← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Conservative
Thread ID: 8480 | Posts: 9 | Started: 2003-07-27
2003-07-27 02:25 | User Profile
The following is from [url=http://www.rense.com/general37/century.htm]http://www.rense.com/general37/century.htm[/url]
Makow - The Jewish Century Kevin MacDonald's "The Culture of Critique" By Henry Makow, PhD 5-27-3
Kevin MacDonald book "The Culture of Critique" (2002) portrays the 20th century as a Jewish century. A hundred years ago, Jews were an impoverished people living mostly in Eastern Europe surrounded by hostile populations. Today Israel is firmly established in the Middle East and Jews have become the wealthiest and most powerful elite in the United States and other Western countries.
More significantly, according to MacDonald, the Western intellectual world has become Judaized. Jewish values and attitudes now constitute the culture of the West. Because of deep-seated Jewish hostility toward traditional Western (i.e. Christian) culture, the founding peoples "have been made to feel deeply ashamed of their own history, surely the prelude to their demise as a culture and a people." (lxix)
Complete article is at [url=http://www.rense.com/general37/century.htm]http://www.rense.com/general37/century.htm[/url]
2003-07-27 04:51 | User Profile
This article previously posted here from Etherzone
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=8181]The Jewish Century[/url]
Originally posted by Ares@Jul 27 2003, 02:25 * *More significantly, according to MacDonald, the Western intellectual world has become Judaized. Jewish values and attitudes now constitute the culture of the West. Because of deep-seated Jewish hostility toward traditional Western (i.e. Christian) culture, the founding peoples "have been made to feel deeply ashamed of their own history, surely the prelude to their demise as a culture and a people." (lxix)
**
Well a bunch of the VNNers here certainly prove that deep-seated hostility to Western aka Christian culture is not just a Jewish affair. The hostility in our cultural context pretty definitely eclipses anything I'd read about in the Third Reich. One wonders. Is this hostility just mirror image Jewish cultural political mimickry, is it the result of an internalized cultural self-hatred the WN's for all their blustery rhetoric have absorbed from their position in our present culture, or is it (as they claim) just the natural result of their inherent radicalization. Probably IMO a natural combination of all three. Also is their present dominance within the present dominance within the WN movement through the National Alliance and VNN just a natural result of WN politics, or could perhaps, as often happens in WN politics, outside forces be playing a role in centrifugal forces in WN/"White Supremacist" groups? :ph34r:
Impossible to tell, but the argument that Christianity is disruptive to the WN movement and overt hostility to it will in the short, medium, or even long run aid in unifying and strenthening the WN movement seems adhered to strongly only by a certain faction within the NA/VNN leadership, and seems viewed by most in the WN movement as just another one of the constant internal frictions in WN which always seem to guarantee the movement will remain small, splintered, preoccupied with internal bickering, and culturally isolated from even its logical strongholds within mainstream America in rural, blue collar America.
2003-07-28 02:35 | User Profile
**Well a bunch of the VNNers here certainly prove that deep-seated hostility to Western aka Christian culture is not just a Jewish affair. The hostility in our cultural context pretty definitely eclipses anything I'd read about in the Third Reich. ** I suppose it's fruitless to try... but what-the-hey? Okkie, you and I spend a lot of time arguing about Christianity, so how about I work out, in writing, some of my feelings about Christianity. You see a "deep-seated hostility" to you and your religion, when what I really want is for y'all to LEAVE ME out of it! I don't require of you that you stop believing, so why must you keep trying to make what is also MY country into something that fits your beliefs, but not my non-belief?! Is there no room for unbelievers in your world?
I was raised till 6 or 7 as a (Northern) Baptist, hence I DO have a strong grounding in the Bible and, at least Baptist, beliefs. My father, before I was born, was a Bible-thumping Baptist; fervent and sure. I don't know why he 'fell away' but he did over time and the family quit going to church jointly. My parents, musicians both, had 'church jobs' -- paid positions directing choirs (dad) and singing (mom). In my pre-teens, my best friend went to the Baptist church of my young days, and I started going with her. At this time, my mom had a job with a Christian Scientist church, and I think daddy was already at the Episcopel church. They both sang the 'High Holy Days' at a variety of jewish 'churchs' (good money, common enough among musicians -- also where my mom learned just how objectionable jews could be! :D )
We used to joke, we kids: my older sister went to the Episcopel church and had considered converting to judaism (she, too, sang the High Holy Days, and was enticed by some of what she saw in judaism), my younger sister went to the Presbyterian church, I was a Baptist, my mom was mostly Christian Scientist (she found a lot there congenial), but also was partly Buddhist and had explored several odd little Christian sects (anyone ever heard of "I am"?), and daddy thought HE was god!
In the Baptist church, you get baptised when you are old enough to know what you're doing; and so I went to the classes; and went to be baptised. The Baptists have a little swimming pool under the pulpit: full-immersion, you know.) I believed that I believed; I was convinced that I believed. I went for the baptism, and, in an odd twist, I had just exhaled when the minister slapped his hand over my nose and mouth and pushed me under. So there I was, airless, struggling to get back up, while he did whatever it was he did to baptise me... Suffice to say, this detracted from the impact! I don't know if this was what started me questioning my commitment, but within a year, I had fallen away myself. (I DO wonder, on that baiss of a variety of possible signs and the complete blank spot around my 'church years,' if the minister may have molested me when I went to that church. I've always wondered, and... well {shrug} -- no way to know, but it would explain some things...)
Anyway, I had no particular pro or con feelings about Christianity; it just wasn't for me. But over time, I read and considered and researched -- because Christianity interested 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? (I got a real chuckle recently -- there's a letter in the paper from a guy against booze, and saying that Christians should never drink, and I thought... huh.. water into wine? Maybe it was supposed to be written down: wine into water? Why would some Christians pick alcohol as a thing to shun, when JESUS drank it?!)
The thing I have always found UNcongenial about a lot of Christianity and Christians is the judgemental nastiness that seems prevalent. It seems (it SEEMS) that way too of many of them are insistant that, not just everyone who believes as they do, but EVERYone MUST believe their way, do things there way, live their lives the way the Christians demand -- and the Christians are quite willing to use the govt to enforce it! I mean, REALLY!! Blue laws?! The CHRISTIANS don't want to drink on Sunday, and so they don't want ANYone to drink on Sunday and so they use the govt to FORCE everyone to not buy booze on Sunday!
I agree with that bumper sticker "Against abortion? DON'T HAVE ONE!" If Christians don't want to buy booze on Sundays, then just don't! But WHY should they have a say over whether or not OTHERS buy booze on Sundays?
The majority of science has accepted evolution as the best explanation so far. If Christians want to believe something ELSE (something NON-scientific), feel free! But instead, they want to use the power of govt to force ALL children to be "protected" from what the majority of science has accepted. (Worse, they want to make schools teach THEIR non-scientific "version" of things!) (If their "persuasion against" evolution is so weak that their kids can't be 'talked out of it' by their parents after having been taught it in schools, then their persuasion is insufficient! If they think they can "prove" their beliefs only by refusing to expose their kids to other beliefs, then theirs must not be very strong!)
If Christians want to pray in schools -- go right ahead, but leave the rest of us OUT of it! Pray in private, or pray at home before the kids GET to school (or home school and do what you will!) But they want to use the power of govt to FORCE all kids to either pray or sit through the Christian kids' prayers
And no, I DON'T believe these things because I'm jewish, (I'm very much anti-jew! in case you haven't noticed yet!). I believe these things because I am NOT Christian, and I don't share you beliefs and I don't want them forced on me! Believe what you wish -- LEAVE ME ALONE!
I think Christianity is a lovely thing for those who believe. It provides a wonderful community, a replacement for the deracination (the destruction of 'tribe') of white folks, but it's also NOT the thing I want to belong to! (As I wrote elsewhere, I wish we could FORCE Christianity on the d@mned blacks throughout this country, in the hopes it would provide a civilizing force on them! But I'd rather just export all the blacks back to their original continent and let them believe what they wish!)
What Okkie perceives as attacks on his religion, are really just me trying to express the depth of my desire for all-y'all to do what you will, but do it with your co-religionists and leave ME out of it! STOP trying to remake the country into your vision of a Christian nation. It was SUPPOSED to be a religion that allowed every religion or no religion a home.
2003-07-28 03:44 | User Profile
Avalanche is correct in that Christians can be very intolerant. I knew Christians, and WAS a Christian and was a Christian supporter until about 1990. Their my-way-or-the-highway rubs people the wrong way at times...many times. Perhaps some of them should soften their tone and not demand that atheists bow to their wants... :rolleyes: 'Course, we all have our prejudices -- even Tex dislikes Catholics: those Northern Yankie liberals with their oh-so-special Trinity... :D
2003-07-28 07:37 | User Profile
A,
First, I appreciate your testimony and background. It always helps to know something about where folks are coming from. One point I would like to address:
It seems (it SEEMS) that way too of many of them are insistant that, not just everyone who believes as they do, but EVERYone MUST believe their way, do things there way, live their lives the way the Christians demand -- and the Christians are quite willing to use the govt to enforce it! I mean, REALLY!! Blue laws?! The CHRISTIANS don't want to drink on Sunday, and so they don't want ANYone to drink on Sunday and so they use the govt to FORCE everyone to not buy booze on Sunday!
As an anti-Federalist Southron and fervent supporter of legislation like Blue Laws, I would say that you are choosing the wrong government to make your enemy. It is the Federal government who is the hostile oppressor here, enforcing a blanket uniformity amongst all the States and their peoples. If our once followed Constitution was still upheld, then folks who had a problem with a specific State's Blue Laws or public school prayer, then they would simply have the freedom to move to another State that better fit their particular beliefs/standards. It was the damn Yankees coming down to Texas in the oil boom days that finally brought an end to our Blue Laws and I dare say that life here hasn't been the same since. Now we have 24-7 Wal-Marts and a consumer culture that teaches the lesson that commerce is the highest good, community and cultural harmony be damned!
Local goverments, school boards, MUDs and even state governments weren't just put in place willy-nilly or appointed by Washington D.C. know-it-all bureaucrats. The most representative government is one that is closest to the people it supposedly represents. If local school districts want school prayer, then they vote for those leaders who will make it policy. If some Jewish atheist kid doesn't like it, they should move, preferably back North where they probably came from in the first place. Same goes for Hindus, Muslims and all other manner of people who don't belong here.
If you have a problem with the specific issues of school prayer and Blue laws, then simply change the issue to segregation/Jim Crow. The same dynamics apply.
2003-07-28 07:39 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Franco@Jul 27 2003, 22:44 * ** 'Course, we all have our prejudices -- even Tex dislikes Catholics... **
Hey! Some of my best friends are Catholics.
;)
2003-07-28 13:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jul 28 2003, 01:37 * It was the damn Yankees coming down to Texas in the oil boom days that finally brought an end to our Blue Laws and I dare say that life here hasn't been the same since.ÃÂ Now we have 24-7 Wal-Marts and a consumer culture that teaches the lesson that commerce is the highest good, community and cultural harmony be damned!*
My Stars and Bars, let people drink on Sunday and call me Shylock!
(I wonder how those Nips figured out how to permit 24/7 drinking and still protect the mom-and-pop's from being taken over?)
2003-07-28 13:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jul 28 2003, 01:37 * As an anti-Federalist Southron and fervent supporter of legislation like Blue Laws, I would say that you are choosing the wrong government to make your enemy.ÃÂ It is the Federal government who is the hostile oppressor here, enforcing a blanket uniformity amongst all the States and their peoples.ÃÂ If our once followed Constitution was still upheld, then folks who had a problem with a specific State's Blue Laws or public school prayer, then they would simply have the freedom to move to another State that better fit their particular beliefs/standards.*
"The Second Great Awakening, which started in the year 1799, was a turning point in the earliest stages of the Abolitionist movement. The ministers of many Northern Churches, mainly to spread revivalist beliefs sparked this religious event. These included the idea that entry to heaven was based on goodness in life, not wealth (the common idea of the day). These views appealed to many blacks because they were mostly disenfranchised. As a side note, revivalism did not show up for a longer time in the South, due to the religious opinions of people there. The fact is, as Fredrick Douglass said (roughly), [color=red]the first step towards abolition is the feeling of equality and humanity[/color]. Also, in a more direct sense of this influence on the African-Americans of the time, the first black American church opened shortly afterwards in Wilmington, Delaware. Thus Christianity effectively crossed racial lines in the Early Republic. [color=red]That blacks were Christian almost entirely and considered human by others because of religious similarities[/color] proves how the Second Great Awakening was a turning point.
"Despite the abolitionist intentions of many preachers, not all were loyal to such a cause. [color=red]Many preachers, especially in the North, helped to inspire the people of towns and cities to dislike slavery and push for abolition. Also, many of the same clergymen inspired numerous blacks to convert to Christianity. In doing, this they made others see the black community as fellow men[/color]. A few preachers even went as far as to lead slave revolts (all of which wound up being crushed with many people lynched - hung illegally). One of the most famous examples of this is when the slaves of one South Carolina plantation revolted and killed the owners on the advice of a preacher. This small uprising spread to other plantations, until South Carolinian authorities intervened. The previously mentioned is an example that proves how many were very dedicated to the push for the abolition of slavery. This dedication led directly to agitation prior to the Civil War. However, most southern preachers were either against slavery or appeared not to take a stance. In fact, in the year 1800, the Roman Catholic Church of America (which was quite prominent in the south) made all anti-slavery books forbidden. Also, [color=red]many southern churches claimed that the bible justified slavery. The attempts to keep slavery actually might have helped with the abolition of slavery. This is possible because of how thinly veiled their proclamations were and how it was obvious that they simply wanted to have more money made[/color].
"Although there were certainly abolitionist ideas around from the 18th century, the abolitionist movement did not actually start until around 1830. This can be attributed to the fact that religion, an everyday thing, did not take a strong stand. In 1831, Nat Turner, a strongly Christian slave who claimed to have had a divine revelation, led a slave revolt in Virginia. He had been consulting a Baptist minister not long before, and may have received advice. This was the largest slave revolt that had ever occurred in the United States, and required the intervention of the U.S. Army to put down. The magnitude of this revolt and the righteousness felt because of the leaderââ¬â¢s occupation helped to show the people what the slaves were capable of doing and that they were not content with their position. The obvious lack of content caused increasing abolitionist feelings. Also, that this was the first slave revolt that got much attention, and the first one led by a clergyman proves that religion brought the abolitionist movement into action. Also, in 1833, the Anti-Slavery Convention of 1833 is held and thousands came. Discussions included the rights of blacks and whether blacks were an equal race. Shortly after this, the American Anti-Slavery Society is founded. This large group of individuals met regularly and existed until the end of the Civil War in 1865. They helped to organize abolitionists into a socially powerful group. Not surprisingly, [color=red]clergymen organized both of the previous events. This also proves the statement that it was religion that brought the movement together. Religious servants were the ringleaders of the abolitionist movement, as is proven by these examples[/color]." [Emphasis added]
2003-07-28 14:07 | User Profile
We see that Christianity thus provided the sanctimonious rationale concealing the economic imperialism manifest in the War of Northern Aggression.
Let us thank our Brothers in Christ for making the imposition of the Federal monstrosity possible.