← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · TexasAnarch
Thread ID: 5869 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2003-03-29
2003-03-29 08:27 | User Profile
Oyez Oyez No more Goy-eze
**ANNOUNCING THE PHILOSOPHICAL LIBERATION OF
AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY FROM JUDAISM:
THE NEW TESTAMENT MAKES IT TO THE 3rd millenium**
The saga of David Frum and J.P. Zmirak (documented above NeoCon Watch, 3.28) opens a shaft, like one of those portals in the ancient Pyramid of Ghiza, through which history, ourselves, and the present chaotic situation can be seen. All at once; unforgettably; forever.
We must begin, Christian Americans, to undo the reversals that have been pre-emptively done unto us. What Frum did to Zmirak (taking at face value; see cited link) is what the Jewish mob did to Jesus of Nazareth: crucified him for their sins. Then sold the idea to Hollywood Republicans ("They eat up that dead Jew, sacrificial lamb sh*t, especially "heartland"ers ...works every time ...
give 'em Jesus wrapped in Holocaust Tostados, Israel wins hands down") This, in effect, uses the Christ to recruit blood for Old Judaism ("the Christ" being taken as an expression of what "Jesus of Nazareth" communicates to us). Yet, it was the act of the Jewish mob, with help from the Roman legions, that brought about the crucifixion, believed to be the point of cleavage (between body/spirit; man, deity). They persecuted him for their sins: directed hatred-unto-death against Him, and His way of making them feel about themselves objectively ("scribes, pharisees, hypocrits"). "They know not what they do" records his awareness of their behavior as a group that He had deliberately provoked as perpetual testimony -- more painful because of his own identity through the mother's side. It's pattern is "self-purification": the Old Jews thought they were purifying themselves by crucifying one of their own, but the reverse was happening. They were condemning themselves to perpetual uncleanliness by doing it. The condemnation is the compulsion to keep dong it over, and over, and over again, as long as others go along (I'm sure most Jews can't figure out why such a big deal is made out of the crucufixion -- just one nice Jewish boy like that in history? -- Christians must seem pretty naive, with their "rebirth" through "believing" in that stuff. Ideal, surely, but "God"?- so goes my reconstruction).
This is the psychological source of "Holocaust" (trademark)/Speilberg hatred. It plays on the the fantasy of blood-identity bond between Americans and Jews sealed by WWII, as if in addition to, or fulfillment of, the Bible bond. Then, the grotesque slaughter of Daniel Peal brings sympathy (or whatever more you want to add) for the figure of "Word-bringing Jew" -- Wall Street Journal style -- up to the minute. Indeed, in my previous incarnatino as radical non-communist anti-Republican, I had acquired serious metaphysical distaste for everything Speilbergian; refused to watch Saving Private Ryan until professionally induced -- and felt unclean, afterward. Close-up Cam shot of rifle pointing at Tom Hank's crotch to pass the torch of Freedom? I don't think so. He started "saving the 60's" for the Jews back with Jaws.
The behavior pattern of "self-purification" by groups arranges events and words in order to swap the benefits of Christian culture (symbolized by classical Greek education at Yale; and by what Frum did to the lit. mag, in Zmirak's telling) into support for **WAR FOR ISRAEL**.
I can provide a personal illustration of this behavior pattern at work. An Ed Toner tale, though much less serious (he's AOK by me: I heard "Rabbi" Maher Kahane talk on campus, actually). It is a fact that on the Thursday night before George Bush's election in Nov. '88, and kristallnacht remembrance, a swastika with "kill Jew" graffiti was found spray painted on the wall of the Jewish Student Union. It was an unprecedented incident at the elite, upstate SUNY school where I had taught since mid-60's; a full third of the student body of which is Jewish downstate kids, who dominated the ambience 90% - 99%.
Well, the campus rose up in arms in outrage. All except yours truly. There was something suspicious about the entire thing, not just the way the scrawling was done, like by someone who didn't really mean it, but set against the backdrop of the first intafada, with Israeli soldiers clubbing Palestinian youth throwing stones, on TV. And I said so, pretty long and hard in philo of religion class next day. Got reamed out and called up on charges of anti-Semitism by the Faculty Senate. It was widely publicized, even counted as one of their famous "campus anti-Semitism" incidents. Guess what. The JSU president himself was the one campus police finally arrested (5 months later, not to interefer with his/their graduation). Fingerprints on the spray can matched his; but Jerry Oppenheim got off on a technicality, after leading the gang what wanted to crucify me. (--certainly not identifying with holiness, please understand; I may have used the F-word publically; was accused of it, but don't remember. It seemed to have been a promotion gimmick to boost kristallnacht remembrance. I think many of the 300+ who turned out in outrage over the swastika graffiti, suspected they were manipulated -- and didn't care; wanted to help the Jews not suffer, the way the Nazi's had made them.
These are not, of course, new thoughts or ideas. But now they can be seen objectively, by analysis of the "self-purification" behavior pattern, with blood-identity with victims leading to the dynamics of "sacrifice for renewal" (purge, self-purifiction, leading to re-birth).
But aren't we beginning to double-back? --repeat ourselves here? Isn't this just exactly the point where the transition of Jesus into Christ by the Christian act (acceptance, etc,: it is not just "belief"; let the preachers explain it, that's who I got it from) comes in? -- something about the act of true faith-identification, once-for-all (how could it be otherwise?), leading to rebirth, new man, kingdom of heaven, New Jerusalem. That is reversed when it is taken down to the blood-level as something to die for, although it includes that as a human decision. But they already did that in Rome's colliseum, and elsewhere. Been there, done that with the dead liberal Christians. It is not the way. It is the way that was, in fact, supposed to be terminated by The Sacrifice -- of "God the Father" Himself, by Himself, through The Son, just to refresh people's memory. To save the animals.
The difference in ways might have worked out amicably, between us and the Old Ones seeking to survive, and thrive, in this, our native country. But their attachment to the blood of Abraham through Isaac, and to Jerusalem, has caused them to pre-empt the difference, requiring full reversal. In order to restore what we were, and are, to ourselves (and each other), it is necessary to deny this blood identity. And not just between the United States and Israel. Having had "anti-Semitism" used against us to ward off recognition of Sharon's Zionism, it is between Americans and Jews per se. As in expulsion. An unmixing, at the material, blood level, of what we did not choose to mix with, at the spiritual. It would not have been the desire of Christian Americans to take such a terrible step. Now, its unavoidable.
Or give them Christ, to go with their Jeezus crackers.
Even they know, now, everyone must choose. Its either Christian America, or the Jews.
-9
2003-03-29 22:11 | User Profile
Itââ¬â¢s either Christian America, or the Jews.
I agree with that sentence with the exception of one word. Itââ¬â¢s either White America, or the
Jews.
Can we conduct an informal poll which asks, ââ¬ÅIf you had to choose between the extinction of your race
or of your religion--no ifs, ands, buts, or esoteric arguments whatsoever, just one or the other--
which would you choose?ââ¬Â
2003-03-30 17:25 | User Profile
Its not "which would you rather lose", its "which do you live and die for?"
I am not an Albanian. If you live and die for what was deposited in your blood you don't really live at all, do you. You are no better than ....rythmes with 2. If someone attacks me through my color, of course I will fight -- but they will have decided what they want to die for, not me.
I view it as a trick of the Yews to get people fighting each other over the color line.
The point about labeling the opponents of the coming internal conflict to oust the Jews "Christian" is to cut that umbilicus between Old and New Testament through which this country gets drained of being. It is not to make Christianity a cause to fight for.
2003-03-30 23:42 | User Profile
Its [sic] not "which would you rather lose", its "which do you live and die for?"
No, that may be your question but it is not the question. To paraphrase Shakespeare, ââ¬ÅWhiteness is all.ââ¬Â
**I am not an Albanian. If you live and die for what was deposited in your blood you don't really live at all, do you. You are no better than ....rythmes with 2. If someone attacks me through my color, of course I will fight -- but they will have decided what they want to die for, not me. **
Albanians? Ambiguous references just obfuscate. The present dilemma is really very easy to understand: if you donââ¬â¢t live and die for your ââ¬Åbloodââ¬Â you are going to die at the hands of those who do. For example, those marines, soldiers and airman dying right now in Iraq when they should be here defending our borders from alien hordes and our streets from the Crips and Bloods.
I view it as a trick of the Yews to get people fighting each other over the color line.
ââ¬ÅYewsââ¬Â are trees and totally blameless. Why the use of cutesy stand-ins? The word is Jews. The color line is real and Jews did not invent it, they just exploit it for their own tribal purposes. Read about whatââ¬â¢s happening in Zimbabwe, South Africa, every US city and, if youââ¬â¢ve the stomach for it, American prisons.
The point about labeling the opponents of the coming internal conflict to oust the Jews "Christian" is to cut that umbilicus between Old and New Testament through which this country gets drained of being. It is not to make Christianity a cause to fight for.
Testaments whether Old, New or anything in between are completely irrelevant in light of the looming racial cataclysm. They are not going to save anyone from howling mobs in a race war. I can live in a world with or without Christianity. I cannot live in a world without other Whites. And even if it were possible, who would want to?
2003-03-31 00:13 | User Profile
White Americans & for that matter Europeans either stand together regardless of religion or get ruled by somebody else.
Does Israel have a "creed test"? Nope, they go by bloodlines. OK by me. Make Christianity neither a punching bag nor a requirement and it'll get lots easier.
2003-03-31 09:48 | User Profile
I don't like to keep saying "Jews" over and over. It gets tiresome.
No, its not just "my question", what to live for. It is anybody's question that wants to live, such as the soldiers in Iraq. If you don't want to live, then the question "What would you die for?" arises.
Nobody is asking you to be Christian, fight for Chriatianity, or live in a world where any body does Testaments of any kind at all. Go to hell. The point is how this country was set up, white man, it didn't mention skin color, and that remained a problem. People who wanted to kill anybody that wasn't like them in color or anything else they were born with just got put in jail if they tried it.
Of course, that's long term, and we are talking short term here, (maybe) so, certainly, blood and guns wins that argument. For now. But it isn't the way. Couldn't possibly be. Just another primitive religion returned, thanks to the general regression. The tradition is civilian control over the military, and the police get paid by the people's taxes, not the monied elite. Goes with the Magna Carta, everybody subject to the same law.
If we are still talking, OK. If not, thats OK by me too.