sometimes conservatives. You seem to feel these people owe you something, in fact a great deal. [QUOTE=Franco]Aren't politically right-wing people in the West [i.e. conservatives, who are often Christian] supposed to be the defenders of Western culture? If so, then isn't it their duty to mention race and Jews, since those topics are so very important to culture? In fact, those topics are more important than religion, since a person can change his religion but cannot change his race.
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=121102&postcount=122[/url] [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Note that Franco doesn't apologize for saying Christians bear a special responsibility and duty for preserving our culture, and are therefore to be singled out for special criticism, and by implication punishment if people like him ever achieved power.
It is quite clear how people like Linder, Franco and the other Christian bashers view Christians and Christianity - they are just a substitute minority, weak because of their religion, whose weakness is to be used to harness their culture, faith, people and efforts to the cause of pagan WN, after which they will be absorbed or annihlated, just like the other peoples whose imputed weakness the original NS caused themselves to feel superior to.
Quite clearly, a WN movement with this outlook has adopted what might be called a "mirror image parasitism" position and mode of action with regard to Christianity and Western culture in general. How can you blame a lot of Christians if they see the errors in Judaism, in contrast, as just "mirror-image" bigotry, caused by the persecution they received at the hands of the Nazi's, and that the jews are the good guys in the war, and that WN are just utter reactionaries, who are capable of doing nothing productive? The WN world seems hell-bent on proving them right. :furious: :furious:
2005-07-29 14:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]You seem to take the standard WN tack of knocking Christianity and Christians to some degree
To get to the bottom, why wouldn't Christians think Hitler and NSers were among the most evil of men? The contempt pagan WN's or whatever else they like to call themselves comes through loud and clear. Most definitely NSers (or whatever else the like to call themselves) feel Christians if they are to have any part in the Nationalist caravan, will be riding in the back of the bus. Re: Franco as he mentions it
Note that Franco doesn't apologize for saying Christians bear a special responsibility and duty for preserving our culture, and are therefore to be singled out for special criticism, and by implication punishment if people like him ever achieved power.
It is quite clear how people like Linder, Franco and the other Christian bashers view Christians and Christianity - they are just a substitute minority, weak because of their religion, whose weakness is to be used to harness their culture, faith, people and efforts to the cause of pagan WN, after which they will be absorbed or annihlated, just like the other peoples whose imputed weakness the original NS caused themselves to feel superior to.
Quite clearly, a WN movement with this outlook has adopted what might be called a "mirror image parasitism" position and mode of action with regard to Christianity and Western culture in general. How can you blame a lot of Christians if they see the errors in Judaism, in contrast, as just "mirror-image" bigotry, caused by the persecution they received at the hands of the Nazi's, and that the jews are the good guys in the war, and that WN are just utter reactionaries, who are capable of doing nothing productive? The WN world seems hell-bent on proving them right. :furious: :furious:[/QUOTE]Well, perhaps if the Catholic Church hadn't spent the last 500+ years converting every Indian and Black savage to the same religion shared by millions of Whites I would agree with you. Anyway, the whole mythology of Christianity seems to favor the enemies of the White race. Jesus dies as a submissive victim on the cross, and then we wonder why a White Christian sits down and watches TV and cries during [u]Schindler's List[/u] or [u]Little Boy King: The Martin Luther King Jr. story[/u]?? Christianity is felt as an internal feeling which manifests itself in identifying with the victim, not the strong. Because of the submissive death of Jesus, today's mass media only has to frame a suffering, hungry Mexican border-jumper in the same "victim" capacity to immediately turn the propaganda tide in favor of that Brown person instead of what favors White interests.
Watch some of the Christian TV/Christian-themed movies and it is the same thing over and over again: weak retarded person faces persecution or Jews persecuted by Nazis who are saved by a heroic Christian family (it is always heroic to save victims even though of course "victimhood" is a subjective thing if they really bothered to think about it instead of just "feeling")
Man has 90% of his face burned off in a fire= Victim= Jesus Jews persecuted in the Holocaust= Victims= Jesus Blacks suffering from persecution by evil Klansmen in the 1950's south= Victims= Jesus Poor, hungry Mexicans "who just want to feed their children"= Victims= Jesus Retarded person= Victim= Jesus Single mother prostitute= Victim= Jesus Interracial couple falls in love and their hate-infected parents try to keep them apart= Victims= Jesus
And it just goes on and on. Have you ever met someone who does state or federal government social work for a living? They are the most Liberal people on Earth and how could they not be? They live and breathe nothing but the cult of victimhood.
You call us Anti-Christian but all we are asking for is for you to see the hypocrisy of this ridiculous "Blessed are the meek" nonsense.
The only reason that any WN emphasizes the completely outdated Wotan stuff is because at least it isn't based on victimhood! Pagan Gods aren't afraid to be strong and allow you to identify with the aggressor and the assertive person, instead of the shivering, deformed weakling. A pagan White society wouldn't naturally identify emotionally with Jews just because they "got killed" by tough Nazis.
If you want to maintain Christianity then perhaps you better come up with a way of removing all of that ridiculous victim garbage from it? :argue:
2005-07-29 15:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]The only reason that any WN emphasizes the completely outdated Wotan stuff is because at least it isn't based on victimhood! Pagan Gods aren't afraid to be strong and allow you to identify with the aggressor and the assertive person, instead of the shivering, deformed weakling. A pagan White society wouldn't naturally identify emotionally with Jews just because they "got killed" by tough Nazis.
If you want to maintain Christianity then perhaps you better come up with a way of removing all of that ridiculous victim garbage from it? :argue:[/QUOTE]Yeah, maybe we better remove all the victim stuff about the poor little weak Nazi's, fighting for the goodness of the human race, to be tromped on by the mean Russians. Face it, the germans were a weak people, and Hitler said they deserved to be exterminated. We should turn have turned the whole lot of them over to Beria and his special treatments. Who like a real man would be only to happy to see the last Nazi exterminated, and keep his own apparatus around, in case any revertents appeared.
Big tough Nazi superman, hiding in the western Christian liberties on the internet that they are pledged to destroy. People like you explain why for many years people in Europe would never say the word German, let alone Nazi, without spitting. No wonder you guys are getting uppity again and imagine your such big tough supermen - you fancy we've just forgotten how to spit.
2005-07-29 15:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Yeah, maybe we better remove all the victim stuff about the poor little weak Nazi's, fighting for the goodness of the human race, to be tromped on by the mean Russians. Face it, the germans were a weak people, and Hitler said they deserved to be exterminated. We should turn have turned the whole lot of them over to Beria and his special treatments. Who like a real man would be only to happy to see the last Nazi exterminated, and keep his own apparatus around, in case any revertents appeared.
Big tough Nazi superman, hiding in the western Christian liberties on the internet that they are pledged to destroy. People like you explain why for many years people in Europe would never say the word German, let alone Nazi, without spitting. No wonder you guys are getting uppity again and imagine your such big tough supermen - you fancy we've just forgotten how to spit.[/QUOTE] Watch some of the classic films on Ancient Greece/Ancient Rome, strength is emphasized and glorified, not weakness. I noticed that you avoided the Jesus issue entirely. Yes or no, does the submissive death of Jesus cause Whites to identify with "victim" minorities? Perhaps you don't consider it an important question but I'm positive that anyone who wishes to get at the root of the WN Christian/Pagan debate should think about it.
How would you explain the psychological motives of those hundreds of White Christians who marched in the Civil Rights movement during the 1960's? Surely you realize that the Christian focus on meekness and victimhood was a big cause of it? "The meek shall inherit the Earth?" Opposing Black freedom would be like hurting millions of wonderful dark Jesuses. :yucky:
2005-07-29 15:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]Watch some of the classic films on Ancient Greece/Ancient Rome, strength is emphasized and glorified, not weakness. I noticed that you avoided the Jesus issue entirely. Yes or no, does the submissive death of Jesus cause Whites to identify with "victim" minorities? Perhaps you don't consider it an important question but I'm positive that anyone who wishes to get at the root of the WN Christian/Pagan debate should think about it.
How would you explain the psychological motives of those hundreds of White Christians who marched in the Civil Rights movement during the 1960's? Surely you realize that the Christian focus on meekness and victimhood was a big cause of it? "The meek shall inherit the Earth?" Opposing Black freedom would be like hurting millions of wonderful dark Jesuses. :yucky:[/QUOTE] The timid Christians you accuse of not being willing to hurt a fly are the same ones that drove the Moors and the Jews out of Spain, conquered North and South America, went on the Crusades, built globe-spanning empires, and converted (sometimes forcibly) your idealized strength-worshipping European pagans. Not exactly a track record that aligns well with a victim mentality. The problems your cite are results of one piece of Christian theology, ripped out of context and perspective, and applied to ideological ends. That is the definition of heresy, by the way. As for Christ being an eternal victim because He allowed Himself to be crucified, you might want to go ahead and read to the end of the story. That's not quite the end.
2005-07-29 15:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]The timid Christians you accuse of not being willing to hurt a fly are the same ones that drove the Moors and the Jews out of Spain, conquered North and South America, went on the Crusades, built globe-spanning empires, and converted (sometimes forcibly) your idealized strength-worshipping European pagans. Not exactly a track record that aligns well with a victim mentality. The problems your cite are results of one piece of Christian theology, ripped out of context and perspective, and applied to ideological ends. That is the definition of heresy, by the way. As for Christ being an eternal victim because He allowed Himself to be crucified, you might want to go ahead and read to the end of the story. That's not quite the end.[/QUOTE] I can accept that analysis, but why does it seem that the "victim" cult is today the dominant aspect of Christianity? When did it change from being a "crusade" religion to being a "victim" one? Is this a 20th Century mindset?
2005-07-29 15:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]How would you explain the psychological motives of those hundreds of White Christians who marched in the Civil Rights movement during the 1960's? Surely you realize that the Christian focus on meekness and victimhood was a big cause of it? "The meek shall inherit the Earth?" Opposing Black freedom would be like hurting millions of wonderful dark Jesuses. :yucky:[/QUOTE]Or let's go back earlier. What do you think of slavery, and of the Christian stance in regard to it? Sounds from your tone that you support slavery.
I'll give you hint - we just discussed it on the board, but like most other things that we've covered in regards to this you seem clueless.
2005-07-29 15:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]I can accept that analysis, but why does it seem that the "victim" cult is today the dominant aspect of Christianity? When did it change from being a "crusade" religion to being a "victim" one? Is this a 20th Century mindset?[/QUOTE] This is the $64,000 question. It is relatively easy to point out stages along the way, but pinpointing a discrete beginning point of this mindset is difficult. It already existed in the 19th century, as can be seen by the Yankee Transcendentalists, Unitarians, and Quakers, but it wasn't until the 20th century that the full-court press against what C. S. Lewis called 'muscular Christianity' really began. I think MacDonald's Culture of Critique analysis is pretty accurate in describing the identities and motives of those most instrumental in attacking orthodox Christianity.
2005-07-29 15:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Or let's go back earlier. What do you think of slavery, and of the Christian stance in regard to it? Sounds from your tone that you support slavery.
I'll give you hint - we just discussed it on the board, but like most other things that we've covered in regards to this you seem clueless.[/QUOTE] The slavery issue is a difficult one because if you say you oppose it, it appears that you are motivated by compassion for your fellow man and the sort of mentality that leads to various races living together in "brotherhood" and massive miscegenation. If you are in favor of slavery you put aliens in your midst who can rebel at anytime, and because you've already ridiculed them as being "inferior", they have more natural desire for vengeance.
Now if the slavery issue is Whites owning other Whites then I'm opposed to it on moral grounds. The example of the Nazis owning the Slavs and treating them as inferiors is something I could never defend due to moral considerations.
2005-07-29 15:59 | User Profile
How about this stance? Slavery was necessary, but now that we have better technology, it is no longer necessary. There were white slaves too, the media just ignores it.
2005-07-29 16:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]When and where did that happen, Bardamu?
I will concede that NN was the pound for pound champ of obtuse verbiage, but Okie capably countered with flurries of power smilies.[/QUOTE]
Tex, if you concede that NN was the pound for pound champ etc., aren't you agreeing with me? :lol: :lol: :lol:
2005-07-29 16:18 | User Profile
Now if the slavery issue is Whites owning other Whites then I'm opposed to it on moral grounds. The example of the Nazis owning the Slavs and treating them as inferiors is something I could never defend due to moral considerations.[/QUOTE]
Firstly, I note you say moral considerations. You were just saying Christianity was something you were against, because it encourages concern for the weak and victims. Now you'reconcerned all of a sudden. Probably blame Christianity for being not concerned enough. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Sad to see people absorb all this Nazi brainwashing about Christianity really without much comprehension even of what it is they are saying.
Also you didn't answer the question I was asking [QUOTE=OttoR]The slavery issue is a difficult one because if you say you oppose it, it appears that you are motivated by compassion for your fellow man and the sort of mentality that leads to various races living together in "brotherhood" and massive miscegenation. If you are in favor of slavery you put aliens in your midst who can rebel at anytime, and because you've already ridiculed them as being "inferior", they have more natural desire for vengeance. Difficult. Sounds like you're being evasive.
Angler was just saying he was against it BTW, and questioning whether Christianity did enough to oppose it.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. :wacko:
2005-07-29 16:22 | User Profile
Ponce <----- staying out, don't know what is going on and dont want to get a bloody nose. :wub:
2005-07-29 16:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Firstly, I note you say moral considerations. You were just saying Christianity was something you were against, because it encourages concern for the weak and victims. Now you'reconcerned all of a sudden. Probably blame Christianity for being not concerned enough. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Sad to see people absorb all this Nazi brainwashing about Christianity really without much comprehension even of what it is they are saying.
Also you didn't answer the question I was asking Difficult. Sounds like you're being evasive.
Angler was just saying he was against it BTW, and questioning whether Christianity did enough to oppose it.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. :wacko:[/QUOTE] Well, we certainly didn't need to convert all of those slaves to Christianity! Also, I have no Nazi brainwashing, I noticed long ago from watching Pat Robertson brag about how a poor, blind Indian man in Bombay was spreading the word of Jesus. And I thought to myself, "Why so much celebration of dysfunction and disability?" Honestly, it almost seems like a fetish element of Christianity to enjoy wallowing in misery! Why not plan a whole evening around it? Watch some Special Olympics basketball followed by a movie about black churches being bombed, and then maybe a Holocaust film before bedtime? :whlch:
2005-07-29 16:34 | User Profile
I think slavery was a necessary evil back in the past and that white people were also enslaved. I would only oppose this on moral grounds only if they were mistreated. Having a white slave and treating him/her decently and having a white slave and abusing him/her are two different things. Of course in modern day society, no slavery is necessary.
2005-07-29 16:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Bardy, I don't remember you being around then much, and obviously you have no idea of what went on then. NN of all the pagan WN's was actually the one I personally had the least beef with, and argued very little with, as he was unlike at least a lot of pagan WN's an intelligent man about religion and philosophy, who put forth arguments that at least were logical and could be taken seriously. He did more in other words than drag his knuckles on the ground, pound his chest, or howl endlessly like a hyena.
My reputation as a baitor of WN I think basically evolves out of one thing, my interpolations with Triskelion, and the way I think it was rather cleverly showed, I regarding his logic and others regarding his personna, that he on both counts superficially looked good but on clpose inspection was a complete fraud. The Trisk defenders had a hard time recovering from their bitterness at seeing their pet idol dethroned and defrocked.[/QUOTE]
I have no problem with you challenging pagan or agnostic WN, I just don't want you running off every new member that doesn't conform to your brand of nationalism. If people come here and attack Christianity that's different. Our nation is big enough for Christians and non-Christians alike. But then it comes down to the old question that I don't think Ive ever seen answered: If a White Christian has to pick allies between non-Christian Whites or non-White Christians, who will he pick? I put to you that if he picks the non-White Christian then he is not a nationalist, but this is a topic for a different thread altogether.
2005-07-29 16:59 | User Profile
Since America (and all of Western Civilization) is so thoroughly steeped in Christian symbolism, though not, regrettably in orthodox Christianity itself, it seems to me to be utterly pointless to try to build a program to save Western Civilization upon paganism. Putting aside for a moment the disputes about transcendant truth, it seems obvious that it would be easier and more effective to use the traditional symbolism of Christianity than it would be to convince the white population to totally discard these symbols and adopt new ones. The vocabulary of myth, symbolism, and archtypes is already there. All we need to do is to reclaim it.
2005-07-29 17:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]I have no problem with you challenging pagan or agnostic WN, I just don't want you running off every new member that doesn't conform to your brand of nationalism. If people come here and attack Christianity that's different. Our nation is big enough for Christians and non-Christians alike. But then it comes down to the old question that I don't think Ive ever seen answered: If a White Christian has to pick allies between non-Christian Whites or non-White Christians, who will he pick? I put to you that if he picks the non-White Christian then he is not a nationalist, but this is a topic for a different thread altogether.[/QUOTE]I am not attacking all Christians, I am attacking that small part of Christianity which has become too prominent. Whenever the major networks show one of those "Civil Rights" movies the typical Christian sits down and watches and automatically identifies with the Blacks because they are depicted as more vulnerable and suffering. The Jewish controlled studios which make these films know that Christians are easily fooled into this "feel sorry for victims" emotional tripe. Whenever they show Holocaust movies why does the average Christian place themselves in the "I'm the Jew" mindset? This addiction of wanting someone to feel sorry for has destroyed the religion.
2005-07-29 17:15 | User Profile
[COLOR=Purple][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "Watch some of the classic films on Ancient Greece/Ancient Rome, strength is emphasized and glorified, not weakness."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
Are you getting your historical ideas from Hollywood movies?
Petr
2005-07-29 17:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][color=purple][font=Arial] - "Watch some of the classic films on Ancient Greece/Ancient Rome, strength is emphasized and glorified, not weakness."[/font][/color]
Are you getting your historical ideas from Hollywood movies?
Petr[/QUOTE] The Hollywood depiction of Ancient Greece/Ancient Rome is very accurate. No one thinks of the Spartans as weak people. In the writings of Greek and Roman philosophers you find no wallowing in victimhood. To claim or celebrate victim status was deemed unmanly.
2005-07-29 17:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]This addiction of wanting someone to feel sorry for has destroyed the religion.[/QUOTE] If you change this to 'is destroying the religion' then I agree with you. My point is that the solution is to reclaim Christian symbols and traditions for orthodoxy, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. For my part, I am able to ally with non-Christians; I cannot, however, ally with anti-Christians, and, in my experience, a great number of pagans fall into the latter category.
2005-07-29 17:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Since America (and all of Western Civilization) is so thoroughly steeped in Christian symbolism, though not, regrettably in orthodox Christianity itself, it seems to me to be utterly pointless to try to build a program to save Western Civilization upon paganism. Putting aside for a moment the disputes about transcendant truth, it seems obvious that it would be easier and more effective to use the traditional symbolism of Christianity than it would be to convince the white population to totally discard these symbols and adopt new ones. The vocabulary of myth, symbolism, and archtypes is already there. All we need to do is to reclaim it.[/QUOTE]
I think you are right so far as it goes but what about people who find their own ways to agnosticism and/or some form of paganism like Asatru, what is the relationship going to be between Christianity and these people? and especially what is the political relationship going to be between nationalists of the one variety with nationalists of the other? I'm not hostile to the usual Christianity found around OD, but it is undeniable that mainstream Christianity today works hand in glove with the regime of deracinated Multiculturalism, so therefore it deserves a great deal of withering criticism, just as does the psychopathic extremes of WN that can be found around the net.
2005-07-29 17:46 | User Profile
I think a sense of victimhood can be a source of strength or weakness, depending on how one follows up on it.
"Wallowing in victimhood," as OttoR puts it, is of course pathetic. But if a person feels like he's been victimized, it can instill in him a burning desire for revenge. That desire can be a source of great fearlessness and motivation. Being victimized makes one hateful, and righteous hatred is a source of power. (Think of the Emperor tempting Luke Skywalker.)
As far as Christianity goes, I don't think Christians are taught to "wallow in victimhood," but are rather supposed to remain stoic in the face of persecution, confident that God will set things right in the end. If someone can take that attitude, then that's great for him; I cannot, of course, because I find Christianity unbelievable. I don't think Christianity is cowardly; far from it. I just don't believe in it.
2005-07-29 17:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]I think you are right so far as it goes but what about people who find their own ways to agnosticism and/or some form of paganism like Asatru, what is the relationship going to be between Christianity and these people? and especially what is the political relationship going to be between nationalists of the one variety with nationalists of the other? That is a difficult question. Traditionally, all nations, whether Christian or pagan, have been held together by a common religion. The idea of 'freedom of religion' is a relatively new one, and its emergence correlates rather well with the beginning of the dissolution of the West. That said, working out a power-sharing arrangement at this point seems a bit premature.
[QUOTE=Bardamu]I'm not hostile to the usual Christianity found around OD, but it is undeniable that mainstream Christianity today works hand in glove with the regime of deracinated Multiculturalism, so therefore it deserves a great deal of withering criticism, just as does the psychopathic extremes of WN that can be found around the net.[/QUOTE]Heretical Christianity deserves a very great deal of criticism, indeed. It should be targeted, however, so that it is critical of Christian heresy, specifically, and not simply shotgun blasts of vitriol that indiscriminately weaken the standing of Christianity overall.
2005-07-29 17:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]I have no problem with you challenging pagan or agnostic WN, I just don't want you running off every new member that doesn't conform to your brand of nationalism. If people come here and attack Christianity that's different. Well really everyone here we are discussing basically is attacking Christianity in a fairly broad, indiscriminate matter.
And I don't run em off, unless you think that includes making sure people that dish it out can take it.
Funny how soon the mood can go from "we pagan supermen, we can't stand you pantywaste meek Christian victim lovers" to "you vicuous Christian bullies, pounding on us poor little powerless pagan victims :lol:
Of course, I maybe jumping the gun a little now. Everyone deserves some rope. But it might be smart if they consider how frequently the line has just been used in the past for people to hang themselves with.
2005-07-29 18:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Tex, if you concede that NN was the pound for pound champ...[/QUOTE]
Of obtuse verbiage. That's all, sorry.
2005-07-29 19:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Funny how soon the mood can go from "we pagan supermen, we can't stand you pantywaste meek Christian victim lovers" to "you vicuous Christian bullies, pounding on us poor little powerless pagan victims :lol:
[/QUOTE]
If you mean that one poster says the one thing and another poster says the other, this is because they are two separate people, not because their positions are changing to suit some imagined on your part altered landscape. It is idiotic to claim some sort of contradiction because two posters say two different things.
2005-07-29 20:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]If you mean that one poster says the one thing and another poster says the other, this is because they are two separate people, not because their positions are changing to suit some imagined on your part altered landscape. It is idiotic to claim some sort of contradiction because two posters say two different things.[/QUOTE]That's not just what I mean. You can often just pick one of your champs at various times, posts, or even points in a posts. Spin a bit harder.
2005-07-29 21:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]That's not just what I mean. You can often just pick one of your champs at various times, posts, or even points in a posts. [/QUOTE]
By all means do so at the time, Okie, but don't get too exercised, it is afterall just one big, informal conversation called the internet. :shocking:
2005-08-12 02:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]Excellent post. You are right, there simply was no small government movement in Europe during that era.
This is not true at all. There were anarchists, classical liberals, conservatives, monarchists (many of these wanted relatively small governments, with no welfare, etc.).
And Hitler put German Christians in concentration camps? Doesn't sound too realistic, 97% of Germany's population was Christian. Which doesn't change the fact that National Socialism was an anti-Christian movement that elevated Blood and Soil over God. In fact a Nation is worthless if not ordained by the Almighty. NS Germany was inspired by occult anti-Christian atheism and not by God. The leadership was heavily made up of sorcerers, atheists, homosexuals, etc. Face it, Otto, you are setting up a false choice when you say we must either choose the Nazis or their supposed opposites, the Pharisees. In fact both are anti-Christian forces that are anathema to Christian Nationalism. Neither Germans nor Jews are the chosen people, however much that may pain Nazis and Zionists, respectively. The only chosen people are Christians. Linders and Dershowitzes can go to some island and create an anti-Christ "nation" together, they deserve each other.
2005-08-12 04:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Genevan]This is not true at all. There were anarchists, classical liberals, conservatives, monarchists (many of these wanted relatively small governments, with no welfare, etc.).
Which doesn't change the fact that National Socialism was an anti-Christian movement that elevated Blood and Soil over God. In fact a Nation is worthless if not ordained by the Almighty. NS Germany was inspired by occult anti-Christian atheism and not by God. The leadership was heavily made up of sorcerers, atheists, homosexuals, etc. Face it, Otto, you are setting up a false choice when you say we must either choose the Nazis or their supposed opposites, the Pharisees. In fact both are anti-Christian forces that are anathema to Christian Nationalism. Neither Germans nor Jews are the chosen people, however much that may pain Nazis and Zionists, respectively. The only chosen people are Christians. Linders and Dershowitzes can go to some island and create an anti-Christ "nation" together, they deserve each other.[/QUOTE] I don't think that Nazism was[I] officially [/I]anti-Christian. Sure, the Nazis opposed the Christian leaders who publicly spoke out against Nazism. But the Christians who remained silent about Nazism were largely ignored.
Hitler's public speeches usually did not contain anti-Christian themes.
As for Nazi leaders being homosexuals, most of them were not. In fact, most Nazis were conservative re: that topic and were opposed to homosexuality.
2005-08-12 04:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Genevan] [quote=otto]And Hitler put German Christians in concentration camps? Doesn't sound too realistic, 97% of Germany's population was Christian. Which doesn't change the fact that National Socialism was an anti-Christian movement that elevated Blood and Soil over God. In fact a Nation is worthless if not ordained by the Almighty. NS Germany was inspired by occult anti-Christian atheism and not by God. The leadership was heavily made up of sorcerers, atheists, homosexuals, etc. [/QUOTE]Otto must be busy reading how how beloved NS party was actualy turned into a communist front for practical purposes by Martin Bormann. However I love the way Nazi's use the term Christian, as in 97% of german's were Christian.
They use it the same way jews use it, i.e. non-jewish, non-eggheaded whites.
Ypu could of course say the same things about communist nations, some by some standards (who cares what they are, but they're out there) are predominantly "Christian" so the communists can't be anti-Christian.
Sure the Nazi's as the communists, didn't care if someone didn't renounce his baptisimal certificate, but go to Church more than once a year and it was certainly a different story.
Heathens that utter this line merely show they know less about Christianity than the Jews.
2005-08-12 06:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]I don't think that Nazism was officially anti-Christian. Neither is the ADL. I don't expect anti-Christs to be honest, whether of the German or Jewish persuasion. In fact I expect just the opposite.
Sure, the Nazis opposed the Christian leaders who publicly spoke out against Nazism. The Nazis opposed Christianity, period. Hitler even said he'd prefer an Islamic Germany over a Christian one. But the Christians who remained silent about Nazism were largely ignored. "Ignored?" Wow, that's really sweet of them. Hitler's public speeches usually did not contain anti-Christian themes. "Usually?" Like his own master, Hitler was a deceiver of the world ([size=-1]Rev 12:9)[/size] and a "murderer from the beginning." ([size=-1]John 8:44)[/size] As for Nazi leaders being homosexuals, most of them were not. In fact, most Nazis were conservative re: that topic and were opposed to homosexuality. "Most?" As Lord Jesus put it, [size=-1]"Ye shall know them by their fruits." (Matt 7:16.) In this case, the term fruits is especially fitting. [/size]:biggrin: Muslims also claim to oppose homosexuality, yet they overwhelmingly practice it.
You know, I'm not too impressed by your claims that Christians under NS were morely "ignored" rather than put in concentration camps. America is a Christian nation, period. That means Christianity is not just "one of many faiths", as both you and the ACLU would like to believe. Christianity is supreme, numero uno, second to none. You had better get used to it.
2005-08-12 06:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE] Muslims also claim to oppose homosexuality, yet they overwhelmingly practice it.[/QUOTE] They do?? Can you provide proof of that?
2005-08-12 08:06 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "They do?? Can you provide proof of that?"[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
Man, Muslim countries have [B]always[/B] been notorious hotbeds of sodomy. Ask any sexologist. Why do you think that people like Andre Gide or William Burroughs (among many other Western degenerates) spent their time in there?
Some material here:
[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=4]"Islam's Love-Hate Relationship with Homosexuality"[/SIZE][/COLOR]
[url]http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5704[/url]
and here:
[url]http://www.blessedquietness.com/alhaj/page20.htm[/url]
[B][COLOR=Blue][I]In Al Hadis, Vol. 4, p. 172, No. 34, Ali reported that the Apostle of Allah said, "There is in Paradise a market wherein there will be no buying or selling, but will consist of [U]men[/U] and women. When a man desires a beauty, he will have intercourse with them." Attested by Tirmizi. [/I] [/COLOR] [/B]
Petr
2005-08-12 08:30 | User Profile
Petr,
From the first link:
[QUOTE][font=Times New Roman][size=3]Excessively doting, downtrodden mothers fixated on their offspring, and aloof, mostly distant and domineering fathers, create preconditions for what is known in clinical psychology as the ââ¬Ålost object homosexuality,ââ¬Â as opposed to the pre-Oedipal polyformous homosexuality, which is ââ¬Ålove for men.ââ¬Â The cry for the missing father, that emanates across the Moslem world into the endless void from a hundred thousand minarets five times each day, can never be answered. The hatred that motivates Bin Laden and his ââ¬Åfeminine yet virileââ¬Â followers is not the normal aggressiveness of the child for the father at the Oedipal stage, which can be mediated and managed, but hard-core psychotic homosexuality of the son abandoned by his father, a near-incurable condition that can lead to homicidal, delusional paranoia.[/size][/font][/QUOTE] Meaningless psychobabble.
From the second link:
[QUOTE][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate; sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister. Ayatollah Khomeini[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine. Ayatollah Khomeini [/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2] (Quotes above are from Khomeini's book, Tahrirolvasyleh, vol. 4, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990, Source: Homa)[/size][/font][/QUOTE] Are these quotes for real? They sound made up to me.
Although my grandad once told me of an old Arab proverb he heard while serving in North Africa: "Women for duty, Men for love, and boys for pleasure". Yeeaucggghk! :yucky:
2005-08-12 08:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Man, Muslim countries have always been notorious hotbeds of sodomy. Correct. Good post, Petr.
While Muslims claim to be opposed to homosexuality, Christians actually are. This is obvious just by looking at the real world. Even in the most liberal Christian countries, male homosexuality is widely regarded as disgusting. The more Christian an area, the less faggotry; the more Muslim an area, the more faggotry. Even for this reason alone, the Crusaders were justified in executing Muslims. It is also an excellent reason to militantly combat Islam, today. Islam represents Devil worship, faggotry, and utter stagnation. As you point out elsewhere, even the Devil can wear a halo. In fact that is when he is most effective.
Ask any sexologist. Why do you think that people like Andre Gide or William Burroughs (among many other Western degenerates) spent their time in there? I'd be happy every faggot today to follow in their footsteps - and not come back. Michael Jackson has already flown the coup to Bahrain.
2005-08-12 09:31 | User Profile
[u][font=Trebuchet MS][size=4][font=Jester]Christians Opposed to Homosexuality?[/font][/size][/font][/u]
[font=Jester][font=Times New Roman][size=3]No. [font=Verdana][size=2]The Anglican/Episcopal Church is completely heretical now: [/size][/font][url="http://www.apologeticsindex.org/a112.html"][font=Verdana][size=2]http://www.apologeticsindex.org/a112.html[/size][/font][/url][/size][/font][/font] [font=Jester][font=Times New Roman][size=3]1) During 2003 a homosexual priest was ordained as Bishop of the Episcopal Church in America. In 1993 a survey revealed that 75% of Episcopalians believed that it is possible for sexually active homosexuals to be faithful Christians. :nerd: [/size][/font][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]2) [font=Arial][size=2]The ELCA has acted to welcome gay and lesbian people to participate fully in the life of its congregations and to reject discrimination, assault, and harassment of gay and lesbian persons, and it has called for "discerning conversations" within the church to understand the Spirit's leading in this situation. To encourage such conversations, the ELCA has produced a number of [/size][/font][url="http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/resources.html"][font=Arial][size=2][color=#800080]resources[/color][/size][/font][/url][font=Arial][size=2] to aid in the conversation. :eek: [/size][/font][/size][/font] [font=Arial][/font] [font=Arial]3) [/font][font=Verdana]Some Branches of the Methodist church ALREADY endorse "same-sex committed couples": [url="http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_umc7.htm"]http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_umc7.htm[/url][/font]
2005-08-12 09:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=albion][u][font=Trebuchet MS][size=4][font=Jester]Christians Opposed to Homosexuality?[/font][/size][/font][/u]
[font=Jester][font=Times New Roman][size=3]No. During 2003 a homosexual priest was ordained as Bishop of the Episcopal Church in America. In 1993 a survey revealed that 75% of Episcopalians believed that it is possible for sexually active homosexuals to be faithful Christians. :nerd: [/size][/font][/font][/QUOTE] What an idiotic post. You pick an ultra-liberal denomination, most of whom do not even believe in the Bible. Pagans, atheists, agnostics are much less likely than Christians to oppose homosexuality. Christians are more likely to hold conservative views, which include opposition to faggotry. Every study demonstrates this, repeatedly. Period, end of story. You're going to try blaming homosexuality on Christianity? What a joke. In America, about the only people who want to restore the sodomy laws are Christian activists.
2005-08-12 11:36 | User Profile
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=Red][B][I]- "Meaningless psychobabble."[/I][/B][/COLOR[/FONT]]
Roddy, why hang up on such a small detail? Here's a much more relevant passage from that article:
[B][COLOR=Blue][COLOR=Blue]A Moslem who is the active partner in sexual relations with other men is not considered a ââ¬Åhomosexualââ¬Â (the word has no pre-modern Arabic equivalent); quite the contrary, his sexual domination of another man may even confer a status of hyper-masculinity. He may use other men as substitutes for women, and at the same time have great contempt for them. [U]This depraved view of sex, common in mainstream Moslem societies, is commonly found in the West only in prisons[/U].[/COLOR][/COLOR][/B]
Just like forced celibacy [B]inevitably[/B] produces above-average rates of homosexuality among the Roman Catholic priesthood, so does the draconian segregation of sexes have a similar effect on [B]all[/B] Muslims, producing hordes of "prison homosexuals."
Petr
2005-08-12 14:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr] Just like forced celibacy inevitably produces above-average rates of homosexuality among the Roman Catholic priesthood, so does the draconian segregation of sexes have a similar effect on all Muslims, producing hordes of "prison homosexuals."[/QUOTE] Petr, In keeping with your reputation as a stickler for documentation, perhaps you would be so kind as to provide evidence for this assertion? And, as the book [u]Farewell, Good Men[/u] demonstrated, there has been a coordinated effort by homosexuals to take over Catholic seminaries since at least the 1960's, so evidence of widespread clerical homosexuality in the modern Church would not suffice. You would need to provide evidence that celibacy qua celibacy produces homosexuality.
2005-08-12 14:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE] Islam represents Devil worship, [/QUOTE] It does??? Can you explain how?
2005-08-12 18:40 | User Profile
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=DarkRed][I][B] - "It does??? Can you explain how?"[/B][/I][/COLOR][/FONT]
Well, according to a [B]very reasonable[/B] speculation that the "angel Gabriel" who originally handed the message of Allah over to Muhammad was actually a devil in disguise (see this link).
[url]http://answering-islam.org/Silas/suicide.htm[/url]
This would literally make Satan as the founder of Islam. Muhammad himself had confusion on where his visions really came from - ever heard about the "Satanic verses"?
[url]http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol1/3c.html[/url]
Petr
2005-08-12 19:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]
Well, according to a [B]very reasonable[/B] speculation that the "angel Gabriel" who originally handed the message of Allah over to Muhammad was actually a devil in disguise (see this link).
[/QUOTE]
Except the existence of angels themselves is not "reasonable".
2005-08-12 19:53 | User Profile
You are only presenting [I]a priori[/I] materialist prejudice yourself, Bardamu. We have Muhammad's personal testimony on the deeply disturbing nature of his revelation
Petr
2005-08-12 20:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]You are only presenting [I]a priori[/I] materialist prejudice yourself, Bardamu. We have Muhammad's personal testimony on the deeply disturbing nature of his revelation
Petr[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but where is the "reasonableness" in Muhammad's testimony? Are a madman's visions reasonable?
2005-08-12 20:04 | User Profile
Why has [B]Genevan[/B] been suspended? Did he turn out to be a troll?
Petr
2005-08-12 20:09 | User Profile
Man is what he creates, good or bad.
We create our own "Gods" and put them on a pedestal and then kneel before them and pray.
Oh yeah, and I also believe in the Buggie Man and Micky mouse. :twisted:
I know a couple of people here who are the "most" Christians people in the world and yet is either their way or the highway, one of them takes every opportunity at hand in order to insult me. :angry:
2005-08-12 20:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]I know a couple of people here who are the "most" Christians people in the world and yet is either their way or the highway...
Jesus saith unto him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me'. John 14:6
Christianity does not equal tolerance, Ponch.
...one of them takes every opportunity at hand in order to insult me. :angry:[/QUOTE]
Watch that blood pressure, castrolita. No one has a gun to your head forcing your daily double digit posts here. Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.
2005-08-12 20:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Why has Genevan been suspended? Did he turn out to be a troll?
Petr[/QUOTE] Genevan here.
In fact you ask a good question. Did I act like a troll? Was I disruptive? Was I off the topic? Did I attack people? I did give "madrussian" a good jab but he deserved it.
No I am not a troll. In fact I have had problems elsewhere with the worst trolls who have pestered this forum. When I first signed up. I pm'ed Sertorius with some tips on how to deal with these trouble makers. I recommended that he delete all their posts and any references to their nyms. If I was one of them that would be kinda self defeating on my part.
One thing I wonder is why do obvious trolls who post nothing but provocative one liners never get banned? That is if they happen to be really aggressively anti-Christian. "Madrussian" is a fine example of what I'm talking about. My suggestion, if this forum wants to grow it should cater to its constitutency. That is Christian Nationalists. Studies show that Christians are on avg much more conservative than atheists agnostics or pagans. Totally un-PC CNs of D. James Kennedy's mold have tens of millions of fans. Alex Linder and ilk have what? a hundred thou would be too generous. People who want a CN America outnumber people who want a Nazi America, period. By at least 100:1. If you really want this forum to grow you should get rid of the Nazi-atheist-pagan jerks who only hang around so they can attack Christianity. Put it this way, they're a net loss for our cause. Big time.
Just thought I'd set the record straight. I'm no troll and I just wish the Admin would not assume that every new CN must be one. That is Formula 1 for making sure this forum never gets any bigger.
Semper Fi Geneva
2005-08-12 20:58 | User Profile
I don't believe you.
...and I've known madrussian as long as anybody on this internet, so you can consider him untouchable, on this board at least.
2005-08-12 21:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I don't believe you.
...and I've known madrussian as long as anybody on this internet, so you can consider him untouchable, on this board at least.[/QUOTE] You don't believe me? You really think that pandering to pagan Nazis and banning Christians is the way to get big?
Alright then. I like your bluntness. I was under the impression that this is a CN forum. I was wrong. It is a forum where atheists openly attack Christ and Christianity and get rewarded for it. Christians who advocate Christian Nationalism, get banned. I won't try posting here anymore.
I'll probably be starting a Christian Nationalist forum in the future, anyhow. I like the idea of a CN Party, and a forum can be part of the groundwork. I will pray that in the long run, you will see the error of your ways.
Back to Little Geneva for me.
2005-08-12 21:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CeeInn]You don't believe me?
No. I think you're a troll in a 'Christian Nationalist' costume.
You really think that pandering to pagan Nazis and banning Christians is the way to get big?
Getting 'big' is not a concern of mine.
Alright then. I like your bluntness. I was under the impression that this is a CN forum. I was wrong. It is a forum where atheists openly attack Christ and Christianity and get rewarded for it. Christians who advocate Christian Nationalism, get banned. I won't try posting here anymore.
Matthew 9
I'll probably be starting a Christian Nationalist forum in the future, anyhow. I like the idea of a CN Party, and a forum can be part of the groundwork. I will pray that in the long run, you will see the error of your ways.
Get in line. Every day somebody's trying to make me see the error of my ways.
Back to Little Geneva for me.[/QUOTE]
:lol: Yeah right. Take Ponch with you, please.
2005-08-12 21:28 | User Profile
Tex, why don't you just ban Ponce if he annoys you so much? (I wouldn't complain).
Petr
2005-08-12 21:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Tex, why don't you just ban Ponce if he annoys you so much? (I wouldn't complain).[/QUOTE]
Annoy? Nah. Don't flatter him/her.
Or tempt me. :)
Maybe it's just my own little experiment concerning people of honor and how they take hints.
2005-08-12 21:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]No. I think you're a troll in a 'Christian Nationalist' costume. I don't recall saying anything that Rousas Rushdoony himself didn't say. In fact my CN platform ideas are drawn from Rushdoony, Gary North, David Chilton, and of course the Good Book itself.
Getting 'big' is not a concern of mine. Getting big is the only way we're going to make a difference, brother. Getting in bed with anti-Christs isn't going to make that happen. Matthew 9 This is a forum where Jesus gets mocked every day. Get in line. Every day somebody's trying to make me see the error of my ways. I'm not trying to sound self righteous. I just mean in the long run you'll realize that the pagan-atheist-Nazi types are not your friends. Yeah right. Take Ponch with you, please.[/QUOTE] Now I think I see what's going on. You probably took me for some pro-Hispanic troll because I said that Hispanics may be less inherently obnoxious than the Children of Ham. :biggrin:
Got news for you, bub. I'm the last man to defend the Hispanic gangbangers and other reprobates that are trying for reconquista. I'm just not sure yet on the best solution. There are Hispanics and there are wetbacks. I wouldn't shed a tear if every illegal went home. In fact I'd throw a party.
Anyhow I wish you the best.
2005-08-12 21:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CeeInn]I don't recall saying anything that Rousas Rushdoony himself didn't say. In fact my CN platform ideas are drawn from Rushdoony, Gary North, David Chilton, and of course the Good Book itself.
I support a great deal of what you 'said', but that's not the point and you know it.
2005-08-12 22:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I support a great deal of what you 'said', but that's not the point and you know it.[/QUOTE] So the point is that you assume I'm someone I'm not. Alright then. It's a shame as things were starting to get interesting. If I do start my own CN forum I'll be sure to send you an invite. So it really is back to Little Geneva for me. Sorry, but I can't take Ponch with me. I'll send over a leaky boat if you like. [url="misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=43#"][img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img][/url]
2005-08-12 23:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][color=darkred][font=Arial] - "They do?? Can you provide proof of that?"[/font][/color]
Man, Muslim countries have always been notorious hotbeds of sodomy. Ask any sexologist. Why do you think that people like Andre Gide or William Burroughs (among many other Western degenerates) spent their time in there?
Some material here:
[color=indigo][size=4]"Islam's Love-Hate Relationship with Homosexuality"[/size][/color]
[url="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5704"]http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5704[/url]
and here:
[url="http://www.blessedquietness.com/alhaj/page20.htm"]http://www.blessedquietness.com/alhaj/page20.htm[/url]
[color=blue]In Al Hadis, Vol. 4, p. 172, No. 34, Ali reported that the Apostle of Allah said, "There is in Paradise a market wherein there will be no buying or selling, but will consist of [u]men[/u] and women. When a man desires a beauty, he will have intercourse with them." Attested by Tirmizi. [/color]
Petr[/QUOTE] Frontpage magazine?? They have links to Horowitz and Limbaugh, real unbiased there...:caiphas:
2005-08-12 23:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CeeInn]You don't believe me? You really think that pandering to pagan Nazis and banning Christians is the way to get big?
Alright then. I like your bluntness. I was under the impression that this is a CN forum. I was wrong. It is a forum where atheists openly attack Christ and Christianity and get rewarded for it. Christians who advocate Christian Nationalism, get banned. I won't try posting here anymore.
I'll probably be starting a Christian Nationalist forum in the future, anyhow. I like the idea of a CN Party, and a forum can be part of the groundwork. I will pray that in the long run, you will see the error of your ways.
Back to Little Geneva for me.[/QUOTE] I've never celebrated Thor in my entire life. Your kind of grandiose all or nothing mentality is the reason why people who oppose the current governmental system are unable to form larger scale alliances.
2005-08-12 23:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Jesus saith unto him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me'. John 14:6
Christianity does not equal tolerance, Ponch.[/QUOTE]Of course Christians shouldn't be expected to think their religion is anything other than the "one true faith," but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be tolerant. Did Jesus ever tell his disciples to use violence against those who didn't believe in him? On the contrary, he said, "Live by the sword, perish by the sword." Similarly, if Christians are intolerant of others when they are in power, then they should expect to be treated with intolerance when they aren't in power.
As to the above quote from Jesus, that has nothing to do with tolerance or lack thereof. It simply means that only Jesus' sacrifice makes it possible for people to reach heaven.
2005-08-13 02:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]I've never celebrated Thor in my entire life. [/QUOTE]
I have. :biggrin:
2005-08-13 05:17 | User Profile
[COLOR=Sienna][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "Frontpage magazine?? They have links to Horowitz and Limbaugh, real unbiased there..."[/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
So what? This doesn't change in the slightest the fact that Serge Trifkovic (a Serb) gave an accurate description of Islamic sexuality. Biasedness alone don't make one wrong, and you should know that.
(Believe it or not, you can occasionally find some useful information on FrontPage.)
Check out any one those horribly racist 19th-century explorers (like sir Richard Burton), and see if they disagree on this.
Petr
2005-08-13 06:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Of course Christians shouldn't be expected to think their religion is anything other than the "one true faith," but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be tolerant. Did Jesus ever tell his disciples to use violence against those who didn't believe in him? On the contrary, he said, "Live by the sword, perish by the sword." Similarly, if Christians are intolerant of others when they are in power, then they should expect to be treated with intolerance when they aren't in power.
As to the above quote from Jesus, that has nothing to do with tolerance or lack thereof. It simply means that only Jesus' sacrifice makes it possible for people to reach heaven.[/QUOTE]
He also said "he who is not with us is against us."
2005-08-13 20:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]...if Christians are intolerant of others when they are in power, then they should expect to be treated with intolerance when they aren't in power.
I don't think they would expect anything else. While you are typing out your diatribes from your air conditioned house, you should keep in mind that it is only because of Christian tolerance traced through Western Christendom that you are allowed to do such a thing. Nowhere else in the world where a ruling regime is devoid of Christian belief is such tolerance found.
As to the above quote from Jesus, that has nothing to do with tolerance or lack thereof. It simply means that only Jesus' sacrifice makes it possible for people to reach heaven.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. It means exactly what it says. There is no way or path to reach heaven except for belief and/or faith in Christ Jesus. Not through Mohammed. Not through Buddha. Not through Krishna. Not through Joseph Smith. Not through a kosher diet. Not through Zeus or Wotan. And certainly not through channeling Seth and wicca white magic spells.
***Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. - St. Peter, Acts 4:10-12***
How tolerant is that?
2005-08-13 21:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I don't think they would expect anything else. While you are typing out your diatribes from your air conditioned house, you should keep in mind that it is only because of Christian tolerance traced through Western Christendom that you are allowed to do such a thing. Nowhere else in the world where a ruling regime is devoid of Christian belief is such tolerance found. "Christian tolerance" -- yes, I see your point. Sort of like that exhibited by the Inquisition? The Salem witch-hunters? Not that those people even understood their own Bible, mind you.
The religious tolerance in America is due to the thinkers of the Enlightenment and the Founding Fathers who based their views on such thinking -- people like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin. That's why the First Amendment says that no official national religion shall be established.
Wrong. It means exactly what it says. There is no way or path to reach heaven except for belief and/or faith in Christ Jesus. Not through Mohammed. Not through Buddha. Not through Krishna. Not through Joseph Smith. Not through a kosher diet. Not through Zeus or Wotan. And certainly not through channeling Seth and wicca white magic spells. Did you even read my post? Isn't that basically the same thing I said?! The only difference is that the quote does NOT say anything explicitly about belief or faith. Granted, that appears elsewhere in the Bible.
My only point is that Christianity does not advocate converting people by force. That makes it a tolerant religion, as opposed to a radical interpretation of Islam, which is intolerant.
***Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. - St. Peter, Acts 4:10-12***
How tolerant is that?[/QUOTE]It's irrelevant to the issue of tolerance. To tolerate another person's belief means to refrain from using coercion to change that belief. Where in the above Bible verses is there any directive to use force to push Christianity on people? Pardon me, but I just don't see it in there. It says that Jesus is the only way to heaven. Does it say to prove that to people by force? Does it say that anywhere in the Bible?
2005-08-14 00:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]"Christian tolerance" -- yes, I see your point. Sort of like that exhibited by the Inquisition? The Salem witch-hunters? Not that those people even understood their own Bible, mind you.
Yes, exactly.
The religious tolerance in America is due to the thinkers of the Enlightenment and the Founding Fathers who based their views on such thinking -- people like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin.
And I suppose these men and their ideas just popped out of a box, huh? Come on Angler, I know you're smarter than that. Just too stubborn and prideful to concede even the smallest of points. That's one definition of a close-minded fanatic, you know.
It's irrelevant to the issue of tolerance.
No it's not. It is saying quite explicitly that if you do not have faith in Christ then you are going to spend eternity in hell. That's the bottom line, amigo. To say 'there is only one way' is the very definition of intolerance. That's got nothing to do with forcing people to do something, one way or the other, nor was that my argument.
2005-08-14 00:50 | User Profile
Only a "fanatic" would call someone else a fanatic if it dosent go his way.
If you were to take away religion you only would have the raw truth and that's something that some people would never like to see.
2005-08-14 10:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]And I suppose these men and their ideas just popped out of a box, huh? Come on Angler, I know you're smarter than that. Just too stubborn and prideful to concede even the smallest of points. That's one definition of a close-minded fanatic, you know. Of course all ideas come from various influences. In the case of key Founding Fathers like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, their support for religious freedom came about as a reaction to their awareness of historical religious persecutions. In other words, they knew about the Inquisition and Witch Trial and say them as excellent examples of events to be avoided in the future. So in that sense, they were certainly influenced by Christianity. This is perfectly evident in their writings.
Here's a good article on Thomas Paine in Wikipedia: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine[/url]
I also want to reiterate that I do NOT consider the perpetrators of the Inquisition, the Witch Trials, or other such atrocities to have been acting in line with Christ's teachings. I think the Christ of the Bible would have been furious about such methods. He loathed self-righteousness and the idea of any human being thinking himself holy enough to punish another human being for victimless crimes (e.g., stoning for adultery).
BTW: Your "closed-minded fanatic" gibe is ironic to say the least. I've already proven myself capable of reexamining and even changing beliefs that for 30 years were the foundation of my life, and I still scrutinize my own beliefs now. When have you ever questioned your beliefs, Tex? I wonder if it has ever occurred to you that they could be wrong.
No it's not. It is saying quite explicitly that if you do not have faith in Christ then you are going to spend eternity in hell. That's the bottom line, amigo. To say 'there is only one way' is the very definition of intolerance. That's got nothing to do with forcing people to do something, one way or the other, nor was that my argument.[/QUOTE]In that case, you are using the word "intolerance" in a different sense. I don't think there's anything intolerant at all about thinking someone else is going to hell for his beliefs. To me, "intolerant" connotes advocating the use of force, harassment, or legal coercion to "prove" to people that Jesus is Lord. Since you don't seem to be that sort, then as far as I'm concerned, you're tolerant -- you're tolerating other peoples' beliefs, even though you may disagree with or even hate those beliefs. So this is merely a semantic disagreement. Okay?