← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 6372 | Posts: 92 | Started: 2003-04-24
2003-04-24 16:44 | User Profile
I'll say the Protestant Reformation. This broke the spiritual unity of the West and the heresy of Calvin and Luther regarding the exclusively individual (i.e. non-corporate) nature of salvation and experience with the Devine contained within itself the seeds of the vast movements of the future: most especially the Enlightenment and the French Revolution with its nonsense about "egalite."
American history is the working out of the heretical ideas contained in the ideas of Calvin and Luther.
Not that it was all bad, I'm the first to admit. But our present difficulties are all bound up with the freakish focus on the individual and the denial of the corporate nature of humanity.
Walter
2003-04-24 18:08 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Apr 24 2003, 10:44 *I'll say the Protestant Reformation.ÃÂ This broke the spiritual unity of the West [,] and the heresy of Calvin and Luther regarding the exclusively individual (i.e., non-corporate) nature of salvation and experience with the Dvine contained within itself the seeds of the vast movements of the future:ÃÂ most especially the Enlightenment and the French Revolution with its nonsense about "egalite." **
But Walter, Protestantism is far more the Apostolic faith of the text itself.
Your own Book betrays Catholicism, which is thus Paganism instructed by the Whore straddling the AntiChrist, from a reader's perspective.
:shock:
But I largely agree with your assessment that:
But our present difficulties are all bound up with the freakish focus on the individual and the denial of the corporate nature of humanity.
So join the Pack - "88" and all that. Waddaya say, Walter? :punk:
2003-04-24 23:52 | User Profile
So the true turning point for the White race was embracing Christianity? Ridiculous! When Europeans were at the height of their power, nearly all Europeans were Christians. (Which is why Christendom and Europe are practically synonymous.)
2003-04-25 01:48 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Apr 24 2003, 17:42 > Your own Book betrays Catholicism, which is thus Paganism instructed by the Whore straddling the AntiChrist**
NeoNietzsche -
How will you continue to gain followers if you insist on portraying the opposition in its most attractive light?
Don't play to their strengths.
Wintermute**
Point taken, Wintermute.
Guess I shouldn't reproach Walter with visions of bare-assed nuns needlessly flagellating themselves over merely imaginary sins, huh?
2003-04-25 06:02 | User Profile
How will we pagans, who can offer only the sober disciplines of mathematics, music and justice, ever compete with the lascivious 24/7 MTV-style action offered by Holy Mother Church? Truly, it is a dark time for the alethes logos.
Wintermute**
Very well put, Wintermute. Let me point out that both you and NN are asking exactly the right questions, which is encouraging. I mean this in all fraternal charity.
The answer to your question is quite simply that you can't compete with it. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, holds a candle to Christ. Your only choice is to surrender to Him.
Catholicism simultaneously encompasses, resolves and satisfies all of the conflicting tendencies of our natures; from the darkest irrational depths of Dionysius to the icy-bright crystallan rational clarity of Apollo, Catholicism has it all.
The Cross stretched Christ's arms so wide that they embrace the entire world, and yanked His legs so long that His Head reached to His Crown in Heaven even as His Feet sank into the depths of Hell itself. Where will you hide from that awful spectre, little men that you are? What other god could eclipse Him? All of your pagan heros were and forever shall be but the dimmest pretenders to His most manifest Glory - and you avail yourselves of them only because you lack the strength to gaze on that most dread vision of Him.
Admit it.
The point that I've been trying to make, my brothers, is that your efforts to escape (or even more laughably to replace) Him as the talisman of our people are doomed to failure. You run after your own puny philosophies like dogs chasing their tales, all in a fruitless effort to avert your gaze from His most awful Reality. Your efforts are altogether puny - indeed pitifully so.
As my brother Wintermute himself admits - he has nothing to compare to the redeeming madness of Christianity.
Surrender to Him, brothers. Fall down in worship before your Saviour King. Feed on His Flesh. Drink deeply of His Blood. Drench yourselves in his His blood even as you yourselves thrust the lance into His Sacred Heart.
And be ye saved, and our people with you.
NN - do you see now who the War God of El Cid and his army is? And you presume to replace Him with some Bavarian corporal?
Walter
2003-04-25 06:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Apr 24 2003, 18:08 ** But Walter, Protestantism is far more the Apostolic faith of the text itself.
Your own Book betrays Catholicism, which is thus Paganism instructed by the Whore straddling the AntiChrist, from a reader's perspective.
**
You erroneously assume the Protestant idea of sola scriptura - the notion that the Scriptures are the sole source of Christian authority.
The Church never beleived this, and indeed the proposition is a patent absurdity.
The Church is the emobodiment of the living Tradition that assorted and compiled the Scriptures. The Church therefore antecedes the Scriptures and it follows that the Church's authority extends over the Scriptures themselves. The early Church was never shy about pronouncing what was in and what was out of the Canon - there exist many apocrophal Christian writings that the Tradition rejected as inauthentic.
As an illustration, the early Church changed its sabbath day from Saturday (in line of course with the most fundamental dictates of the Hebrew tradition) to Sunday - the "eighth day" of Christ's Resurrection. Nowhere is such a radical change prescribed in the Scriptures. Indeed, the Scriptures clearly dictate a Saturday observance, and thus any Protestant true to sola scriptura should dump the Sunday tradition as a false accretion, as did the Seventh Day Adventists. But that of course is absurd, and few Protestant denominations have chosen to do so, thus implicitly accepting that the Church has the authority to change the Sabbath, Scriptural provisions to the contrary notwithstanding.
Christ founded a Church, after all; He didn't write a book. The Church is the Jesus Movement, and asserts for Herself the right to say precisely what the Scriptures are and (perhaps more importantly) exactly what they mean, the Scriptures being an internal thing of the Church.
It is clear then that Scriptures could never prove the Church wrong on any matter of doctrine, inasmuch as the Scriptures are, in a sense, derivative of the Church's authority.
The matter is more complicated than that, and the Church recognizes the current Canon as normative and indeed authoritative. The main point is that Scripture is most emphatically not the sole source of authority in matters of doctrine and morals. As a footnote, the sources of authority are Holy Tradition, the Holy Scritptures, the Natural Law, and the Magesterium of the Catholic Church - these reinforce each other in a dynamic way, but I'll end it here.
Walter
2003-04-25 12:11 | User Profile
Returning to the original subject of this thread, I should add that my Orthodox Christian brothers are of the opinion that the Reformation was itself merely a working out of the Papal Revolution of Hildebrand which was generally contemporaneous with the Great Schism and that ended ceaseropapism in the West.
There's an excellent book written by (IP) Prof. Harold Berman (retired) of Columbia University entitled "Law and Revolution" that explains all of this very well. It's the singly most important book that I read in law school, that's for sure. What a tour de force.
Prof. Berman makes a very good case that every revolution of the West after that - the Reformation, the English, American, French and Russian Revolutions - had their spiritual roots in the Papal assertion of full autonomy in ecclesiastical matters, thus creating in the West the idea of separate jurisidictions and legal norms for various aspects of life. The Western consciousness was in a sense "split" between the sacred and the profane in a way it was not in the Orthodox East. This breach in our social fabric unravelled us into the highly atomized situation we find ourselves in today.
I hope that I'm not betraying any loyalties by admitting a certain sympathy for the Orthodox position.
Walter
2003-04-25 12:44 | User Profile
Bravo, Walter - nice try!
The Church is the embodiment of the living Tradition that assorted and compiled the Scriptures.
But it did not create the text, which selection and compilation reflects its prostitution to the Athanasian victory over the Arians.
The Church therefore antecedes the Scriptures and it follows that the Church's authority extends over the Scriptures themselves.
Metaphysical nonsense or historical baloney: The community of James disappeared with the Roman invasion, thus the legitimate antecedents to authentic text in any physical sense were gone long before a "Church" appeared in any meaningful sense.
Indeed, the Scriptures clearly dictate a Saturday observance, and thus any Protestant true to sola scriptura should dump the Sunday tradition as a false accretion, as did the Seventh Day Adventists. But that of course is absurd, and few Protestant denominations have chosen to do so, thus implicitly accepting that the Church has the authority to change the Sabbath, Scriptural provisions to the contrary notwithstanding.
And I concede that Protestantism is Paulinism - which, however, is much more the Apostolic faith.
Christ founded a Church, after all; He didn't write a book. The Church is the Jesus Movement, and asserts for Herself the right to say precisely what the Scriptures are and (perhaps more importantly) exactly what they mean, the Scriptures being an internal thing of the Church.
Jesus did not "found a Church". His "movement" died with James and Simon. Paul's movement survived and slowly ossified into a "Church," which knew an enforced unity which identified it as such only centuries later.
It is clear then that Scriptures could never prove the Church wrong on any matter of doctrine, inasmuch as the Scriptures are, in a sense, derivative of the Church's authority.
An epistemology krafted for Kattle: the Church is never even held to the text it claims for itself. It means what I say it means when I say what it means. :jest:
2003-04-25 13:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Apr 25 2003, 00:02 **The Cross stretched Christ's arms so wide that they embrace the entire world, and yanked His legs so long that His Head reached to His Crown in Heaven even as His Feet sank into the depths of Hell itself.
NN - do you see now who the War God of El Cid and his army is? And you presume to replace Him with some Bavarian corporal?
Walter**
I see that you think that your Daddy is sooooooo big and strong that he can sure beat my dad six ways to Sunday.
Please give some thought to growing up. Hitler made the effort.
2003-04-25 13:04 | User Profile
The answer to your question is quite simply that you can't compete with it. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, holds a candle to Christ. Your only choice is to surrender to Him.
Add forehead-dot, garnish liberally with unmolested cows, and voila!
RBan Surprise.
2003-04-25 13:51 | User Profile
Bravo, Walter - nice try!
Thanks.
> The Church is the embodiment of the living Tradition that assorted and compiled the Scriptures.**
But it did not create the text, which selection and compilation reflects its prostitution to the Athanasian victory over the Arians.**
Not so. Both Peter and Paul died in Rome, and between them they wrote the bulk of the New Testament. Peter is responsible for the Gospel of Mark (St. Mark was Peter's interpretor in Rome) and the letters of Peter. St. Paul was of course the other big contributor to the New Testament with his letters. St. Luke - author of both the Gospel of Luke and Acts - was a direct disciple and travelling companion of St. Paul, so Luke is definitely within the Pauline tradition. In fact, Luke wrote his books at the request of the Church in Rome: i.e. Peter and Paul. As to John, I first point out that Luke spent a good deal of time with John interviewing Mary for his Gospel - Mary of course had taken up residence with him. Thus there was a direct contact between John and Saints Peter and Paul. The Gospel of John and St. John's letters do form an independent tradition, but as I said it wasn't independent. St. James does have an Epistle in the New Testament, and he's a prominent figure in Acts, but it's clearly absurd to see the entire early tradition in him.
By the way, they found Peter's bones under the central altar of St. Peter's, right where he was supposed to be. I did the tour of the digs under the Vatican. Astonishing. St. Peter's is built on a Roman pagan necropolis, and St. Peter was buried there. His area became the "Christian" part of this cemetary, surrounded by graves adorned with beautiful pagan motifs. They seemed to like the Egyptian gods. Anyway, Peter was always recognized as head of the Church, and his writings were not dependent on St. James. Clearly in Acts the Council of Jerusalem recognized Peter as the leader.
> The Church therefore antecedes the Scriptures and it follows that the Church's authority extends over the Scriptures themselves.**
Metaphysical nonsense or historical baloney: The community of James disappeared with the Roman invasion, thus the legitimate antecedents to authentic text in any physical sense were gone long before a "Church" appeared in any meaningful sense.**
See above. Your argument lacks merit. I don't know whether St. James' community was destroyed and then re-established at a later date, why do you say that? St. Jerome - shortly after the end of the persecutions - found a vibrant community there.
> Indeed, the Scriptures clearly dictate a Saturday observance, and thus any Protestant true to sola scriptura should dump the Sunday tradition as a false accretion, as did the Seventh Day Adventists.ÃÂ But that of course is absurd, and few Protestant denominations have chosen to do so, thus implicitly accepting that the Church has the authority to change the Sabbath, Scriptural provisions to the contrary notwithstanding.**
And I concede that Protestantism is Paulinism - which, however, is much more the Apostolic faith. **
Apostolic? Paul was an Apostle, so naturally his writings were "Apostolic." You seem to imply that there was some sort of contradiction between the traditions, but this clearly isn't so: St. Peter in his second letter declared all of Paul's writings "Scripture", thus destroying utterly your argument. Scripture was whatever St. Peter said it was, and the early Church recognized that authority. That's putting it a bit crudely, of course, but St. Peter clearly believed that he had the power to declare a writing canonical, and he did so with the writings of Paul. No contradiction.
> Christ founded a Church, after all; He didn't write a book.ÃÂ The Church is the Jesus Movement, and asserts for Herself the right to say precisely what the Scriptures are and (perhaps more importantly) exactly what they mean, the Scriptures being an internal thing of the Church.**
Jesus did not "found a Church". His "movement" died with James and Simon. Paul's movement survived and slowly ossified into a "Church," which knew an enforced unity which identified it as such only centuries later.**
Poppycock. See above. Peter was the head of the movement, and he died in Rome well after declaring all of Paul's writings authoritative. But Paul himself is thus authenticated by Peter. As Jesus said to the Pharisees, the altar is holy than the gold on the altar, because it is the altar that makes the gold holy.
> It is clear then that Scriptures could never prove the Church wrong on any matter of doctrine, inasmuch as the Scriptures are, in a sense, derivative of the Church's authority.**
An epistemology krafted for Kattle: the Church is never even held to the text it claims for itself. It means what I say it means when I say what it means. :jest:**
Any text means whatever someone says it is. The question is "who has the authority" to interpret it. Protestantism places the authority to interpret the Scriptures with the individual, resulting the 28,000 Protestant denominations and an atomized populace - indeed leading directly to the solipcism of PeeCee. Catholicim places this authority in the only logical place - with the Tradition and Institution that gave it birth.
I should add that St. Peter in his second letter also strictly enjoins the private interpretation of prophecy just before he declares St. Paul's writings authoritative - thus "sola scriptura" is actually unscriptural!
Walter
2003-04-25 14:12 | User Profile
Jesus did not "found a Church". His "movement" died with James and Simon. Paul's movement survived and slowly ossified into a "Church," which knew an enforced unity which identified it as such only centuries later.
Walter, NN has got to be referring to the "Jewish Christians" who were blood relatives of Christ and called Despoysyni. They were influential in the early church and their first bishop was James. The movement certainly did not die with James or Simon since it lasted to at least 318 AD when they met with Pope Sylvester in Rome in what was basicallly a turf battle over who could name bishops. They lost and withered away by the early 5th century. it was their Waterloo. The final crushing defeat in a war where they lost every battle, skirmish and firefight with Paul and Peterl and their followers embodied by the Church, starting in 49 AD. when their belief that all converts must undergo circumcision lost out. Paul, and I believe Peter, argued that circumcision of non jewish converts was unnecessary.
Had they won, which seems a preposterous notion, the Church would have remained a tiny and much despised sect of judaism and never "ossified" into the universal religion it did.
2003-04-25 14:34 | User Profile
** The Church asserts for Herself the right to say precisely what the Scriptures are and exactly what they mean, the Scriptures being an internal thing of the Church.
It is clear then that Scriptures could never prove the Church wrong on any matter of doctrine.
Surrender to Him, brothers. Fall down in worship before your Saviour King. Feed on His Flesh. Drink deeply of His Blood. Drench yourselves in his His blood even as you yourselves thrust the lance into His Sacred Heart.
The Cross stretched Christ's arms so wide that they embrace the entire world, and yanked His legs so long that His Head reached to His Crown in Heaven even as His Feet sank into the depths of Hell itself. **
Sorry, it has to be said. This sort of nonsense drives away as many potential reinforcements as Franco and his New Hardness broadsides. I mean, I don't know if the quotes above are the manifestation of Abiding Faith or an Oncoming Aneurysm.
Guys: with all due respect to the vital importance of what goes on in your invisible world - with your mile-high savior and his bizarrely distended arms and the absolute perfect infallibility of your homosexual-ridden, Holocaust-apologizing church - the rest of us have to make do in this ho-hum, chintzy, visible one.
And the last thing a race of people ruthlessly engineered to be too stupid or too scared to think for themselves needs..... is more church!
2003-04-25 15:40 | User Profile
Quick remarks before incommunicado for the weekend:
Peter's "endorsement" of Paul (likely Paul's invention or reciprocal compensation) compromises Peter by placing him in opposition to the authentic Jesus movement, which disappeared sooner or later ("later" in the sense, referring to Edward's contribution, that the declining Freemasons are held to be a survival of the Templars). Peter ("the head of the movement," you write) and Paul were not a "Church" which can be held thus to have created the text in the epistemological spirit which you claim. Peter, separated from the authentic community and evidently the subject of self-promotion and/or Paul's creative elevation to Apostolic prominence, was not so imprudently insolent as to be presented as claiming that Scripture was whatever he said it was (if we may improve upon your concession in this direction), and Paul was not an Apostle in the sense of direct contact with Jesus.
**Thus there was a direct contact between John and Saints Peter and Paul. The Gospel of John and St. John's letters do form an independent tradition, but as I said it wasn't independent. **
The contact, according to your own account, was indirect - and John does, as you say, form an independent tradition from the synoptic gospels. But then you contradict yourself by writing that it wasn't independent because of direct contact which wasn't direct.
St. James does have an Epistle in the New Testament, and he's a prominent figure in Acts, but it's clearly absurd to see the entire early tradition in him.
Indeed, but his is the authentic Jesus tradition, which significantly diverges with its emphasis on works over faith. Peter-siding-with-Paul constitutes the analog of the mis-named Bolshevik minority eventually winning out with popularity and maneuverability rather than with authenticity.
Nevertheless, we are granting Paul the tradition to which Protestants refer, and this relatively faithful reference renders Catholicism, with its bizarre accretions, radically objectionable. The pro forma embrace of Peter and Paul does not save Catholicism from its historical evolution into something else.
2003-04-25 18:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Apr 25 2003, 15:40 ** The contact, according to your own account, was indirect - and John does, as you say, form an independent tradition from the synoptic gospels. But then you contradict yourself by writing that it wasn't independent because of direct contact which wasn't direct. **
That was a typo. As written that is indeed a contradiction, but I meant to contrast "independent" with "interdependent:" John's movement was a semi-autonomous (independent) part of of a unified (interdependent) tradition.
Sorry for the confusion.
I know that you will not agree with me as to this question of faith - there's no arguing these things, after all, since they're pre-rational and thus not susceptible to rational discourse. Reason is but the handmaiden of the emotions, and religion springs for our deepest emotional longings. Reason can only point back at the thing it serves, it can neither prove or disprove it anymore than a microscope could prove or disprove the existence of the scientist peering through it.
The thing that I want to impress upon you is that Christianity is not in any way a tame thing, as our antiseptic, secular Calvinism would have us believe, and as you apparently assume (at least until you read my rant above). It is rather a sort of controlled madness that has proven itself capable time and again of moving our people to the depths of their beings, forge in them an invincible group identity and purpose, and inspire them to acts of astonishing courage and beauty.
The thing about our practical calvinism in either its church or secular form is that it's not, well, very practical. It simply does not serve these primordial group purposes. Evolutionary psychology reveals that religion serves essential group functions. Our people must be inspired, awed, convinced and enraged for the terrible battles ahead, and our evolved psychologies dictate that only a real religion encompassing simultaneously the highest and lowest aspects of our natures will suffice. Our history and broad social circumstances likewise dictate that the religion most suited to the task is the Christianity of El Cid and Charles Martel and yes the Spanish Inquisition, with all of its weirdness, for its most bizarre parts are exactly the thing that makes it inspire, awe and enrage.
Chesterton once said something to the effect that the singlular madness of faith is the thing that allows man to be sane about everything else. Our own group "sanity" about religion is exactly the thing that causes the collective insanity of every other aspect of our group life.
Il Ragno scoffs at religion in general, ignoring the deep human need for the pre-rational. His words are thus gesture without motion from a headpiece of straw. His mistake is to take no real accounting of the facts of human nature at all. He dreams of something his own denial of human nature and its profoundly pre-rational needs renders utterly impossible.
Wintermute goes the next step and accepts the need for a religion of sorts, but rejects the Dionysian aspects of Catholicism as distasteful. He ignores the profound emotional needs of our evolved natures that would be sated by something like a tribe "feeding on the flesh of its victim king." His mistake is to take an incomplete inventory of human nature, closing his eyes to the parts he finds ugly. His religion - whatever it is - therefore will not allow us to forge the invincible group identity that is necessary for our own group survival. His practicality is utterly impractical for our purposes. Wintermute dreams of something his own intellectualized, bourgeois daintiness renders impossible.
You, NN, are something of a puzzle to me. You seem to accept the need for a powerful group religion and even embrace the Dionysian aspects of Nazism and its celebration of strength - all projects that I sympathize with in a qualified way - yet you fail to see that Catholicism has proven itself stronger than Nazism in the Darwinian struggle and thus is more suitable to our purposes. A cursory glance at history compels you to admit that Catholicism survived both the German Nazis and the Jewish Bolsheviks (not to mention the French Jacobins, the Moors, the Turks and so on a so forth stretching back to the times of the Ceasars and their lions), and that Nazism is thus but a pale come-lately in comparison. Even by your own lights, Catholicism is the greater force, and the more practical choice for our movement.
Again, religious faith is a pre-rational thing, and thus it is pointless to argue about the fundamental fact of faith. Each of us must search out that for ourselves, and I certainly respect your freedom to do exactly that (some of the more unfortunate aspects of my own tradition notwithstanding). But you and my brothers Il Ragno and Wintermute are earnestly enjoined to show a bit more respect for human nature and the Faith that accepted and nurtured it and thereby carried our ancestors to a greatness we their sissified scoin can only hope to emulate.
Walter
2003-04-25 18:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Apr 25 2003, 13:02 ** > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Apr 25 2003, 00:02 **The Cross stretched Christ's arms so wide that they embrace the entire world, and yanked His legs so long that His Head reached to His Crown in Heaven even as His Feet sank into the depths of Hell itself.
NN - do you see now who the War God of El Cid and his army is?ÃÂ And you presume to replace Him with some Bavarian corporal?ÃÂ
Walter**
I see that you think that your Daddy is sooooooo big and strong that he can sure beat my dad six ways to Sunday.
Please give some thought to growing up. Hitler made the effort. **
Please see my previous comment.
This is precisely the point.
History proves that my god is bigger than your god, and in fact kicked your god's ass (whoever your god is - you're curiously silent on that point). And the god of the IP. And the god of the Moors. And the god of the Turks. And the god of the [fill in the blank]. My god lost a few rounds but never lost a war. My god should be the god of our tribe. That is the point.
For a fellow who posits strength as the primary value you certainly show little respect for the invincible when you run across it.
So I ask you, NN, the question you've pestered the rest of us with: who is your god of war?
Who was the god of war of Rodrigo and his men?
Who is the mightier of the two?
Walter
2003-04-25 18:48 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 25 2003, 14:34 ** Sorry, it has to be said. This sort of nonsense drives away as many potential reinforcements as Franco and his New Hardness broadsides. I mean, I don't know if the quotes above are the manifestation of Abiding Faith or an Oncoming Aneurysm. **
What do you find nonsensical here?
Please be specific.
Walter
2003-04-25 19:18 | User Profile
Hi Walter. I just thought I would add some comments being myself a Calvinist myself.
**As an illustration, the early Church changed its sabbath day from Saturday (in line of course with the most fundamental dictates of the Hebrew tradition) to Sunday - the "eighth day" of Christ's Resurrection. Nowhere is such a radical change prescribed in the Scriptures. Indeed, the Scriptures clearly dictate a Saturday observance, and thus any Protestant true to sola scriptura should dump the Sunday tradition as a false accretion, as did the Seventh Day Adventists. But that of course is absurd, and few Protestant denominations have chosen to do so, thus implicitly accepting that the Church has the authority to change the Sabbath, Scriptural provisions to the contrary notwithstanding. **
As person believing in sola scriptura, I would have to say that there is scriptural precendent of the observation of Sunday as the Sabbath is very scriptural. Protestants developed this doctrince from the following verses:
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
I Cor. 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
Rev. 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
The first day of the week was Sunday, not Saturday, and these verses show wn establishment of Sunday as the first day of the week, which was so esablished by the time John wrote Revelation in his old age, that Sunday was established as the Lord's day.
Walter, I do not have the time to comment on every point ( I wish that I did, but I have two toddlers) that you have made in your essays about Calvinism. The Roman Catholic Church is very evolutionary in its doctrines and traditions. It is one of the most syncretistic religions in the world. Wintermute has commented on how the paganistic practices of the Romans were absorbed in the Roman church. Also, Roman church members syncretize church worship with animistic practices of the natives in Africa and South America and with communism in Liberation Theology that is used to fuel revolutions in South America. Why are these people not excommunicated?
Very interesting discussion. I will being checking in.
2003-04-25 19:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Apr 25 2003, 19:27 ** This, finally, is my objection to your claims. The ego-tripping Catholic triumphalism in your posts, which descends so far as to claim that worldly power is a sign of grace, is genuinely revolting and wrong headed. The Jews are far, far, more powerful than the Church you champion, and someone making the case for Judaism could make the same claims that you do, only with stronger support. Catholicism is no more a vehicle for our deliverance than is the Noahide movement, with which it shares important features. **
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I admire your mind, Wintermute, and your powerful writing.
As to my ego-tripping Catholicism, your point is well taken and I'll try to tone down my rhetoric. But I think you'll admit I was provoked by childish scoffing at religion in general on the one hand and a concentrated sneering at my Church on the other. It's a two-way street, man.
My point is simply that religion is inescapable (we agree on that) and that Christianity (and Catholicism as a variant thereof) is a logical choice for our group purposes. It's the condescending attitude that I cannot abide, especially coming from those of objectively inferior traditions or even those with no tradition and who offer ZIPPO in its place. I'm pleased to learn that you find the more bizarre aspects of my religion attractive, but then whence the pejorative comments about Anne Rice and Madonna's inspiration? They're very minor examples of why Catholics produce great artists like Gerard Manly Hopkins and Baptists generally do not - the utterly banal Left Behind series springs to mind. So why would you come out against that? You either don't like genuine art (not likely) or you find some aspect of their Catholic culture distasteful or objectionable. I naturally assumed the latter.
As to Orthodoxy, I empathize with your statements. The Great Schism was a terrible event in our history, with horrific damage done to our collective conscious that we can never hope to quantify fully. The Orthodox agree with the Catholics on all doctinal matters save a few, by the way, so in that sense the two churches are just a step away from each other, although certainly the East can claim a spiritual tradition that is in many ways richer than that of the West. I disagree with you on the superiority of the Orthodox intellectual tradition - sorry, man, the the RC's have the whooped hands down. We have Aquinas, after all.
I'm pleased that we seem to agree, you had me worried for a minute. BTW, I posted under business and economy a thing on the Mondragon movement that I'd like to hear your take on.
Warmest regards,
Walter
2003-04-25 20:12 | User Profile
Oh, I get it now.
Atheists, pagans and Catholics gather in the Big Tent together 'round the sentiment of "at least we aren't Baptists."
I'm hurt. :crybaby:
2003-04-25 20:58 | User Profile
**What do you find nonsensical here?
Please be specific.**
The nonsense. The nonsense is what I find nonsensical. Wintermute may dub it 'triumphalism' but this drench yourself in the spurting blood of my colossally giant Savior business sure sounds like lash-of-the-Penitente looney tunes to me.
I personally think the average OD lurker -certainly the more recent ones - enjoy our frail attempts at arriving at the hard objective truths hidden behind commonly-perceived media and govt distortions of same. And disaffected Freepers arriving here have already learned the hard way that there is no Easter Bunny, so I can't help but think these monographs you've been offering up are going to come off as a load of Papal bull to people who might not have been expecting to hear of the inevitable Catholic dominion over all when they logged in.
Il Ragno scoffs at religion in general, ignoring the deep human need for the pre-rational. His words are thus gesture without motion from a headpiece of straw. His mistake is to take no real accounting of the facts of human nature at all.
What I scoff at is the amazing hubris of someone who'd hog the provenance of all "human need for the pre-rational" to his own set of myths and metaphors. But whadd'I know? I'm walkin' around gesturing motionlessly like a spaz. And this hat's not doin' me any favors, either.
2003-04-25 21:20 | User Profile
Cough, cough...Oh, excuse me, just passing through.
[url=http://www.equip.org/free/CP0805.htm]Sola Scriptura[/url]
2003-04-26 02:32 | User Profile
I have 2 Gods: White supremacism, and vodka.
What else is there?
2003-04-26 14:35 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Apr 25 2003, 21:20 ** Cough, cough...Oh, excuse me, just passing through.
[url=http://www.equip.org/free/CP0805.htm]Sola Scriptura[/url] **
Tee-hee.
Wrong about my being in the big tent with the pagans and atheists, TD.
I'm with you, man.
Like I said, our conversation will be quite different than the one that seems to have splattered itself all over this thread.
I find your interest in Orthodoxy intriguing (I'm going on unsubstantiated rumor - see above). Please tell me more.
Walter
2003-04-26 14:57 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 25 2003, 20:58 ** > **What do you find nonsensical here?
Please be specific.**
The nonsense. The nonsense is what I find nonsensical. Wintermute may dub it 'triumphalism' but this drench yourself in the spurting blood of my colossally giant Savior business sure sounds like lash-of-the-Penitente looney tunes to me.
**
That's exactly the point - Christianity is penitente loony-tunes times ten. All of the great religions are completely bonkers in one way or the other - if they weren't they never would have become great because they would have failed to satisfy human need in a profound way. The thing you roundly fail to grasp is that this madness is a necessary precondition to our group survival. It's practical madness, IR. The real madness is to remain in denial about it. Please confirm that you understand this point.
I personally think the average OD lurker -certainly the more recent ones - enjoy our frail attempts at arriving at the hard objective truths hidden behind commonly-perceived media and govt distortions of same. And disaffected Freepers arriving here have already learned the hard way that there is no Easter Bunny, so I can't help but think these monographs you've been offering up are going to come off as a load of Papal bull to people who might not have been expecting to hear of the inevitable Catholic dominion over all when they logged in.ÃÂ ÃÂ **
Hey, I'm just telling it as I see it, which I believe is the point of this forum and certainly the reason I'm here (have gotten the boot from FR), so if they can't handle my rhetorical flourishes I suggest they return to "Let's Roll!" land, and don't let the door slap'em on the ass on the way out.
Good pun on the "papal bull" comment, by the way. You do have flair, I'll give you that.
> Il Ragno scoffs at religion in general, ignoring the deep human need for the pre-rational. His words are thus gesture without motion from a headpiece of straw. His mistake is to take no real accounting of the facts of human nature at all.**
What I scoff at is the amazing hubris of someone who'd hog the provenance of all "human need for the pre-rational" to his own set of myths and metaphors. But whadd'I know? I'm walkin' around gesturing motionlessly like a spaz. And this hat's not doin' me any favors, either.**
Hey, man, I"M NOT THE ONE who made the snive comments about Hinduism and Catholicism above on this thread, nor indeed did I write your comments on other threads deprecating all religions. You are the one who implicity claims some sort of corner on the truth market here, not me. Unlike you, I have naught but respect for the other great religions of the world. You rip Catholicism and sneer at Hinduism, and then you turn around and reproach me with "hogging the provenance . . . to his own set of myths and metaphors." You can't seem to recognize your own anti-religious biases as the very bigotry you would by way of transferrance impute to me. Look in the mirror, dude. If there's a bigot here, it ain't me.
Warmest regards,
Walter
2003-04-26 15:38 | User Profile
**Hey, man, I"M NOT THE ONE who made the snive comments about Hinduism and Catholicism above on this thread, nor indeed did I write your comments on other threads deprecating all religions. **
Well, the Hindu thing is just to razz rban. Mercilessly, whenever possible.
And for that matter, most of my comments re Christianity over my entire OD tenure retain enough civility, and even grudging respect, to indicate I'm perfectly fine with making a separate peace with the faithful.
But do me a favor. Explain to me why someone who "wins" arguments by citing the will of invisible beings none of us have ever seen in our lives can credibly respond to any skeptical comment with a brisk,and brusque, "You said such-and-such. Explain, and provide detailed evidence, please."
If one were to respond back, "Sure. After you provide detailed evidence of your God", well......it would be tit-for-tat, don't you think? But at least the argument would be over.
2003-04-27 02:13 | User Profile
**il ragno:
"Sorry, it has to be said. This sort of nonsense drives away as many potential reinforcements as Franco and his New Hardness broadsides."**
You are a funny guy, il ragno. One minute you are standing by the VNN pool yelling, "don't swim in that pool -- those people are not respectable!" Then 2 hours later you are swimming in the VNN pool with a snorkel, face-mask and flippers. I've seen your letters-to-the-editor at VNN. You can't fool me.
You carry a photo of Goebbels in yer wallet, don'tcha, il?
2003-04-27 06:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Apr 27 2003, 02:13 ** > **il ragno:
"Sorry, it has to be said. This sort of nonsense drives away as many potential reinforcements as Franco and his New Hardness broadsides."**
You are a funny guy, il ragno. One minute you are standing by the VNN pool yelling, "don't swim in that pool -- those people are not respectable!" Then 2 hours later you are swimming in the VNN pool with a snorkel, face-mask and flippers. I've seen your letters-to-the-editor at VNN. You can't fool me.
You carry a photo of Goebbels in yer wallet, don'tcha, il? **
Well, put, Franco.
C'mon, IR. You're playing the innocent lamb here.
You have an ideological committment just as I do - it won't do for you to imply that your beliefs are somehow not religious in nature, thus placing the burden of proof on me. Again I say look in the mirror, man. Check out your own assumptions. If you're honest about it you'll admit that they're every bit as non-rational as mine of any Hindu's.
Indeed, it cannot be otherwise.
Cheers,
Walter
2003-04-27 06:23 | User Profile
Originally posted by skemper@Apr 25 2003, 19:18 ** The first day of the week was Sunday, not Saturday, and these verses show wn establishment of Sunday as the first day of the week, which was so esablished by the time John wrote Revelation in his old age, that Sunday was established as the Lord's day. **
Thank you for your excellent and thoughful reply.
By what or whose authority was the Sabbath changed from Saturday to Sunday?
Scripture?
But the change happened before the Scriptures were written.
Walter
2003-04-27 07:27 | User Profile
Now that IS funny.
No, I can't remember badmouthing Linder here or anywhere else, save for not marching in lockstep with every last jot and tittle he's ever written. But warning people to stay away from VNN? Me? You're even less tethered to reality than I thought if you're selling that one.
But I have thrown up my hands reading your * 'contributions' here, Franco. Preaching to the choir is one thing......but you wanna administer loyalty oaths and play Nazier-than-thou on a forum where 100% of the membership is already *critical of Jews. Your heavy-handed, meat-cleaver, Gauleiter-of-Arizona style actually forces people - who already agree with you in principle! - to downshift their own rhetoric in order to put as much distance between themselves and you as possible.
Now what I don't understand is why. This board, like its SFOF progenitor, is entirely hip to Hymie and always has been. Your single message to the world- "you must name the Jew" - is pointless among people who are already doing that. So instead you harumph, "Well, in that case, you must name the Jew LOUDER!" Gee...we don't even have a real movement yet; but we already have a hall monitor, it seems.
My suggestion to you is to stop equating yourself to your betters, like Linder, and stop the beachball/k-k-kwistian/Goldbergwitzfeld twaddle that's now become synonymous with you. Most of it is bodily lifted from old VNN spintros anyway but when Alex did the beachball analogies, they were piping-hot with spontaneity and they reflected HIS reactions, HIS anger and HIS personality. And he eventually dropped the 'beachball' stuff and moved on to different analogies. He understands that you need to offer more than one flavor if you intend to sell ice cream to the public. You don't.
As for you, Walter, you're beginning to frame each and every comment you post as a Catholic first, and as a secular American citizen second....if at all. That's your prerogative, of course, but I dont recall OD being designated the official political discussion board of the Holy See.
For the record: my blasphemous disrespect towards your religious beliefs consists mainly of my refusal to let you shove Catholicism down my throat like you were making foie gras. You need to bear some of your more recent posts in mind before you climb back up on that high horse called Dual Loyalties, ok?
2003-04-27 10:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Apr 27 2003, 07:27 ** As for you, Walter, you're beginning to frame each and every comment you post as a Catholic first, and as a secular American citizen second....if at all. That's your prerogative, of course, but I dont recall OD being designated the official political discussion board of the Holy See.
For the record: my blasphemous disrespect towards your religious beliefs consists mainly of my refusal to let you shove Catholicism down my throat like you were making foie gras. You need to bear some of your more recent posts in mind before you climb back up on that high horse called Dual Loyalties, ok? **
Okay, you win.
I'll drop the Torquemada immitation, with y'all at least.
However, I do leave the auto da fe option open as may become necessary in the future.
Walter
2003-04-27 20:14 | User Profile
I do leave the auto da fe option open as may become necessary in the future
Well, I already knew I was gonna burn; I just assumed it would be after I'm dead. Y'live, y'learn.
2003-04-27 20:34 | User Profile
So instead you harumph, "Well, in that case, you must name the Jew LOUDER!" Gee...we don't even have a real movement yet; but we already have a hall monitor, it seems.
As for you, Walter... I dont recall OD being designated the official political discussion board of the Holy See.
:lol: These quotes are hilarious! Il Ragno, please keep giving them hell (no pun intended, of course).
2003-04-27 21:00 | User Profile
Thanks, Paul. Walter already knows I'm genuinely fond of him. But the brotha can preach!
And Franco knows he's capable of better. You remember his first dozen or so posts here? They were lucid, funny, informative. I liked em, and said so! If he could wear long pants then, by God he can wear them now. Just because there's only one VNN doesn't mean the onus is on everyone else to Xerox Lindersite to the letter or be consigned to the Enemies folder.
2003-04-27 21:21 | User Profile
**il ragno said:
Just because there's only one VNN**
Franco say: we'll fix dat. :-D
:hit: :hit: :hit: :hit: :hit: :hit: :hit: :hit: :hit: :hit:
I suggest drinking more vodka. My posts will seem better to you dat way...
2003-04-28 04:29 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Apr 25 2003, 12:15 The thing that I want to impress upon you is that Christianity is not in any way a tame thing, as our antiseptic, secular Calvinism would have us believe, and as you apparently assume (at least until you read my rant above). It is rather a sort of controlled madness that has proven itself capable time and again of moving our people to the depths of their beings, forge in them an invincible group identity and purpose, and inspire them to acts of astonishing courage and beauty.
A herd being stampeded displays the following:
1) Controlled madness.
2) Depth of being in movement.
3) Invincible group identity and purpose.
4) Astonishing courage.
"Acts of beauty" are admittedly absent from the list - but I would readily sacrifice the art to have avoided the devastation caused by the stampeding of the Goyim by their historic Kowboy theocrats.
2003-04-28 04:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Apr 25 2003, 12:15 You, NN, are something of a puzzle to me.ÃÂ You seem to accept the need for a powerful group religion and even embrace the Dionysian aspects of Nazism and its celebration of strength - all projects that I sympathize with in a qualified way - yet you fail to see that Catholicism has proven itself stronger than Nazism in the Darwinian struggle and thus is more suitable to our purposes.ÃÂ A cursory glance at history compels you to admit that Catholicism survived both the German Nazis and the Jewish Bolsheviks (not to mention the French Jacobins, the Moors, the Turks and so on a so forth stretching back to the times of the Ceasars and their lions), and that Nazism is thus but a pale come-lately in comparison.ÃÂ Even by your own lights, Catholicism is the greater force, and the more practical choice for our movement.
Catholicism is the "greater force" - but it is not "our" faith.
It is an alien imposture upon the stupid - admirably strong though the stupid may be.
The stampeded herd has, as the "greater force," irresistibly trampled many a noble pack of predators - but never in its own foreseeable and/or durable interest.
Crusade, anyone?
2003-04-28 05:23 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Apr 25 2003, 07:02 ** Please give some thought to growing up. Hitler made the effort. **
I am not so sure his main effort was about growing-up, which would have been a wise decision, certainly.
However, the effort Hitler is known for is a -half-baked and rather amateurish- attempt at world conquest, resulting in dismal failure, tens of millions of dead bodies, not even starting to mention a Germany -and Western Civilization- in a much worse state than before he started putting into motion his ingenious masterplan.
The tunnel-vision smiley says it all. :hit:
2003-04-28 05:36 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Apr 25 2003, 12:45 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Apr 25 2003, 13:02 ** > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Apr 25 2003, 00:02 The Cross stretched Christ's arms so wide that they embrace the entire world, and yanked His legs so long that His Head reached to His Crown in Heaven even as His Feet sank into the depths of Hell itself.
NN - do you see now who the War God of El Cid and his army is?ÃÂ And you presume to replace Him with some Bavarian corporal?ÃÂ
Walter**
I see that you think that your Daddy is sooooooo big and strong that he can sure beat my dad six ways to Sunday.
Please give some thought to growing up. Hitler made the effort. **
Please see my previous comment.
This is precisely the point.
History proves that my god is bigger than your god, and in fact kicked your god's ass (whoever your god is - you're curiously silent on that point). And the god of the IP. And the god of the Moors. And the god of the Turks. And the god of the [fill in the blank]. My god lost a few rounds but never lost a war. My god should be the god of our tribe. That is the point.
For a fellow who posits strength as the primary value you certainly show little respect for the invincible when you run across it.
So I ask you, NN, the question you've pestered the rest of us with: who is your god of war?
Who was the god of war of Rodrigo and his men?
Who is the mightier of the two?
Walter**
History proves that my god is bigger than your god, and in fact kicked your god's ass (whoever your god is - you're curiously silent on that point). And the god of the IP. And the god of the Moors. And the god of the Turks. And the god of the [fill in the blank]. My god lost a few rounds but never lost a war. My god should be the god of our tribe. That is the point.
Guess I better get right with the god of the Mongols. They showed that they could beat anybody - only the Kami Kaze saved the Japs and only the death of Genghis saved Europe.
For a fellow who posits strength as the primary value you certainly show little respect for the invincible when you run across it.
My enthusiasm wanes when invincible strength is allied to invincible stupidity.
So I ask you, NN, the question you've pestered the rest of us with: who is your god of war?
It should be obvious from the dearth of explicit responses that I, and we, don't have one.
Who was the god of war of Rodrigo and his men?
Rodrigo the War-Lord.
Who is the mightier of the two?
As between a dead man and a non-entity - it's hard to say.
2003-04-28 05:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Apr 27 2003, 23:23 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Apr 25 2003, 07:02 ** Please give some thought to growing up. Hitler made the effort. **
I am not so sure his main effort was about growing-up, which would have been a wise decision, certainly.
However, the effort Hitler is known for is a -half-baked and rather amateurish- attempt at world conquest, resulting in dismal failure, tens of millions of dead bodies, not even starting to mention a Germany -and Western Civilization- in a much worse state than before he started putting into motion his ingenious masterplan.
The tunnel-vision smiley says it all. :hit:**
The discussion refers to the historic Hitler revealed by conscientious scholarship- not to the ridiculous, would-be, world-conquering figure of the Hollywood History of the Second World War. This is to say not to the Hitler who is "known" in the terms to which you refer in innocence of the facts.
2003-04-28 06:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Apr 27 2003, 23:44 ** This is to say not to the Hitler who is "known" in the terms to which you refer in innocence of the facts. **
You are not saying in your world Hitler has won WWII. :ph34r:
Or that Germany was better off, regardless.
Conquering Eurasia (had he succeeded) is conquering the world. Haushofer (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/g1/geopolit.asp) was right about that, but Hitlerôs strategy wasnôt up to the task.
My critique was standing on Clausewitz -the "God of War", to use your vocabulary-, not PC-historians.
Try to understand what people are saying before making assumptions about their viewpoint. <_<
As to Hitler: It is simply not a good idea to imitate Genghis Khan... and loose. :rolleyes:
2003-04-28 12:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Apr 28 2003, 00:09 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Apr 27 2003, 23:44 ** This is to say not to the Hitler who is "known" in the terms to which you refer in innocence of the facts. **
You are not saying in your world Hitler has won WWII. :ph34r:
Or that Germany was better off, regardless.
Conquering Eurasia (had he succeeded) is conquering the world. Haushofer (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/g1/geopolit.asp) was right about that, but Hitlerôs strategy wasnôt up to the task.
My critique was standing on Clausewitz -the "God of War", to use your vocabulary-, not PC-historians.
Try to understand what people are saying before making assumptions about their viewpoint. <_<
As to Hitler: It is simply not a good idea to imitate Genghis Khan... and loose. :rolleyes:**
Conquering Eurasia (had he succeeded) is conquering the world.
It is not. Haushofer has been proven wrong by events. Stalin gained all that Hitler was driving for and more, but for the western half of Germany - and yet had not "conquered the world". Where the Soviets had all of the Soviet Union and gained Europe half-way through Germany, Hitler planned merely - and nearly arranged - to have all of Germany and but a fraction of Russia - and yet Hitler had not, and would not have, "conquered the world". He had arranged, at best, to be perpetually involved in an Ostfront fight - rather than in an apocalyptic and wasteful multi-trillion-dollar nuclear confrontation with the rest of the West.
Try to understand what people are saying before making assumptions about their viewpoint.
The discussion, in public arenas and with your tone, of Hitler and world conquest is almost invariably conducted in literal terms, hence my interpretation of your remarks. And only under that interpretation is a prima facie case made for Hitler's alleged "insanity" or immaturity.
As to Hitler: It is simply not a good idea to imitate Genghis Khan... and lose.ÃÂ :rolleyes:
Having examined Hitler over a period of many decades now in the spirit of critical sympathy, I can provide a more thorough and accurate account of his mistakes than anyone alive. It is the case that he failed adequately to prepare for the tasks that eventually befell him, and he was temperamentally unsuited to the direction of ongoing military operations. He was, however, maturely oriented toward affirmative tasks in terms of the welfare of his nation and race, under the influence of an ideology directed thereto - where his enemies represented precisely the opposite case in both respects. Theirs was the much more easily achievable goal of national and racial decline into eventual anarchy and destruction, under the influence of fatuous misunderstandings of the nature of social reality.
2003-04-28 14:55 | User Profile
Walter
Keep up the good work. BTW - on another thread, which I can't find, you said that Gabriel addressed Mary thusly: "hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee".
Where does he do this?
King James has him saying "hail, thou that art highly favored......".
Is it the Vulgate?
2003-04-28 20:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Apr 28 2003, 06:38 ** Theirs was the much more easily achievable goal of national and racial decline into eventual anarchy and destruction, under the influence of fatuous misunderstandings of the nature of social reality. **
A question of interpretation, but I am inclined to think:
1) Hitler was a lousy diplomat. 2) His ideology FORCED him to be a lousy diplomat, because -like yours- it didnôt recognize the concepts of a) Balance of Power, and b ) Compromise, except in a purely tactical (as opposed to long-term strategic) fashion. 3) Both Roosevelt and Stalin better understood the big picture.
About Stalin: He didnôt obtain Western Europe, and China only in name. Had Hitler conquered all of Russia (a theoretical possibility), and had the Japanese conquered China entirely (a definite possibility), both together would have controlled the world.
I am NOT discussing if that result would have been better or worse than what we have now. My argument is: Hitlerôs goals were unlikely to be achieved, it was no surprise that he failed, and itôs immature, nay, criminal, to bet the future of your civilization on such a gamble.
My case against Hitler is quite good, I believe. B)
2003-04-29 03:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Apr 28 2003, 14:39 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Apr 28 2003, 06:38 ** Theirs was the much more easily achievable goal of national and racial decline into eventual anarchy and destruction, under the influence of fatuous misunderstandings of the nature of social reality. **
A question of interpretation, but I am inclined to think:
1) Hitler was a lousy diplomat. 2) His ideology FORCED him to be a lousy diplomat, because -like yours- it didnôt recognize the concepts of a) Balance of Power, and b ) Compromise, except in a purely tactical (as opposed to long-term strategic) fashion. 3) Both Roosevelt and Stalin better understood the big picture.
About Stalin: He didnôt obtain Western Europe, and China only in name. Had Hitler conquered all of Russia (a theoretical possibility), and had the Japanese conquered China entirely (a definite possibility), both together would have controlled the world.
I am NOT discussing if that result would have been better or worse than what we have now. My argument is: Hitlerôs goals were unlikely to be achieved, it was no surprise that he failed, and itôs immature, nay, criminal, to bet the future of your civilization on such a gamble.
My case against Hitler is quite good, I believe. B)**
1) Hitler was a lousy diplomat.
His diplomacy was brilliant, short of the Anglo-French declaration, and disarmed his opposition in the Wehrmacht. He nearly arranged a peace settlement after the French campaign.
2) His ideology FORCED him to be a lousy diplomat, because -like yours- it didnôt recognize the concepts of a) Balance of Power, and b ) Compromise, except in a purely tactical (as opposed to long-term strategic) fashion.
Hitler long sought a strategic, balance-of-power arrangement with the English.
3) Both Roosevelt and Stalin better understood the big picture.
Roosevelt's expectations of Stalin were ludicrous and predictably disappointed. Stalin badly misjudged German capabilities and had a nervous breakdown when the Wehrmacht was at the gates. Hitler thought better of the British than was warranted.
About Stalin: He didnôt obtain Western Europe, and China only in name. Had Hitler conquered all of Russia (a theoretical possibility), and had the Japanese conquered China entirely (a definite possibility), both together would have controlled the world.
Hitler could not have conquered all of Russia, and the Japanese could not have taken all of China while America remained hostile. Had Germany and Japan "shaken hands in Iowa" so-to-speak, they would not have controlled the world. They would have been completely occupied with controlling domains all but unmanageable in combination with their other commitments.
I am NOT discussing if that result would have been better or worse than what we have now. My argument is: Hitlerôs goals were unlikely to be achieved, it was no surprise that he failed, and itôs immature, nay, criminal, to bet the future of your civilization on such a gamble.
Hitler's goals were nearly achieved (cryptographic insecurity having contributed greatly to the failure), Rome itself nearly fell to Hannibal and could unsurprisingly have been defeated likewise, and the future of Germany was in jeopardy in any case, as it was not in a position to stand still lest it fall to the megacidal Communists internally or externally.
My case against Hitler is quite good, I believe.ÃÂ B)
It is good to be pleased with oneself.
2003-04-29 05:29 | User Profile
Diplomacy is about ultimately ending up on the stronger side, not about having to fight against the odds.
Hitler understood Balance of Power as little as you do. What he offered the Brits was a position where they would have been entirely dependent upon his good will -and he had already proven being not trustworthy over the Czechs.
Roosevelt and Stalin understood that, in a world war, it is always best to commit last. One thing they had going for themselves was not being compulsive gamblers.
As to Hitler, I have always suspected he was in it for the drama, not to win. Ask yourself: If given a choice between a mundane and boring, but probably successful option, and a theatralic all-or-nothing proposition, with the distinct possibility of the `nothingô outcome, what would Hitler have chosen?
If you want to see a master diplomat at work, look to Bismarck or, even better, Richelieu. Compare them to Hitler, and you see what I mean.
2003-04-29 05:49 | User Profile
> QUOTEÃÂ For a fellow who posits strength as the primary value you certainly show little respect for the invincible when you run across it. **
My enthusiasm wanes when invincible strength is allied to invincible stupidity.**
Touche!
Seriously, you're a wit.
Of course, your argument doesn't stand up to even the most superficial scrutiny. Power is by its very nature "stupid." It has no mind, for Heaven's sake. Of course "invincible strength" is "stupid" - it's un-rational, or pre-rational perhaps is a better term.
Religion in that respect is like a power tool. In the right hands, it can do a lot of good. Indeed, without it we have no hope whatever of group survival. Our task is to get our hands on the thing and to make it our own. But we certainly don't just throw away the tool because - what? We wanted a Black & Decker instead of Milwaukee skillsaw? Silliness. Christianity is the tool we have - replacing it is at least impractical and very likely suicidal, even without regard to other considerations. Nazism in America today can only be seen as a pubescent fantasy for emotional children who dream of finding gold, guns and girls while marching around in sharp looking uniforms. It's a nice dream for boys, all very normal.
But it sure as hell won't take us where we need to go.
You undoubtedly know all that, but you're apparently not willing to admit you've lost this argument, as evidenced by your weak replies above.
But you have clearly lost this debate, as proved beyond all doubt by this little gem:
**"Acts of beauty" are admittedly absent from the list - but I would readily sacrifice the art to have avoided the devastation caused by the stampeding of the Goyim by their historic Kowboy theocrats. **
So, let me get this straight. You're a Nietzschean who purports to worship at the altar of strength and beauty, but when confronted by the utterly superior strength and beauty of Catholicism in comparison to the banality of Nazism, you reject both strength and beauty in favour of Nazi mediocrity.
You would reject the intellectual depth of Aquinas for Hitler (bwaahahahahaaaa!) and Bach's mediations on the Incarnation for - what? - Nazi poster art? Not only was Nazi art utterly banal, it was thoroughly derivative of the Socialist Realism of the Jewish Bolsheviks. Derivative banality, NN. That's what you're offering the world in place of Mozart's Requeim Mass.
And you admit this openly.
You don't love strength and beauty, at least not enough to recognize your goose-stepping Power Ranger fantasies for what they are.
Your thinking is thus exposed as a fraud.
C'mon, NN. Admit it. You have nothing - and I mean Kelvin's absolute zero - to offer this debate now that you've rejected both the art of the West and derided the religion one of our greatest heroes - El Cid.
Give it up, man. The Nazis are nothing. They never were anything except a pagan reaction against the Church and the great culture she produced. They were small minded freaks who brought the world naught but horrible suffering to our people and discredit to our race. And you by your own words would reject all of our heritage because you for no apparently good reason insist on your own superiority to lead.
Your weak arguments here surely envince no such competitive advantage on your part.
Warmest regards,
Walter
2003-04-29 13:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Apr 29 2003, 08:04 ** Isn't it possible that Germany and its leaders possibly had something else in mind than a revolt against the Church and the "great culture she produced"? The Versailles treaty, imminent Soviet invasion of Western Europe, vulnerability to blockades and international sanctions, Jewish control of press and banking, the Communist revolution in Barvaria (led by Jews), etc., ad nauseam. Whatever errors Germany may have made, I submit they were pretty well the most overly provoked nation in world history, given their geography and circumstance. **
I was taking a longer historical perspective than you when I called Naziism a "pagan" revolution. Nazism has its roots, I think most would agree, in the romanticism of the 19th century and even earlier in some of the currents of the deeply pagan French Revolution. Romanticism was pagan and anti-Christian in emotional hue, no doubt about that. I meant this comment in this broader sense, rather than in the more topical sense you reasonably took it. From this longer perspective, I think you will agree that Nazism was part of a neo- pagan rebellion against Christendom.
However many errors he may have made, we should add two considerations. Mind you, these are historical considerations, not arguments for reviving National Socialism to advance our common cause - an option that I have never taken seriously and which I do not support**. **
I am pleased to learn that - you had me worried there for a minute. The question then arises what precisely you do propose as the unifying ideology of our movement; you've not shared that as far as I recall, and the discussion is largely about that. Please advise.
As to the historical comments you make about Germany's position in the 1930's, I don't claim to be enough of an expert to offer you enlightenment about the world's political situation at that crucial time.
You may not be aware, however, that one of the recently declassified documents coming out of Russia is a 1933 (maybe 1932?) agreement signed by the NKVD and the Gestapo on mutual cooperation in fighting international Zionism (as far as I know it's not available in English). Beria issued an internal order barring new Jewish recruits from the NKVD pursuant to that agreement, including background checks to the great-grandparent level. This tends to show that the CPSU of 1933 was already not the Party of Lev Broshtein - at least at the top - and indeed that the Nazis understood full well the anti-Semitic character of the Great Purges of 1937 that ended only by the Nazi attack on the USSR. Stalin's purges were decidedly anti-Semitic, and the Nazi's had worked out a deal on that with the CPSU.
I've been promising friends to finish my translation of those documents and I'll try to do that and post it here. The Beria internal NKVD directive was aimed not only at Jews, but tried to impose genetic fitness for all new NKVD recruits; for example, they wouldn't take anybody with any evidence of family health problems (they wouldn't even take redheads (!) which I found somewhat bizarre).
Hitler and Stalin circled each other like a couple of scorpions in a bottle.
I agree with you about Hitler's mistreatment of the Ukrainians being a major factor in Germany's defeat, but you ignore the root ideological causes of this mistreatment. Hitler considered the Ukrainians, Poles, Russians and other Slavs to be lesser-value humans. This wasn't just some "tactical" mistake, my friend - it was rather part and parcel of Nazism itself. While I don't doubt that Germany was in a difficult situation in the 1930's - a fact that has been downplayed by our media - your apologetics for an ideology that held our Eastern European brothers in such contempt are simply unsound.
Walter
2003-04-29 13:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Apr 29 2003, 08:04 ** > They never were anything except a pagan reaction against the Church and the great culture she produced.
Triumphalism alert.
**
As an aside, I read Nueromancer last weekend, inspired by your avatar.
It was quite a good read, I see why you liked it. Some of the ideas were great, and obviously the novel influenced so much in sci-fi after that. Tolstoy it's not, but I see why you liked it.
Walter
2003-04-30 02:56 | User Profile
Originally posted by Paleoleftist@Apr 28 2003, 23:29 **Diplomacy is about ultimately ending up on the stronger side, not about having to fight against the odds.
Hitler understood Balance of Power as little as you do. What he offered the Brits was a position where they would have been entirely dependent upon his good will -and he had already proven being not trustworthy over the Czechs.
Roosevelt and Stalin understood that, in a world war, it is always best to commit last. One thing they had going for themselves was not being compulsive gamblers.
As to Hitler, I have always suspected he was in it for the drama, not to win. Ask yourself: If given a choice between a mundane and boring, but probably successful option, and a theatralic all-or-nothing proposition, with the distinct possibility of the `nothingô outcome, what would Hitler have chosen?
If you want to see a master diplomat at work, look to Bismarck or, even better, Richelieu. Compare them to Hitler, and you see what I mean.**
Diplomacy is about ultimately ending up on the stronger side, not about having to fight against the odds.
A self-serving definition and a serviceable summary of the Italian Criterion of Diplomatic Utility.
Hitler understood Balance of Power as little as you do. What he offered the Brits was a position where they would have been entirely dependent upon his good will - and he had already proven being not trustworthy over the Czechs.
The alternative for the Brits was Hitler or Stalin. Hitler was fraternally well-disposed toward the Brits - Stalin was a mortal enemy, disguised as such by the fatuous pro-Communism of the balance of the influential elements of the Judeo-Anglo-American axis. Hitler had to proceed deceptively, as he initially did, in hopes that the authentic Brits would eventually realize both the folly imposed upon them and their hypocritical presumption in resisting his program.
Roosevelt and Stalin understood that, in a world war, it is always best to commit last. One thing they had going for themselves was not being compulsive gamblers.
Roosevelt and Stalin - an unbeatable combination that will prove to have been the Earth's ultimate indulgence in catastrophic fatuity. Deception, by Edward Jay Epstein, and The Perestroika Deception, by Anatoly Golitsyn, will assist you toward grasping this fundamental perspective.
As to Hitler, I have always suspected he was in it for the drama, not to win. Ask yourself: If given a choice between a mundane and boring, but probably successful option, and a theatralic all-or-nothing proposition, with the distinct possibility of the `nothingô outcome, what would Hitler have chosen?
Hitler chose the Ukraine diversion, rather than the daring drive to Moscow. Someone wrote a thesis on Hitler's tendency to cautiously acquire successive defensible positions. He was not a Rommel.
If you want to see a master diplomat at work, look to Bismarck or, even better, Richelieu. Compare them to Hitler, and you see what I mean.
Bismarck conquers France, and then gives it back, so that Germany is perpetually confronted with two fronts. Genius. Ribbentrop's Hitler-Stalin Pact was a stunning maneuver without peer in Western diplomatic history, indispensably advancing Hitler's program against all odds. The masterful Richelieu, on the other hand, operated in an intra-cultural context not comparable in the obstacles involved.
Thank you for having offered this opportunity to rectify these misconceptions.
2003-04-30 04:06 | User Profile
Christianity is the tool we have - replacing it is at least impractical and very likely suicidal, even without regard to other considerations.ÃÂ Nazism in America today can only be seen as a pubescent fantasy for emotional children who dream of finding gold, guns and girls while marching around in sharp looking uniforms.ÃÂ It's a nice dream for boys, all very normal.
Since you haven't done it, as have I, I think I will rely upon my own assessment of how Nazism looks from the inside. Christianity, contrariwise, represents a participant's alienation from authentic existence. It is a tool in the hands of shameless fabricators of no natural allegiance or appetite.
But it sure as hell won't take us where we need to go.
It is a Nietzschean "becoming what we are".
You undoubtedly know all that, but you're apparently not willing to admit you've lost this argument, as evidenced by your weak replies above.
Congratulations upon having delivered yourself of a victory.
So, let me get this straight.ÃÂ You're a Nietzschean who purports to worship at the altar of strength and beauty, but when confronted by the utterly superior strength and beauty of Catholicism in comparison to the banality of Nazism, you reject both strength and beauty in favour of Nazi mediocrity.
My evaluation is the inverse of your own.
You would reject the intellectual depth of Aquinas for Hitler (bwaahahahahaaaa!) and Bach's mediations on the Incarnation for - what? - Nazi poster art?ÃÂ Not only was Nazi art utterly banal, it was thoroughly derivative of the Socialist Realism of the Jewish Bolsheviks.ÃÂ Derivative banality, NN.ÃÂ That's what you're offering the world in place of Mozart's Requeim Mass.
I'm offering a Fallschirmjaegergewehr 42 in aesthetic preference to anything of Christian derivation.
**You don't love strength and beauty, at least not enough to recognize your goose-stepping Power Ranger fantasies for what they are.
Your thinking is thus exposed as a fraud.**
Thank you for this insight, Walter. Have you others at which I might smile indulgently?
C'mon, NN.ÃÂ Admit it.ÃÂ You have nothing - and I mean Kelvin's absolute zero - to offer this debate now that you've rejected both the art of the West and derided the religion one of our greatest heroes - El Cid.
I have truth for the strong, who value it for its beauty.
Give it up, man.ÃÂ The Nazis are nothing.ÃÂ They never were anything except a pagan reaction against the Church and the great culture she produced.ÃÂ They were small minded freaks who brought the world naught but horrible suffering to our people and discredit to our race.ÃÂ And you by your own words would reject all of our heritage because you for no apparently good reason insist on your own superiority to lead.
The Nazis fought the world-destroying Judeo-Communists to near victory. Theirs was a remarkable self-overcoming. I am grateful for their example. The history of Europe guided by Catholicism and Christianity, on the other hand, is regrettable and repellant.
**Your weak arguments here surely envince no such competitive advantage on your part.
Warmest regards,
Walter**
Congratulations once again.
Hugs and Kisses,
Neo
2003-04-30 18:34 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Apr 29 2003, 23:06 Christianity, contrariwise, represents a participant's alienation from authentic existence. It is a tool in the hands of shameless fabricators of no natural allegiance or appetite.
Au contraire, my dear superman. You may need to brush up on your existentialism. Kierkegaard, widely considered the father of existentialist thought and a protestant Lutheran Christian, practically devoted his entire body of work to what it is to live an authentic existence, which he maintained necessitated a 'leap of faith.' Karl Barth is another Christian theologian that addressed the same subject.
It does interest me though how you could make a claim on what constitutes authentic existence for any individual other than yourself.
2003-05-01 03:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Apr 30 2003, 12:34 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Apr 29 2003, 23:06 Christianity, contrariwise, represents a participant's alienation from authentic existence.ÃÂ It is a tool in the hands of shameless fabricators of no natural allegiance or appetite.**
Au contraire, my dear superman. You may need to brush up on your existentialism. Kierkegaard, widely considered the father of existentialist thought and a protestant Lutheran Christian, practically devoted his entire body of work to what it is to live an authentic existence, which he maintained necessitated a 'leap of faith.' Karl Barth is another Christian theologian that addressed the same subject.
It does interest me though how you could make a claim on what constitutes authentic existence for any individual other than yourself.**
Tex,
How many varieties of "leaps of faith" are there?
How many of "authentic existences"?
2003-05-01 05:14 | User Profile
> Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 1 2003, 03:44 Au contraire, my dear superman. You may need to brush up on your existentialism. Kierkegaard, widely considered the father of existentialist thought and a protestant Lutheran Christian, practically devoted his entire body of work to what it is to live an authentic existence, which he maintained necessitated a 'leap of faith.' Karl Barth is another Christian theologian that addressed the same subject.
It does interest me though how you could make a claim on what constitutes authentic existence for any individual other than yourself.**
Tex,
How many varieties of "leaps of faith" are there?
How many of "authentic existences"?**
Actually NN Francis Schaeffer agrees with you that the theology developed by the theological descendents of Kierkegaard and their "new theology", men such as Barth, Tillich, Episcipol Bishop Robinson and Catholic Theologian Hans Kung, is often little different than secular philosophies.
There is a strong parallel between Klee and Heiddeger here. However Heidegger has much more importance because by using connotation words he has become the father of a new for of the new theology - the new liberalism. There is no difference between Heidegger's secular mysticism and the mysticism of the new theology. (Francis Schaeffer - The God Who is There)
2003-05-01 06:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Apr 30 2003, 04:06 ** > Give it up, man.ÃÂ The Nazis are nothing.ÃÂ They never were anything except a pagan reaction against the Church and the great culture she produced.ÃÂ They were small minded freaks who brought the world naught but horrible suffering to our people and discredit to our race.ÃÂ And you by your own words would reject all of our heritage because you for no apparently good reason insist on your own superiority to lead.
The Nazis fought the world-destroying Judeo-Communists to near victory. Theirs was a remarkable self-overcoming. I am grateful for their example. The history of Europe guided by Catholicism and Christianity, on the other hand, is regretable and repellant.
**
Is history wrong on this or did Hitler's Germany build Lutheran Churches? It is written thus in both the Third Reich's public records and by non-German historians: Nationalist Socialist Germany build churches. And Hitler quite openly called himself Christian.
This business of "pagan nazi" seems to be a myth that both sides believe.
Unless history is wrong...
2003-05-01 11:05 | User Profile
PaleoconAvatar:
"White men have been domesticated, and they need to find it within themselves to reverse that condition. The Revolution starts inside the mind and heart of the White man himself--he holds the key to his own mental prison, if only he could convince himself he's in the right to insert the key into the lock and turn it.
"A critical mass of White men need to recover a certain style of self-understanding and acting in the world, and of knowing one's rightful place in the world."
Gospel for the Goyim
2003-05-01 12:52 | User Profile
Walter,
How did the invincible Triple-Cross spread become the Circle-K ranch?
Neo
2003-05-01 18:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 1 2003, 12:52 ** Walter,
How did the invincible Triple-Cross spread become the Circle-K ranch?
Neo **
I don't understand the question, kindly rephrase.
Perhaps you mean how the vital religion of El Cid became the effeminate thing passing for Christianity today, and as I stated above I see the roots of that decline in the Reformation, its rejection of authority; its toxic emphasis on the individual and denial of the corporate nature of man; its celebration of worldly success; and its acceptance of usury as normal and just.
Belloc rightly argued that all culture has its roots in relgion, and indeed all great cultures are expressions of the relgious beliefs of a particular people. Belloc often referred to "our race" and "white people" as properly belonging to the cultural entity we call Christendom, and noted that the men of the high middle ages saw themselves as members of Christendom first and as members of their various nations second.
I would add that Evolutionary Psychology bears out the idea that race and culture are in tension: race establshes the natural limits and contours of culture, whereas culture provides a wall of separation for race.
Protestantism shattered Christendom from within, and it was in my opinion this loss of the spiritual unity of the white race that breach our wall of separation and contained within itself our own dissolution into brown.
While Belloc emphasizes the role of Sola Scriptura in our cultural (and concomitantly genetic) deformation, I would emphasize the Reformation's rejection of the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Mass was Christendom's unifying holy madness, and it literally had all of the white world simultaneously eating the flesh of its King from the same table. The Mass taught men that the individual is ground down like kernals of wheat that make the bread, and crushed under as grapes to make the wine - powerful images that reinforced a powerful corporate identity.
I quote here at length from two of Belloc's work that related directly to these ideas, taken from "How the Reformation Happened" and "The Great Heresies." I typed these in from my own copies of these books (couldn't find them on the internet, please let me know if anyone else finds them), and I apologize in advance for any mistakes.
Walter
[The Reformation's] results were twofold: its effect upon character, and the consequent effect upon external life.
The effect of the Reformation on character was, where it succeeded, to isolate the soul. On this two important consequences follows.
The first was this: The corporate quality of society was shaken, where the Reformation succeeded. A process of disintegration took place, which might be compared to the breaking up of stiff soil by the plough and its falling into dust under the action of frost. The corporate sense which bound individuals together as in the old Guilds, in the old domestic social system, in the old forms of village life, was gradually, though only ver gradually, dissolved. At the same time, and as a consequence of this, individual energy was released. The principle of competition emerged more and more as time proceeded, and, with it, there arrived a force which is only today beginning to be analyzed and its profound effects appreciated: Usury, that is, the taking of profit on an unproductive loan, a system which drains wealth from the many or the few and gives preponderant power to capital. Usury was no new thing introduced by the Reformation , it is as old as the world, and there was plenty of it in the Catholic culture of the Middle Ages. The regarding of it as legitimate, normal and even beneficent was new and was the product of the breakdown in the old moral authority coupled with Calvinââ¬â¢s doctrine of manââ¬â¢s duty to grow rich. Before the Reformation the taking of interest on an unproductive loan ââ¬â the levying of a tax on industry for the benefit of capital whether used or no ââ¬â was done, but was done by subterfuge as a thing known to be evil After the Reformation it was the shirking of such interest which became wrong and dishonorable.
Under these twin forces of competition and usury the Protestant culture of Europe obtained an economic leadership . . .
**The second important consequence of the isolation of the soul was subjectivism in philosophy. ** Subjectivism means (in this general popular sense of the word ââ¬â I am not using it technically) referring to the individual for the test of truth. There is a sense, of course, in which we must all do that; for instance, a man accepting the authority of the reason, or of his senses, or of the Catholic Church, is necessarily exercising an individual judgment. But subjectivism rather signifies that the mind suffering from it (for it is a disease) questions what is corporate and general in authority, and prefers what is particular and isolated.
For instance, in the most important matter of all ââ¬â Religion ââ¬â he will take as the test of truth no the cooperate authority of the Church, or even of natural religion as expressed by the tradition of mankind, but his won ââ¬ÅReligious experience,ââ¬Â as he calls it. This is so true that the man suffering from subjectivism becomes at last quite blind toe the meaning of the word Credo ââ¬â ââ¬ÅI believe.ââ¬Â He confuses Faith with a personal emotion, or visual concept. He cannot understand it as the acceptation of the word of an Authority, only accepted by the reason, of an objective truth which the individual may, or may not, have experienced as a personal emotion.
The result of this is that, as the few remaining Catholic dogmas accepted in the Protestant culture are abandoned one by one, society falls spiritually into the same sort of lust into which it fell socially through the same agency; and each manââ¬â¢s standards differ potentially from his neighborââ¬â¢s. There supervenes a philosophic anarchy such as that into which we are now already plunged; with these results on morals, art, war, building and all social relations which we see around us.
**But since man must worship something, the worship of humanity at large, and the nation in particular ââ¬â that is, the worship by the individual of himself in an extended form ââ¬â takes the place of religion, and hence, politically, on the supreme results of the Reformation has the been the growth of Nationalism. **
By this I do not mean that patriotism is a novelty, still less that it is other than a noble and exalted devotion. It is as old as civilized human society, and is, if not a virtue, the nearest thing to a virtue which we can find outside the field of pure Ethics. But I mean that making humanity the end, or even oneââ¬â¢s own nation the end, of action, is an error and a necessary seed of disaster. Indeed, today from these two emotions of the worship of Humanity and the worship of the Nation, the very life of the world is imperiled. (How the Reformation Happened, pages 175-179)
**Though the immediate fruits of the Reformation decayed, as had those of many other heresies in the past, yet the disruption it had produced remained and the main principle ââ¬â reaction against a untied spiritual authority ââ¬â so continued in vigor as both to break up our European civilization in the West and to launch at last a general doubt, spreading more and more widely. ** None of the old heresies did that, for they were each definite. Each had proposed to supplant or to rival the existing Catholic Church,; the but Reformation movement proposed rather to dissolve the Catholic Church ââ¬â and we know in what measure success has been attained by that effort! (The Great Heresies, page 97)
Still all of this was, I repeat, of less significance than the decline of the Protestant culture from within. The Catholic culture continued to be divided . . .
Protestant culture decayed from within from a number of causes, all probably connected, although it is difficult to trace the connection; al probably proceeding from what physicists call the ââ¬Åauto-toxicââ¬Â conditions of the Protestant culture. We say that an organism has become ââ¬Åauto-toxicââ¬Â when it is beginning to poison itself, when it loses vigor in its vital processes and accumulates secretions which continually lessen its energies. Something of this kind was happening to the Protestant culture towards the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth.
This was the general cause of the Protestant decline, but its action was vague and hard to grasp; on the particular causes of that decline we may be more concrete and certain.
For one thing, the spiritual basis of Protestantism went to pieces through the breakdown of the Bible as a supreme authority. This breakdown was the result of that very sprit of skeptical inquiry upon which Protestantism had always been based. It had begun by saying, ââ¬ÅI deny the authority of the Church: every man must examine the credibility of every doctrine for himself.ââ¬Â But it had taken as a prop (illogically enough) the Catholic doctrine of Scriptural inspiration. That great mass of Jewish folklore, poetry and traditional popular history and proverbial wisdom which we call the Old Testament, that body of records of the Early Church which we call the New Testament, the Catholic Church had declared to be divinely inspired. Protestantism (as we all know) turned this very doctrine of the Church against the Church herself, and appealed to the Bible against Catholic authority.
The Bible ââ¬â the Old and New Testaments combined ââ¬â became an object of worship in itself throughout the Protestant culture. There was a great deal of doubt and even paganism floating about before the end of the nineteenth century in the nations of Protestant culture; but the mass of their populations, in Germany as in England and Scandinavia, certainly in the United States, anchored themselves to the literal interpretation of the Bible.
Now historical research, research in physical science and research in textual criticism, shook this attitude. The Protestant culture began to go to the other extreme; from having worshipped the very text of the Bible as something immutable and the clear voice of God, it fell to doubting almost everything that the Bible contained.
It questioned the authenticity of the four Gospels . . .
There was also another example of the spirit of Protestantism destroying its own foundations, but in a different field, that of social economics.
Protestantism had produced free competition permitting usury and destroying the old safeguards of the small manââ¬â¢s property ââ¬â the guild and the village association.
In most places where it was powerful (and especially in England) Protestantism had destroyed the peasantry altogether. It had produced modern industrialism in its capitalistic form; it had produced modern banking, which at last became the master of the community; but not much more than a lifetimeââ¬â¢s experience of industrial capitalism and the bankersââ¬â¢ usurious power was enough to show that neither the one nor the other could continue. They had bred vast social evils, until men, without consciously appreciating the ultimate cause of those evils (which cause is, of course, spiritual and religious) at any rate found the evils unendurable. . . . .
There was yet another cause of the weakening and decline in the Protestant culture; the various parts of it tended to quarrel with the other. That was what one would have expected from a system at once based upon competition and flattering human pride. The various Protestant societies, notably the British and Prussian, were each convinced of its own complete superiority. But you cannot have two or more superior races. This mood of self worship necessarily led to conflict between the self-worshippers. They might all combine in despising the Catholic culture, but they could not preserve unity among themselves. . . . . (The Great Heresies, pages 137-140)
2003-05-01 18:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@May 1 2003, 06:59 **Is history wrong on this or did Hitler's Germany build Lutheran Churches?ÃÂ It is written thus in both the Third Reich's public records and by non-German historians:ÃÂ Nationalist Socialist Germany build churches.ÃÂ And Hitler quite openly called himself Christian.
This business of "pagan nazi" seems to be a myth that both sides believe.
Unless history is wrong...**
The Nazi's, especially in the beginning, made some effort to mask their anti-religious views. Rather than shut down the Churches, they tried to subvert them with their pagan "positive Christianity". Etc., etc.
Similarly for Hitler. For political reasons he may have claimed the "Christian" label occasionally, but its well known in religion that he was materialistic and rationalistic, making fun even of Himmler's neopagan revivalism. The reason was simple "National Socialism" (like communism) viewed (and views) itself as a religion in its own right, and brooks no competitors.
Any more than superficial study of National Socialism will discover this. If you don't believe it just ask Neo Nietzsche. Whatever you think of his positions I'm sure he'll be right in affirming they are integral to NS, and not just his personal idiosynchric views.
2003-05-01 18:34 | User Profile
For what it's worth,
[url=http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewstr17.htm]Review of Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich[/url]
2003-05-01 19:29 | User Profile
The fact that churches were built while Hitler ruled Germany is irrelevant. There was never an overt kulturkampf against Christians in the Third Reich.
Hiltler tolerated Christians, but persecuted them when he thought they "meddled" in internal German policy.
I'd also like to dispel any notion that Christians were nec. anti-Adolf. Simply not true. Some were, most were'nt. Some of you folks see NS Germany as some form of Hollywoodish Odinistic revival. It wasn't . It was a national movement of Germans, for Germans, with a lesser degree of seeking to preserve Western Civ. against perceived enemies, the same enemies who saw an assertive Germany as a mortal threat. Christians fought for their country in droves not nec. for Opa Adolf.
A more useful analogy would be Napoleon. He himself was cert not a Christian, and IMO was far more anti-Christian than Hitler.
2003-05-01 20:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by Campion Moore Boru@May 1 2003, 14:29 **The fact that churches were built while Hitler ruled Germany is irrelevant. There was never an overtÃÂ kulturkampf against Christians in the Third Reich.
Hiltler tolerated Christians, but persecuted them when he thought they "meddled" in internal German policy. **
I'm no historical scholar, CMB, but something's not adding up here.
Please see the article from Inside the Vatican -- [url=http://www.petersnet.net/browse/2857.htm]Nazi Persecution of the Church[/url] by Karol Jozef Gajewski.
To help eliminate Catholic influence, he turned to Alfred Rosenberg, arch-ideologue and convinced Nazi, who despised Christianity. In his book The Myth of the Twentieth Century, Rosenberg formulated a "scientific" theory of racism. For him, the supreme human value was that of race: individual races possessed their own collective soul, a mystical "power of the blood and soil." Each race also possessed a religious impulse (in the case of the Aryan Germans, this was the pagan cult of Wotan, King of the Gods). Christianity, for Rosenberg, was the distorted product of Semitic tribes who had tricked the Aryans into jettisoning their pagan truth.** The Catholic Church, the prime mover in this spiritual "swindle," was singled out for sustained attack as the promoter of "prodigious, conscious and unconscious falsifications."
All during the 1930s, Rosenberg poured scorn on the Church. The clergy, hierarchy and Vatican were vilified as poisoners of German blood, race-death merchants, race-swamp promoters, race contaminators, race-chaos merchants, obscurantists or "men of shadows," sorcerers of Rome, and, referring to the Jewish roots of Christianity, as advocates of perverted "Orientalism."**
Man, who does that sound like? :unsure: :blink:
2003-05-01 21:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by Campion Moore Boru@May 1 2003, 19:29 ** Some of you folks see NS Germany as some form of Hollywoodish Odinistic revival. It wasn't . It was a national movement of Germans, for Germans, with a lesser degree of seeking to preserve Western Civ. against perceived enemies, the same enemies who saw an assertive Germany as a mortal threat. Christians fought for their country in droves not nec. for Opa Adolf.
**
Good summary, Campion Moore Boru.
The sources I have also note Hitler's mood swings on the issue of Christianity. This is usually explained away as typical of an opportunistic politician.
But if he saw himself as reviving civilization makes it a dynamic construction. Hitler would be torn between Europe's Christian history and Christianity's inherent universalism. So he was less vascillating than responding to whichever version of Christianity presented itself.
He executed the young Christians of the White Rose resistance because their universalism was a direct threat to German uniqueness and cohesion. These are the tragic aspects of the Third Reich that have not been explored yet.
2003-05-01 23:48 | User Profile
Originally posted by Campion Moore Boru@May 1 2003, 19:29 **The fact that churches were built while Hitler ruled Germany is irrelevant. There was never an overt kulturkampf against Christians in the Third Reich.
Hiltler tolerated Christians, but persecuted them when he thought they "meddled" in internal German policy....
A more useful analogy would be Napoleon. He himself was cert not a Christian, and IMO was far more anti-Christian than Hitler.**
I remember a reference on this in one of the issues of the [url=http://www.chalcedon.edu]Chalcedon Report[/url], but I'll have to dig through my various issues. It has discussed various features about National Socialism at various times. The general point is that the reason most "Christians" think NS and the Third Reich were not anti-Christian is either they don't know much about the era or were not very good Christians. Everyday things as basic to the 3rd Reich as the Heil Hitler salute were to any serious German Christian reognized as deeply troubling, if not outright blasphemous.
As to the lack of a kulturkampf the Chalcedon article points to a not terribly well known Nazi Party conference in 1943 where with Hitler's blessing of course plans for the government of conquered Europe upn the final victory (Endsieg or something) were discussed and finalized. One of the features of these plans were instructions for the abolishon of Christianity all throughout conquered Europe , to be replaced with some pagan type religion.
2003-05-02 03:15 | User Profile
To alll responses:
Appreciate the comments. On rereading the first line of my post, I believe I wasn't quite clear. Building churches is irrelevant in that, IMO, it is neither probative of the contention that Hitler was Anti, Pro, or Nonplussed against the Faith. I daresay a study will reveal that churches in Syria and Egypt were built in recent years, even beloved Jew-rael. Whaat does this signify?
Tex, good buddy. When divining the merit of some of these arguments you're posting, one must also take into account the following:
1) Who is the author? (The article by Gajewski (say that name out loud :clown: ) is not nec. "untrue," but I would surmise he is a pole, and Poles, for good reason perhaps, will always paint NS Germany in, IMO, less than objective fashion)
2) Don't Stereotype! :lol: Within that party, as is intimated by the article, there were varying levels of attitude about the Church (used in the non-denominational sense). A common rhetorical tactic is to pick the most obscene example and proffer it as the norm.
3) Temporizing influence. As you will note, Opa Adolf is still viewed as Beelzebub's incarnation on Earth. While the Catholic Church was cert. not "pro-nazi" as certain ethnic groups will scream, FOR THE MOST PART, they were not hounded like some would argue. One never loses points in this era by claiming you were "victimized" by the Nazis. On the contrary, it is a litmus test for how "good" you were/are. Again, this is not to say the Catholic Church was NOT persecuted to some degree. It was viewed as a potential threat, particularly due to its hierarchic structure and the amount of influence it could wield with its flock. You will note that most of the Priests and religious persecuted were of non-German extraction. Part. Poles, who also harbored nationalist sentiments. Again, I am not making value judgments here. Certain Prot groups were seen as more of a threat than Catholics, wwho tend to be a very conservative relgion, part. vis a vis authority. The miniscule, essentially non-existent White Rose movement, which R cites is a good example. I believe they were some form of liberal Protestant group. White Rose The Catholic church is not a very revolutionary organization. See Ignatius De Loyola and his calls for obedience to authority which extended to Political Kings as well.
Okie- I'll try to read and parse the report you cite. But again, even this conference you cite supports my statement that there was no overt war. Did Hitler "like" Christianity? No, I don't thiink he did. Would he have led a State attempt to supplant Christ with odin or thor? I doubt it. Sounds more to me like appeasing the more nutty of the movement. But then again, we'll never know.
2003-05-02 05:33 | User Profile
> Originally posted by wintermute@May 2 2003, 05:20 Man, who does that sound like?**
Um, I give up.
Martin Luther? John Calvin? Jack Chick?
Please advise.
Wintermute**
Who are you kidding? It sounds like you! :P
2003-05-02 05:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@May 2 2003, 05:20 ** > > All during the 1930s, Rosenberg poured scorn on the Church. The clergy, hierarchy and Vatican were vilified as poisoners of German blood, race-death merchants, race-swamp promoters, race contaminators, race-chaos merchants, obscurantists or "men of shadows," sorcerers of Rome, and, referring to the Jewish roots of Christianity, as advocates of perverted "Orientalism." **
Man, who does that sound like?**
Um, I give up.
Martin Luther? John Calvin? Jack Chick?
Please advise.
Wintermute **
There can be no doubt that the Nazis wanted to stamp out Christianity and replace it with something else; a pagan worship of the nation as personified by the leader - something akin to Roman paganism combined with Emperor worship. While they tolerated Christianity to some extent and used it when convenient, the policy of ultimately stamping out the Church could not be clearer. Hitler was not Napoleon (who converted to Catholicism on his deathbed). Napoleon cut a deal with the Church, and had he won the Church would have prospered in time. Had Hitler won the Church would have been wiped out in Europe.
CMB is correct that Nazism was profoundly a German nationalist movement. It sought to enslave and ultimately to eliminate and replace other nations, including especially the Slavs. Nazism's narrow German jingoism renders it completely unfit to serve as a unifying ideology for a pan-European nationalist movement. Who besides a handful of ignorant fanatics of the 220 million Slavs of Russia, Ukraine and Byelorus who suffered so greatly under the Nazi jackboot could have any use whatever for the Swastika? Give this up, brothers, it can lead only to division. Take for example these lovely little gems from Himmler's famous Posen Speech:
With the exception of a few phenomena produced by Asia every couple of centuries, through that mixture of two heredities which may be fortunate for Asia but is unfortunate for us Europeans -- with the exception, therefore, of an Attilla, a Ghenghis Khan, a Tamerlaine, a Lenin, a Stalin -- the mixed race of the Slavs is based on a sub-race with a few drops of blood of our blood, blood of a leading race; the Slav is unable to control himself and create order. He is able to argue, able to debate, able to disintegrate, able to offer resistance against every authority and to revolt. But these human shoddy goods are just as incapable of maintaining order today as they were 700 or 800 years ago, when they called in the Varangians, when they called in the Ruriks Vikings called in to settle Russia. **
For the SS Man, one principle must apply absolutely: we must be honest, decent, loyal, and comradely to members of our own blood, and to no one else. What happens to the Russians, the Czechs, is totally indifferent to me. Whatever is available to us in good blood of our type, we will take for ourselves, that is, we will steal their children and bring them up with us, if necessary. Whether other races live well or die of hunger is only of interest to me insofar as we need them as slaves for our culture; otherwise that doesn't interest me. Whether 10,000 Russian women fall down umfallen from exhaustion in building a tank ditch is of interest to me only insofar as the tank ditches are finished for Germany. **
This is what our goose-stepping friends propose for our movement?
Wintermute: you studiously ignore my comment that the Nazi's mistreatment of the Ukrainians was not simply some tactical mistake but was rather the very stuff of Nazi ideology:
**I agree with you about Hitler's mistreatment of the Ukrainians being a major factor in Germany's defeat, but you ignore the root ideological causes of this mistreatment. Hitler considered the Ukrainians, Poles, Russians and other Slavs to be lesser-value humans. This wasn't just some "tactical" mistake, my friend - it was rather part and parcel of Nazism itself. While I don't doubt that Germany was in a difficult situation in the 1930's - a fact that has been downplayed by our media - your apologetics for an ideology that held our Eastern European brothers in such contempt are simply unsound. **
I really must insist in all fairness that you address directly this point, which of course lays bare the wrong-headedness of your position. The Nazis were German supremacists - I wouldn't soil the good name of "nationalism" by association with them. The Irish Republicans of Michael Collins and the Spanish Falangists of Franco were nationalists, not supremacists. Their ambitions stopped at their historical borders. While their methods in waging war knew few bounds, they knew when to stop. They sure as hell didn't wage war on their neighbors to steal their land and enslave their children, as the Nazis did with Poland and Ukraine. Not only does a nationalist's ambition stop at his border, but the killing stops once they've taken power and dealt with their enemies. For supremacist ideologues like the Jewish Bolsheviks and German Nazis, the real killing starts only after they'd consolidated power - the Nazis copied the slave labor camp system from the Jewish Bolsheviks, after all. A nationalist loves and accepts the real people of his nation, a supremacist, fanatical ideologue like Hitler worships some non-existent ideal and crushes the inconvenient reality of his own imperfect people under his jackboots. Franco would not have mistreated the Ukrainians - although it's hard to imagine he ever would have been there. He loved Spain warts and all, and he saved Spain from being turned into some social engineer's guinea pig like the Russians under the Jewish Bolsheviks. Hitler loved some delusional Aryan ideal that never was and never could be, and he hated and destroyed Germany because the great German people QUA the great German people didn't live up to his loony standards.
I repeat: give up this Nazism business, my friends. It leads nowhere but to division and ruin.
Walter
2003-05-02 13:24 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@May 1 2003, 23:55 **There can be no doubt that the Nazis wanted to stamp out Christianity and replace it with something else; a pagan worship of the nation as personified by the leader - something akin to Roman paganism combined with Emperor worship.ÃÂ While they tolerated Christianity to some extent and used it when convenient, the policy of ultimately stamping out the Church could not be clearer.ÃÂ Hitler was not Napoleon (who converted to Catholicism on his deathbed).ÃÂ Napoleon cut a deal with the Church, and had he won the Church would have prospered in time.ÃÂ Had Hitler won the Church would have been wiped out in Europe.
CMB is correct that Nazism was profoundly a German nationalist movement.ÃÂ It sought to enslave and ultimately to eliminate and replace other nations, including especially the Slavs.ÃÂ Nazism's narrow German jingoism renders it completely unfit to serve as a unifying ideology for a pan-European nationalist movement.ÃÂ Who besides a handful of ignorant fanatics of the 220 million Slavs of Russia, Ukraine and Byelorus who suffered so greatly under the Nazi jackboot could have any use whatever for the Swastika?ÃÂ Give this up, brothers, it can lead only to division.**
National Socialism is for those who synthesize the Roman and German in spirit.
Those of lesser synthesis will find comfort elsewhere.
2003-05-02 16:40 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 2 2003, 08:24 **National Socialism is for those who synthesize the Roman and German in spirit.
**
Add water, mix and voila! The Complete Totalitarian!!
Those of lesser synthesis will find comfort elsewhere.
Yes, among those resisting the New Would-be Totalitarians. What difference is it to me whether the boot on my neck is made by Wolverine or Caterpillar? From there, I can't read the label anyway.
2003-05-02 17:31 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 2 2003, 10:40 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 2 2003, 08:24 National Socialism is for those who synthesize the Roman and German in spirit.
**
Add water, mix and voila! The Complete Totalitarian!!
Those of lesser synthesis will find comfort elsewhere.
Yes, among those resisting the New Would-be Totalitarians. What difference is it to me whether the boot on my neck is made by Wolverine or Caterpillar? From there, I can't read the label anyway.**
Think of yourself wearing the "boot," Tex.
Good Christian that you are, the vision is repellent, isn't it?
What you don't realize, Tex, is that your options are becoming increasingly constricted toward two alternatives.
Verstehen Sie?
2003-05-02 18:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 2 2003, 12:31 Think of yourself wearing the "boot," Tex.
Good Christian that you are, the vision is repellent, isn't it?
What you don't realize, Tex, is that your options are becoming increasingly constricted toward two alternatives.
Verstehen Sie?**
Dearest NN,
Yes, I understand, but first let me say I make no claim to be a 'good' Christian. Far from it, actually, although I do realize the ideal. A good portion of what I post is done just to tweak you. I admit this is shortcoming of mine, but sometimes my contentious nature gets the best of me. I hold no false hopes of influencing your convictions as you probably hold no hope of influencing mine. And in my opinion, that is fine. For indeed, I have no desire to wear the 'boot' in question here. That's not to say I'm any kind of pacifist. At least I don't consider myself to be. I realize hard choices lie ahead for our people and I am committed to making every attempt to secure a place for my children and their children. But having said that, my ultimate goal is only to secure a homeland where one can live out a life free of the oppressor's boot. Freedom to raise and educate my children as I see fit and freedom to worship as my conscience and God dictate. Sure, vigilance will be required to defend that homeland from those on the outside who make themselves enemies, but I certainly don't wish to lord over them or place them under my boot. Live and let live. Don't mess with me and I won't mess with you. Sounds naive, I know, but my experiences so far don't force me to alter that creed yet.
You're a fellow Southron. Surely you see this vision as consistent with that of our forebearers? Where we disagree is whether this vision is still attainable. I believe it is, while I'm sure you don't.
But again, I admit that your tone most always rubs me the wrong way and my replies to you are intentionally contentious. I'll try and take the higher road from this point forth with the realization that the chasm that divides me and you cannot be crossed by human means.
2003-05-02 20:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 2 2003, 12:44 **Sure, vigilance will be required to defend that homeland from those on the outside who make themselves enemies, but I certainly don't wish to lord over them or place them under my boot. Live and let live. Don't mess with me and I won't mess with you. Sounds naive, I know, but my experiences so far don't force me to alter that creed yet.
You're a fellow Southron. Surely you see this vision as consistent with that of our forebearers? Where we disagree is whether this vision is still attainable. I believe it is, while I'm sure you don't.**
Sure, vigilance will be required to defend that homeland from those on the outside who make themselves enemies, but I certainly don't wish to lord over them or place them under my boot.
Then they will place you under theirs.
Sounds naive, I know, but my experiences so far don't force me to alter that creed yet.
Do you know who Anatoly Golitsyn is? Have you read The Revolt Against Civilization?
Do you need my lecture (again) on why form-of-government is a matter of utility rather than morality?
You're a fellow Southron. Surely you see this vision as consistent with that of our forebearers?
Precisely, bro! And we lost to the God-damned Yankees largely because we didn't want to impose ourselves on them like successful imperialists do. We just wanted to be left alone, and so never had the gumption to go after them with intent to conquer and subdue, crush-kill-and-destroy. The gentlemanly, fraternal love for our brothers was part of our undoing.
Where we disagree is whether this vision is still attainable. I believe it is, while I'm sure you don't.
Do'n hav ta whop me upsayed tha heyad mor'n once ta larn me a less'n, brotha Tex.
2003-05-02 20:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 2 2003, 12:44 But again, I admit that your tone most always rubs me the wrong way and my replies to you are intentionally contentious. I'll try and take the higher road from this point forth with the realization that the chasm that divides me and you cannot be crossed by human means.
Well, Tex, I'm here to rub everybody the wrong way, and to see if there are any wolves in sheep's clothing, any predators amongst the prey, yet to realize themselves as such. Please don't take the "higher road" - you might miss the opportunity to overcome yourself in a fit of insight.
2003-05-03 04:53 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 2 2003, 20:30 ** > Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 2 2003, 12:44 **Sure, vigilance will be required to defend that homeland from those on the outside who make themselves enemies, but I certainly don't wish to lord over them or place them under my boot.ÃÂ Live and let live.ÃÂ Don't mess with me and I won't mess with you.ÃÂ Sounds naive, I know, but my experiences so far don't force me to alter that creed yet.
You're a fellow Southron.ÃÂ Surely you see this vision as consistent with that of our forebearers?**
Precisely, bro! And we lost to the God-damned Yankees largely because we didn't want to impose ourselves on them like successful imperialists do. We just wanted to be left alone, and so never had the gumption to go after them with intent to conquer and subdue, crush-kill-and-destroy. The gentlemanly, fraternal love for our brothers was part of our undoing. **
So your saying the South lost and the North won because it was the North that came up with General Sherman? That the biggest hero the South had was Andersonville commandant Wurtz?
2003-05-03 12:16 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@May 2 2003, 22:53 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 2 2003, 20:30 ** > Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 2 2003, 12:44 Sure, vigilance will be required to defend that homeland from those on the outside who make themselves enemies, but I certainly don't wish to lord over them or place them under my boot.ÃÂ Live and let live.ÃÂ Don't mess with me and I won't mess with you.ÃÂ Sounds naive, I know, but my experiences so far don't force me to alter that creed yet.
You're a fellow Southron.ÃÂ Surely you see this vision as consistent with that of our forebearers?**
Precisely, bro! And we lost to the God-damned Yankees largely because we didn't want to impose ourselves on them like successful imperialists do. We just wanted to be left alone, and so never had the gumption to go after them with intent to conquer and subdue, crush-kill-and-destroy. The gentlemanly, fraternal love for our brothers was part of our undoing. **
So you[']r[e] saying the South lost and the North won because it was the North that came up with General Sherman? That the biggest hero the South had was Andersonville commandant Wurtz?**
The South had not a Sherman at the beginning of the war, when the South had the advantage of troops much more fit and thus more maneuverable than those of the North.
Lee was eager enough to engage and discourage his enemy from invasion, but there was no plan or preparation to conquer and occupy the North at all costs and to take advantage of opportunities to that end.
Hitler likewise failed to prepare for the conquest of those who would not leave him alone.
2003-05-03 12:40 | User Profile
Sermonettes for Brother Tex
Classical economics, now referred to as "Laissez-faire" or "Free Enterprise" or "Libertarian" economics, has long purported to offer a formula for the rightly-understood-interest of law-abiding individuals. Adam Smith's oft-derided notion of the "Invisible Hand" is an attribute of this aspiration to the resolution of mankind's seemingly intractable ethical dilemmas. The basic concept that the defense of property rights is the only requirement for state action in an economically competitive environment has the implication, in the face of the prospect of conspiracy in restraint of trade, that the latter will always be circumvented by the resort to a "frontier" of "property" in values, technology, or resources (land, labor, capital).
It is by virtue of the historic English command of the seas that laissez-faire, with its competitive individualism and political naivete and vulnerability, became the ethical orientation of world-wide colonial Anglo-America. If there was a domestic problem of political economy, it could always be sent to the resource frontier, i.e., exported to new lands around the globe. And the fact that the "ethnic cleansing" of the new land could be accomplished, for the most part, by the colonists themselves rather than by the state, enabled the state, such as it was, to retain its relative ethical purity, naivete, and vulnerability to penetration by conspirators, economic and political.
Imagine the case if the present Anglo population of the world had been geographically confined to Europe. Wouldn't it have been the English, and not the French or Germans, to have exploded across the Continent in a reproduction of bloody imperial consolidation of the culture? As it is, the Anglo's know only the wisdom and virtue of good fortune in demographic circumstance, and are but self-righteous, overgrown children at the best of times - and are a herd of "individuals" to be stampeded over other ethnic cleansers, at the worst. Somehow, the laissez-faire model of original property rights always seems to assume that Beaver Cleaver's neighborhood was granted by God - rather than by a prior instance of ethnic cleansing, conveniently dropped from memory or rationalized, in its own way, as aboriginal population management.
The Iron Law of Oligarchy arises as a theory collateral to, and as an implication of, the concept of "rightly understood interest". From the logic and experience of the administration of human affairs comes the recognition that ordered power in the context of large populations will necessarily rest in the hands of, at most, a few hundred influential families in time of peace, and but a few lieutenants of an autocrat in time of war. Thus oligarchy is the universal form of government experienced by populous humanity, whether masked by universal-franchise democracy or paraded by autocratic tyranny. The unity of the oligarchs amongst themselves is synonymous with their power - thus merely formal, contractual relations do not provide sufficient bond for this purpose. Ties of strong sentiment implicit in shared ideology, theology, or ancestry are indispensable at the summit of administrative power, for no explicit formula or law of "rightly understood interest" holds merit at this level of cooperation. The oligarchs of the present instance mediate the internal class war with pacifist, egalitarianist, environmentalist, social-consciousness doctrine, which permits maintenance of the "mask" of peacetime "democracy" for their protection, but which is paid for by obliviousness and utter vulnerability to the preparations of global class-warriors, based securely on the Asian continent and now likewise masking themselves from public view. The doctrinal notion of "good" and "evil" forms of government merely serves these oligarchs in preventing the recognition, by the herded population, of the agendas behind the utilitarian administrative arrangements which are appropriate for pursuing war and peace. So-called "police states" are essentially sensible arrangements for mediating and externalizing class war, and so-called "democracies" merely mask the soporific pacifist agenda which is preparatory to the internecine attack and anarchic "victory" of the "reformed" Asian socialist powers over the oblivious "liberal democracies".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The term "rightly understood interest" is used, in the discussion of the logic of political economy, to characterize an aspect of the behavior of "homo oeconomicus," the hypothetical rational actor or entity engaged in commercial or "market" activity. The following illustration of its meaning will show it to be a rather obvious concept - though it nevertheless can be seen to have devastating implications:
If, for example, several individuals periodically derive a minimal level of nutrition from a "pie" created for them by one or several of their number, from materials supplied by others of the same, the "raw" interest, so-to-speak, of each of them might well be to take the whole pie for himself. As there is only one pie at a time and multiple individuals to be satisfied, the raw interest of all cannot be realized at once in this regard. If any one or few of them deprive or deceive others in regard to a share of the pie, violence may ensue with possible damage to pie creation. If the creators of the pie are not suitably rewarded, pie production may diminish or cease - likewise with the supply of materials and the persons responsible therefor. The group is confronted with a multi-dimensional challenge in trying to develop a formula for dividing the pie to at least the minimal satisfaction of all, while deterring misbehavior and motivating pie production. If such a formula is successfully achieved and basically adhered to, it may be said to serve the "rightly understood" as opposed to the elementary "raw" interest of each of the participant individuals.
Again, this is all rather commonsensical and obvious, but, again, this reality has devastating consequences, when we "scale-up" this challenge to encompass the requirements for satisfaction of millions or billions of individuals. On this scale it is literally impossible to develop a formula for attending to the rightly understood interests of this number of advanced organisms confronting inescapably scarce resources. If prevarication does not serve to pacify the victims of inevitable deficiency, violence and death will be the frequent alternatives. Thus is humankind necessarily governed by none other than lies and violence, priests and warriors, ideology and armed force, as the record of human experience so richly reveals. Utopian hopes, measures toward a "New World Order," even durable national stability, are thus without rational foundation, excluded by the logic and experience of political economy, at least until Jesus brings the Second Advent to town or the day those "mysterious material forces of production" finally turn up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisdom of incalculable value, compliments of Brother Neo.
2003-05-03 12:52 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@May 1 2003, 12:09 Protestantism shattered Christendom from within, and it was in my opinion this loss of the spiritual unity of the white race that breach[ed] our wall of separation and contained within itself our own dissolution into brown.
And how did the Protestants of "Protestantism" come to be Protestants? Hmmm?
2003-05-03 13:04 | User Profile
Brother Tex writes:
"I harbor no hatred towards any man, for all of us are sinners in need of God's grace and Christ died for all mankind."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of what incorrigible misbehavior is Tex guilty?
It's been decades since I did anything worth someones dying over. [When I was thirteen or so, I managed to do it about five times in one day.]
2003-05-03 13:24 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@May 1 2003, 12:09 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 1 2003, 12:52 ** Walter,
How did the invincible Triple-Cross spread become the Circle-K ranch?
Neo **
I don't understand the question, kindly rephrase.**
"K" is for Kosher, referring to the question of how the Christian/Catholic West (the "Triple Cross" spread) became, in effect, Greater Judea (the "Circle-K" ranch), despite some alleged "invincibility".
2003-05-03 15:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 3 2003, 12:52 ** > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@May 1 2003, 12:09 Protestantism shattered Christendom from within, and it was in my opinion this loss of the spiritual unity of the white race that breach[ed] our wall of separation and contained within itself our own dissolution into brown.
And how did the Protestants of "Protestantism" come to be Protestants? Hmmm? **
That is a very large and important question about which volumes have been written - many of these volumes written by men who were far smarter than either of us and who spent their entire lives pondering the question.
But I will defer to your erudition - so please tell me why in your opinion "the Protestants of "Protestantism" come to be Protestants?
I look forward to reading your reply.
Walter
2003-05-03 15:52 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 3 2003, 13:24 ** > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@May 1 2003, 12:09 > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 1 2003, 12:52 ** Walter,
How did the invincible Triple-Cross spread become the Circle-K ranch?
Neo **
I don't understand the question, kindly rephrase.**
"K" is for Kosher, referring to the question of how the Christian/Catholic West (the "Triple Cross" spread) became, in effect, Greater Judea (the "Circle-K" ranch), despite some alleged "invincibility". **
Please refer to my reply above.
In my opinion, the Reformation destroyed the spiritual unity of Christendom which allowed its infiltration by alien forces.
Some Orthodox historians place the blame on the Great Schism of the 11th century, and view the Reformation as merely the widening of that earlier breach.
I again refer you to "Law and Revolution" by Harold Berman for a penetrating discussion of this matter.
I reiterate that I do not know that full reasons for the Reformation (no scholar I've ever read - and I've read several - claimed to have the complete answer), and am most interested in learning your considered opinion on the matter.
I would point out that the borders of the Reformation broke along the old borders of the Western Roman Empire, and I suspect strongly that some racial/cultural longings played an important if not completely conscious role in the thing.
Walter
2003-05-03 16:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@May 3 2003, 09:46 **But I will defer to your erudition - so please tell me why in your opinion "the Protestants of "Protestantism" come to be Protestants?
**
Nothing so grand as "erudition" involved, Walter, if you are not ideologically or theologically constipated:
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph are purported to be historic figures, even by the shameless fabricators.
History is a written record.
Some people choose to read.
Presto! Protestantism!
Of course, the Donatist impulse also rebels against the corruption of the Church - the Church compromised, of course, by its own pretensions to purity, evident in its practice of celibacy as an inversion of nasty ol' nature.
2003-05-03 16:59 | User Profile
I reiterate that I do not know that full reasons for the Reformation (no scholar I've ever read - and I've read several - claimed to have the complete answer), and am most interested in learning your considered opinion on the matter.
I think the reasons were what they always are: money and power. The Church had both and certain men wanted them. Either for the Reformation or the Schism. Theological issues were just window-dressing.
BTW, the welfare state will always be with us as long as the vaccuum created by the Reformation exists. The state will do all the Church once did: educate kids, care of the sick and elderly, provide for the poor, etc. If the Church ever came back, She could do all those things, and far better.
Remember the old adage: people loved Catholic hospitals because they were such pleasant places to die.
2003-05-03 17:12 | User Profile
And the shameless fabricators, they of no natural allegiance or appetite, are in somewhat the same position as the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the Law is what the Supremes say it is, when they say what it is, but they are likewise inhibited in their progress by a document to which the literate can refer and use as the basis of resistance/protest[antism].
2003-05-03 21:40 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 3 2003, 11:12 ** Ultimately, the Law is what the Supremes say it is, when they say what it is, but they are likewise inhibited in their progress by a document to which the literate can refer and use as the basis of resistance/protest[antism]. **
NN,
Don't want to get into a war over Christianity or Catholicism, atheists appear to be as zealous in their areligious faith in that regard as any 17th Century Jesuit.
But your quote regarding the Suprmes is "on-point" as the shysters say. Few "Constitutionalists" understand, bless their hearts. "Constitutional America" ended in large part with Uncle Abe, and its last vestiges were scoured out by FDR. Its over. Any fantasy seeking to return to it is just that.
As you say, the law is what the Supremes say it is regardless of how transparently false their decisions are. Many fail to understand this.
2003-05-04 07:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 3 2003, 17:12 ** And the shameless fabricators, they of no natural allegiance or appetite, are in somewhat the same position as the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the Law is what the Supremes say it is, when they say what it is, but they are likewise inhibited in their progress by a document to which the literate can refer and use as the basis of resistance/protest[antism]. **
You contradict yourself, NN.
On the one hand you say that there is no Truth only the Will to Power (clearly oxymoronic, inasmuch as you posit the Will to Power as the Truth) and then you take others to task for constructing truth.
You're muddled, my friend.
And you're also off point.
We agree that our movement needs a unifyng ideology. We also agree that on the initial existential choice there can be no rational proof, since such choice is made on a pre-conceptual level.
Our disagreement is only in regard to what that choice should be.
You offer Nazism and it's throughly derivative and short-lived failure (derivative of the Jewish Bolsheviks no less) in place of the towering and enduring achievements of the Church. I argue that this is patently silly, and held up your choice to deserving riducule. This is of course so obviously true in view of the comparative success of the two ideologies that you have no reply other than to sputter on about "people reading" or some other such nonsense.
You lack the courage of your own convictions, NN. You refuse to judge your own ideological choices by the same standard you would judge others. And your argument is thus exposed for the adolescent, quasi-intellectual onanism that it is.
Warmest regards,
Walter
2003-05-04 13:44 | User Profile
**You contradict yourself, NN.
On the one hand you say that there is no Truth only the Will to Power (clearly oxymoronic, inasmuch as you posit the Will to Power as the Truth) and then you take others to task for constructing truth.
You're muddled, my friend.**
I might be - had I said any of this. Please quote me specifically, in the interest of giving substance to your charge.
We agree that our movement needs a unifying ideology.ÃÂ We also agree that on the initial existential choice there can be no rational proof, since such choice is made on a pre-conceptual level.
Walter, mon ami, you are carried along by your enthusiasm. "We" have agreed to none of this. You have posited this, and more, previously - and I have let it pass as irrelevant.
My position is that our movement is National Socialism - the Hitlerian championship of the "Aryan" (noble/predatory/masterful) element of the White race in the aftermath of the German defeat. So "our" movement goes so far as to actually identify us - unlike the universalist Papism which indiscriminately embraces the least of merely importunate humanity. There is thus no question of "choice" or "proof" - it is a question of identity.
You offer Nazism and its throughly derivative and short-lived failure (derivative of the Jewish Bolsheviks no less) in place of the towering and enduring achievements of the Church.ÃÂ I argue that this is patently silly, and held up your choice to deserving ridicule.ÃÂ This is of course so obviously true in view of the comparative success of the two ideologies that you have no reply other than to sputter on about "people reading" or some other such nonsense.
Walter, I do not "offer" Nazism - you are or you aren't one (a Nazi, that is) under the skin. I'm here scratching people to see what's under their skin. I'm evidently getting under yours and Tex's, among others. You are merely making the case for a form of collaboration, in terms that more sensibly justify shabbas goy-dom.
YouÃÂ lack the courage of your own convictions, NN.ÃÂ You refuse to judge your own ideological choices by the same standard you would judge others.ÃÂ And your argument is thus exposed for the adolescent, quasi-intellectual onanism that it is.
We seem merely to have given exposure to your infelicitous interpretation of my convictions/choices/self-abuse.
Hugs and Kisses
Neo
2003-05-04 14:23 | User Profile
Oh, and Walter, I was just having a laugh at the thought of your indignantly pronouncing yourself no Nazi of any kind - and a thousand out of a thousand Jews reading your latest contributions to "First Person Paleo".
:th: :rock:
2003-05-04 19:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@May 4 2003, 07:49 ** > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 3 2003, 17:12 ** And the shameless fabricators, they of no natural allegiance or appetite, are in somewhat the same position as the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the Law is what the Supremes say it is, when they say what it is, but they are likewise inhibited in their progress by a document to which the literate can refer and use as the basis of resistance/protest[antism]. **
You contradict yourself, NN.
On the one hand you say that there is no Truth only the Will to Power (clearly oxymoronic, inasmuch as you posit the Will to Power as the Truth) and then you take others to task for constructing truth.
You're muddled, my friend **
Good observation Walter, for noting NeoNietzsche's very uncharacteristic, unpostmodern sanction of the Supreme Court and their imitators. Clearly showing the tension between the conservative moralist and the postmodern cynic, characteristic of Nietzschienism.
Unaddressed, because it is irresolvable. For that matter, Hitler was no big fan of strict constitutional constructionism, or he wouldn't have admired FDR's New Deal so much.
2003-05-04 22:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@May 4 2003, 13:28 > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@May 4 2003, 07:49 ** > Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@May 3 2003, 17:12 ** And the shameless fabricators, they of no natural allegiance or appetite, are in somewhat the same position as the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the Law is what the Supremes say it is, when they say what it is, but they are likewise inhibited in their progress by a document to which the literate can refer and use as the basis of resistance/protest[antism]. **
You contradict yourself, NN.
On the one hand you say that there is no Truth only the Will to Power (clearly oxymoronic, inasmuch as you posit the Will to Power as the Truth) and then you take others to task for constructing truth.
You're muddled, my friend **
Good observation Walter, for noting NeoNietzsche's very uncharacteristic, unpostmodern sanction of the Supreme Court and their imitators. Clearly showing the tension between the conservative moralist and the postmodern cynic, characteristic of Nietzschienism.
Unaddressed, because it is irresolvable. For that matter, Hitler was no big fan of strict constitutional constructionism, or he wouldn't have admired FDR's New Deal so much.**
Okie,
For the record, and again, I did not write any of that which is imputed to me by Walter, above.
Thus nothing of what he contributed has merit. I did and do not "sanction" the Supremes in their activity - I merely note the case, the actuality as realized generally in this non-Platonic world.
I will say, however, that the "Conservative moralist" is, according to this actuality, being shown a fool in relying upon imagined Platonic virtue for his defense.
May I suggest that you and Walter work on eradicating the Platonist obstructions in your epistemological orientation. That will help with overcoming the Christian thing.
2003-05-14 06:16 | User Profile
Originally posted by Octopod@May 13 2003, 20:27 ** But if you want to go for accuracy, I'm all at once a paleocon, traditional Catholic (I reject Vatican II, etc.), and White nationalist. **
I share your political orientations, but you and I face a dilemma.
How can we be "traditional Catholics" yet not accept a Council of the Church?
I have real problems with Vatican II - it's a thing I haven't yet worked out.
Maybe the Orthodox have a point.
Walter
2003-05-15 08:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by Octopod@May 14 2003, 22:22 ** > **I share your political orientations, but you and I face a dilemma.
How can we be "traditional Catholics" yet not accept a Council of the Church?
I have real problems with Vatican II - it's a thing I haven't yet worked out.
Maybe the Orthodox have a point.
Walter**
Many "traditional Catholics" who reject Vatican II will say that the Church had been subverted and/or infiltrated by anti-Church forces, and so the council was rendered invalid. There are possible problems with this, though; not least that it can lead to an arbritrary "pick-and-choose" fest regarding Church doctrine and other matters.
You may well be right about the Orthodox. What I know for sure is that I'm for Christendom. Christianity needs more power and unity, and figuring out how to accomplish this task is proving to be a daunting dilemma indeed.
Octopod **
Precisely.
The Papacy will be central to any renewed Christendom, a renewed Papacy. That means ultimately working things out with the Orthodox, admitting past mistakes, making amends, and perhaps even a new Council.
I don't have the answers on that question, to be sure.
As I said, I have real problems with Vatican II.
Walter