← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Gabrielle

Thread 8064

Thread ID: 8064 | Posts: 143 | Started: 2003-07-12

Gabrielle [OP]

2003-07-12 04:33 | User Profile

[url=http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/showEssay.asp?essayID=1473]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/sho...sp?essayID=1473[/url]

Kurt

2003-07-12 06:49 | User Profile

Socrates: So, according to [url=http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/identity.html]the Christian Identity movement[/url], Whites are actually [u]Jews?[/u] (starts laughing hysterically) :lol: Oh my dear girl, that is more amusing than all the comedies of Aristophanes! :lol: Oh, I'm sorry, but I cannot cease laughing! Oh Zeus, my sides! :lol: To think, the greatest Race in history is descended from a filthy little desert tribe of thieves and swindlers! :lol: Oh, this is too much! I do not know how much more of this hilarity I can stand! Where is that hemlock when you need it? (finally stops laughing) Now, I know I'm just a dead, Greek philosopher, but it seems to me that your so-called "Real" Christianity is no better than that Judeo-Christianity you hate so much: both seem to worship the Jews in one way or another. I don't consider myself a very religious person, but if I were, I'd prefer a more, shall I say, Euro-centric religion, not one that is centered around some ancient, Middle-Eastern, Semitic tribe.

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter

2003-07-12 06:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE]I don't consider myself a very religious person, but if I were, I'd prefer a more, shall I say, Euro-centric religion, not one that is centered around some ancient, Middle-Eastern, Semitic tribe.

Yes. Why do people continue to believe ancient jewish myths, written in a book supposedly by Moses. You might as well believe that Homer's Illyad and Oddessy are religious documents and Zeus and Athena are real! Or pick up the egyptian book of the dead, and believe in R? and Osiris. Let me go open my ?????? (talmud) - and lets turn to the chapter on world domination.

:lol:

:sm:

Okiereddust

2003-07-12 07:03 | User Profile

In spite of the skeptics, I liked that Gabrielle. Let me post the text for clarity.

Gabrielle: Hello, I understand you have some questions about Christianity, and I would be glad to answer anything that I can.

Socrates: Thanks, Gabrielle, as a matter of fact I do have a few questions for you.

Gabrielle: Well, ask away.

Socrates: If your God of the Christian Bible is good, and all-powerful, then why does he allow evil to come upon good people? Why doesn't he stop it?

Gabrielle: That is a very good question, and one that not only confuses the non-believer, but also many Christians who listen to their anti-Christ preachers. First of all, Jesus (God) gave us a free spirit and, thusly, we are responsible for our own acts - we can do good, or we can do evil, but it is our choice, and ours alone -- God gave us His laws for our own good, and we have the freedom to obey them or not. He told us there would be consequences for our disobedience. Let me give you an example of a consequence that we suffer today, and the cause of it. He told us to put murderers, rapists, and kidnappers to death. Today, in our Western nations, we hardly ever put them to death; instead we lock them up for awhile, and then set them loose on society, to commit more crimes -- and they do. Is that God's fault? No -- He told us what to do with those criminals, and it is up to us to obey or not; whatever we choose, we WILL feel the effects of our obedience or disobedience - a safe, crime-free society, or life as it is now... How can He be blamed? Let's face it, if your father told you not to play with fire, and you disobeyed and got burnt, would you blame your father? More importantly, is it your father's fault? Of course not - no more so than it's our heavenly Father's fault, when we deliberately disobey His Laws, which were given ONLY for our own good.

Socrates: Well, I must admit, what you say makes sense - but if your Christian God knows the beginning to the end, why did He not just program us, or create us, or whatever you'd call it, to obey in the first place? After all, wouldn't that have made it a lot easier?

Gabrielle: We are Christian soldiers, and all soldiers must go through boot camp to see if they will perform their duty; also, it must be determined who is worthy of promotion and who is not. Personally, I believe God is refining us as a silversmith does with precious metals - He is removing the impurities so that we will be worthy to reign on earth with Him. Also, the reason he didn't just 'program' us to do right is because we are not robots - we are intelligent beings, made in His image, with the ABILITY to do right; by the same token, however, we have the ability to do wrong...so, before we go any further, we have to prove ourselves... On another note, did you realize that the Kingdom of God is right here on earth, not off in heaven somewhere, as judeo-Christians think?

Socrates: Yes, the Bible states it very plainly: the meek shall inherit the earth. Did you know that 'meek' means not haughty or overly prideful, and it has nothing to do with being weak or cowardly?

Gabrielle: Yes, I do - and you have to be one of the few people I've ever spoken with that knew that. But I guess you would know the true meaning of words, considering the time of your birth and life, and that you are the great Socrates'

Socrates: Gabrielle, please do not flatter me, as flattery clouds one's judgment.

Gabrielle: Sorry about that.

Socrates: I believe you have answered all questions pertaining to God and evildoers. But, please explain this business about Judeo-Christians and Christians. What is the difference?

Gabrielle: Okay, we'll look at Christians first - real Christians; we Christians know that the white race is the twelve tribes of Israel, and that the German people basically make up the tribe of Judah (the BIBLICAL Jews - not the talmudic people who call themselves Jews today). We know God's laws have not been done away with, and we know we should obey them. We also know that the so-called Jews of today are a Turkish-Mongolian people, who adopted Talmudic Judaism centuries ago; these people hate God and His laws; they work daily to destroy the white race (Israel), and they are the usurers of the world. Now judeo-Christians, on the other hand, believe and teach that these imposters are really God's chosen people, and that the white race is a Johnny-come-lately. They also teach that God's laws were done away with, and we no longer have to obey them. Judeo- Christians are also under the strange delusion that they will be floating off to heaven someday...

Socrates: Understood. Now, tell me more about the Talmudic 'Jews.'

Gabrielle: As you know, they claim to be the Israelites of the Bible, and yet, at the same time, they go haywire if you even mention Jesus or anything about obeying His Laws. I mean they really, really hate Him with a passion' I have had a few conversations with some of them about Jesus and the Bible, and you should see the look in their eyes when you just say His name; weird...

Socrates: Why would they hate your Christian God so much?

Gabrielle: Because His Laws forbid the taking of usury, and they could not exist without it, as they are parasites, and incapable of anything else. They suck the blood out of every nation they live in. They are destroyers by nature; not builders like the white race.

Also, they are also sexual perverts, and God's Laws forbid sodomy, race mixing and whoredom. I am afraid they control much of our nation today.

Socrates: Is that why, in America, children can no longer can pray in school, and the Ten Commandments are not allowed, manger scenes are being forbidden at Christmas, etc.?

Gabrielle: You catch on quickly.

Socrates: What did I say about flattery?

Gabrielle: That wasn't flattery - that was an observation...

Socrates: Oh, ok then...well, I have another question; now, I'm kind of embarrassed to ask this one, you being a female and all...

Gabrielle: Don't be; I said I would answer your questions - if I can, anyway.

Socrates: I shall put this as delicately as possible: I was told that C.I. teaches that Eve mated with a devil, or some form of serpent, and that is how we got these 'spawns of the devil,' known as modern day 'Jews.'

Gabrielle: Those folks who believe that 'Jewish' myth are seedliners; it is a lie straight out of the Jewish Cabala (a book of mysticism and spirits, by which a great deal of today's horror movies are inspired...). No, Eve did not mate with a devil or anything else; 'Adam knew his wife Eve, and she conceived Cain.'

Socrates: Why, then, do these white people who supposedly hate the 'Jews' of today, adhere to this doctrine?

Gabrielle: Most of the seedliners are nice, sincere people - all it takes is one bad apple, to taint the thoughts of all the others...

Socrates: I see...well, I seem to be out of questions...hmm...well, then, I guess this Christian Identity is not some kind of wacky way to resurrect an ancient Talmudic myth?

Gabrielle: Absolutely not - true Christianity existed LONG before the Talmud, or Talmudic 'Jews.'

Socrates: That is very interesting - very logical, in fact...chuckles Next time I debate a Christian, I think I'll make sure it's a Judeo-Christian.'

Gabrielle: Laughs Well, then you won't really be debating a Christian, but someone who follows a twisted, Talmudic perversion of Christianity, where modern day 'Jews' are more important than Truth, God's Word, or God Himself...

Socrates: As I really have no more questions, I guess I'll admit that you've answered every one of my inquiries more than satisfactorily...indeed, I thought this would be an easy debate, but I confess I did not expect such facts - or, for that matter, such a skilled opponent.'

Gabrielle: Now, Socrates, remember what you said about flattery...

Socrates: Laughs All right...well, it's been nice talking with you - until the next time.'

Okiereddust

2003-07-12 07:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE] I don't consider myself a very religious person, but if I were, I'd prefer a more, shall I say, Euro-centric religion, not one that is centered around some ancient, Middle-Eastern, Semitic tribe.

:lol:

:sm:

As Kurt notes, its not just the nature of the antiquitarian myth that most racialists would reject, but the type.

Nordicist/racialist ideology is chuck full of myths that make Bible believers look like skeptical scientists. Not just from the precepts of an "Aryan" race, or of "Odinism" or whatever. In fact, there is really far more documentation for the existance and veracity of the Bible than there is even for the mainstream works of antiquity that believers in European/Germanic identity base their beliefs on, such as the works of Josephus.

Uncritically throw out the works of antiquity and equate it all to the legends Greece, and you throw out the basis of any conservativism or nationalism. my friend, if you think about it. You have become nothing but a cynic and nihlist.. as prone to shifts in judgement and beliefs as any teenybopper follower of the latest Hollywood fads.

Okiereddust

2003-07-12 08:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Socrates: So, according to [url=http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/identity.html]the Christian Identity movement[/url], Whites are actually [u]Jews?[/u] (starts laughing hysterically) :lol: Oh my dear girl, that is more amusing than all the comedies of Aristophanes! :lol: Oh, I'm sorry, but I cannot cease laughing! Oh Zeus, my sides! :lol: To think, the greatest Race in history is descended from a filthy little desert tribe of thieves and swindlers! :lol: Oh, this is too much! I do not know how much more of this hilarity I can stand! Where is that hemlock when you need it? (finally stops laughing) Now, I know I'm just a dead, Greek philosopher, but it seems to me that your so-called "Real" Christianity is no better than that Judeo-Christianity you hate so much: both seem to worship the Jews in one way or another. I don't consider myself a very religious person, but if I were, I'd prefer a more, shall I say, Euro-centric religion, not one that is centered around some ancient, Middle-Eastern, Semitic tribe.

To begin with, NS atheists and anti-Christians tend to fall into the leftist and jewish trap of disassociating themselves from all things modern leftist and Jewish intellectuals have managed to associate with themselves. National Socialists of the 30's thought they'd counter the Jewish emphasis with revolutionary anti-monarchial and liberal movements in the name of human justice by attacking the very idea of freedom and humanitariaism. Quite literally, some of these people were of the mentality if that if they got the notion that something was associated with judaism, they would feel the needto go the opposite. For instance if they read that bathing in cleanliness were influenced even in the tiniest degree by Jewish/biblical notions of ritual cleaning/purification, they would feel compelled to go around and wallow in sh*t. :dung: :dung:

Modern day racialists have quietly dropped some of these old NS dogmas against against certain traditional western ideas, like that of freedom, democracy and indivual rights. In so doing, they have added other though, like that of proscriptions against Christianity because of its supposed "Jewish" origins. In so doing they are just demonstrating their own baseness and ignorance in regard to religion and the Christian roots of the West, produced by the Jewish dominated educational system. In so doing, they just unwittingly show how kosher their religious thinking is, and how much of the Jewish originated baseness and arrogance toward our western society they have absorbed.

Christian Identity does not teach that the greatest race in history are the product of Tamudic "thieves and swindlers". Au contraire it says that our nation and people is part of God's handiwork, and owes our existance to him alone.

When that little transcendent thought has permeated your tribal/kabalastic type mentality, then you may perhaps at least to respect things revered by Christians, such as the special relationship with the promises of the Old Testament, which of course you and other modern NA type WN's, as a product of our heathen/kabbalistic schools educated in the values of contemporary Hollywood/media fads and cliches, cannot really hope to understand. If it seems strange to you, it is simply because it is a mystery known only to believers. :hyp:

whitehomeland

2003-07-12 21:06 | User Profile

The most important event in the history of the Nordic people was the conversion of the Pagan Roman Empire by Christianity because it destroyed the positive concept that Nordic people created for themselves and replaced it with the negative concept that the Jews have created for everyone outside of their society. The result has been a gradual 2000 year decline for the white race. The reason for the decline of the white race is that white people do not have any concept of being exceptional. Since white people have no concept that they have built a unique community with a unique set of political interests, they do not do the things neccessary to preserve their unique society. It is easy for white nationalists to say the Jews control the media and they have conspired to allow for 3rd world immigration into America. However I think that as white nationalists we need to recognize that non racially conscious whites want race mixing and immigration because they do not understand the importance of maintaining the unique civilization that white people have created. They are just as likely to call us "anti Semite" and "racist" as blacks or jews. I think that if white nationalist are going to be successful at converting non racially conscious whites into becoming racially conscious and building a white homeland in America that we need to understand the nature of the false ideology that most white people have succumbed to.

We tend to think of Christianity as being synomous with the white race. Some people have written that white accomplishments would be nothing with Christianity. I am writting this essay because I want to dispel that notion. I want to discuss a period in White history were white people lived under ideologies that were of their own creation. They organized societies in such a way that was in accordance with our Aryan natures. I also want to describe the process for how it was destroyed so that we can have a better understanding of the problem that we are in and how to get our way out of it.

The original white societies were the Pagan societies of antiquity (Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Sumeria, The Celts, the Germanic Tribes, etc) These white societies created a positive concept of the differences that exist between themselves and other people. They were conscious of themselves being a part of a unique community, with a unique set of political interests. Since they recognized that they were different, the Pagans did the things necessary to preserve the unique society that they had created. The elite of these societies ruled to preserve the best interests of the society and not thorough their own selfish need for pleasure. The common people's self worth was so closely identified with the continued health of their society that they were willing to sacrifice their lives for the good of their nation. The pagans believed that it was very important for the next generation to be taught the history and culture of the society and they took the necessary steps to ensure that there way of life was passed to the next generation. (Read Machiavelli's "The Discourses" for countless examples of Pagan civic mindedness.) They considered their myths to be the vechicle for them to pass down the meaning of their society. It was through their myths that the different Aryans society's taught the importance of preserving their society unique existance.

Paul of Tarsus was a racially conscious Jew that tricked the Pagan society's in antiquity from the positive concept that they created for themselves within their own culture into believing in the negative concept that they Jews have created for them. After Jesus died all of his apostles tried to convert other Jews into believing that Jesus was the messiah. However Paul (at this time he called himself Saul) persecuted these original Jewish Christians because did not want his countrymen believing in Jesus teachings about love everyone and pray for those that persecute you. Instead he wanted to convert the pagans to Jesus's teachings so that he could corrupt their society. He traveled around the Mediterranean visiting different pagan society's and told the Pagans that Jesus teachings "pray for those that persecute you", "blessed be the peacemakers", and "love your enemy" meant that Christianity was about hating the strong and the powerful. Paul told them that if they converted to Christianity then they would get revenge on the Romans for conquering their country and making them pay tribute to Rome. Maybe they would not get revenge in this life but certainly in the next. The Romans were resent by the other pagan society's just like America is resented by a lot of nations today because we are the only super power.

The Jews believe that the are "gods chosen" and everyone else is corrupt because man has a fallen nature ever since he was kicked out of the Garden of eden. The Jews want to impose their negative concept that they have created for everyone outside of their society because they are hostile to the nationalism of any other group. The Jews recognize that the Will to power exists through people acting collectively to further their society's interests. They want to be the only society that possess the will to power. The Jews want to be the only society with a concept that they are exceptional. This is why Jews want everyone else to be "racially color blind" and always promote equality whenever they live amongst other people. ( Maxism, liberalism, animal rights, feminism are all secular versions of Christianity) They all preach equality in some form and No Aryan should believe in any of it.

By marketing Christianity as an ideology that preaches hatred towards the strong, Paul of Tarsus was able to convert the Pagans from believing in their Pagans indenties into believing in the negative concept that the Jews have created for everyone outside of their society. Eventually Rome got converted into believing in Christianity and there empire collapsed. They no longer had a positive concept of being Roman. Instead the were now told that all of their desires and motives were evil and had to be repressed. The elite stopped being proud of their status and started to feel guilty. They become decadent and lazy.

Christianity preaches the idea that god loves everyone because we are all created in gods image. Jesus says this on the Sermon on the Mount Speech. Since the Romans no longer had a positive concept of the differences that existed between themselves and other people. The common people stopped caring about the unique society that they had created because they were told that everyone is really the same. What different does it make if you are a Roman or a barbarian if god loves everyone. The result was the eventual collapse of the Roman Empire and a thousand year dark ages.

Christiantiy is a very racially unhealthy way to live because it destroyes the Nordic people concept that they are unique and that they have to preserve that uniqueness. Christiantiy replaces the Nordic idea of being unique with the negative concept that the Jews have created for people outside of their society. The best minds in Europe during this time wasted their lives shut up in some monastery philosophizing about spooks in the sky. They did not lead the common people or take part in politics because they thought that being good meant being too good for this world. They did not even marry because Christian reinterpret ates all of their desires as being evil and impure.

Christianity has been such a powerful force over the last 2000 years in destroying any concept of exceptionalism within Aryan people that there are some White Nationalist that actually want to pretend that they are the original Jews. These people notice how the Jews act collectively to further their own society's advantage at the expense of white Americans. They know that there is a double standard in America because can act collectively to further their own society's advantage at the expense of white people but a white person is called "racist" for wanting to defend himself. However, these people have had their identity so thoroughly taken away from them that they do not know their true Aryan natures. They want to pretend that the Jewish tradition belongs to them.

These People call their religion "Christian Identity" and they claim that Aryans originated in the middle east. These deluded fools believe that the "Israelites" in the old testament Abraham, Moses, David, etc are actually Aryans (just like Hitler, Goring, Himmler, Dr. William Pierce). They believe that Aryans (Israelites) were held captive by Assyria in 721 B.C. When the Aryans escaped captivity, 10 of the twelve tribes decided not to go back to their homeland but instead they went their separate ways. These "lost tribes" then moved into Europe. They claim that the Israelites in the Old Testament were Aryans and not the Jews of today. The people that believe in Christian Identity claim that Jesus was the first Aryan fighter against the Jews and that he wanted to bring the "lost tribes" back to God. How ridiculous this claim is cannot be understated (later in the essay I give some examples by way of analogy). However I feel it necessary to formally document the facts that Nordic people originated in Northern Europe and gradually moved throughout Europe. They eventually moved into Egypt and the middle east and then Asia. Whoever claims that we originated in the Middle East is so envious of the Jews for their purity that he wishes he was a Jew.

CRO-MAGNON - THE FIRST MODERN WHITE RACIAL TYPE

The well preserved skull of a complete example of Cro-Magnon man, discovered in the Cheddar Gorge in England. The skeleton was originally dated at between 40,000 and 30,000 years old, but recent research indicates that it may only be 9,000 years old. Above right: A flesh reconstruction bust of Cro-Magnon man, made by the famous anthropologist, Maurice Putnam Coon. It is from the emergence of Cro-Magnon man that recorded White history begins.

The first modern White racial type only emerged between approximately 40,000 BC and 15,000 BC in differing parts of Europe and the Near East. This time period is known as the Late Paleolithic period, also known generically as the Stone Age. This first racial type is known as Cro-Magnon man - after a site in the Dordogne region of France where the first skeletal remains were found.

Cro-Magnon man is the first biped life form with whom modern Whites can clearly claim a direct genetic affinity. White racial history therefore begins around the year 35,000 BC - and so it is with the Late Paleolithic period that the story in this book really begins.

This shift from hunter-gatherer to settled agriculturalism occurred in fits and starts all over White occupied Europe. The earliest farming sites in northern Europe are to be found in Ireland. As a general rule, the first Neolithic settlements can be said to have been established around 10,000 BC, and the cultivation of edible plants and the domestication of animals was commonplace all over Europe by 5000 BC.

White people started farming in Ireland in 10,000 B.C. They were indigenous to the area. They did not migrate from Ireland from the Middle east. Here is some more evidence that whites were in Europe before your 10 lost tribes ever got a chance to migrate

EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST - EQUALLY ADVANCED

The existence of an original civilization on the continent of Europe which predates the civilizations in the Middle East, has to a large degree been ignored by traditional history writers, particularly those who wrote during the dominant Christian era in Europe.

This was largely because of a biblical Judeo-Christian bias which held that all civilization started in the Near East (the biblical Old Testament deals exclusively with events in the Middle East, and conventional wisdom during the Age of the Church held that the Garden of Eden was in the Middle East).

This is not an accurate reflection of the facts, as in many parts of Europe relatively advanced societies were in existence either before or simultaneously with the Mesopotamian or Egyptian civilizations.

EUROPE - ORGANIZED FARMING AND COPPER

Cereal grain farms were established in central Europe by 8000 BC (almost simultaneous with the Mesopotamian "Fertile Crescent" River Valley crop cultivation) with some of the best preserved farming settlements in France and Britain have been positively dated as being in existence prior to 4000 BC.

Significantly, copper working had been established in the Balkans by the year 5000 BC - some 2000 years before the first civilization in the Mesopotamian River Valley.

In Neolithic Europe, where wood was abundant, rectangular timber houses were constructed. Some had two rooms and even gabled roofs. Remains found in Switzerland dating from around 5000 BC show that even on soft, swampy ground, the builders were able to erect houses by first laying down wooden foundations or on piles going deep into the ground.

By the year 5000 BC, White Neolithic settlements had taken on the form of established villages, towns and in a few cases, even cities, scattered throughout Europe, western and southern Russia.

These early Neolithic farmers cultivated cereals, and kept domesticated animals such as pigs, cattle and dogs. Farms were established across the European continent, with some of the best preserved sites being found in Ireland.

Their tools and hunting weapons were mostly made of flint, and their houses of timber. Clothes were made of leather, and there is also evidence of weaving. Other small implements were made of antler and bone, and they have left many examples of fairly sophisticated pottery.

The fact that their was farming in Europe as far back as 10,000 years ago and small towns built as far back as 5000 B.C, proves that Nordic people came from Europe. We did not come from the Middle east and then in 721 B.C. move into Europe because there were already Nordic people living in Europe thousands of years.

These architectural achievements were created far before the "Israelites" escaped captivity in Assyria. They were created far before there was any civilization in Mesopotamia.

MEGALITHS - FORMIDABLE ACHIEVEMENTS

In many parts of Europe, the longest lasting remnants of this era are the megaliths ("large stones") which may have had some religious or recreational purpose. Massive blocks of stone, and sometimes wood, were moved great distances and erected in chosen areas throughout Europe, from Britain right across the continent, some even as far as the Black Sea - in Southern Russia - a stupendous achievement.

The most famous of these megalith sites is Stonehenge in Wiltshire, England, which was built in stages, the first part being erected between 3500 BC and 3000 BC. The stones used at Stonehenge were cut on site and used an ingenious ball and joint system to lock into place. The ball can still be clearly seen on the top of the upright stone. The White people who built Megalith monuments such as these were no intellectual or technical barbarians, proving wrong the often malicious propaganda portraying the inhabitants of early Europe as savage barbarians who lived in caves.

Building Megaliths was no easy task. The effort required to pull one of the massive stones erect was in itself a marathon effort, and then raising the equally huge lintels onto the top of other stones required a great deal of planning and foresight. Exactly how the early Whites did it is still a puzzle to archeology. These illustrations of how the stones were raised and of how a lintel was placed are the most commonly accepted theories of how these superhuman feats were achieved thousands of years ago.

To put this in perspective: the first stage of Stonehenge was built about 1000 years before the great Egyptian pyramids were built. (The last part of Stonehenge was built around the year 1000 BC - hundreds of years before even the Greek and Roman civilizations.) Neolithic farmers in Europe created a number of other impressive structures predating even Stonehenge.

One of the earliest is situated quite close to Stonehenge, called (confusingly) Robin Hood's Ball, which consists of what appear to be circular foundations for either a large hall or number of buildings and a grave site (judging by the human remains found in surrounding ditches). This structure dates from the very early Neolithic time, around 4000 BC, and indicates the establishment of set social structures at this early stage of European history.

Often overlooked as historical evidence for the technological ability of the Neolithic settlements are the burial chambers and tombs which are scattered over large parts of Europe: some of the oldest megalithic chamber tombs had been radio carbon dated at 6000 BC - some 3,500 years older than the famous Egyptian pyramids.

I am sure that we were all taught in Western Civilazation classes in high school that the first human civilazations were formed in Mesoptamia in 3000 B.C. This belief is based on a Judeo-Christian bais. With accurate dating methods and intensified archaeological research, it has now been shown that advanced civilizations flourished in Europe, sometimes thousands of years before similar technological advances were made in the Middle East. This proves that we started in Europe. Anyone who claim that that Aryans actually started in the Middle East is deluded. The Aryans that built these structures, invented Iron, and created their own society's were far more advanced than the Semetic society's in Mesopotamia.

One of the oldest pyramids in the world is to be found near the present day town of Marlborough, in Wiltshire, Britain. Called Silbury Hill, it is the largest prehistoric mound anywhere in Europe, standing nearly 40 meters high. It dates from around 2660 BC, preceding the great pyramids of Egypt. Although today covered with soil, excavations have revealed a carefully constructed step pyramid under the silt (as shown in the illustration below). The exact purpose of the pyramid is unknown, but it forms part of the great Avebury stone ring complex, which includes a stone circle larger than Stonehenge and a series of barrow tombs. The enormity of the building stands as a monument to the intellectual abilities of the Whites of early Britain. These were no uncivilized barbarians who erected these technically sophisticated structures.

I would like the people that believe in Christian identity to show me some evidence that Aryans originated in the Middle East and that you have anything in common with Israelites in the Old Testament. It is so obvious that you people have nothing in common with the Israelites in the Old Testament that you people are a joke to the rest of the world. If Anglo-Saxons really descended from Israel how come when the Christians finally conquered the Pagan Anglo Saxons there was nothing about their culture that resembles the culture of the people in the old testament. The pagan Anglo-Saxons were polytheistic and did not celebrate any holidays that are even remotely similar to the events in the old testament. Another example that you people have nothing in common with the "Israelites" in the old Testament, middle English and old English are not languages even remotely similar Hebrew. Usually when people move apart their languages will begin to change but their are still some similarities. French, Spanish, Italian are all "romance languages". They are very similar to each other. English are German have certain common characteristic because of their people lived closely to each other. All of these languages come from Latin. Not from any language that was spoken during the old testament.

You people claim that the bible has been corrupted by Jews. When did this happen? As I already mentioned, Paul of Tarsus was a Jew. He spread the religion to the Pagans after Jesus died and many of the letters in the new testament were written by him. In his letter to the Colassians Paul says "regardless whether one is a greek or jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, bond or free, Christ loves all". This means that Christ is not just your savior but everyone's savior. He loves everyone not just Israelites. Jesus loves white nationalists just as much as he loves crack smoking welfare mothers. Does this sound like an ideology that we should believe in?

People that believe in Christian Identity claim that Paul of Tarsus was a Benjamite and not a member of the tribe of Judah. (sorry for the misspelling). Your distinction may be right but that does not change the fact that their were aryans living in northern Europe far before any Semetic civilizations in the Middle East. These Aryans living in Northern Europe were far more advanced than the civilizations living in Middle east. These Aryans migrated eastward. Eventaully they became the the Greeks, Romans, Celts, Germanic tribes. If any Aryans moved into Eygpt and Mesopotamia they intermarried with the non aryans or were conqured by the non aryans.

The Christian Idenity believers are pathetic. They are brainwashed into believing in a Jewish ideology. These people are only slightely better than Christian fundamentalists because the Christian Identity at least notice how the Jews act collectively to further their society's advantage at the expense of others. Whereas the Christian fundamentalists want to be slaves of the Jews. However since Christian identity followers lack any originality, they cannot liberate themselves from their Jewish ideology. Christian Identity followers cannot discard the negative ideas that the Jews have created for them through Christianity and create their own identity. Therefore they need to make themselves believe that they are the real Jews and that their hertitage has been stolen from them.

How stupid is Christian Identity? Here is an anology?

White nationalists are angry that blacks get affirmative action programs and make excuses for their own failings by blaming slavery. Imagine if instead refuting the claims made by blacks and asserting a white nationalist interpretation for the failures of blacks to do well in America, a group of White nationalists decided to claim that the real slaves brought to America were WHite People. Imagine if they made up some sham interpretation of history and claimed that slave ships went from Africa to Europe picking up white people and then took them to America to pick cotton. Imagine if White nationals went around telling everyone that Harriet Tubman and Fredrick Douglas were really white. After the civil war it was blacks that passed laws to discriminate against whites living in the south. It was only in the 1960's that white people finally got equal rights in America. Martin Lugher King Jr. were really white, But the Blacks have conspired to rewrite the History books to make everyone think that they were the slaves and that they have been discriminated against. Imagine if a group of white nationalists went around telling everyone that blacks have actually stolen the affirmative action programs and reperations for slavery that were meant for white people. Christian Identity is just as stupid.

We all know that the Jews use the myth of the holocaust as an excuse to get sympathy for themselves from non racially conscious white people. They use it as an excuse to get aid for Isreal and deflect criticizm from their treatment of the Palestinians. Imagine if instead of refuting the claims made by Jews about the holocaust, a group of white nationalists claimed that it was really 6 million Aryans that were locked up in concentration camps by the Jews and exterminated. Imagine if they went around telling everyone that the holocost is a unique experience suffered by the Aryan people and they want to have a holocost museum built in Idaho to commemerate the horrible experience of their people. Christian Identity is just as stupid because rather than create their own identity these white nationalist just want to claim that they are the original Jews.

White nationalism should be an ideology dedicated to appling the Pagan world view to the reality of 21th Century white America. I am not advocating that we should build sacrificial alters in our backyards to Wotan, but I do think that we should worship our race just as the pagans did. The philosophy Creativity has a lot of ideas that are compatible with the Pagan ideology and I am glad that the National Alliance does not waste its time with Christianity.

Texas Dissident

2003-07-12 22:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE]White nationalism should be an ideology dedicated to appling the Pagan world view to the reality of 21th Century white America. I am not advocating that we should build sacrificial alters in our backyards to Wotan, but I do think that we should worship our race just as the pagans did. The philosophy Creativity has a lot of ideas that are compatible with the Pagan ideology and I am glad that the National Alliance does not waste its time with Christianity.

Reason number one why not to be a white nationalist. My faith will always ultimately trump my race and nothing will ever change that.

I am glad that the National Alliance does not waste its time with Christianity.

I think I will have to do likewise and quit wasting my time with NA types. It is a hopeless effort.

Fair warning to all.

whitehomeland

2003-07-12 23:44 | User Profile

You are the reason why the white race is dying. You have no racial consciousness. White people are being displaced by immigration, low birth rate, and cultural pessimism. Our government is also being manipulated by the Israeli lobby.

IF you care more about your Jewish controlled faith then you care about your race, then that means that you want to be an African Christian rather than an Aryan Pagan. Good Luck

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter

2003-07-13 00:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Nordicist/racialist ideology is chuck full of myths that make Bible believers look like skeptical scientists. Not just from the precepts of an "Aryan" race, or of "Odinism" or whatever. In fact, there is really far more documentation for the existance and veracity of the Bible than there is even for the mainstream works of antiquity that believers in European/Germanic identity base their beliefs on, such as the works of Josephus.

I am not a nordicist. What's a racialist, nihlst? All I was saying is that it is a book a mythology, like all other religions.

Okiereddust

2003-07-13 00:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE]I am not a nordicist. What's a racialist, nihlist? So you aren't a white nationalist?> ** All I was saying is that it is a book a mythology, like all other religions.**

A lot of NS's say their race is their religion. Does that mean race is a myth?

Okiereddust

2003-07-13 00:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE]1. You are the reason why the white race is dying. You have no racial consciousness. White people are being displaced by immigration, low birth rate, and cultural pessimism. Our government is also being manipulated by the Israeli lobby.

IF you care more about your Jewish controlled faith then you care about your race, then that means that you want to be an African Christian rather than an Aryan Pagan. Good Luck

You know, secular Europe isn't exactly turning into a white-nationalist hotbead. It is only because of our country's Christian compassion that you atheist whiners and hyenas have a forum here and other places, instead of sitting in a jail like you would be over there.

Did you ever consider that western man's decline is divine judgement for their apostacy?

Go to your stupid Odinist totem pole or whatever and think it over.

madrussian

2003-07-13 00:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE]My faith will always ultimately trump my race and nothing will ever change that.

When I browsed some Russian Orthodox web site, I found a statement where they said that it used to be that "Orthodox" and "Russian" were synonymous.

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter

2003-07-13 02:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE]So you aren't a white nationalist? A lot of NS's say their race is their religion. Does that mean race is a myth?

I didn't know there was a 'white' nation. :huh: I don't think anyone knows what 'white' is anyway.

Any NS that says race is their religion, probably don't know what the definition of religion is.

Okiereddust

2003-07-13 03:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE]I didn't know there was a 'white' nation. :huh: I don't think anyone knows what 'white' is anyway.

What do you know? Or at least, know that you think?

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter

2003-07-13 03:51 | User Profile

What about? I have posted my opinion, on many topics. Do you read posts? Perhaps you want me to annouce my beliefs as I was in summer camp?

I hate when people use the word 'white'. Who do you include in it? Only Indo-europeans? No, because that includes darkskinned Hindi. Europeans? Well, that would depend what is a 'european'... someone born in europe? someone with ancestors from europe? Or how about just white people have white skin - then are jews white? It is so hard to define. Simply put. I prefer definable borders. Scientific catagories.

Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid... etc.

Okiereddust

2003-07-13 04:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE]What about? I have posted my opinion, on many topics. Do you read posts? Perhaps you want me to annouce my beliefs as I was in summer camp? You've been here about as long as at summer camp. So sorry I haven't taken it upon myself to interrogate you immediately as you seem to be accustomed. Were these summer "camps" you seem accustomed to more like reeducation camps run by the KGB?

I hate when people use the word 'white'. Who do you include in it?

I'm not the big one here using it here, although occasionally I use it reflecting the commonality of its usage here. In fact I was just criticized on this thread for lack of "white consciousness". Maybe you in turn haven't been reading my posts closely enough. But its not a big thing with me. Why don't you ask all those here who call themselves "white nationalists"? There are certainly plenty on this forum.

For now you might suffice as an example how one can be mistaken in assuming everyone in this world who bashes Christianity is a good "racialist", that at least seems sure.

Okiereddust

2003-07-13 04:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE]What about? I have posted my opinion, on many topics. Do you read posts? Perhaps you want me to annouce my beliefs as I was in summer camp?

I hate when people use the word 'white'. Who do you include in it?

I did notice you call yourself a "national socialist". I normally for commonality in communication with NS's would use the word as they use it. Your usage of the term is cerytainly different than most NS's. Do they all agree you are a good NS?

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter

2003-07-13 05:10 | User Profile

You've been here about as long as at summer camp. So sorry I haven't taken it upon myself to interrogate you immediately as you seem to be accustomed. Were these summer "camps" you seem accustomed to more like reeducation camps run by the KGB?

I can't say they were... but perhaps my memory was tampered with. <_< ;) Nee, I have never been to summer camp before. It was a anology.

For now you might suffice as an example how one can be mistaken in assuming everyone in this world who bashes Christianity is a good "racialist", that at least seems sure.

I don't think I am 'bashing' Christianity. But perhaps you see me as attacking something you hold dear? Ok, that is fine. Do not classify me as something, I have a mind of my own. I would still like to know what a racialist is, and why I would be mistaken for one.

IF you wish to know about me, I am a german nationalist, sometimes refer to myself as a national socialist - cause I agree with Hitler and think he was our greatest leader. I would've gladdy been a party member or given my life for my fatherland. I am not a christian, as you know. I would rather our people believe in ourselves rather than ancient hebrew myths and legends. I hate anyone that messes with our people, if that be jews, negros, gypsies, turks or whoever. Any questions?

:sm:

Now chill out and 'ave a beer.

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter

2003-07-13 05:13 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jul 12 2003, 22:58 * ** Do they all agree you are a good NS? **

Depends who 'they' is.

Okiereddust

2003-07-13 05:44 | User Profile

Originally posted by ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter+Jul 13 2003, 05:13 -->
QUOTE* (ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter @ Jul 13 2003, 05:13 )

QUOTE (Okiereddust @ Jul 12 2003, 18:31 )

QUOTE (Texas Dissident @ Jul 19 2003, 17:42 )

QUOTE* (Okiereddust @ Jul 22 2003, 11:17 )

QUOTE (Okiereddust @ Jul 26 2003, 14:05 )
<!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jul 26 2003, 19:03 * *A helpful history lesson regarding Western Man and theocracy:

History of the Faustian Pact - Giving the Devil His Due:

**

Interesting. I wonder though why you don't include the pagan Roman emperors, or anything else of the pagan world for that matter, in your history of "theocracy". The pagan Roman empire's emperor worship is actually the epitom[e] of theocracy. You are not attacking theocracy per se at al[l], just Christianity. Unless you are cryptically admitting [W]estern man is synonymous with Christianity.

Also the last four, including the last three liberals, can hardly be described as devout/orthodox Christians.

You also know Nietzsche made his own exp[l]icit deal with the [D]evil (see Thus Spake Zarathustra - "The Awakening").**

**I wonder though why you don't include the pagan Roman emperors, or anything else of the pagan world for that matter, in your history of "theocracy". **

Because it is a history, not of theocracy per se, but of theocracy emerging in the West, referring to the West in the Spenglerian sense, born amidst the decline of the Empire.

You are not attacking theocracy per se at al, just Christianity.

Correct - I am not attacking theocracy, per se. I am attacking theocracy based upon an allegiance to, and soul-selling deals with, internationalist aliens. A Roman Emperor had to make no such deals, until the end - and when he did, all was shortly lost. Caesaro-Papist Orthodoxy avoided this alienation of the theocratic function.

Also the last four, including the last three liberals, can hardly be described as devout/orthodox Christians.

Nor was it alleged that they were. The point was that the Jews are merely the latest expression of deleterious manipulation of the West by an alien theocracy. Christianity is to be faulted for maintaining the goyim in a goyische frame of intellect, i.e., given to a manipulable inclination to fatuous universalist moralizing.

Patrick

2003-07-27 03:54 | User Profile

"My, my Patrick, what a great Christian soldier you are. Ready to kill for Yahweh, are you?"

hehehe...

.....I don't have the energy to fully respond this evening, (perhaps, come morning); suffice it to say that I'm having a degree of difficulty taking a couple of you seriously at all... between that which Wintermute posts, this from Zoroaster, and the guff from Raina, I don't find it worth more than a slight chuckle... I thought some of the Christian zionists were bad; you folks might be a one-eighty from them, but you occupy the same damnable boat...

Patrick

2003-07-27 17:09 | User Profile

"My, my Patrick, what a great Christian soldier you are. Ready to kill for Yahweh, are you?"

.....In what sense do you mean, Sir? Are you asking if I believe in the death penalty for murder? I certainly do; rape? I do; usury? Considering the devastation wrought from such an abominable practice, yes...

"The early Christian sects that refused to accept the OT were exterminated by fanatics. Fanaticism is a perversion of the essence of Christianity, to accommodate it to the evils of this world. I would venture to say that more innocent people have been killed in the name of Christ than of any other religion."

.....You would venture wrongly; you fail to account for proper division of The Word, denying that evil proliferates because of evil men, as opposed to some intanglible, unseen "devil"... we used to root the evil out of our midst, and when we stopped doing this, (at the behest of "jewish" communist propaganda), we began to fill the world with them, and make excuses for their behavior, as opposed to putting them down like a dog...

'13. It cannot be a coincidence that the brand of Christianity that the Fathers put over was one which lugged with it the "Old Testament" and identified Yahweh, the big Jew up in the clouds, as the Christian god, or that the first concern of the fathers, as soon as they got their hands on governmental power, was to exterminate the Marconists, the Manichaeans, and all the other Christian sects that refused to accept as their god the fiend of the "Old Testament.""

.....This individual's entire premise is blown from the water with his nonsensical "big Jew in the clouds" identification; you continue to rely upon one such as this, which is badly in error, and you will never realize your own flagrant error, thereby falling victim to the "little 'jew' on the ground" that keeps bovine excretia such as this in front of your face, that you might never bother to look behind the curtain...

"By utilizing some passages in the gospels that sprang from antagonism between rival Jewish factions and stigmatized opponents as a "synagogue of Satan," the Fathers could serve the Jews by promoting a factitious antagonism between the Jews and their Judaized goyim."

.....Stigmatized? Identified, says I...

"That was simply in keeping with the Hegelian principle of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. It was comparable to the factitious animosity between "Trotskyites" and "Stalinists," between "Communists" and "Capitalists," between "Fabian" and "Soviet Socialists," and currently between the government in Washington and the one in Moscow. Such spurious animosities, which are genuine enough among the small fry, serve to keep the victims confused and to conceal the direction of both factions by the same occult power behind both. In the Roman Empire, the Christians served as a perfect screen for the Jews, whom they professed to hate, thus conciliating the sympathies and soliciting the adherence of all the people of every other race who naturally hated the Jews, and at the same time keeping the attention of the Roman government focused on the Christians while the Jews professed to be innocent of all revolutionary designs.)"

.....If he has this much right, how can he not put the rest together? Seems like that is part of his blind...

Zoroaster

2003-07-27 20:54 | User Profile

Patrick is a pompous windbag, who on another thread identifies himself as a "take-on-prisoner-type" Christian. If I read his posts correctly, he's a CI crackpot. Reportedly Tim McVeigh was a big CI fan. Revealing, isn't it?

Lately this forum has become a home for religious crackpots. I'm not sure what I detest more, the ADL/Zionist agent provocateurs of the now defunct NewsMax forum or the Yahweh "old-time-religion" creeps here. Anyway, my patience is growing thin. I may soon pull the plug on this forum, though I'll miss the likes of AntiYuppie, Wintermute, Faust, Ragnar, Il Rango, and even NeoNietzsche. You, too, Avalanche.

-Z-

Avalanche

2003-07-27 23:44 | User Profile

IAH: TD is a Christian. Where is your respect for his Christian board? He allows you the freedom to run your mouth here. I guess you didnÃ¢â¬â¢t observe that though. Why do atheists and pagans ALWAYS post on Christian boards anyway? If you despise Christianity so much (and you do), then why do you post here? This is a Christian board. Yet, there are hardly any Christians posting. Notice a pattern?

TD being a Christian, and you deciding this is Christian 'board' is an interesting (and faulty) juxtaposition. Perhaps you missed the beginning of OD -- where it was to be a home for the paleoconservative? While many paleos ARE Christian, many are not. While many Christians ARE active OD members, that does not make OD a "Christian" board. While there is a Christian and Christianity forum heading, MOST of the headings are NOT "Christian." (And, of course, while there's a lot of discussion of Christianity, something being a topic of discussion does NOT make all "discussion" nor the location of discussions Christian!)

I would obviously defer to Tex (hi Tex! :th: ), if he HAS changed the 'focus' of OD (it's his ballgame, and he owns the ball AND the field! :D ), but I don't think he has!

Okiereddust

2003-07-28 00:20 | User Profile

Originally posted by Zoroaster@Jul 27 2003, 20:54 * ** Patrick is a pompous windbag, who on another thread identifies himself as a "take-on-prisoner-type" Christian. If I read his posts correctly, he's a CI crackpot. Reportedly Tim McVeigh was a big CI fan. Revealing, isn't it?* McVeigh was an agnostic.

**Lately this forum has become a home for religious crackpots. I'm not sure what I detest more, the ADL/Zionist agent provocateurs of the now defunct NewsMax forum or the Yahweh "old-time-religion" creeps here. Anyway, my patience is growing thin. I may soon pull the plug on this forum, though I'll miss the likes of AntiYuppie, Wintermute, Faust, Ragnar, Il Rango, and even NeoNietzsche. You, too, Avalanche.

-Z- **

No one is kicking you out of the kitchen eh, I think you just can't stand the heat. You're feelings though vis a vis the ADL vs. quote "religious crackpots" seem widespread, although there isn't too much doubt in my mind that for a lot of people here and elsewhere in the NA/VNN faction its the latter.

And WN's claim they don't understand why the Churches don't support us more :thd:

Sojourner

2003-07-28 00:24 | User Profile

Zoroaster

Patrick is a pompous windbag, who on another thread identifies himslef as a "take-on-prisoner-type" Christian. If I read his posts correctly, he's a CI crackpot. Reportedly Tim McVeigh was a big CI fan. Revealing, isn't it?

I believe that was a take-NO-prisoner type" of which you evidently are feeling your manhood challanged or something.. :unsure: You apparently prefer the fearful limp wristed Christian types? Patrick has already stated he is NOT CI but from all accounts I'm aware of neither was McVeigh. Elohim City was crawling with Feds IIRC and if McVeigh had any religious convictions I don't recall it ever being brought out. I don't see anything revealing except maybe your ignorance.

Lately this forum has become a home for religious crackpots. I'm not sure what I detest more, the ADL/Zionist agent provocateurs of the now defunct NewsMax forum or the Yahweh "old-time-religion" creeps here. Anyway, my patience is growing thin. I may soon pull the plug on this forum, though I'll miss the likes of ...

It appears to me the atheists here enjoy a large advantage in numbers. It also looks to me like Patrick has evidently hit a nerve with you in exposing your "jewish" atheist tripe. Do you always start whining and threatening leaving when your silly "jewish" essays are challenged? I've been reading here for a while, but not really long enough to be that familiar with posters habits... Also, I thought tex was the admin/owner of this board. Are you, in what seems a pretty pompous structure of wording to threaten pulling your own plug, or are you the boards owner pulling the plug? :huh:

Patrick

2003-07-28 02:34 | User Profile

"Patrick is a pompous windbag,"

.....Why do you now attempt to talk past me? I'm right here, bunky, and I've been dying for a rebuttal of substance, which, I have yet to see from you... Weren't you the one with so much sauce that you had the nerve to ask if I were willing to kill? What's the problem here, too much of a sissy for the discussion? You have yet to answer a single point, yet have the gall to refer to your opposition as a "pompous windbag"? From my experience, it is the pomous windbags that spout off and cannot validate their positions to anyone's satisfaction; run away, if you will, little girl... that's what so many of the folks who operate on unsubstantiated opinion end up doing; you're just another of a very long list... :)

Avalanche

2003-07-28 04:26 | User Profile

**Yes this particular board (this forum consists of many boards or categories) is a Christian one, according to its title. Perhaps I wasn't clear previously. Thus, I wonder why athiests and pagans post on a Christian (a Christian titled) board. This happens at all Christian boards(categories) and Christian forums.

I was not referring to the other boards/categories within this forum, only this particular board, "Christianity and Christendom".**

No no, this board is not "a Christian board" -- it's a board ABOUT Christians and Christianity... It is a place where ALL can DISCUSS Christianity -- not a place where Christians can get together with other Christians to ... do whatever it is Christians do on a forum board.

You're suggesting... what? You 'sound' as if you think this board should be off limits to non-Christians? :P It should be specific to Christians, and not ABOUT Christians? We pagans LIKE to discuss Christianity, because it affects our lives. We are involved in this forum, and specifically this board, because .. ah, let me rephrase... I am involved, as I said in another message: because Christianity interests me -- how and why do people believe? How and why do they pick to believe the things they believe? How and why do they fall away? Why and how do so many sects pick the funny or odd bits of the bible they do and don't adhere to? Others may be/are involved for other reasons.

Ruffin

2003-07-28 05:41 | User Profile

No no, this board is....

...for discussion of "Christianity and Christendom" by Original DISSENTers? :taz:

Texas Dissident

2003-07-28 08:12 | User Profile

As a site founded under the flag of 'paleo-conservatism,' an integral part of that is an effort to 'conserve' the beneficial bequeathals of Western Civilization. I found it impossible to discuss this in its totality without having a specific forum for Christianity and Christendom, it being so intertwined with, or dare I say the foundation of, Western man and his history, philosophy and culture.

That's the official reason for this forum. The unofficial reason is that I am a Christian and topics on the subject and philosophy in general interest me much more than anything else, so I wanted to highlight it as much as possible in order to facilitate discussions of same. It's all good. :)

Patrick

2003-07-28 13:14 | User Profile

Ã¢â¬Âa specific forum for Christianity and Christendom, it being so intertwined with, or dare I say the foundation of, Western man and his history, philosophy and culture.Ã¢â¬Â

.....I so dare... ;)

Avalanche

2003-07-28 13:56 | User Profile

**The bulk of Ã¢â¬ÅdiscussionsÃ¢â¬Â with atheists and pagans (not all), turn into Christian bashing. ** As defined by you? That is, "I know it when I see it?" or "It's harassment if the person FEELS harassed?"

Certainly SOME here make unkind and angry remarks about Christians and Christianity. Some make unkind and angry remarks about Hindus (well, one must admit, rban DOES wear a pretty big 'kick me' sign! :D ) And some Christians make unkind and angry remarks about pagans and atheists... (I don't see Wintermute complaining that Christians are insulting his beliefs. :) :P :D )

For some of you pagans and atheists to lump real Christians here in a mainstream Christian box is dim-witted and especially blasphemy by assuming and/or accusing that we hold the beliefs of "jews", beliefs/behaviors that in reality we abhor! And how do you regard Okkie accusing anyone who questions, differs, or asks of being Deshowitz's bestest buddies and of using ADL/ACLU tactics? Is he a "real Christian or a mainstream Christian? And how are we to differentiate among real, mainstream, fundie, enlightened, non-jewish, etc. etc. Christians? Are you saying there is no 'overarching' version -- and then how can you claim America is a "Christian nation"?

What I do mind are the lies and jokes against Jesus Christ and lumping us in with the mainstream crowd "ChristiansÃ¢â¬Âand "jews". What is particularly absurd is seeing that some atheists and pagans DO embrace some "jewish" beliefs, then to have the nerve to label us as "jews". People that fit into this category do nothing for their own people as they aid the "jews" attempts to destroy us all. See, this is a continuing problem for us pagans and atheists. You would have us draw some kind of line between the JEWISH Old Testament which y'all hold sacred and part of your canon of beliefs and judaism; between the wide (universal?) belief that Jesus WAS a jew and judaism; between the suborning by jews of supposedly different-from-judaism versions of Christianity and judaism -- and we just can't HELP pointing out how contradictory that is...

And I don't see a lot of lies OR jokes against Jesus: I see a LOT of serious and pointed questioning about the source, the rationality, the basis for all-y'all's beliefs -- but if your 'faith' can't take the heat, then how just strong it is?

They have NO clue as to what God has wanted for His people all along. But you do? THIS is part and parcel of what interests me -- EVERY group of Christians INSISTS that they and only they have "the one True Way." On what basis is any one such claim valid? On what funny and odd bits of the bible do you base YOUR particular claim to having the right clue? How is your claim any more or less valid than any other groups of Christians? And then, of course, you will PERCEIVE this as an attack, rather than an actually interested questioning of the basis for decisions you have made and beliefs you have chosen!

In short answer (a novel could be written on this) to your question is that they donÃ¢â¬â¢t actually read and absorb GodÃ¢â¬â¢s Word. ** Hence the Baptists refusing drink vis a vis water into wine. Hence the Mormons first accepting then rejecting multiple marriages and the dispensation to allow blacks first into the church and then into their version of the priesthood. Hence the various old-timey sects that disallow women in pants. Hence the Catholics and hundreds of now-you-see-'em, now-you-don'ts! (meat on Fridays, a bunch of saints becoming non-saints, heliocentricity etc.) Which one is right? On what basis do they pick and choose what beliefs they will uphold and deny? On what basis are they right or wrong? And at the bottom of it is always that JEWISH text, the Bible!

(Where was the hand of god - in the WRITING of the various books (in either the bible or the apocrypha); in the "voting" to accept or not accept certain books into the "approved" Bible (Nicene Council, was it)? Which Bible is really "the inerrant word of god" -- the Catholic one? The King James? The weird "modern-language" versions coming out for piss-poor readers in America today? The older ones found in Nag Hammadi and near the Dead Sea? Was the hand of god with the translator who "translated" (added vowels to) the written Aramaic or Hebrew (oh, Hebrew, wouldn't that imply JEWISH also?!) "rbm" as "Or[u]a[/u]bim" -- that is "ravens"-- who fed (was it?) Elijah as he was wandering in the wilderness rather than "Or[u]e[/u]bim": the inhabitants of the town of [u]Oreb[/u] right near the wilderness where he was wandering? See, these are quandries that I find interesting: how and why do people chose to believe what they do?)

p.s.> ** For some of you pagans and atheists to lump real Christians here in a by assuming and/or accusing that we hold the beliefs of "jews is dim-witted and especially blasphemy ** Pagans can't commit blasphemy, can they? Don't you have to BE a believer to express heretical unbelief? :) :D

p.p.s. TD said: > I found it impossible to discuss this in its totality without having a specific forum for Christianity and Christendom, it being so intertwined with, or dare I say the foundation of, Western man and his history, philosophy and culture. Of course -- there couldn't possibly NOT be such a forum -- and you'll notice a I spend a lot of time in these discussions! They are interesting, I am interested in them, but I always end up being accused of Christian bashing for asking questions -- maybe because I'm NOT asking 'how do I come to believe as y'all do" but "why do YOU belief as y'all do"? I don't WANT to come to believe as you do: been there done that, found it unsatisfactory (sorry, there it is :P )

Okiereddust

2003-07-28 18:08 | User Profile

Are you saying there is no 'overarching' version -- and then how can you claim America is a "Christian nation"?**

LOL. You were the one that said Christians almost entirely were to blame because the overwhelming number of Americans were "Christians". Then you whine when someone says this is a "Christian nation".

So what you really mean to say is Christians are to blame for everything in this country that is bad, (such as Jewish dominance in culture and politics) but shouldn't take credit for the things that are good.

This is basically typical of your logical methodology. A superficially glib tone is strung together with a continual stetch of very irrational phobias and prejudices. Whatever your real modus operendi against Christianity, it isn't what you say it is, in fact it is the most unnuanced type of Christian bashing.

But you're right, it is quite a bit different than Dershowitzian ADL/ACLU tactics, which are generally at least cleverer.

*And I don't see a lot of lies OR jokes against Jesus: I see a LOT of serious and pointed questioning about the source, the rationality, the basis for all-y'all's belief..... ** LOL. See above.

> They have NO clue as to what God has wanted for His people all along. But you do? THIS is part and parcel of what interests me -- EVERY group of Christians INSISTS that they and only they have "the one True Way." On what basis is any one such claim valid? On what funny and odd bits of the bible do you base YOUR particular claim to having the right clue? How is your claim any more or less valid than any other groups of Christians? And then, of course, you will PERCEIVE this as an attack, rather than an actually interested questioning of the basis for decisions you have made and beliefs you have chosen!

Actually you appear to be questioning the proprietaryness of Christians claim to the very existance of any "one true way". All orthodox Christians agree there is one true way (i,e. absolute truth) fundamentally, which is Christ, however imperect we are in finding it. Your objections to it as usual sound very postmodern. We need NeoNietzsche to come in, enlighten us on the difference between the pre-modern and the post-modern, and bring it out in your arguments.

Which brings us up to one undeniable factor in the historic greatness of Christianity to western civilization, and the factor which has caused the downfall of its modern day equivalent, to which you point to with sme merit: You could make a good argument that modern Christian Churches started to become culturally corrupt and prone to jewish cultural dmination when they abandoned one vital aspect, historically central to Christian orthodoxy - the submissiveness and silence of women. :P

Avalanche

2003-07-28 20:47 | User Profile

** Me (to IAH!): Are you saying there is no 'overarching' version -- and then how can you claim America is a "Christian nation"?

Okkie: LOL. You were the one that said Christians almost entirely were to blame because the overwhelming number of Americans were "Christians". Then you whine when someone says this is a "Christian nation".** {sigh} :angry: I HAVE NOT SAID that Ã¢â¬ÅChristians almost entirely were to blame.Ã¢â¬Â YouÃ¢â¬â¢re just never going to hear me about that, are you?

And you must have missed that IAH and I are discussing Ã¢â¬Åwhat makes a Christian?Ã¢â¬Â He (he?) seems to be saying that the vast vast majority of Ã¢â¬ÅChristiansÃ¢â¬Â arenÃ¢â¬â¢t really Christians, they just play them on... er, they just say they are. I was trying to get across the difficulty that if one holds out that MOST Ã¢â¬ÅChristiansÃ¢â¬Â are not, in fact, Christians, but only the small, small fraction of them who closely follow what IAH would say was the one True Way are, then you probably canÃ¢â¬â¢t apply the incorrect (IAH would say) title of Ã¢â¬ÅChristianÃ¢â¬Â to the nation that is made up by/founded by a huge bunch of folks professing Christianity, whom IAH says are in fact NOT Christians.

** So what you really mean to say is Christians are to blame for everything in this country that is bad, (such as Jewish dominance in culture and politics) but shouldn't take credit for the things that are good.** Okkie Okkie, Okkie! Are you INTENTIONALLY trying to misunderstand me? Are you considering turning into a troll? This is not even slightly Ã¢â¬Åwhat I really mean to sayÃ¢â¬Â -- and IÃ¢â¬â¢m not sure thereÃ¢â¬â¢s any point in trying to straighten you out, because you seem to purposely misread, misunderstand, and misinterpret whatever I write.

** This is basically typical of your logical methodology. A superficially glib tone is strung together with a continual stretch of very irrational phobias and prejudices. Whatever your real modus operendi against Christianity, it isn't what you say it is, in fact it is the most unnuanced type of Christian bashing. ** {sigh} IÃ¢â¬â¢m only superficially glib in the echoing ramparts of your ears... I am TRYING to have a discussion with IAH about the bases of Christianity, of belief, of what one (or oneÃ¢â¬â¢s group) identifies as correct and incorrect, used and unaccepted, amongst all the conflicting advice, directives, and prohibitions in (that JEWISH book) the Bible.

Can you actually spell out ANY of these Ã¢â¬Åvery irrational phobias and prejudicesÃ¢â¬Â -- provide any material I have posted here that resembles either a phobia or prejudice? Since itÃ¢â¬â¢s so unnuanced (and yet itÃ¢â¬â¢s also not what I say it is? IÃ¢â¬â¢m not even sure what that means!), you should have no trouble finding any of them and producing them!

** Actually you appear to be questioning the proprietaryness of Christians claim to the very existance of any "one true way". All orthodox Christians agree there is one true way (i,e. absolute truth) fundamentally, which is Christ, however imperfect we are in finding it.** No, IÃ¢â¬â¢m questioning the BASIS of Ã¢â¬ÅChristian claims to the very existence of their own version of the one True Way.Ã¢â¬Â Is this one of the Ã¢â¬ËlinesÃ¢â¬â¢ you draw -- if a (self-identified) Christian does NOT agree that there is only one true way, then you declare that person NOT a Christian? Is that a basis for your identification of people as Christian or not? IAH seems to draw a pretty strong line about what is and is not Ã¢â¬Åa ChristianÃ¢â¬Â by his (her?) definitions, and thatÃ¢â¬â¢s what IÃ¢â¬â¢m trying to draw out.

Oh, and NeoNietzsche can probably affirm that IÃ¢â¬â¢m doing real good on the submission part (to him at least!) but not so great on the silence part!

Franco

2003-07-28 21:20 | User Profile

** Avalanche wrote:

You would have us draw some kind of line between the JEWISH Old Testament which y'all hold sacred and part of your canon of beliefs **

Good point, Av.

Happily, SOME Christians attempt to make a distinction between the "old Hebrews" and "modern rabbinical/Talmudic Jews." Modern Jews [i.e. Ashkenazim] are not the original Hebrews, being a hybrid race. But many, or most, Christians don't make such a distinction.

Okiereddust

2003-07-28 21:36 | User Profile

** Me (to IAH!):* Are you saying there is no 'overarching' version -- and then how can you claim America is a "Christian nation"?

Okkie: LOL. You were the one that said Christians almost entirely were to blame because the overwhelming number of Americans were "Christians". Then you whine when someone says this is a "Christian nation". {sigh} :angry: I HAVE NOT SAID that ?Christians almost entirely were to blame.? You?re just never going to hear me about that, are you?*

No Av, No Av, No Av. This is exactly what you were saying, as I drew to your attention before, on this very thread.

> > Me: If jews make up a measly 2%, and atheists and other religions make up, what, maybe 20% at most? WHY is this country going down the toilet faster and faster every day? What are the Christians doing except helping the jews?

You: The way you use it in fact is "trying to absolve the pagans and atheists." You're setting up atheists and pagans as the poor niggas of the white majority. They can't be guilty of anything cause they have no power, re: I'm saying they are guilty of, at most, TWENTY PERCENT!!! What are the 70% Christians guilty of?!? You are the one who keeps saying the Christians are fighting against the jews, trying to protect our race and civilization. I'm disagreeing because the vast majority of self-identified Christians (not ME identifying them, THEY are claiming it!)are working actively to help the jews destroy the country(I'm NOT saying they KNOW they are, but I AM saying they are doing so!)

Working actively to destroy the country? Com'mon? You're starting to make Abe Foxman/Jewish paranoia look tame. Most Christians do what most everybody else does in this country - sit on their arses and watch TV, albeit serious Christians slightly less I think, but irregardless, you are off the deep end so often with your hyperbolic statements, it calls into question your whole methodology.

**I'm also suggesting that since the pagans and atheists are NOT organized into groups that sponsor immigrants; into groups that declare their 'meeting halls' (if they have 'em, and they mostly don't) sanctuaries for illegal invaders; into groups that go out to 'dark' countries and recruit the locals to believe in their version of non-belief and then bring them here to America -- that it's likely that pagans and atheists are doing WAY LESS damage than the Christian groups that ARE doing those things!

Most pagans and atheists are not organized into "communities" and don't have any sense of recruiting/ missionary work. Most Christian organizations ARE so organized and ARE doing such recruiting/missionary work!*

Left wing organizations in general are a defacto secular organization, if not always explicitely so. Re: the ACLU.**

I have pointed this out before, and I will continue to point this out.

> And you must have missed that IAH and I are discussing ?what makes a Christian?? He (he?) seems to be saying that the vast vast majority of ?Christians? aren?t really Christians, they just play them on... er, they just say they are. I was trying to get across the difficulty that if one holds out that MOST ?Christians? are not, in fact, Christians, but only the small, small fraction of them who closely follow what IAH would say was the one True Way are, then you probably can?t apply the incorrect (IAH would say) title of ?Christian? to the nation that is made up by/founded by a huge bunch of folks professing Christianity, whom IAH says are in fact NOT Christians.*

Again, I addressed this very issue with you before. You are the one wanting to apply the label "Christian" to this nation when it suits your purpose, as I just pointed out.

** So what you really mean to say is Christians are to blame for everything in this country that is bad, (such as Jewish dominance in culture and politics) but shouldn't take credit for the things that are good. Okkie Okkie, Okkie! Are you INTENTIONALLY trying to misunderstand me? Are you considering turning into a troll? This is not even slightly ?what I really mean to say? -- and I?m not sure there?s any point in trying to straighten you out, because you seem to purposely misread, misunderstand, and misinterpret whatever I write. ** No, I properly** interpret and call you to account on what you write. You rarely even just give coherent rebuttal to my interpretation, you just continuesly complain you are being "misinterpreted".

You are the one au contraire that seems to be becoming a troll.

**> ** This is basically typical of your logical methodology. A superficially glib tone is strung together with a continual stretch of very irrational phobias and prejudices. Whatever your real modus operendi against Christianity, it isn't what you say it is, in fact it is the most unnuanced type of Christian bashing. ** {sigh} I?m only superficially glib in the echoing ramparts of your ears... I am TRYING to have a discussion with IAH about the bases of Christianity, of belief, of what one (or one?s group) identifies as correct and incorrect, used and unaccepted, amongst all the conflicting advice, directives, and prohibitions in (that JEWISH book) the Bible.

Can you actually spell out ANY of these ?very irrational phobias and prejudices? -- provide any material I have posted here that resembles either a phobia or prejudice? Since it?s so unnuanced (and yet it?s also not what I say it is? I?m not even sure what that means!), you should have no trouble finding any of them and producing them!** Like when you say the same incorrect thing over and over again, even though we have pointed out your error several times. That's a starter

> ** Actually you appear to be questioning the proprietaryness of Christians claim to the very existance of any "one true way". All orthodox Christians agree there is one true way (i,e. absolute truth) fundamentally, which is Christ, however imperfect we are in finding it. No, I?m questioning the BASIS of ?Christian claims to the very existence of their own version of the one True Way.? Is this one of the ?lines? you draw -- if a (self-identified) Christian does NOT agree that there is only one true way, then you declare that person NOT a Christian? Is that a basis for your identification of people as Christian or not? IAH seems to draw a pretty strong line about what is and is not ?a Christian? by his (her?) definitions, and that?s what I?m trying to draw out.**

I hesitate to get myself involved in a complicated interminable discussin about what is and isn't a Christian, when we can't resolve the most basic issues. But yes, that is one of the differences between orthodoxy and relativism. A "christian"person who does not admit Christ is THE way is prima facie a relativist.

As NeoNietzsche again whether paleoNietzsche was a relativist.

Oh, and NeoNietzsche can probably affirm that I?m doing real good on the submission part (to him at least!) but not so great on the silence part!

Glad to see your good Christian- patriarchialness :D

Okiereddust

2003-07-29 00:55 | User Profile

And how are we to differentiate among real, mainstream, fundie, enlightened, non-jewish, etc. etc. Christians?

Well for starters, if you'd pay attention to anything that Christians have posted here, you would be well on your way to discern these things. I'll give you a hint. Every one of those points you raised have been addressed again and again, most of them on this precise board of this forum. I'm not going to replicate myself over and over, it gets old ya know. You'll have to dig a little. My ?free? time is limited as everyone else's.

**

My experience exactly. Do you remember that little anecdote inMein Kampf about always having to make the same point with certain kinds of people over and over again, still to no avail?

I'm thinking of just putting a standard "see previous posts" everytime certain people respond to threads in this section.

Patrick

2003-07-29 03:45 | User Profile

"I was trying to get across the difficulty that if one holds out that MOST Ã¢â¬ÅChristiansÃ¢â¬Â are not, in fact, Christians, but only the small, small fraction of them who closely follow what IAH would say was the one True Way are, then you probably canÃ¢â¬â¢t apply the incorrect (IAH would say) title of Ã¢â¬ÅChristianÃ¢â¬Â to the nation that is made up by/founded by a huge bunch of folks professing Christianity, whom IAH says are in fact NOT Christians."

Avalanche...

.....I haven't been around long enough to observe anything I would call intentional obstinance on your part, and I would be reluctant to do so at any rate; I will say that it seems you are refraining from acknowledging my presence, which I find rather odd... you are attempting to compare today's apostate, fallen away Christian with our founders, who were most devout, while being quite cautious of being overly "pious", (read: "religious"), and knowing full well they were of Israel, (save Thomas Paine), and that the "jews" were a parasitic menace to civilization, (Washington's letters, Jefferson's, as well as Franklin's "alleged" words at the constitutional convention); you can no sooner compare the two than compare yourself to a bantu/tutu/hootoo/voodoo, so to speak...

.....Now I will finish IAH's, thus-far-excellent-post, and hope that if you get nothing else out of her words than to understand once and for all, (and check it out for yourself, dammit), the fact that "jew" has no more equation with Hebrew than you have with your dog, and that there are no more "jewish" roots to our Israelite Scripture than you claim to the mud huts of Africa... Sooner or later you will have to capitulate on these points, lest ye be considered moronic... :)

Zoroaster

2003-07-30 11:36 | User Profile

"My, my Patrick, what a great Christian soldier you are. Ready to kill for Yahweh, are you?"

.....In what sense do you mean, Sir? Are you asking if I believe in the death penalty for murder? I certainly do; rape? I do; usury? Considering the devastation wrought from such an abominable practice, yes...

"The early Christian sects that refused to accept the OT were exterminated by fanatics. Fanaticism is a perversion of the essence of Christianity, to accommodate it to the evils of this world. I would venture to say that more innocent people have been killed in the name of Christ than of any other religion."

.....You would venture wrongly; you fail to account for proper division of The Word, denying that evil proliferates because of evil men, as opposed to some intanglible, unseen "devil"... we used to root the evil out of our midst, and when we stopped doing this, (at the behest of "jewish" communist propaganda), we began to fill the world with them, and make excuses for their behavior, as opposed to putting them down like a dog...

'13. It cannot be a coincidence that the brand of Christianity that the Fathers put over was one which lugged with it the "Old Testament" and identified Yahweh, the big Jew up in the clouds, as the Christian god, or that the first concern of the fathers, as soon as they got their hands on governmental power, was to exterminate the Marconists, the Manichaeans, and all the other Christian sects that refused to accept as their god the fiend of the "Old Testament.""

.....This individual's entire premise is blown from the water with his nonsensical "big Jew in the clouds" identification; you continue to rely upon one such as this, which is badly in error, and you will never realize your own flagrant error, thereby falling victim to the "little 'jew' on the ground" that keeps bovine excretia such as this in front of your face, that you might never bother to look behind the curtain...

"By utilizing some passages in the gospels that sprang from antagonism between rival Jewish factions and stigmatized opponents as a "synagogue of Satan," the Fathers could serve the Jews by promoting a factitious antagonism between the Jews and their Judaized goyim."

.....Stigmatized? Identified, says I...

"That was simply in keeping with the Hegelian principle of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. It was comparable to the factitious animosity between "Trotskyites" and "Stalinists," between "Communists" and "Capitalists," between "Fabian" and "Soviet Socialists," and currently between the government in Washington and the one in Moscow. Such spurious animosities, which are genuine enough among the small fry, serve to keep the victims confused and to conceal the direction of both factions by the same occult power behind both. In the Roman Empire, the Christians served as a perfect screen for the Jews, whom they professed to hate, thus conciliating the sympathies and soliciting the adherence of all the people of every other race who naturally hated the Jews, and at the same time keeping the attention of the Roman government focused on the Christians while the Jews professed to be innocent of all revolutionary designs.)"

.....If he has this much right, how can he not put the rest together? Seems like that is part of his blind... **

I'm back killer. In my time I enjoyed nothing better than incarcerating troublemakers of your kind in LBJ, the Long Binh Stockade.

You arguments, killer, are with the now deceased Dr. Revilo Oliver:

Biographical Note

by Kevin Alfred Strom

Dr. Revilo Pendleton Oliver, Professor of the Classics at the University of Illinois for 32 years and one of the leading philologists of his time, read eleven languages, including Sanskrit, and for more than half a century wrote scholarly articles in four languages for academic publications in the United States and Europe. Oliver was also the possessor of a penetrating intellect ? and a scintillating wit unequaled by any writer, though the great H. L. Mencken may have come close.

Dr. Oliver was born in Texas in 1908, and was an undergraduate at Pomona College, California. He obtained his doctorate under the tutelage of the highly respected Classicist William Abbot Oldfather at the University of Illinois. His first book was a copiously annotated translation from the Sanskrit, Mrcchakatika (The Little Clay Cart) published by the University of Illinois in 1938.

During World War II, he was Director of Research in a highly secret cryptographic agency of the War Department in Washington, DC, and was cited for outstanding service to his country. It was during his time in Washington that Dr. Oliver first became aware of the degree to which Communism ? and, more importantly, the forces behind Communism ? had penetrated the American establishment and had precipitated the fratricidal slaughter of 1939-1945. He believed at the time, however, that the treasonous acts of these subversives would be quickly brought to light after the war and that an awakened public would sweep an American administration into office. Confident in his nation?s future, he continued his pursuit of the scholarship which was, next to his beloved wife Grace, his greatest love in life.

After his work for the War Department, Dr. Oliver was awarded a Guggenheim Post-Service Fellowship, and during the years 1953 and 1954 he travelled to Italy on a Fulbright Research Fellowship to study Italian Renaissance manuscripts.

Upon his return to the United States in 1954, Dr. Oliver was alarmed at the progress made by the subversive forces in the United States, who had infiltrated both major political parties and the business establishment there ? especially the media of information and entertainment. He made a fateful decision in that year, 1954, to devote all his available energies to what was then called anti-Communism or Americanism or conservatism, and which is today called by its adherents Racial Nationalism. For the next 40 years, until his death in 1994, he was a major figure in that movement, though in many ways an anomalous one.

Dr. Oliver made many notable contributions to his chosen cause: he participated in the creation of National Review magazine; he was one of the founders of the John Birch Society; he made numerous speeches before patriotic groups including the Congress of Freedom, the Steuben Society, the Indignation Committees, the Citizens? Councils, and the Daughters of the American Revolution; and he wrote hundreds of articles and reviews for Modern Age, American Progress, Free Enterprise, American Opinion, Christian Economics, National Review, Nation?s Business, The American Mercury, Instauration, and Liberty Bell magazines. A collection of many of Dr. Oliver?s best writings from his first decade in the patriotic movement is contained in his book America?s Decline: The Education of a Conservative, available from Historical Review Press and Liberty Bell Publications. That book also chronicles his eventual bitter disillusionment with conservatism as a political weapon for restoring America and the West.

Revilo Oliver stood apart ? not only from his more ?liberal? colleagues who accepted or welcomed the political and social changes forced upon the West after World War II ? but also from his ?conservative? and ?patriot? allies who refused to see that much of the fault for our civilization?s decline lay in ourselves, in the racial and societal characteristics that left us nearly defenseless against an implacable, relentless, and clever enemy. In his most striking departure from most of his conservative allies, Dr. Oliver concluded that one of the major weaknesses of our nation and civilization was its religion, which had been, since the latter years of the Roman Empire, some form of Christianity.

We are fortunate indeed to have lived in the same century, and the same world as Dr. Revilo Pendleton Oliver. And we are infinitely better off for the fact that he chose to share his genius and his insights with us.

We give him but a small part of the tribute he earned when we remember him with the words of Telemann, who said of another genius, Bach:

Then sleep! The candle of thy fame ne'er low will burn; The pupils thou hast trained, and those they train in turn Prepare thy future crown of glory brightly glowing....

Revilo Oliver?s words are echoing through Time. Hear them and learn.

For the last thirteen years of his life, Dr. Oliver's chosen medium of publication was Liberty Bell magazine, published monthly by George P. Dietz from September 1973 to February 1999. For reprints please write to Liberty Bell Publications, Post Office Box 21, Reedy WV 25270 USA.

Copyright ÃÂ©2000 Kevin Alfred Strom. Back to Revilo P. Oliver Index

[url=http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/abt-rpo.htm]http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/abt-rpo.htm[/url]

Dr. Oliver was a scholar. I will continue to post his work, but I refuse to debate it with idiots who believe they have a special insight of the Absolute.

-Z-

Avalanche

2003-07-30 13:08 | User Profile

Patrick: I will say that it seems you are refraining from acknowledging my presence, which I find rather odd I haven't been in any discussions with you Patrick, so I haven't had a need to acknowledge you. My impression of your messages is you seem to spend a lot of them quoting scripture. :rolleyes: I've never found much fun or success in discussing things with someone whose refuge is to quote from a book s/he finds the be-all and end-all of references, and I find to be just another book... :o But I will certainly consider your words in this thread, as soon as I get a moment. (I didn't want you to feel ignored.)

Patrick

2003-07-30 15:19 | User Profile

Ã¢â¬ÂIt was during his time in Washington that Dr. Oliver first became aware of the degree to which Communism Ã¢â¬â and, more importantly, the forces behind Communism Ã¢â¬â had penetrated the American establishment and had precipitated the fratricidal slaughter of 1939-1945.Ã¢â¬Â

.....Then this:

Ã¢â¬ÂDr. Oliver made many notable contributions to his chosen cause: he participated in the creation of National Review magazine; he was one of the founders of the John Birch Society;Ã¢â¬Â

.....So, Zorro, youÃ¢â¬â¢re holding this man up as someone that knew the score, and offered solutions, no? Of course; the solution was to Ã¢â¬Åjine upÃ¢â¬Â, (nay, become a Ã¢â¬ÅfounderÃ¢â¬Â), with the dialectical Ã¢â¬Åanti-communistÃ¢â¬Â movement, under little Bobby Welch, who took his marching orders from his Ã¢â¬ÅjewishÃ¢â¬Â communist masters and lick-spittled up to his superiors like the egg-suck dog that he was, and this Ã¢â¬Åhuge braintrustÃ¢â¬Â in Dr. Oliver, was not only Ã¢â¬Åbrilliant enoughÃ¢â¬Â to expend his energies in the foremost house of infiltered, controlled opposition, but his astounding observation was that this was somehow ChristianityÃ¢â¬â¢s fault, (whom those selfsame Ã¢â¬ÅjewishÃ¢â¬Â communist forces had been likewise infiltering and destroying since the time of Our Christ)? Gee; we surely are blessed to have such an astounding intellect such as this working for a true America, arenÃ¢â¬â¢t we? Why, no telling what may have occurred here had not these good Ã¢â¬Åcommunist fightersÃ¢â¬Â siphoned off virtually the whole of time and resources of the only reputed Ã¢â¬Åanti-communistÃ¢â¬Â organization in America; Americans may well have pulled their head out their collective orifice clear back in the fifties...

Ã¢â¬ÂDr. Oliver concluded that one of the major weaknesses of our nation and civilization was its religion, which had been, since the latter years of the Roman Empire, some form of Christianity.Ã¢â¬Â

.....Yes; most recently, the apostate, deceived variety... ThereÃ¢â¬â¢s your first clue; if it is Ã¢â¬ÅreligionÃ¢â¬Â, it is not Christianity, (or do you rely upon Ã¢â¬Åbrilliant intellectÃ¢â¬Â like Dr. Oliver to get it wrong for you in every instance, and save all of that time thinking for yourself?)...

Ã¢â¬Âbut also from his Ã¢â¬ÅconservativeÃ¢â¬Â and Ã¢â¬ÅpatriotÃ¢â¬Â allies who refused to see that much of the fault for our civilizationÃ¢â¬â¢s decline lay in ourselves, in the racial and societal characteristics that left us nearly defenseless against an implacable, relentless, and clever enemy.Ã¢â¬Â

.....Which is exactly what Scripture has been declaring all along, which, a studied and learned individual such as yourself would know, had you bothered to read it for yourself, as opposed to having a communist toadie in disguise telling you how very awful it is...

Ã¢â¬ÂAnd we are infinitely better off for the fact that he chose to share his genius and his insights with us.Ã¢â¬Â

.....How so, exactly? Your article said he went back to sleep and let the country go to hogspit, Ã¢â¬Åconfident of his nationÃ¢â¬â¢s futureÃ¢â¬Â; from my perspective, that makes him one of the marching morons...

Ã¢â¬ÂDr. Oliver was a scholar. I will continue to post his work, but I refuse to debate it with idiots who believe they have a special insight of the Absolute.Ã¢â¬Â

.....One manÃ¢â¬â¢s scholar is another manÃ¢â¬â¢s charletan poseur; IÃ¢â¬â¢ve read many scholars on many differing subjects, and from my perspective, he was merely a man running his mouth about that which he took not the time to study... perhaps his linguistics have merit?

Goodness, me...

.....Not a single Scripture quote! Ã¢â¬ÅKillerÃ¢â¬Â, indeed...

Okiereddust

2003-07-30 18:23 | User Profile

Check and see what MacDonald has to say on subversive nature to society of the radical individualism of the elite's, and the centality of monogamy to western individualism.

Yeah, okay. ** Didn't think you would.

*> ** Surely you have read us using the term "cultural marxism", re: the Frankfurt School. There are basic cultural reasons why conservative nationalist stoicism is antitheical to Marcusian "polymorphous perversity". **

Not all nationalists are conservative, tho. Many of the Nazis (German nationalists) were not conservatives. Neither am I (human nationalist). **

Glad you have made that distinction clear between conservatism and nationalism, and noted how Nazi's like yourself made this same distinction. Of course natoinalism without conservatism can be anything. Joseph Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Kim Jung, Bobby Seale, Farrakan and Al Sharpton, Ghengis Khan , Attila the Hun, Robert Mugabe, Ariel Sharon, as well of course as our own rban, have all been called and called themselves "nationalists". Glad you have no objection to being in this select club, or taking the ephemeral Nazi's with you.

Not a greenie nor Chomskyite - tho' both camps have valuable ideas to offer.

Yeah, just as long as they aren't the dreaded "conservative".

Okiereddust

2003-07-31 04:05 | User Profile

Didn't think you would.

No, I do plan to read more MacDonald. From what I've read so far, he seems more of a political propagandist than scientist. Many of his basic assumptions are dead wrong. He's still interesting. ** I see. Abe Foxman is right and MacDonald is wrong.

Glad you have made that distinction clear between conservatism and nationalism, and noted how Nazi's like yourself made this same distinction.

Nationalists can be conservative, but they need not be. Out of curiosity, how do you define conservatism? Conservatives are those who seek to maintain the status quo or return to the mores, values, customs, etc. of an earlier era. That's about as useful a definition as we can get. Otherwise we'll get silly assertions like "true conservatism has never been tried!"

> Of course nationalism without conservatism can be anything.**

As conservatism without being clearly defined can be anything.

**

Why don't you start with my signature line, dimwit :lol:

Okiereddust

2003-07-31 07:07 | User Profile

Abe Foxman is right and MacDonald is wrong.

Abe Foxman is an a**hole & you two have a lot in common. ** Do I detect a bit of polyamorous jealousy toward old Abe? :lol:

> Why don't you start with my signature line, dimwit :lol:**

That's the problem: it doesn't define conservatism in any meaningful way. **

And you don't define "meaningful way" in a meaningful way :P

Patrick

2003-08-01 04:11 | User Profile

"She hasn't even acknowledged to have the slightest interest in my above offer"

.....I'm not so sure you meant "acknowledged" as you may have meant "yet comprehended", (nor shown the ability to so do); I believe you have her pegged... :)

Patrick

2003-08-01 04:29 | User Profile

.....To whom are you speaking, Raina?

Sojourner

2003-08-01 14:44 | User Profile

It is certainly become evident that Zoroaster, Raina and wintermute by their consistant lies and ignorant statements in this particular forum are graduates of the "jews" 101 class of "if you repeat the lie often enough they'll believe you".

The only benefit of the doubt I can offer is that they aren't workin with a full deck. It is certainly obvious that no matter how many times you correct their false potrayals they either can't read, can't comprehend or are working under the auspice of above. Either way they definitely play the part well of being the "jews" useful idiot to a tee.

Zoroaster

2003-08-01 19:21 | User Profile

Sojourner,

I get the impression that you overestimate your significance on this forum. To be sure, fundamentalists will witness in church where they are very vocal, but they seldom, if ever, bring their piety to public forums. The fact of the matter is that fundamentalists really couldn't care less about internet forums, so any fanantic who claims to be Christian is automatically suspect as being something other than what what they claim to be.

After all, we are all well-acquainted with this tactic. Every agent provocateur and agitprop expert wants to create the false impression that there is a groundswell of support for his cause among the general populace. Hence, its entirely natural that Jewish activists would pose as gentiles, often with elaborate disguises (Fundamentalist Christians, Army Officers, Marines, Vietnam Vets, WWII vets, you name it). Very often there is a single individual posting under various aliases, claims of nationality, etc. to create the illusion of wide-scale, nay, nearly unanymous support for the cause.

Lately there has been an influx of disrupters to this forum, Sojourner is a good example; it's best to ignore these creeps.

-Z-

Patrick

2003-08-02 04:14 | User Profile

"I think there is no better way to measure the distance between Patrick and myself than to note that his response to my labelling him a liar was a full on anger display, complete with physical threats."

Wintermute...

.....If you wish to be able to relate to me, (and you have yet to give an indication), you need to actually read the words I go to the trouble of typing here; your little brother Zorro, (sore ass), spoke the same nonsense about some non-existent "threat"... there was no threat to either of you; I care not one whit what you choose to believe, or even that which you speak against me... I merely made an observation, (knowing myself as I do, certainly), that if you stood before me and declared me a liar, when I speak forth the truth, my back hand snaps out and people fall down; you are not standing before me, and I have zero desire to care where ye be... "those that have an ear, let them hear; those that forebear, let them forebear"; this is the selfsame Scripture upon which I stand and there is none else... do you have difficulty with the English language? YHVH forbid I ever have to parse the Hebrew, or the Greek with you...

.....You know, I came onto the forum because I saw intelligence here; pity that you're so quick to squander it, (particularly for the others here; if all you have to offer is "pink noise", please return to the background of a discussion with those that offer more)... Your manner of response is hardly foreign to me; I will say that I had never expected it from those that profess that which you, your little brother Zorro, and a small number of others profess... from my perspective, you are extremely confused by all of this, despite your "apparent" versing...

Dan Dare

2003-08-02 07:13 | User Profile

Okiereddust wrote:

**Of course. In fact to a serious Christian the national question, is one of the more minor dilemma's and paradoxes to be encountered **

Entering back into into the lists after a spell in the real world, pray where might one encounter such Olympians in contemporary America?

Present company excepted, of course.

Okiereddust

2003-08-02 12:43 | User Profile

Okiereddust wrote:

**Of course. In fact to a serious Christian the national question, is one of the more minor dilemma's and paradoxes to be encountered **

Entering back into into the lists after a spell in the real world, pray where might one encounter such Olympians in contemporary America?

Present company excepted, of course.**

I'm afraid I don't understand your question completely. Generally you would seem to be asking where such organizations of a serious theological bent would be found, that in addition has the courage to address such issues of a conservative socio/political nature.

Seminaries in general would be the sorts of places you expect to find such dialogue, although it seems to me that seminaries in general tend lean (strongly for someone of my persuasian) to the left. But without answering your question, I am sure ther are some out there. If atheistic Soviet Russia could produce a book dealing with such issues (From Under the Rubble, I'm sure there are places in America were such scholarship is produced.

If you haven't heard of it, it is probably because, unlike such views expressed in the USSR, such scholarship doesn't have intrinsic noteriety, or have a basic highly interested audience. Just looking at this forum is an indicator of the low interest in such, considering this would tend to be a hotbed of interest if there was any.

Exelsis_Deo

2003-08-09 01:49 | User Profile

I just spent about 2 hours carefully reading this thread and I must say it's one of the most informative, keeper threads Ive seen in a while on OD. I know every thread must die but the way this one worked from a Christian Identity discussion to a Thomas Jefferson discussion was interesting yet organic.

Most memorable - 1) Patrick's bibliography which consists of top of the line historical analyses, the best available, truly, and mostly pre-modern 2) Wintermute's near-conversion... personally I can almost smell it

:P

Exelsis_Deo

2003-08-09 02:44 | User Profile

Its on pg. 4. Nothing in your written word admitted it, but I delved into your thought processes and felt a pulsation ..a sincere infusion into your mind where before you came to your pagan senses, you were indeed considering not ONLY the positive-social benefits of Christianity, but struggling with the mystery in your own mind. Something I felt. ( also I never learned how to use the quote button properly ) Concerning Jefferson, he had a very hard life and lost loved ones early on. About his deism, I always felt sure that he only meant it in the scientific sense, that there is a progenitor of scientific law. We all must remember that during his age, the Enlightenment, empirical scientific discoveries were a major issue. Whether or not these empirical discoveries or interpretations of natural events were from God or from Satan/Lucifer was an actual issue at that time. It still is today, in my consciousness.

Okiereddust

2003-08-09 03:41 | User Profile

Well, you have an excellent track record.

The last time you said "god would touch me soon", he actually did - through one of Okie's volcanic posts.

I didn't post much for months afterwords.

**

Wintermute, I've been called many things before, but never a god, or even a prophet of him :D

I would try to dissuade you, but, as I remembver from the movie Ghostbusters the black guy told Dan Ackroyd > When she asks you if you are gods, you are supposed to say yes****

After all, the only time in the Bible we read of prophets being called gods and turning the favor down the jews quickly persuaded the heathen celts to stone them instead :unsure:

A common sequence of events on this forum. One minute we're jew (aka Christ-killers) haters aryan heros, next minute we'll be Jerry Falwell Noadite Foxman ass-kissing wannabees. :rolleyes:

[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=10121&st=0&#entry56061]Mel Gibson's Movie Inspires Pograms[/url]

Okiereddust

2003-08-09 05:30 | User Profile

Wintermute, I've been called many things before, but never a god, or even a prophet of him

Well, I didn't mean it to be that complementary - perhaps plague vector would a better phrase choice.**

I probably would have said demonic possesion, actually Guess you're trying to make me feel bad. ;)

**They go on and on about slavery, theocracy, bigamy, and people being burned alive while forced to shriek "Ha-Shem! Ha-Shem is god!". It is so genuinely psychotic and disturbing that I often feel I am reading in the Good Book itself.

So a few of those would be nice.

After all, the only time in the Bible we read of prophets being called gods and turning the favor down the jews quickly persuaded the heathen celts to stone them instead

I'm not sure what part of the Bible you're referring to, Okie. Is it Acts 14?

9 The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, 10 Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked. 11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. 12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter [RSV, NKJV, NIV: Zeus]; and Paul, Mercurius [RSV, NKJV, NIV: Hermes], because he was the chief speaker. **

Acts 14:19 actually. (I actually intended to include it, but forget) You obviously are a man of the book at one time. I almost expect you to do a King Agripa on me Acts 26:19 :(

> A common sequence of events on this forum. One minute we're jew haters aryan heros, next minute we'll be Jerry Falwell Noadite Foxman ass-kissing wannabees.**

You're right - I hardly ever know what to expect next. But it does keep the board interesting.

Wintermute**

Well to tell the truth, my plans for this were more for a paleoparliament and less of a Church crusade. But like you, I like wrestling with mysteries, and mysteries turn up predictably in mysterious places.

I'll give you a one more little mystery. Why does this tendency make you an "Israelite" (hint properly translating the Hebrew)

Just curious how much of a banger you really must have been ;)

Okiereddust

2003-08-09 07:51 | User Profile

**I'll give you a one more little mystery. Why does this tendency make you an "Israelite" (hint properly translating the Hebrew) **

Oops.

I just understood your question.

You are referring, I believe, to Jacob's famous wrestling match, after which he is named Israel - Genesis, Chapter 32

Though I believe that Jacob is renamed again in Chapter 35.

Is that right?

Wintermute**

Not bad. You too seem to be an "Israelite" - "one who has striven with God and men and prevailed" (Gen 32:28). Although Jacob (Hebrew - heelbiter - aka backstabber) isn't called that in scripture until he converted from paganism (Gen 35). So I guess we'll hold off on that ;)

Practically everyone here I think can see that moniker would somehow seem very appropriate. You wrestle with the mysteries of life so persistently - even God may, as with Jacob, excuse your impudence out of admiration for your stubborn persistance ;)

I'm sure I have no parallel story you'd be interested in - compared to yours, much too boring. :(

Patrick

2003-08-09 14:18 | User Profile

Ã¢â¬ÂDr. Oliver made many notable contributions to his chosen cause: he participated in the creation of National Review magazine; he was one of the founders of the John Birch Society;Ã¢â¬Â

".....So, Zorro, youÃ¢â¬â¢re holding this man up as someone that knew the score, and offered solutions, no? Of course; the solution was to Ã¢â¬Åjine upÃ¢â¬Â, (nay, become a Ã¢â¬ÅfounderÃ¢â¬Â), with the dialectical Ã¢â¬Åanti-communistÃ¢â¬Â movement, under little Bobby Welch, who took his marching orders from his Ã¢â¬ÅjewishÃ¢â¬Â communist masters and lick-spittled up to his superiors like the egg-suck dog that he was, and this Ã¢â¬Åhuge braintrustÃ¢â¬Â in Dr. Oliver, was not only Ã¢â¬Åbrilliant enoughÃ¢â¬Â to expend his energies in the foremost house of infiltered, controlled opposition, but his astounding observation was that this was somehow ChristianityÃ¢â¬â¢s fault, (whom those selfsame Ã¢â¬ÅjewishÃ¢â¬Â communist forces had been likewise infiltering and destroying since the time of Our Christ)? Gee; we surely are blessed to have such an astounding intellect such as this working for a true America, arenÃ¢â¬â¢t we? Why, no telling what may have occurred here had not these good Ã¢â¬Åcommunist fightersÃ¢â¬Â siphoned off virtually the whole of time and resources of the only reputed Ã¢â¬Åanti-communistÃ¢â¬Â organization in America; Americans may well have pulled their head out their collective orifice clear back in the fifties..."

.....I just found this from Eustace Mullins' interview from early July, this year:

[url=http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Temp/Temp-MullinsInerview-JamesB.htmv]http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Temp/Temp-...iew-JamesB.htmv[/url]

On the John Birch Society...

Eustace:

JBS was setup by Nelson Rockefeller. I knew two people at the original meeting. They needed a right-wing, anti-communist organization. NR decided that Robert Welch was the man to run JBS, so he arranged for the sale of Welch's Candy Co. (where Robert Welch had been working for his brother John) to Nabisco (which was a Rockefeller controlled company) at a highly inflated price and Welch was given an income to run the John Birch Society.

Revilo Oliver was a good friend of mine and he was one of the founders of the JBS. He and I were sitting in his living room once and he told me that he knew Nelson Rockefeller ran the Birch Society because he had a revolving fund at Chase Manhattan Bank, and whenever Welch needed a quarter million dollars to meet the payroll, he'd go to CMB and withdraw the money.

Interviewer:

Oliver told you that?

Eustace:

Himself. One of the founders, can't ask for better authority than that.

I traveled around for years and I was trusted because it was pretty well established that I was working for no one but myself, so people would be frank with me. I'm writing my autobiography now, which will break all these things out. It'll be out this spring. I'll go into JBS, McCarthy, Ezra Pound and e.e. cummings...

e.e. cummings was a wonderful person with a good sense of humor, but we never had many light-hearted conversations. Everybody in the country wanted to be e.e. cummings...

One day in 1952, Ezra said to me "I want you to go to New York and meet e.e. cummings". I was kind of surprised that he wanted me to, so I hitchhiked up there...I had no money in those days, so I hitched everywhere...so I hitchhiked up to New York. I got to his place at about twilight and knocked on his door. I heard only silence. I knocked again and heard a voice saying "Who is it?" I said "Eustace Mullins". The voice said "Who? Who sent you?" I said "Eustace Mullins...Ezra Pound sent me". The door flew open, as Ezra was the open sesame.

*"I just spent about 2 hours carefully reading this thread and I must say it's one of the most informative, keeper threads Ive seen in a while on OD. I know every thread must die but the way this one worked from a Christian Identity discussion to a Thomas Jefferson discussion was interesting yet organic.

Most memorable - 1) Patrick's bibliography which consists of top of the line historical analyses, the best available, truly, and mostly pre-modern"*

Thank you, Exelsis_Deo...

.....I have gotten a comment or two, thus far, that appeared complimentary, and the sarcasm got by me; your's sounds sincere...

Texas Dissident

2003-08-09 17:00 | User Profile

So, Zorro, you?re holding this man up as someone that knew the score, and offered solutions, no? Of course; the solution was to ?jine up?, (nay, become a ?founder?), with the dialectical ?anti-communist? movement, under little Bobby Welch, who took his marching orders from his ?jewish? communist masters and lick-spittled up to his superiors like the egg-suck dog that he was, and this ?huge braintrust? in Dr. Oliver, was not only ?brilliant enough? to expend his energies in the foremost house of infiltered, controlled opposition, but his astounding observation was that this was somehow Christianity?s fault, (whom those selfsame ?jewish? communist forces had been likewise infiltering and destroying since the time of Our Christ)? Gee; we surely are blessed to have such an astounding intellect such as this working for a true America, aren?t we? Why, no telling what may have occurred here had not these good ?communist fighters? siphoned off virtually the whole of time and resources of the only reputed ?anti-communist? organization in America; Americans may well have pulled their head out their collective orifice clear back in the fifties... **

Very interesting, Patrick.

Patrick

2003-08-10 14:48 | User Profile

Texas Dissident...

.....Years ago, it was a gentleman from the Birch Society that had contacted me, due to a political cartoon I had created, (founding fathers, in miniature, were the lead cast); at any rate, I give them much of the credit for putting me on the right path, to a degree... At first he explained how our ills were all "by design"; he gave me a very nice biography on Patrick Henry, and a number of magazine features from The New American... It was a hard pill to swallow for me to realize that they were merely a controlled opposition group of "anti-communists"; in reality, they are there to squander the resources of, (as well as identify, I imagine), those most vociferously against the new world communist order... An Hegelian dialectic, on steroids, so to speak...

Thread 8064

Gabrielle [OP]

Kurt

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter

Okiereddust

*In spite of the skeptics, I liked that Gabrielle. Let me post the text for clarity. *

Okiereddust

Okiereddust

whitehomeland

Texas Dissident

whitehomeland

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter

Okiereddust

Okiereddust

madrussian

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter

Okiereddust

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter

Okiereddust

Okiereddust

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter

Okiereddust

Texas Dissident

Texas Dissident

whitehomeland

il ragno

Okiereddust

Okiereddust

il ragno

Okiereddust

il ragno

Okiereddust

il ragno

Okiereddust

Texas Dissident

Texas Dissident

NeoNietzsche

Walter Yannis

W.R.I.T.O.S

Patrick

Dan Dare

Patrick

Okiereddust

il ragno

Okiereddust

Dan Dare

Okiereddust

Dan Dare

Okiereddust

Franco

Okiereddust

Texas Dissident

Okiereddust

Walter Yannis

NeoNietzsche

Okiereddust

NeoNietzsche

Patrick

Okiereddust

Okiereddust

Sojourner

Patrick

Okiereddust

Sojourner

NeoNietzsche

Patrick

NeoNietzsche

Patrick

NeoNietzsche

Patrick

Texas Dissident

Okiereddust

Patrick

Avalanche

Zoroaster

Patrick

Okiereddust

Zoroaster

Okiereddust

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter

In spite of the skeptics, I liked that Gabrielle. Let me post the text for clarity.

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter

ÃÅbeltÃÂ¤ter