← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · darkeddy
Thread ID: 4775 | Posts: 35 | Started: 2003-02-04
2003-02-04 04:15 | User Profile
It seems to me that a major bar to the growth of white nationalism is the lack of public support among Christian leaders with more-or-less othrodox theological positions. We have the Christian Identity types who believe that whites are really the Jews, and that actually 'Jews' are the spawn of Satan. And we have the 'Church of the Creator,' which upholds a host of non-Christian that I can't really be bothered to remember.
But what of Christian denominations that believe the normal things--the Jews are the Jews, anyone can be a Christian regardless of race, Christ died for the sins of believers, the NT is the true word of God, and so on and so forth (it goes on in my head anyway)? Here the Pope denounced borders, other denominations fall all over themselves to convert non-whites, all the while spewing endless amounts of PC nonsense and disrespect for white racial identities.
This can't go on. We need some denominations that believe what I have mentioned as 'the normal things,' and yet also de facto limit their membership by race, on the grounds that, although Christianity is a universal religion, no specific denomination needs to provide active community to all peoples. Racially-specific churches which are explicitly such could provide much need moral support and theological backing for attempts to conserve the white race--a project whose pursuit surely shows love of God and neighbor.
Moreover, religions have been know to spread.... A white nationalist Christian church could generate a lot of enthusiasm for white nationalist and conservative culture.
???
2003-02-04 09:18 | User Profile
Marcion of Pontus is a good choice. He has actually caught on in Australia, odd as it may seem.
In America we have a close enough modern Marcionite in Thomas Jefferson. The Jefferson Bible is well worth a read whether you are Christian, atheist or none-of-the-above. Jefferson combined the four gospels, dumped the miracles, and reduced the Jewish quotient by as much as he could. The result is a fairly unique experience.
Jefferson is misunderstood on the religious issue; among other things he is accused of being yet another Freemason which he was not. His value is precisely that he shows us the independent spirituality that was so important to the American Revolutionary period.
Jeffersonian Christianity? Interesting idea! Might catch on.
2003-02-05 04:52 | User Profile
Thanks for the suggestions about Marcion and Jefferson. However, I do not think either Marcion or the 'Jeffersonian Bible' is going to count as falling under the mainstream Christianity I was talking about. Perhaps either of these two sources is more convincing than Christian Identity, but to my mind we are still way outside the realm of orthodoxy.
My position is that white nationalism if fully compatible with orthodox Lutheranism (I am a Lutheran), other mainstream Protestant beliefs, Catholicism, and probably the Orthodox faith as well. There is nothing here that need rejecting. White nationalist often point to the Judaic sources of orthodox Xtianity, but they tend to misunderstand the way Xtianity transforms Judaic belief, and casts present-day Jews as unbelievers whose ancestors had the chance to accept Christ, but rejected and killed him. I am not claiming, a la the Fueher, that this justifies anti-Semitism; I am simply pointing out that Christianity's Judaic roots are not an obvious bar to being both a Christian and a white nationalist.
No, the problem isn't what there, it's what is not there. Christian leaders and theologians have utterly failed to apply Christian principles of love for God and one's fellow humans to the duty of racial preservation.
Christian leaders repeatedly and implicitly substitute the idol of racial-biological amalgamation for the spiritual unity of believers for which Xtianity calls. Here they betray their own orthodoxy, doing so because of the intellectual void that exists where positive evaluations of racial preservation belong.
We need to return to orthodoxy, not the false gods of biological amalgamtion, radical egalitarianism, and utopian visions of social harmony. Doing so frees up a space for positive approaches to white racial identities. We need denominations that explicitly follow these approaches, and explicitly offer themselves up as haven for white racial groups. It is this affirmation and de-alienating faith that I wish to see spread, and which I hope might support real progress of cultural-racial questions.
2003-02-05 07:03 | User Profile
**Marcion taught that the creator-lawgiver archon or demiurge who had created this world was a far lesser power than the true God, the Father of Truth, the ineffable, unknowable Stranger God who had sent Christ as a spiritual messenger to show humankind the path back to its true spiritual home through love. **
Interesting stuff. Have you heard of the medieval Cathars aka Albigenses? They were Manicheans, gnostic duallists who thought that there were two gods: one good and one evil. The good God was the God of spirit, of light. The bad or "Strange" god was the god of matter; the creator of the world - and the Jehovah of the Old Testament. He created the human race by beguiling angels down from heaven and entrapping them in flesh. And it was on earth that those souls would remain for all eternity, going through one reincarnation after another. The good God has no power over the world of matter, but he did send Jesus down to teach us entrapped angels who to break the cycle of reincarnation. This Jesus was not a man - such goodness would not defile itself with flesh - but a pure spirit in the form of a man. The Cathars did not believe it was Christ who was crucified, but a man the Strange God set up to mislead men. Needless to say, this theological deviation did not go over well with the medieval Church. The Pope called a crusade to root out the heresy from southern France, where it was particularly popular.
2003-02-05 07:17 | User Profile
**Was the filoque ever really that important to your inner life and spiritual development? I didn't think so. **
I presume you mean "filioque" (ablative of filius).
As for marcionism, good luck. The only other white nationalist familiar with marcion was Good Old Dr. Revilo P. Oliver. Unfortunately he would make a poor advocate for marcionism, as much due to his being dead as to his intransigent opposition to anything even nominally 'Christian'.
BTW The preeminent humanist of the Renaissance, Catholic monk Desiderius Erasmus, was also a (closet, for he no doubt didn't fancy the old inquisitorial hotfoot) neomarcionite.
I still prefer the NSDAP's more straightforward positive christianity that all this esoteric neognostic logos and sophia based bullshit. They new a thing or two about appealing to the nominally christian herds, Lutheran and catholic alike.
2003-02-05 07:29 | User Profile
I don't think the CI folks have the wrong idea - they've just chosen the wrong religion to appropriate. How 'bout instead of 'We be da troo jooz' we opt for 'We be da troo ohdunists' or 'We be da troo drooidz'? 'We be da troo creators' won't fly as there are already a couple of groups baring their teeth over that one and at least one fellow headed for the federal anal gang rape monkey house as a result of the fracas.
2003-02-05 08:01 | User Profile
AMERICA FOR AMERICA ! PALESTINE FOR PALESTINIANS !
2003-02-05 08:07 | User Profile
Cath - O - Jew attack.
2003-02-05 08:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Feb 5 2003, 07:39 > 'We be da troo creators' won't fly as there are already a couple of groups baring their teeth over that one and at least one fellow headed for the federal anal gang rape monkey house as a result of the fracas. **
What a waste of time the WCOTC is! At the bottom of their religion - there's no religion! That, plus the 'King Vitamin' graphics spell an early doom for their efforts.
**
The only problem with saying this about the WCOTC is the same thing could be said about the other alternatives you or others suggest here. Positive Christianity, Marcionism, Jeffersonianism, etc.
Well, obviously I don't mean Marcionism proper. The last thing this sad world needs is another 'revealed' text to be adhered to slavishly. I'd just like to see the OT attacked directly and removed from Western spiritual life wherever possible.
Sorry. Remove the OT from western spiritual life and it is no longer spiritual life. Or western.
2003-02-05 09:07 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Feb 5 2003, 05:52 You may comfort yourself that Christians believe what they claim they believe, but it's pretty obvious to me that they're having their doubts. They react to jews with real fear, the kind only good actors can simulate. God is with one of us, they reason, and only one of us. Who is it really? And if "anti-semitism" is based on the desire to steal the Jews religion away from them, well, I don't think there's been anything more revolting in the history of the world. Jewish theology is a raft built for one people - two on the raft makes all parties eye the knife and water bottle warily.
Paul made a good go of things, but only Orthodoxy is a really viable world religion as far as Christianity is concerned. Doubt me? Then tell me why they're the only ones who maintain that Christ is necessary for salvation. The Catholics have given up on this, and so have the Protestants. They no longer have the courage of their convictions, not because they're unbelievers, but because somewhere deep down they know someone's religious heritage was hijacked, and the workmanship of the heist, especially after the advent of higher criticism, is now emitting loud creaks. Emmanuel born of a virgin? No. Born of a maiden. Any fool with high school Hebrew can see that, unless you're working from a corrupted Greek text, as the early Church was. There are a thousand other examples, if you're really interested, just type 'higher criticism' into Google, or go to one of those Biblical Contradiction sites that sprout on the web like mushrooms after a rainstorm. You'll see......
Recently, however, I have found a Christian weak spot, which I will happily share with you. Hammering away at the Old Testament can often lead to the most hard hearted Christian blinking back tears. It's a really, really nasty book. They don't want to have signed off on it, some haven't read it, being satisfied with the childhood renditions of Joseph and Pharoah which convieniently leave out J cornering the wheat market and reducing the Egyptians to starvation and slavery so that his landsmen can live off the 'fat of the land', some defend sheerly out of habit, but all are aware of the fact that there's something rotten, something truly monstrous at the heart of that book.
On this board, I've challenged Jay with numerous details about the OT, and he has yet to respond to one of them. I get that a lot.
**
We've similarly challenged you on a number of points, regarding your presupposition of the fallibility of the bible and the infallibility of Harnack and higher criticism. Which you similarly ignore repeating your endless prattle about your theological superiority.
It should be fairly obvious to anyone that you have a fairly fanatical ideological agenda, and this is driving your biblical skepticism. The points you refer to have already been made.
Your methods are not only theologically weak, but ideologically weak as well. But I won't belabor that, or waste time on endless speculation.
2003-02-05 09:22 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Feb 4 2003, 23:52 **So, if you want to get back to the beginning, you should familiarize yourself with material on the early Christian movement. I recommend...The Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy. **
[url=http://www.tektonics.org/TF.JM_060960581X.html]Tweedledee and Tweedledum on the Christian Faith[/url]
2003-02-05 09:32 | User Profile
[url=http://www.watchman.org/lds/marcion.htm]Marcion, Montanus and Mormonism[/url]
2003-02-05 10:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Feb 5 2003, 09:31 > Sorry. Remove the OT from western spiritual life and it is no longer spiritual life. Or western.**
Wrong on both counts.**
I think you wouldn't be so sure if this if you had not grown up in schools whose agenda was religion-free per the ADL and ACLU.
> Upon my renewed studies of Homer I feel deeply what an inexpressible misfortune the Jewish trash has caused us. if we had never learned to know the actions of the Sodomites and the Egyptian-Babylonian whims, and if Homer had remained our Bible, what a different aspect humanity would have had! (Letter to Boettiger)**
That last from Goethe, by the way. **
Now tell me, why don't the errors in Homer concern you the way those in the Bible do? The documentation of the Bible's existance and historical fidelity is 1000 times
that of Homer or any other ancient text.
> The only problem with saying this about the WCOTC is the same thing could be said about the other alternatives you or others suggest here. Positive Christianity, Marcionism, Jeffersonianism, etc.**
Except that, with the possible exception of Jefferson, those sects do believe in God, and do not (or do not yet) feature unbearably cheesy graphics.**
I'm not sure, after studying many of them, any of the neopagans believe in God in a way we Christians would recognize. I'm referring in particular to Wiccans and Odinists, the main modern day neo-pagans.
> We've similarly challenged you on a number of points, regarding your presupposition of the fallibility of the bible **
I think we both can rightly regard the fallibility of the Bible as unarguable.**
I'm arguing against it. You also feel the need to argue for it. Assertion is a lazy rhetorical device.
> It should be fairly obvious to anyone that you have a fairly fanatical ideological agenda**
Hey, we're all nationalists here!**
Nationalists, yes, but not necessarily of the same stripe. Denying the OT just because of its Jewish origins and Christianity becase of its universalism is a definite break from the conservative nationalist tradition, who believe our nation is a gift from God, not a god in itself.
> ** and this is driving your biblical skepticism
Actually, the process you describe is reversed. Bible skepticism came first.**
Common assertion. I take it with a grain of salt.
> Your methods are not only theologically weak, but ideologically weak as well. **
Well, you probably have me there. I was just trying to help out Darkeddy. Referring back to his original post, what would you advise that he do?
Wintermute
**
Well you could say "I believe, help my unbelief"
Or you could just say "I recant" :D
2003-02-05 14:40 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Feb 3 2003, 22:15 Moreover, religions have been know to spread.... A white nationalist Christian church could generate a lot of enthusiasm for white nationalist and conservative culture.
What lie-masquerading-as-Truth would you have us believe, DE?
Or are we merely to devise some doctrine calculated to arouse the peasants to taking up their pitchforks?
2003-02-05 14:43 | User Profile
Could we have a show of hands among OD contributors who are sinners in need of salvation?
2003-02-05 14:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Feb 3 2003, 22:46 ** **Marcion and the Stranger God The Gnostic Apostle Thomas: Chapter 9
We interpret what is spiritual in spiritual language. The unspiritual man rejects these truths of the Spirit of God; to him they are "sheer folly," he cannot understand them. And the reason is, that they must be read with the spiritual eye. The spiritual man, again, can read the meaning of everything; and yet no one can read what he is.**
I don't know if you've ever argued with Christians, face to face. I have. They're like donkeys. Utterly immune to fact. **
2003-02-06 04:34 | User Profile
Wintermute, I do not really share your view of Protestant anxiety. The history of the Jews is one of suffering combined with attempts to gain power through a vast amoung of intellection that does recognize Christ. This is precisely what one would have predicted at the time of Christ for the Jews who failed to convert, and that such has actually occured--particularly given the role of the Holocaust in the overall drama of Western, Christian civilization--is frankly rather miraculous. The Protestant sees the Jewish people as living the life of Job write large, and is glad to have surpased the instructive testing that reserves for the original Chosen. The Jews, a people of laws, are an example to all on the Earth, and to Christians most of all. That is the meaning of their being chosen: we see that for all their nimbleness with the law, law is not enough. Christ is needed. The Jews are a people tested so that others may learn from their errors. Who knows what destiny or salvation God has in store for them; in any case, the path toward it is not one of which Christians can be too easily jealous.
As far as your general assessment of the state of Protestantism and Catholicism goes, I do not see a lot of evidence for it. Yes, the higher criticism has offered many challenges to traditional belief. However, if one talks with Christians, one sees that there are a wide variety of reactions to this criticism, from dumb rejection by those of a simple yet strong faith, to nuanced appreciation, to confused and wholesale acceptance. You may not personally approve of the direction of Christianity, but it is something else to claim that Protestantism or Catholicism have lost their vigour. Both are going strong, and neither 'universalist' pastors nor a few molestor priests is going to change that.
--No, I do not mean that we need to become 'Orthodox,' I mean 'orthodox' with a small 'o.' Christian orthodoxy teaches nothing about the need to accept members of other races as mates or civic-community members, nor does it call for socialist-economic egalitarianism. The supposed 'mainstream' Christian leaders substitute the idols of these leftist goals for the true faith, which leaves room for showing love to one's kin and for glorfying God through the preservation and augmentation of cultural and racial uniqueness.
--I don't find your characterization of Christians to be at all on target. I have spent most of my life arguing with Christians, and I have them to be, on average, neither more nor less obtuse than non-Christians.
2003-02-06 13:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Feb 5 2003, 22:34 ...The history of the Jews is one of suffering combined with attempts to gain power through a vast amoung of intellection that does recognize Christ. This is precisely what one would have predicted at the time of Christ for the Jews who failed to convert, and that such has actually occured--particularly given the role of the Holocaust in the overall drama of Western, Christian civilization--is frankly rather miraculous. The Protestant sees the Jewish people as living the life of Job write large, and is glad to have surpased the instructive testing that reserves for the original Chosen. The Jews, a people of laws, are an example to all on the Earth, and to Christians most of all. That is the meaning of their being chosen: we see that for all their nimbleness with the law, law is not enough. Christ is needed. The Jews are a people tested so that others may learn from their errors. Who knows what destiny or salvation God has in store for them; in any case, the path toward it is not one of which Christians can be too easily jealous.
Exhibit "B"
2003-02-06 13:58 | User Profile
WHO will lead the charge?
Will it be the brave kosher trio of PERLE, WOLFOWITZ & FLEISCHER?
Will it be the shabbos-goy, front-man team of BUSH, POWELL, RUMSFELD, BLAIR & Company?
Will it be all those courageous Yankee Doodle, yahoo heroes, jerking their knees and shooting from the lip thousands of miles out of harm's way?
Or will it be the usual, poor, white devils who bear the brunt, take the casualties and sacrifice their lives?
'ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS . . . '
Heard it, seen it, done it all before!
[Courtesy of an anonymous contributor to VNN "Letters".]
2003-02-08 00:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Feb 5 2003, 08:43 Could we have a show of hands among OD contributors who are sinners in need of salvation?
Thought I'd tee this one back up with some excerpts from Vigilius Haufniensis' [u]The Concept of Anxiety[/u]
The present work has set as its task the psychological treatment of the concept of "anxiety," but in such a way that it constantly keeps in mente [in mind] and before its eye the dogma of hereditary sin. Sin, however, is no subject for psychological concern, and only by submitting to the service of a misplaced brilliance could it be dealt with psychologically.... Thus when sin is brought into esthetics, the mood becomes either light-minded or melancholy, for the category in which sin lies is contradiction, and this is either comic or tragic.... If sin is dealt with in metaphysics, the mood becomes that of dialectical uniformity and disinterestedness, which ponder sin as something that cannot withstand the scrutiny of thought.... If sin is dealt with in psychology, the mood becomes that of persistent observation.... Sin does not properly belong in any science, but it is the subject of a sermon, in which the single individual speaks as the single individual to the single individual.
...........
Through the first sin, sin came into the world. Precisely in the same way is it true of every subsequent man's first sin, that through it sin came into the world.... If every subsequent man's first sin were thus brought about by sinfulness, his first sin would only in a nonessential way be qualified as the first, and be essentially qualifiedââ¬âif this is thinkableââ¬âby its serial number in the universal sinking fund of the race.... The Genesis story presents the only dialectically consistent view. Its whole content is really concentrated in one statement: Sin came into the world by a sin. Were this not so, sin would have come into the world as something accidental.... Thus sin comes into the world as the sudden, i. e., by a leap; but this leap also posits the quality and is presupposed by the quality and the quality by the leap.... To express this precisely and accurately, one must say that by the first sin, sinfulness came into Adam.
...........
When sin is posited in the particular individual by the qualitative leap, the difference between good and evil is also posited. We have nowhere been guilty of the foolishness that holds that man must sin; on the contrary, we have always protested against all merely imaginatively constructed knowledge. We have said what we again repeat, that sin presupposes itself, just as freedom presupposes itself, and sin cannot be explained by anything antecedent to it, anymore than can freedom. To maintain that freedom begins as liberum arbitrium [free will]...that can choose good just as well as evil inevitably makes every explanation impossible. To speak of good and evil as the objects of freedom finitizes both freedom and the concepts of good and evil. Freedom is infinite and arises out of nothing. Therefore, to want to say that man sins by necessity makes the circle of the leap into a straight line.
2003-02-08 15:48 | User Profile
The bottom line is that real Christianity can't be reconciled with white nationalism. Christianity privledges jewish claims of superiority and demands equallity for all featherless bipeds. Fortunately for them, serious jesus-worship among the masses is an obstacle that european nationalists don't have to deal with.
Dump all religions that originated in the levant or arabia. IF we have any religion at all, it should be based on our own people. The WCOTC has basically the right idea, although presented in a somewhat sensationalistic and blunt fashion. At least they aren't disguising what they really believe unlike some other people we all know and love.
The Orthodox churches have not let their people down in the same way ours have so I will exempt them from my disdain, although what they actually believe is no less ridiculous than any other religion.
2003-02-08 16:58 | User Profile
Yes, Christianity demands 'equality.' Christianity recognizes that we are all, equally, sinners in need of God's grace. How this is supposed to be a problem for WN, I am not really sure.
Christianity assigns Jews 'superiority'???
2003-02-08 21:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by W.R.I.T.O.S@Feb 8 2003, 15:48 ** Dump all religions that originated in the levant or arabia. **
This is blunt and simple but it opens a can of worms.
There's always been strain of Christianity (gnostic & hermetic traditions) that says Christianity was never levantine or arabian. Christianity was Western to begin with, the hero-godman character of a thousand legends. It was only Semiticized in the Christian era in a time of confusion when the Greeks forgot their own heritage.
Saint Augustine said: "Christianity is the oldest religion in the world -- it never did not exist." He meant the earlier versions of Jesus had other names such as Attis, Dionysus and Osiris.
The very image of Jesus seen in most Christian Bibles is actually an image of Zeus taken from the Great Temple in the 3rd Century. Gnostics have always known this; and it's also why modernists are breaking their necks trying to portray JC as an Afro-Semite. The people trying to foist the "Third World Jesus" portraits on us have finally caught on to what heretics have always known.
Jesus is a Euro. :)
2003-02-08 22:29 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@Feb 8 2003, 15:19 Jesus is a Euro. :)
What is the Testament of Jesus the Euro?
2003-02-09 03:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Feb 8 2003, 22:29 ** What is the Testament of Jesus the Euro? **
The same as the Testament of Odin the Euro when he hung from the World Tree for nine days and gave up his eye for the secret of the runes: Through pain you will learn and you will become stronger.
The same as the Testament of Hercules the Euro when he took up his labors.
The same as the Testament of Jason the Euro when he gathered his Apostles and sought the Fleece.
Lots more. European man's gods have many names but no matter what the myth the point is always the same.
2003-02-09 04:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@Feb 8 2003, 21:50 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Feb 8 2003, 22:29 ** What is the Testament of Jesus the Euro? **
The same as the Testament of Odin the Euro when he hung from the World Tree for nine days and gave up his eye for the secret of the runes: Through pain you will learn and you will become stronger.
The same as the Testament of Hercules the Euro when he took up his labors.
The same as the Testament of Jason the Euro when he gathered his Apostles and sought the Fleece.
Lots more. European man's gods have many names but no matter what the myth the point is always the same.**
And when the Church cleverly transformed these classic quests into that for the Holy Grail, the loyal and perpetually puerile European puppy was once again thrown a stick to fetch by his theocratic masters.
So, when does "European man" get a god for grown-ups? Devi's work with Hitler doesn't seem to have taken.
2003-02-09 15:51 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Feb 9 2003, 05:40 > And when the Church cleverly transformed these classic quests into that for the Holy Grail,**
The Church didn't create or transform anything. People committed to a certain kind of traditional initiation placed an Xian 'skin' over a purely parallel tradition. The Graal is also the Hermetic krater or mixing bowl, as well as the Stone (Philosopher's Stone, Stone of the Wise, etc.).
Frankly the Graal - Lapis tradition is a 'god for grownups'. It has been known, with some frequency, to take in minds very akin to your own. Check out Evola's book on the Grail - I think you will find it quite amenable to your own, avowedly ubermensch-ish, tastes.
Wintermute**
I suppose I stand corrected, if "placing a skin over" is not some sort of "transformation" (i.e., "3. change in form, appearance, nature, or character"). Or perhaps we are to take it that "people" rather than "the Church" performed this re-skinning as if the latter were not ultimately responsible for the otherwise inexplicable transformation.
Vindicative pedantries aside, then, I would appreciate a brief presentation in substance of something "Western" which was not simply an unmolested naivete yet to have been corrupted/misdirected by a Levantine "parallel".
Evola's Grail doesn't qualify. One way or another, Mother Church seems to have managed to maintain her embrace of her aristocratic charges as perpetual momma's boys, holding them to the Virgin's breast or laying them across her lap, when not sending them out on errands for dear mommy.
2003-02-09 22:47 | User Profile
Most whites are Christians; if WN wants to be an explicit, mass-movement, it needs to deal with the issue of developin churches that endorse racial separation and conservation as valid moral goals. Personally, I am fond of Protestantism spiced up with some synergistic Germano-Celtic elements, as this captures my own background and that of a central cultural stream in the US (it is not as if one has to be racially Germanic or Celtic to participate in such a movement, one should notee--the American ideal used to be one of assimilation to WASP culture.) However, one could just as well have a Catholic, 'Old Catholic', or Othrodox congregation that endorses WN ideals as morally sound and in keeping with the Christian commandments to love God and one's neighbor. The point is, European identies have been a mix of pagan and Christian elements for over a thousand years, and one must make some effor to re-invigorate this cultural stream if there is too be any hope of mass WN movement.
I am not interested in converting other WN's to Lutheranism. I am interested in converting my fellow Lutherans and other Xtians to white nationalism. But to do that, there has to be a change within Christianity.
Finally, there is another point worth considering: using church membership as a legal requirement to live in a particular housing complex. Whether the church be Germanic, Euro-Old-Catholic, Celtic Othrodox, or whatever, having an official denomination that includes both traditional Christian views and explicit endorsement of European racial identities might provide some good legal means to do an end-run around anti-discrimination laws.
2003-02-09 23:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Feb 9 2003, 16:09 **You know, it would also be nice if you would resist the 'vicious pedantries'. Your Humpty Dumpty outlook ("words mean exactly what I say that they mean"), combined with a few choice presuppositions (words mean exactly what my dictionary says that they mean 2)words mean exactly what this un-cited dictionary says that they mean 3)words mean exactly what the THIRD definition in this un-cited dictionary means) makes for tiresome reading, especially as they are a massive misrepresentation of the plain sense reading of your prior post...
Because I'm having to deal, at the moment, with three not so clever mis-representations of my posts on other threads, my patience for this sort of crap is running thin. It wasn't a big point, so you can just cut your losses and move on. For once.**
Working our way back through this outburst:
1) At this moment I recognize no "losses" to cut. And I smile at your employment of "for once," with its implicit suggestion of my having previously persisted in dealing with matters in feeble response to your own prior and - of course - dispositive remarks. Which reminds me to express my relief that the EMT's got to you in time. They say that a blocked flow is a terribly painful way to go. ;-)
2) The "patience running thin" seems to be the evident consequence of your having spread yourself too thin. You intermittently fail to keep track of the specific contributions to which remarks are responsive, as has been the case here and on previous occasion.
3) Illustrative of #2 is your complaint about pedantries and misrepresentation, apparently based upon the suggestion that my attempt to clarify the issue was (if I have the correct sense of your incoherent objection) merely an apologetic redefinition of my own previous remark, whereas it was - in fact and obviously - pointedly directed to no more than an interpretation and interrogation of your intermediate response, which you neglected appropriately to reproduce:
[(WM): "The Church didn't create or transform anything. People committed to a certain kind of traditional initiation placed an Xian 'skin' over a purely parallel tradition" >< (NN): "I suppose I stand corrected, if 'placing a skin over' is not some sort of 'transformation' (i.e., '3. change in form, appearance, nature, or character'). Or perhaps we are to take it that 'people' rather than 'the Church' performed this re-skinning as if the latter were not ultimately responsible for the otherwise inexplicable transformation.].
I am thus, at worst, guilty of having misunderstood this prior objection (yet to be clarified amidst this intemperance) but innocent of "misrepresentations" amidst this confusion as to the point of contention.
4) The "Humpty Dumpty" remark emerges here out of an apparent evidentiary vacuum, there having been no previous suggestion of some difficulty on my part which warrants such a generalization and caricature. Failing an illustration of such a pattern, you might dignify yourself with a retraction - or you might do me the instructive service of producing this illustration.
5) Perhaps we can resume a discussion of matters of substance when you have had the opportunity to regain your composure. I am genuinely saddened to have an exchange deteriorate as has this one.
2003-02-10 03:42 | User Profile
"The third phase was motivated by an attempt by the Church to take over the popular figures and events of the courtly romances and to utilise them in the promotion of Christian doctrines. There were two major components in this movement:
The writings of Robert de Boron, in particular his Joseph d'Arimathie (1180-1199) in which the Grail became, for the first time, a chalice;
The Vulgate Cycle (1215-1230), including L'Estoire del Saint Graal and La Queste del Saint Graal, in which the Grail is a dish."
(NN): "And when the Church cleverly transformed these classic quests into that for the Holy Grail,..."
(WM): "The Church didn't create or transform anything. People committed to a certain kind of traditional initiation placed an Xian 'skin' over a purely parallel tradition."
(NN): "I suppose I stand corrected, if 'placing a skin over' is not some sort of 'transformation' (i.e., '3. change in form, appearance, nature, or character'). Or perhaps we are to take it that 'people' rather than 'the Church' performed this re-skinning as if the latter were not ultimately responsible for the otherwise inexplicable transformation."
(WM): "You know, it would also be nice if you would resist the 'vicious pedantries'. Your Humpty Dumpty outlook ('words mean exactly what I say that they mean'), combined with a few choice presuppositions: 1) words mean exactly what my dictionary says that they mean, 2) words mean exactly what this un-cited dictionary says that they mean, 3) words mean exactly what the THIRD definition in this un-cited dictionary means), makes for tiresome reading, especially as they are a massive misrepresentation of the plain sense reading of your prior post:"
(NN): "And when the Church cleverly transformed these classic quests into that for the Holy Grail,..."
(NN): :blink:
2003-02-10 03:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Feb 10 2003, 03:42 ** (NN): "And when the Church cleverly transformed these classic quests into that for the Holy Grail,..."
(WM): "The Church didn't create or transform anything. People committed to a certain kind of traditional initiation placed an Xian 'skin' over a purely parallel tradition." **
If you look close, these two statements are tautological.
Pagan folk traditions became Christian folk traditions. What this means is the church, through most of its history, was decentralized and such things made no real difference.
In the south of France, the goddess Diana became Mary Magdeline. In England, a minor solar diety became Saint George. How much do these things matter?
Did the Church do it? Did the people do it? It was clever either way, but it had to be lots of both, as a moment of reflection would indicate.
---
### NeoNietzsche
*2003-02-10 04:16* | [User Profile](/od/user/204)
> *Originally posted by Ragnar*@Feb 9 2003, 21:59
**> *Originally posted by NeoNietzsche*@Feb 10 2003, 03:42
**
(NN): "And when the Church cleverly transformed these classic quests into that for the Holy Grail,..."
(WM): "The Church didn't create or transform anything. People committed to a certain kind of traditional initiation placed an Xian 'skin' over a purely parallel tradition." **
If you look close, these two statements are tautological.
Pagan folk traditions became Christian folk traditions. What this means is the church, through most of its history, was decentralized and such things made no real difference.
In the south of France, the goddess Diana became Mary Magdeline. In England, a minor solar diety became Saint George. How much do these things matter?**
It matters that the Church was an alien, international, universalist institution with its own deviant agenda - that once literally governed Europe under Innocent III.
2003-02-10 05:14 | User Profile
huh? sweecheioo swahktjo~ dldldl!donelnabnciomdmdmmd aldkfjthoejoasjcaehand;naapefmangapcmcmvopajenweekyweioeeluiyawweeemalmloncmeiopwjp[a9pjd
2003-02-10 05:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by wombatnine@Feb 9 2003, 23:14 huh?ÃÂ sweecheioo swahktjo~ dldldl!donelnabnciomdmdmmd ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ aldkfjthoejoasjcaehand;naapefmangapcmcmvopajenweekyweioeeluiyawweeemalmloncmeiopwjp[a9pjd
1) gkylllotmxndhuyppwerffdkfkf
2) dfmmmaaotjfudys - siduuufmvncbwlzouxii
3) scrooyewtu
2003-02-10 14:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Feb 10 2003, 00:34 > I am thus, at worst, guilty of having misunderstood this prior objection (yet to be clarified amidst this intemperance) but innocent of "misrepresentations" amidst this confusion as to the point of contention.**
You are absolutely innocent of misrepresenting my posts. My offending comment does imply that you misrepresented your own post, which was, as you say, intemperate. I apologize. You did no such thing.
As you have noticed, my resources require redirecting elsewhere. I have a low threshold for abuse of intellectual integrity and honesty. As a man who identifies himself with Nietzsche, these must of course seem passing fancies, the diversions of someone who refuses to come to grips with reality.
Please consult the works that I mentioned, also you may wish to examine the reading list of The Guild of the Grail, included in our links section. As I said, I believe that you will find the materials discussed there of interest.
Wintermute**
Thank you, Wintermute, for the reading suggestion and references. As it happens, I am already familiar with this material - the question which prompts your kind response having been intended, rather, to elicit a thought or thesis from Ragnar and yourself. This elicitation having failed miserably, we best drop the matter for now.
And your apology, of one paragraph, is appreciated amidst puzzlement over its necessity having arisen, in view of the self-referential proclamations of the subsequent paragraph. Does it make sense to so "direct" yourself that you assure the intemperate violation, as above, of your own standards and code?
And your "low threshold" speaks well of you in one sense, but you recognize that this ill-equips you to engage the reality of interlocution in this context with your composure intact. Yet you fail, evidently, to take measures to raise that threshold, where you seem, nevertheless, to have recognized the model to be adopted in this regard.
So, I reciprocate your kindnesses by offering my own services for instruction in the maintenance of composure in the face of intellectual misbehavior, should that be among your present aspirations.