Mainstream Christian theology today seems determined to confuse the worship of Christ with the worship of the poor, the suffering, and the marginalized. Such confusion reflects the influence of modern Christian humanism which dissolves differences of race, class, gender, or sexual orientation into a common “humanity.” In Theologian Daniel C. Migliore’s words (149–150), “human beings” are created in the “image of God…to be persons in communion with God and others.” But “[i]f we are created for relationship with God who is wholly different from us, sin is a denial of our essential relatedness to those who are genuinely ‘other.’” A sinful “human intolerance for difference” leads many to reject “the victim, the poor, the ‘leftover person.’” In the social gospel of liberal Protestantism, as taught by Migliore, human beings deny Christ—the Word incarnate in poor, suffering flesh—when they assert the will to power over the “other.” Black American theologian J Kameron Carter asserts (368), however, that “privileged” White folks, in particular, compounded that sin by transforming the desire for domination and mastery over others into a science; as a consequence, their communion with God can be restored only by uniting themselves with the poor, Black victims of scientific racism “since that is where Christ is.”
Naturally, Migliore, too, deplores the heavy over-representation of Black people among the underclass in American society. He also attributes the condition of Black America to the sinful “spirit of mastery over others” (140) that is responsible for the dismal history of patriarchy, racism, and colonialism in modern Western history generally. Carter issues a more pointed indictment, charging that the modernist political theology of “Whiteness” “created an analytics of race that tyrannically divides creation” between a Western overclass and the underworld inhabited by the “wretched of the earth” (345)—a reference to Frantz Fanon’s book of the same title.
Carter’s book is a comprehensive account of the origins and development of the problem of “Whiteness” in Christian theology. He also provides a summary prescription for its solution. Curiously for a book entitled Race, the extensive analysis and critique of “Whiteness” conspicuously fails to address the empirical significance of racial differences. More damaging still to the credibility of Carter’s argument is his deeply flawed historical theology: he insists that the Judenfrage arising out of Christian supersessionism became the prototype of Christian racialism rather than a theological issue. In short, Carter treats “racism” and “Whiteness” as synonyms. Christianity, as such, only narrowly escapes being tarred with the same brush. Although Christian theology was complicit in the social construction of Whiteness, “divinity and humanity are conjoined in Jesus’ poor Jewish flesh.” Conversely, Carter attempts to “divinise” Black folks by discussing at great length several nineteenth century autobiographies in which the Negro authors appear to re-enact the life of Christ (368, 332).
Carter insists “that the poverty of dark flesh is where one finds the wealthy God.” Those who inhabit “White” flesh labour under a heavy burden of guilt. Despite the zeal displayed by “White” theologians such as Migliore in their ceaseless condemnation of racism and anti-Semitism, they cannot call upon the presumption of innocence. In Carter’s judgement, even the most progressive of his professional peers have “yet to reckon with the ways they perform theology in continuity with Catholic and Protestant theology’s racial-colonial past.” Not only was Christian theology “deployed to justify European expansion,” for centuries Christian theologians also “spearheaded the invention of discourses of race in relationship to theology to further justify Western expansionism.” Given the dead weight of such a shameful history, a long-term theological counter-movement will be required to overturn “the tyrannical logic of racialization.” Carter believes that to “enter into Christ it will be necessary “to exit whiteness and the identities that whiteness creates.” But, interestingly, for Carter, “blackness,” too, is an identity or condition which must be transcended (341, 366, 369, 462).
Carter is a Christian humanist not a Black nationalist. Indeed, he distances himself from the “black theology of liberation” because its founder James Cone “reproduces the aberrant theology of modern racial reasoning” (159). Ironically, Cone himself is not really a Black nationalist; he certainly does not advocate the creation of an autonomous Black ethnonation within the continental United States. On the contrary, in the words of Harold Cruse, the leading Black nationalist intellectual of the Sixties, Cone, like countless other Black politicians, preachers, lawyers, and activists, works to perpetuate the “racial drama of love and hate between slave and master, bound together in the purgatory of the plantation” (364). On the other hand, asserting that “divine truth is God’s liberation of the weak from oppression,” Cone never shrinks from the charge that he allows theology to be determined by social interest. The only important question for him is: “whose social interest, the oppressed or the oppressors?” (87–88).
Carter agrees with Cone that because “White theology” remains fixed in the “axiological perspective” of an oppressive White culture, “that White theology is an ideological distortion of the gospel of Jesus.” Both men believe that it is “impossible to be White (culturally speaking) and also think biblically” because “the oppressed are the only true Christians” (92, 136). But, when Cone goes on to allege that all White “communities and theologies are formed by the will of white people to oppress others not of their genetic origins,” he sets off an alarm in Carter’s mind. Such talk of genetic differences between Whites and other racial groups is anathema to Carter. It conjures up the spectre of an “ontological Blackness” which posits race as a biological phenomenon that “objectively exists independent of historically contingent factors and subjective intentions.” (159–160). In other words, Cone inadvertently concedes the possibility that the sorry state of Black America has less to do with the oppressive character of “white culture” than with intractable genetic differences between Black and White populations.
Carter does not even deign to acknowledge the existence of empirical studies of the measurable differences in average intelligence, behaviour, and temperament between the major continental races. Instead, he draws upon Cornel West to establish the major premise of his argument; namely, that race is a social construct not an empirically observable biocultural phenomenon. West purports to identify “what it is about the very structure modern discourse at its inception” that produced “forms of rationality, scientificity and objectivity as well as aesthetic and cultural ideals” that “require[d] the constitution of the idea of white supremacy.” West’s unexamined assumption is that there no objective empirical much less genetic basis for any form of Black inequality “in beauty, culture, and intellectual capacity.” Carter and West both want “to put an end to any understanding of race that would see it as a static, nonmutating category” corresponding “with a purportedly real racial something—actual races one might say—out there in the world.” With that goal in mind, Carter purports to explain the genealogy of a theologically-inflected racial discourse in the modern Western world.
Carter locates the remote origins of racialized discourse in the West in the Gnostic heresy which allegedly sought to sever the early Christian church from its Jewish roots. Determined to uphold the superiority of the spiritual realm over the world of matter, the Gnostics developed a proto-racialist narrative of “the true church beyond Israel” which “supported the supremacy of the pneumatics” over other, earthier, hence lesser, breeds of humankind. But it was the European Enlightenment of the eighteenth century that created the need for a political theology that could cope with “the modern problem of race, religion, and the politics of the modern state.” In Carter’s view, the Judenfrage was at the core of the problem of race and identity in the modern world. Kant was the theorist who “bequeathed to the modern world…its first rigorously scientific and philosophically sophisticated and, hence, its first fully developed theory of race.” In doing so, Kant helped to “rationally” reposition Christianity within the political economy of modernity. Through this process of repositioning, Christianity “was decoupled from its Jewish roots.” Race became “the discourse to constitute whiteness in relationship to a non-Jewish alien without and a Jewish alien within the body politic.”
Carter accuses Kant of revitalizing Gnosticism and reconstituting Christianity “as the moral religion par excellence of reason.” No longer does Jesus disclose “YHWH or the God of Israel as the ground of redemption for Jews and Gentiles alike.” Instead Kant credits Jesus with the overthrow of Judaism and empowering the human species to “make itself into a moral creature.” According to Carter, “Kant’s ultimate concern is with the success of the universalist project of modernity, the project of Whiteness as the advance of cultured civilization (which is the advance towards the perfect race of humans).” His greatest fear was that “miscegenation, or racial intermixing” would derail the White race from its destiny by raising the “possibility of the mulatto, of ‘impure’ interracial existence.” On Carter’s reading, Kant believed that “oriental” Jews, “the alien within,” posed an especially high risk of “mulattic contamination.” Indeed, Jews were “the sole negative racial other” in Kant’s lectures on anthropology; as such, they were made to “stand in for all nonwhite flesh.”
Strangely enough, Jews play the same role in Carter’s theology. Accordingly, he presents supersessionism as the original sin lying at the root of the modern Western racism and colonialism. At the core of Carter’s “theology of participation” lies YHWH’s “covenantal relationship” with “the people of Israel.” Carter rejects any suggestion that the Old Covenant with the Jews was suspended by the New Covenant creation inaugurated by Christ. Whiteness and the modern racial imagination, he charges, were “built upon the severance of Jesus from the covenantal people of Israel.” To resolve the problem of Whiteness, it will be necessary to understand “Christian existence as ever-grounded in the Jewish, non-racial flesh of Jesus and thus as an articulation of the covenantal life of Israel.” It is through communion with Israel that all nonwhite peoples enter into communion with God. The inner logic of Jesus’ identity as the Word made flesh is “the inner logic by which Israel is already a mulatto people precisely in being YHWH’s people.” According to Carter’s anti-White logic, “Jesus himself as the Israel of God is Mulatto.” In effect, Carter implies, “white” folks alone must reject their identity as Whites to enter into communion with Israel. There is a massive irony here, since traditional Christian theology contrasted “carnal Israel” as an entity based on biological kinship with the Church which was universal and therefore not based on biological kinship (e.g., Eusebius; see Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 3, p. 106).
Carter provides little or no biblical authority to support the suggestion that the Old Covenant remains in force today. Certainly, he seems altogether uninterested in the apocalyptic meaning of the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70. But, by any standard, the destruction of the Jerusalem temple was an event of world-historical significance; not least of all for Jews since it was accompanied by the death of over a million of their co-ethnics and forced exile for countless others. The destruction of the temple did not come out of the blue; the prophets of Old Israel, as well as Christ and the apostles, repeatedly predicted just such an event as the inevitable consequence of God’s righteous wrath towards his stiff-necked and unfaithful people (eg Matthew 24:2). Preterist writers such as Don Preston have shown that all of the biblical prophesies of a new heaven and new earth, not just those in Revelation, were fulfilled when the temple, the physical centre of the old heaven and the old earth, was destroyed in AD 70.
Moreover, the Catholic traditionalist writer, E Michael Jones, shows clearly that the arrival of Jesus created a radical discontinuity in the history of Israel. Indeed, the “confrontation between Jesus and the ‘Jews’ leads first to a redefinition of the word ‘Jew’” (39). A term that once referred “to the chosen people now refers to those who reject Christ.” Indeed, the Book of Revelation calls the Jews who reject Christ “the synagogue of Satan.”(Revelation 2:9 and 3:9) Carter denies Jones’ conclusion that the “Church is now the true Israel.” Nor does he believe that “the people who profess to be Jews” will die in sin so long as they continue to reject Christ and deny the truth of his gospel message (27–56).
Such mindless ecumenism cannot be good for Christians. Nor is it good for the Negro race in America. It is a great pity that Carter has no interest in an African-American Christian ethnotheology that goes beyond “Black liberation theology” to promote the economic, political, and cultural unification of an autonomous Negro ethnonation. Fifty years ago, Harold Cruse warned Negro intellectuals not to accept Jewish leadership in a civil rights struggle focussed on the promise of racial integration. Integration and assimilation, Cruse warned, “have all to do with individuals, but very little to do with ethnic groups.” To foster a self-sustaining group identity, he added, Negro intellectuals must declare independence from Jewish influence and commit themselves to “cultural nationalism—an ideology that has made Jewish intellectuals a force to be reckoned with in America” (476-498). Refusing to recognize the need for Negroes to marry racial solidarity with a binding sense of collective moral responsibility securely grounded in political autonomy and economic self-reliance, Carter prefers to blame “Whitey” for the shortcomings and failures of his own people. Indeed, Carter is doing the devil’s work when he finds something Christ-like in Black America’s descent over the past half century into a dysfunctional and degrading culture of rampant welfare dependency, drug addiction, soaring rates of illegitimacy, escalating violence, and chronic criminality.
Drew Fraser retired from his position as Associate Professor in the Department of Public Law at Macquarie University in Australia in the midst of controversy over his views on immigration and race differences.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Max Keiser & Sandeep Jaitly Discuss Austrian School of Economics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihVSoVlkTGA&feature=player_embedded
Does anyone know if Carl Menger was a Jew?
Facio,
There’s no evidence of Menger having been Jewish, rather it seems he was of Austrian and/or Czech ancestry.
Since you appreciate “a parte” comments out of the context of the discussion: Do you think, while separation poses some problem for the moment, we could consider expulsion some entities of the Union, like New York State and Washington DC.”
By the way, Max Keiser is simply a jew by another name…
@DEnys Picard
I actually meant to post that in the previous thread.. How it ended up here I have no idea..
With regards to Max Keiser.. Yeah I had my suspicions.. He does look and talk like a Jew.. As far as “a parte” comments go.. I try to stick to the topic at hand but at the same time, I think it’s OK to throw things in.. This is a place for White people to discuss things, ask questions, etc.. I don’t see anything wrong with it as long as we keep it “real”.. So don’t be such a “thread NAZI..”
You typed:
“..,we could consider expulsion some entities of the Union, like New York State and Washington DC.”
Totally unrealistic in my mind..
If Jesus was so concerned with creating a classless , raceless , egalitarian , multi-cult world ; then He must have forgot to mention it .
The bible is full of references to class and race and separate nations with out criticism .
How ever , He was highly critical of jews and so the Pharisees had him killed . That would hardly be cause for ” chosen ” status . LOL
Hey guys and gals, the subject of the entire essay needs to be put under the heading of the Anti-White Narrative, and left there. The subject matter is entirely subjective, and can neither by refuted nor denounced. It could be deconstructed as they taught us to do in the Academy, but the subject matter is just malice and hatred.
The NT quote Jesus cursing the Pharisees at 100 places. On the otherhand, Jesus is always quoted as saying: “I am sent to the House of Israel (Hebrew)”.
The NT doesn’t say ‘Jews’ who according to Jewish historian, professor Shlomo Sand, were ‘invented’ 100 year ago. Furthermore, Holocaust has long replaced Judaism as Jewish religion.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/holocaust-is-new-jewish-religion/
Isn’t this like arguing over who the real ethnic father of Zeus really was?
Isn’t this like arguing over who the real ethnic father of Zeus really was?
Jason,
Not really.
Everyone who believed in Zeus thought his father was Kronus.
On the other hand with Jesus the people who believe he existed are very divided on who his father was.
And don’t think this division is trivial. The transition from most White Gentiles believing Jesus to have been of divine origin to them thinking not just one, but both of his parents were Jews, is really the change from ours being a Christian society to it being a post-Christian society.
This transition to a post-Christian society has, so far at least, caused us far more problems than opportunities, especially in the birth rate department.
Some think Christianity is suboptimal for Europeans, but even if they’re right this doesn’t change the fact that post-Christianity has proven itself to be much worse.
The only way the weakening of Christianity among Whites could be justified as a good thing is if it leads to something beyond post-Christianity, in a similar way to how the weakening of Paganism among Greeks and Italians led to something beyond post-Paganism (i.e. Western Christianity and the Western Civilization which sprang from it).
Also , saying that Jesus was a jew is much like saying that David Duke is a multi-culturalist just because he was born as an American in multi-cultural US .
Saying Jesus is a Jew means simply that he had a Jewish mother and a Jewish father, which the Bible claims.
Surely that can’t be the Greg Johnson of Counter Currents saying that the father of Jesus is Jewish. You mean step-father, don’t you Greg? But we all have off days so that’s okay!!!! God being Jewish (or any other race He created) is too funny. But that’s okay Greg you are doing a great job and I get more than my $10 out of you each month (same goes for the MacDonald stable) and one day I hope to put a zero or two behind that. Cheers.
Jesus claims lineage from the house of David through his “father” Joseph. Then the bible contradicts itself by claiming Jesus was immaculately conceived.
Jesus claims lineage from the house of David through his “father” Joseph.
Where exactly in the Bible does it quote Jesus as saying that?
Jesus may have said he was descended from the House of David, but unless he specifically said the descent came through Joseph, this would’ve been internally consistent with Jesus having been the product of immaculate conception.
The reason for this is that according to the Bible the mother of Jesus, Mary, was also descended from the House of David.
Then the bible contradicts itself by claiming Jesus was immaculately conceived.
Given what I wrote above, where is the contradiction here?
Matthew 1:16 and 1:17 claim the lineage of King David via Joseph. Luke does the same. There are also numerous passages where people call Jesus the “son of David” as he walks among them. (Thus making me conclude that Jesus was going around making that claim…)
“The reason for this is that according to the Bible the mother of Jesus, Mary, was also descended from the House of David.”
Based on Luke’s supposed genealogy?
Sam,
That is exactly the point of Mathew 1:16,17 that there is no question who fathered Jesus and that he is of the House of David thus fulfilling prophecy. And even though there is disagreement over those who “say they are Jews and are not” believers (Me) and unbelievers (you) are in agreement that Jesus if of the House of David and that his earthly parents were Joseph and Mary. Cheers.
PS If I knew TOO was going to write and article on Bob Dylan I would have saved the article I read recently claiming he was a plagiarist.
Sam Davidson,
Thinking about it, you’re engaging in sophistry here (or at least a failure to validate your claims).
You can’t rightly claim an ancient text contradicts itself without carefully checking what the words used in the text were understood to mean at the time and place the text refers to.
The book of Matthew says that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, while it also says that Jesus from the House of David.
But this can’t be said to be a contradiction unless you show that an adopted child in that time and place would not have been considered as being from the house of his adoptive father.
Given the Jewish practice of levirate marriage where a child would be considered the son of his mother’s first husband, who would’ve also been his paternal uncle, it’s clear that the ancient Jewish language structure allowed for non-biological definitions of phrases like “son of” and “house of”.
“Thinking about it, you’re engaging in sophistry here (or at least a failure to validate your claims).”
Then you really shouldn’t be wasting time on me, should you?
I’m still waiting for the evidence that Mary came from the ‘house of David’ and that this was the basis for Jesus’ claim of descent.
“You can’t rightly claim an ancient text contradicts itself without carefully checking what the words used in the text were understood to mean at the time and place the text refers to.”
I didn’t say anything about ancient texts – I referred to “the bible.”
“But this can’t be said to be a contradiction unless you show that an adopted child in that time and place would not have been considered as being from the house of his adoptive father.”
You changed your argument. Previously you said that the claims of descent could be equally relevant if taken from the mother’s line. Now you are claiming that Jesus shared Joseph’s lineage by social custom.
I’m still waiting for the evidence that Mary came from the ‘house of David’ and that this was the basis for Jesus’ claim of descent.
The Gospel of Luke’s genealogy of Jesus. The fact that it diverges from the genealogy in Matthew immediately after David, and the fact that Luke gives an entirely different name for Joseph’s father, indicates that Heli was meant to be understood as Joseph’s father-in-law (i.e. the father of Mary).
Actually I should’ve said that the Bible can reasonably be interpreted as saying Jesus was descended from David through his mother Mary.
But from the standpoint of refuting a claim that a text is self-contradictory, showing there’s a reasonable interpretation of the text which isn’t self-contradictory is enough to do it.
I didn’t say anything about ancient texts – I referred to “the bible.”
The Bible is an ancient text.
AD 476 is the earliest date widely accepted as the end of ancient times.
The earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, is from the 4th Century.
Therefore even the Gospels are an ancient text, and your denial of this is sophistry.
You changed your argument.
That’s because it’s a different point.
You started out saying: “Jesus claims lineage from the house of David through his ‘father’ Joseph.”
I responded to this by pointing out that even if Jesus claimed biological descent from David, as long as he didn’t specifically say it came through Joseph there’s isn’t a contradiction with the concept of Jesus having been the product of immaculate conception due to the fact that Jesus very well could’ve been referring to descent he got from David through his mother Mary.
If someone believed himself not to have a biological father, it would’ve been natural for him to reckon his genealogy through his mother.
Then you moved on the separate, though of course similar, issue of what the book of Matthew said about Jesus’ genealogy.
Given that the book of Matthew specifically says Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, while giving the genealogy of Joseph back to David, by far the most plausible interpretation of what its writer meant by calling Jesus the son of David, in context, was that he legally belonged to the house of David due to being Joseph’s adoptive son.
Then you really shouldn’t be wasting time on me, should you?
The reason I responded to you was because sometimes I think the comment section of this site is too hard on the traditional non-pagan religion of the West, and I wanted to provide a little balance.
“I responded to this by pointing out that even if Jesus claimed biological descent from David, as long as he didn’t specifically say it came through Joseph there’s isn’t a contradiction with the concept of Jesus having been the product of immaculate conception due to the fact that Jesus very well could’ve been referring to descent he got from David through his mother Mary.”
And can you actually provide specific evidence outside of Luke 3:23 that corroborates this interpretation? Perhaps a lineage of Mary that doesn’t come from Luke…?
“The Bible is an ancient text.”
“The earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, is from the 4th Century.”
“Therefore even the Gospels are an ancient text, and your denial of this is sophistry.”
Uh, no. Who would assume that I, or anyone else here, has actually read ACTUAL TEXTS FROM THE 4TH CENTURY?
It should be obvious that when I referred to “the bible” I am speaking of a modern version, most likely in the English language. The earliest version I’ve ever physically seen was from 15th century Italy… If these later versions give the impression of contradictions which are supposedly explainable in the original works it’s no fault of mine, and it certainly doesn’t make me a sophist.
“The reason I responded to you was because sometimes I think the comment section of this site is too hard on the traditional non-pagan religion of the West, and I wanted to provide a little balance.”
Then maybe you should be addressing Z.O.G.’s inflammatory remarks instead of mine…
And can you actually provide specific evidence outside of Luke 3:23 that corroborates this interpretation? Perhaps a lineage of Mary that doesn’t come from Luke…?
I’m not aware of any lineages of either of Jesus’ parents which can be judged as independant of books which became part of the Bible.
It should be obvious that when I referred to “the bible” I am speaking of a modern version, most likely in the English language.
I didn’t get that.
Which modern translation of the Bible are you complaining about?
If these later versions give the impression of contradictions which are supposedly explainable in the original works it’s no fault of mine…
It shouldn’t have been that hard for you to ask yourself the question of whether adoptive children were considered of the house of their adoptive father in the time and place the Bible was written, considering the importance of that question to the claim you recently made.
It also shouldn’t be that hard to ask the question of whether the words for “son of” were sometimes used to mean “son-in-law of” in the time and place the Bible was written, considering the importance of that question to the plausibility of a proposed explanation given for why Jesus may have referred to himself as the son of David.
You don’t have to read an ancient text directly to be aware of its having been composed in a different time and place, and the implications of this to what proper interpretation would involve.
It’s like if were reading a translation of an ancient history. While keeping an eye out for self-contradiction in the text would be admirable, a failure to take into account what we know of the customs and ways language were used at the time the work was written prior to reaching hard conclusions would lead to invalid conclusions.
God obviously created races of differing abilities and qualities . To criticize this is anti-God and God does not like to be told He was wrong .
God meant that all men are created equally in that they are equal at a spiritual level and equal to praise God and be faithful and possibly go to heaven ( if you believe in this sort of thing )
God did not mean that men are all equal in earthly terms . IMO , God is not an out of touch idiot , and he probably hates rap music as just one example .
And also ,
God very much does not like jews using blacks to carry out their evil , anti-Christian , anti-white , supremacist agenda .
Reports are that about 1500 black bastards wrecked the Coventry Art Fair in the university section of Cleveland, Ohio yesterday. Three police departments had to be called out to stop the riot. There was gunfire, fights, assaults, property damage, etc.
The Coventry Art Fair is an old established fair, and people from all over the country have been to it because of its location at Coventry & Mayfield Roads in the university section.
The Coventry Art Fair was nearly canceled this year, because the blacks started to get violent at last years fair.
The Cleveland area newspapers are refering to the rioting black bastards as “teens” or “kids”.
There is a better word for blacks, it starts with an “n”.
It has often been remarked that there is nothing more dangerous than the coupling of undue influence and naive idealism. Perhaps nowhere is it more dangerous than in theology. Because theology purports to deal with ultimate truths, its core content properly incorporates logic, the science of truth; God has made the nomothetic priority of its tautological axioms unmistakable by arranging that they can never be broken or gainsaid. Weak-kneed liberal “tolerance theologians” like Migliore are so painfully unversed in it that were their imbecilic moralization not hitched to the influence of those whom they serve as useful idiots, they wouldn’t rate a column inch in the mimeographed newsletter of a lonely backwoods parish.
Logic says that in defining compassion and justice, one must place primary importance on the welfare of society at large (otherwise, the definitions are self-contradictory). Obviously, this is not accomplished by paving the way for Christianity and Christian morality to be defined by race-driven hypocrites like Carter, who (in effect) preaches the moral superiority of a race which has proven time and time again that most of its members lack the sense of morality and mental, emotional, and spiritual maturity to properly run a coconut plantation, let alone participate constructively in a complex modern society. Where mistakenly admitted to an advanced society for which they are constitutionally unsuited, such people inevitably find themselves dependent on smarter and more responsible people willing to watch over them for their own good and that of society as a whole. Obviously, this need cannot be served by fostering willful ignorance and deception regarding their well-established moral and intellectual deficiencies.
As a White Christian, I have news for Carter: in all likelihood, Christ wants nothing to do with him or anyone who shares his present state of mind. It’s not that he lacks a soul, or that he couldn’t be saved were he to disown his lies and his Black hubris and come to Jesus in all sincerity, in the mandatory spirit of truth, honesty, and humility. It’s that in Heaven, truth counts, and those who have no respect for it cannot be admitted.
Unfortunately for Carter, that means him.
Whiteness is wonderful . God created all races .
God does not make mistakes .
Men make mistakes . Some men have made a religion of making mistakes and criticizing God , which is probably not a good thing to do .
I remember Muhammad Ali, the Champion, also showed similar sentiments during a TV interview – “Black is beautiful and God is also Black”.
True religions are not ‘invented’ by men but most of them have been corrupted by the Jews and their collaborating Christian evangelists.
[ Logic says that in defining compassion and justice, one must place primary importance on the welfare of society at large (otherwise, the definitions are self-contradictory) ]
Agreed ,
God knows it is neither compassionate , nor just , to bus blacks in to a white school with all of the accompanied violent disfunctional ” diversity “
Mainstream Christian theology today seems determined to confuse the worship of Christ with the worship of the poor, the suffering, and the marginalized.
Great line from the article. I cannot believe how passive most White Christians have become with regard to their own churches. Please write letters, withhold donations, or get in the face of your preacher/priest when they spout nonsense like this. There needs to be some push back from the regular church going community.
We now have the Southern Baptists calling for amnesty for illegal aliens! Of course, the Catholic Church and mainline protestant churches have been on that bandwagon for decades.
You need to start calling these people out as advocates of criminal activity. And as the original quoted line suggests, this orgasm of pity for the “other” has got to be called out for what it is: Moral vanity and narcissism parading as virtue.
“White” Christian churches today, for the most part, are concerned with declining numbers of communicants. To make up for it, they are becoming multicultural, i.e., they are not only encouraging and admitting minorities/immigrants – illegal and legal – but also adopting their cultures, especially black music. It is becoming as unusual to hear a straight version of Amazing Grace in church as it is to hear a straight version of the Star Spangled Banner at football games.
You need to start calling these people out as advocates of criminal activity.
Jason,
A key issue here is that we don’t have people, for the most part, trying to encourage the breaking of America’s immigration laws.
Rather they’re trying to spread the idea that the application of immigration laws is illegitimate, and that if a large number of people are found to break immigration laws without being punished, it’s the law which should change rather than the state’s failure to enforce the law.
So instead of merely advocating the illegal activity, they’re seeking to remove the governmental obstacles to the performance of the illegal activity.
This is far more insidious.
It’s like if you were a teacher and tried to whip your students into breaking a law you didn’t like.
It’s very doubtful this would have much an effect, especially over the long term.
But if on the other hand you tried to inculcate in your students the attitude that the application of that law was immoral, illegitimate, and/or somehow against their religion, you’d be acting to corrode the foundations of that law, an action with the potential to have a much greater impact.
I cannot believe how passive most White Christians have become with regard to their own churches.
Part of this may be because it often seems they fail to see the big picture, a big picture where words have an effect on how people think, and how people think has an effect on reality, the very reality they have to live in.
Interesting. So you are telling me that most of the churches are more corrupt than I thought? Or more naive. Or some mixture.
They need to understand that preserving homogeneous cultures is consistent with Christians beliefs as well. If all the evidence shows that danger lies in rapid demographic change, then as good stewards of their flocks, they should seek to protect them.
Interesting. So you are telling me that most of the churches are more corrupt than I thought?
Jason,
I would say the leadership of the significantly sized Christian Denominations are for the most part all too corrupt, at this particular point in time, and then this tends to tie the hands of people lower in the hierarchy from doing the right thing.
An example of the corruption in the leadership can be found in the recent statement of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Al Mohler that: “The immigration crisis demands a Gospel response before a political response.”
There’s of course nothing in the Gospels saying that a Government doesn’t have the right to enforce its immigration laws, and for Mohler to suggest that is a very deceptive and corrupt thing for him to do.
Or more naive.
There’s a definitely a lot of naiveté as well.
They need to understand that preserving homogeneous cultures is consistent with Christians beliefs as well. If all the evidence shows that danger lies in rapid demographic change, then as good stewards of their flocks, they should seek to protect them.
Good point.
Perhaps they should give consideration to this sentence from the Bible:
The sense one gets from this passage is that you can’t rightly claim to love people far away while not even loving those close to you.
A good example would be Mrs. Jellyby from Dickens’ novel Bleak House.
She professed to care so much about people in Africa, spent so much time and energy putting together missions to help them, but all the while her family who lived in her very house were tragically neglected.
The fact that Mrs. Jellyby neglected the welfare of her own family, and more generally paid so little attention to the welfare of those she “had seen” in her day to day life, put the lie to the pretention that she cared about the welfare of Africans.
It was all too clear that she was driven to her conspicuous acts of charity by a form of moral vanity.
“Mainstream Christian theology today seems determined to confuse the worship of Christ with the worship of the poor, the suffering, and the marginalized”.
Ma’an, that is the greatest joke I ever heard since I left my Catholic schooling several decades ago. Only some idiot Christian will believe that there ever was a ‘poor Pope’ or a ‘poor TV Evangelist leader’ or that the Church supported the western colonialist armies to help the poor in Africa, Asia, Americana, Australia and New Zealand, by murdeing tens of millions of them – as they’re doing currently in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Libya, Philippines and many other parts of the world.
If some Christian wants to see how Jesus acted and lived a simple life – he will never find an example among Christian leaders (Sarkozy, Obama, Bush, Markel, David Cameron, etc.) but Iran’s President Dr. Ahmadinejad.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/searching-for-jesus-as-eh/
Rhemat, intellectually you are being very low brow; your passion for belief in your particulary moon god version fairy tail and version of history is distorting your abillity to think in a balanced way. Try and raise the tone of your input to this group. It’s clear the most recent popes did not live an opulent life, nor was the church responsible for driving colonial settlement or imperial exploitation, that would have happened anyway and nor was European colonialism always of a military nature. Economic reasons drove colonialism and European emigration, the church followed in its wake. Christianity had a calming and civilising effect; consider the canabalism of Fiji or the human sacrifice of the Aztecs. It was muslims who enslaved millions of blacks and castrated them, it took a thankless western effort to wind back the Arab slave trade and eventually end it. Your efforts to demonise Europeans with the usual PC interpretation are inappropriate and unintellectual.
Bear – your response full with insults and stupidity – is no different than expected from an Israeli propaganda filth – like Abraham Foxman or Daniel Pipes.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/iran-end-times-the-messiah-and-israeli-hasbara/
Bear is right. The excesses of those who were the chosen people of Yahweh and the military conquest of the New World, for example, do not mean your “moon god” isn’t just that.
Rehmat, I read your posts with interest. I found your last one inflamatory. You usually do much better. Chears.
We did not become privileged by waving a magic wand. We created a great culture because we used our God given talents and intelligence. We worked like bees in a bee hive. I always thought helping the “poor” meant helping our own poor. When we read the story of Christ and the Canaanite woman who came to Him for help He told her “it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” She said “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the Master’s table.”
We have given some significant crumbs when you see how non-white countries have adopted western ways, clothes, medicine, vehicles, heavy equipment, air travel, electricity, phone service, water purifications systems, etc. But the Church seems to think we should bring them to white nations to compete with us for our own space and sustenance and invite them to our beds. That kind of thinking is dysfunctional. It certainly did not come from Christ.
Heather Blue, You are quite right about helping our own poor first. 1st Timothy 5:8. “But if any provide not for his own and specially of his own house he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.”
If Christians were responsible for so much evil then why did God bless America? He could have blessed Africa or Asia.
White guilt is used to make all Whites serve the interests of other races. Its only logical that this psychological warfare would play even better with true believers.
I was raised a Southern Baptist. Its all about putting jews on a pedestal, jews are God’s chosen people, Jesus was a jew blah blah blah. To a believer this is all real. We were taught this stuff from the cradle by everyone, the family, the church, the school and of course tv etc.
It takes years to learn the truth about jesus as another creation myth and to go thru the process of becoming a non believer, years to learn the truth about jews and become a WN, so don’t be so hard on the believers. We just have to find a way to use religion to serve our interests and do it quickly because they have a head start.
Barbara, you don’t have to become a non-believer in all that Christianity offers, (values etc.) but definitly weed thru all the erroneous ever changing Theologies. You’ll find that no matter what Race we are from, it is “life” what matters and how we live it. It is a jungle, I agree, we ought to offer more helpful and positive critiscm, then negative and judgemental criticism. Don’t despair.. I thought the article was insightful, and I appreciated the thought provoking theories. A Good Post!
I think this preoccupation with how “God blesses us” is part of the problem. Name a White country that isn’t blessed.
It might be more accurate to say the US was blessed with White people and that is why it has done so well. Same with Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand ….
Perhaps Barbara was referring to Weber’s protestant work ethic and its correlation to savings, economic growth and good capitalism. One could easily maintain, as Benjamin Franklin did, that white citizenry in Europe and America were monetarily blessed due to their belief in protestant Christianity and the economic growth stemming from this system.
There is the so called “Scofield Bible”.
http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/carlson01.htm
“The scheme was to alter the Christian view of Zionism by creating and promoting a pro-Zionist subculture within Christianity. Scofield’s role was to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters, and on the bottoms of the pages. The Oxford University Press used Scofield, a pastor by then, as the Editor, probably because it needed such as man for a front. The revised bible was called the Scofield Reference Bible, and with limitless advertising and promotion, it became a best-selling “bible” in America and has remained so for 90 years.”
Google “chistian zionism” on TOO and there is plenty of analysis as well.
Barbara,
I was very moved when reading your comment. I think it takes real courage to break with such a tradition, while still attempting to salvage the good in it.
I feel that believing Christians would help themselves and others a great deal by recognizing that the teachings and example that we attribute to the figure of Jesus are beautiful, challenging and amazing things. I have read and studied The Bible, and I cannot avoid concluding that those things are like gorgeous lights in a cesspool of extreme group chauvinism, sexual perversion, glorified genocidal hatred, general misanthropy, disgusting cruelty, exulted irrationality and plain filth. In other words, what we associate with Jesus (The Golden Rule, The Parable of the Good Samaritan, his explicit contempt for the dogma and hypocrisy of the Pharisees) is, in several ways, radically different than what we find throughout The Bible, especially The Old Testament.
Some of our greatest Western thinkers seemed to appreciate this. John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine, David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin… the list is a long one. It is strange and alarming that so many “patriotic” American Christians either do not know this or purposely ignore it. It is even more strange and alarming that so many of them glorify the Jews.
What I am getting at is, essentially, what “European” put so well: “… you don’t have to become a non-believer in all that Christianity offers…”.
Anyway, thanks for your comment. I wish you the best.
I would like to add that I get the sense that many of us are in danger of believing that Nationalism/care for one’s own race is not compatible with humanist/Christian/psychologically Christian concerns. This is a fallacy.
Just because we want to put the stability and welfare of our own country and people first does not mean that we lose our respect and compassion for other nations and peoples. This point may seem obvious, but I think we should remind ourselves of it, especially when we are accused of being
“hateful,” “isolationist,” “anti-Christian” and so forth.
We need not become “Pagans,” whatever that means, nor have a ludicrously romantic picture of pre-Christian Europe, nor have weird fantasies of some vast Caucasian alliance that will conquer the planet, to be European/White Nationalists.
Barbara – America is NOT blessed by Christian God but its 2% Jewish population.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/jewish-or-israeli-achievements/
Mark Hess,
Your piece was a great read and I wholeheartedly agree. Kudos!
Rehmat, your piece on jewish achievement is interesting. Great information and a perfect example of the need for endless self-aggrandizement that permeates the tribe. What do you think of jewish population numbers that are fed to the public, keeping in mind that those numbers are always provided by the jews themselves. For instance, in the US, the numbers of jews admitted into colleges each year, the numbers of jews in certain occupations, their numbers in different parts of the countries and different cities, do not jibe with their 2% claim at all – and I’m not talking about over-represenation or high achievement. I mean that their 2% population number wouldn’t provide the bodies for what we see. A lot of people notice this, but are too scared to comment on it. It’s almost as if they feel safer believing that jews are 2% when actually they are a larger fraction of the US population, and no doubt a larger fraction of the European population as a whole than admitted. What’s your take on this?
“Drew Fraser retired from his position as Associate Professor in the Department of Public Law at Macquarie University in Australia in the midst of controversy over his views on immigration and race differences.”
-And had there been an ‘ADL type” white Adocacy group in Australia, Fraser’s job might have been saved.
- I dream of the day when whites can stand for one another and march in protest over one of our own being discriminated against in a job setting or any setting for that matter.
-Why just yesterday, in support of my argument, Drudge reported another anti-white incident where a young white male was viciously robbed and almost beaten to death by a mob of black youth.
-But of course the parents of the white youth had to be politically correct with their statements showing more concern that the civil rights of the black defendants were protected than that justice was being served on behalf of their battered son. Unbelievable. The state of this country makes me sick.
-If we had a legal defense team operating in true ADL fashion, instances of black aggression against whites might receive its deserved attention in the news.
-If we would march on behalf of our fellow whites when they are attacked, we would shake the foundations of this nation. Imagine if we took to the streets in protest do defend our own. The hairs stand up on the back of my neck just thinking about it. And why not, in the name of “defense” we have the moral highground and can rap any strategy in this “politically correct cacoon.”
- Each minority group keeps to themselves and protects themselves, as a group. Yet white Americans are the only group that fails to see the obvious advantage in “group strategy.” We could learn alot from these groups as I don’t see government as the asnwer in regard to facilitating our unity. Government knows how to use force to secure its ends. Forcing white unity will lead to forced military service, forced labor, and forced liquidation once you lose your value to the state. No thanks, unity must be taught through experience and via sites like this.
“And had there been an ‘ADL type” white Advocacy group in Australia….If we had a legal defense team operating in true ADL fashion….If we would march on behalf of our fellow whites when they are attacked….if we took to the streets in protest to defend our own.”
Four very powerful wishes, and the sooner we focus on them, the better.
Fortunately, you can get started with resisting the Anti-White Narrative by selecting a TV or print medium, collecting its email addresses in advance, and then chastising anti-white Americans with sharply worded, multi-copies, messages that sting, all in your white voice and in white centricity. It’s easy to get started.
I think contacting media outlets and other organizations and complaining about their anti-White behavior is a great idea — the Anti-White Narrative sounds like it would have traction. They at least need know people are aware of their anti-White bias. And it doesn’t take much time to send an email. I do it all the time.
Keep the emails intelligent and respectful, and leave any ethnic slurs out. Don’t make it easy for them to stereotype you as someone they can dismiss.
White advocacy will require substantial funds. That means many small personal donations which Whites are (seemingly? ) poor at (having conditioned ourselves that our institutions are fair rather than coopted). We will need to make regular personal donations to build up sites such as this. Larger benefactions will be needed to establish permanently staffed organisations able to mount legal challenges and develop deep strategies but the main thing is DONATE REGULARLY.
Large corportate or ‘millionaire’ donations are likely to be low profile or private by the need for business people to stay out of controversy. So regular automated payments that can not be attacked are going to be important.
We need our own organisations but I suspect we also need to reamain engaged in the conventional political and relgious ones in order to swing them around.
Being able to defend someone like Dr Drew Fraser with lawyers, media campaigns and demonstrations is where we need to be at. I was frustrated as hell when I saw Dr Fraser being thrown to the dogs at Macquarie University. I didn’t know how I could help. We need to abillity to defend ordinary White men and women who stick their neck out. Some of our most courageous activists are financially independant due to being retirement or having tenure. We need to be able to help those who are ordinary working Whites get out of hot water.
When I first read the Culture of Critique I couldn’t sleep for days. Everything I’d felt unease about and couldn’t find time to investigate suddenly made sense. It was very healing to have a scientific methodology back this up. I was emotionally overwhelmed. Prof McDonald has put in place a solid scientific foundation we can stand firmly upon with confidence. We now need to get build that intellectual analysis into stratgies for action and practical actvities as well as ongoing strategies to match the intellectual output of the enemy. That will require money, I now am commited to donate every month and feel guilty if I do not. Nothing will happen otherwise.
- It blows my mind how the tribe successfully pulled off the biggest con in America by convincing the masses that they belong on society’s suffering heirarchy while simultaneously heading every power institution. It really is a remarkable manipulation when one dwells on it.
-But it also reveals the power of the suffering heirarchy. The tribe makes habit of teaching their children to believe in victim identities stemming from the so-called hatred of gentiles.
-Therefore it would be prudent for white Americans to utilize the suffering heirarchy to promote unity and for the securement of a pro-white society. Wow pro-white, it just sounds like an unrealized dream world when I say it. I’m optimistic because America loses power every day while China gains world dominance. Yet China is overwhelmingly homogenous and refuses to diversify. So why are we, as a declining power, insisting that 3 million legal third world dregs come into our society with untold millions more marked by undocumented status? A white person doesn’t have to be erudite in WN to see the writing on the wall. The arguments for white identity become easier to articulate with every coming day.
Enigmatic,
Thank you for the compliment. It is appreciated. I have enjoyed your writings, as well.
Take care.
“It is a great pity that Carter has no interest in an African-American Christian ethnotheology that goes beyond “Black liberation theology” to promote the economic, political, and cultural unification of an autonomous Negro ethnonation. ”
Why ever would he, or any Negro, want to do this? Let us not be optimistic. Negroes may not be particularly bright, but they are not stupid. They understand, even if only dimly, that left on their own, a reversion to their tribal days in Mother Africa will quickly ensue. And who wants that? Thus will black men always play the role of remora on the shark. Contributing nothing, but living off the labor of a host. Actually, a tapeworm, or an infectious blood sucking leach is the better analogy.
Yeah, this is why I think there is almost zero sincere interest in a Black Homeland that is separate from Whites here in America. They’ve seen pictures of Haiti. They are smart enough to stay and feed of Whitey’s guilt.
Thank God that Professor Fraser was hounded out of his job for otherwise he would never have had the time to write for TOO and I would never have had the pleasure of learning from him. I certainly hope that he is able to take advantage of his free time and become a regular contributor.
Interesting idea: the White Nationalist Congress. http://www.wncongress.org
I guess you’d call this getting ready for what to do when we win. It’s a start.
————-
BE IT ENACTED BY THE WHITE NATIONALIST CONGRESS
To declare the creation of the White Nationalist Congress, and the intents and purposes of the same, I hereby submit this bill as Clerk of the White Nationalist Congress.
1. Let it be that the White Nationalist Congress be considered a valid body by the White Nationalist Movement and all it’s members.
2. Let it be that the members of the White Nationalist Congress will submit bills for scrutiny by their peers.
3. Let it be that every Saturday that a chamber of Congress is in session there will be debate on any bills that are on the floor.
4. Let it be that every Sunday that a chamber of Congress is in session there will be voting on any bills that are on the floor.
5. Let it be that the White Nationalist Congress will draft a temporary Constitution for a White Nation.
6. Let it be that the White Nationalist Congress will draft a temporary code of civil and criminal law for a White Nation.
7. Let it be that until declared and confirmed otherwise, a White Nation will be a bond between fellow White Nationalists in a non-physical manner as a collective group of people without a homeland.
8. This bill will become law immediately after passage.
But Gregor, such a document already exists on the shelf. It is the original constitution of the USA which was illegally elbowed away by the second constitution. It was never properly terminated and still exists. No reason not to just bring it back into existence….at first, as a structure for any of our interests (anti-defamation, anti-discrimination, pro-excellent education of our youth, and so on). It is there, ready to pick up and use. It already has a name, it is organized around Canadian provinces (eligible to join) and American states. It isn’t a white-only organization, but it was started by a white-only Constitutional Congress. No need to rewrite something with a long pedigree and ancient ancestors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
Notwithstanding some claims, the Articles of Confederation were never overturned by state governments or by the second constitution of the USA, so it is still there. If you look at the record, you will note that the Congress never adjourned sine die.
Cary: True, especially with regard to the AofC.
I’m not sure if they’re so much about drafting another piece of paper as the are about forming an alternative structure, or body, from within which something could happen. A parallel institution getting building legitimacy for itself as a BODY, so something structured is in place when the enemy-occupied institution loses all of its legitimacy.
I know it’s a long shot. But the very fact that some people are both thinking about it and doing it says a lot. After all, there are other entities in existence which want to open up the existing constitution and “modernize” it … so why not have at least a seed of a congress which can participate in the discourse?
I have no disagreement with the historical facts you present. But we are no longer inside the standard historical narratives at this point. Do we hearken “back” and try to “reclaim” what was “right”? Do we even have that option considering how power is currently structured? Or do we both begin re-visioning AND create structural shells from which to do that?
Obviously I’m not a “reformer” type. I have little confidence in the possibility of “reforming” our way out of this mess. Just one man’s opinion.
Gregor, you surely have my support in your endeavor.
There is absolutely no justification for GENOCIDE. Pouring the third world into white countries and ONLY white countries, demanding assimilation,i.e. intermarriage is a program of GENOCIDE.
Pouring the third world into White countries will have one of two possible outcomes. The first is that Whites will get bred out of existence. The second is that most Whites will get bred out of existence while others become radicalized and racialized.
In that sense, third world immigration might serve a purpose in that it will force Europeans to face themselves and challenge their own (stupid) beliefs. It’s inevitable that the number of Whites will decline, but it’s possible that those remaining Whites will be a racially-conscious elite immunized from anti-White propaganda.
If not- if all Europeans choose to die out- then so be it. Such a naive, easily-manipulated race can’t survive very long anyway. Maybe it’s wishful thinking that third world inundation will bring Whites closer together, but it’s certainly not impossible.
“Mainstream Christian theology today seems determined to confuse the worship of Christ with the worship of the poor, the suffering, and the marginalized.”
I hope you understand that that is a syndrome of the Christian establishment only in Western Europe and America.
Here in Eastern Europe both the Catholic and (especially) Orthodox priests are pretty much nationalistic.
Even Eastern European Protestants are totally different from those in America.
Negroes ruin everything – including Christianity. No wonder Jews enjoy manipulating them so much.
Ciaran I have a parallel comment to make. I’ve travelled throughout the world minus Asia and Latin America. In juxtaposing America’s treatment of blacks to every other setting I’ve experienced, I’m forced to conclude that blacks would exist on the extreme fringes of American society if not for tribe support. No where in the world are blacks propped up to such ridiculous “undeserved” heights as in the United States. Our president, the laughing stock even to Egyptians who scoff him and view him as inferior due to his negro dna, walks around like bozo the clown in a suit while the world howls with laughter. Even Chavez openly mocked him to his face without rebuttal. Awesome
Funny Footnote:
-If white girls would travel outside the United States, they might perceive the real low-status of Blacks in society and deny the manipulative propaganda promoting unthinkable unions as “cool” and “modern,” like MTV so shamelessly promotes on a regular basis.
In any case, for the sake of white children, now is the time to call anti-white racists of any sort, what they are. Now is the time to insist that what they want is genocide.
Christians might be shocked, but I think that they will sooner see the charge of Genocide, than they will white nationalism or atheism.
“The inner logic of Jesus’ identity as the Word made flesh is “the inner logic by which Israel is already a mulatto people precisely in being YHWH’s people.” According to Carter’s anti-White logic, “Jesus himself as the Israel of God is Mulatto.”
Carter’s reasoning, for me, is very hard to follow. Is he suggesting Yahshua Christ is a mulatto? Perhaps, like himself? Like Obama? Is Obama the 2nd coming? Is that where he’s going with this joodoo hokum?
Carter should quite grasping at straws and look at the geneological “begat” lists in the bible that show Christ’s 100% Adamic white lineage through Abraham, Issac, Jacob-Israel and David.
[ Saying Jesus is a Jew means simply that he had a Jewish mother and a Jewish father, which the Bible claims. ]
Well , what we know as “jews” of today don’t even have blood lines connected to the middle east at the time of Christ . Jews of today are basically former Khazars .
The term jews is a recent term that has been manipulated .
Does that sound plausible ? Jews involved in manipulating for their own advantage ?
Uhh… the Khazar thesis has been discredited by modern genetic research. Most Jews are of Middle Eastern descent.
It seems Carter’s “theology” with its curious ideas such as that of Jesus-as-a- mulatto, is in reality a black anthropology concocted to continue the status of Blacks as eternal victims of eternal White oppression. Black dysfunction has got to not be blamed on the evolutionary status of the Black race itself (because race as such doesn’t exists),but on White wickedness.The real purpose of all this theologizing of course is the perpetuation ad infinitum of the social-economical dependency of the oh so poor Black man on the oh so wicked rich White man,in short: parasitism.
ONLY 30% OF U.S. EVANGELICAL LEADERS STAND BEHIND ISRAEL
By Rev. Ted Pike
29 Jun 11
Over the past several years I have been encouraged that nearly half my email response comes from evangelicals! My most popular articles often address Israel in Bible prophecy. (See, Babylon the Great is Israel, Michael Savage: Obama ‘Laying Groundwork’ For Apocalyptic War Against Israel) Increasingly, tens of thousands of Christians visit Truthtellers.org and Rense.com, the largest anti-Zionist internet news site with over one million unique visits a month (Rense.com’s readership now equals World Net Daily, the largest Christian pro-Israel internet news service).
This trend toward greater openness to a truly Biblical perspective is seen in a new Pew Research poll of 2,196 evangelicals worldwide, 16 percent of which included evangelical leaders in the United States. “Among evangelicals from the United States three-in-ten (30%) sympathize more with Israel. Thirteen percent favor Palestinians and nearly half (49 percent) say they sympathize with both equally.
The survey showed that many evangelical leaders do think for themselves about the Mideast, particularly after Israel’s embargo in Gaza and terrorist attack on the “Free Gaza” flotilla. Many clearly reject pressure to support Israel by Jewish muscle groups such as ADL as well as evangelical media and authorities. Over the past ten years, the voice of our National Prayer Network has been joined by other vocal Christian ministries. Through the airwaves, internet and direct mail we are blanketing the world with truth about Zionism. This Pew poll provides encouragement that together we may have had a more extensive impact than we dreamed. John Hagee-style support of Israel does not describe all evangelicals!
Tea Party Also Hears Truth about Israel
Two years ago, the National Prayer Network began sending our e-alerts to 850 Tea Party chapters in America. Within several weeks, about 185 chapters demanded removal from our e-list. But soon the objections stopped. For nearly two years, about 650 chapters have received our articles with hardly a murmur. Clearly, they remain curious and tolerant of truth they find nowhere else.
Tea Party chapters include many evangelicals and may well be adding to the number of enlightened Christians worldwide. Independently and in the grassroots, their fairness, good sense, and respect for Biblical values may be planting the seeds for eventual enlightenment of the church and nation.
Why Don’t They Speak Out?
Yet why are pastors and Tea Party leaders silent? As in Israel under Baal-worshipping Ahab and Jezebel, the powers of intimidation are overwhelming. God was worshipped by a tiny minority in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal. Yet when Elijah challenged the false prophets, not one true believer had the courage to brave death and stand with him.
Today, militantly Zionist evangelicals swell the ranks of churches and Tea Party chapters. If they hear the slightest hint of displeasure with Israel, they sound the alarm, “Anti-Semitism!” This sends shock waves through the membership of religious and conservative organizations, compelling leaders to quickly back away. The Anti-Defamation League relies on such devotees of Israel to suppress any potential rebellion. When criticism of Israel manifests itself publicly, ADL has traditionally used local media and Christian authorities to vilify the critic as a hateful anti-Semite. Local media figures, Christian leaders and seminary professors join in excoriating the offender.
This has been ADL’s modus operandi for nearly a century. But today criticism of Israel pervades the nations, especially prevalent on college campuses. Abe Foxman’s shooting gallery is too crowded by influential, high-profile targets—including the UN, European politicians, prestigious academics, a new Gaza flotilla, and others. The League is increasingly too distracted to persecute mere local outbreaks of truth telling.
Like terrorists, ADL has largely depended on fear of what it can do if opposed. Yet Christian and conservative leaders should take courage. Like the watchman of Ezekiel 33, they are responsible before God to sound a complete warning of danger to all who listen. Scripture warns such watchmen that unless they are willing to speak only the whole truth, they would be better off not to lead. Failure to speak such truth results in “greater condemnation.” (James 3:1)
It is time that evangelical and Tea Party leaders who are becoming enlightened do more than silently agree with truth. They must speak it to their audience and to each other. Brave leaders could educate together and overwhelm ADL’s ability to crush individuals.
If the Pew report is representative then, of roughly 70,000,000 evangelicals worldwide, Christian critics of Zionism could number in the millions! This consensus represents tremendous political and educational power if those with like minds have the courage to find each other and coalesce into a united force for truth and freedom.
Rev. Ted Pike is director of the National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative watchdog organization.
TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this subject. Call (503) 631-3808.
The three main bodies in Christianity, representing about 90 percent of Christians worldwide, released a “historic” agreement Monday on how Christians should conduct themselves when witnessing in a religiously diverse context.
Leaders from the World Evangelical Alliance, the World Council of Churches and the Vatican’s Pontifical Council on Inter-religious Dialogue were in Geneva on Monday to launch the document entitled, “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World: Recommendations for Conduct.”
The document, a result of five years of cooperation, provides a biblical mandate for evangelism and outlines a set of ethics on Christian conduct in missions.
It is the first time that bodies representing evangelicals, mainline Protestants and Catholics have joined together to endorse a major document.
“This is a historic document, a historic moment and a time for Christians to awake once again to our calling to mission and unity, always bearing in mind the ways in which Jesus calls us to do so,” the Rev. Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe, secretary general of the WEA, said at a press conference at the Ecumenical Center in Geneva.
The top evangelical leader also said the document was a “major achievement” because it shows the world that Christians across different backgrounds and traditions can work together.
There are three main parts that make up the Recommendations for Conduct.
The first part provides a biblical basis for Christian mission, asserting that Christians should follow the “example and teaching of Jesus Christ and of the early church” in their witness and that “conversion is ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit.”
The second section outlines 12 principles Christians are called to follow in witnessing of Christ in a manner consistent with the Gospel. These include: acting in God’s love; living with integrity, compassion and humility; rejecting any form of violence; and offering respect to all people.
The document concludes with six recommendations to all Christians, church bodies, mission organizations and agencies.
They are: study the document; build respect and trust with people of all religions; strengthen religious identity and faith while at the same time deepening knowledge and understanding of different religions; advocate justice and respect for the common good; call on governments and representatives to ensure religious freedom for all people; pray for the well-being of neighbors, recognizing prayer is integral to the Christian life and of Christian mission.
The Rev. Dr Olav Fykse Tveit, general secretary of the WCC, commented, “We send this document to each of our constituencies with the hope that they will see these recommendations as an inspiration to design their own codes of conduct, relevant to their own particular contexts.”
Christian leaders involved in the language of the document said it is in part a response to the accusation that the Church and missions seek to “unethically” convert non-Christians. The text seeks to resolve some of these misunderstandings, they said.
Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran, president of the PCID, said the recommendations “will help us reduce unnecessary tensions and to present the truth of God in a credible way to the world around us.”
“Conversion cannot be imposed on anyone,” Tveit stressed. “I hope this is a clear message [we convey] through this document.”
Tauran added that there was “no hidden agenda” behind the spirit of renewed missionary activity embodied in the document but rather it is to “encourage people in a pluralistic world to live together in a better climate of mutual dialogue and respect and sincere friendship.”
The team comprised of consultants from the WEA, WCC and PCID first met in Lariano, Italy, in May 2006 to discuss the document. The text was finalized during a meeting in Bangkok, Thailand, in January of this year
http://www.christianpost.com/news/three-main-bodies-in-christianity-reach-historic-agreement-in-evangelism-ethics-51669/
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
- Rabbi Jesus, Matthew 5:39
And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
- Rabbi Jesus, Matthew 5:40
If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
- Rabbi Jesus, Matthew 5:41
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you
- Rabbi Jesus, Matthew 5:44
But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you
- Rabbi Jesus, Luke 6:27
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
- Rabbi Saul, Romans 12:14
Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.
- Rabbi Jesus, Matthew 10:21
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
- Rabbi Jesus, Matthew 10:34
For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law
- Rabbi Jesus, Matthew 10:35
Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.
- Rabbi Jesus, Luke 12:51
From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.
- Rabbi Jesus, Luke 12:52
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
- Rabbi Jesus, Luke 12:53
Christianity, a Universal Egalitarian Religion
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
- Rabbi Jesus, Matthew 28:19
And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations.
- Rabbi Jesus, Mark 13:10
and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
- Rabbi Jesus, Luke 24:47
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
- Rabbi Paul, Galatians 3:26-29
Christianity, a Totalitarian Jewish Cult
Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
- Rabbi Jesus, Matthew 10:37
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes, even his own life – he cannot be my disciple.
- Rabbi Jesus, Luke 14:26
In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.
- Rabbi Jesus, Luke 14:33
The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
- Rabbi Jesus, John 12:25
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
- Rabbi Saul, 1 John 1:7
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist – he denies the Father and the Son.
- Rabbi Saul, 1 John 2:22
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
- Rabbi Saul, 1 John 4:3
If anyone does not love the Lord – a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!
- Rabbi Saul, 1 Corinthians 16:22
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
- Rabbi Saul, 2 Corinthians 10:5
The Next Christianity
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0018.html
In looking back over the enormous changes wrought by the twentieth century, Western observers may have missed the most dramatic revolution of all. While secular movements like communism, feminism, and environmentalism have gotten the lion’s share of our attention, the explosive southward expansion of Christianity in Africa, Asia, and Latin America has barely registered on Western consciousness. Nor has the globalization of Christianity – and the enormous religious, political, and social consequences it portends – been properly understood.
Rise of Christianity in the Third World
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=5739
Pennsylvania State University Professor Philip Jenkins argues persuasively in “The Next Christendom: The Rise of Global Christianity” that Christianity, more than Islam, will shape the world’s rapidly growing parts. Consider this data:
- Ghana has more Presbyterians than Scotland, Nigeria has more Anglicans than Britain, and China soon will have more Christians than all but six nations.
- By 2025, 67 percent of Christians will live in Africa, Latin America or Asia.
- By 2050, the world will have three Christians for every two Muslims.
- By 2050, a third of Latinos and Asians will come from Christian backgrounds.
Looking at Catholic believers, in particular, Jenkins says that by 2025, 75 percent of all Catholics will live in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The growth of Christianity in the Third World has important political and social implications. For instance, religion, and not the state, could unify Third World residents.
Actually, the teachings and example that we attribute to the figure of Jesus are insane, nonsensical, and contradictory things. But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your “belief”.
Please, take note of the qualifiers I used in the comment you are responding to. Do you recognize that a reasonable person would indeed conclude that I view “The Holy Bible” as a contemptible, destructive and gross thing, including the letters of Rabbi Saul? And that it would be perfectly understandable for someone to believe that I am an atheist after reading my comments?
You are absolutely correct to point out that many of the teachings that are attributed to the figure of Jesus are insane, nonsensical and contradictory. However, that does not negate the demonstrable fact that much of what is associated with him (and in The Bible itself) is radically different than much of the life-destroying sewage that fills that book.
[ Uhh… the Khazar thesis has been discredited by modern genetic research. Most Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. ]
Uhh …. whites evolved from blacks in africa as ” proven ” through modern genetic research .
Did you swallow that one too ?
socio-biology informs us that it is not simple ‘mastery’ over others that drives us. Voluntary subordination is part of the human psychological dynamic of voluntary association. In other words, almost all people take their natural place in the social order, that natural place being in accord with their own perception of their talents, smarts, etc.
Only an Ideology could come up the claim of Mastery over Others, as a primal drive that negates voluntary subordination, harmonious hierarchy, etc.
Psychology suggests that those who perseverate on the theme of Mastery over Others, are themselves seeking mastery over others thru ideological smoke screens. They are Dostoyevski’s natural slaves, rebellious because of their resentment of their betters. Psychopaths seek mastery over others, and we have plenty of these around us, especially putative philosophers and theologians who claim God, or History is on their side.
Demogogues is the old fashioned term for these resenters and adolescent rebels who have found a cause to mask their lust for power.
Furthermore, Mastery implies leadership and mastery of whatever falls into one’s field. Hence, we get Masters degrees in college, etc.
So, here again we get the resentment of the losers who can master nothing, so they rail against Mastery and crudely reduce mastery to violence and malevolence.
That said, there is plenty of psychopathology out there, driven in large part by libertarian/hyper-individualist traits or impulses amongst Whites (forget the jews for a moment) who are untethered from community and even family often. The Hobbesian… life is solitary, nasty, brutish, and short ..comes to mind. This is the natural end of liberalism in the West, despite its latter-day claims to love everybody.
Love Everybody is the psychological result of loving nobody, like the World Citizen. Actually existing love, like the great phrase from Western Marxists who were coyly using the term “actually existing socialism” to refer to the failed socialist states in their reformist efforts to renew socialism in the West, actually existing love can only exist in the brain and breast of particular persons, and negates loving everybody.
When one loves one’s mate, one’s children, and one’s race, there is no more love left for Others. That is a biological fact, philosophy notwithstanding.
So, applying a kind of Nietzschean logic here, those who claim to love everybody thru Christ, or The Revolution, or The Rights of Man, are sorely lacking in the genuine article at the personal level. The exceptions to this rule are a few fools whose putative “love” for Others or friends, instantly vanishes when challenged in their “philosophy.” Hatred comes spewing out of their mouths, like a serpent hissing.
Hell hath no fury like a liberal scorned. Joe
Getting back on track, the main issue is for people on this website to contact their Churches, either through email, mail, phone calls or personal contact, and tell them to stop:
1. Agitating for illegal immigration and offering sanctuary to them.
2. To put an end to any anti-White “theology” the church may be preaching.
Let them know there are parishioners that don’t like it and will withhold donations. Contact any churches you have affiliation with that spout this nonsense. And talk to your friends.
Z.O.G.,
Don’t you have a website? What’s the URL?
Christianity is, both literally and figuratively the bastard child of Judaism. The Bible is little more than a history of Jews. It may have served some sort of survival function 1n 1811, but is poison today. It is the train that brought us where we are today. Obey your instinct. That is the real voice of God
Joe;
I agree totally! The more you love others the less you love yourself, its one of the laws of God discovered by Newton; “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” This is the reason that as blacks gain power, white lose it in DIRECT PROPORTION!
[ I remember Muhammad Ali, the Champion, also showed similar sentiments during a TV interview – “Black is beautiful and God is also Black”. ]
@ Rehmat ( the fish out of water )
Organized crime has had pro boxing fixed for at
least a century . The mob is jewish predominantly .
” Ali” would have been whipped soundly by a hundred different white boxers had it not been fixed for obvious kosher purposes .
I’m afraid that while we are having arcane theological debates here that less than 1% of the population cares about, our opponents are engaging in cold, hard calculation. I can tell you who wins that contest.
There is no contest! Thats the problem. As long as we worship Jews in our hearts, all efforts against them accrue to their interests. The anti-jewish fanatic who shoots one serves to re-enforce their victim status.
Z.O.G.
Excellent! you expose Christianity for what it is, A Jewish fifth column.
If I may posit a few statements, to clear the air:
“Whyfo’ you listenin’ to niggas and jews’ bout Jesus, anyway?” – American South Common Man
“What fellowship hath Christ with Belial?” – Saul of Tarsus, converted rabbi, First century PALESTINE
“Jesus was not a Jew.” – Bejamin Freedman, converted Khazar
“”Christians have been duped by the unholiest hoax in all history, by so-called Jews. This is considered their most effective weapon.”
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesusjew.htm
“He is not a jew outwardly”- St. Paul, Apostle to the GREEKS/HELLENES (what the Bible incorrectly calls, ‘Gentiles.’
“And so, all ‘Israel’ SHALL be saved”- “Peace be upon you, and upon the ‘ISRAEL OF GOD.’ ” [ Rom. 11:26, Gal. 6:16] – St. Paul
The ‘curse’ of whiteness actually the mark of the Elect.
ADAM- ‘fair, rosy, rudy, able to [visibly] blush – Hebrew, Strong’s Concordance. (Only one race can verifiably do this thing)
“All who are Christ’s are ADAM’s seed,” since Abraham (Adam’s heir) was White as well. [Gal 3:29]
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/of-what-race-are-abraham’s-seed-gal-329/
Whiteness as a theological ‘problem’? Hardly. It is a mark of the Election of God. And darkness has ALWAYS been a mark of the Devil.”…commenting on Philo of Alexandria, St. Ambrose taught: “The color of the Ethiopian signifies darkness of the soul and the squalor which is opposed to light, dispossessed of brightness, covered in darkness, and more similar to night than day (Cortès, The Theme of ‘Ethiopia’ and ‘Ethiopians’ in Patristic Literature).”
“Mainstream Christian theology today seems determined to confuse the worship of Christ with the worship of the poor, the suffering, and the marginalized.”
Which is why I stopped donating to churches…they subsidize the Third World invasion of America by giving charity to all the poor browns and blacks.
““White” Christian churches today, for the most part, are concerned with declining numbers of communicants. To make up for it, they are becoming multicultural, i.e., they are not only encouraging and admitting minorities/immigrants – illegal and legal – but also adopting their cultures, especially black music. ”
You just explained why I simply cannot tolerate going to church in these modern times. All the Christian churches have “sold out” to multiculturalism and hence, to anti-whiteness. I would very much like to take my family to a good old-fashioned church and get them involved and part of a community like my grandparents and previous generations were…but Christian churches are more concerned nowadays with giving charity to non-whites and being the marketing department for the Jewish state of Israel.
@eurodele:
Thanks for your comment.
I read it just now, about seven months after you wrote it.
It really helped me.