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

Old January 22nd, 2011 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default #1 Christianity Thread

[found this on alternativeright.com in comments section]

parmenicleitus 10 months ago in reply to James Kalb

Mr. Kalb-

Thank you for the reply.

Well, OK, at least you have it out in the open that you desire a Catholic Christian "alternative right." As it is, I see nothing in this that's "alternative" to the progressive social manipulation popular at present, as this is really what you are offering. It's simply rearranging the deck-chairs.

First, no where did I say anything about "returning to the egg," nor did I deny the fact that (some) "pagan" Greeks developed cosmopolitan ideals or that "spirit" was opposed to flesh, or that I think Germanic warbands are a better

alternative, or a way of life for all of us of Euro-descent. What I did say is that the contexts for these to arise were different than what Catholic Christianity proposes (Universalist ideology) and that culture by its very definition offers the very things you seek without the social engineering of ideologies. Simply put, there was, and is, no such movement called "Paganism." Indigenous cultures were just that, rooted in a place, not idea; and plural, while remaining related in some very basic concepts. Such a monolithic characterization is that of the Christians themselves, not of pre-Christian peoples of Europe, or us *un-Christian* people at present. Christianity is anti-cultural, since it evaluates abstraction as superior and operates from the top down. Cultures are rooted,
literally, and climb upward, with abstractions, well, abstracted from a ground of collective experience in-the-world amongst a people in a place. Again, cultures are not founded in "ideas" or "beliefs." That is ideology.

Your assumption that I desire a "return to the egg," of course, evinces the linear time concepts of Christian eschatology on which your faith depends, even as enmeshed as it has become with Aristotelian teleology. In a word, it is a concept of "progress" and the very root of the modern sense of that term. It doesn't follow, however, that because I reject this notion of time and history, that I subscribe to a simple circular "Eternal Recurrence of the Same" either, as time is neither wholly objective or subjective but an interweaving of both, and as such, is highly depended upon culture. Teleology/Eschatology are not, an never have been, the only game in town. Time, like the hierarchies in Alex Kurtagic's latest piece, isn't a singular phenomenon. Rome doesn't set the clock we all dance to.

The strange thing here, is that given your own concept of time, (expressed presently as a denial of an ovarian return) and the Catholic Church's inconsistency and "progress," you cannot return to Medieval Catholicism or any
other such "traditional" phase as might be imagined. The fact of the matter is, your source of "authority" has changed its views on numerous occasions regarding various issues and begs the question of whether or not Catholicism, despite its very name, really represents a consistent "tradition" at all outside the wavering inconsistencies on parade in the name of the "Universal Church".

Cultures are not ideas, they are not abstractions, but the very meeting place, the very world, you are postulating without the need of Catholicism or any of the Abrahamic faiths to justify their existence. Cultures do not require a universal faith, yet such faith is actually parasitic upon culture. Cultures are the very worlds of men, and developed quite apart from Christianity and predate it. Christianity could never have developed without cultures, and has always held an ambivalent attitude toward that essential part of humans. Catholicism will continue to reinterpret its role according to cultural values, and for us, reinterpret what it means to be of European descent, being the ideology that it is.

As such, it will not be long before the office of the Pontiff Maximus will be filled with an Black African or Hispanic, and the air will abound with hermeneutical apologia defending the "authoritative," but sanctimonious, separation of the man from the office, but in such a case, you will be further distancing the Church from Europe and actual Europeans. European identities (and those of their descendent's) will be relegated to the realm of abstract ideas. Once again, universalist ideology trumps place, people, and culture...As such, your proffered "alternative" is a well-worn, well-trodden path that is, indeed, circular. We're where we are because of it.

Catholicism does not get to set up the parameters of what constitutes "religion," (culture, really) and decide upon based on the scales of those self-serving parameters, what constitutes "true" religion. Such a dilemma as "true" and "false" religion is, in itself, silly, and based upon the artifice of abstraction, namely that religion can be abstracted from a living culture.


I don't reject European civilization, nor am I positing a revisionist past presuming that there's been no Christianity. Nothing is further from my mind. My point is that the path of ideology is well-worn, that Christianity is an ideology, that ideology can't be equated to culture, and that an "alternative right" is not alternative at all, if we continue to follow an anti-cultural ideology. Christianity, a universal ideology, has always piggy-backed culture to give it some manner of coherency (which I think is little), not the other way around.

While I would agree with you the Christianity was heavily Hellenized, I would also submit that it was heavily Romanized and Germanized. The Romans provided the means of an expansive, Imperium that coincided with Christianity's
inherent evangelism, which they freely adopted in becoming a State religion. The Germanic qualities of native industriousness, adventure, and spirited bellicosity, and even some governing institutions, have always underlaid European success, though little credit is given them, perhaps in penalty of not converting on time (i.e. the Vikings) in the name of their "progress."

All the above concessions only serve to demonstrate the inconsistency, incoherency and opportunistic features that have gone into creating the fog that is Christianity.




parmenicleitus 10 months ago

I believe I can see the push for this to become a Christian "alternative right" in this piece, even while I agree with many of the premises and respect Mr. Kalb and some of his writing.

That fact of the matter is, that while Christians bemoan "secular rationality," it is their very theology that dominates the day, and has led to where we are, namely "secular rationality." The whole split between "secular" and "spiritual" is, in turn, based in a dual ontology and given voice in Matthew 22: 21-22, or, as one study put it, it made possible the notion of the "Kings Two Bodies."

Theocracy is the split side of this coin. For a "spiritual authority" to gain power over what is ostensibly "un-spiritual," or namely "secular," is, of course, yet another way of giving credence to the very theology and ontology in question. In short, both "secularism" and "theocracy" are derived from the same source.

There was, and is, a possibility, in our "pagan" roots, which through Christian libel has been relegated to so-called "nature" worship (whatever that means). The ancient Hellenes centered their lives around the hearth (Hestia) both in their homes (oikos) and their cities (polis). This bound the people not only as families, but as a culture, a political unit, with *real* religion (to be bound together) focused always around and through Hestia.

Thus, while private and public were distinct, they were always bound together organically, as were the particular and general. The fussiness regarding them began when "logos" was torn away from "mythos" (even while in reality it remained a "mythos" in itself) and became even more exacerbated with logos was torn from the Kosmos itself finding its "origin" in the "Absolutely Other".

This was mirrored in Rome as well. Traditionalist Christians, and Christians in general, harp on about the family, yet had no compunction destroying the basis of Roman religion which was founded directly, like the Hellenes, in and upon the family. Like the Hellenes, the Romans had a hearth in both their homes and in their City (Vesta). All in all, religion, by definition, was destroyed in favor an ideology, which co-opted the term "religion" and transformed from family life to "universal children of God." "Secularism" has simply come to call it "humanity." "Religion" became a "bond" of ideas to be spoken (logos) rather than anything to do with "physis" (coming into being, growth, etymologically tied to the word "be."). As such Christianity is an ideo-logos, giving precedence to idea and speech over phenomena and imagery.

As this article has demonstrated, Christians feel no compulsion in utilizing de-contextualized "pagan" thought as it suits them...again, all things to all men. Plato did believe in a split between the "idea" and "mere physis," but it was always in context of *both* being in the same Kosmos (world-order). Christianity believes in a complete split between "natura" (a horrible translation of "physis") and an infinite, absolute "spiritus" which is ultimately unworldly and completely disengaged and separate from the world of "natura." At the end of the day, these are different ontologies, and don't necessarily add up to the same thing. In so saying, I also don't hold in high estimation the seemingly common assumption that Plato was somehow equivalent to a "Pope of Paganism". He simply didn't speak for all "pagan" thought, no matter how influential he was or remains. Life is simply more than matters of "thought" and "belief."

My point is that Christian ontological speculation and theology have ruled the day and have led to the very crisis in which we find ourselves. While on the surface Christians, such as Mr. Kalb and Patrick Ford, bemoan the same "secular rationality" as many who are undecided or already inclined to a more "polytheist" attitude, what they are really offering is a more reified solidification of the very metaphysical presumptions that led to this crisis in the first place: namely an ontologically dualist monolatry from the East.
 
Old January 22nd, 2011 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

parmenicleitus 10 months ago

I could only expect this much from Christians: more lying. All things to all men indeed.

First, your sense of history is rather, well, lacking. While it is undeniable that Christians stopped Islam from spreading into Europe, it seems you have no understanding of Islam, even in plain historicity. Christianity pre-dates Islam, and is tied to it. Christianity was the State religion of the Byzantine Empire through which Muhammad traveled and traded as a merchant. Islam is a reaction to what was perceived as both Christian and Jewish decadence, from yet another Abrahamic and yes, Semitic, perspective. But, the real meat is that if there were no Judaism, there'd be no Christianity, and hence no Islam. So, your point regarding who stopped Islam's advance is circular at best. None of the monotheisms like competition, after all, though Judaism is historically more or less indifferent to other religions.

Secondly, the main feature of monotheism in general, and Abrahamic "religion" in particular, is intolerance. No. I'm not speaking of "oppressed" women, minorities, etc. It is the distinction between "true" and "false" religion to which I refer. No such nonsense existed from a "pagan" perspective. Again, monotheism doesn't like competition, even within its own ranks.

Third, there is no such thing as "paganism" for it never was an "-ism," in the sense of a monolithic bloc.

Following from this, "paganism" isn't a "nature" religion as you (with your Wiccan Moon-Goddess crap), and your Hebraic-minded forebears couldn't, and can't, seem to understand. Religions, in the truest since of the word ("to bind together") was embedded in , and inseparable from, the cultures (in the truest, rock-bottom sense of *that* term) unlike Christianity which is an ideology which masquerades as "religion," but can't understand the fact that culture/religion isn't based in "ideas." While there are certain central features consistent in Indo-European religions (stemming, of course, from their shared Indo-European origin) the varieties of outlook on those themes came from, and comes from, the very places that IE's settle and live. Christianity, being an ideology, is u-topic, it has no place, but that doesn't mean it transcends place. It has simply subverted place for idea, a people for "belief".

It must be said, as well, that these various cultures had no teleological/eschatological "purpose." They were simply lived. Religion was, and is, the living of men, not a set of "beliefs" or a "faith."

Christianity had its day and nearly every failure of the "West" (again, an idea) can be pointed back to it. Christianity has opened the floodgates to, and created, "humanity" in a way that European polytheism never could, or would. Egalitarianism, the cult of the "individual," bureaucracy, the "anything goes" attitude, the myth of "progress," ( from Christian eschatology) multiculturalism, etc, can all find their origins in the cult of Christ, and its ever-shifting reinterpretation and subjectivity. The cult of Christ is, at rock bottom, anti-cultural, anti-family, anti-topic (being the universalistic screed that it is), appending itself however it could, and can, gain the most followers. I'm certain the hermeneutic atmosphere will be thick with apologia when you Catholics get your first black African Pope...But, then again, the "West," and Europe, are simply *ideas* that can be borne within by anyone "chosen by God", Belloc notwithstanding.

All in all, you have no clue of what you are talking about and Christianity has nothing left to offer us...except hope and change. Whoop-tee-doo!

And, no, I don't slaughter goats in the name of Thor. My gods aren't jealous little Middle Eastern tyrants who demand my worship before all else, if at all most of the time...
 
Old January 22nd, 2011 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Thor Odinson 10 months ago

Jesus preached tolerance of evil (i.e., Turn the other cheek, refusing to answer Pilate's charges, telling Peter to not strike his captors with his sword, surrendering without fighting his captors, etc).

Thor, one of the traditional "pagan" gods of Norse mythology--through example, not by mere words(!)--taught that evil should be defeated (i.e., Thor is the champion of slaying wicked trolls, Thor led legions of warriors to battle against the Sons of Musspell at Ragnarok, etc).

Jesus is best represented by his body, which he sacrificed by refusing to fight. Thor is best represented by his hammer, which he uses to slaughter the enemies of his people.

Which ethos is commendable? Which ethos will save the West? The one that accepts perversion and tolerates evil, or the one that preaches that it should be eradicated?

I submit to you that Christianity is going to be the ruin of the West, just as it was for the Roman Empire (i.e., Christians refused to fight and the Germanic peoples--the followers of Donner/Thor--destroyed Rome).

Worship Jesus all you want; all I ask is that you not get in the way of those of us who will actually defend Western civilization.
 
Old January 22nd, 2011 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Proud Christian 10 months ago in reply to Thor Odinson

Who are you to question Yahweh? If it is His plan that His son be killed, so be it. If it is His plan that the West falls, so be it. Sacrifice and not retaliating are honorable to Christians like me.

We should disregard mere political issues and focus on worshipping Jesus. What happens on earth doesn't matter so long as it doesn't interfere with our going to heaven.

We need to support Israel, because that is the right thing to do. Down with the Muslims!
 
Old January 22nd, 2011 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

“Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.” -- Oswald Spengler
 
Old January 22nd, 2011 #6
OTPTT
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,896
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
“Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.” -- Oswald Spengler
Bolshevism is wholly and totally a Jewish creation with Judaism as its foundation. The above quote is utter nonsense.
 
Old February 18th, 2011 #7
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,850
Hugh
Default

And yet, there the churches are, and there the congregants are, and the number grows all the time.

This is not actually a debate over atheism versus Christianity, but a debate over the individualist mentality versus the group mentality. Individualists tend towards atheism, the group mentality towards religion and causes.

Atheism offers nothing in the place of the idea of religion.
One cannot replace an idea with nothing.
One can only replace an idea with a better idea.

More importantly, and what atheists fail to grasp, is that atheism offers nothing in the place of the infrastructure and services that the traditional churches offer, which is what really draws people into the belief. They see with their own eyes that those communities who believe, are better off than those who don't. They live longer, have more children, more power and a better standard of living. Christianity spreads because of the benefits it brings with it.

Atheism spreads in peace time, when group efforts are not needed.
The moment the government collapses, atheists die out.

Since the current White nations and countries have been formed by Christians, and none by atheists, atheists have played no role in nationalism in real life.
Thus nationalism has been, is and will be, for better or for worse, driven by Christians.
No lasting substitute for religion has been found that binds people together, and religion forms the foundation of nationalism.

The churches have formed the civil service for the last 1500 years or so, are the only alternative power base to that of political parties and their backers, and in themselves are global powers that dwarf the power of political parties.

Their infrastructure of churches, schools,colleges and universities, business associations and unparalelled global networks, hospitals, hospices, orphanages, clinics, retirement homes, the thousands of programmes they collectively run, enable their congregants to live in a state within a state, and to be very little affected by what goes on outside their areas.
Most denominations focus upon governing their own communities, not territories at first.
Once their community reaches critical mass, then they form a nation, then a state.
Their codes of behaviour survive, because those who follow them survive, and those who don't, don't.

Most of what Jews and others do affects those outside the traditional Christian communities, which is why these communities form in the first place.

The Jews strategy to implement socialism is for the state to replace the church, and worship of the state to replace worship of God, whoever or whatever God is perceived to be.
Atheism has no alternative to the state, so also results in absolute state control.

Atheism offers no inspiration at all, offers nothing in the place of the church, and is almost entirely socialist, which is the opposite of nationalist.
Wherever atheism grows, socialism grows.
Thus atheism, and atheists, generally get ignored.
In war and disaster, they play no role assisting anyone, and generally flee to the churches yammering for help.

There are nationalist movements throughout the EU, and secessionist movements are starting within the US.

Those movements driven by atheists, consist of a handful of friends and family.

Those driven by Christians hold power, govern regions, and are preparing to establish themselves once again, as the EU totters and begins to fall.
We can see it collapsing in the calls that multiculturalism has failed, an inevitable prelude to first forced integration, then bankruptcy, the rise of the churches, civil war, secession, formation of borders, then ethnic cleansing within the borders.

In areas such as Belgium, the Dutch secessionists have brought down the Belgian national government three times, and there has not been a national government in place for the last 8 months.
That's the equivalent of Congress and the Senate, or the House of Commons and the House of Lords, dissolving and not meeting for 8 months. No presidents, no cabinets, no political heads of national departments.
The country is run by the municipal governments at present, which are dominated by religious groups.

It's not a question of whether atheists will allow Christians to join the nationalist movements, Christians are the nationalist movements.

Christians have a group mentality, atheists an individualistic one.
Thus Christians have group power, atheists don't.

That's why atheists can't form movements, countries, or work together in any way for long before they disintegrate into arguing, warring individuals.

Atheists main complaint against Christians, appears to be that Christians aren't solving the problem caused by atheism, which is that it consists of individualists, who as a result of acting as individuals, are easily conquered and enslaved by any passing group acting together.

In a room full of a hundred individualists, if two people who work together enter, those two automatically outnumber and will dominate all the individualists, because the individualists will not work together, so are alone, so are easily each taken down, one by one.
Two can easily dominate a hundred in this way, and do.

The main difference between the ruling classes and the ruled classes, is that the ruling classes work together to maintain control over the ruled classes, who rarely if ever work together.

Whenever you hear someone boasting of how they don't need anybody, and they act alone, then you are hearing the voice of a current or future slave, who just hasn't realised it yet.

Individualism is the opposite of nationalism, which requires by definition a group mentality.

Individuals cannot outfight or outlast groups.
Movements promoting individualism cannot outfight or outlast movements promoting cohesion and group identity.

Atheists pride themselves on being realists, yet deny these realities.

In the absence of evidence for or against the existence of a god, agnosticism as a personal philosophy, and working with religious groups on the social and political levels, should be considered.
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf
 
Old February 22nd, 2011 #8
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,850
Hugh
Default

Fred, we are talking past each other.

You are engaging in a 2000 year old debate over the truth of Christianity.
I am engaged in looking at how to work with it, since it is the major factor in White peoples lives, and isn't going away.

What could be, should be, might be, is not of interest to me.
What matters to me is what is, now, where we are.

You don't have to convince me, you have to convince close to a billion Christians.
The we you keep referring to doesn't exist off of VNN forum.
The billion Christians do.

How are you currently communicating with those billion christians and changing their beliefs?
If you aren't yourself, who are you supporting who is?
If you aren't doing either, what is the point of your posts?

You also need to come up with an alternative force capable of withstanding the hundreds of millions of non-christian religious believers, who have countries, armies, global networks and want to kill the whites, and take all we have.

Do you have an alternative force?
See, that is reality.

When a hundred screaming muslims waving axes and knives charge at you in the street, are you going to engage in debate with them, explain to them that they can't hack you to death because you are a free thinker, or are you going to stand there alone and wave your knife feebly, or will you make like the Christians do, charge them in a large group and massacre them all?
Do you have a large group?
Christians do.

When a couple dozen blacks storm into your house and drag your family into the street, what will your individualism matter?

How will you cope with the responsibility of feeding, housing and medicating thousands of refugees when you have no electricity, no food and no water? Who will you call?

And yes, you are correct that most people have a hive mind.
So accepting that, now what?

How are you personally going to change that, how are you personally going to bring together 900 million plus whites, who speak different languages, scattered across the world, change their beliefs, turn followers into leaders, get them to secede, and form countries?
What is your masterly grand plan to do that?

Realists work with reality.

I couldn't give a damn if Whites want to worship Jesus or their reflections in a pond.
Cohesion, and secession are all that matter to me.

Once that has been accomplished, then the rest can be dealt with.
As the saying goes, it doesn't help to make plans for the future if you aren't going to be there in the future.

You don't have a group.
They have a group.

That means you are going to die, and they are going to live.
So from an evolutionary perspective, which is the most effective?

Just as evolution is a theory, so too are the various religions.
The difference is that evolutionists don't form countries, armies or have organisations with tens of millions of members willing to die for it.

The various religions have kept their followers alive, in some cases for thousands of years, and destroyed their enemies, so as an evolutionary tool for survival, they work quite well.

You and others spend endless hours debating Christianity, yet no time at all telling us all the things atheists are doing. It is precisely because atheists don't have groups, that they are meaningless in terms of struggle.

I have yet to see you tell of what organisations atheists run, what secessionist movements atheists run, what nationalist movements atheists run, what political parties they run, what countries they have founded. You tell us that other organisations could also form orphanages etc, Who has actually done so?
Where are they, and how many are they?

That is what nationalism is about, mobilising tens of millions of people, hundreds of billions of zogbucks, in need forming armies and waging wars, enduring the unspeakable horrors of war, surviving disaster, famine, epidemics, governmental collapse, invasion, poverty.

If you wish to fight and argue with the majority of Whites go ahead.
If you wish to alienate and isolate yourself from them, prevent yourself ever leading any of them, prevent any of them ever hearing you, prevent yourself ever raising funds, forming organisations, just carry on.

I work with what there is, now, where I am. I really don't care too much about it's merits, whether it's true or not, it's origins or it's future. It is all we have to work with.

The secessionist movements of today in the US and EU, and for all intents and purposes, all nationalist movements in the EU, are driven and funded and voted for by Christians.

If you wish to participate in secession and nationalist movements you will either learn to work with Christians, or not participate.
It's really very simple.
So which is it to be?

Atheists offer nothing, do nothing, have no structures, no power, no code of behaviour, no foundation for ethics, morals, values, few if any children, and in the greater scheme of things, don't count for much at all in struggle, because generally they are individualists, whilst Christians prefer to work in groups.

Since groups always defeat individuals, and we are struggling with intensely cohesive groups with millions of members, groups are the way to go in struggle.

Outside of religious groups, there are no other groups available to wage struggle with.

Russia and Eastern Europe, almost a third of the white population, had hardly any churches 20 years ago. Today they have re-opened right across the former USSR, in every town, almost every major suburb.
Literally thousands of churches are opening across Eastern Europe, and tens of millions of people streaming back to the church, hundreds of billions of zogbucks flowing into church programmes, thousands of orphanages, retirement homes, shelters, rehab centres.

One can simply take a drive through any town, and there are more and more churches are being built, existing ones being expanded, there is increased funding for church programmes, increases in number of orphanages, retirement homes, schools, soup kitchens, donations to charities etc

Just for the record, attendance at church doesn't mean much, participation in programmes and support of the church does, just as most members, let alone voters of political parties have never attended a branch meeting.

Even though most members of groups attend monthly meetings, most of the studies on churches measure weekly attendance, and are thus irrelevant.
Most Christians will attend church on religious holidays and family events, not weekly, rarely monthly and also usually not often on Sundays but during the week.

Many VNN'ers call themselves NS or WN or Klan, so let's use the same criteria for them.

If VNN'ers don't attend meetings every week, and don't belong to a real life organisation,
then they aren't and must stop calling themselves NS or WN or Klan, agreed?
After all, that's the criteria you are applying to Christians.

The studies don't measure donations to the church, participation in church programmes, the
numbers of church institutions, of christenings, of marriages taking place in churches, all these are simply left out.

Do members of political parties who don't attend branch meetings belong to the party?

Are all those who vote for the political parties members?

Are all those who donate to political parties members?

What is the best measure of support for a party, numbers of members who attend branch meetings, or its votes?

Has the advent of the internet, and forums, websites, blogs and emails, electronic newsletters, videos and services on television and DVds etc meant that fewer need to attend church, and instead watch and participate from home, and attend church business networks, work in church programmes etc?
Have people taken to rather meeting in each others home's, in small cells?

Just like political parties have two categories, members and voters, churches have two categories, members who actively participate and attend branch meetings ie go to church, and
adherents, those who follow the beliefs but aren't members.

If you wish to research further, here are some more reliable sources

Fast Facts
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fas...ast_facts.html

http://www.adherents.com/

Here we can see just how inconsequential atheism is as a force, when compared to organised religious groups. Again, you don't need to support them, just work with them.

If you can get an abortion clinic closed, a rehab centre or orphanage opened that mainly benefits Whites, you have contributed a great deal.
It takes many small drops of water to make a river.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1846/rel...112th-congress


Many analysts described the November 2010 midterm elections as a sea change, with Republicans taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives and narrowing the Democratic majority in the Senate. But this political overhaul appears to have had little effect on the religious composition of Congress, which is similar to the religious makeup of the previous Congress and of the nation, according to an analysis by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life.

The 112th Congress, like the U.S. public, is majority Protestant and about a quarter Catholic. Baptists and Methodists are the largest Protestant denominations in the new Congress, just as they are in the country as a whole.

A few of the country's smaller religious groups, including Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Jews, have greater numerical representation in Congress than in the general population. Some others, including Buddhists and Muslims, are represented in Congress in roughly equal proportion to their numbers in the adult U.S. population. And some small religious groups, such as Hindus and Jehovah's Witnesses, are not represented at all in Congress.

Perhaps the greatest disparity between the religious makeup of Congress and the people it represents, however, is in the percentage of the unaffiliated -- those who describe their religion as atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular." According to information gathered by CQ Roll Call and the Pew Forum, no members of Congress say they are unaffiliated. By contrast, about one-sixth of U.S. adults (16%) are not affiliated with any particular faith. Only six members of the 112th Congress (about 1%) do not specify a religious affiliation, which is similar to the percentage of the public that says they don't know or refuses to specify their faith.1

These findings are based on a comparison of the religious affiliations of members of the new Congress with data on the U.S. public from the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted by the Pew Forum in 2007 among more than 35,000 U.S. adults. CQ Roll Call gathered information on the religious affiliations of members of Congress through questionnaires and follow-up phone calls to members' offices. The Pew Forum supplemented that information with an extensive review of media reports on candidates in 2010 House and Senate races. It should be noted, however, that there is an important difference between a confidential telephone survey of a sample of U.S. adults and media inquiries about the religious identification of an elected official or candidate. Media inquiries may find fewer "unaffiliated" people because those inquiries are more public.
The New, 112th Congress

Of the 535 members of the new Congress, 304 -- or 57% -- are Protestants, which is slightly higher than the share of Protestants in the U.S. adult population (51%). Compared with the previous Congress, the 112th Congress has added 12 Protestants, an increase of roughly two percentage points.

Baptists remain the largest Protestant denominational family in Congress, essentially unchanged from the 111th Congress, though there are somewhat fewer self-described Baptists on Capitol Hill (13%) than in the national population (17%). Methodists have declined slightly in their proportion of Congress, dropping by six members, or about one percentage point. Nonetheless, Methodists still comprise a larger share of Congress (10%) than of the public (6%).

Some other Protestant groups also are overrepresented in Congress relative to their numbers in the general population. For instance, while fewer than 2% of American adults identify themselves as Episcopalians, about 8% of Congress is affiliated with the Episcopal Church. In addition, 8% of Congress is Presbyterian, about three times the percentage of American adults who say they are Presbyterians (3%).

Protestants who do not specify a particular denomination grew the most from the 111th to the 112th Congress, increasing their ranks by 19 members, to a total of 58. They now comprise 11% of Congress, up from 7% two years ago. The proportion of unspecified Protestants is nearly as high among incumbents (10%) as among newly elected members (13%). It is unclear whether any of these unspecified Protestants are affiliated with nondenominational churches; just two members of the 112th Congress specify that they belong to nondenominational Protestant churches.
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf
 
Old April 1st, 2011 #9
vindicator06
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 262
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
“Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.” -- Oswald Spengler
Agreed. Christians have been more detrimintal to the White race than the Jews themselves.
 
Old October 24th, 2018 #10
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,941
Serbian
Default

Stormfront's anti-White lunatic Elcyrus

Quote:
You are confused. Israel's Messiah came 2000 years ago. Modern FAKE jews are not Israelites... they are descendants of Edomites who according to secular history lost a war against the Kingdom of Israel in the 2nd century BC. Then the Edomites feigned "conversion" en masse so they could live in the Kingdom of Israel. The Edomite-jews become an undermining, subverting, perverting fifth-column that eventually came to rule Judea [the Herod kings who ruled Judea were Edomite-jews.]

According to Bible prophecy in both the OT and NT, Gog [prince of Magog] is the end of the age villain who sends his global hordes to invade and try to destroy the land of God's people ["camp of the saints"] which ushers in God's divine intervention ["fire from heaven."]

Ironically, in the last few chapters of the Protocols, the evil [Edomite] jews also discuss their future king of the jews who will arise to rule the world at the end of the age after they have destroyed Aryan Christendom. It appears Putin is their Khazar prince.
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t12...6#post14628309
__________________
Don Black's Stormfront ''Russians''
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=456327
Russia Insider
https://russia-insider.com/en
 
Old January 23rd, 2011 #11
zoomcopter
Senior Member
 
zoomcopter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The goyim reservation
Posts: 4,780
Blog Entries: 3
zoomcopter
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
We should disregard mere political issues and focus on worshipping Jesus. What happens on earth doesn't matter so long as it doesn't interfere with our going to heaven.
I'd be okay with taxing churches if I was certain the government wouldn't import even more bluegums, than the churches had been.
__________________
New York fines anyone using the term, "Illegal Alien" in a derogatory manner. Can using the term, "Jew" be that far behind?
 
Old February 8th, 2011 #12
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,850
Hugh
Default

Since atheists have never formed a White country, and all White countries that exist today have been formed by Christians, Christians have historically been the WN, and WN Christians.

Atheists are individualistic, so of no value in struggle, which revolves around groups.

Individuals simply get ground up and crushed, and once government collapses because they lack an infrastructure and group to support them, they die of starvation and disease.
The merits or otherwise of ideologies are meaningless in nature, all that matters is whether they lead to the formation of large groups, which increase in number and quality.

In nature groups survive, loners get eaten.

The fact is that the average White is or proclaims themself to be a Christian, belongs to a group, and as a result hold all the power.

They also form most of the secession movements today, and most importantly of all, control the civil service.

Thus atheists who wish to become WN will either learn to work with Christians, or not be WN.

They will also not survive a war, since they depend upon government, and in war, government collapses, and the churches take its place.

Posts on internet forums that do not lead to actions in real life, are not activism, it's just posting on forums.

If followers of an ideology cannot act in real life, cannot act openly, have no political power, cannot raise funds, do not own buildings and have real groups that actually meet and look after their own, with their own orphanages, hospitals, schools, business networks, then the ideology is not practical, thus meaningless.

Smile, bite your tongue, and think longterm, of the bigger picture.
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf
 
Old February 8th, 2011 #13
Bret Masterson
Yoke of goy husbandry
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NY State, USA
Posts: 201
Bret Masterson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
Since atheists have never formed a White country, and all White countries that exist today have been formed by Christians, Christians have historically been the WN, and WN Christians.

Atheists are individualistic, so of no value in struggle, which revolves around groups.

Individuals simply get ground up and crushed, and once government collapses because they lack an infrastructure and group to support them, they die of starvation and disease.
The merits or otherwise of ideologies are meaningless in nature, all that matters is whether they lead to the formation of large groups, which increase in number and quality.

In nature groups survive, loners get eaten.

The fact is that the average White is or proclaims themself to be a Christian, belongs to a group, and as a result hold all the power.

They also form most of the secession movements today, and most importantly of all, control the civil service.

Thus atheists who wish to become WN will either learn to work with Christians, or not be WN.

They will also not survive a war, since they depend upon government, and in war, government collapses, and the churches take its place.

Posts on internet forums that do not lead to actions in real life, are not activism, it's just posting on forums.

If followers of an ideology cannot act in real life, cannot act openly, have no political power, cannot raise funds, do not own buildings and have real groups that actually meet and look after their own, with their own orphanages, hospitals, schools, business networks, then the ideology is not practical, thus meaningless.

Smile, bite your tongue, and think longterm, of the bigger picture.
You make some good points, and as an atheist I've kinda come to some similar conclusions. People are not going to change their views or religion by being insulted. Lets be real about that. Defenses go up immediately. We can go down an endless path of tearing ourselves apart over religion, and that has distracted us from our racial enemies throughout history. I personally don't work against the freedom of religion, anymore than the freedom of speech. That doesn't stop me from criticizing religion as unnecessary and irrational. You forgot to mention that Christian societies are generally more tolerant of atheists (I'll plug that one for you) than Islamics. But would Christan's turn on atheists once they took care of Jews-Muslims? If we help you with your Jewish threat, would you leave us be? or try to convert us? We are only trying to point out holes in your society that Jews exploit.

Also your are right atheists are no threat, Christians have all the power ... so that means you can afford to be big and take some criticisms. You need to see why atheists are up in arms since the Zionist Bush regime. Being politically marginalized is no fun. Anger comes from this. We don't live in a world of critical thinkers; we live in world where people act out on fantasies, indulge every emotion, with no sense of causality or consequence. "Truth is whatever you want it to be" should be printed alongside "In God we Trust." Religion is a projection mind on events, rather than passive-reflective consumption of those events, taken in by the senses, deconstruction by the intellect. You have to understand where the anger comes from with atheists - it's a very frustrating being right all the time.

Acceptance of religion is what it has come down to for me. I think atheists are going through classic stages of grief:

1. Denial and Isolation. 2. Anger. 3. Bargaining. 4. Depression. 5. Acceptance.

Well, obviously the first is natural once you reject religion or God. I know I'm beyond the anger phase.... I went through that in my 20s with my family, then with several girlfriends, and a wife. I'm kinda lingering between the bargaining - acceptance phase (trying not to get depressed). We need to get beyond tearing each other apart. I don't think atheists can mount an effective resistance to Jewish networking, self-promotion. We need some better organization "group think" as you said. Lets be honest: whites cannot organize publicly "as whites" - so the church kinda makes it safe on some levels.

Quote:
Since atheists have never formed a White country, and all White countries that exist today have been formed by Christians, Christians have historically been the WN, and WN Christians.
Yes and this Jewish problem has been around for about the same of span of Christian civilisations - any connection? There is an old saying: the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting different results each time.
 
Old January 22nd, 2011 #14
procopius
Senior Member
 
procopius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,611
procopius
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Thor Odinson 10 months ago

Jesus preached tolerance of evil (i.e., Turn the other cheek, refusing to answer Pilate's charges, telling Peter to not strike his captors with his sword, surrendering without fighting his captors, etc).

Thor, one of the traditional "pagan" gods of Norse mythology--through example, not by mere words(!)--taught that evil should be defeated (i.e., Thor is the champion of slaying wicked trolls, Thor led legions of warriors to battle against the Sons of Musspell at Ragnarok, etc).

Jesus is best represented by his body, which he sacrificed by refusing to fight. Thor is best represented by his hammer, which he uses to slaughter the enemies of his people.

Which ethos is commendable? Which ethos will save the West? The one that accepts perversion and tolerates evil, or the one that preaches that it should be eradicated?

I submit to you that Christianity is going to be the ruin of the West, just as it was for the Roman Empire (i.e., Christians refused to fight and the Germanic peoples--the followers of Donner/Thor--destroyed Rome).

Worship Jesus all you want; all I ask is that you not get in the way of those of us who will actually defend Western civilization.
The Norse people were also taught that their Gods would be eventually defeated by evil (the Giants). The Norse knew that Asgard would fall and Valhalla would be no more. Although the Norse Gods were heroic and would certainly go down fighting (as a Norse warrior should), they were just too weak to defeat their enemies.
 
Old January 23rd, 2011 #15
D.G.
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 440
Default

In any civilization, the majority of people are going to be the cows, the herd animals, of the cattle drivers, they will be humbled by their existance and will hate the attitude and nature of their cattle drivers. The Jews are brilliant in always depicting themselves as cattle, so that the cattle with identify with them. They are the wolves in sheeps clothing, internet white racists are the sheep in wolves clothing.

These ancient pagan religions were cruel and merciless to their weak, people with diseases and frailties, they murdered, enslaved, used for games and target practice, these people would naturally clasp to Christianity, out of a yearning for a sense of self worth.

The protocols of zion, mention how the goy leaders lord it over their people, it's the vanity and stupid arrogance of the goyim leadership that always brings their civilizations down, and will bring down the US as well. The US congress is addicted to spending their serf's money, til they are all in debt bondage, and when they can't pay,we can guess they will try to slaughter them all like cattle. How many Jews voted on all these spending bills in Congress? A few. Most of them are just white jerks though.

Not that I believe in honesty. Just saying. The jews are the most deceitful people on the face of the earth, and that is why they are successful. Intelligence in the natural world is used by lifeforms, primarily for the purpose of deceiving one's prey, or their predators, either to attack, or escape. "Lying" is what all lifeforms do, they camoflouge themselves, in order to decieve. It is always legal for governments to lie to their people, but it is always illegal for the people to lie to their government.

Trust is important, but fear and respect for authority is more important. A cowardly nation of People, such as the US, don't necessarily have to trust their government, they just need to fear it. They are told to their stupid faces there were no WMD in Iraq, as if Bush just had to unzip and unload on their face, just to spite them. That is why people love Christianity, and hate their Goyim leaders, because they are dicks, and Jesus seems so nice.
 
Old January 23rd, 2011 #16
Peer Fischer
Senior Member
 
Peer Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,881
Peer Fischer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by procopius View Post
The Norse people were also taught that their Gods would be eventually defeated by evil (the Giants). The Norse knew that Asgard would fall and Valhalla would be no more. Although the Norse Gods were heroic and would certainly go down fighting (as a Norse warrior should), they were just too weak to defeat their enemies.
And the gold-grubbing dwarves were metaphors for the Jews, undermining the culture from beneath in secret.
 
Old January 23rd, 2011 #17
OTPTT
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,896
Default

Many thinking themselves wise and intelligent in their own eyes can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that the modern day Jew is not the same people as the Israelites of the Bible.

The majority of the Bible of was already written before the first Jew appeared on the scene. Additionally, there are at least five (5) definitions for the term 'Jew' in the English Bible although the term isn't found in the original manuscripts.

Cyrus Scofield is responsible for the idea of dispensationalism which is the foundation for this 'Jews are God's chosen' nonsense.

It's too bad some of your parents were defects and did something to your fragile ego as a child that now causes you to hate Christianity and Christians with a vengeance. None of you can find any fault with me because of my Christian faith and I have proven many times over that I am most certainly pro-White.

It was an atheist who raised money for Alex's bail in Knoxville and then took off with that money. It was a Christian (me) who searched long and hard for a lawyer for Alex and did everything in my power to help Alex during the bogus criminal proceedings being waged against him in Knoxville.

I was the only one that was by Alex's side during his first court appearance. I did all I could to help him stay out of jail and navigate the jewdicial system so he didn't wind up in a nigger infested jail like I did based on bogus charges and perjured testimony from nigger cops like I did.

You Christian bashers need to reconsider your position. There are just as many ignorant, go along to get along non-Christians that are just as responsible for anything you blame Christians for.
 
Old January 23rd, 2011 #18
procopius
Senior Member
 
procopius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,611
procopius
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peer Fischer View Post
And the gold-grubbing dwarves were metaphors for the Jews, undermining the culture from beneath in secret.
The Vikings had no Jews to draw metaphors upon.
 
Old January 23rd, 2011 #19
Fred Streed
Holy Order of Cosmonauts
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,050
Fred Streed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by procopius View Post
The Norse people were also taught that their Gods would be eventually defeated by evil (the Giants). The Norse knew that Asgard would fall and Valhalla would be no more. Although the Norse Gods were heroic and would certainly go down fighting (as a Norse warrior should), they were just too weak to defeat their enemies.
This post illustrates the typical xtian failure to understand reality. Nature is cyclical. Creation depends on weeding out the weak and subjecting the strong to challenges that force the strong to become even stronger by overcoming "evil" or destroys them, thus creating an opportunity for something new and even stronger to arise. Pagan mythology reflected reality.

Understand that about reality and you understand the jews role in the grand scheme of things.

Xtians insist on seeing the world as a finished product. Their God created man as he is, a finished product. Man has no real purpose in this world except to prepare for a mythical afterlife. Reality is otherwise. Man is but a brief segment of a very long path that not only stretches back into the mists of the past but is also a bridge to the future. Man's real purpose is his becoming, his obligation to the future of life in THIS world.

Last edited by Fred Streed; January 23rd, 2011 at 02:45 PM.
 
Old January 23rd, 2011 #20
procopius
Senior Member
 
procopius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,611
procopius
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Streed View Post
This post illustrates the typical xtian failure to understand reality. Nature is cyclical. Creation depends on weeding out the weak and subjecting the strong to challenges that force the strong to become even stronger by overcoming "evil" or destroys them, thus creating an opportunity for something new and even stronger to arise. Pagan mythology reflected reality.

Understand that about reality and you understand the jews role in the grand scheme of things.

Xtians insist on seeing the world as a finished product. Their God created man as he is, a finished product. Man has no real purpose in this world except to prepare for a mythical afterlife. Reality is otherwise. Man is but a brief segment of a very long path that not only stretches back into the mists of the past but is also a bridge to the future. Man's real purpose is his becoming, his obligation to the future of life in THIS world.
Well that was not what the Norse taught. The tree of life, Yggdrasil, is also destroyed by evil.

You seem to believe in some vague evolutionary/Darwinian idea mixed with Buddhist theory. In the western world, we see living man as a perfection (even to a fault), this is why the Ancient Greeks saw the Gods (Idols, Statues) as a reflection of themselves.

As you go East to the Orient, you see mutation; the Egyptian Gods were monsters and alien looking, so were the Gods of the Persians and the Hindus.

Western minds have always seen the White man as an end product in the image of their God(s). You may not agree with it, but that's the history of White civilization.
 
Reply

Tags
#1, christianity

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:05 PM.
Page generated in 0.53194 seconds.