← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 7792 | Posts: 26 | Started: 2003-07-02
2003-07-02 19:08 | User Profile
[url=http://cptwc.matriots.com/JudeoChristian.html]http://cptwc.matriots.com/JudeoChristian.html[/url]
The Bogus Term 'Judeo-Christian'
We have researched the term 'Judeo-Christian,' and have found that it came into popular use at a certain time. Can you guess when that time might have been?
If you guessed that time was 'after WWII,' you are correct. After that war, the term Judeo-Christian began appearing in Western magazines, newspapers, books, films, etc. Just a coincidence? Hardly. Our Western popular culture was already heavily-Jewish by then, and such a term served Jewish interests. That term also served certain Christian [i.e. Zionist] interests by suggesting that Jews and Christians are kin.
Let us be clear: Jews are not kin to Christians. Today's Jews are a hybrid ethnicity. They are not the original Hebrews and they have almost nothing in common with Christians. The term Judeo-Christian is used today to benefit Jews and certain Christians.
2003-07-02 20:24 | User Profile
The term "Judeo-Christian" is an oxymoron. True Christianity repudiates the depraved supremacism of Judaism as forcefully as Buddhism repudiates the idolatry and caste system of Hinduism. The only reason Jews use the bogus term "Judeo-Christian" is to placate their fundamentalist, pro-Zionist, Pat Robertson type lackeys. The horrible blasphemies against Christ contained in that vile repository of filth called the Talmud demonstrates just how meaningful the term "Judeo-Christian" is.
2003-07-03 04:11 | User Profile
Franco: Let us be clear: Jews are not kin to Christians. Today's Jews are a hybrid ethnicity.
rglencheek: Christianity is not an ethnicity as Judaism is in part. So it is not germane to the question as to whether the Jewish faith is related to Christianity or not. As Christianity was originally considered a branch of the Jewish faith, and even given sympathetic representation by ancient Jewish historians likeJosephus.
It is a simple historical fact that Christianity and much of its values system comes from Judaism, while the opposite is the case with Nietzschean hysteria and its contemptible hell-spawn. Christ drew from Jewish culture, values, tradition and history, hence the complete coherence of the term, and its use to distance Christendom from simplistic points of view that seek to maintain an irrational hatred of a small affluent minority.
Franco: They are not the original Hebrews and they have almost nothing in common with Christians. The term Judeo-Christian is used today to benefit Jews and certain Christians.
rglencheek: If they are not Hebrews, then what are they? They are not Khazars, as genetic testing that Triskelion has quoted here several times points out. They are mostly descendants of Judea and Benjamin and still bear DNA characteristics linking them to the Hittites and the Arabs.
But what is the point of making such pointed and repulsive statements even if they were true? No one is going to listen to a message that bears that type of slander, and so you will reach no one and influence no one. You might as well hang a sign around your neck entitled 'Provacateur' because that is what you are doing and for absolutely no purpose, unless the provocation is your purpose to begin with.
But why would you deliberately play the provacateur? Even if you are right about Jews, what do you possibly hope to accomplish with this line of rhetoric that is immediately dismissed as lunatic by most Americans?
My bet is that you have no hope, and thus no real approach to build a movement or to correct the problems that we have today, but maybe I am wrong.
The times are a changing, and the opportunity that responsible leadership will have to begin representing white Americans in our nations political system. But anti-semitic rhetoric is counter-productive, morally condemned by 99% of Christendom and simply erroneous.
You do yourself and no white American male any service by using such rhetoric; you merely serve to strengthen the claims of our political rivals and further bind us from acheiving any unity or discipline.
So why do you do it?
2003-07-03 04:21 | User Profile
Hey, pal, today's Jews are a racial hybrid -- 50% Arab, 50% Armenid. They are NOT the old Hebrews. So stop saying that they are kin to Christian gentiles.
Why do you defend Jews? You sound like Rennick. Are you a troll?
2003-07-03 04:36 | User Profile
Judeo-Christianity is the Apostate church.
Judeo-Christians are the most grieviously, misled group of individuals that will suffer the wrath of God. God DOES NOT SUFFER FOOLS LIGHTLY.
Judeo-Christians are the ones that will look up to Jesus and say,"Lord, Lord!.
Jesus will turn away from them and deny the Judeo-Christians. ( Be gone, I know ye not )
Judiazed Christianity is an abomination that has been foretold in the bible. Jews reject Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has said of the Jews, [color=red]"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."[/color]
Jews are the children of Satan. Nothing more, nothing less. To deny this basic tenant is to deny Our Lord, Jesus Christ. During these last days, many will deny Jesus Christ. The Holy Bible has already foretold this.
Acts 20
Judeo-Christians call themselves, "Jews", spiritual or otherwise...
Revelation 3
We see how Judeo-Christians are destroying our nation and fouling God's Blessing.
And they continue.... :(
2003-07-03 07:32 | User Profile
*Originally posted by golfball@Jul 3 2003, 04:36 * ** Judeo-Christianity is the Apostate church.
Judeo-Christians are the most grieviously, misled group of individuals that will suffer the wrath of God. God DOES NOT SUFFER FOOLS LIGHTLY.
**
I agree that Judeo-Christianity is an oxymoron and is the worst imaginable heresy.
I disagree that God doesn't suffer fools, and thank Him for that, or else I'd be in a great deal of trouble.
Regards,
Walter
2003-07-03 17:28 | User Profile
*Originally posted by rglencheek@Jul 2 2003, 22:11 * **
It is a simple historical fact that Christianity and much of its values system comes from Judaism, while the opposite is the case with Nietzschean hysteria and its contemptible hell-spawn. Christ drew from Jewish culture, values, tradition and history, hence the complete coherence of the term, and its use to distance Christendom from simplistic points of view that seek to maintain an irrational hatred of a small affluent minority. **
Have you ever actualy read the Bible? Christ completely repudiated the sanctimoniousness and hypocrisy of the Judaism of his day. In any case, whatever "Jewish traditions" Christ may have built on is irrelevant, because modern day Judaism is based on the Talmud, a series of books written several centuries after his death, not the Torah.
2003-07-03 17:38 | User Profile
Clarification of my previous post: the branch of Jews I refer to as a hybrid race is the large branch, Ashkenazim. Most Jews today are Ashkenazim aka Eastern/Russian Jews.
:sm:
2003-07-03 18:26 | User Profile
But anti-semitic rhetoric is counter-productive, morally condemned by 99% of Christendom and simply erroneous.
So? 99.5% of Christendom condemns "racism." What kind of a game do you think we're in? It's possible to discuss the net negative of Jewish influence without offending Christians, something I agree WN should be careful of.
For the most thoughtful debunking of the term "Judeo-Christian," I recommend John Murray Cuddihy's "Ordeal of Civility." With scholarly precision Cuddihy crucifies the idea. Sorry, that just came out.
2003-07-03 21:45 | User Profile
**Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.
Gloats over Christ Dying Young
A passage from Sanhedrin 106 gloats over the early age at which Jesus died: "Hast thou heard how old Balaam (Jesus) was?--He replied: It is not actually stated but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days it follows that he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old."
Jesus in the Talmud:
Horrible Blasphemies Against Jesus Christ
While it is the standard disinformation practice of apologists for the Talmud to deny that it contains any scurrilous references to Jesus Christ, certain Orthodox Jewish organizations are more forthcoming and admit that the Talmud not only mentions Jesus but disparages him (as a sorcerer and a demented sex freak). These orthodox Jewish organizations make this admission perhaps out of the belief that Jewish supremacy is so well-established in the modern world that they need not concern themselves with adverse reactions.
For example, on the website of the Orthodox Jewish Hasidic Lubavitch group--one of the largest in the world--we find the following statement, complete with Talmudic citations:
"The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of 'Jesus the Nazarene':
1) He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).
2) He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a).
3) He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh, which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b).
End quote from [url=http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm]http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm[/url] (Lubavitch website) June 20, 2000.
[Note: we have printed and preserved in our files a hard copy of this statement from the Lubavitch"Noah's Covenant Website," as it appeared on their website at [url=http://www.noahide.com]http://www.noahide.com[/url] on June 20, 2000, in the event that denials are later issued and the statement itself suppressed].
Let us examine further some of these anti-Christ Talmud passages:
Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement."
Sanhedrin 43a. Says Jesus ("Yeshu" and in Soncino footnote #6, Yeshu "the Nazarene") was executed because he practiced sorcery: "It is taught that on the eve of Passover Jesus was hung, and forty days before this the proclamation was made: Jesus is to be stoned to death because he has practiced sorcery and has lured the people to idolatry...He was an enticer and of such thou shalt not pity or condone."
Kallah 51a."The elders were once sitting in the gate when two young lads passed by; one covered his head and the other uncovered his head. Of him who uncovered his head Rabbi Eliezer remarked that he is a bastard. Rabbi Joshua remarked that he is the son of a niddah (a child conceived during a woman's menstrual period). Rabbi Akiba said that he is both a bastard and a son of a niddah.
"They said, 'What induced you to contradict the opinion of your colleagues?' He replied, "I will prove it concerning him." He went to the lad's mother and found her sitting in the market selling beans.
"He said to her, 'My daughter, if you will answer the question I will put to you, I will bring you to the world to come.' (eternal life). She said to him, 'Swear it to me.'
"Rabbi Akiba, taking the oath with his lips but annulling it in his heart, said to her, 'What is the status of your son?' She replied, 'When I entered the bridal chamber I was niddah (menstruating) and my husband kept away from me; but my best man had intercourse with me and this son was born to me.' Consequently the child was both a bastard and the son of a niddah.
"It was declared, '..Blessed be the God of Israel Who Revealed His Secret to Rabbi Akiba..."
In addition to the theme that God rewards clever liars, the preceding Talmud discussion is actually about Jesus Christ (the bastard boy who "uncovered his head" and was conceived in the filth of menstruation). The boy's adulterous mother in this Talmud story is the mother of Christ, Blessed Mary (called Miriam and sometimes, Miriam the hairdresser, in the Talmud).
"The Editio Princeps of the complete Code of Talmudic Law, Maimonides' Mishneh Torah -- replete not only with the most offensive precepts against all Gentiles but also with explicit attacks on Christianity and on Jesus (after whose name the author adds piously, 'May the name of the wicked perish')... --Dr. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21.
"The Talmud contains a few explicit references to Jesus...These references are certainly not complimentary...There seems little doubt that the account of the execution of Jesus on the eve of Passover does refer to the Christian Jesus...The passage in which Jesus' punishment in hell is described also seems to refer to the Christian Jesus. It is a piece of anti-Christian polemic dating from the post-70 CE period..." --Hyam Maccoby, Judaism on Trial, pp. 26-27.
"According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned.
"The more popular accounts--which were nevertheless taken quite seriously--such as the notorious Toldot Yeshu are even worse, for in addition to the above crimes they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name 'Jesus' was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable and this popular tradition still persists...
"The Hebrew form of the name Jesus--Yeshu--was interpreted as an acronym for the curse, 'may his name and memory be wiped out,' which is used as an extreme form of abuse. In fact, anti-zionist Orthodox Jews (such as Neturey Qarta) sometimes refer to Herzl as 'Herzl Jesus' and I have found in religious zionist writings expressions such as "Nasser Jesus" and more recently 'Arafat Jesus." --Dr. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, pp. 97- 98, 118.
Talmud Attacks Christians and Christian Books
Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (minnim) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.
Sanhedrin 90a. Those who read the New Testament ("uncanonical books") will have no portion in the world to come.
Shabbath 116a. Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament.
Dr. Israel Shahak of Hebrew University reports that the Israelis burned hundreds of New Testament Bibles in occupied Palestine on March 23, 1980 (cf. Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21).
**
"Judeo-Christian" indeed...
2003-07-03 22:02 | User Profile
More enlightening quotes from the Talmud can be found [url=http://www.hoffman-info.com/talmudtruth.html]here.[/url]
2003-07-04 04:16 | User Profile
"It is a simple historical fact that Christianity and much of its values system comes from Judaism"
Actually...
.....I would say you're in need of verifying that which you consider "fact"; it is a simple lie that Christianity finds its root in "judaism"... the two are antithetical, one to another, and mortal enemies, though most of today's apostate Christians are too sottish, (Our Father's term, meaning stupid), to know better; what can one expect from those that learn their History from the moovees and the "history" channel?
2003-07-04 06:31 | User Profile
Christianity takes from Judaism the following:
1) The Old Testament. This collection of books of history, poetry and prophesy was a product of the nation of Isreal, part of which were the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.
2) The moral values system of monotheism, and a Holy and Righteous God.
3) The belief that man is steeped in sin and in need of obedience to God as reflected inthe Ten Commandments, an early product of God attempting to communicate withmankind.
4) The belief that man was created in God's image.
5) The belief that God created the universe for a purpose.
Need I list more?
The New Testament passages that are typically used to damn the Jews are actually more specifically directed at the Pharisees, the lawyers and scribes, not all Jews of that time, and especially not toward all Jews of today.
I am very familiar with the Bible, for example I know of the case of Joseph which is far more damning of Jews than you seem to realize as it portrays Joseph crushing the people of Egypt under the Pharoah's heel for the sake of their own particular advancement, and then they were betrayed by later Pharoah's. Yet I have never seen this passage used, so I suggest I know more on the subject than you realize.
But the tribalism of the Jewish people is not a point I disagree on; what I disagree on is the proper response and whether this means that the Jews control everything.
When I moved to the East Coast I was amazed at the wealth and influence of the Jewish community. I noticed that everywhere you saw some leftist spewing anti-Christian garbage or promoting some filth or chaos there always seemed to be some Jewish guy there also. But I discovered that the Jews have historical reasons for being leftwing as they greatly suffered persecuation under the Eastern European monarchs like the Czar and Keizar.
But Jews do not control everything, else what is the genesis of all these stories of them acquiring yet more power? How do you get more power when you already are supposed to control it all?
And if Zionists have control of the left, then how is it that the Unviersities of this country, many dominated by Jews, are so totally against Isreal and oppose the war in Iraq? How is it that so many Jewswere driven from power under Stalin? How is it that Bush has frustrated the Isreali head of state Sharon and pushed him toward yet more compromise with the Palestinians? How is it that so much of Europe is arrayed agaisnt Isreal and is welcoming so many Arab immigrants?
I could go on, but while you spend so much time and effort on anti-semitism, you could be bringing people around if you talked about the injustice of Affirmative action , or the rate of suicide of white males, or the extreely disproportionate statistics on inter-racial crime? Again, I could go on but this should suffice.
I hear white males complaining about the SCOTUS decision on AA last week from about a dozen different guys, but they dismiss the white nationalist movement out of hand due to its anti-semitic focus or obsession, and they cannot understand that. Anti-semitic rhetoric wins over no one to your cause. It is a counter-productive issue.
Why cant anti-semites see this simple fact?
2003-07-04 14:58 | User Profile
Despite the many visions, appearances and manifest direction of God's will in the Old Testament ( one early example is the sacrifice of the finest white lamb, representative of the coming death of Christ for man's sins ) and in refutation of the Prophets: the Pharisees and Sadducees and Rabbis who lorded over Judah and went on to write the Talmud twisted and sought to alter God's plan for His People. They longed for a Messiah which would bring all of " Israel"'s ( the lost 10 tribes had already ventured to the north and west and separated by this time ) enemies to their knees. They looked for a warlord messiah, a revolutionary who would bring them to new heights of worldly power and control. Contrast this with the true Messiah, one they could not accept whose kingdom was " not of this world " and who preached love and forgiveness along with harsh repudiation of earthly desires, gain and materialist satisfactions. The modern-day Jews are indeed the same as the Jews Jesus repudiated in the New Testament. They continue to wait and hope for and work to bring forth their warlord-messiah, who will bring all the inhabitants and creatures of the world to their knees. This messiah will be the Anti-Christ, shown to light after the raising of the Third Temple in Jerusalem and the Abomination that Bringeth Desolation, which is the resumption of animal sacrifice in the land of ancient Israel. Even more so than in Christ's time, modern Jews are even more self-centered, self-aggrandizing, obfuscators of truth, liars to suit their needs, and promulgators of all forms of earthly sin and separation from God. Historical facts tell us that the ancient Israelites or Hebrews are not represented by modern-day Jews. Although some of them may have bloodline from the tribes of Benjamin or Judah, perhaps a few Levites, their records were thoroughly destroyed in 70 A.D. and they cannot prove their racial lineage.
2003-07-04 18:35 | User Profile
*Originally posted by wintermute@Jul 4 2003, 08:08 * ** Indeed, despite the fact that Old Mother Church now assures us that Jews are so special they dont even need Jesus to get into heaven, Walter vouches for their leadership in the coming struggle so vehemently and so often I expect he's getting kickbacks from Opus Dei. **
Shush! You're blowing my cover.
Seriously though, those are all fair criticisms and are well taken.
The question to you, oh frosty one, is what you would replace it with???
It's easy to be a critic, at least the kind that doesn't offer a viable alternative.
You've followed my arguments these past (what?) years, and you know that I take a practical approach to these things.
I hold these truths to be self evident: that man is a product of evolution, that evolution designed man to require a religion, that man's religion must include elements of the un-rational, offer hope of eternity for the individual and distinction for the group, that the ability of any religion to answer these basic individual and group needs is a key factor in that group's competitive advantage relative to others groups with their own religions, and finally that the objective truth or falsity of any religious tenet is not of primary and practical importance to the efficacy of the foregoing.
While I accept the truth of the Apostles' Creed, I certainly can't prove those assertions as fact anymore than anyone can disprove them. They are matters of faith, and are not really subject to reasoned debate. However, the point is that the practical aspects of religion and pros and cons of our choice of religion for our group purposes are subject to such debate.
So, without regard to truth of falsity of the tenets of the Christian Faith, I proceed as follows.
I believe that Christianity is the best choice for whites, since it is (1) historically is our religion and thus enjoys established brand recognition (forgive me for speaking b-schoolese, but what can I do?), (2) is the foundation of a preponderant majority of our great art of all kinds, (3) is the foundation of our very high ethical standards, (4) is one of the pillars of our legal system, including especially our respect for individual integrity and responsibility, and perhaps most importantly (5) was the only religion that actually succeeded in uniting Europeans, and depending on how you look at it for a significant time spanning centuries. I'm sure if I thought about it I could think up a few more reasons.
None of the other contenders on this board can make these claims. Certainly Nazism doesn't even pass the laugh test, since it isn't even a religion at all but is rather a mere and failed ideology, lacking in the devine madness that is the hallmark of all the great religions. It also not only failed to unite whites, it disunited them like perhaps nothing before or since, and is directly responsible for some of the worst atrocities committed by whites against whites in history. It's a non-starter in terms of marketing.
Your own Paganism is a far more worthy contender (I appreciate that Nazism had strong Pagan undercurrents, but it seems to me remained wedded to a positivistic scientism to really be considered Pagan with a capital "P"), but Paganism fails for other reasons listed above.
Thus, I put it to you, Wintermute.
You can disparage Christianity and the obvious weaknesses of latter-day Christians, but it just doesn't count for much beside cyberbabble unless you offer a realistic alternative.
In all the time I've read your extremely intelligent and artful posts, I've never, ever heard your plan for a religion to unite the WN's. You're terrific on cross examination, counselor, but you've been pretty weak thus far on direct.
So what will it be then, mate?
What do you offer in the place of the Faith of our Fathers?
Kindest regards,
Walter
Walter
2003-07-04 19:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jul 4 2003, 13:35 * *What do you offer in the place of the Faith of our Fathers? **
Perhaps [url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/druid.htm]Druidism[/url]?
[img]http://www.amherst.edu/~ermace/sth/birdseye.jpeg[/img]
Where the demons dwell and the cats meow?
;)
2003-07-04 19:55 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jul 4 2003, 19:43 * ** Perhaps Druidism?
Where the demons dwell and the cats meow?
;) **
It's great fiction, Tex, but the Druids had nothing to do with Stonehenge.
"No stage of the building of Stonehenge is later than about 1200 B.C., and any connection with the Druids, who flourished a thousand years later, is purely conjectural" (Jacquetta Hawkes ed., Atlas of Ancient Archaeology. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1994. 33).
(But these are fighting words among my Celto-Brit pals, who insist the legend is the truth. Maybe it's the John Ford Western view of history: It ain't true but it ought to be!)
2003-07-04 22:06 | User Profile
wintermute - Father Coughlin is mentioned more often on these pages than over at World Jewish Congress headquarters, as an example of the quality of leadership that Christians have offered the Western World for the past two centuries.
rglencheek: Each group in Western society has various factions among their leadership. That some Jewish fanatics think it to their advantage to keep playing the Eternal Victim Card illustrates nothing more than that some people are foolishly recursive in their thinking, always trying to better themselves with the last thing that worked. White Americans are increasingly becoming inured to the victim Game, and are beginning to see how they are themselves being victimized in this centrifugal political process.
wintermute - Indeed, despite the fact that Old Mother Church now assures us that Jews are so special they dont even need Jesus to get into heaven, Walter vouches for their leadership in the coming struggle so vehemently and so often I expect he's getting kickbacks from Opus Dei.
rglencheek: The RCC says that all faiths have some element of Truth, and threfore some element of God's Love (with a few exceptions) What you describe is not unique to the Jews, and does nothing more than echo what St. Paul said centuries ago. And the RCC is solid on the struggle against this culture of death that permeates popular culture today, in fact, the church is the single institution that best recognizes the root of the difficulty, which is transnational and transethnical.
wintermute - As this whole line of inquiry has been effectively quashed here, I think you are quite right to take it to the next level - if no critical gaze can be levelled at the social pracitices surrounding Christianity, the next logical step is to shut up about the Holy People whose history Christians have replaced our own with. Having abandoned our ancestors, why not opt out of survival altogether? Deference before the Jew is the logical outcome, as always.
rglencheek: The Jews have removed Jesus Christ as the center of our faith? When did that happen? They still use His name in the mass, so what are you talking about? I still see the many histories of the saints and the Church Fathers - surely you do not confuse the ancestors of Christianity with something else?
And there is no question that we will not only survive, but actually triumph.
wintermute - No, I think we must follow you, rglen, into a brave future where the jew is not named, and we can continue to more vocally address affirmative action and immigration, while leaving the root cause unnamed and the delicate constitution of modern day Christians untrammeled - unlike that other constitution! Avoiding explicit rationales of, or actions in favor of, Europeans as Europeans must be our watchword. Christian first, Paleoconservatives second, and European - never!!
rglencheek: Do I not 'name Jews'? My point is threefold:
1 - The left is not controled by the Jews, as various historical reversals demonstrate, inculding current events where the left is critical of Zionism more than any other group, and many of these leftists of of Jewish ethnicity like Noam Chomsky.
2 - Jews are not a monolithic entity and many of them increasingly view themselves as of European extraction and a part of Western culture like David Horrowitz.
3 - If White Americans are going to successfully defend their interests, we must organize to do so in a successful maner. That requires that we become more willing to exploit political opportunity to divide our opposition and unite with allies. To ignore such for the sake of a pointless anti-semitic world view is counter-productive and a guarrantee of failure.
4 - Even if one of the anti-semitic theories going around were entirely true, it is not a tactically smart thing to discuss it with the general public. So why do it unless you ahve some desire to see white Americans remain perpetually defeated, disorganized and reduced to an inferior status?
5 - We should do exactly as you say I oppose, we should organize! How many times do I have to state it? Why do you equate opposition to anti-semitism as equating to a rejection of whites organizing? They are totally seperate issues; in fact anit-semitism is the parasite riding on the back of white unity that will always keep it in failure.
Exelsis Deo - The modern-day Jews are indeed the same as the Jews Jesus repudiated in the New Testament.
rglencheek: ED, this is simply not true. Jesus criticized the Pharisees, the lawyers and the scribes, not all Jews. If He did as you state, the He would have been condemning Himself and his disciples as well. You assertionis no more valid that it would be to claim that Iranians today are the same people as the ancient Persians who invaded Europe. They are seperated by time, ethnic change and religious change - ie they are not the same people but at most distant descendants.
Exelsis Deo - They continue to wait and hope for and work to bring forth their warlord-messiah, who will bring all the inhabitants and creatures of the world to their knees.
rglencheek: That is one view, yes. The Muslims also await the arrival of their Savior as do Christians. In your opinion the Jews await who you think will be the anti-Christ, but I dont think so. The precursors of the anti-Christ were all men who hated the Jews.
Exelsis Deo - This messiah will be the Anti-Christ, shown to light after the raising of the Third Temple in Jerusalem and the Abomination that Bringeth Desolation, which is the resumption of animal sacrifice in the land of ancient Israel.
rglencheek: Antiochus IV was the first Abomination of Desolation and the first precursor of the Anti-Christ, and he did not revive animal sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem, but sacrificed pigs there defiling it instead.
Exelsis Deo - Even more so than in Christ's time, modern Jews are even more self-centered, self-aggrandizing, obfuscators of truth, liars to suit their needs, and promulgators of all forms of earthly sin and separation from God.
rglencheek: I think the modern leadership of every nation and ethnic group have become proffessional liars and frauds. this is not a characteristic of only Jewish leaders. And as I have known many Jews personally that were honest people, I can simply make the same kind of gratuitous statement you do and deny your claim in so far as individual Jews are concerned.
Exelsis Deo - Historical facts tell us that the ancient Israelites or Hebrews are not represented by modern-day Jews.
rglencheek: Can you actually produce those 'facts', or are we to merely take your word for it?
Exelsis Deo - Although some of them may have bloodline from the tribes of Benjamin or Judah, perhaps a few Levites, their records were thoroughly destroyed in 70 A.D. and they cannot prove their racial lineage.
rglencheek: This is not true. Just as the Jews were able to maintain copies of the Torah, the OT and other works of literature of their culture, so they maintained their geneologies which provide the data for the structure of their ethnic group to a great degree.
Walter Yannis - I hold these truths to be self evident: that man is a product of evolution, that evolution designed man to require a religion,
rglencheek: You are personalizing 'evolution', which is erroneous and irrational as evolution is a process and not a personality. You use 'evolution as a substitute for the Creator who designed evolutionary processes and initiated them from the first instant of Creation itself.
Walter Yannis - that man's religion must include elements of the un-rational, offer hope of eternity for the individual and distinction for the group,
rglencheek: You are trying to subordinate God's purposes to mans, as did Isreal and Judaean nationailsts during the time of the prophets. Those men were doomed to failure because they treated genuine religion that was based on God's revalation as a merely convenient and useful contrivance. It is not God, God is real, He reigns and those who treat His Will as inconsequentiual are doomed to being destroyed as was Hitler who was opposed by the righteous Deitric Bonhoffer and Maximilian Khol among others.
Walter Yannis - that the ability of any religion to answer these basic individual and group needs is a key factor in that group's competitive advantage relative to others groups with their own religions, and
rglencheek: This is true, but it is not sufficient to value religion for this purpose. If it is not genuinely respected as objectively True then you are sewing the seeds of contempt and destruction of your culture, as opportunists and brutes are not sufficiently restrained by that which everyone regards as a myth or even a fiction.
Walter Yannis - finally that the objective truth or falsity of any religious tenet is not of primary and practical importance to the efficacy of the foregoing.
rglencheek: I disgaree, it is in fact crucial. This was the mistake made by Aaron and the Golden Calves. God direct Moses to destroy them and maed Isreal consume its ashes as punishment. God's purposes are his own and we will always do better if we align our goals, methods and purposes with his Will instead of trying to pervert His intentions to suit us.
Walter Yannis - I believe that Christianity is the best choice for whites, since it is (1) historically is our religion and thus enjoys established brand recognition
rglencheek: Christianity does not exclusively belong to Europeans no more than Islam is solely the posession of Arabs. Christianity is more genuinely embraced today by Third World Bishops than Western Bishops, and they will be our salvation, performing a reverse missionary movement that will again convert Europe to Christianity.
Walter Yannis - (2) is the foundation of a preponderant majority of our great art of all kinds,
rglencheek: Walter, isnt this a bit of a stretch? Art based on Christianity is no longer in vogue except to study as historical examples of sorts. Art today is hostile to Christianity.
Walter Yannis - (3) is the foundation of our very high ethical standards,
rglencheek: Well, at least it once was. This needs restoration.
Walter Yannis - (4) is one of the pillars of our legal system, including especially our respect for individual integrity and responsibility, and perhaps most importantly
rglencheek: True, but less so than before last week.
Walter Yannis - (5) was the only religion that actually succeeded in uniting Europeans, and depending on how you look at it for a significant time spanning centuries.
rglencheek: But the value of Christianity goes well beyond such utilitarian purposes.
Ragnar - "No stage of the building of Stonehenge is later than about 1200 B.C., and any connection with the Druids, who flourished a thousand years later, is purely conjectural" (Jacquetta Hawkes ed., Atlas of Ancient Archaeology. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1994. 33).
rglencheek: That an idea is conjectural is not the same as asserting that it is not true. I think the forebears of the Druids did in fact build them.
2003-07-05 04:34 | User Profile
*Originally posted by rglencheek@Jul 4 2003, 22:06 * ** I think the forebears of the Druids did in fact build them. **
rglencheek:
Of course you're welcome to think it, but the Druids were a Celtic religion, and the Celts did not arrive to the British Isles till after 800 BC. The last work done on Stonehenge was 400 years earlier.
The major activity at Stonehenge (1600-1350 BC) coincides with the massive out-shipping of Cornish tin to Europe and the Mediterranian. It was likely a large and ceremonial "star finder" with small counterparts on the ships that hauled the tin.
South African scholar James Bailey thought the builders were a transnational mining elite that probably included the major metal-users of the era. Minoan Crete, Mycenae and Egypt. Plenty of artifacts from all three nations have been found throughout the UK dating to this period.
2003-07-05 14:21 | User Profile
Ragnar, thanks for the information. I was aware that some believe Phonecian traders had been trading for tin, apparently, during the Bronze Age.
But I am not inclined to think that they ruled over Britain, but more likely controled a string of fortified coastal cities from which they traded for tin. I was also aware of the astronomical value of Stonehinge, but guessed that the Phonecians would derive little use of it, as I seem to recall reading somewhere that they had already learned to navigate by the stars, especially the North Star.
But I think there is a relationship between the druids and the makers of Stonehinge of some kind. Perhaps the Druids are sort of a Bronze age version of the Cargo cult, imitating the tin traders methods of astronomy in hopes that they might return and trade for tin once again, unaware of what might hinder them from returning? Perhaps the Druids derived much of their faith from these people, or are themselves the direct religious descendants of them?
It's more likely, IMO, that the natives of Britain played the largest role in the construction of these circles no matter who they may have traded with. The Picts were capable of making such and are recorded as doing so, and IIRC they followed the Druidic religion as well.
The Druids themselves predate the Celts, the Celts simply adopting it from prior occupants of Britain. I have read that the druids of Gaul and other continental areas gave deference to the druids of Britain, and regarded Britain as the source of their faith. So Druidism seems to have been intricately tied to the locale of Britain more than to any particular culture or tribe.
Could the origin of the Druids actually be tied to the British tribes that acquired an early sophistication in art, technology and religion by trading with the Phonecians? Seems very plausible to me, and if the religion of the makers of Stonehenge was what the Romans later came to know as 'Druidism' then it would be true in fact.
But, again, this is all conjecture.
2003-07-05 17:12 | User Profile
*Originally posted by rglencheek@Jul 4 2003, 22:06 * ** rglencheek: But the value of Christianity goes well beyond such utilitarian purposes. **
Thank you for your very astute comments.
I think that the quote above sums up our discussion quite well.
I agree that Christianity is much more than its practical value, but I'm not talking here to Christians, but rather to a Pagan of sorts. I'm attempting to move the debate with our beloved Pagan brother Wintermute from a lofty discussion of the truth or falsity of the unprovable tenets of our Catholic Faith down to a place where we find common ground in discussing the practical applications for our movement - questions that I think are more susceptible to logical proof.
I think that is a legitimate thing to do.
I agree with about everything else you've said. Naturally I don't believe in a reified Evolution, but again I'm trying to find common ground with the Pagans, who do believe in Nature and worship Creation instead of the Creator.
Also, I accept all Christians as my brothers in Christ, regardless of race or ethnicity, and indeed I accept the essential unity of the human race in the eyes of the Creator, but again I'm trying to focus on the practical questions we have in common with the Pagans among us - questions that are more properly the object of fruitful debate than are the intricacies of our Creed.
I think that we're very close, which is no surprise I guess since I take it that you're a Catholic? I'm just trying to meet the Pagans on common ground.
Walter
2003-07-05 17:22 | User Profile
Originally posted by Prodigal Son+Jul 3 2003, 17:28 -->
QUOTE* (Prodigal Son @ Jul 3 2003, 17:28 ) <!--QuoteBegin-rglencheek@Jul 2 2003, 22:11 * ** It is a simple historical fact that Christianity and much of its values system comes from Judaism, while the opposite is the case with Nietzschean hysteria and its contemptible hell-spawn. Christ drew from Jewish culture, values, tradition and history, hence the complete coherence of the term, and its use to distance Christendom from simplistic points of view that seek to maintain an irrational hatred of a small affluent minority. **
Have you ever actualy read the Bible? Christ completely repudiated the sanctimoniousness and hypocrisy of the Judaism of his day. In any case, whatever "Jewish traditions" Christ may have built on is irrelevant, because modern day Judaism is based on the Talmud, a series of books written several centuries after his death, not the Torah. **
I agree with POA - that is my understanding of the issue, too.
I would add that the Judaism of Christ's day was not a monolithic thing; the Gospels are filled with talk of rival factions vying for power. Off the top of my head I can think of the Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Levites (I think they were a family-based caste, could be wrong), John the Baptistis group, Pagan-influenced groups that we hear about in the Letters of John and elsewhere, and we also now know that there were other groups like the Qumran community. The main group were the Phaisees, or at least they were the establishment group, and this was the group that Jesus apparently was at war with.
The modern day Ashkenazi are very consciously the decendants of the Pharisees. After Rome sacked Jerusalem in AD 72 (?), Christianity split from Judaism, and Judaism became Pharisaism sans the Temple sacrifices. Thus, in effect two new relgions were born, and herein lies the confusion. The Judaism of Abraham is as different from the Talmudic religion as Christianity. So, rglencheek is correct, IMHO, that Christianity derived much from Judaism, so long as we understand that to mean the Judaism preceeding or contemporaneous with Jesus. After that, we're talking about different things. Jesus is the Anti-Phairsee, and the Pharisees are Anti-Christ (I use the term in this limited sense only).
Ne'er the twain shall meet.
Walter
Ragnar
2003-07-05 17:23 | User Profile
*Originally posted by rglencheek@Jul 5 2003, 14:21 * ** Perhaps the Druids are sort of a Bronze age version of the Cargo cult, imitating the tin traders methods of astronomy in hopes that they might return and trade for tin once again, unaware of what might hinder them from returning? Perhaps the Druids derived much of their faith from these people, or are themselves the direct religious descendants of them?
**
This is in line with what scholars believe happened at the end of the Bronze Age.
The various nations got together in large Sea Leagues, so there is no question that any outside nation dominated the British Isles. The Leagues were strictly economic entitiies and Bailey, for one, says they operated exactly the same as modern global corporations. The local Brits would have had immense power and there is even some Scottish and Irish mythology that has them marrying into Scythian and Egyptian royal houses!
The Sea Leagues collapsed between 1350 and 1200 BC, which would have left the Brits stranded since they were on the fringes of this trade partnership. No doubt it was a difficult period for them, much worse than the many-centuries-later pullout of Rome from the country. Even though that later situation was very similar to the Sea Leagues in most respects. An Oxford history reader once told me straight out that "Roman Britain" was mostly a trade agreement and calling it an occupation was wrong most of the time.
With the collapse of the Bronze Age other areas were stranded as well. If you've been following recent finds in Germany you've probably noticed similarities between their ancient culture and early culture at Stonehenge. The European copper miners were trade partners also and they fell so far we're only finding out about them now.
rglencheek
2003-07-06 04:26 | User Profile
Walter, I can understand you desire to reach out to the PAgans, but I simply didnot understand it as such. No offense intended, nor do I mean to question your faith.
As to the modern version of Judaism being primarily from the Pharisaical branch of Judaism, yes, I agree, and the gulf that opened between the faiths has been much greater than it is today, I think. While most Jews I have met still have some stereotypical anti-agrarian views and tend to look down on Christianity, well, so do a lot of Christians too. Remember Falwell saying that God does not hear the prayers of Jews? This type of condescension is common to elemtents on both sides. It is also true that Christianity seems to have inherited the liberal wing of Judaism of its day, the hilleil branch (may have mispelled, its been a while).
But, again, I really do think that Judaism is mellowing in the West, especially as so many Christians have stepped up in defense of Isreal here in America. I know that many Jews look at us as suckers for this, but that is not my concern, and I would be in favor of withholding funds from Isreal if their government was uncooperative, as I think Bush has done recently.
And, yes, I am a Catholic, a convert from a fundamentalist Protestant denomination called the Church of Christ, a church I still have a lot of sentimental love for, but I think they are in error on some things that seperate them from Rome.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
Ragnar, it seems we are more in agreement than it first might have appeared. This proto-Druidic group was who I was refering to when I wrote of the 'forebears of Druids'.
You have gotten me very interested in this subject, and I do plan to dig into it more, Thanks again!
Recluse
2003-07-09 12:29 | User Profile
Not a bad word, "Judeo", for describing areas where Jews have a lot of influence. How about "Judeo-Communism", or "Judeo-FReepers"?
Lewis Wetzel
2003-07-09 16:10 | User Profile
**After Rome sacked Jerusalem in AD 72 (?), Christianity split from Judaism, and Judaism became Pharisaism sans the Temple sacrifices. **
You have online sources for that? I'm not doubting you - it's just interesting and I want to read more about it.