Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 5th, 2010 #81
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Christian love isn't love at all, love is just its calling card. Christian "love" is more akin to a mental disorder.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #82
Moose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 909
Moose
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Macaluso View Post
I don't worship in Odin or Jesus, and I don't think either is the reason for the white mans success. You have a simplistic view of historical Europe. There never was a unified Christian Europe, some Europeans like the Orthodox preferred to be under the rule of Muslims then Catholics. You have the different Christian sects in Europe that went to war with each other, resulting in some deaths. The Christian sects have always been opportunistic and race has never been important to them. They serve whoever puts money in the till and butts in the pew. That is why most churches today support open borders.
The simplistic view is ignoring occurrences in history that contributed to how the world evolved. You can have a genetically gifted White man, smart, fit, good looking, etc. Fate determines he is raised in certain circumstances, and he might not do so hot.

The Orthodox preferred to be under the rule of Muslims? Maybe those populations shouldn't have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of men if that were the case huh? Wonder why they did that. Catholics too? Is that why the schism occurred, because the Orthodox wanted to be ruled by the Catholics? Hmph, didn't know that. Learn something new everyday.

Christians fought each other. So did the tribes before that. Difference being, why would this tribe come to the aid of that tribe....if not for some bond? Or the common act of individual Whites fighting for other tribes against invaders?

Would we even have the broad concept of a "White race" without Christianity? Would "Europe" exist?

Last edited by Moose; March 5th, 2010 at 06:35 PM.
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #83
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The problem is Jones's stuff is mostly offline, altho there is good stuff at his culturewars.com. You actually have to buy his books. Murray Rothbard's stuff I was referring to was in the old Rothbard-Rockwell Report, a published newsletter preceding the internet. That was the first place I saw those arguments, which Jones and Cantrell expanded on. Probably Rothbard wrote about that stuff at greater length in some of his books I haven't read.
I'll have to see what I can dig up on Rothbard. I am aware of the Rothbard-Rockwell Report. Seems like it used to be online 10 or 12 years ago. I've never forgotten it because they used to have a writer called Hans Herman Hoppe. John "Birdman" Bryant referred to him as "Triple H from Triple R."

Incidently, I have a copy of "This Bread is Mine" by another jew, von Mises, on my shelf. I discovered "Austrian Economics" in my early days of WN.

About Cantrell--I'd never heard of him until I read another, older post of yours. My interest has really been piqued. Is he the James Cantrell of
<u>How Celtic Culture Invented Southern Literature </u>] How Celtic Culture Invented Southern Literature ]
, among some others I see in similar vein?

Quote:
I have been reading about the origins of Christianity lately so I can better dismember Christian fools.
A worthy pursuit, but as you know, you can't reason with the irrational, Christian or otherwise. Facts are the least potent weapons.


Quote:
There is no doubt that it was inherently universal from the start. That was practically its entire point, at least its point of separation from what came before - basically tribal gods and ancestor worship. This truly is the source of liberalism - the belief that nothing matters but what you believe. Jones will attack Americanism for that very reason, yet his religion is the same thing. No matter who you are or where you're from, you can be a good American or Catholic. It's all a matter of what you say you believe, and to a much, much lesser extent your behavior. But certainly not a matter of your background and geneaology.
There's no getting around it: The present nutty/suicidal racial view in Christianity is the original one from its early slave-faith days. I think what makes the notion of White Christianity so plausible is that Christianity was the White religion, by default. Where it did exist in multi-racial areas it collapsed, ie North Africa, the Levant, and Asia Minor. Those were also White colonial areas (Africa/Levant) or (probably) White tribal areas (parts of Asia Minor).

But as the Christian "scholar" tells the historical story, he uses "faith" just like liberals speak of "culture"--as if it were some thing independent of those who create/posess it. That ties in with the "weez all eekwal" ethos in Christianity regarding race. It's always nurture--never nature. Just like the communist "blank slate."


Quote:
Jones would describe it differnently, and he makes a good case, using evidence about the original Protestants. He would pose them as evil, willful debased or defrocked priests who worked with jews to promote some objectively diseased or dangerous version of liberation, all of which we're more than familiar with in the 20th or 21st century. Truly there is nothing new under the sun, as the verse says. Just variations on a theme of depravity. He demonstrates in place after place and century after century, these or those going nuts and working with the jews to debase the society around them. Now, whether or not you believe his other stuff, even many atheists will agree that what the Protestants he criticizes were doing was bad, and bad for the reasons he describes, religious doctrine to the side. It's very good stuff, and I don't know anyone else but him who supplies it. Even where he's wrong he's illuminating. In the same way I read Cuddihy and the light went on, my second thought was that an entirely different construction could be put on what Cuddihy was describing. Sort of the same for Jones. He's so good at what he does that he makes it easy to see where he's wrong. Jones and his church, to put it in their terms, stray from right reason when they fail accurately to objerve and measure that portion of god's creation that involves race. They prefer dogma to facts. We needn't. All Jones's arguments work very nicely against him, I find.
I'll have to investigate this more deeply.

I know nothing of Cuddihy. Is this he?
John_Murray_Cuddihy John_Murray_Cuddihy
<u>Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle With Modernity</u> Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle With Modernity

Quote:
I meant in the sense of morally abandoned. Like, not into priestly duties, but into free love and various other sins, and coming up with reasons to justify them. I think he's right to some extent about the priests, there were some truly crazy people whose nuttiness directly paralleled modern leftists, but I think the bigger picture he's missing is that some form of protestantism was inevitable because the racial reality he's afraid to take into account is that Whites are always torn between striking a new path and obeying authority. The strengths and weaknesses of Whites are evident in both religious poles.
Gotcha now.

Regarding protestant/jew chicanery, I'm stuck relying on my ignorance and experience with staunch Catholic apologists--a terrible fix. I've no doubt there was much of what you represent Jones to have asserted. How could there not have been? But where truth ends and Catholic propaganda begins, I can't yet say.

My impression has been that abandonment (in the "let alone" sense) played a role, too. What had gone on in Rome basically rotted the religious empire. The history of official Roman Catholicism (which was Christianity itself in Western Europe) post-Aquinas and into the 17th century is disgraceful. It's almost entirely the period where the "liberal" Christianity-bashers get their material--along with the whacky Pentecostals on TV.

When a middle class began to form in Northern Europe (which happened to be the hinterlands of Romanism), the clerics there basically ended their franchise agreement with Papa and started their own chicken shack, selling basically the same thing with nominally different "outward signs and wonders."

Rome had made things so bad for itself, they had to have their own "Counter Revolution," which was basically a massive "Come to Jesus" moment to patch things up before their whole ediface crumbled.

But to hear many Catholics tell it, the entire Protestant split occured because Luther was mentally ill after falling off his horse as a youth, and he wanted to bang one of his nuns. QED.

Incidently, the "mainline" groups that rapidly developed--Lutherans, sundry Calvinist groups--all hated the "Anabaptists," who I take to have been the "true believers" of their day. Kind of like the Fundies/Pentecostals of the 16th Century, only serious. Also the followers of the crypto-jew "Spaniard" Michael Servetus, whom Calvin had burned alive in Geneva.



Quote:
Gary North is certainly jewlike, altho some of his advice is good.
I'm surprised he isn't pumping "2012" like he did "Y2K," with biblical imprimatur, of course. Did you coin the name "Scary Gary," or was that someone else?

Quote:
Jones covers all this and stuff in Germany and Czech area. Jews worked with protestant to sow liberation theology wherever they went, to print bogus bibles and spread immorality. It's easy to see what he's saying, without agreeing with his position on his own church.
All I know about this is that when kikery began hitting Ellis Island after the Civil War, they got off the boat pumping all manor of revolutionary mumbo-jumbo. Part of it was Jehovah's Witness-ism, which is the old Arian heresy dredged back up. I think the headquarters is still in Brooklyn. All this came out of the area between Berlin and Moscow, ie "The Pale" that has entered the english lexicon through jewish media.

So I'm interested to know Jones' take on that part of Europe.
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #84
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

This Bread is Mine by Robert LeFevre:

http://mises.org/daily/4103
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #85
Roy
Perception Manager
 
Roy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,794
Roy
Default

No one's mentioned one other aspect of this discussion which comes up almost every time you criticize the Jew in public.

I must have heard it dozens of times. I'd like to hear what people on the board say when they hear this line:

"Yes, you may be right that Jews did (insert horrible and depraved act of Jews here), but Jesus was a Jew."

To state the purpose of them bringing up this point, it's essentially to say, "Jews can do no wrong, because you worship a Jew".

What's your typical response? I'd love to hear it.

Possibilities.
A: Say that you are an atheist and then their anti-atheist beliefs dig in, and you hit a brick wall

B: Get into an esoteric discussion about whether some guy 2000 years ago was really a Jew

C: Get into a spaghetti-like discussion if the Jews of today are the same as the Jews of 2000 years ago

D: State that Jews have everyone hoodwinked into thinking that they have some special relationship with God, and therefore any criticism of them slides off them like Teflon. Claim essentially that it's all a conspiracy.

E: State that the facts remain true whether Jesus was a Jew or not, and besides, I'm more concerned about the here and now, rather than what happened in South-West Asia 2000 years ago.
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #86
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
This Bread is Mine by Robert LeFevre:

http://mises.org/daily/4103

Yes, thanks for the correction!

I do have a copy of This Bread is Mine, and it is by Robert LeFevre, not Ludwig von Mises.

The book I meant is Omnipotent Government. That one's by von Mises. As I recall, this book was published by Yale during WWII and has a notice in the front from the War Material Board (or whatever it was called) saying it was licensed for publication.

I also have a book by Albert J. Nock, in the same vein as these others, called Our Enemy, the State.

I'd discovered Nock from a mention in one of Revilo Oliver's pieces.

I can't recall exactly how I discovered LeFevre. It might have been a mention by Robert Frenz.

If I recall correctly, LeFevre was--like Whitaker Chambers--an idealistic young man who became a Communist, then realized how badly he'd been taken in. Seems like he ran some sort of anti-Communist camp in Colorado after he came back from the dark side.
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #87
Kamerad Q
Senior Member
 
Kamerad Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 786
Kamerad Q
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Not too far from the truth. Maybe I'm a budding liberal per pygmies, as they are compound in my mind with Oompa Loompas, which are funny, and sing clever songs. I also like the idea of tiny creatures slinking around the forest shooting blowdarts at monkey. And I also know that pygmies are often attacked and literally eaten by African niggers. I think we could probably treat bite-sized rain forest niggers as part of the natural fauna without endangering ourselves, provided we didn't drive to improve the little buggers with pantaloons and Jeboo.
It is not by accident you made that accusation. The original Oompa-Loompas were flushed down the memory hole in favor of undocumented green dwarfs merrily slaving away in Willy Wonka's sweetshop for a chocolate kiss a day.
Quote:
"In the version first published, [the Oompa–Loompas were] a tribe of 3,000 amiable black pygmies who have been imported by Mr. Willy Wonka from 'the very deepest and darkest part of the African jungle where no white man had been before.' Mr. Wonka keeps them in the factory, where they have replaced the sacked white workers. Wonka's little slaves are delighted with their new circumstances, and particularly with their diet of chocolate. Before they lived on green caterpillars, beetles, eucalyptus leaves, 'and the bark of the bong–bong tree.'" [Jeremy Treglown's Roald Dahl: A Biography]

http://www.roalddahlfans.com/books/charoompa.php
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #88
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Wow, you've been in some of the same spots I have. I'm sorry. I take it the objective is to get them to face reality about kikocracy. You can't.

The big reason why is that you're thinking and they aren't. Facts are irrelevant. They're operating on auto-pilot.

Another reason is that they don't know who they themselves are, thus they can't have any idea who other people are. To them, jews are mystical people they've read about in the Bible. Whites don't think in terms of a group nor do we suspect others do , so you could just as well try to explain Planck's Constant as jew reality.

If they're fundies, they've been pumped full of a never-ending dose of kike-funded horseshit about "the promised land" and "God's Chosen" by the likes of traitors/conmen Robertson(international criminal), Falwell(mercifully deceased), Hagee(race mixer), Crouch (probable faggot), Bakker(probable faggot, ex-con), Lindsey(serial womanizer/end-of-the-world pumper), van Impe (bat shit crazy) etc.

If they're young, they've got all that plus a lifetime of HoloHoax propaganda.

It's no different than dealing with a cultist or drug addict. You can't win with reason, though it's a great thing to have on your side.

That said, if pushed and not wanting to insult, I'd tend toward E with a smattering of D.

Mostly I try not to fight an unimportant battle I can't win. These people will go with whatever wind is blowing. They'll even "discover" or "reinterpret" bible verses to support the new position, then call it "the plain truth."

Most of them are great and mean well, but they'd slit their own throats before they'd do their own thinking or act independently--despite their conceits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy View Post
No one's mentioned one other aspect of this discussion which comes up almost every time you criticize the Jew in public.

I must have heard it dozens of times. I'd like to hear what people on the board say when they hear this line:

"Yes, you may be right that Jews did (insert horrible and depraved act of Jews here), but Jesus was a Jew."

To state the purpose of them bringing up this point, it's essentially to say, "Jews can do no wrong, because you worship a Jew".

What's your typical response? I'd love to hear it.

Possibilities.
A: Say that you are an atheist and then their anti-atheist beliefs dig in, and you hit a brick wall.

B: Get into an esoteric discussion about whether some guy 2000 years ago was really a Jew

C: Get into a spaghetti-like discussion if the Jews of today are the same as the Jews of 2000 years ago

D: State that Jews have everyone hoodwinked into thinking that they have some special relationship with God, and therefore any criticism of them slides off them like Teflon. Claim essentially that it's all a conspiracy.

E: State that the facts remain true whether Jesus was a Jew or not, and besides, I'm more concerned about the here and now, rather than what happened in South-West Asia 2000 years ago.
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #89
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

I've got the Nock book in my hands. He shows that ALL states started for one and only one reason- economic exploitation.

http://mises.org/etexts/ourenemy.pdf

>>>Socialism: Illegitimate, Not Just Inefficient

by Gary North

In a recent essay on the sixteenth-century author, Etiene de la Boetie, Robert Klassen highlights several passages from Etiene’s book, The Politics of Servitude: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude. Etiene believed that the State’s use of redistributed wealth was the basis of its authority. The masses have always loved tax-funded bread and circuses. They surrender their liberty for the promise of continuing bread and circuses.

There is a problem with this analysis: the State does not begin with bread and circuses. It begins with the promise of law and order. This, in turn, rests on a concept of justice. The State comes in the name of justice, but frequently ends in injustice. Why?

A successful critique of the messianic State must offer a rival view to the prevailing social order’s views of justice and injustice. Ultimately, the sense of injustice is the crucial factor in the removal of tyranny, rather than the mere substitution of a rival group of scoundrels. There must be a sense of the restoration of justice. Men may risk their lives for power, or for the hope to get in on the plunder, but this is no solution to the problem of tyranny. What we need are people who will risk everything for the establishment of justice.

This leads me to an important and divisive conceptual issue within the libertarian camp: the ethics of liberty vs. the theory of value-free economics.

Baldy Harper’s Question to Mises

There are at least three free market economists who used their initials, F. A. The most famous is Hayek. Lutz is less known. Harper is the least known within academic circles.

Floyd A. "Baldy" Harper was not bald. For two decades, 1950-70, he was one of the most important figures in the anarcho-capitalist wing of libertarianism. He was hired by Leonard Read to work at the Foundation for Economic Education. Read later severed his formal connection with Harper over the issue of anarchism. Harper then moved to the William Volker Fund for a few years, supervising the publication of the Volker Fund’s series in economics, which included Israel Kirzner’s Ph.D. dissertation, written under Mises, The Economic Point of View, the translation and publication of Frederic Bastiat’s essays, and a series of book-long collections of essays edited by Helmut Schoeck and James Wiggins. In 1962, he was fired by the head of the Volker Fund, Harold Luhnow. He then began the Institute for Humane Studies in Menlo Park, California.

Harper wrote two small books, Why Wages Rise and Liberty: A Path to Its Recovery. In the second book, he made one crucial observation: if you do not have the right to disown a piece of property, then you do not own it. That gem I think I first found in Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and State, which Harper also got into print through Volker funding. He later published the expurgated sections of the book as Power and Market (1970). Like Rothbard, he based his defense of the market on moral grounds: the natural right of everyone to property gained voluntarily and peacefully.

Harper was important as a facilitator of ideas. He recruited raw talent. I was one of his recruits in 1961. He sent free books to people. I received my copy of Man, Economy, and State in the fall of 1962. He organized conferences. He asked hard questions softly.

He told me that he had once asked Mises this question: "If socialism were more efficient than capitalism, would you still oppose it?" Mises answered: "But socialism is not more efficient than capitalism." He said that he asked it again, and got the same reply. "I realized that Mises was not going to answer my question."

A major difference between Mises and Rothbard, as well as Harper, is found here. Rothbard, although a defender of the methodology value-free economics, just as Mises was and most economists say they are, also presented the moral case against socialism and collectivism generally. He wrote The Ethics of Liberty. This was not a book that Mises would ever have written. I doubt that he would have endorsed it, at least not in his capacity as an economist.

Mises believed that the case against socialism was best made in terms of its economic irrationality, i.e., its inability to enable central planners to make rational economic calculations. Rothbard agreed with Mises’s technical critique, but he went further. He argued that the State is a moral monstrosity and a destroyer of liberty. If socialism were more efficient than capitalism, Rothbard would still have opposed it.

The war over socialism has always been a moral war first. It is not primarily a debate over comparative efficiency. In a pragmatic era, some people will be persuaded by arguments regarding efficiency, but socialists always came in the name of a moral vision. They early staked their claim – collectively, of course – to the high moral ground.

This is why, in his famous 1990 admission that "Mises was right" regarding Mises’ technical critique of socialism, Robert Heilbroner then moved on to the next stage of socialism: recommending environmentalism as a means of restoring the lost legitimacy of socialism. He was at long last persuaded that socialism is economically irrational. The complete failure of the Soviet Union’s economy had finally persuaded him of the logic of Mises’s 1920 essay. He immediately called for socialism’s establishment through controls over the economy in the name of environmentalism. This is how he concluded his New Yorker (Sept. 10) essay.

This Bread Is Mine

Robert Lefevre, a contemporary of and fellow anarchist with Harper, wrote a book, This Bread Is Mine. It was not a defense of capitalism’s lower cost of bread or the higher quality of its bread. It was a defense of his right to own the bread that he had produced.

It is here that the socialist begins the fight. He rejects the owner’s exclusive claim, meaning his right to exclude everyone else from this bread. Society has a moral claim on this bread, the socialist claims.

There is no doubt that this socialistic argument has appealed to the masses from time to time. This was Etiene’s observation. Men’s acceptance of this moral claim has been the basis of their willingness to submit voluntarily to the State.

Etiene fully understood that if all men refused to cooperate with the State’s agents except under threat of immediate violence, no civil ruler could enforce his claims beyond his immediate surroundings. But men do submit, and not just out of fear. They believe that the civil rulers possess the moral right to enforce certain laws. They believe, in our day, that "some of your bread is mine."

There is a proper role for technical arguments. The fact is, socialism’s immorality has bad consequences. As surely as Ben Franklin’s Poor Richard was correct – "Honesty is the best policy" – so is capitalism more productive than socialism. There is moral cause and effect in social and economic affairs. This makes the case for liberty easier to make among the pragmatists of any era. The problem is, the most efficient defenders of the efficiency of the free market have generally been defenders of value-free economics. They have let their technical case against socialism stand alone. This lets the socialists off one of the two hooks, the hook that offers them their greatest propaganda advantage: the myth of their high moral ground.

We need defenders of the free market who understand both the inefficiency of collectivism and its immorality. It would be nice if they were effective coiners of aphorisms, the way that Bastiat was.

James Bovard

I cannot stand to read much of a James Bovard’s book at one sitting. His books enrage me too much. He catalogues horrors of interventionism. He monitors the enforcement of government regulations by real-world bureaucrats. He shows examples of the petty tyranny of the interventionist State. He provides story after story of lost freedom, stolen wealth, and heartless bureaucracy. Page after page, the cataloging goes on. The reader is expected finally to accept the grim truth: these are representative cases in a stream of petty tyranny that will not stop until the funding stops.

His case studies are not randomly accumulated; they are carefully selected to support a moral case against government intervention into the economy. The reader reads these horror stories, and asks himself, one by one, "Is that right?" Bovard’s silent response: "It’s not right, but it’s true." Then he provides another case study.

Occasionally, he offers an aphorism. "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." That one is worthy of Bastiat.

Bovard’s books evoke moral outrage. This is why they are so important. Men are often willing to live with inefficiency. They are much less willing to live with injustice.

Legitimacy

Every social order has all of these five aspects: legitimacy, authority, law, sanctions, and continuity. If it lacks any of these five features, it will disappear. It will be replaced by another. I have summarized these five factors with five questions.
Who’s in charge here, and why?
To whom do I report?
What are the rules?
What do I get if I obey (disobey)?
Does this outfit have a future?
Mises argued that socialists successfully persuaded people to accept their economic system on this basis: the unproven slogan that socialism is inevitable. Men's resistance to socialist ideas was undermined, Mises said, once they accepted the doctrine that socialism is the wave of the future. (The most detailed study of this aspect of Marxism is F. N. Lee's Communist Eschatology [1974].)

Mises had a good point, but I think he would have come closer to the truth by looking at the first issue: legitimacy. Socialists have always come in the name of higher morality, i.e., their moral right to rule on behalf of the downtrodden. Mises was uncomfortable with the moral argument against socialism. He was not prepared to take on the collectivists in public debate with respect to this issue. Rothbard was.

It is fine to argue that socialism is not the wave of the future. The collapse of the USSR is the supreme case in point. It is fine to argue that economic cause and effect under socialism is irrational, due to the absence of markets, especially capital markets. Mises made this the center piece of his technical critique of socialism. It is fine to argue that socialism rests on a system of law that is opposed to human nature, but most economists begin to get nervous when they hear "human nature" invoked, which is one reason why they resisted Mises’s doctrine of praxeology: the a priori science of human action.

As for the authority of socialism, this is based operationally on power. But this power always requires voluntary submission – Etiene’s point. Why do men submit? They accept the legitimacy of the prevailing authority.

Conclusion

R. J. Rushdoony, in his book, The Institutes of Biblical Law (1973), said that the god of a society is its source of law. There can be debates over law – its content, its effects, its procedures – but the debate over law is ultimately the debate over origins.

"Who is in charge here, and why?" This is the issue of legitimacy. The ideological battle over socialism begins here and must end here. This is why Heilbroner did not capitulate to the free market ideal, even though he finally recognized the truth of Mises’s arguments regarding point four: economic cause and effect. The debate over socialism vs. the free market is not about efficiency as such. It is about legitimacy and the social order that grows out of legitimacy.

The libertarian says, "This bread is mine." The Christian says (or ought to say), "This bread is God’s, and He has delegated control over it, and responsibility for it, to me." The other four issues are peripheral – not unimportant, but peripheral to the central issue.
May 15, 2001

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north46.html
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #90
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose View Post
But would we have continued to exist? That's kind of point here.
My point is that Christianity is not inherently pro-White, it's doctrinally and dogmatically universalist. But its advocates claim every good thing for it, even though no good thing is logically connected to it. You say it saved Europe. it wasn't the church that saved Europe. White men may have rallied under its banner, but not to save their race. The church always, from day one, allowed jews, greeks, slaves, bums, alcoholics, persians - whatever - to join its ranks. So the church isn't now and never was about race. I don't see what's hard to grasp about that.

Quote:
Was the Enlightenment always a bad thing? Would your views on government even exist without it? The idea of White-Man-ism. The idea of people being "adults"?
Christianity and the 'Englishtenment' are both wrong. They're competitive and cooperative perversions of imagination and will. It should be obvious that people can kill in the name of Jeboo or Reason, and that just become someone exalts reason or rationality doesn't mean he acts reasonably, any more than Jones is right because he says he acts in the name of right reason. I judge these things against the best world that I believe is possible given the constraints of reality. The false dogmas of the church don't interest, nor does the false universalism pushed by ethnically-interested kikes.

Quote:
Right. So, what are you getting at? That Whites would have developed to the high level we have, or even better, if Christianity never existed?
Yep.

Japan did, and Whites are certainly not less capable than Japanese.

Quote:
That would be true, if we lived in a vacuum. But when I look back on the world, I still have to say, was probably a lot better that it did.
This is exactly the lack of imagination characteristic of most whites. You can't imagine things being different than they are - but they could be. The church's false dogmas pushed our race in one direction among many. Well, now we reap the results. I don't like them. I don't think you do either. We didn't have to go this way, and, as history shows, the Christian way was the wrong way.

The whole trend of things is toward individual-specific, customized solutions, and the church is just a crappy one-size-fits-all solution. I don't want to be politically yoked to niggers through taxation for reasons of political equality any more than I want to be yoked to every squatty duskling through spiritual equality.

I deny the church dogma of human spiritual equality.

Last edited by Alex Linder; March 5th, 2010 at 10:36 PM.
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #91
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Their souls have been murdered, that animal part of a human being that desires freedom more than life itself, animals do not survive in captivity, because they no longer desire to live. The animal in us is what really makes us human.
One site I visit from time to time has a person who is I think some sort of doctor, who regularly goes to Haiti to treat some sundry subsection of substandard simians - I guess grouting their gums or spackling their cleaves. This site, like millions of others, recently raised funds for the unburied on that hapless isle. Now, if I were to jump in his thread and post the view that this doc or whatever is ignorant of Haitian history, and that people there in general are foolish for subsidizing the human-shaped detritus that has left an otherwise attractive island treeless and humanless, no matter how cagily I phrased it, I would be virtually universally virtually accosted as an anti-social monster, and quite probably banned. This sick mentality is the product of Christian teaching and jewish censorship. I don't like either one, and I resist both.

Thought itself is anathema to the christian as the jew, altho for different reasons.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 16th, 2012 at 01:36 AM.
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #92
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Their souls have been murdered, that animal part of a human being that desires freedom more than life itself, animals do not survive in captivity, because they no longer desire to live. The animal in us is what really makes us human.
Look at this photo closely.



What do you see in the man's eyes, and the woman's? Are they evil. No, they are not evil. They are worse than evil. They have willingly chosen to renounce their humanity. They have made themselves less than human in the name of what they would call a noble ideal, but which we who retain our humanity can see clearly is a sick and destructive cause.
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #93
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Cutting your balls off and carving your brain out do not make you better, as the Christian contends, they make you a gelded lunatic.
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #94
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny James View Post
Like someone on here said once, liberalism towards non-whites is primarily based on fear, we fear them because of their savage all too human nature, so we reach out to them, to attempt to buy them off.
I think that's true of some...now...but I don't think that's the original or dominant impulse driving liberalism. The magic monkeys didnt present a threat way back when, they were objects of curiosity, then they became objects of salvationists and then social engineers. Whites are smarter than others, we WN say that all the time. What we don't say, that needs to be remembered, is just as our superior racial capacity gives us higher highs, it gives us lower lows. Pretending that niggers are people is whites at their lowest low, to ignore the jew multiplier for a second. Even hundreds of years ago, and not prejudicing that jews were involved even back then, you had professional christians canting about our treatmen of the poower little bush niggers, and all the cannibals abused by Team Columbus. Batholomew de las Casas or some such, it was assigned to me in college. The dark side of White genius is...genius perverts, genius demons, genious utopian fantasists. Liberalism is more a product of this than anything but jews and their malign influence. Other races don't think. Whites do. Thinking means spotting patterns. We use logic and evidence to make out the pattern, or conceive the pattern, and then check it against reality. If we have brains to pattern create, to generalize, but we lack the character to submit our conceived pattern against the world of actuality, then we are liberal fantasists. Evil geniuses. If we then add power...we get the full-fledged marxist or christian or social-engineer fantasy, where the misery our projects create, altho easily predictable beforehand, is simply overlooked. That's basically what we see in our mass media. Not a single serious problem facing our race or various nations can be written about honestly because the jew-liberal stranglehold is too strong for facts to break through.

Quote:
The same goes to Christianity, they are afraid of reality, whites are inherently afraid of admitting their superiority over non-whites, they all know it deep down so they attempt to buy off this sense of inferiority from the non-whites in case they decide to one day exterminate us all. Christians are afraid of the terrible nature of humanity so they attempt to reach out to them to save their own hides from being stabbed by some nigger with an HIV infected syringe.
But Christianity began before these others were the threat they are today, for reasons of politics and proximity. You can see the same sick quasi-arguments before transportation and technology brought our mass populations face to face with the beast. Christianity I see as a false pattern, a false generalization that fit a sector of the population's perverted ideal too much to abandon in the face of evidence. When combined with the power of princes, this sick and wrong doctrine spread. When you add in technology and transportation, it's now in position to spread misery to the entire human world, ie the White West.

Quote:
Frankly there's only one way of dealing with that thing that you fear.
Fear is only part of it. Muds can also be seen as super pets, or as tools to get a leg up on our white competitors.
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #95
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
I'll have to see what I can dig up on Rothbard. I am aware of the Rothbard-Rockwell Report. Seems like it used to be online 10 or 12 years ago. I've never forgotten it because they used to have a writer called Hans Herman Hoppe. John "Birdman" Bryant referred to him as "Triple H from Triple R."
Hoppe's still around unless he died, the libertarians at lewrockwell.com talk about him all the time. Maybe he got fired. He wrote "Democracy: The God That Failed."

Quote:
Incidently, I have a copy of "This Bread is Mine" by another jew, von Mises, on my shelf. I discovered "Austrian Economics" in my early days of WN.
Yeah.. I don't go for labels, they are as apt to disguise as reveal. If the argument is solid, then it's good no matter the name. There is a lot of sense in the articles the lrc crew put out, always given that they're afraid to speak the truth about race.

Quote:
About Cantrell--I'd never heard of him until I read another, older post of yours. My interest has really been piqued. Is he the James Cantrell of How Celtic Culture Invented Southern Literature ], among some others I see in similar vein?
Yes. He has, as I said, seemingly disappeared the last 3-4 years. And he's a young guy. I presume he's either writing a book, teaching or something happened to him. I have seen nothing new from him other than a few odd comments at the paleocon sites. If you look around the VNN sites, you can find much of his stuff that I've posted, pretty much everything that's appeared online. He used to write for a few sites that are now defunct. He's a Celtic bigot, but his criticisms of WASP-Germanic culture are mostly well taken.

Quote:
A worthy pursuit, but as you know, you can't reason with the irrational, Christian or otherwise. Facts are the least potent weapons.
Well, I never studied christianity when I was in school, I just know of it from my own upbringing and reading the bible. Someone sent me a book recently, and I am about 3/4 thru a long review of it, which will be posted here.

Quote:
There's no getting around it: The present nutty/suicidal racial view in Christianity is the original one from its early slave-faith days. I think what makes the notion of White Christianity so plausible is that Christianity was the White religion, by default. Where it did exist in multi-racial areas it collapsed, ie North Africa, the Levant, and Asia Minor. Those were also White colonial areas (Africa/Levant) or (probably) White tribal areas (parts of Asia Minor).
The problem is that people aren't used to thinking carefully. They just lump shit together. Christianity was the dominant religion for much of recent white history, therefore christianity is the source of everything good. Um...no. Truly, as someone quoted, as I've quoted before, it perfectly fits the saying, "What's new in it isn't good, and what's good in it isn't new."

Quote:
But as the Christian "scholar" tells the historical story, he uses "faith" just like liberals speak of "culture"--as if it were some thing independent of those who create/posess it. That ties in with the "weez all eekwal" ethos in Christianity regarding race. It's always nurture--never nature. Just like the communist "blank slate."
People don't even have faith in the shit that doesn't require faith! That's the irony. That's where the faith is needed - that your mind WILL work if you use it correctly. Instead, faith is used to prop the asinine, the impossible and the undesirable. If I were to have any religious belief, it would be the the world was created by a rather sadistic ironist.

[quote]
I know nothing of Cuddihy. Is this he? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murray_Cuddihy
Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle With Modernity

Yes - The Ordeal of Civility. It should be online free somewhere, check our books section. He wrote a couple others too, was from a prominent Irish-American family in New York City, if I recall. Wrote a lot of sociology of religion stuff about jews, Catholics and Protestants and the differences between them. He doesn't even give his insight into the ethnic drivers behind jewish "greats" a negative spin, which actually intensifies the creepy horror you feel realizing that jews aren't just ugly, dishonest leftist trolls, they're culture-undermining, White-hating genocidalist Chucky-steins.

Quote:
How could there not have been? But where truth ends and Catholic propaganda begins, I can't yet say.
Well, it can be hard to say. I'm not a historian. But, as Hitler advised, I fit everything I read into one great mosaic, and measure every new morsel against what I already know, from reading and experience, and the new stuff either clarifies or goes to court against and wins/loses. The only time I have caught Jones serving rotten fish is in his criticism, in his magazine, of the nazis with facts and evidence taken from The Pink Swastika, which purports to be a fag outing of the original Nazis, but in fact is recycled lies from the jewish communists the Nazis defeated. As I have noted, Jones did NOT use the magazine material in his recent tome tracing the history of Church-jew relations over the last 2,000 years.

Quote:
But to hear many Catholics tell it, the entire Protestant split occured because Luther was mentally ill after falling off his horse as a youth, and he wanted to bang one of his nuns. QED.
Read Jones. Spend the money and buy the book. He retraces the history of a number of apostasies. That is, by the church's view, which is his, there is a permanent human desire to stray, due to evil, and resulting in defections from the true church and its moral demands. Protestantism is a successful apostasy. He discusses a number of these breakaway movements at various places and time around Europe. When you combine what we know about jews with his insight into the church's policies and the historical facts about the various heresies and Protestant leaders, you begin to develop a pretty clear picture of what was going on. Of course, none of this is taught in any school that I know of. Really, the church never took biology or jews as a biological entity seriously as a proposition, which is, from my outside POV, rather obviously the cause and continuing reason for its subversion. We can separate Jones's and the church's false belief about the nature of the jew, that it is just another form of human requiring above all else a conversion to christianity, from Jones's unique and compelling way of laying out the relevant history. (He uses a scene method: Moscow 1920, Alexandra Kollontai. It's a great way of doing it, which I have never seen others employ. A sort of world's-a-stage, life and history an ongoing drama, but here are the perduring lessons of it all. I love it because the remove - now to Weimar, now to Spain, now to commie Russia - let's you see THE SAME GODDAM PERNICIOUS PETS operating the SAME GODDAM TRICKS right across the board. Jones advocates the extermination of the jewish people through conversion to christianity. I advocate the extermination of the jewish people through extermination. It is the lesson to be drawn from Jones, though he does not draw it and would be or affect to be horrified by my drawing it. But it is the cold lesson that emanates from his work. Destroying things is what jews do, every bit as naturally as termites chew up foundations. "They exterminate termites, don't they?")

Quote:
I'm surprised he isn't pumping "2012" like he did "Y2K," with biblical imprimatur, of course. Did you coin the name "Scary Gary," or was that someone else?
Not me. He doesn't come off scary so much as silly. Actually he comes off juvenile, which is odd given his learning and hard work. It's just there's always a nyah-nyah quality to his stuff, he's always cleverer-than-thou. No one's scared of Gary North, he's just the type they use to hype fears of a christian run america because of things he's said about restoring a christian republic, or something similar.

Quote:
All I know about this is that when kikery began hitting Ellis Island after the Civil War, they got off the boat pumping all manor of revolutionary mumbo-jumbo. Part of it was Jehovah's Witness-ism, which is the old Arian heresy dredged back up. I think the headquarters is still in Brooklyn. All this came out of the area between Berlin and Moscow, ie "The Pale" that has entered the english lexicon through jewish media.
Jones shows the jews are always after the same object: destruction of Aryan society through liberation. Everything in the name of its opposite. Altho he sees the behavior of the jew clearly enough, he cannot face squarely its nature, given his religious dogma. Men who can become "Nazis," like most of the raised-Catholic Nazi hierarchy. So the Catholics hate the Nazis with a special ferocity not found in their opposition to communists, whom they merely oppose. Communists are good for business because they oppress Catholicism; Nazis are bad for business because they offer something more compelling than Catholicism. Jones can't acknowlege that fact, but it is the true source of the church's hatred of Aryan Nazism, again compared to its mere opposition to jewish communism.
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #96
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The German Nazis were just the first run - honest White men using facts to reach a logical conclusion, manifested in near-appropriate action. Because the jews haven't changed, and can't change, nor can the reasoning that gave rise to the German nationalists, nor most of the tactics they used. What will change is the ultimate solution, which, in line with the wishes of the Master Ironist, will be Aryans carrying out what the Nazis were accused of, though the facts show they never attempted: the extermination (painless or painful) of the jewish "people," as the canting runs.

Last edited by Alex Linder; March 5th, 2010 at 10:43 PM.
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #97
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

If we exterminate termites because they destroy the foundation of our houses, how much more lenient should we be in our treatment of the jews, who destroy the foundations of our society, indeed of our very existence?
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #98
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

You say, "But Jews are not termites."

Correct, I rejoin. They are worse.
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #99
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

It is morbid Christianity and mass-media convention that bid us regard jews and blacks as fellow humans. Once they are properly classified as dangerous animals, all the political problems fade, and the solution to the problems they present becomes apparent.
 
Old March 5th, 2010 #100
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
"Yes, you may be right that Jews did (insert horrible and depraved act of Jews here), but Jesus was a Jew."
Actually, Jesus didn't exist. But the best way to answer that question, is You mean, Jesus was murdered by jews - and they laughed about it.

Remember, Christians are stupid, pathetic cunts who can't think. So when they start up parroting these recent media memes (the one you mention was always around, but kike-kicked into overdrive after Gibson's "Passion" came out), you have to hit back doubly hard, intimidate them. After

"No, I didn't know that (while making goofy face). I knew he was MURDERED by them. Why are you defending the assholes who murdered Jesus? (Sick and offended look.) You're going to hell on a shitty airline! What the fuck is wrong with you, you jerk."

They will swallow their tongues for fear. Nah, they'll just look at you pie-eyed and then slink up in themselves and away. They really are cunts. Don't let them forget it. They're JUST brave enough to use a parrot term to make a very small attack when they think they have the entire known world behind them - shrink them with your scorn.

Last edited by Alex Linder; March 5th, 2010 at 10:45 PM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03 AM.
Page generated in 0.22985 seconds.