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

Old February 2nd, 2013 #21
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,862
Crowe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Englisc View Post
Fixed. Be careful about using the word "Israelites" in case CIdiots came across what you post.
The CI nuts misconstrue racially intended verses directed toward the Jewish race as their own. Judaism is a racial religion for Jews. You can't just hijack Judaism and call it a racial religion for Whites and expect anyone to take you legitimately. Its hard for me to put into words how pathetic I really think the CIers are.

There are 2 types of CIers I've seen:

Those who are genuinely retarded, with an IQ of sub-80 range.

Or those who were formerly Christians from another sect, but are in complete denial of reality and refuse to accept their religion was inherently Jewish. They willingly persist to live a lie.
 
Old February 3rd, 2013 #22
Englisc
Amor Patriae Nostra Lex
 
Englisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: England
Posts: 1,382
Englisc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe View Post
The CI nuts misconstrue racially intended verses directed toward the Jewish race as their own. Judaism is a racial religion for Jews. You can't just hijack Judaism and call it a racial religion for Whites and expect anyone to take you legitimately. Its hard for me to put into words how pathetic I really think the CIers are.

There are 2 types of CIers I've seen:

Those who are genuinely retarded, with an IQ of sub-80 range.

Or those who were formerly Christians from another sect, but are in complete denial of reality and refuse to accept their religion was inherently Jewish. They willingly persist to live a lie.
This.

What's worse is CI has hijacked a number of WN forums, especially SF, eNationalist (an otherwise excellent NS site) and to a lesser extent Germanic Worlds.
 
Old February 3rd, 2013 #23
Soldatul Vostru
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Wrong Parallel Universe
Posts: 3,499
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Englisc View Post
This.

What's worse is CI has hijacked a number of WN forums, especially SF, eNationalist (an otherwise excellent NS site) and to a lesser extent Germanic Worlds.
I tried to do something about that when I was on there, constantly arguing with the Christians [CI's and regular Xtians] but to no avail. They would usually lock the threads and protect the Xtians under the guise of it being a political forum not religious. As if you can separate religion from politics.

Christianity has taken a position on race and that position is anti-white.

I got accused of being a Jew, a Turk, accused of being non-white by this one CI 'tard because of how anti-Christian I was. The funniest part is I had my picture up in the gallery which clearly shows that I am indeed white. Not to mention the fact that I was born and raised in a Christian family, not a Jewish or Islamic one. But they just got so frustrated with me that they had to resort to accusing me of being a Jew, or a Turk, because only they could be so anti-Christian.
 
Old February 3rd, 2013 #24
SUNOFSPARTA
MIA
 
SUNOFSPARTA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Off the reservation
Posts: 2,639
SUNOFSPARTA
Default

In 64 I saw the white Baptist Preachers and Catholic Priest walking hand in hand with the niggers to support Forced integration,that got me to thinking about religion seriously.It took another decade to discover Creativity and the rest I could figure out for myself.I'm thinking when a race war starts there will "still" unfortunately be a lot of good Christian white people who will opt to fight on the niggers side.People who put religion before race are insane.
 
Old February 5th, 2013 #25
V. Søe
White Islamist
 
V. Søe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Caliphate
Posts: 320
V. Søe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Englisc View Post
The only argument they can advance against this is that Christianity has been in Europe for some time - but what if Islam had conquered Europe at the same time, would that have made Islam a White religion?
Personally, I don't have a problem with your religion as long as you are a WN.

However, seeing WN christians who say "WN muslims are oxymorons" is either ignorance or arrogance.

The sources of both religion are the same, both came from Middle East, both admire Abraham as the father of prophets.
The differences are in their holy books. Koran is still the same as when it was first written, while the Bible has been edited and corrupted it's contents.
 
Old February 9th, 2013 #26
TimothyLeeAdams
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 38
Blog Entries: 9
TimothyLeeAdams
Default Rejection/hatred of Christianity alienates WN from white Americans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe View Post
We will be in a better position to reach to the next generation if we throw Christian influence out the door.

The future for Christianity isn't looking good. Its a dying religion. Go down to your local church, look for age groups sitting in the pews. You'll notice 1 is mostly missing. Ages 18-30. The only reason kids are there is because they don't have a say in the matter.

When I was a kid, that was me, the one sitting in church who absolutely dreaded having to go every weekend. I hated church so much, that I didn't even look forward to the weekends. Until I finally had the balls to tell them when I was 12 that I wasn't going. I told them you can ground me, beat me, but I'm not going to church, or Sunday school anymore. They asked why, and I told them I don't believe in God. I ended up winning, but not without a lot of fighting and arguing, and the stance of a single 12 year old made the entire family quit going to church.

Looking back on that I consider it my first huge stance against Christ insanity. All it took was a single rebellious 12 year old to make them wake up to reality. Even to this day, neither one of my parents are committed Christ insaners. Later on it turns out my Dad had no say in it and he is an agnostic like I am.
Attacking all Christianity for the PC cultist in its' ranks is yet another reason the majority of Whites will not get on board with more radical racialists.
 
Old February 10th, 2013 #27
Englisc
Amor Patriae Nostra Lex
 
Englisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: England
Posts: 1,382
Englisc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TimothyLeeAdams View Post
Attacking all Christianity for the PC cultist in its' ranks is yet another reason the majority of Whites will not get on board with more radical racialists.
The "PC cultists" follow the proper form of Christianity, as has been shown here many times.
 
Old February 10th, 2013 #28
Tom Nee
Junior Member
 
Tom Nee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 93
Tom Nee
Default

The traditional Catholics and the Orthodox something might be made of them , tell them Jesus was Greek or something. Just a matter of having power over them. But the protestant cults are pure Jewish and arose because the Popes were going pagan and the Jews needed to renew christ-insanity.
The reformation was a counter-renaissance.
The popes of the renaissance gave us some great art, and pagan art essentially.

Catholicism is much closer to paganism. I was eating with a monk a few months ago and he could handle talking about the kosher labels on the food.
Hoffman and Gibson show that such people are not complete shite.

It also holds cultural hostages. The church maintains the pagan heritage of Europe trapped within itself. So called saints. Just the old gods cocooned in a membrane of Jewish oriental memes waiting for some Hitler to call them forth again.

Even the Amish who are currently being targeted by the Jew in the same way the Jew is targeting separatist Muslims show sometimes it takes eastern ideas to resist the east. Christ-insanity resembles Stalinism. Jewish to begin with but then equilibrated. As eastern memes blocked further orientalisation.
 
Old February 17th, 2013 #29
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The Fear of God

by E. Christian Kopff

October 08, 2009

Among the most subversive aspects of the Enlightenment Project is its insistence on the radical incompatibility of Christianity with the Classical and Germanic traditions. In his Regensburg Address (2006), Pope Benedict correctly insisted that Europe was created by the uniting of the Classical and the Biblical, a process culminating in the conversion of the Germans. As with Classical and Christian, the influencing was a two-way street, described well by James C. Russell as The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity (1994). German art portrayed gentle Jesus, meek and mild, as a warrior chief. Jesus’ lordship was interpreted in the light of German tradition, as we find it in Tacitus’s Germania.

On the field of battle it is a disgrace for a chief to be surpassed in valor by his followers and for the followers not to equal the valor of their chief. To leave a battle alive after their chief has fallen means livelong infamy and shame. To defend and protect him, and to let him get the credit for their own acts of heroism, are the most solemn obligations of their allegiance.

Tacitus’s description is confirmed by the great Anglo-Saxon poem, The Battle of Maldon (14). The English chief allows marauding Vikings to land so that the ensuing battle will be more glorious. After he is slain, a few cowards ride away to everlasting shame, but most of his followers fight to the death in the hopeless but glorious struggle. German converts re-interpreted spreading the faith as following the lord Jesus into battle and understood martyrdom as the German virtue of preferring death to deserting their liege.

Despite the humorous title, David Gless in From Plato to NATO: The Idea of the West and Its Opponents (1998) makes a powerful case for the validity of a grand narrative informed by the notion that what is distinctive and vital in the West derives from the assimilation and mutual interaction of Classical, Christian, and German. When great periods of creativity and freedom appear in Europe and America, they are often associated with those who value the three traditions, not as inassimilable entities, but as containing complementary elements which are essential for human fulfillment and societal greatness.

All three traditions were formative and creative in the High Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the American Founding. When Dante writes about his political ideas in Monarchia, for instance, he describes an empire that is Roman, Christian, and German. Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967) described the Classical, Christian and German (or Common Law) traditions behind the American Revolution (though he also began the bad habit of privileging one tradition over the others, in his case, English Whig thought.) As Carl Richard noticed in The Founders and the Classics: Greece, Rome, and the American Enlightenment (1994),

To the founders, there was but one worthy tradition, the tradition of liberty, and they would not have understood the modern historian’s need to distinguish between the classical and Whig traditions and to measure the influence of one against the other.

Thomas Jefferson first came to the attention of his fellow Virginians in 1774 by his essay A Summary View of the Rights of British North America. He based his argument on the fact that the ancestors of the British Americans had twice exercised a “right which nature has given to all men,” that is, emigrating from one land to a new one: the first time when the Anglo-Saxons followed Hengist and Horsa to Britain, the second time the English colonization of North America. The colonists’ position is often explained as a defense of their claim to the rights of Englishmen and this argument does play an important role in the debate. In “A Summary View,” however, Jefferson stakes out a claim to the colonists’ rights not only as Englishmen but as Germans.

The Germanic origin of the English tickled the funny bone of Benjamin Franklin, who composed a bogus Edict from the King of Prussia in 1773, in which Frederick the Great of Prussia makes the same demands on the English that Parliament was making on the colonies. Jefferson took the idea seriously. On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress appointed Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin “to a committee to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of America.” Jefferson’s suggestion is reported by John Adams:

Mr. Jefferson proposed, the children of Israel in the wilderness led by a cloud by day, and a pillar by night—and on the other side, Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon chiefs, from whom we clam the honor of being descended, and whose political principles and form of government we have assumed.

Jefferson’s suggested seal was devoted to two groups of settlers, the Chosen People of the Bible and the colonists’ German ancestors. For him the American nation was based on the Bible and the German tradition. As Gilbert Chinard wrote, in 1776 “Jefferson’s great ambition was to promote a renaissance of Anglo-Saxon primitive institutions on the new continent.” This was no youthful whim. Jefferson always insisted on and was eventually successful in ensuring that Anglo-Saxon be taught at the University of Virginia. “This is the true foundation of Jefferson’s political philosophy,” Chinard concluded. “No greater mistake could be made than to look for his sources in Locke, Montesquieu, or Rousseau. Jeffersonian democracy was born under the sign of Hengist and Horsa, not of the Goddess Reason.”

The Founders were traditionalists in law, religion, and politics, and they believed in the coherence of the Christian, Classical, and German traditions, supporting and enriching one another. The congregationalism of their Protestant church polity supported the federalism of their secular politics and both were strengthened by the idea of “checks and balances” they derived from ancient history, like Polybius’s account of the Roman Republic. And their idea of a citizen as a farmer-soldier-citizen drew on Greek, Roman and German traditions.

The results of the Germanization of medieval Christianity continued to live in popular as well as learned religious life. When I was a boy, Protestant congregations still sang “Onward Christian Soldiers” to music composed by Sir Arthur Sullivan of Gilbert and Sullivan fame. (Sabine Baring-Gould composed the words.) Today almost every Protestant hymnbook has re-written the words of “Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus, Ye Soldiers of the Cross” to eliminate lines that breathed the spirit of Tacitus’ Germans and the Anglo-Saxons of The Battle of Maldon:

Ye that are men now serve Him against unnumbered foes.
Let courage rise with danger and strength to strength oppose.

That popular hymn presented Jesus as the warrior king He was for the first German converts.

Those days are gone, of course. Today almost every appearance of the words “man” and “men” has been erased from hymnals. This recent phenomenon is an assault not only on masculinity but also on the Christian, Classical, and Germanic traditions. The American way of life can be restored only by a return to the traditions that shaped it. Many forces oppose that restoration, but, as the old hymn used to remind us, men do not retreat before unnumbered foes, whether they stand among the troops of Gideon in the Book of Judges or the Three Hundred Spartans at Thermopylae or on the walls of the Alamo. As Bismarck said of his Germans, “We fear God, but nothing else in the world!”

http://takimag.com/article/the_fear_...#axzz2AnwIl86z
 
Old February 17th, 2013 #30
Soldatul Vostru
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Wrong Parallel Universe
Posts: 3,499
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TimothyLeeAdams View Post
Attacking all Christianity for the PC cultist in its' ranks is yet another reason the majority of Whites will not get on board with more radical racialists.
Ugh, no. Christianity is the reason Christians won't get on board with racialists. You can't be Christian and racist, unless contradictions don't bother you. Jews mock and spit on Christians and Christians respect them all the more. So we will continue attacking all Christianity 'til the logical non-retarded ones [if such exists] leave that Jew-created religion behind and join with us.
 
Old August 1st, 2013 #31
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Rosenberg on Christianity
Published by admin, on July 12th, 2013


by Alfred Rosenberg (pictured)
from his Memoirs (1946)

WHAT [HITLER'S] OWN beliefs were he never told me in so many words. Once, at table, he said a high-placed Italian had asked him point-blank what his religious beliefs were. He had begged permission not to answer that question.

In his speeches Hitler frequently referred to Providence and the Almighty. I am certain that he was inwardly convinced of a fate predestined in its general outlines, but preferred not to formulate what parts compulsion and free will played. He became more and more convinced that Providence had entrusted him with a mission. This became noticeable upon his return from his incarceration in the Landsberg, and grew ever more evident after the Machtübernahme, until, toward the end of the war, it assumed positively painful proportions. This conviction that, as Bismarck had once been chosen to unite the northern Germans in one Reich, so he was chosen to bring the southern Germans (Austrians) into this Reich, was certainly deep-rooted in him.

As for the Christian concept of God, Hitler definitely rejected it in private conversations. That I know even though in the course of the years I heard only two or three pertinent remarks. Once he told me: “Look at the head of Zeus! What nobility and exaltation there are in those features!” About communion: “It is primitively religious to crush one’s God with one’s teeth.” He held against Gothic art that it symbolised everything dark and brain-beclouding. Later on he granted at least the impressiveness of the cathedral in Straßburg.

When, in the course of one of these conversations, I ventured the opinion that one could not destroy the churches, but could merely attempt to fill them gradually with new people, he replied: “That is a very wise thought!”

Fundamentally, as far as his attitude was concerned, Hitler had very definitely discounted churches and Christianity, although he fully acknowledged the importance of their initial appearance on earth, granted everyone the right to his own conviction, and supported the Wehrmacht in its religious and confessional demands. In fact, by setting up a Church Ministry and instituting a Protestant Bishop of the Reich, he even tried to give the strife-torn Evangelicals a chance to unite in one all-embracing social group. For this purpose he received in audience a delegation of Protestant bishops. Afterward he spoke of this meeting with utter contempt. “You would think,” he said at dinner one day, “that these gentlemen would understand that an audience with the Reich Chancellor is in a way a rather solemn affair. Instead they came garbed in their clerical robes, most of which were already a bit tacky with age, and the thing that was of the greatest importance for them was — their allowance! I’ll say this much for the Catholics: if they had come, they would have been more dignified.”…

At a big Munich handicraft exhibition a carved crucifix was on display along with many other objects. It was so painfully distorted, with stupid, popping eyes, that we considered it blasphemous. Hitler referred to it in one of his speeches, whereupon the authorities came to a similar conclusion and had it withdrawn. In other words, the young party, in spite of its freethinking, stood ready, if necessary, to fight all mockery — most often originating in Berlin — not only of national, but also of religious symbols. But this willingness to work hand in hand with religious circles, at least in some respects, was summarily rejected by them, not only at that time, but even more emphatically later on. This automatically led to a growing retaliatory enmity on the part of many of the followers of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. To us, however, it seemed as if the two churches missed an important moment in history.

* * *

AT THE FOCAL POINT of all spiritual-psychological discussion stands Christianity, its personages, its relationship to the peoples and to the problems of our epoch. Was my attitude wrong, then, in the face of existing realities, in the face of the dignity inherent in durable historic figures? Or possibly even harmful, perhaps because existing social ties really should be preserved in these days of great fermentation, in contrast to my own persistent opposition to the churches and Christian dogma?

As indicated in the beginning, a certain heretical attitude grew up in me quite early, particularly during the confirmation lessons. But it received its strongest impetus, as was the case with so many others, from Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s Grundlagen des 19. Jahrhunderts (Foundations of the 19th century).

The interminable discussions constantly carried on by European thinkers were a sign of inner truthfulness, that is, they were engaged in by genuine seekers of the truth. Nor is it important whether these people merely wanted to go back to the simple evangelical teachings, or whether, as scientists, they declined to accept the entire edifice of dogma. What is important and significant is their attitude as such, which ties the Albigensian Count de Foix to Luther, Goethe, and Lagarde. And even though Protestant believers, together with the Roman Church, have done their best to brush aside the following paragraphs as superficial rationalism, Copernicus’ discovery still spells the end of the creed.

The theological opponents of my Myth have attacked me with all the weapons of antiquated dialectics. They have discovered ten single errors; I would be more than happy to admit others. The work was conceived during a busy time of political strife without the aid of a comprehensive card index. So memory misled me in connection with some historical dates; and the description of one incident or the other may also permit of a different interpretation than the one I gave. Besides, I frequently used drastic adjectives that simply had to hurt. In my old age I half intended to revise my Myth, eliminating everything time-conditioned in order to strengthen its basic concept. But the more I search my heart, the less reason I can find for retracting anything.

Since then the problem of Christianity has interested me… On a hike I came to the Monastery Ettal and looked over its church. Under the cupola I saw all around me, in glass showcases, skeletons clad in brocade gowns. On the skulls, bishops’ mitres and abbots’ caps; rings on the bony fingers. I hardly trusted my eyes and asked myself whether I was in Europe or somewhere in Tibet or Africa. A few days later I looked over the church on the Fraueninsel (Woman’s Island) in the Chiemsee (Chiem Lake). Just as I passed a confessional, a blond peasant lad of about twenty, and more than six feet tall, fell on his knees next to me and propelled himself toward the confessional three feet away to start his whispering. And then I asked myself: Is that what you have turned a proud people into, that it no longer understands the indignity of such an act?

After I had left the monastery church at Ettal, I sat down at a wooden table in front of an inn across the road. Next to me sat a big, strong peasant with his little son whose nose hardly reached above the table top. The peasant drank his measure of beer, cut off huge pieces of sausage with his pocket knife, stuffed some of them into the boy’s mouth, and also gave him a few sips of the liquid bread of Bavaria. This powerful, earth-bound figure quieted me down a bit, but actually brought home to me what later became the content of my religious-philosophical treatise: the fateful interrelation between an Oriental cult of revelation, and the German peasantry. Two wars had brought them into contact — the first at the time of the peasant’s growth, the second, when his old gods lay dying — and both sides have attempted to create a union. The churches stirred Germanic ingredients into the acid of their own teachings, but they proved insoluble — harsh as the methods they used might be.

I have never used political power to undo my adversaries — though, after 1933, they made me the target of their harshest polemics. In my works I postulated that I was against all propaganda for leaving the Church, since Christianity is ennobled by the beliefs and the deaths of so many generations. Nobody can expect more tolerance.

Basically, the National Socialist movement was obliged to be tolerant; and each single individual could claim for himself the identical freedom of conscience which the churches apparently consider their exclusive property.

In 1933, Hitler concluded the concordat with the Vatican. Though personally not a participant, I considered this treaty completely justified. I always differentiated between spiritual battles among individuals or institutions and churches, and the attitude dictated by reasons of state. I studied the text of the concordat carefully and, because of my heretic way of thinking, occasionally shook my head; but eventually I came to the conclusion that this was, after all, just as much of a compromise as the four-power pact was, and as every foreign political treaty always will be.

I must confess, however, that I never bothered to learn in detail if and when the Führer broke this concordat, because I was aware of the fact that, after the initial overwhelming revolutionary surge had passed, bishops had begun a rather remarkable counter-propaganda campaign against the basic laws of the new Reich by way of sermons as well as Episcopal letters. That they sorely missed their worldly arm, the Centrist Party, was quite obvious. Thus I was not particularly inclined to believe that the Führer had planned from the very beginning to break an agreement which, after all, had been made quite cold-bloodedly. The concordat was primarily intended to help break through the foreign moral-political boycott ring, and it would have been positively idiotic to make this newly gained success illusionary by breaking the concordat itself, an act which merely would have added new opponents to those already so numerous.

I am unable to give an opinion on the beginning of the controversy. Frank, who is sitting next to me in the prisoners’ dock, is of the opinion that it was probably due to our own negligence, since he himself had gone to Rome for this very reason. In all likelihood — as I am forced to conclude now — it was here that Heydrich’s Sicherheitspolizei (Security Police) intervened by following up Himmler’s personal investigations. How far Heydrich went I don’t know; but these Episcopal letters, following historical precedent, seemed to me no more than attempts on the part of a church no longer in power to stage a comeback in the guise of persecuted religion. Be that as it may, if Hitler concluded the concordat for reasons of state, he simply had to overlook, for the same reasons, attacks in letters, occasional speeches by bishops, and so on.

I had carefully refrained from interfering with the execution of the concordat, conscious of the fact that, as looked upon from the perspective of high political expediency, I was somewhat of a burden to the movement. True, I had given Hitler the manuscript of my Myth before it went to press, had clearly characterised the book in its introduction as a personal confession, and did not have it brought out by the publisher of the party, but rather by an affiliated house. However, it did have the effect of a bombshell on a heretofore completely secure Centrist Party. The Centrists knew full well that the Social Democrats had to rely on the prelates to remain in office. The German Nationalists, in turn, were hoping for a coming reorganisation of a bourgeois regime which, again, could be accomplished only with the aid of the Centrists. Thus both these parties were careful not to publicise either their atheistic or Protestant attitudes. This apparently securely balanced situation was rudely shaken by the Myth, particularly since I was no longer completely unknown; and such an open demand as this — for the right to freely express an opinion at variance with the one accepted by the Church — was considered nothing short of sacrilegious. No use going into further details; all I want to say here is that I understand completely why the Führer did not add me to his cabinet. He was right, in spite of his promise that I was to join the Auswärtige Amt as an Under-secretary of State, and to wait for developments from then on. In view of my position I never reminded the Führer of his promise.

When the Myth was published in October, 1930, it was greeted with enthusiastic applause on the one hand, and by extraordinary attacks on the other. In Catholic regions doubts arose even in the ranks of the party. I told everyone that freedom of the spirit embraced not only the Catholic and Protestant confessions, but also such confessions as I had made and pointed out in the personal, and thus non-party, aspects of the book. The situation was particularly difficult for some of the Catholic clergymen who were in accord with quite a few of the social demands of the party. This was especially true for good old Abbot Schachleitner. He called the attention of several party functionaries to the fact that, in his opinion, I was endangering our entire movement. Thereupon I wrote Hitler a letter asking him to ignore my person completely, and to dismiss me from the service of the party if this seemed desirable. He replied — if memory serves me correctly, on the same sheet of paper — that he wouldn’t think of it. Thus the book made its way through edition after edition. By 1944, a million copies had been distributed.

Hans Schemm was a teacher totally under the spell of Bayreuth’s music, and particularly, as I found out in 1924, of Parsifal. In 1933, he became Bavarian Secretary of Education, and started out on a consciously Christian course. His old motto, “Our politics are Germany, our religion is Christ,” was honourable; but in its official tone he went far beyond the tolerance agreed upon. However, I do want to emphasise here that I never quarrelled with Schemm, that I naturally granted him his freedom of conscience, just as I insisted upon the right to my own, and recognised that the new world we visualised could come into being only after a complete change of heart, something that certainly wasn’t a matter of years but of generations.

Why the Führer permitted the Heydrichs to change our course by brute force, until pressure and counter-pressure were no longer distinguishable from each other, is a question which only the future may answer. True, there were reasons aplenty for defending our political and spiritual positions. I am not even thinking of the Centre’s participation in the November revolution, nor of the separatist activities indulged in by the head of the party, Prelate Doctor Kaas. Actually I was much more upset by some of their public utterances, since these characterised the very essence of their entire attitude. At the Catholic Day at Constance, in 1923, it was said: “Nationalism is the greatest heresy of our times,” a statement which was later frequently repeated — at a time when Polish supernationalism was directed in the most vicious fashion against Germany — primarily by Catholic priests. Another one came from Doctor Moenius, the editor of the General Review, a newspaper distributed in Bavarian schools, who wrote in his pamphlet, “Paris, the heart of France: Catholicism will break the backbone of all Nationalism” — a deliberate lie, considering Poland and Spain.

What bearing this had on Germany was made clear by his dictum that the Catholic segment of the population was located like a pole in the flesh of the nation, and would make the formation of a nationalistic state completely unthinkable. In this atmosphere Abbot Schachleitner (who, in spite of his complete Catholic integrity, was a National Socialist Gauleiter [provincial leader]) was forbidden to preach and read the mass; the deceased Catholic Gmeinder was denied a religious burial. In 1933, Cardinal Faulhaber cancelled the interdict against Schachleitner who, in the meantime, had become a veritable focal point of veneration and who, after reading his first mass, was solemnly escorted home from his church by Storm trooper men. The Folkish Observer published his picture, and also published the directives for Bavarian teachers by Schemm to preserve the Christian spirit in their teachings.

Joseph Wagner, Gauleiter of Bochum, and his family, were ardent Catholics who violently rejected my opinions on religion. Actually, as I learned, he was all for reducing my book to pulp. For my part, I left Wagner thoroughly alone, and had absolutely no feeling of satisfaction when, for reasons unknown to me, he was later dismissed from his post under circumstances which proved that Hitler was already on a dangerous road. Before some sort of Reichsleiter (Reich leaders’) or Gauleiter (provincial leaders’) conference, he read a letter of Wagner’s (or of his wife’s) in which he (or she) forbade their daughter to marry an S.S.-Leader because he wasn’t a good enough Catholic. Hitler declared that, in spite of all his tolerance, he would not permit such intolerance. He dismissed Wagner from his post, leaving to further investigation the decision as to whether he should be permitted to remain a member of the party. That, to me, seemed a dubious procedure. The outcome of the investigation, carried on by six Gauleiter, was said to have been favourable to Wagner because Himmler had supposedly misinformed the Führer. So had Röver. Ley, with his eternal, whining motto “The Führer is always right,” was reported to have declared that the investigation was dragging on too long anyway, that the letter had been no more than a subterfuge, that the Führer had the right to appoint or dismiss as he pleased, and so on. Röver refused to convict. But the entire affair, though unknown to me in detail, was altogether unpleasant. Wagner, I believe, remained in the party and was assigned to some other post.

One man with whom I was always on comradely terms was the Gauleiter of Westphalia-North, Doctor Alfred Meyer, captain during the First World War, prisoner of war in France, labourer, and clerk in his native city. A National Socialist since 1923, he was the first National Socialist alderman in his Westphalian home town. Not the heavy-set, broad-shouldered type, but a man of medium height, slender, dark-haired, with quiet blue eyes behind glasses. A cautious, thoughtful person who, although firm, never went to extremes, and who certainly led his Gau (province) exemplarily. It was his misfortune that his district was also the home of one of our bitterest enemies, Bishop Klemens August Count von Galen. Count van Galen, the future Cardinal, who died in 1946, shortly after he assumed the office conferred upon him in appreciation of his war against us, was one of those strong personalities whose choice of an ecclesiastical career had been due not only to tradition but also to the hope that he might rule some day. In Münster each stone reminded him of one of his ancestors who had ground every damned heretic under his heel and who was such a great warrior that even Louis XIV spoke of him with respect. This Prince of the Church was by no means quiet and scholarly, but enraged over the fact that he could no longer command bodies as well as souls. Following the old tried-and-true method, he began to complain about persecution.

Each tiny incident of these revolutionary times was put under a glaring spotlight. That a new generation, following the dictates of its own conscience, might think and act differently, was blasphemy to him. Completely without a sense of humour, he faced a new world with gnashing teeth. When I was advertised in 1935 as one of the speakers at a Gau conference, he wrote a letter to the president of that Gau demanding that my speech be forbidden, since it would result in the persecution of Christians. That was indeed an impudent challenge, but at least it threw light on his real attitude — an attitude which, if given power, is utterly unwilling to honour any other opinion but its own, and invariably calls upon the worldly arm of the Church to annihilate heretics, atheists, and so on. The Church, after all, is not so completely innocent of blame for what has happened in Germany. Unfortunately, the Himmler-Heydrich police answered this challenge, as has become clear in the meantime, in a most unworthy manner.

On a trip to the Bretagne, I felt the desire to go even farther south, to the country of the Albigenses. The struggles and fate of this huge sect of the Cathars had always interested me and, on closer acquaintance, moved me deeply. It was a queer movement, combining the religious desire for freedom of will and character which was essentially West Gothic, with the late Iranian mysticism that had reached France by way of Italy after the crusaders had come in contact with the Orient. Since the Cathars — that is, the pure ones — wanted to remain Christians, they chose from among the various epistles that of John. Against the religion of the worldly power of the Church of Peter they upheld the teachings of the Baraclete, the Merciful Saviour and God of Mercy. They rejected the Old Testament, avoided the use of any and all Jewish names — a significant attitude, different from that of the later Calvinists and Puritans who also searched for the pure teachings — and shunned even the name of Mary. The crucifix to them appeared an unworthy symbol since, they claimed, nobody would venerate the rope with which a human being, even though he be a martyr, had been hanged. They dedicated themselves to charity and taught religious tolerance, but did eventually introduce a certain social order with various religious ranks and deacons, and the saving consecration (CONSOLAMENTVM) by the laying on of hands.

The former military chaplain, Müller, was appointed Reich Bishop. He had originally been a chaplain in the navy, and had later joined General Blomberg in East Prussia when the latter was military commander of that district. This appointment was, in a manner of speaking, a vote of confidence for the army. To be sure, it soon became dubious whether or not he was the right person for the job. Little known, personally, he considered orthodox religious circles the opposition, and was later, without actually being demoted, treated rather shabbily by Church Secretary Kerrl.

Finally, the Führer himself definitely forbade any further attempts to help the Protestants organise, and simply let things drift. To bring about any sort of religious reform is one thing he never attempted. He always insisted that politics and the founding of religious organisations were two entirely different things. Besides, he added, our movement is too closely identified with the smell of beer and the rowdyism of tavern brawls. Nor can anyone breed a reformer by speeches and articles. If one exists, he will certainly call public attention to himself by growling and thundering.

At that time it was by no means true that the Wehrmacht was being seduced spiritually and religiously by the party, something that came about much later (under Himmler and Heydrich), and a goal toward which Bormann, as is obvious today, always steered. Thanks to influences already mentioned, the situation was actually just the reverse. It was primarily the matter of Sunday church attendance that caused such bad blood, and which, handled as it was, left an unpleasant taste in my mouth.

Those who later complained, perhaps with some justification, about religious intolerance, considered it their undeniable prerogative to order soldiers to attend church even though they were no longer communicants. That was considered part of their duties as soldiers. Beliefs at variance with those of the two official confessions were not recognised, and anyone who protested against this attitude in the name of the very religious freedom that had once been upheld by the Protestants themselves, was subjected to all kinds of chicanery.

Since most of the National Socialists were not church members, the reactivated reactionary officers who, as a matter of fact, really owed their promotions exclusively to the National Socialists, found revenge for their former political defeats by meting out particularly harsh treatment for our young men who had joined the Wehrmacht so enthusiastically. This attitude was perpetuated even during the 20s by openly snubbing these young men whenever their name came up for promotion. I received many complaints, all of which I passed on to Hess. In due time, and with great difficulty, we finally enforced a ruling that nobody was to be coerced into attending church. In retaliation, we learned the soldiers in question were made to scrub floors and perform other unpleasant duties. And in spite of an order forbidding these good Christians to persist in their chicanery, we kept on getting complaints. This was one of the causes of many future conflicts, as well as the springboard for Bormann’s counteroffensive which eventually deprived the Wehrmacht of almost all right to any spiritual supervision of its members, an attitude quite as narrow-minded as that of the officers themselves.

The only point of view completely in accord with National Socialist theories would have been that of allowing every individual to seek and find religious consolation wherever he chose. Nobody should be forced to look for it among the existing confessions. To uphold his own religious beliefs is up to the individual; neither political nor police power must ever be used for or against any given conviction. Adolf Hitler always supported this dictum and, as Field Marshal Keitel told me, rejected all of Bormann’s attempts to interfere. The confessional staff of the Wehrmacht was to be kept intact at whatever strength was required, a rule that was observed to the very end.

An officer in whom I recognised an attitude in accordance with the finest Prussian tradition, a man I saw quite frequently, was the future General Field Marshal Hans von Kluge. I had met him during some of my visits to Westphalia. He was a medium-sized, erect man, with a high forehead, slightly curved nose, cold blue eyes. He was reserved and generally sparing of words, but especially so with me.

I knew, of course, that I wasn’t held in particularly high esteem by the officer corps; indeed, I could hardly expect anything else from such a religion-conditioned group. My Myth had met with considerable disapproval. I know, for example, that copies of the collective attack made against me by the Roman Church (it was entitled Studieste) had been sent by the various bishoprics to all higher military posts in an effort to do away with me scientifically.

But I want to make it clear, once and for all, that I never used my political position to prosecute those theological adversaries of mine.

At the end of 1939, the Führer accepted the suggestion that he give me a directive, addressed to party, state and Wehrmacht, to bring about and secure a unification of National Socialist philosophy.
Odd characters had attached themselves to our various branches, and the Reich Ministry of Education vacillated considerably. I wanted to bring about a firm though non-sectarian attitude. My appointment had been agreed upon.

Then, suddenly, the Führer told me that Mussolini wanted to come into the war after all, and had asked him to do nothing at the moment that might aggravate the Church. My assuming office at this critical time would cause a great deal of disquiet. I agreed that under the circumstances my appointment would naturally have to be postponed. Much would have been different if Hitler had also used these reasons of state in connection with others who merited such treatment much more than I did. But since his feeling for Göbbels and Himmler was stronger than it was for me, these two were able to do the most unbelievable things without being restrained. Here, in this purely human soil, is the root of Adolf Hitler’s great sins of omission which resulted in such ghastly consequences — that indefinable element of inconsistency, muddle-headedness, negligence and, in the long run, injustice that so frequently nullified his own considerations, plans, and activities.

What the police did was narrow-minded, sectarian, occasionally indecent. However, some day the churches themselves will be examined to determine whether their own behaviour since 1918 has been in accordance with what a great fate expected of them. Now that National Socialism lies prostrate, they have a new opportunity to gain respect and influence through active Christian charity, thus becoming a unifying force.

Until then, any philosophical discussion must needs be relegated to the background. No matter what the respective spiritual positions may be, today, after the collapse, the time for a final showdown between opposing philosophies has certainly not yet arrived. In their condemnation of a police regime, the churches ought to be careful not to condemn Himmler on such general charges as those our enemies fell back upon. In view of their own past, caution should be the watchword. Great philosophical changes need many generations to turn them into pulsating life. And even our present acres of death will someday bloom again.

From the Memoirs of Alfred Rosenberg (1946) via Solar General

http://nationalvanguard.org/2013/07/...-christianity/
 
Old August 3rd, 2013 #32
Jean West
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 476
Jean West
Default Why Christianity Can't Save Us

Why Christianity Can’t Save Us
By Gregory Hood
July 31, 2013



The conservative philosopher Russell Kirk wrote, “We must remind ourselves, to begin, that culture arises from the cult: out of the religious bond and the sense of the sacred grow any civilization’s agriculture, its common defense, its orderly towns, its ingenious architecture, its literature, its music, its visual arts, its law, its political structure, its educational apparatus, and its mores. Christopher Dawson, Eric Voegelin, and other historians of this century have made this historical truth clear.”

Kirk believed that Western Civilization could not survive apart from an active and vigorous Christianity. Like many of the more traditionalist elements of the American Right, Kirk was a convert to Roman Catholicism. However, ultimately Kirk’s traditionalism was pushed aside within American conservatism as the ideological premises of radical individualism, egalitarianism, and free market fundamentalism were taken to their logical conclusion. Furthermore, as American conservatism is essentially one giant corporate lobbying effort, the coherence of an ideology was less important than the interests of donors, and there are few donors who want to fund a kind of Christian traditionalism.

More importantly, Christianity itself is complicit in the “leveling” process. As Alain de Benoist has described in On Being a Pagan, creation in the Christian conception is an alienating process, as consciousness and the divine is held to be outside a fallen world. As de Benoist describes, Christianity and monotheism generally paves the way for atheism by desacralizing the world. The result is plagued with a hatred for the world as it is, a world-denying impulse that naturally lends itself to messianic liberalism to make the fallen world fit with the divine order. Eric Vogelian termed this attempt to bring heaven to Earth as the impulse to “Immanentize the Eschaton.”

And of course, that divine order is, at its heart, egalitarian. Though Christianity properly understood does not demand egalitarianism, racial suicide, or messianic liberalism, the central doctrines of the cult of the cross make this evolution natural. Like acid, Christianity burns through ties of kinship and blood – as Christ states “He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” The Apostle Paul tells us, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

While he understandably downplays the Jewish role in cultural breakdown, Paul Gottfried’s Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Towards a Secular Theocracy effectively makes the case that residual Protestantism is part of the ideological justification for “equality,” as the redeemed seek to display their elect status through superior displays of liberal morality. Though God Himself has been deposed for being too inegalitarian, the old Yankee spirit of messianic egalitarianism persists to the present day within secular, post-Protestant America.

Of course, this still leaves the more traditionalist churches such as the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox, and the remnants of traditional Protestantism. Many of these denominations are growing as the moribund institutions of mainline Protestantism continue to wither away. However, such hierarchies, rituals, and doctrines that sustain these denominations owe more to ethnic traditions, political realities, or nods to Primordial Tradition than anything within Christianity itself. As James Russell exhaustively documented in The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, what we think of as orthodox (small “o”) Christianity in the West is a cultural conglomeration of ostensible Christian belief forced into the world-accepting, hierarchical, and warrior societies of the Germanic West. Even today, the same Christian leader who tours the Third World slums bemoaning inequality bears the title of the Roman guardian of the state religion (Pontifex Maximus). The warrior saints like St. Michael and St. George, the character of the High Mass, the cult of Mary, the sacralizing of political power or special objects – all of this owes more to paganism than any kind of authentic Christian belief.

Militant Protestantism would confirm these exact same charges. For hundreds of years, the Christian cross itself was not a sacred symbol to devout Christians, but an offensive reminder of Roman “paganism.” In the 1965 film Cromwell, the eponymous hero interrupts a service to destroy a simple display of a cross and candles, thundering, “Would the king turn the house of God into a Roman temple?”

Once Christianity is reduced to what it really is, it loses much of its role as a guardian of Tradition, a steward of the folk, or a positive force in the development of the race.

For any who accept “justification by faith,” salvation or damnation is conferred by an abstract individual choice as to whether one accepts Jesus Christ as his savior. Such a creed renders family, kin, and nation irrelevant, and encourages intellectual stagnation so as not to endanger the souls of the believer. The most Bible-believing Christians, modern evangelical Protestants, are gradually transforming Christianity into its true form, a cult of egalitarian true believers, with the special “Chosen People” serving as the sole exception.

The contradiction at the heart of this process is that Christians remain the most Traditionalist mass constituency in the United States today, generally holding to conservative forms of gender norms, having large families, and insisting on standards of decorum and hierarchy in behavior. Still, this can be explained because Christians are drawing on the cultural norms and standards of residual Westernized, “Germanized” Christianity. Even this is fading with time.

The influential evangelical preacher Rob Bell made headlines with his declaration that “Love Wins,” suggesting that the Biblical ideal of hell needs to be rethought. Younger evangelicals are more likely to focus on issues of “injustice,” poverty, and anti-racism rather than holding the line on issues like homosexual marriage. Even the pro-life cause has been justified by a kind of consistent and radical egalitarianism, rather than support of the traditional patriarchal family as such.

In Men-Art-War, a disillusioned priest says, “Where the Papists had made man a corpse, the Protestants had taken that corpse and made it a skeleton. From dead to deader, you could say.” Christianity is fatally handicapped by its insistence that people rationally believe irrational creeds, and the more they believe them, the more remnants of Tradition, culture and life present within a denomination are stripped away. Traditional Catholicism (which is to say, a mixture of European paganism and mutilated Christian belief) simply decreed dogmas and told people to believe them. Protestants try to argue people into belief, which is why a modern evangelical sermon resembles nothing so much as a lawyer making a closing argument, using Scripture as his law.

Orthodoxy avoids some of the traps by emphasizing the mystical nature of God and his ultimately unknowable essence while retaining a strong hierarchical structure liked to culture and community in this world. It is not surprising that Orthodoxy has been gaining strength, especially in conservative circles, and that Orthodoxy alone does not seem to be explicitly committed to the extermination of white racial identity. It’s also not surprising that the Culture Distorters have targeted Orthodoxy specifically as an obstacle to progress.

Of course, as a friend put it after watching an Orthodox nationalist rally, “Impressive, but eventually they are going to start reading their Bibles.” By removing the protective shield of an esoteric priesthood around Christian doctrines, the Enlightenment, literacy, technology, and the Protestant Revolution made Christian belief widely accessible to the masses. The result is that stripped of superstition and dogma, Christianity is being taken to its logical conclusion. The specific beliefs of Christian denominations are less important than their universalist message of salvation and overall moral and metaphysical outlook.

The acceptance of homosexuality and the removal of Christian symbols from the public square should not disguise the fact that the modern world is becoming more Christian . Its universalism, its rejection of “unchosen” loyalties of kin and country, its egalitarianism, its insistence on “human rights,” and its embrace of non-judgmental Savior make it a harmless spiritual outlet for the modern world, a way for those who can’t fully grasp secular humanism to let off a little steam. Only Christianity’s insistence that Jesus is in fact Lord separates it from being fully assimilated into modernity, and even this is being compromised.

Christianity was the essential religious step in paving the way for decadent modernity and its toxic creeds. In fact, many of the faith’s leading spokespeople defend it for this reason – begging to be allowed to exist because it paved the way for “democracy” and “tolerance.” They are sure to be disappointed – egalitarians will allow no separate peace. Still, as in the past, Christianity will survive because of its role as a safety valve – and it will continue to modify itself to fit with the Zeitgeist.

Of course, most Christians authentically believe in the literal reality of their God – perhaps far more than most “neo-pagans” literally believe in the reality of Wotan or an Earth Goddess. Far from being a strength, this is a weakness. First, the makeup of this “God,” far from being unchanging, smoothly modifies itself to fit modern moral standards. Interracial marriage was once condemned as a grave sin against the Creator. Today, the “God” of most Christians is a fuzzy Martin Luther King Jr. in the sky – indeed, King himself is now a “saint” in the Episcopal Church.

Be it the Monarch of the Catholic Magisterium, the personal Jesus of the evangelical, or the divine social worker of the mainline Protestant, God seems to change His nature to fit what the New York Times demands – though on some issues he may be a few years late. Does anyone doubt that within a few decades most Christians will be celebrating homosexuality in the same way they celebrate interracial marriage today? The only exceptions will be the literalists such as those at Westboro Baptist Church who themselves serve as proof of Christianity’s alienation from reality. Thus the choice for the Christian is either surrender to the culture, or arbitrary allegiance to random Scriptural verses. Yet even the Westboro Baptists hold to a more authentic (and in some ways honorable) form of Christianity by truly believing what their Holy Book tells them, even in defiance of all the world.

Aside from these few marginalized believers and those like them, even the supposedly conservative Christians don’t really believe what they say. A true Catholic has to believe that those outside the Church are sentenced to perdition – it was the importance of this belief that allowed Crusaders and conquistadors to slaughter and forcibly convert the heathens and think they were doing good. No one truly believes this – even the supposedly conservative Christians see no problem with uniting disparate faiths in order to upheld a vague sense of “values,” rather than insisting on the correctness of their denomination. Bishop Williamson’s denial of the Holocaust was held to be far more sinful by Benedict XVI than the Jews’ denial (and arguably, collective murder) of Jesus Christ as Savior.

People were once willing to die – and more importantly, kill – for their faith because believers thought deeply important things were at stake. After all, it is tolerating error that is the real cruelty if Hell is real and one is in possession of the keys to salvation. What does the few moments pain caused by burning a heretic matter if it gives the unfortunate dissenter eternal bliss? However, in an age of ecumenicism, tolerance, and political correctness, it’s hard to imagine that religious leaders believe they have a real claim to Truth. Excommunication, condemnation, and the violent rhetoric of damnation seem reserved only for sins newly discovered after 1945, such as “racism.”

Thus, renewing Christian belief is unlikely to “save Western civilization.” If anything, it would facilitate the process of conservatives serving as priests of a dead God, guardians of the “West as a tomb” bereft of vitality and spiritual substance. The literate Christian missionaries of yesteryear may well have been a necessary step in advancing the social and technological development of Europe. However, the spiritual unity of what was once called “Christendom” existed even before the coming of Christ, in the dream of Rome and the unity of the Greeks against the barbarians. Europe as a cultural and racial unit existed before Christ, and we do not need Him to maintain it. What the “positive Christianity” of the past contributed to the West was as much a product of European folk tradition and spirituality as the creed of the Nazarene, and the latter is distilled down to its purest essence, Europe will not survive. If “Christendom” were reborn, the West would simply repeat its past mistake.

The only kind of “Christendom” that could redeem the West is a Germanic Christianity, which is to say, a pagan Christianity drawing upon European folk traditions. Given our history, why must we continue to cling to this unnatural conglomeration? What we need to do is not continue to shock life into a dead God (and a foreign one at that), but establish a link with Primordial Tradition that can speak to worker and philosopher, scientist and mystic. We can tap into those things that made Christianity the faith of the West and discard those things that have led our people to the brink of extinction. The cathedrals, spiritual lessons, and Crusades of our folk will always be a source of inspiration. But they speak to us because they are an expression of us – not because of the creed they supposedly championed.

Hilaire Belloc famously wrote, “The Faith is Europe, and Europe is the Faith.” He is right, but not in the sense he intended. The Faith was Europe, and the folk traditions that built the Germanized Christianity of our forebears. Today, we must renew that faith, a faith by, for, and about the European folk soul. We must discard the distractions and rediscover the living spiritual practices of our folk and their connection to Primordial Tradition. What Christianity supposedly gave us, we already possessed. What Christianity costs us, we can no longer afford.
 
Old August 3rd, 2013 #33
Jean West
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 476
Jean West
Default Why We Should Save Christianity

Why We Should Save Christianity
By Matt Parrott
August 1, 2013



Gregory Hood is partially correct; Christianity alone can’t save us. ”Christianity” is far too abstract, vague, and ill-defined to achieve much of anything, good or ill. A cursory review of the world’s popular denominations and their failure to coherently and consistently define their deity, define their doctrine, and define their prescribed behavior confirms that “Christianity” in the broad and abstract is not even wrong. There’s no there there. It only exists in the ether of superficial political bullshit.

Paganism is arguably even less coherent. Is it a Jungian mythic and organic pantheistic worldview? Is it a demonic inversion of and threat to Christianity? Is it the Will Of The Aryan Nation? Abstractions don’t meaningfully exist out of context.

What is “Marxism,” after all? Stalin’s industrial despotism, Mao’s inner party, Castro’s agrarian regime, North Korea’s dynastic cult of personality, and hipster college students all claim the “Marxist” label.

Mr. Hood repeats Russell Kirk’s claim that “culture arises from the cult,” but he fails to distinguish between the cult itself and its sacred texts, leaving us to presume that “Christianity” in the broad and abstract has an obvious and consistent political theme. It doesn’t. It’s imperial; it’s nationalist. It’s fascist; it’s anarchist. It’s hierarchical; it’s egalitarian. It’s identitarian; it’s borderless. While the sacred text itself may be of some limited utility if thoughtfully perused by an individual, anybody who purports that the Bible in and of itself has some specific political agenda is being willfully ignorant about the wildly different lessons individuals and civilizations have extracted from it.

In my opinion, both Christians and anti-Christians alike who attempt to point to the Bible as proof of its political utility or futility are mistaken. Among Christians, this is only really a problem for sola scriptura Protestants, as traditional Christian churches integrate the Bible into an overarching ecclesiastical tradition which one can confidently make specific claims for and against. Is the Bible literally apostolic? It depends on who you ask. But there’s only one correct answer for Catholics and a different one for Baptists.

Within Mr. Hood’s own article, he tries to have it both ways. Since there is no monolithic “Christian church,” there’s no proverbial door upon which to stick these charges. After congratulating Orthodox Christians abroad who are boldly pushing back against Modernity, he chuckles that “eventually they are going to start reading their Bibles.” Shortly thereafter, he informs us that “Westboro Baptists hold to a more authentic (and in some ways honorable) form of Christianity by truly believing what their Holy Book tells them, even in defiance of all the world.”

Is biblical literalism ridiculously hardcore, or a trojan horse carrying the liberal egalitarian universalist plague?

Is Christianity doomed because it’s integrally bad, or is Christianity doomed because it’s powerless against Modernity? Mr. Hood has established a rigged lose/lose framing in which everything Christianity has done right is vestigial paganism, everything it’s done wrong is integral to its nature, and everything that’s been done to it is its own fault.

Many of my fellow Christians are expecting me to write an article which defends Christianity’s ability to save the West. I agree with Mr. Hood that Christianity can’t save the West. Neither can paganism, though. Tradition doesn’t work that way. Institutions which have been around as long as Judaism, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Confucianism don’t survive from one millennium to the next by boldly defying the order. Like a pregnant woman hiding in the cellar during a siege, the Church’s duty is to preserve and protect Holy Tradition at all costs. The Russian Orthodox Church which has been modeling the most impressive 21st Century resistance to Modernity could only do so because its priests and patriarchs did an impressive job of accommodating themselves to the most virulently anti-Christian regime of the 20th Century.

We must rally behind a Tradition worth killing and dying for. I believe Western Rite Orthodoxy is the simple and obvious Tradition to resurrect and stand for, and I believe it should be inseparably married to the uniquely Western spirit and culture which preceded Christianity. Mr. Hood grudgingly admits that “Germanic Christianity” could be that vehicle, but dismisses it as an “unnatural conglomeration.” I don’t see it that way, and I see pre-Christian European traditions as foreshadowing and leading up to Christianity. I see the Arthurian Cycle and other Christian syntheses of indigenous folk tradition as perfectly natural.

For millennia, the fusion of the West’s unique spirit and Christ’s message were accepted as natural. For me, what’s unnatural is the bizarre effort by some fundamentalist types to frame this organic adoption of Christianity by our heathen forefathers as heretical. What’s unnatural is to strip us of our Solstice festival, its cherished Germanic symbols, and our integral martial spirit in favor of some simulacrum of Classical Middle Eastern desert culture and spirit.

Christ’s message was indeed universal, and it was for all the nations of the world. Up until recently, it was intuitively obvious that his message would and should be embraced within the cultural contexts of those nations. The notion that Christianity is really all about imposing a Semitic global empire with a Semitic spirit and culture is only taken seriously now that the Pharisees–Christ’s foremost opponents during his ministry–stand at the brink of achieving precisely that.

Christianity can’t save the West, but I believe the West can and should save Christianity. It can’t happen from within the Church, though. It must happen in parallel with and at arm’s length from the Church. Those looking to the Church for aid and comfort will continue to be disappointed. Only after a martial vanguard clears the way for it will an authentically traditionalist and nationalist Christianity be able to climb out of the cellar. This is how it’s working with the Golden Dawn in Greece. This is how it worked with the KGB Deep State and it’s relationship with the Church in Eastern Europe. This is how it worked long ago with Emperor Constantine.

And why should we save Christianity? Because it’s the one true faith, that’s why! Setting eternal salvation aside for a moment, the Church has done more to preserve our pagan and Classical inheritance than any other institution. I propose that a Germanic (I prefer “Arthurian” . . . ) Christianity is more capable of upholding European folk tradition than the European folk traditionalists themselves. I believe it’s also more confluent with our geopolitical predicament, plugging us into an emergent nationalist Christian superpower alliance which could compete with the emerging East Asian and Islamic superpower alliances.

The path from where White Americans currently are to a restored Christianity worthy of restoring seems shorter and more direct to me than the line to a pagan revival. That being said, skeptics, folk religionists, and those belonging to the panoply of Christian denominations absolutely must strike a delicate balance where we’re actively debating and discussing these different models without sabotaging one another. Personally, I think it’s more constructive (if admittedly more challenging) to make a convincing case for why our own answers are the best answer. I hope Gregory Hood will consider writing a follow-up article, “Why Heathenry Can Save Us.”
.
 
Old August 3rd, 2013 #34
Bardamu
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,571
Default

Varge Vilkernes:

Interviewer: "When we met, I was also struck by your knowledge of European/Scandinavian history and religion. I couldn't help thinking that by burning churches aside from attacking Christianity beautiful pieces of architecture and craftsmanship were destroyed. What are you thoughts on that?

Vilkernes: You know, this might come across as somewhat politically incorrect, but still; no matter how "beautiful", "rich" and "fantastic" the mosques the Muslims invaders build here in Europe are, most of us the Europeans still want them gone. We don't pardon my French give a sh** if they are "beautiful" or not. Just tear them down and throw them and their builders out of Europe! Pronto!

Most Europeans today can relate to that.

However, the churches are no different. They too are the temples of an invading force, and the synagogues too, of course, and the fact that we have been brainwashed for a thousand years into thinking they are a part of our culture changes nothing; they are still anti-European racist centers of worship of a foreign (Hebrew) false god.

Sure, many of them are beautiful buildings designed by skilled architects, but so what? Do I care if the sword cutting my people and me down is some old rusted scimitar or a golden crusader's longsword with a beautiful huge gem attached? I should defend myself no matter what, and not give the crusading Jew-lackey carte blanche to murder my race and me only because his blade is so bloody beautiful or because he has been allowed to do so for a thousand years already!

What most individuals seem to forget is the fact that whatever we tear down leaves room for something else, something new. This might seem like a far-fetched idea to many of you, but we could start to build beautiful buildings again, you know. We don't need to build only bland buildings, like we have done the last 100 years or so. If you want to build something fantastic just do it. Who is stopping you?

To conclude this; I don't see anything beautiful being destroyed when someone smashes, burns or tears a church, a synagogue or a mosque (or a bank) down. I see a Satanic temple being removed from our sacred Pagan soil; from Europe.

And if some Christian loser wants to protest against this; what did they do to our temples when they came to Europe? "You harvest what you sow." "
 
Old August 3rd, 2013 #35
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Jesus was the first drama queen. If the world alone isn't enough for you, try drugs, try drink, try jebooism. Maybe those will get you through.

Christianity? White man don't need it. White man don't want it.
 
Old August 3rd, 2013 #36
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

I do claim this as a unique insight, at least till somebody shows me someone who thought of it first (which may be the case).

The reason christians oppose communism but hate nazism (see Rosenberg above) is that a racial philosophy like national socialism threatens them spiritually and vitally - racialism holds the potential to supersede christianity - whereas communism merely threatens them temporally - ie, killing their priests and burning their churches. Painful enough for the individual and the congregation, but posing no existential threat. After all, bolshevism is but the ugliest granddaughter of the hideous christian grandmother.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 3rd, 2013 at 01:07 PM.
 
Old August 3rd, 2013 #37
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default christian national socialist racist

pledge of allegiance- [Francis Bellamy, 1892]

Francis Bellamy was a leader in three related movement groups -- the public education movement, which sought to celebrate and expand public schools, the nationalist movement, which sough to nationalize public services and protect them from privatization, and the Christian socialist movement, which sought to promote an economy based on justice and equality. Bellamy had preexisting relationships with grassroots groups representing each movement and he united his diverse network for collective memory activism in 1892.[8] [wiki]

The dogma behind the Pledge of Allegiance included bigotry and racism.

Francis Bellamy, the author of the Pledge of Allegiance, was a bigot. His cousin and cohort Edward Bellamy was also a bigot. http://rexcurry.net/francis%20bellamy.jpg

The pledge itself was inspired by xenophobia and bigotry toward immigrants.

The United States had long been a melting pot, but the 1880s brought increased immigration, especially from countries in eastern and southern Europe. Bellamy, whose family was not native American-Indians, joined similar Americans who feared that these "new" immigrants did not have the same education and skills of those from northern European countries. They also worried about another difference: Most of the new immigrants were Roman Catholic and Jewish.

"The hard, inescapable fact is that men are not born equal. Neither are they born free, but all in bonds to their ancestors and their environments...," Francis wrote .

As editor of the magazine "The Illustrated American," he wrote editorials denouncing immigrants from southern Europe. "A democracy like ours cannot afford to throw itself open to the world," he wrote in 1897. "Where every man is a lawmaker, every dull-witted or fanatical immigrant admitted to our citizenship is a bane to the commonwealth. Where all classes of society merge insensibly into one another every alien immigrant of inferior race may bring corruption to the stock ... there are other races (e.g Irish, Jews, Italians, Latins) which we cannot assimilate without a lowering of our racial standard."

Other Bellamy quotes: "The leaders of the negroes have been unendurable, more than the negro voters themselves ... So ... (all parties) make common cause ... for the disenfranchisement of the negro"

"peon ... a shiftless and unreliable kind. The native Mexican works only that he may ... live for a month on the rewards of a week's work."

http://ftp.ij.net/rex/pledgebigot.html

Imagine this scene: all the school children in a class stand at attention in military formation, click their heels together, thrust their right arms stiffly upward and forward, and recite a loyalty oath to the government. Any child who refuses to recite this oath is expelled from school or even jailed. If images of Nazi Germany came to mind, it is no coincidence. (More on that later.) School scenes like this were real, and started taking place in the 1890s -- in the United States.

******

Bellamy was a radical socialist who believed all schools and other public institutions should be nationalized and militarized because a "military-socialist complex" would be much more "efficient." He was also a racist who believed segregation in public schools should be mandatory. Francis Bellamy's cousin, Edward Bellamy, shared Francis's views, and was a well-known writer. Edward wrote an internationally popular novel, "Looking Backwards" (translated into 20 foreign languages) about the ideal totalitarian military-socialist society.

By the 1930s, the stiff-armed salute to the American flag was firmly established and well known. Whether the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party) copied the flag salute or got the idea from similar fictitious salutes that appeared in early American movies is debated by historians. In any case, the similarity was so striking and so embarrassingly reminded everyone of the original reason for the loyalty pledge that the Nazi-like salute was replaced with placing the hand over the heart in 1942.

http://cosmicwind.net/800/CWind/Free...ledgeFisk.html
 
Old August 3rd, 2013 #38
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean West View Post
Why Christianity Can’t Save Us
By Gregory Hood
July 31, 2013



The conservative philosopher Russell Kirk wrote, “We must remind ourselves, to begin, that culture arises from the cult: out of the religious bond and the sense of the sacred grow any civilization’s agriculture, its common defense, its orderly towns, its ingenious architecture, its literature, its music, its visual arts, its law, its political structure, its educational apparatus, and its mores. Christopher Dawson, Eric Voegelin, and other historians of this century have made this historical truth clear.”
We must "remind" ourselves - not me, was never in my mind in the first place. Sounds like somebody doesn't want to argue, wants to smuggle his point across the border without any examination. Religion is not the basis of culture. Doubt is the basis of culture. It is animal to believe. It is human to doubt. Among all human animals, what is precisely most identifiably white is the desire to dare, to quest, to overcome, to laugh - all the things the church hates. Kirk's just doing what all religious believers do - assigning all good things to the church, and all bad things to the world. Like god, the conservative accountant never holds the church responsible for anything. It's always right, and any wrong is our oh-so-human refusing to pay attention to its dictates. How did white men ever get along before the Church? How could classic Greece have existed BEFORE anybody ever invented the fictional character jesus?

Quote:
Kirk believed that Western Civilization could not survive apart from an active and vigorous Christianity.
This is mere tautology, since Kirk's type defines western civilization as the church, per the famous Belloc formulation. But the wise man knows that the blood is what matters, not the jebooism. Today, the pope is a jew-ass-licking garlic-snapper who never met a mud or queer he didn't embrace. Who needs him? The majority of the church is non-white. So how does that square with the church being the source of western civilization? If so, then by effective math, there's nothing special about white men. And muds can duplicate all their successes, since the church is now coming to them. I can't wait to tour the Nigerian Chartres. I can't wait to listen to the Korean Bach. I mean, I'll have to wait, since they, you know, don't exist, but just think how great it will be when they do. Yeah, all a culture needs for success is Christianity. I'm really not sure how the ancient Greeks and modern Japanese did and do it. I suppose it's likelier that ancient Greece and modern Japan don't exist than to believe these pagans produced marvels without being jeboosted into insight and efficacy.

Quote:
Like many of the more traditionalist elements of the American Right, Kirk was a convert to Roman Catholicism. However, ultimately Kirk’s traditionalism was pushed aside within American conservatism as the ideological premises of radical individualism, egalitarianism, and free market fundamentalism were taken to their logical conclusion. Furthermore, as American conservatism is essentially one giant corporate lobbying effort, the coherence of an ideology was less important than the interests of donors, and there are few donors who want to fund a kind of Christian traditionalism.
There are plenty of donors who will fund such, see Focus on the Family and the entire Christian media. Christians are by and large too stupid to grasp the jewish takeover of the right, and god knows there are so few honest goy leaders willing to explain to them that you can count them on the fingers of one hand. And of course, the traditional christians will jump to side with the jews and corporatos in denouncing the few good men as anti-semites.

Quote:
More importantly, Christianity itself is complicit in the “leveling” process.
This is where the essay should have started - with the strong point. The christian church is for everybody. Catholic means general. More christians are discoloreds than whites. Boom. How can a religion that all men require be specially targeted for whites? The only argument you can make is that this is in fact the case - that christianity is spiritual water, and all men need healthy, uninfected water to live. But if you can't make that case, and you can't, then christian morals prevent a priori the very basis of racialism as they see it as something of little importance, and if you hold it at a higher value than they do, you are 'worshipping at the altar of your own blood.' Also, if you accept christian morals, out the door flies any possibility of racial defense, since it requires identifications and solutions the church calls immoral. If you accept the church's position on race, and still think you can work within its confines, you are exactly like the professional conservatives -you have agreed to play a rigged game as though it were fair. You cannot but lose and go backward.

Quote:
As Alain de Benoist has described in On Being a Pagan, creation in the Christian conception is an alienating process, as consciousness and the divine is held to be outside a fallen world. As de Benoist describes, Christianity and monotheism generally paves the way for atheism by desacralizing the world. The result is plagued with a hatred for the world as it is, a world-denying impulse that naturally lends itself to messianic liberalism to make the fallen world fit with the divine order. Eric Vogelian termed this attempt to bring heaven to Earth as the impulse to “Immanentize the Eschaton.”
Too much quoting. I don't care what your big brother thinks, I care what Hood thinks.

Quote:
And of course, that divine order is, at its heart, egalitarian. Though Christianity properly understood does not demand egalitarianism, racial suicide, or messianic liberalism, the central doctrines of the cult of the cross make this evolution natural. Like acid, Christianity burns through ties of kinship and blood – as Christ states “He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” The Apostle Paul tells us, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
There is no such thing as christianity 'properly understood.' See the last 2,000 years. Do you find 500 different sects advocating unique ways of measuring the circumference of a circle? No. There's only one way. Christianity is mere opinion, and opinions vary, and are well qualified to school hares in proliferation.

The best way to make the point is the quote I always use:

Quote:
The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
That's all you need. That covers the entire thing. Every last pillbug on the planet can find as many bible verses as he needs to justify his poo-stabbing, his pusillanimity, his patricidal perfidy. And who are you to say he's wrong? There is no answer to that. To try to tease out the fine distinctions is to ignore the gross spirit of the thing - per the Greek 'n' slave quote. There simply isn't any intellectually honest way to square the universalism of the sicko christ cult with honest, fact-based racialism.


Quote:
While he understandably downplays the Jewish role in cultural breakdown, Paul Gottfried’s Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Towards a Secular Theocracy effectively makes the case that residual Protestantism is part of the ideological justification for “equality,” as the redeemed seek to display their elect status through superior displays of liberal morality. Though God Himself has been deposed for being too inegalitarian, the old Yankee spirit of messianic egalitarianism persists to the present day within secular, post-Protestant America.
That's merely their cover story. If you've actually met elite liberals, they are simply a cult of high-IQ haters. They get off on shitting on anyone with less money and status than they have, and they particularly hate anyone applying common sense to race - as poor people forced to lived around blacks must daily, or suffer even more. Illiberal cultists care about seeing themselves as noble and high-minded. Niggers are just a pet and tool they can use to show how superior they are to the ordinary run of whites. Liberalism is a cult. For the most part, altho it retains certain offices and sects, it's post-christian. Christianity and Enlightenment Illiberalism are two sides of the same coin. It's all about them and their arrogant universalism, in which there is no room for facts, and no sympathy for ordinary people who pay attention to them. Christianity and liberalism are not opposed, they are just slightly different manifestations of the same mistake - an ideological insistence on imposing a universalism on a reality that rejects it. It's better to take the side of basic facts, ordinary life, common sense -- and this is precisely where racialism and nationalism lie, and the basis of their superiority to high-minded illiberalism and other-worldly christian spiritualism.

I pause again to note, for the one millionth time, to never an echo, perhaps because I'm dumb and wrong, or perhaps because I'm too far ahead for fools to hear, that christianity could be opposed on grounds of lack of interest in God's created reality. Same could be used to justify genocide since, whether you believe god created the world or not, 99% of the species that ever existed are extinct. De Sade is far more plausible than any christian soprano when he points out that nature makes her way by destruction, so who are we to quibble.


Quote:
Of course, this still leaves the more traditionalist churches such as the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox, and the remnants of traditional Protestantism. Many of these denominations are growing as the moribund institutions of mainline Protestantism continue to wither away. However, such hierarchies, rituals, and doctrines that sustain these denominations owe more to ethnic traditions, political realities, or nods to Primordial Tradition than anything within Christianity itself.
They're growing among the mud-colored masses in Africa and Asia and South America, not among whites. Christianity lost its appeal because of the industrial revolution. An air conditioner beats anything Jesus has to offer. The white man who invented air conditioning did more to soothe the white man's soul than anything the fictional jew jebus ever came up with. Christians simply don't have the emotional maturity to handle the fact. They are simply a class of fools and liars demanding the world be placed in a context they created, but the sane man has no reason to accept their context, as it has no basis in reality, nor is it attractive save to men without imagination. That's why christians focus on indoctrinating children, since adults don't need or want what they're selling.

Quote:
As James Russell exhaustively documented in The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, what we think of as orthodox (small “o”) Christianity in the West is a cultural conglomeration of ostensible Christian belief forced into the world-accepting, hierarchical, and warrior societies of the Germanic West. Even today, the same Christian leader who tours the Third World slums bemoaning inequality bears the title of the Roman guardian of the state religion (Pontifex Maximus). The warrior saints like St. Michael and St. George, the character of the High Mass, the cult of Mary, the sacralizing of political power or special objects – all of this owes more to paganism than any kind of authentic Christian belief.

Militant Protestantism would confirm these exact same charges. For hundreds of years, the Christian cross itself was not a sacred symbol to devout Christians, but an offensive reminder of Roman “paganism.” In the 1965 film Cromwell, the eponymous hero interrupts a service to destroy a simple display of a cross and candles, thundering, “Would the king turn the house of God into a Roman temple?” Oliver Cromwell (part 1) - YouTube

Once Christianity is reduced to what it really is, it loses much of its role as a guardian of Tradition, a steward of the folk, or a positive force in the development of the race.
Christianity amounts to an assertion that isn't true. By the standards we use for every other assertion, it must be rejected. Thus it must special plead: we're different. Our claims can't be judged like any others. There is not a single reason to afford it this privilege.

Quote:
For any who accept “justification by faith,” salvation or damnation is conferred by an abstract individual choice as to whether one accepts Jesus Christ as his savior. Such a creed renders family, kin, and nation irrelevant, and encourages intellectual stagnation so as not to endanger the souls of the believer. The most Bible-believing Christians, modern evangelical Protestants, are gradually transforming Christianity into its true form, a cult of egalitarian true believers, with the special “Chosen People” serving as the sole exception.
It's a mass cult for slaves. Your typical christian is a Baptist, someone on the intellectual and cultural level of an animal. Christianity caters to this type and confirms it in its stupidity, all in the name of higher morality. Christianity is devolutionary. If anything, people need to look up, not down. They need to be encouraged to respect higher standards, even if they can't emulate them. Not to think they're in some special club because they've accepted Jesus as their personal trainer.

Quote:
The contradiction at the heart of this process is that Christians remain the most Traditionalist mass constituency in the United States today, generally holding to conservative forms of gender norms, having large families, and insisting on standards of decorum and hierarchy in behavior. Still, this can be explained because Christians are drawing on the cultural norms and standards of residual Westernized, “Germanized” Christianity. Even this is fading with time.
Yeah, white men never considered sex deviants bizarre or had functional families before christianity. Ask a right-wing christian, he'll assert that christians invented breathing.

Throw 200 white orphans in the woods at age six and you'll have a functional society before you know it. Pro-christians mistake the baby for the blankets.


Quote:
The influential evangelical preacher Rob Bell made headlines with his declaration that “Love Wins,” suggesting that the Biblical ideal of hell needs to be rethought. Younger evangelicals are more likely to focus on issues of “injustice,” poverty, and anti-racism rather than holding the line on issues like homosexual marriage. Even the pro-life cause has been justified by a kind of consistent and radical egalitarianism, rather than support of the traditional patriarchal family as such.
After all, it's easy to find verses pushing love in the Bible. Combine that with jewish pressure against traditional views as hate, and you have a non-intellectual christian body that is all too ready to yield to pressure. In fact, to throw its shoulder behind that pressure, as it makes money by, for example, importing Somalis into Minnesota. It is serving the lord, lining its own pockets, and avoiding the dreaded label hate. This together equals love, and anyone opposed is a hate-filled extremist.

Quote:
In Men-Art-War, a disillusioned priest says, “Where the Papists had made man a corpse, the Protestants had taken that corpse and made it a skeleton. From dead to deader, you could say.” Christianity is fatally handicapped by its insistence that people rationally believe irrational creeds, and the more they believe them, the more remnants of Tradition, culture and life present within a denomination are stripped away. Traditional Catholicism (which is to say, a mixture of European paganism and mutilated Christian belief) simply decreed dogmas and told people to believe them. Protestants try to argue people into belief, which is why a modern evangelical sermon resembles nothing so much as a lawyer making a closing argument, using Scripture as his law.
True. Perhaps we could even locate the origins of political correctness in the moral deformations wrought by the catholics in forcing men to believe in an irrational creed based around a non-existent superhero? That's going too far, perhaps. But it's the same mentality at work, if different men in service of a different goal. The goal of PC is to get you to accede in your own moral degradation. You come to hate and despise yourself because you're agreeing to things you know are wrong and bad, and you're saying things you know are untrue. Catholicism is much the same way. No amount of utilitarian rationalizing will make up for its original sin against clear thinking.

At least the Protestants respect reason, they just aren't any good at reasoning. What matters for our purposes is how to treat them. Never, ever is it a good idea to argue the bible with these cultists. Anything can be proved using that book, which is the point of my quotation above. Men who want to contest exegeses and bandy quotations are to be laughed at and avoided. Those are games for children. Reconciling the bible with a racial philosophy doesn't work, and only those who can't think clearly think it can. Avoid them. Don't be drawn into their games.


Quote:
Orthodoxy avoids some of the traps by emphasizing the mystical nature of God and his ultimately unknowable essence while retaining a strong hierarchical structure liked to culture and community in this world. It is not surprising that Orthodoxy has been gaining strength, especially in conservative circles, and that Orthodoxy alone does not seem to be explicitly committed to the extermination of white racial identity. It’s also not surprising that the Culture Distorters have targeted Orthodoxy specifically as an obstacle to progress.
Orthodoxy and much religion may be functionally conservative, indeed it could hardly be otherwise, given the knuckleheads the church serves. But anything not based on solid ideas can be coopted. Which is just what we've seen with Catholicism, and just what we see, in the end, with all the littler cults. There is nothing in christianity that can be relied on. That's the point. Anything that seems reliable simply hasn't been pressured yet. It's exactly as if I were to have faith in my ISP by saying, well it wants to make money, my site is a good long-term customer...thus if any pressure arises it will be on my side. That would be awfully naive. What history shows is that christians can be pressed to support pretty much any arrangement. Which is natural, since they don't stand for anything. At least, they don't stand for anything that can be verified or which exists in the actual world. No one cares about worlds made up out of somebody's head. The moral-intellectual deformations the church has wrought by lying about jesus 'n' pals hardly make the average christian any more able to resist pressure from people with even wackier and more socially destructive views, such as anti-white communists. Indeed, their communion wine greases the skids.

Reality exists. Jesus does not.

The white race will find it greatly to its advantage to break free of the jebus cult. Let jebooism follow the path it's obviously on - the jungle path deep into the third world, where it can compete with muti and other fragrant fallacies. That's where it belongs. White men should never have settled for catholicity, they should demand Specificity.


Quote:
Of course, as a friend put it after watching an Orthodox nationalist rally, “Impressive, but eventually they are going to start reading their Bibles.” By removing the protective shield of an esoteric priesthood around Christian doctrines, the Enlightenment, literacy, technology, and the Protestant Revolution made Christian belief widely accessible to the masses. The result is that stripped of superstition and dogma, Christianity is being taken to its logical conclusion. The specific beliefs of Christian denominations are less important than their universalist message of salvation and overall moral and metaphysical outlook.
Again, this is where this essay should have started. Either christianity is true, in which case it is something white man (and colored man) really do need, the spiritual equivalent of air and water...or its central claims are lies, and we really don't need it. Which do you think is correct? The answer is obvious.

Quote:
The acceptance of homosexuality and the removal of Christian symbols from the public square should not disguise the fact that the modern world is becoming more Christian . Its universalism, its rejection of “unchosen” loyalties of kin and country, its egalitarianism, its insistence on “human rights,” and its embrace of non-judgmental Savior make it a harmless spiritual outlet for the modern world, a way for those who can’t fully grasp secular humanism to let off a little steam. Only Christianity’s insistence that Jesus is in fact Lord separates it from being fully assimilated into modernity, and even this is being compromised.
Christianity and liberalism are the same thing. Christianity is Bud Lite. A serviceable beer for sheeply masses. If you think being white doesn't really matter, and achievement doesn't really matter, and questing doesn't really matter, then hell, christianity is good enough. Public schools, some shitty church, grab-bag of neighbors...it all fits together. If you want something better, it begins with making distinctions, and the fundamental distinction, in this biological world we live in, is racial.

Quote:
Christianity was the essential religious step in paving the way for decadent modernity and its toxic creeds. In fact, many of the faith’s leading spokespeople defend it for this reason – begging to be allowed to exist because it paved the way for “democracy” and “tolerance.” They are sure to be disappointed – egalitarians will allow no separate peace. Still, as in the past, Christianity will survive because of its role as a safety valve – and it will continue to modify itself to fit with the Zeitgeist.
How could christianity fight liberalism when its central doctrine is the essence of liberalism? Parents help and nuture their children, only rarely do they murder them.

Quote:
Of course, most Christians authentically believe in the literal reality of their God – perhaps far more than most “neo-pagans” literally believe in the reality of Wotan or an Earth Goddess.
Did paleo-pagans actually believe in the literal existence of their gods? I don't think most of them did, or at least, I don't think most of the smart ones did. I think they were seen as avatars of human drives and emotions and motives - dramatic figures. There's nothing wrong with using myth and poesy to understand the world - so long as it is understood this is what you're doing. The basic objection to christ-insanity is that its exponents claim their story is true when in fact it's a lie.

Quote:
Far from being a strength, this is a weakness. First, the makeup of this “God,” far from being unchanging, smoothly modifies itself to fit modern moral standards. Interracial marriage was once condemned as a grave sin against the Creator. Today, the “God” of most Christians is a fuzzy Martin Luther King Jr. in the sky – indeed, King himself is now a “saint” in the Episcopal Church.
And of course, Episcopalians are the top run of the christian ladder, socially and economically. They are the people who run the elite schools, along with the jews, and who will use any dirty trick they can think of to protect their invidious cult of high-minded universalists.

Quote:
Be it the Monarch of the Catholic Magisterium, the personal Jesus of the evangelical, or the divine social worker of the mainline Protestant, God seems to change His nature to fit what the New York Times demands – though on some issues he may be a few years late. Does anyone doubt that within a few decades most Christians will be celebrating homosexuality in the same way they celebrate interracial marriage today? The only exceptions will be the literalists such as those at Westboro Baptist Church who themselves serve as proof of Christianity’s alienation from reality. Thus the choice for the Christian is either surrender to the culture, or arbitrary allegiance to random Scriptural verses. Yet even the Westboro Baptists hold to a more authentic (and in some ways honorable) form of Christianity by truly believing what their Holy Book tells them, even in defiance of all the world.
What many don't know is that the Westborons, though anti-fag, are pro-race-mixing. Basically, they're just goofballs, although we could take a page from their doggedness and professional execution when it comes to holding funny and exciting demonstrations.

Quote:
Aside from these few marginalized believers and those like them, even the supposedly conservative Christians don’t really believe what they say. A true Catholic has to believe that those outside the Church are sentenced to perdition – it was the importance of this belief that allowed Crusaders and conquistadors to slaughter and forcibly convert the heathens and think they were doing good. No one truly believes this – even the supposedly conservative Christians see no problem with uniting disparate faiths in order to upheld a vague sense of “values,” rather than insisting on the correctness of their denomination. Bishop Williamson’s denial of the Holocaust was held to be far more sinful by Benedict XVI than the Jews’ denial (and arguably, collective murder) of Jesus Christ as Savior.
Good stuff, right on point. Could benefit from some hammering in, though, so the reader has the full and true savor of these churchy tergiversations. First, these guys say this world doesn't matter, the next one does. There, we will be judged for our actions here. Their top dog, Pope Benedict, or Spicoli (whatever the guy's name is now) goes to Israel, where he performs the wail 'n' grovel, just like he was running for American President. The pope is always an old guy. They all follow this routine. They are denying their own church's big book's stated history which says the jews demanded the credit for murdering jesus. Yet this old pope, close to death, caring only about his soul in the afterlife, sides with the murderers of his lord Jesus! To anyone with an eye for the ludicrous, no richer spectacle is conceivable. Yet how few laugh. Most can't see because they're dumb. But WN don't laugh either, and they can see. They are fools for not using the church's weakness against it - for actually making excuses for it, and then having the nerve to call themselves Whites. You're a WINO - white in name only - if you make excuses for any portion or member of the christian cult.

The pope manifestly, by his own and other popes' repeated actions, shows that he and they do not believe their own bullshit. (Just contrast their behavior with the behavior of the jews they grovel before, to see what I mean. the jews manifestly do believe their own bullshit, at least enough to back it every single time. Learn from them. They are winners.) In the end, every christian leader I've ever seen bows to the jews. Their own doctrines? Aww, shucks. We were just kidding. If you don't like what we're saying, don't worry, we'll change it. We can always find something in the 1700 pages to justify our new new thing. The only reason the churches generally maintained a PRINCIPLED opposition to national socialism was out of institutional self-interest. The brighter of the catholics noticed that most of the NS leadership had been raised Catholics, yet found nothing in it that could sustain opposition to the modern jewish liberal order manifest in degenerate Weimar. They correctly drew the conclusion that Aryan racialism was ultimately more threatening to their institution than jewish communism. They still know that. It is why even their frequently honest intellectuals like Michael Jones will gleefully and dishonestly repeat the smears first concocted by the jewish communists Hitler and the NSDAP fought in the 1920s.

Switching lenses, we observe that over time products become more refined. Stuff only available for the richest becomes available to everybody. Microbrews replace mass beers. Good coffee replaces instant coffee. Even for proles. Even in rural areas. So it will be with religion. We can do better than christianity, a crappy, mass, non-specific spiritualism. We can replace it with a worldview based on facts and tailored to our race. That's the potential for white-racialism. Think about it as a consumer product rather than a political position, and you'll see exactly what I mean. What we have is flat better than what christians have - at least potentially. That's all the argument we need, event hough it's not an argument at all. We really need to argue that whites are better than niggers? Of course not. The fact our enemies hate and try to defame/destroy white nationalists while tolerate christians is proof, if any were needed, that christianity is not inherently pro-white. It's not always actively anti-white, but its nature and doctrines can always be coopted to serve that cause, and therefore the only accurate conclusion to draw is that christianity among whites is always a latent danger.


Quote:
People were once willing to die – and more importantly, kill – for their faith because believers thought deeply important things were at stake. After all, it is tolerating error that is the real cruelty if Hell is real and one is in possession of the keys to salvation. What does the few moments pain caused by burning a heretic matter if it gives the unfortunate dissenter eternal bliss? However, in an age of ecumenicism, tolerance, and political correctness, it’s hard to imagine that religious leaders believe they have a real claim to Truth. Excommunication, condemnation, and the violent rhetoric of damnation seem reserved only for sins newly discovered after 1945, such as “racism.”

Thus, renewing Christian belief is unlikely to “save Western civilization.”
There's plenty of christian belief around, at least in America. But it's perfectly compatible with liberalism. If you're going to try to renew some kind of christianity compatible with White politics, the question becomes why go the indirect route? Establish any kind of solid White leadership, any worthwhile or at least non-hostile elements in the church will come to.

Quote:
If anything, it would facilitate the process of conservatives serving as priests of a dead God, guardians of the “West as a tomb” bereft of vitality and spiritual substance. The literate Christian missionaries of yesteryear may well have been a necessary step in advancing the social and technological development of Europe. However, the spiritual unity of what was once called “Christendom” existed even before the coming of Christ, in the dream of Rome and the unity of the Greeks against the barbarians. Europe as a cultural and racial unit existed before Christ, and we do not need Him to maintain it. What the “positive Christianity” of the past contributed to the West was as much a product of European folk tradition and spirituality as the creed of the Nazarene, and the latter is distilled down to its purest essence, Europe will not survive. If “Christendom” were reborn, the West would simply repeat its past mistake.
The best way to put this is: What's good in christianity isn't new and what's new isn't good.

Quote:
The only kind of “Christendom” that could redeem the West is a Germanic Christianity, which is to say, a pagan Christianity drawing upon European folk traditions. Given our history, why must we continue to cling to this unnatural conglomeration? What we need to do is not continue to shock life into a dead God (and a foreign one at that), but establish a link with Primordial Tradition that can speak to worker and philosopher, scientist and mystic. We can tap into those things that made Christianity the faith of the West and discard those things that have led our people to the brink of extinction. The cathedrals, spiritual lessons, and Crusades of our folk will always be a source of inspiration. But they speak to us because they are an expression of us – not because of the creed they supposedly championed.
Whites are linked as much by what's ahead of them - the unknown - as what's behind them. Whites are questers. The Questern Tradition is what we must 'preserve.' It's a spirit. Even the false and failed universalism of christianity-liberalism can be seen as missteps within this tradition. We got cocky. We made a mistake. No biggie. We correct it. We just need to remember to stay humble, and bow only to the god of objective reality. We remember to allow reality's feedback loop to correct us when we go wrong. We never forget that without obeisance to object reality we are just another bunch of lightskin bush niggers sitting around a plate of cut up baby, muttering feckless imprecations to the heavens. That's where we are today. We reject christianity as false, and liberal universalism as nasty and destructive hubris. We realize we are whites, and we pimp roll out of the 2013 room like Randall at the end of Clerks. Into a resplendent future.

Quote:
Hilaire Belloc famously wrote, “The Faith is Europe, and Europe is the Faith.” He is right, but not in the sense he intended. The Faith was Europe
You just, correctly, said that Europe existed before the church. Now you contradict yourself. In fact, Belloc was wrong. How can the church be Europe when most of its members are non-whites living in the Third World? The church was indeed our bride, but it was a shotgun marriage. And after a few decades, we divorced it due to irreconcilable differences.

Quote:
, and the folk traditions that built the Germanized Christianity of our forebears. Today, we must renew that faith, a faith by, for, and about the European folk soul. We must discard the distractions and rediscover the living spiritual practices of our folk and their connection to Primordial Tradition. What Christianity supposedly gave us, we already possessed. What Christianity costs us, we can no longer afford.
We don't need to reconnect, we need much more to disconnect - the stuff we want is already inside our breast. Not in a book, song or building. It comes out of us instinctively. We can be perverted against it through ear-garbage spread by smooth liars, whether ZOG teachers or christian preachers, but the minute we tune out those malign influences we are back to being what we are. We simply have to be what we are, and fuck anyone who doesn't like it, and fuck up any group that tries to get in our way. The true Aryan spirit can be found all over the place, even under jewish tyranny. Grimm's fairytales will resound with the young. They are the true repositories of what Aryans actually feel about honor and strength and happiness and the rest. Use them, and stop using the bible to induce love of weakness and passivity in normal Aryan young, who admire strength and courage and healthy dynamism. No Aryan is born a christian; Aryans must be perverted (lit. meaning turned out of normal channels) into christians - the religion is very much against our native impulses and spirit.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 3rd, 2013 at 01:54 PM.
 
Old August 3rd, 2013 #39
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean West View Post
Why We Should Save Christianity
By Matt Parrott

Mr. Hood repeats Russell Kirk’s claim that “culture arises from the cult,” but he fails to distinguish between the cult itself and its sacred texts, leaving us to presume that “Christianity” in the broad and abstract has an obvious and consistent political theme. It doesn’t. It’s imperial; it’s nationalist. It’s fascist; it’s anarchist. It’s hierarchical; it’s egalitarian. It’s identitarian; it’s borderless. While the sacred text itself may be of some limited utility if thoughtfully perused by an individual, anybody who purports that the Bible in and of itself has some specific political agenda is being willfully ignorant about the wildly different lessons individuals and civilizations have extracted from it.
Parrott is correct on his level, but missing the bigger point: christianity is not inherently pro-white. (Neutral = anti-white.) That makes it effectively and functionally anti-white. It is always sitting there, like Family Circle, waiting to suck (movie line), full of verses just waiting to be actuated by anyone who doesn't hold race at the value White nationalists hold it. Whites don't need some generic thing that values all men EQUALLY, they need something that affirms the specific value of their own race and people. It doesn't have to be a religion either, although it will compete on that level. This is the practical meaning of national socialism, and it was understood that way by the christians, see the Rosenberg article posted above. Most of the professional christians were hostile to NS from day one because they see in it their own eclipse and supersession. There are things wrong with NS, but that it is more exciting to and fitting for white folks than their dreary semitic tall tales is rather obvious TO PROFESSIONAL CHRISTIANS. That part cannot be overemphasized. Profesional christians were personally and immediately threatened by communism but never institutionally and permanently - because communism is anti-white and fails to excite the Aryan spirit. National socialism manifestly did. Hence the photos of smiling people and the breeding statistics. Whites felt they had a future under Hitler's system - and a great one. That is why the pope was so quick to denounce NS whereas the christian leadership merely opposed communism. Think about that. Communists murdered thousands of priests and destroyed or repurposed thousands of cathedrals. Nazism did none of that. Yet christian clergy were consistently more hostile to NS at every point than they ever were to communism. There is deep meaning in that fact, and it is what I stated: racialism poses an existential threat to christianity, whereas communism poses merely a temporal threat. White nationalists must understand, all racialist must understand, that just because some man or institution has some of the same enemies we do does not make him our friend - churchies and conservatives are the perfect examples. They too are our enemies and should be attacked and defeated. If there is overlap in what we and these groups support, then it must be seen by them and by outsiders that we are the only true defenders, believers and guarantors of these desirables, whereas cons and jebooites are mere mealymouths.

I mean, think about it. If you don't believe that all men are equal, and you prefer the better to the worse, then why would you want something one-size-fits-all, some generic solution to your spiritual needs, when you could have something tailored to your race and its unique needs?

Even if national socialism isn't the ultimate answer, it's still better than catholicism. You see what I'm driving at, anyway. If the catholics shit themselves when we look at their laity, why in the world are we pretending they have something, anything, that we want? And catholics are stand-ins for all christians, since they've been around longest and remain largest subcult.


Quote:
In my opinion, both Christians and anti-Christians alike who attempt to point to the Bible as proof of its political utility or futility are mistaken. Among Christians, this is only really a problem for sola scriptura Protestants, as traditional Christian churches integrate the Bible into an overarching ecclesiastical tradition which one can confidently make specific claims for and against. Is the Bible literally apostolic? It depends on who you ask. But there’s only one correct answer for Catholics and a different one for Baptists.

Within Mr. Hood’s own article, he tries to have it both ways. Since there is no monolithic “Christian church,” there’s no proverbial door upon which to stick these charges. After congratulating Orthodox Christians abroad who are boldly pushing back against Modernity, he chuckles that “eventually they are going to start reading their Bibles.” Shortly thereafter, he informs us that “Westboro Baptists hold to a more authentic (and in some ways honorable) form of Christianity by truly believing what their Holy Book tells them, even in defiance of all the world.”
BTW, I advise Parrott like all WN, for god's sake, quit trying to better Shakespeare and use what he provided. You got the best writer in English (many think) going for you - use his authority:

ANTONIO
Mark you this, Bassanio,
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart:
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!


Perfect. Anyone can find justification for his scheme, his predecided path, in the 'good' book. Anyone. From the devil, to the communist, to the catholic. Anyone can justify what he already wants and plans to do. Easy as pie. Anything that flexible has no use for White men. We want something that doesn't move. That's why we follow Pierce rather than William F. Buckley. You can't spell Buckley without buckle, after all.


Quote:
Is biblical literalism ridiculously hardcore, or a trojan horse carrying the liberal egalitarian universalist plague?

Is Christianity doomed because it’s integrally bad, or is Christianity doomed because it’s powerless against Modernity? Mr. Hood has established a rigged lose/lose framing in which everything Christianity has done right is vestigial paganism, everything it’s done wrong is integral to its nature, and everything that’s been done to it is its own fault.
Established a frame or made an argument? It's perfectly valid and I say accurate to say of christianity:

What's good in it isn't new, and what's new in it isn't good.

In a nutshell, we don't need it. It's not good for us. Whatever appears good in it - we put it there. If it makes men good, then why hasn't its magic worked in Nigeria?


Quote:
Many of my fellow Christians are expecting me to write an article which defends Christianity’s ability to save the West. I agree with Mr. Hood that Christianity can’t save the West. Neither can paganism, though. Tradition doesn’t work that way. Institutions which have been around as long as Judaism, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Confucianism don’t survive from one millennium to the next by boldly defying the order. Like a pregnant woman hiding in the cellar during a siege, the Church’s duty is to preserve and protect Holy Tradition at all costs. The Russian Orthodox Church which has been modeling the most impressive 21st Century resistance to Modernity could only do so because its priests and patriarchs did an impressive job of accommodating themselves to the most virulently anti-Christian regime of the 20th Century.

We must rally behind a Tradition worth killing and dying for. I believe Western Rite Orthodoxy is the simple and obvious Tradition to resurrect and stand for, and I believe it should be inseparably married to the uniquely Western spirit and culture which preceded Christianity. Mr. Hood grudgingly admits that “Germanic Christianity” could be that vehicle, but dismisses it as an “unnatural conglomeration.” I don’t see it that way, and I see pre-Christian European traditions as foreshadowing and leading up to Christianity. I see the Arthurian Cycle and other Christian syntheses of indigenous folk tradition as perfectly natural.
We don't need to rally behind anything, much less some bizarre mix-and-match that exists nowhere in the real world. Race is enough, provided we defend ourselves on that basis. Why not aim directly at what we want? Why can't we simply take our own side in a fight, and leave this spiritual excrement out of it? It's like you believe liberalism is some inherent part of whiteness. We are who we are. We don't need to justify ourselves. Or revive some dead tradition. Or support some living institution that is hostile to us. Quit being clever, keep things simple. We're not here to solve your spiritual problems, we're here to lead you to a land free of niggers and jews, and any other parasites/predators who wish to prey on us.

Quote:
For millennia, the fusion of the West’s unique spirit and Christ’s message were accepted as natural. For me, what’s unnatural is the bizarre effort by some fundamentalist types to frame this organic adoption of Christianity by our heathen forefathers as heretical.
Organic? You mean like when they cut off thousands of heads? Or when their main body says "if we have them before six, we'll have them forever"? That doesn't sound very organic. It sounds like an institution that can't persuade people save by threatening them or indoctrinating them before the age of reason.

Quote:
What’s unnatural is to strip us of our Solstice festival, its cherished Germanic symbols, and our integral martial spirit in favor of some simulacrum of Classical Middle Eastern desert culture and spirit.
How about stripping the solstice festival of jesus?

Quote:
Christ’s message was indeed universal, and it was for all the nations of the world. Up until recently, it was intuitively obvious that his message would and should be embraced within the cultural contexts of those nations.
No, the communications and transportation technology simply didn't exist yet to make the globalism and universalism in christianity more than a latent danger. The thing itself, because it is universal rather than specific to whites, is effectively, functionally and inherently anti-white. Racialism is at odds with christianity. Professional christians understand this better than you do. Even the slave owners were only a degree different from modern liberals. Both were trying to do what they thought was best for niggers. Neither gave a damn about what was good for whites. Both used the bible to justify their policies and politics.

Quote:
The notion that Christianity is really all about imposing a Semitic global empire with a Semitic spirit and culture is only taken seriously now that the Pharisees–Christ’s foremost opponents during his ministry–stand at the brink of achieving precisely that.
The fact its doctrines can be used very effectively by our enemies is all the proof you need that functionally and inherently its universalism and other doctrines are anti-white.

Quote:
Christianity can’t save the West, but I believe the West can and should save Christianity.
Jesus save me. This is like arguing the government should take over health care. Because it's done so well with everything else. Whites need to focus on themselves, that ought to be obvious. It's not like christianity needs saving. Christianity is doing just fine - among savages. Because, contrary to Belloc, those are its natural customers. We need to worry about ourselves, and we'll have all we can handle, thank you very much. The very last thing we need to do is worry about saving an inherently anti-white set of counterfactual beliefs and ridiculous dogmas.

Quote:
It can’t happen from within the Church, though. It must happen in parallel with and at arm’s length from the Church. Those looking to the Church for aid and comfort will continue to be disappointed. Only after a martial vanguard clears the way for it will an authentically traditionalist and nationalist Christianity be able to climb out of the cellar. This is how it’s working with the Golden Dawn in Greece. This is how it worked with the KGB Deep State and it’s relationship with the Church in Eastern Europe. This is how it worked long ago with Emperor Constantine.
Not really. It makes more sense to blame ourselves for our gullibility in accepting church doctrines. We now see where that leads. We should blame ourselves, and swear we will never make the mistake again. Our spiritual and intellectual leadership must come from people who value our race at the same level we do. What happens to the church is not our concern. We care about the churches and their clients only so far as they threaten our mission.

Quote:
And why should we save Christianity? Because it’s the one true faith, that’s why!
Okay, Bucky. Glad you figured that one out. Not even you can say it without laughing, and that's what matters. No one can say christianity is true with a straight face - nor pope nor Parrott.

Quote:
Setting eternal salvation aside for a moment, the Church has done more to preserve our pagan and Classical inheritance than any other institution.
You mean it's done more to destroy that inheritance than anyone.

Quote:
I propose that a Germanic (I prefer “Arthurian” . . . ) Christianity is more capable of upholding European folk tradition than the European folk traditionalists themselves. I believe it’s also more confluent with our geopolitical predicament, plugging us into an emergent nationalist Christian superpower alliance which could compete with the emerging East Asian and Islamic superpower alliances.
You just don't get it. Europeans are the one people who are NOT bound by tradition half as much as any other race. We are defined by our will and our daring, our beauty and our exploits. These are spiritual qualities somehow tied to our genes. Some holidays and rituals are fine, but they don't define us. In any case, they're long dead. Europeans create new practices where they need them. When could they possibly need them more than today? You let the spirit of your people inform you, but you create anew as need be. We should create new ceremonies, new holidays, new institutions, not morbidly obsess about resuscitating practices we can't ever truly recapture because we don't have truly accurate depictions of them to start with. What we need is within us, not within tradition, history, etc. I mean, it's there too, but not ONLY there as you traditionalists always imply. There was no golden age - ever - anywhere. That is Evola and Devi gibberish. We have what we need because we are what we need. All that we need. We don't need any gods, we can do whatever we need to do from material and mental scratch. Quit trying to make "fetch" happen.

Quote:
The path from where White Americans currently are to a restored Christianity worthy of restoring seems shorter and more direct to me than the line to a pagan revival.
They're equally impossible/ridicuilous, but in any case what matters is that it's a false dichotomy. What we need is simply leadership. The end goals are pretty obvious. How to get there depends on circumstances. But who we are and what we want is not in dispute. Or wouldn't be, if you didn't drag in extraneous shit like the jebus cult. Just do what we do, be visibly and spiritually better, healthier, than all other options, that will get us the support we need. The healthy elements in the church and liberal society will gravitate to us, almost unconsciously. You don't need to appeal to people when you are appealing. You don't need to pander to people when you can inspire them to follow by actually leading.


Quote:
That being said, skeptics, folk religionists, and those belonging to the panoply of Christian denominations absolutely must strike a delicate balance where we’re actively debating and discussing these different models without sabotaging one another. Personally, I think it’s more constructive (if admittedly more challenging) to make a convincing case for why our own answers are the best answer. I hope Gregory Hood will consider writing a follow-up article, “Why Heathenry Can Save Us.”
The internet magifies small differences between insignificant people. Real leadership comes in the field. The man who leads whites in public will have all the followers he can handle, and they will come from the Catholic church, Fox News, VNN, and Appalachia alike. Until then the infighting is useful, provided it stays within boundaries I have elsewhere indicated. Doesn't even have to be fighting, polite disagreement works too, provided it is honest and pointed.

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 3rd, 2013 at 04:17 PM.
 
Old August 3rd, 2013 #40
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,494
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Thanks to Jean West for posting those articles, getting me fired up.
 
Reply

Tags
christianity

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12 PM.
Page generated in 0.31721 seconds.