I went through a Nietzsche phase as an undergrad philosophy major but never read The Anti-Christ, so Thomas Dalton’s current TOO article “Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity” was a real eye-opener — the ultimate conspiracy theory: St. Paul as the center of a plan to counter Roman power by recruiting non-Jews to “to steal away their moral authority and place it, ultimately, in the hands of a Jew who would sooth their suffering, and ‘save’ them.” The result of the triumph of Christianity was a Jewish slave morality — “a catastrophe of the highest magnitude. … countering every aspect of Roman morality and spirituality, and … establishing a system favorable to Jewish interests.” A morality born of “the hatred and revenge of the Jews.”
What an incredible feat: to turn Europeans away from their own western heritage — a noble, life-affirming Greco-Roman culture — and toward a foreign, alien, decadent, Oriental worldview. And it was done as revenge, out of hatred, and built upon lies. An ancient religion — Judaism — born of falsehood and lies, creates another born of falsehood and lies. It is done for reasons of power, control, wealth, and survival. And the lie prevails.
Anything bordering on religion is always likely to provoke intense feelings and for good reason. Since I am an evolutionist, I see all religion as a sort of ideology — a belief system that gives meaning and coherence to the world, and motivates behavior. The only important question is whether the ideology furthers or hinders the evolutionary aims of the people who believe in it. In that sense, Jewish religious ideology has tended to be quite adaptive for Jews — regulating marriage and providing for group cohesion and negative views of non-Jews, etc.
What about Christian ideology? Here the record is quite a bit more mixed, but in general I am much more positive about Christianity than Nietzsche. Regarding the ancient Roman world, the following is a passage from my review of David Sloan Wilson’s Darwin’s Cathedrals:
Particularly interesting is the discussion of early Christianity based on the work of Rodney Stark (1996). Early Christianity emerges as a non-ethnic form of Judaism that functioned as a way of producing cohesive, effective groups able to deal with the uncertainties of the ancient world. The ancient world was a very unpredictable place indeed, characterized by natural disasters such as earthquakes, fires, rioting, epidemics, brutal military campaigns against civilians, famines, and widespread poverty. Navigating this world was greatly facilitated by co-religionists ready to lend a helping hand and to establish economic alliances. Wilson has no hesitation in supposing that Christian charity in extending aid to fellow Christians suffering from the plague involved altruism, as indeed it did. But the result was that more Christians survived these disasters than did Pagans: Christianity was adaptive at the group level. The adaptiveness of Christianity also stemmed from its emphasis on several attitudes that were notably lacking in the Roman Empire: encouragement of large families, conjugal fidelity, high-investment parenting, and outlawing of abortion, infanticide, and non-reproductive sexual behavior. The bottom line is that Christian women did indeed out-reproduce Pagan women. Other obvious examples of religiously mandated fertility and family-promoting values in the contemporary world are the Amish and Hutterites, the Mormons, and Orthodox Jews. All of these religions are characterized by social controls and religious ideologies that promote adaptive behavior at the group level.
Further, Christianity has at times been a very effective force against Judaism. Indeed, in Ch. 3 of Separation and Its Discontents I argue that the institutionalization of Christianity in the late Roman Empire was fundamentally an anti-Jewish movement. See here for the short version. I note there that these fundamentally anti-Jewish attitudes remained Church teaching and influenced Church policy until Vatican II. I also note that
on the one hand, there is no question that Catholicism was able to serve as a viable institution of ethnic defense in other historical eras, notably the Middle Ages when, as James C. Russell notes, the Church was influenced by German culture. On the other hand, the strands of Christian universalism can lead to compromising the ethnic interests of Christians. Indeed, since Vatican II, Catholicism has become part of the culture of Western suicide. In the US, it is in the forefront of the open borders movement. It is therefore not at all surprising that Jewish organizations would be dismayed by any retreat from Vatican II.
As Russell notes, Germanic culture was not submerged by Christianity. My view is that a biological tendency toward individualism is a far better explanation of Western institutions since the Enlightenment than Christianity. There is much else to be said — too much to get into in a blog. Suffice it to say that whatever St. Paul intended in creating Christianity, he could not control the outcome in its long later history.
Nevertheless, I do think that Christian universalism remains a problem for European survival. In commenting on Evangelical Protestants in the US, I noted their high fertility and strong sense of family values as clearly adaptive. However,
A great many Christian denominations, including some evangelical groups, are strong supporters of multi-racial immigration and quite a few Christian groups avidly seek converts from all races and ethnicities. My impression is that most white Christians live in an implicit white world. Their gut instincts are to preserve an America that has at least a vague resemblance to the world in which they grew up.
There is no question that Christian Zionism has been a negative force on US foreign policy in the Middle East, although. as Mearsheimer and Walt note, it is very doubtful that they would have any influence at all without the support and encouragement of the Israel Lobby.
I do think that race will trump religion in American politics in the sense that White Americans will realize that importing millions of non-White Christians from Mexico and elsewhere is a horrible idea. Race is a far more powerful variable in predicting people’s political affiliations than religion, and that will continue as the racial polarization of America continues and the Republican Party (or, hopefully, the A3P) becomes the party of Whites. Implicitly at least, White people who are strong Christians understand that they have far more in common with atheists, agnostics and liberal Protestants who are White than they do with non-White Christians. The fact that Conservative Protestants defied their leaders and were strong supporters of immigration restriction in the period of ethnic defense that culminated in the 1924 law shows that they can be rallied to sensible causes. The fact that so many of them are now involved in the Tea Party opposition movement and the rallies against immigration amnesty of recent years shows that they have healthy instincts.
So I remain optimistic that Christianity will ultimately prove to be an evolutionarily adaptive ideology for Christians.
The Joys of Jihad: Islamentable, Isatrocious, Isbetrayal
Nordics versus Implicit Jews in "The Switch"
Kevin, most white people in the US are Christians, so I have to wonder what your movement has to gain by attacking their religion. Christianity is assuredly not against Jews. Christians are taught that God’s chosen people are those who accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. We understand the Old Testament by substituting Christians where it says Jews. Those who call themselves Jews are unreconstructed.
“Christianity has at times been a very effective force against Judaism. I”
I do not think that the Spanish could have driven out the Muslims without it.
Frankly I thought the article was stupid and counter productive. Dalton should familiarize himself with current Biblical scholarship (like Tom Wright) and not really on outdated third hand readings. Like Dawkins, he makes what he thinks are clever arguments which have long been refuted.
The proof also, is in the pudding. Secular Europe is destroying itself far faster than Christian America- and even in America, the more secular, the more self destructive.
Thank you for pointing out the postive aspects, as I stress again and again, and it is irefutable – before christianity pagan romes thought nothing of infanticide.
” St. Paul as the center of a plan to counter Roman power by recruiting non-Jews to “to steal away their moral authority and place it, ultimately, in the hands of a Jew who would sooth their suffering, and ‘save’ them.” The result of the triumph of Christianity was a Jewish slave morality ”
This flies in the face of common sense and the evidence. St. Paul was persecuted by the Jewish establishment, as was, of course, Jesus.
Really, Martin Luther had a Jewish Slave morality? Queen Isabel of Spain? nonsense.
I would ask an occulums razor question: if Christianity is SO BAD for whites, why do Jews HATE IT so fiercely? If it is good for jews why are they so opposed it.
If people like Dalton would HONESTLY ask this to themselves maybe they would change their thinking a bit.
I tend to agree with Professor MacDonald. If Christianity is such a loser ideology, why then did Western civilization experience its heyday under a primarily Christian worldview? Why didn’t the more populous Buddist and Hindu world achieve similar strides?
This may be a form of academic blasphemy, but I think Nietche was sort of a crank. The whole superman thing seems to me based on a crude misinterpretation of Darwinism. And Christianity was only one of numerous mystery religions to sweep Rome during this period. Were the Persians in a conspiracy against Western civilization as well? Nietche seems to have been extrapolating backward in time from the things he saw happening around him.
Thanks very much to Dalton for this erudite article, and to prof. MacDonald for sharing some of his balanced and sober views on the matter.
Nietzsche was a genius, but some of his views were exaggerated and his rhetoric too hyperbolic in his later period. His realm was classical (Graeco-Roman) philology, and he did not pay much attention to Germanic history. As Russell has pointed out, Christianity became Germanized as the Germanic world became Christianized. The scriptures (religion as theology/ideology) didn’t matter very much before Gutenberg’s technological revolution.
Whenever something is submitted that touches on religion, I worry that it will offend some readers who are very much on page with the really important issues. But I do think we should be able to talk about these issues. Nietzsche is a historically important figure, and we are all well aware that there are people who are White advocates who are very negative about Christianity because they see it as fundamentally un-European — as a malicious Semitic import. As always, the purpose is to stimulate discussion and debate, not impose a perspective. Kevin M
“why then did Western civilization experience its heyday under a primarily Christian worldview?”
and why have Marxists and other anti-western forces been so adament about dismantling and marginalizing it?
“but I think Nietche was sort of a crank.” agreed. St. Paul was despised and persecuted by the jewish establishment, to unless he believed that they were just doing that to trick the goyim so they would adapt the religion then its a pretty thin, unsubstantiated claim.
One more note about Daltons scholarship. His arguments about the authorship of the gospels “Most surprisingly, there is virtually no recorded documentation about Jesus during his lifetime, or by anyone who personally knew him. ”
Does Mr Dalton believe that Socrates existed? Could he show me some written evidence? Where are Socrates books?
It was not uncommon, before the printing press, for people to pass things down aurally and commit them to memory.
and there is far from a concenses about the authorship.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t007.html
lastly, what is the oldest copy of say, the works of plato that we have? what is the oldest copy of a gospel we have??
I think TOO’s approach is admirable in an American context. Discussing these issues is perhaps more sensitive in America than in Europe. These issues are complicated. From a sociological (and historical) perspective, it is clear that Christianity is far more than a religion/ideology. Several aspects of Christianity have probably contributed/encouraged/enabled the development of modern science, for example.
To many mainstream European Americans, Christianity is part of their ethno-cultural identity. This is difficult terrain. Odinism/paganism/Asatru will probably remain a marginal phenomenon.
Actually, this was a really interesting article, not an attack on Christianity. Nietzsche was a great writer who was an expert on ancient greek and latin texts. (That was his “day job” as a professor of philology) He was also a highly original thinker. His attacks on Christianity seem to me to be more about the religion of his day, not about earlier, more “heroic” variants of Christianity such as that practiced by the Anglo-Germanic nobility and exemplified by the Arthurian legends of the round table.
It is also interesting to note that both Nietzsche’s father and grandfather were Lutheran ministers. Make of that what you will.
I highly recommend Nietzsche’s final few books – Genealogy of Morals, Twilight of the Idols, Anti-Christ, and Ecce Homo. They are concise, easy to read, and they burn with a white hot intensity. Really beautiful stuff.
P.S. Great website professor McDonald!
“To many mainstream European Americans, Christianity is part of their ethno-cultural identity” perhaps some of these odnists/whatevers are so unwittingly immersed in marxist thought they fail to recognize that Christianity is one of the foundation stones of our culture. That is why marxists tried, and continue to try, to wipe it out.
Just look at our artistic heritage. Remove Christianity. What do you have left? Some crap modern art and some a few thousand pagan statues.
Admin/Prof. MacDonald yes we should be able to discuss. But consistently, it seems, TOO has rabidly anti-Christian authors, who essentially advocate further tearing down western culture… to create a ‘new order’ . Haven’t we had enough of that already? When and if TOO or Western advocates ever mount any steam against internationalists marxism, it will be going back to the basics, not trying to create a new order.
Without religion, I sincerely doubt they will suceed, and most likely radically and violently fail.
Even a simple religion like Islam will eventually triumph over weak-willed secularist Europe, just as Spanish Christianity triumphed over weak-willed secularist Moorish Spain.
A population that has coevolved with a variety of religious forms may disperse into a population that has not so coevolved and reduce the fitness of the indigenous population if religions promoting universal altruism are the only religions promoted among the indigenous population (religions promoting reciprocal, or even kin, altruism remaining within the dispersing population).
This appears to have happened when the technical infrastructure of the Roman Empire compensated for the naturally harsh conditions at the frontiers of that Empire creating an environment within which the universal altruism of Christianity was promoted among Europeans by Paul and the other early Christian Proselytes who were Jews. Jewish religious belief, however, retained its tribal character, expressing both reciprocal and kin altruism. The result was an extended period of Jewish success in diaspora among Europeans in competition with holders of indigenous niches involving religious beliefs and inter-tribal trade.
This successful displacement of indigenous religions and trade niches has continued till this day (including recent innovations in religion such as Marxism, Rosenbaumian (Ayn Rand) philosophy aka “Objectivism”, Boasian anthropology/sociology, Freudian psychology, etc.). Jews have typically led political movements to liberalize immigration laws for a variety of reasons. Interestingly, however, anti-immigrationism among Jews has recently arisen. This appears due to a profound change in Western Civilization resulting from their very success and domination and is largely the result of advancing technologies of the empires of the modern era as they result in integration of immigrants to the West from ecologies closer to human origins than those in which Jews evolved. Just as religions and peoples (i.e. Jews) coevolved in locations closer to human origins than Europe displaced indigenous European religions and trade niches, so now cultures from even closer to human origin than the Levant may potentially displace those from the Levant in its niches in the West.
I’m not really offended by anything ever. I just like objective discussion. Luke was a gentile doctor, not a Jew. Dalton got that wrong too.
Nobody has mentioned that Mormonism is another ideology that may be attractive for white survival in the coming centuries. Most of the mormons i’ve known have been of extraordinary moral and mental character. They tend to marrry early and have numerous offspring. While current Mormonism does not hinge much on ethnic particularism, racialism is built into its scripture. Under the Banner of Heavan is a good book for a short shrift on Mormonism.
A new prophet could easily shift the central tenets of Mormonism slightly to make it ideal as an evolutionary strategy, it seems to me.
@Mo
And Thomas, surely isn’t a Jewish name. LOL.
The really interesting thing is that the temple cult of the Jews was spread around the entire Mediterranean area 200 years before the birth of Christ, and not confined to a small area of Syria-Palestine.
At the time of Christ as many as 55 Jew cult temples were located in the City of Rome—12 or 14 have been documented to the satisfaction of most researchers from all points of view.
There was another large concentration of Jews at Alexandria in Egypt, and it was a Jew cult center that rivaled Jerusalem in the militancy of its Jews.
From Paul we know there were numerous Jew cult centers in Greece and in Turkey and the islands of the eastern Mediterranean.
There is archaeological evidence of Jew cult activity in Spain, France and North Africa before the time of Christ.
Maybe we should play the theme from Close Encounters of the Third Kind. LOL.
Mo says:
I’m not really offended by anything ever. I just like objective discussion. Luke was a gentile doctor, not a Jew. Dalton got that wrong too.
There are good reasons to think that Luke was a Jew, just like the rest of the apostles.
http://www.gracepoints.com/articles/gpluke.php
Dalton’s piece sounds a bit one-dimensional. Others have commented on his errors/omissions. KM allowed this piece, I guess, for it provides an argument that many folks need to be aware of, and it also provides a foil for KM’s Darwinian arguments. I agree with KM all the while noting that the perhaps overly compassionate nature of Whites, due in part perhaps to Christianity but mostly due to our genome which has been shaped by at least 5000 years in the North wherein we did not have as a fundamental problem, Others with whom to fight, over land, grazing rights, population problems and constant warfare as a result, is simply part of our racial heritage. And we are stuck with it.
Our immediate needs were more for cooperation with others as small groups needed other small groups for exchange, women/men, and recruits. While the jews were fighting all the time, we were much more peaceful…hunting. Cooperative and friendly traits were developed toward outsiders, as opposed to Jewish hyperethnocentrism developed by constant warfare, subjugation, etc.
I would suggest that our now problematic compassionate nature had much more to do with natural and sexual selection, than with religion, any religion. And it is thus suggested that Christianity has been a pretty good fit for the White Genome, just as Judaeo-tribalism fits well the Jewish genome which also has been subject to Different historical conditions which favored the selection of hyper ethnocentrism and consequent hatreds toward outsiders.
Nietzsche rejected Darwin and Evolution. Therefore he fell back on the ever dubious “superstructure” (as the marxists like to argue) of ” Culture”, of
“Religion”. Over the long haul, any Thought System must be congruent with human nature. Christianity has been congruent , relatively, I suppose, for Whites. As someone, who, per Mel Gibson’s non-kosher-pie-in-the-face to his Jewish interviewer the other day,”do you have a dog in this fight?”, I don’t even own a dog.
Nietzsche is great for reminding us of our ancient fighting valor, courage, Truth Seeking, capacity for Thought and Organization, and , the White Values, if I can put it that way since no other race has invented free speech, etc.
Nietzsche was living in the aftermath of the French Revolution, 1789. THAT was the cause of the slave morality, socialism, “rights” mushrooming in the bloody soil of Imagination Unlimited and untethered to Biology or Tradition (scientific truth or Historical Reality). Wild Abstraction was the Enlightenment Reason, Reason the Whore. The whore as the attraction of infantile wish fulfillment. Wish fulfillment as the narcissism of the underman to use Nietzsche’s terminology. The Underman resenting the strength of the Overman. etc.
A bow to Darwin, and a nod to Nietzsche. Joe Webb
Also, someone like James Russell, our own Christianity expert, should be invited to address these issues. And what about Catholicism since it was the one true Church, and remains the most important of Christian churches?
I enjoyed the article very much and agree with the points made about Faith Hope and Love in Christian belief being very negative things.
Christian people must compartmentalize their religion because they are able to behave in un Christian ways regarding a lot of things, such as immigration.
Jewish tricksters have always been around since the Old Testament days and they haven’t changed any have they?
We should make certain that Christians understand that all Jews must live in Israel in order for God’s prophecy to be fulfilled. In that way we can make Christianity into our victory rather than allowing it to serve Jewish interests in any way.
@me – Jews hate Christians because they are not Jews. We hate what we fear which is why we hate Jews back. The mystery is why Jews choose to live among people they hate and how those people could get rid of them once and for all.
I made a mistake in my entry. I wrote, “Christianity is assuredly not against Jews” but what I meant to write was, “Christianity is assuredly not ABOUT Jews.”
Great discussion and commentary. I know that there is a faction in the WN movement that believes Christianity to be a root cause in the cult of Western Suicide. Thomas Dalton, Tom Sunic and others are honestly seeking to discover the root causes of the West’s debacle, and appear to have come to the conclusion that Christianity is a kind of Jewish Trojan Horse, and much of the blame in their eyes must lie with this religion. Debate is a good thing, and we of course want to try to resolve this question as much as it can be resolved. In a way, its an ideological skirmish within the movement, with the pro-Christian forces opposed to the anti-Christians.
Ironically, the anti-Christians seem to be the fanatics in the discussion, many of them seem to have some deep-seated emotional need to fight against the West’s ancient religious institution. Their argument does not seem to have logic on its side. It is certainly difficult for them to argue that the West did not thrive under Christianity for the roughly 1500 years since the conversion of the Barbarians. During that time, the West grew from barbarism to the heights of civilization, subjecting most of the rest of the world. In North America, devout settlers conquered and settled a vast continent, with a rifle in one hand and a bible in the other. For 1440 years of that era, the West was explictly White, every European nation was deeply proud of its ancestry and heritage. How can it be argued that Europeans did not benefit from Christianity for over fourteen centuries?
Eventually, it is true, most of the institutions of the West were infiltrated and subverted by a hostile elite. This includes many Christian groups. However, to suggest that Christianity now be abandoned is to want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The pro-Christians can point out a host of important points, some of which are:
1) As pointed out previously, Christian families are more stable and have more children. The most devout are the most immune from popular culture: they eschew television and homeschool their children.
2) There is no reason that this religion cannot be explicity pro-White: it was before and can be again. A vast library of 1950s-era sermons can be found which are explicitly racialist, stating that Blacks are the cursed progeny from Cain, that Jews are from the Synagogue of Satan, and so forth.
3) What do the anti-Christians propose as a replacement? Atheism is maladaptive. Secular nations are in much worse shape than more Christian ones, especially in regard to their suicidal birth rates. Those who describe themselves as atheists in Austria have a birth rate of 0.8 children per woman! That is certainly demographic suicide. And to suggest Paganism as an alternative is rather ludicrous (who could seriously worship trees or actually believe in horny old Zeus?)
4) How can an atheistic White Nationalism appeal to fellow Whites, when they are overwhelmingly Christian?
There is no reason why Christianity cannot be part of an explicity White culture. It seems to me that atheists have a lot of criticisms, but no real answers. If they lived in Japan, no doubt they would be targetting Shintoism as the root cause of Japan’s decline. I would even go so far as to wonder if they just have a personality trait that drives them to attack religion, regardless of what evidence tells us.
As one of the pro-Christians, I welcome all of the atheists in the movement, and naturally everyone is free to their own beliefs. But although they may privately despise Christianity, why not approach the subject from a more rational viewpoint? If the atheists are blinded to the benefits of Christianity, thats unfortunate. But at least let them consider this: if the WN movement adopts anti-Christian ideology, it will make the movement toxic to vast numbers of those it wishes to persuade. So shaddup already! That goes for you too, Tom Sunic :)
“@me – Jews hate Christians because they are not Jew”
sorry barbara, that doesn’t cut it. They do not display such a ferocious hatred towards Hindus, or hinduism, or even Islam. They have a particular, ferocious hatred of Christianity, and always have.
“We should make certain that Christians understand that all Jews must live in Israel in order for God’s prophecy to be fulfilled. ”
not true.
“Faith Hope and Love in Christian belief being very negative things.”
Yeah, try selling that one to most people.
I would agree that mainstream christianity is in a bad way – but only because it has been politicized by marxists the same way our universities have. No sensible person would suggest we do away with our educational system, only that we purge it of its corrupt idealogy that actually makes it function counter to its purpose. Both our universities and our churches have become destructive because of cultural marxism.
One could argue that the Christian zionist movement has corrupted things as well, and i agree. But its more a simple matter of surpression. If you speak out against israel, and you’re say, a megachurch, you’ll lose your access to cable.
Yet so many angry White GOP types fall for the Ziocon propaganda and foam at the mouth about Islam “Nuke Iran” “Drop a nuke on the Palestinians” and other enlightened views.
Is the problem Europeans are experiencing with
“Muslims” the scripture or the race of the immigrants? Obviously the problem lies with the genes not the creeds.
I’ve only seen, from a distance, a few Muslims, i.e. wearing Muslim cultural garb, but America is infested with Christians of color who are responsible for the violent crime rate America suffers.
I have to agree with Mr Abe Foxman in that the New Testament, the Gospels, are anti-semitic, meaning anti-Jewish.
One would have to be an evangelical Christian to miss it:
Matthew 27:25; Luke 11:42-43; John 7:13; John 19:38; John 20:19; Titus 1:14; I Thessalonians 2:14-15; Revelation 2:9 and on and on.
We can argue about history and point fingers all day long. But going forward, if white advocacy is to welcome Christianity, we need to address two issues, namely (1) how do racial nationalists reconcile white advocacy with Christian beliefs (and I’m not addressing idiotic groups like Christian Identity), and (2) how do we reconcile Christianity with the course of action (above and beyond separation) that we all know deep in our souls we must pursue if Whites are to survive and prosper?
me said: “‘Faith Hope and Love in Christian belief being very negative things.’
Yeah, try selling that one to most people.”
Well, the ‘turning the other cheek’ part of Christianity is clearly not functional over the long-term. It might be a great strategy within a society (within the White, Christian world for instance), but it ain’t gonna cut it when we’re up against invading Muslims and Latinos and Africans and you name it.
Guess I’m echoing what NR was getting at above.
“Well, the ‘turning the other cheek’ part of Christianity is clearly not functional over the long-term”
that has never meant what you think it means. As I and others have pointed out on this thread, it is an absurd argument to say that Christianity has been detrimental it is only recent flavors- and, as pointed out, they are detrimental for the same reasons that education has become inherently anti-white.
a large part of the ‘discussion’ here is frankly owing to the ignorance of the ‘anti Christian’ posters.
Honestly, do you think you and some other odinists or whatever are the first to discover this? Look! it says turn the other cheek in the bible… that means Christians will sit by meekly as their daughters are raped!
The doctrine of just war was formulated hundreds of years ago. I would suggest that people who make these claims do a little reading up on the subject before drawing making such assumptions.
” white advocacy is to welcome Christianity,”
on the contrary, it is up to the anti Christian white nationalists to stop their divisive campaigns or else there will never be any hope of saving the west or our people.
White Christians will toe the line on race (oh yes, they will, damn it). They line up behind us, we don’t line up behind them. That done, they can worship Jebus to their hearts’ content.
P.S. I see “Adam” has slithered back. Why no pushing of the virtues of race-mixing today, “Adam,” you slipping or what?
“White Christians will toe the line on race (oh yes, they will, damn it). They line up behind us, we don’t line up behind them.”
on cue, one of the anti’christian bigots chimes in with a divisive delusion of grandeur; typical of a fanatic, he ignores all the points made in the thread.
Nice work.
OT, but interesting news:
“Washington — Even as health care reform twists in the wind, immigration policy looms as the next big political debate — and Hispanics and Jews are moving to the forefront in a burgeoning political alliance.
The next three months are seen as critical in the fight for immigration reform, but the weakening of the Democrats’ grip on Congress with the recent loss of a key Massachusetts Senate seat does not bode well for the passage of reform legislation.
The Jewish-Latino alliance on immigration issues builds on the heritage and experience of the Jewish community and on the enthusiasm and urgent needs of the Hispanic community, which has a strong interest in issues of family unification and the status of the some 12 million illegal immigrants, most of them from Latin America.
But Jewish activists also see the joint work as an opening for cooperation with the Hispanic community on other issues, such as Israel.”
http://www.forward.com/articles/124478/
@ BK
The political alliance is between the Roman Catholic church, and, the Jews. It’s very obvious in Congress. Look at the votes.
If you look at California, your Cardinal Mahoney has pushed the Mexican take over of Californina like no one else. The Mexicans are 95% Roman Catholic and they are Mahoney’s people. The Roman Catholic church tries to sell the Mexicans and other Central Americans as being like the Italians or Irish. Take Nancy Pelosi, possibly the strongest Roman Catholic advocate for illegal aliens and open borders. That Italian woman preaches right from the Roman Catholic church pulpit for open borders and illegal immigration. Look at the Irish Roman Catholics behind open borders and unlimited immigration like the late Ted Kennedy a regular Roman Catholic saint. LOL.
The Roman Catholic & Jew political alliance needs busted up. The Roman Catholics need told the truth.
“Nice work.”
I live to serve, much like Jebus. No thanks is necessary. But seriously, do you doubt that you will toe that there line on race? Doubt not, oh Thomas, the Aryan savior is risen, and He is Lord. Hail…I mean, Hallelujah!
me said: “‘turning the other cheek’ … that has never meant what you think it means.”
Jesus said:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” —Matthew 5:38-42
“But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.” —Luke 6:27-31
I find it hard to see how it means anything other than what Jesus reportedly said: “if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Sounds like straight up paficism to me.
Look. I’m not religious myself, but I’d rather live in a Christian society than any other sort (so long as it wasn’t too “fundamentalist” for want of a better word). (I would probably also be happy in a Shinto society, but since I’m not Japanese, that’s probably not going to work out.)
But I think there is a point that some forms of Christianity — a lot of what is around today especially — is a little too spineless when it comes to standing up to invasions by foreigners. Like I’m sure there are loads of Christians today thinking that, yeah, we ought to take in lots of refugees from Haiti ’cause those poor people need help. Sure they do — but we need to 1) protect ourselves first and 2) maybe give a little ‘tough love’ to other peoples who don’t manage as well as we do.
is a little too spineless = are a little too spineless
(oops!)
From KM’s article above:
Further, Christianity has at times been a very effective force against Judaism. Indeed, in Ch. 3 of Separation and Its Discontents I argue that the institutionalization of Christianity in the late Roman Empire was fundamentally an anti-Jewish movement. See here for the short version. I note there that these fundamentally anti-Jewish attitudes remained Church teaching and influenced Church policy until Vatican II. I also note that
The million-dollar question of course, and one which can’t be answered when one views this purely through the lens of the inter-group conflict that is the stock-in-trade of evolutionary psychology, is: Why did Christianity change from what was at originally a highly-adaptive ideology for whites to a culture of suicide? The universalism that was present in Christianity was there all along. Why did it take the Jews so long to exploit this weakness, if indeed that’s what’s happening? In short, what explains the reversal and the timing?
I have previously advanced the idea that the association between whites and Jews at times resembles a kind of symbiosis, a mutualism in which both parties derive benefits. Concentrating my focus on the economic benefits brought to whites through their associations with Jews via the distributed international Jewish financial and trading networks, I have tried to show that Jews help the technological system to spread. For example, the industrialization of the USSR under communism was the means whereby the benefits of the global technological system were spread to all of the whites in the Soviet empire. Other examples could be adduced, including the Jewish participation in and financing of the slave trade to the Americas, which helped integrate the economies of the New World into those of the Old, bringing prosperity to both. Bringing benefits to both parties, but at a price, is usually what is meant by symbiosis.
But there were also advantages to the kind of memetic fusion that the white world made with Judaism as well; and this fusion was represented by the triumph of Christianity. Indeed, given that Jews represented a far higher percentage of the population of the Roman Empire than they do nowadays in the West (the Empire was about 16% Jewish, according to historian Michael Grant), and given that many of the early Christians were Jews, it’s likely that there was quite a bit of genetic fusion that took place too. Could it be that the early ethnocentrism of the Christian Church was not only a memetic borrowing from Judaism, but a genetic one as well? Since we know that ethnocentrism (i.e., racism) has a genetic basis, and if in the early years of the Church many of the priests and new converts were Jews themselves, wouldn’t it make sense to suppose that Christian ethnocentrism developed with both genetic and memetic contributions from Jews? In the case of the apostles, all of whom were “anti-semitic” Jews, what we apparently have is a case of Jewish ethnocentrism hijacked in the service of its racial enemy, a mirror image of the Christian in-group altruism that is hijacked nowadays in the service of its racial enemy.
That could help explain the virulent early anti-semitism of the Christian Church in a way that resource competition, by itself, does not. Further, this hypothesis could be subject to experimental confirmation. If true, and the early Christian Church had a substantial genetic contribution from the Jews, DNA tests of remains dating from that era should be able to establish this.
The second part of the mystery — why it took so long for the initial anti-semitism and ethnocentrism of the Church to be turned around 180 degrees and converted not only into philo-semitism, but “anti-ethnocentrism”, a culture of white suicide — can be solved once we try to integrate the racial conflict between whites and Jews with the expansion of the technological system, with which it tracks very closely. The short answer would be that mass transportation techniques brought non-whites into white racial heartlands, simultaneously as the Christian Church attempted to expand its organizational reach deeper into the non-white world. We know from biology that geographical separation is indispensable for the persistence of race. In the middle and late Roman Empire, up to the Middle Ages, white ethnocentrism was nourished by the Christian religion because neither of the former conditions yet obtained. After the expansion of the global system, the continued growth of Church power demanded a shift of emphasis to racial universalism. The Church was always formally racially universalist, of course, but in prior eras before mass transportation techniques, this was a doctrinal point and largely moot. After the technological system, in its unquenchable thirst for new material resources to exploit, brought whites into large-scale contact with non-whites, and in consequence they needed to be assimilated into it, the Church began to become de facto anti-white. Put simply, in order for Church power to grow, it was necessary that the white race die. This is an exchange that the Church was quite willing to make; and indeed, Christianity lacks even the slightest theoretical basis for opposing it.
“For example, the industrialization of the USSR under communism was the means whereby the benefits of the global technological system were spread to all of the whites in the Soviet empire.”
So you really call that symbiosis? Ten millions starved to provide grain for export to purchase machines? Tens of millions in slave labor camps to provide free labor? Gas chambers, invented by a jew? Really? What a wonderful cooperation. So do we have to thank you jews after all for genociding us Russians?
Eileen, as i have said before, this is not the first time someone’s thought of this…
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-faith/fc-warperspectives.html
“And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables” (John 2:14-15).
nd He said to them, ‘But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And he was numbered with transgressors;’ for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.’ They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ And He said to them, ‘It is enough.’”
One other note. Dalton also forgets (if he ever knew) that the Talmud also has accounts of Jesus, but the talmud claims he is boiling in excrement in hell and the Virgin Mary was a harlot.
You all are quoting scriptures after reading Dalton’s article about Nietzche’s theory of the origin of these scriptures. How can you quote something that supposedly came out of the mouth of Saul of Tarsus.? Do you think Jesus is the Son of God and that He said those words rather than St Paul who was creating a fraud?
If Saul did create a con in order to bring down the Roman Empire, then that is very much like what the Frankfurt School is doing to America and the West by sabotaging us from within our own institutions. Do you see the pattern?
Jews don’t aggressively attack, they talk of the USA as a proposition nation, and declare that everyone is equal and create social programs that end up having White people fund the breeding programs of other races and die in holocausts for Jews. They don’t use violence, they use Jesus.
Quote about Rome – “The Empire could withstand almost anything — “but it was not firm enough against the most corrupt kind of corruption, against the Christians” (sec. 58). They were the revolutionaries and anarchists, pulling on the great pillars of the Empire by draining it of its greatest strength, its system of values”
Christians in this forum are revealing the exasperating problems with Christians. You can’t reason with them. Pro Christians ignore the theory put forward and refuse to or are unable to put forward any refutations or arguments. They simply declare their faith and demand that no more “anti Christian” articles be published.
You may wish to live by faith but the rest of us prefer reason, at least to the best of each of our abilities.
Your attitudes vs the attitudes of those who built the West, demonstrates that the greatness and accomplishments of the White race are credited to brilliant people like our founding Fathers who refused to abide by Christians teachings and gave us free speech and a form of government that depended upon open debate and the people’s right to know. Not faith and hope or Jesus.
White people would have done great things no matter if we still had Druids and I wish we did. That religion could have evolved to suit us today because it was about the natural world and our relation to and dependence upon it. It was realistic and not about faith and hope.
Christianity is better than Islam and Judaism but that’s only because of the people who practice these religions. Semites create different societies than we do and their religions evolved to reflect their natures as surely as their societies do.
Race triumphs religion and religion becomes to be about those who create and practice it. Christianity is what it is because Jews lost control over it. Christianity exists today because non Christian White genius created a safe place for it to flourish.
“every kind of faith is itself an expression of self-abnegation, of self-alienation”
“What is freedom? Having the will to be responsible for yourself. Maintaining the distance that divides us. Becoming indifferent to hardship, cruelty, deprivation, even to life. … A free man is a warrior” (ibid).
My favorite quote
“The inequality of rights is the first condition for the existence of any rights at all” (sec. 57). Rights are something one holds against another; when all have them, none have them.”
In other words White Americans have rights, illegal aliens don’t.
“You may wish to live by faith but the rest of us prefer reason”
barbara, do you honestly think this ” Jews hate Christians because they are not Jew””
was a reasonable response to my question? We have demonstrated quite clearly, there is an overt jewish hostility towards christianity. its in the talmud, its in their attack on christmas, their reaction to the passion, to their revulsion to even use BC and AD. you are, quite unreasonably, avoiding that.
” no matter if we still had Druids and I wish we did”
so we would still be practicing human sacrofice and infanticide, which incidently is still practiced by pagan peoples (as in india)
“They simply declare their faith and demand that no more “anti Christian” articles be published.”
show me where i or anyone else has said this. ..you can’t…all you are revealing how much your own hatred and bias clouds your perception. I have said the articles are divisive as is the anti-christian attitude or people like dalton.
no we haven’t simply declared our faith you have simply declared your view is right and that anyone who doesn’t agree isn’t reasonable.
Do you think Prof Macdonald’s post was simply declaring faith?
“If Saul did create a con in order to bring down the Roman Empire”
the roman empire was disintegrating owing to decadence long before Christianity…it was christian monks who saved most of the written legacy of the roman empire.
Paul was a roman citizen, and frequently cited this in defending himself against jewish persecution. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.
“our founding Fathers who refused to abide by Christians teachings and gave us free speech and a form of government that depended upon open debate and the people’s right to know. Not faith and hope or Jesus.
more nonsense. We are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights… that is the basis of our justification to defy the kings law
it funny how you and the other anti-christians have to rely on marxist based history that has airbrushed out Christian influence…
i don’t know why i am providing the link you won’t read it or seriously consider this issue.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html
OT:
Since Gates won’t give scholarships to white kids, we need to come up with a scholarship for whites only:
Bill Gates: White kids not eligible for my scholarships
Bill Gates has made his scholarship fund off limits to white teenagers. The Gates Millennium Scholarship fund is financed by a $1 Billion endowment Bill Gates made in 1999. The fund explicitly denies eligibility to white students.
“Students are eligible to be considered for a GMS scholarship if they: Are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian and Pacific Islander American, or Hispanic American;”
http://www.gmsp.org/
Gates Millennium Scholars website
How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking
By Joseph Roddy, Look Senior Editor.
LOOK Magazine, January 25, 1966, Volume 30, No. 2.
Good points from Andrew.
White ethnocentrism could benefit from being neutral in religious questions. Christianity is a 2000-year old complex phenomenon, so let’s not oversimplify these matters. Anyway, as KM points out, Christianity is NOT an ethnic religion and tend to advocate moral universalism. This IS and will probably REMAIN a major problem from a pro-White perspective.
The good thing about Indo-European paganism (e.g. Germanic Odinism) is that it is the ethnic religion of our ancestors, it is part of our ethnic heritage, our history. While everyone knows the ethnic history of the Jews (through the Bible), very few of us knows the Germanic tribal history, Nordic/Germanic mythology etc.
Since both “paganism” and Christianity are part of our common history and heritage, we should embrace both.
In the meantime, NATIVE BORN WHITE CHRISTIANS should defund their local churches. This will send a very strong message to the bachelor priests that their enhusiasm for race-replacement will have very serious consequences. Such as:losing their bachelor pads at the rectory. The Catholic priests can always wash dishes….that’s if mexicans and salvadorans have taken all the dish washng jobs.
Some good news:according to recent news articles donations are down. Maybe somebody here can verify this.
“Indo-European paganism (e.g. Germanic Odinism) is that it is the ethnic religion of our ancestors”
there is no such ‘religion’ show me the holy books, theology, etc? most all of it is new age nonsense and a few scattered myths. in western christianity we have a 2000 year philosophical (Aquinas, Augustine, for example) thelogical (calvin, luther, for example) artistic (michangelo, for example) and architectural tradtion. to remove that you are as much advocating the destruction of the west as any marxist.
and who’s to say southern european or celtic whites would embrace such a ‘religion’
barbara, you claim to know about the frankfort school. please answer this rather than accuse me of being unreasonable – what was the goal of the multicultralists and how did they set out to achieve it?
Answer: they felt that the common man did not embrace the new religion of communism because of their adherence to the old faith of christianity. Thus, they realized to destroy the west you must destroy Christainity, which is exactly what they have been doing. Dalton, Sunic, et al are no better and no less destructive, perhaps more so.
The association between Whites and Jews is symbiotic, but it is parasitic in nature, not mutualistic.
Horizontal transmission takes place when, due to migratory options, a lineage does not necessarily have to share the reproductive fate of another lineage sharing its environment. For instance, communicable diseases can usually be transmitted (reproduce) without the host infected by the disease reproducing successfully. Horizontal transmission evolves virulence and is associated with parasites.
The parasitic virulence of Jews evolves from horizontal transmission of Jews between nations, in the form of repeated migration, since at least Babylonian times. Moreover, since diaspora Jews have become dependent on virulence for survival they promote immigration and naturalization laws that are friendly to horizontal transmission more generally resulting in virulence evolving in other populations. This makes Jewish virulence more analogous to immunosuppression virulence, such as HIV.
Jewish parasitic virulence likely evolved from the following horizontal transmission cycle:
1. Hyper centralization of net assets (communist, capitalist, monarchy—doesn’t matter)
2. Social breakdown as middle class (Yeomen) are unable to afford subsistence
3. Grab and convert wealth in easily transported forms (gold historically, diamonds, “global” capital, etc.)
4. “virulent antisemitism” breaks out
5. Emigrate leaving behind less “savvy” Jews to take the heat
6. Cry out for help to elites at destination nation while offering concentrated wealth to enter new cycle (see step 1).
@Alfred
Here in the United States the Roman Catholic politicians realized at some point that they needed Jew money, and Jew media more than they needed institutional support from the Roman Catholic church. Vatican II was after that fact.
@me:
Depends on your definition of ‘religion’. There are distortions and exaggerations in “paganism” as in various Christian sects. The good thing about “paganism” is that it is polytheistic and therefore tolerant towards Christianity, for example. Southern european or celtic whites can embrace their own meta-ethnic “paganisms”, but as I said: religious issues tend to divide, not unite, people. We need to focus on issues Whites can agree on – such as our common (meta-)ethnic identity and survival.
I do not advocate getting rid of Christianity for fear of what would take its place, even if it were possible to get rid of it which I don’t think we could.
The thing that non Christians do not understand is what happens when a person learns about Jesus and then accepts Him as their personal savior.
Jesus was as real to me as my own parents and in my mind He loved me more than my family. I loved Jesus, so I understand the anger of the Christians here.
We need to find a way to evolve Christians beliefs to benefit us and the way to do that is by gradually making Jesus into a mythical character and His teachings merely words of wisdom that we can sometimes live by. Church could be a place to socialize and organize and come together in communities. This is the role it plays for lower class people anyway.
Catholics should refuse to donate any more money to the Church and White people should refuse to pay any more taxes. We could end welfare and that would drive half of Mexico out of our country.
I wished to taunt the Mexican guy who went after Kevin so I said something about White people having a new Manifest Destiny. Then I got to thinking about it and I realize its true.
We have things backward. Its not any other race of people who should be immigrating and spreading out and taking more space. Its White people who should be conquering new lands and forcing other races to carve out a space for themselves while we take their land.
We bring science, progress, solutions to feed the world, heal diseases and build economies. We are what the world needs. Nothing will be solved by allowing Mexicans to come up here but think of what we could do with Mexican land and how we could create a paradise there by getting rid of Mexicans.
We can break up other nations by spreading Christianity and destroying their belief structure.
@me – I did read the link you provided
“by turning colonial resistance into a righteous cause, and by crying the message to all ranks in all parts of the colonies, ministers did the work of secular radicalism and did it better.”
All this means is that Christians were vulnerable because of belief in their dogma which allowed them to be manipulated by revolutionaries. This confirms some of the things Nietzsche said about believing things that come from faith rather than using reason.
I would feel much better about those who fought the revolution if I knew they relied upon reason and fought to throw off British rule over us and never needed to feel guilty about it because of the bondage brought by Christian teachings. Christian teachings induce guilt. Who needs it.
Common sense and tending to human needs and desires should govern our lives and we should be able to live without guilt. Our needs are righteous causes, we don’t need a god to tell us to go against our best interests in order to be righteous. Neurosis is caused by such things.
Bourdain says:
The association between Whites and Jews is symbiotic, but it is parasitic in nature, not mutualistic.
To say that the relationship between whites and Jews has never been beneficial to whites simply ignores the facts. As KM points out in his intro above, early Christianity, which resulted from a memetic fusion with Judaism and probably a genetic fusion with Jews, was highly adaptive for whites. Also, at various places and times throughout history, the economic benefits to whites resulting from Jewish international financial activity, indispensable to the expansion of the global technological system, is also impossible to deny, though it came with a heavy cost. Without question both of these borrowings from the Jews were adaptive, though it has now become clear that they contained seeds of destruction for the white race. So it would be more accurate to conceptualize this ancient danse de la mort between gentile and Jew as having aspects both of parasitism and of mutualism.
In this sometimes mutualistic, sometimes parasitic symbiosis of whites and Jews there is a lot of jockeying for position that goes on. In the times of the Roman Empire, whites were able to adapt to their own purpose Jewish survival memes in the form of Christianity, as I mention below in the thread titled “Reginald Thompson: How Pro-Life Are White Evangelicals?”. But the Christian memes also had a great many weak points, and chief among them was its anti-racist core teaching. While it is true that early Christianity was in a sense anti-semitic, this was not a racial anti-semitism. The Church fathers attacked the Jews solely because they would not accept Christ. Christianity is this same way in its relations to all other races. Negroes, Jews, mestizoes — any featherless biped that accepts Christ is the white Christian’s equal in the eyes of the Church. It is this lack of a racial aspect that completely unsuits it as a weapon for white people today.
“Kevin, most white people in the US are Christians, so I have to wonder what your movement has to gain by attacking their religion. Christianity is assuredly not against Jews. Christians are taught that God’s chosen people are those who accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. We understand the Old Testament by substituting Christians where it says Jews. Those who call themselves Jews are unreconstructed.”
Professor MacDonald:
As this is the most critical posting I saw, I’m guessing these were the remarks you alluded to in your comments.
My best guess is that this person read the first part of your essay and then quit. I say this because I found myself a bit surprised at the first couple of paragraphs; I too thought you were attacking Christianity. The difference is that I continued reading and found your column not only not to be an attack on Christianity, but very interesting.
I’m also very happy that you mentioned Rodney Stark. I read the work of his you refer to when it came out. I think this particular work serves not only as a rebuttal for most WN charges made against Christianity, but confirms that Christianity is one of whites’ great strengths. It is hardly accidental that whites ruled the world as Christians, and have only gone downhill as they have dechristianized.
Even if WN’s shun reading an author like Stark, they should also be aware that the two white groups most strongly resisting racial suicide are also the two most religious white groups: Southerners and Afrikaaners. It should also be noted that the least religious groups are those most enamored with the ideology of racial suicide.
Just from reading the comments posted here, I think some WN’s become so enamored with ideology, whether it be evolutionist, White Nationalist, or quasi-fascist from the European New Right, that they ignore the empirical evidence.
“Christian teachings induce guilt. Who needs it.”
Ms Cornett:
Who needs guilt? Before you condemn guilt, please consider the alternative. Would you really prefer a world of sociopaths who are only concerned with getting caught? Or have you bought into the leftist presupposition that all people are essentially good, and only appear bad due to environmental circumstances beyond their control?
I think without guilt that civilization wouldn’t last ten minutes. Guilt, and not laws and police, is what keeps most people in line.
Adam,
Those cases you conceive of being examples of mutualistic symbiosis involved suppression of Jews and Jewish influence through violence, exclusion, legal/political control, domination, etc. Hence they can’t really be conceived as being examples of mutualism but rather as the beneficial side effects of repressing parasites.
me said: “Eileen, as i have said before, this is not the first time someone’s thought of this…”
Well, I didn’t say or mean that I was the first one to think of this. (Sheesh.)
I simply pointed out that the ‘turn the other cheek’ rule will most likely not be beneficial in the long run when we are confronted by other, competing groups.
You said that ‘turn the other cheek’ “has never meant what you think it means”, but then you go on to quote some other, unrelated scripture to defend that notion of yours. You CANNOT demonstrate that ‘turn the other cheek’ doesn’t mean EXACTLY what it says from the passages where that quote appears because, of course, those passages support what I said — that ‘turn the other cheek’ is a completely pacifistic message, one that will not serve any group of people in the long run if they are confronted with competitors.
Frankly, the fact that there are so many conflicting lessons from Jesus in the New Testament demonstrates that either 1) Jesus was seriously confused and hadn’t fully worked out his “message” to the people of Earth before he started preaching, or 2) the New Testament is the product of a lot of different minds with differing ideas and interpretations of what Jesus (may or may not have) said, many of which were Jewish minds — which is the original problem that Nietzsche and Dalton addressed.
Bourdain says:
Adam,
Those cases you conceive of being examples of mutualistic symbiosis involved suppression of Jews and Jewish influence through violence, exclusion, legal/political control, domination, etc. Hence they can’t really be conceived as being examples of mutualism but rather as the beneficial side effects of repressing parasites.
So you wish to assert the “family values” promoted by early Christianity weren’t adaptive in themselves, and wouldn’t have been good unless they were associated with attacks on Jews? I don’t think so. They would have been adaptive even if no repression had taken place. Likewise with the economic benefits that accrued to whites from the expansion of the global technological system. The expansion of that system, working in conjunction with Christianity, caused a white population explosion and enabled whites to dominate the world as of 1900. This was adapative in an evolutionary sense, and would have been so even if there had been no repression of Jews anywhere at any time in history. The subsequent precipitous fall from racial dominance that has characterized the white race in the last 100 years originated from both the working out of a hidden flaw within Christianity (i.e., its universalism) and a side effect of the population transfers stemming from expansion of the global technological system. These population transfers were an ecological disaster that have destroyed the geographic isolation necessary for the continued existence of the white race.
Your view would seem to rule out the possibility of any mutualism where there is a conflict of interests between the two partners. But a dynamic tension between both participants in a symbiotic union always exists. It’s understood that one partner is always trying to take advantage of the other. “Repression” of the Other is an indispensable part of mutualism.
“Frankly, the fact that there are so many conflicting lessons from Jesus in the New Testament demonstrates that either 1) Jesus was seriously confused and hadn’t fully worked out his “message” to the people of Earth before he started preaching, or 2) the New Testament is the product of a lot of different minds with differing ideas and interpretations of what Jesus (may or may not have) said, many of which were Jewish minds — which is the original problem that Nietzsche and Dalton addressed.”
Eileen, does it matter that Christianity has served whites well up until the 1960′s? I’m not saying I’m completely comfortable with Christianity’s equivocations and such. But compared to Spanish English is a nightmarish jumble of inconsistencies as well. Does that mean Spanish is a greater language than English because of What I am saying is that whites became the most powerful people on earth under a Christian regimen. And now the further they move away from Christianity, the weaker and more depraved we become.
Adam,
It’s very easy to misuse ecological concepts as analogies, especially if you don’t understand them.
When you flippantly and incorrectly through terms and concepts around, you mislead and confuse lay readers who aren’t versed in the science.
And you’re attributing ideas and statements to me that I didn’t make.
Bourdain says:
Adam,
It’s very easy to misuse ecological concepts as analogies, especially if you don’t understand them.
When you flippantly and incorrectly through terms and concepts around, you mislead and confuse lay readers who aren’t versed in the science.
And you’re attributing ideas and statements to me that I didn’t make.
That’s the best you can do? LOL. Pathetic!
“I don’t think so. They would have been adaptive even if no repression had taken place.”
An obvious insight. Moving on…
“Likewise with the economic benefits that accrued to whites from the expansion of the global technological system.”
…I’m with you so far…
“The expansion of that system, working in conjunction with Christianity, caused a white population explosion and enabled whites to dominate the world as of 1900. This was adapative in an evolutionary sense, and would have been so even if there had been no repression of Jews anywhere at any time in history.”
…sounds good…
“The subsequent precipitous fall from racial dominance that has characterized the white race in the last 100 years originated from both the working out of a hidden flaw within Christianity (i.e., its universalism) and a side effect of the population transfers stemming from expansion of the global technological system.”
…I notice any culpability of the Jews is conspicuously omitted. Why oh why?
“These population transfers were an ecological disaster that have destroyed the geographic isolation necessary for the continued existence of the white race.”
But you just got done saying that those population expansions were adaptive. And have in the past exhorted racial mixing to the achieve the ‘desirable’ effect of ‘hybrid-vigor’. And why is it set in stone that accompanying population expansion could be ethnic cleansing to achieve said geographic isolation when said cleansing has clearly been the case in many of the White race’s expansions? And just who is it that provides a major impediment to our effecting said ethnic cleansing? And just who is it that would also most likely be subject to said cleansing? Funny how the Jews figure so intimately in how you would answer those questions.
“Your view would seem to rule out the possibility of any mutualism where there is a conflict of interests between the two partners.”
But what’s better for our race, Adam, the Final extirpation of the Jews or the dither on as we have been lo these many centuries? I know what my answer is, even if your father was a short, swarthy, hook-nosed kike.
“You said that ‘turn the other cheek’ “has never meant what you think it means”, but then you go on to quote some other, unrelated scripture to defend that notion of yours. You CANNOT demonstrate that ‘turn the other cheek’ doesn’t mean EXACTLY what it say”
i am often amazed how rigid, almost oriental (as in east asian) the minds of many materialistic atheists are. .. Bobby Burns says “my luv is like a red red rose” does that mean he was in love with a women with rose petals for hair?
You look at it as if they are supposed to be some sort of codified law – when clearly it is not. They require one to THINK. “the sabbath (law ) was made for man” and so forth.
that requires a little more effort than what you have put into understanding them.
“Frankly, the fact that there are so many conflicting lessons from Jesus in the New Testament demonstrates that either 1) Jesus was seriously confused and hadn’t fully worked out his “message” to the people of Earth before he started preaching, or 2) the New Testament is the product of a lot of different minds with differing ideas and interpretations of what Jesus (may or may not have) ”
or 3. you don’t understand them. again, none of these ‘ideas’ asserted by you or the anti-Chrstian crowd are terribly original, and in many ways they are horribly outdated. relying on an ‘clockwork universe’ worldview. Richard dawkins still thinks this way and he’s about 150 years behind modern science (especially physics) outside his field.
what next are you going to come up with the terribly clever and original remark about the trinity…how can it be one god? No one’s EVER thought of that before!
“I would feel much better about those who fought the revolution if I knew they relied upon reason”
Oh yes, the reason based French revolution is a shining example of that. And later reason based communism. Barbara the mind and soul of man is far far more complex and nuanced than we shall ever know, but one thing is for certain, treating reason (or scienece) as a ‘religion’ or ‘savior’ has consistently been disastrous for mankind.
I just found the following passage that illustrates well why Christianity is so important to whites. It was written by (pro-white) Comanche Indian David Yeagley. But lots of whites think just like he does, even if they aren’t so explicit.
As KMD has written, Evangelical Christianity is a form of implicit whiteness. It blows my mind that any white would think this is other than a good thing.
This passage discusses why Barack Obama, as a foreigner, will never be accepted as leader of America:
“The notion that a foreign race, a godless heathen, could successfully occupy that Throne [meaning the White House] is a notion that reveals the godlessness that has grown up in the white race, particularly in America. It is the expression of a self-congratulatory, self-idolizing, and self-righteous sentiment, born of a profound displacement, yea, ignorance, of the true God. God created the nations, and the ethnicities, and the races. To dismiss this would seem ominous, (to assign such a purpose to Christian faith, blasphemous).
Once again Adam demonstrates that he is the perfect example of the “Dunning – Kruger effect” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702783/?tool=pubmed) He simply insults someone if he doesn’t have an answer, flies off with “… that’s the best you can do?” Which is apparently the best he can do.
The West is ripe for a new religion…it is coming within the next few years – 2012 is Year Zero for the White Rebirth.
Barbara C:”White people would have done great things no matter if we still had Druids and I wish we did.”
White Druids still exist – http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/
NEW RELIGION COMING:
“Arnold Toynbee, whose massive A Study of History remains the most comprehensive study of historical cycles, has a great deal to say about what he calls “the schism in society.” As civilizations tip over the brink into decline, he suggests, one of the core symptoms of decay is a split between the dominant minority and the rest of society. The dominant minority has lost whatever capacity it once had to inspire loyalty and emulation, but its hold on the institutions of power remains strong enough that it can’t be unseated; the rest of society, alienated from the values of the dominant minority, becomes an “internal proletariat” ripe for alternative values. When those new values emerge, usually in the form of a new religious movement, they become the framework around which new social patterns begin to coalesce – and about the time this gets well under way, the old social framework of the dying civilization, abandoned from within and assailed from without, comes messily apart.” – http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2010/01/this-presupposition-of-passivity.html
Taming Trolls says:
Once again Adam demonstrates that he is the perfect example of the “Dunning – Kruger effect” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702783/?tool=pubmed) He simply insults someone if he doesn’t have an answer, flies off with “… that’s the best you can do?” Which is apparently the best he can do.
If “Bourdain” feels he has a grievance, it is up to him to articulate it, not simply whine and leave me to guess what he’s complaining about. If he thinks I have incorrectly used terms, then he should say which ones and how; if he believes I have misquoted him, then he should say where. That he doesn’t just shows him up as a dishonest interlocutor; someone who wishes to insinuate he has superior knowledge, but who refuses to offer it up for public inspection. And that is indeed pathetic.
As for the cartoon Nazi and his army of sockpuppets, I don’t feel the need to step in to correct every surly moron who misinterprets what I’ve said. My words can stand on their own for those who have a wish to understand them. I don’t waste my time on those who have no such wish.
to sum up;
a. there is no evidence that Christianity has been detrimental to the West – on the contrary it is an integral part of the West. – theologicaly, philosophically, artistically, morally.
b. however, like our other institutions – most notably academia- it has been corrupted
c. there is a pretty consistent relationship between religsousity /fertility rates – the more secular, the more atheist a country or person, the lower the birthrate.
d. utopian ‘new orders’ based on ‘rationality’ or ‘reason’ have quickly become destructive (pretty poor track record here – French revolution, communism..Ayn Rand!) and are as likely to become universalist.
I don’t know what Sunic and Dalton are trying to accomplish, but whatever it is, i won’t be signing on anytime soon.
What’s the matter “Adam,” is that glass jaw of yours smarting? I didn’t mean it, really, I know your just a lil’ guy, per your dwarfish Semitic ancestry. Funny thing, your tactics of obfuscation are so transparent, so crude, so monumentally ham-fisted and with your venomous hatred for not only our race but for all of non-Kikish humanity oozing out every pore in your body with the shock being for observers that you are able to conceal it for even a second. A better rendering Julius Streicher could not have done. Let me see here, what is the angle that you are playing with such pusillanimity: check to see what MacDonald said regarding issue x on pp. y, do a quick google books search then regurgitate, and every once in a while slip in the strychnine in the form of exhortations to race mixing and to ignore the Jews in lieu of the ‘real problem’ which is of course the ‘global technology system’. LOL! Yup, that really is about it. No wonder you kikes are so nervous, if that’s the best, and you are the best, that they’ve got, which ain’t much.
Since there’s already over 50 comments here, I won’t bother digging out this or that to comment on.
Suffice to say that my position is that of Baron Evola: “primitive Christianity” is the enemy of any virile culture; any “achievements” of Roman Christianity are due to its Roman elements, not the Christian.
As a semitic contrivance, Christianity has always benefited from scriptures containing endorsements of both sides of any issue, along with the well-known but still effective “interpretation” finangle.
Christianity didn’t “end slavery” it just provided the framework for the arguments for and against [remember how God cursed Ham?] and aligned itself with the winner. Before all you Catholics pat yourselves on the back, remember that your opposition to abortion “is just like slavery” so there.
I would like to point out, however, that all these historical counterfactuals are both question-begging ["Without Christianity we'd have infanticide!" Well, in that case, you wouldn't notice any difference, now would you?] and irrelevant.
If the issue is: Is Christianity good for Whites, let’s look at the present day facts.
Who supports “civil rights”? The churches.
Who supports “open borders”? The churches.
Who supports “our Older Sister,” Israel? The churches.
Have you ever debated, or seen a debate, on these issues without being confronted by some jive-talking self-ordained negro “Revrun,” or a weepy-eyed lesbian nun?
Why is it so hard for Whites to recognize their enemies? Oh yeah: Christianity.
Also, for a more nuanced view of Nietzsche [anti-Christian, pro-religion as social function, anti-Nazi] see Julian Young: Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Religion [Cambridge, 2006]. My review should appear in the upcoming issue of TYR but if requested, I could send along a copy to the interested…
me said: “i am often amazed how rigid, almost oriental (as in east asian) the minds of many materialistic atheists are.”
Well, I’m not an atheist, so I don’t know to whom you are referring. I said I was not religious; that does not mean that, therefore, I am an atheist. For the record, I am an agnostic.
me said: “Bobby Burns says ‘my luv is like a red red rose’ does that mean he was in love with a women with rose petals for hair?”
No, because Burns used the word like. In other words, that sentence he wrote there is a simile.
Jesus (according to Matthew) didn’t say “when someone strikes you on the cheek, behave like a pacifist, but really make sure to be on the offensive when the chips are down” (which is what I’m assuming you’re saying, although you haven’t managed to be clear about it).
No. What Jesus said (according to Matthew) was “do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
Now, we’re really having an argument for no good reason here, ’cause if you look back on my comments, I already said that I’d rather live in a Western Christian society than any other. I agree, Christian societies — especially Western ones — are pretty d*mn good and nice places to live.
However, there are, in my opinion, some weaknesses to Christianity when it comes to dealing with aggressive outsiders. One is the ‘turn the other cheek’ philosophy. Another is Western Christianity’s policy of universalism — anyone can join so long as the agree to the precepts of the faith. Well, frankly, that’s not a good policy because it overlooks the fact that different peoples are different and if you let too many foreigners into your society, your society will inevitably change. Finally, forgiving one’s enemy — that can be a chink in the armor, too.
These, in my view, are some of the weaknesses in Western Christianity. I’m not arguing for throwing out the whole religion. Just sayin’ that there are some problems with it.
Whatever happened to the real ‘crusaders,’ the Christians who were willing to fight and if necessary die for their principles and their people?
Jesus supposedly said: “I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword” (Matthew 10:34)
So again I ask: where are all of the modern Christian crusaders taking Jesus’ above statement as divinely revealed fact? Why are they not forming ‘Christ Militias’ and the like to protect themselves and their own? Why has modern Christianity become so weak and effete?
@James O’Meara:
“Who supports “civil rights”? The churches. Who supports “open borders”? The churches.” I see that in your mind, you have identified the dragon, that if slain, will end just about all the problems that the West faces. But would we really be better off without Christianity? Recently, OO has noted that our universities are heavily influenced by the left, and support multiculturalism much more strongly than the churches. Do you therefore suggest we dismantle the universities? I could go on to name hundreds of organizations and institutions that have been subverted, even the Boy Scouts have gone multicultural. Should we therefore dismantle everything? If you would suggest getting rid of Christianity, would you please point to an alternative? Pro-Christians like me wait with great anticipation for a proven replacement, which addresses Whites’ needs for spirituality, is appealing and fulfilling, and gives them the benefits of stable families, good morals and higher birth rates. Of course, we do expect you to offer some evidence along with your proposal, so we know that from experience, it works. Perhaps Tom Sunic and others have some good ideas they might share with you. I urge you to be so good as to provide this alternative, to help lead the pro-Christians out of the darkness of our ignorance and into the light of your knowledge.
@Eileen:
I appreciate your desire to understand Christianity more fully. You raise some good questions, as in the “turn the other cheek” issue. As you know, theologists have discussed these issues for two thousand years, among whom rank some of the greatest philosophers of our civiliation. Historically, Christians accept that “turn the other cheek” is applied to our neighbors, but this is not applied to our external enemies. For example, if you were my neighbor, and did something nasty, I would be advised as a Christian to forgive you and turn the other cheek. But if a criminal is attempting to break in, or if a foreign power is attempting to invade, I am duty bound as a Christian to defend myself and my family. As someone familiar with the bible, you will surely agree that this is a large book which contains many different lessons and ideas, some of which are appropriate for some situations but not others. There are other scriptures that speak of self-defense. Please note that your average Christian is also well-armed in the US, and would not be reluctant to blow the head off an intruder in his home.
Lets look at a historical example. In the waning weeks of 1941, the US was a firmly Christian nation. Unlike today, the vast majority went to church on Sunday, and were true believers. Miscegenation was a crime in many states, segregation was common, and the nation was happy with its restrictionist immigration laws. Most Whites followed the “turn the other cheek” rule with their neighbors, which made life better for most people. Now, one fine December day in that year, the nation was attacked at Pearl Harbor by a foreign power. How many Christians suggested turning the other cheek at this? Very few, because just about everyone understood their inalienable right to self defense. This Christian nation prosecuted the war successfully, people by and large did their duty, and there was hell to pay for Japan in the end.
Hopefully this helps to clarify Christian ideas on how the ethics for private relations between individuals are different than those used between group conflicts. You do point out some valid criticisms with Christianity, such as how some apply its universalism in ways that had never been done before. It is certainly unfortunate that some Christian organizations support immigration and other ideas that are harmful to Whites. I think that pro-Christians would argue that these problems are best addressed by working to take back the churches, rather than try to abolish the religion. Likewise, when faced with leftist universities, we might want to try to recapture higher education rather than abolish it altogether.
Andrew says:
February 2, 2010 at 6:34 PM
@James O’Meara:
Do you therefore suggest we dismantle the universities?
PBE: ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!
All of our Institutions need to be scraped and rebuilt and repeopled – by us.
I realize the chances of that happening just now, but you have to admit, the thought does have it’s charms.
First off, I merely want to comment on a few things before my ranting begins :) I found Mr. Dalton’s article to be a breath of fresh air, even though many of you seem to find TOQ biased towards “pagan” writers, I do not see this and enjoy getting to hear the minority within our movement! But than again, I am biased! I consider myself an Odinist, however, such terms are rather pointless and are merely used to signify ourselves amongst the overwhelming spring of religions. I am rather new to this way of thinking, so under no presumptions do I consider myself an expert on these matters, but it is rather hard to set idly by and listen to the bible thumping that has went on amongst this apparently scandalous topic! In fact it gives me much pleasure to see that the atheists/the non-religious/and agnostic rank so highly among world “religions”, in fact, because I know all so well how Christianity and her sister religions (Judaism and Islam) are a hard yoke to throw off. Unlike myself (and others like me), you cannot objectively look at this topic of religion, for you have not “walked in our shoes” as they say. I (and as I said, many like me) have been a Christian and have grew up around nothing but Christians, so I can definitively say, I know what it means to be a Christian – can you honestly say this? I struggled early on in my life with this issue, seeking solace in God’s grace, I went to church and I searched the Bible in earnest and even sought discussion with professed men. But I was always at a loss, none of these things gave me what I sought – answers. This concept, so central to your religion, Faith, was foreign and hidden to me, my reasoning could not allow myself to walk this blind path. I truly sought these things and honestly felt a rebirth within myself to live by God’s will and I did. But the more I awakened to our people’s plight, the more foreign the religion became to me, the more I began to analyze exactly what was going on within me to choose the path of living towards a standard of ethics and not the demagogue of modern culture. I was always lead back to myself and not God. I’m sure this seems rather self-centered to you, but I will retort the simple fact that man will always be self-centered, no matter how much we pray and seek God’s grace, how else do you suspect we have survived as a race for so long? I’m sure you see the Wagoneer in Aesop’s fable (http://www.lodge45.org/stories/hercules.shtml) as egocentric, but I see him as the pioneer for all our people, to turn away from such lowly groveling and to look up, not high, but to what is right in front of us!
I do not expect any of you to read this and open your eyes to what seems so clear to me, no more than you can honestly expect me to listen to your preaching and open mine! But preach to the choir, nonetheless, I will, because someone has to!
“For Nietzsche, Christianity was decadent, weak, and nihilist. It led to sickly, subservient herd morality, and suffocated the quest for human excellence.”
But what about our Renaissance and Enlightment, the scientific discoveries and technological advances, and even our Founding Fathers quest for freedom and happiness? What about all the advancements of mankind done so under the patriarchal guardianship of Christianity and its followers? Here is the misconception that divides our understanding of East vs West. Unlike Christianity, “pagans” see their religion as organic – a very hard term for Christians to grasp because their religion sets no precedent for this understanding, their religion was “created” and drawn out from another’s religion that is alien to the West.(And to clarify what I mean by created, all religion is created, even my own – our people gave the Gods their names and their stories; however, pagans, and I do not mean the farce of neo-paganism you so undeservedly classify us all under, do not bind ourselves to this one-dimensional history, history is repeated and created every day)!
What do I mean by organic? Personally, it is something that is already there, it is wholesome and not merely “a part of ourselves”, no, it is everything within ourselves. These Christian men you speak so highly of were pagan, you cannot deny it unless you wish to erase our history and begin ourselves with your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Odin did not address these men to invent and advance, Zeus did come down from Mt. Olympus to beseech these men no more so than God or Jesus could have possibly done so! It was themselves, their history, their belief in hope for the future, their will, and their manly virtue that set forth their excellence – how demeaning to put forth their great efforts as not their own, but as an unforseen force! How low to see ourselves as servants when these men were innovators and the giants of all that we represent! These men were the wagoneers of our civilization, they are the ones that have succeeded in pushing the cart out of the mud instead of still bended upon one knee looking for divine intervention.
You jest at our lack of “holy books” because our poor and simple Northern ancestors were illiterate, I am not going to point out to you books that were later written to help defend myself in order to simply justify your case, it is meaningless and pointless. I have no need for a holy book, dogma, nor the idiocracy of “faith”, in fact I find these terms distasteful for any person that divulges they are reasonable. My “holy book” is my conscience, by morality is my innate ethics, my “faith” is not blind, I can clearly see the magnificence of the beauty that surrounds me and can too clearly see the ugly blindness that so easily binds others. Why suffocate ourselves to something that impedes us to a past that cannot be fully uncovered, why base our existence upon something stagnant? Organic religions do not hold themselves to a fundamental past, our very being and existence pushes us to move forwards, to grow not only in our human advancements, but spiritually as well. No, we revere our past and our ancestors because they are us! They are not stories in a book, they are the spoken tales of past heroic deeds that live on in our very soul, not verbally passed down (even though such things within our Western heritage would put the short span of Christianity’s fable to pathetic shame) they belong within us and grow with us. We have no need to go a wandering!
Why does this matter, how does it affect our cause???? Once again, think of the wagoneer, do you think this parable could have followed through to it’s moral if written in the hands of the Jews (if they actually bond themselves to their religion so completely)? No, the wagoneer would still be stuck in the mud and be looking to all other places for his help, when what he needed was already possessed by him all along. What future could we possible hold if we do not toil and use what has been given to us (either by nature, coincidence, or intelligent design)? Yes, a bleak future indeed!
I have sooo much more that I want to say, but alas, I am but a humble homeschooling mother and have lost the time for such idle banter. I suppose, anyway, that I should return to my “tree worship” and dancing about naked around the fire as you have so designated me…..
No, because Burns used the word like. In other words, that sentence he wrote there is a simile.
Jesus (according to Matthew) didn’t say “when someone strikes you on the cheek, behave like a pacifist, but really make sure to be on the offensive when the chips are down” (which is what I’m assuming you’re saying, although you haven’t managed to be clear about it).
andrews reply is excellent, but again you are approaching this in a ‘talmudic’ way, – codfied law, which is exactly what Jesus was trying to move away from.
The talmudic way was what was wrong with Hebrews back then and the US today (lawsuit happy, ignoring the spirit of the law, finding ‘technicalities’ that allow criminals go free- a very jewish thing – a ha! if i carry a stone in my pocket I am not breaking the sabbath!)
Do you honestly think that, even if it were a neighbor, that for example, one is supposed to ‘turn the other cheek’ when say, someone is raping your daughter?
the gospels, like anything hav
How can Christianity evolve? Is it possible or even desirable?
Culture and the realization of culture among those of true racial conscious are “striving to improve and enhance oneself… (this) was the ideal state of the mind just as health was the ideal state of the body.” (TOQ “Race, Culture, and Anarchy” by O’Maera Vol. 9 No. 2)
Within Christianity all things are done for God and a preparation for the afterlife. This seems to me to be against a future for our race. How can you as a Christian, devote yourself to such worldly tasks as self-sacrifice for anyone other than God or for his religion? A religion that so openly admits itself to “brotherhood” and “equality” are nothing more than a counter-productive brainwashing.
I am dumbfounded by the responses to Dalton’s article, to bring up such utter nonsense as his historical inaccuracy which neither give nor retract away from his intent! Granted, I believe the article was improperly constructed, IF it was to be used to convince Christians of their debased faith. Honestly, take away what is said about the “history” of the apostles and you are still left with the ugly truth that Christianity lead man towards weakness and a herd mentality – you cannot refute this, simply look at the nation of weaklings it has created – the evidence is all around you!
What man can rightly justify himself as a “warrior for God”… while on his knees! Such weakness has NO place within a society that wishes to excel!
Oh! But of course, there are our knights for Christ, you say? Think about this, how useless is it to claim to be “for Christ”? How can you prove it? Why, I think there is no way you could. This can only be done by God himself who knows all, or through your own conscious, which obviously has seen all.
Did you walk with these men in their daily lives, talk to them, worship with them, were you there through all their idle pastimes? Can you honestly sit back and proclaim them thus? We know of the time they lived in, we know the presence of the church, and we know facts about what Crusades they took – is this the evidence you would use to justify your men of God? I would surely hope that more than a knight bearing a cross is needed to provide proof that these men did this ALL for God and his kingdom!
It matters not if Jesus was a Jew or a Gentile, if he was illiterate or literate, Mr. Dalton did not refute his existence (on which you entire faith stands), he refuted his divinity – which there is absolutely no way of proving – it is based purely on FAITH!
How can Christianity “evolve” when within its essence, it is self-sacrifice only for God, this life means nothing compared to the service and eternal grace that can be given by God. What happens is nothing to you – all is purely done for the soul and its destination!
Why should Christianity evolve? Would this not change it so completely that it is inconsistent to even be able to recognize itself? What’s the point if it needs to evolve in the first place? We already have all the necessary faculties to discern for ourselves right and wrong, we don’t need a prophet to tell us what every human being already knows!
We are perpetually like children; we will choose to go to those that promise the easy way and the one that offers much forgiveness and many rewards. This is why Christianity has such a hold over so many! Of course, we should not fail to mention FEAR. Why should we fear him? Am I on this waiting list to be struck down by lightening for my blasphemies? How about all of those good, honest, and virtuous people out there that have done nothing but good for themselves and for the people that surround them, but yet they lack “faith”. Faith that a Christian god, as told in the Bible, is real or that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, or even for simple “idol worship” of such “noble” figures as Mary? Will you condemn them to forever reside in God’s shadow because they failed to obediently believe everything told to them and because they failed to fear “God”?
The only way “Christianity” will “evolve” is if it completely changes everything about itself. Sure, there are good Christian people out there that truly believe in our race (Kinism comes to mind). However, they are but the handful, the masses will forever look upon Christianity as it was created to be; for a people that are used to tyrants, fear, and servility – NOT FOR THE FREE, COURAGEOUS, AND PROUD WHITE MAN – A MAN WHO DOES NOT FEAR DEATH BECAUSE HE KNOWS WHERE HE IS GOING, BUT BECAUSE HE KNOWS WHAT HE HAS DONE!
Krista,
I appreciate your comments and its kind of a breath of fresh air to hear from a critic of Christianity who appears to be open minded and practical. So often, it seems that the atheists we hear from are the opposite. Rather than rehash old arguments, I think its best to just cut to the chase. I think that the bottom line here is that we want to welcome just about all groups into the movement, including atheists, Kinists, Odinists, etc. Any political movement will want to maximize its base, drawing supporters from wherever it can. However, a problem arises when one group begins attacking another group’s cherished beliefs. The pro-Christians arent trying to start discussions about religion, which are extremely divisive. This is the part of the atheists, who with the fervor of a Puritan feel some primal drive to attack the religion of the vast majority of Whites. The end result is to offend large numbers of people and divert the discussion from the most important issues at hand. There are millions of Christians that are on board with wanting to halt immigration, but would be deeply offended and driven off by this anti-Christian drivel. Perhaps I am obtuse, but I dont see how this helps the situation.
All I need to know is Jesus said, Beware the synagogue of satan ! The message is loud and clear.The jews tricked most Christians into becoming Judeo-Christians and believing the jew bible Torah/Old Testament is the word of God.I love Jesus,but i’m not a Judeo-Christian and I don’t believe in the Old Testament.
Keep posting stuff like this i really like it
Thank you Andrew for your response, which actually leads me to what I wanted to say next. Your right, our division on religion will do nothing but make us weak. I would however like to direct to everyone’s attention, how Christians tend to be the dividers. I would have no problems with Christians (by which I mean, working side-by-side with them) if they did not have this need to convert me and condemn me. I do not judge people on their beliefs, even though I find it hard for any intelligent person to accept faith, I do not condemn them for it. If I’m ever asked, I try to explain to the best of my abilities what exactly I believe, which is usually followed by shock and the condemnation of how dark my life must be without the light of God, or the expression of fear for my everlasting soul… which is generally followed by a sermon on why I need to become a Christian in order to live a fulfilled life and to prepare my way for an afterlife. Anyway, my point being, it is generally accepted that it is Christians that condemn, not pagans.
However, as I stated above, I believe we are all pagans, even if Christians may feel otherwise. Now, after stating all of this, what do I feel is the solution? I really don’t have one, I’m just as perplexed as many of you are on this issue. I would like to take note however on a few things I have been thinking about recently, since reading this discussion:
First, a comment on MacDonald’s referral to the moral bankruptcy of the ancients, in which he specifically noted the Romans. I’m rather surprised that he made such a all encompassing statement, this is the general pedagogy-pedaling made by the masses to discredit the past to further put forth our modern progression. I do not view the ancients in such a manner, from my own experience and from what I can contrive from media, we really are not very different when it comes to our depravity – which completely throws out the ideal of Christian morality, since it has been stated that, as of 2008, 76% denote themselves as believers in Christ. Roman pagans were just as human as American Christians, I think it is a falsehood to claim they were morally lax without the Christian faith, it is that we are all morally lax. I find it odd that such a “morally inferior” peoples could have codified so many civic and personal virtues: http://www.novaroma.org/wiki/Roman_Virtues
I would also like to mention that being pagan, since it does not constricts one’s beliefs, doesn’t necessarily mean you believe in physical God’s, personally, I don’t put much thought into these things, I am more or less an evolutionist when it comes to this, and I don’t need to worry over such a trifle, because I am not bound to believe a certain way. Also, I have not met one pagan that believed our myths were literal, however, I have met many Christians that believe men lived for 500 years, resurrected the dead, and parted the sea.
Secondly, I just finished reading Thomas White’s part 3 of his series entitled “Three Horsemen of an Evolutionary Apocalypse” and of course, completely disagree with his conclusion – except on one point! It is true, it would be much easier to assimilate everyone under Christianity because of its familiarness and the community that already exists. I would really like to see studies done on pagans, such as myself (not Wiccans for example) and their birth rates. I know personally, many of the Odinist’s I know homeschool and have above average birth rates. I know this has been stated before, but quality trumps quantity. Showering praise on having 9 children is setting forth an impossible standard for most people! I would like to put forth my opinion why many of these Christian families have so many children and can support them – it is because they have a religious community that helps them (and I don’t imply through monetary means, but spiritually). Odinists, on the other hand, have to live with long distance relationships amongst other believers, we don’t have the luxury of “fellowship”. I currently have two children and my husband and I plan on having a third within the next to years (you see, normal people have to plan these things out because my insurance does not cover childbirth unless I pay an extra $75 a month for 7 months!). Subsisting on one income (which thankfully, my husband gets paid very well) causes a lot of stress on families, I do not see the point bringing a child into this world if the parents will reside themselves into constant entanglements on financial issues – this is not a stable environment! If the parents relationship is not well, much is sacrificed in their children’s upbringing. I appreciate Greg Johnson’s comments and I would have to say I agree with him 100%.
If you truly want to educate yourself, I ask you to check out the Odinic Rite website and http://www.odinist.net forums, I believe that when it comes right down to it, you will be shocked with how much of what many of these people say ring true to you.
Finally, I read O’Meara’s beautiful essay published just recently in TOQ titled “Race, Culture, and Anarchy” which is hugely based of the work by Matthew Arnold “Culture and Anarchy”. I must say that perhaps I can replace my definition of “pagan” with “culture”, this is the revival I speak of.
“As such, man’s being is caught in an endless exchange between interior forces (intelligence, will, imagination, etc.) and exterior ones (the environment), as the exterior is assimilated into the interior and the interior is manifested in the exterior. Mind – and the culture it creates – are not, then, mere reflections of the body, though they are inseparable from it.” Michael O’Meara
“This is why he (Arnold) championed the cause of culture, which he called “the most resolute enemy of anarchy.” If the whole nation would learn self-discipline through a unified culture of “right reason, ideas, and light,” it might be possible “to cure the narrowness of Puritanism” and bring it “into the main current of national life.” A man reared in the “totality” of the established church had no need, he claimed, to struggle to find a private form of self-expression: imbued with a “sense of the historical life of the human spirit, outside and beyond (his) own fancies and feelings,” he could take that which the larger culture commended, and leaving himself free to develop his other sides. A national culture centered in an established church thus offered innumerably more avenues for self-development and realization, suggesting “new sides and sympathies in us to cultivate; and, by saving us from having to invent and fight for our own forms of religion, gives us the leisure and calm to steady out our view of religion itself.”
“Culture as such is an organic growth, inseparable from the people who live it and make it grow.” Michael O’Meara
“… it is largely a cultural project seeking to heighten white identity by anchoring it in a body of beliefs and practices – a culture – whose consciousness defies the racial anarchy presently threatening whites….it is the spirit engendered by the blood that created the European life world and the people who inhabit it – it is the extended phenotype of the white genotype.” Michael O’Meara
But of course, at being only 25 years of age, I will admit that much is extended beyond me in wisdom!
Krista,
Okay, I think we have settled it: we have a gentleman’s agreement to not attack each other’s religions on OO and other WN forums. I do support healthy debate about all topics, and dont want to censure the atheists by any means. I would just hope they are on board with trying to grow the movement wherever possible, and since there are so many Christians, lets not turn them off unecessarily. Outside of WN forums, I am sure that you will have problems with Christians thinking that Pagans are strange, but of course its normal for people of different religions to be wary of each other. I personally dont know what to think about Odinists, I tend to be a traditionalist and distrust the unknown. I have a Mormon background, many other Christians think that is at least as weird as Odinism, and thats fine, I support them anyway and am glad they are out there.
I am very glad that you are having children and raising them to appreciate their European heritage and ethnicity. Its not as difficult to have a big family as you think, but of course there is a lot of support for this in Utah, the seat of Mormondom. My sister is 23, has 3 blonde young ones and is planning for the next one. She finds all kinds of ways to stretch her budget, there are lots of homemakers around her who teach classes on all kinds of things. One lady with 8 kids showed her a method to cook 90 dinners in one day, each of which feeds a family of 10 (you freeze the dinners then just warm them up when needed). With this method, you can buy foods in bulk, and save a lot of time.
And thus may it rest in peace.
Barbara says: “The mystery is why Jews choose to live among people they hate.”
That’s backwards, and it ain’t no mystery a’tall.
They hayte us because they live with us.
They live with us cuz that’s where the money is.
Read:
1. The Bible Unearthed – by Finkelstein and Silberman (this is a book about archeology’s evidences regarding ancient Israel)
2. The Jesus Mysteries – by Freke & Gandy (an easy to read book about the roots of Christianity that is rich in references for further research)
now i was using nod32 antivirus.i think it was not working properly..when downloading files by using torrents my internet connection was very slow.now a days my pc which was very slow..i think some one was hacking my pc…suggestion pls..what to do? santoramaa
Benedict XVI, while urging justice for migrant laborers, suggests that Church groups, charitable agencies, and other non-profit groups could help governments in “reconciling recognition for the rights of the individual [migrant worker] with the recognition of the rights of the person and the principle of national sovereignty, with specific reference to the exigencies of security, the public order and control of borders.” — Zenit.org, 5/28/2010, Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Travelers (Emphasis mine).
Thus Catholic universalism, rooted in charity towards all, in no wise conflicts with national sovereignty, public order, and the security of the nation reflected in the obligation for secure borders; in short a rational immigration policy.
“States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host country, respecting its laws and its national identity.”—Benedict XVI, 97th World Day of Migrants and Refugees, Oct. 2010